New carbon fiber airbox release!!!!!! and group buy!
09-13-2009 | 03:17 PM
#31
Drifting
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,467
Likes: 14
From: redmond wa
Notes on testing:
Test results printed represent the average of at least 20 trials conducted in near identical conditions. When calculating averages, the two best and two worst scores are not counted. Trials that show a consistent gain or loss over the test period are re-tried until consistent results are achieved (the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period).
This makes it sound as if you're flipping a coin, calling "heads" while its in the air and then disregarding the adverse results as "inconsistent".
As such the 11-15hp and 12-16lb/ft of torque gains are a function of consistent elapsed time drops and increased trap speeds observed at the drag strip. While we used a few extra sensors to measure air temp and inlet air velocity, these are not needed for calculating performance gains as the only variable we changed was the intake (we even weighed the car after each pass and added fuel to make sure the car weighed the same at the start of each run). Customers wishing to verify our results can do so by employing the method used above and comparing the before and after times and speeds. As explained below dyno testing is all but useless for intake design which explains why we do not use it in our development; its just the wrong tool for the job.
Why a dyno is not reliable for testing an intake.
The performance of a cold air intake is greatly influenced by the quantity and velocity of airflow around its inlet. Testing the effectiveness of an intake on a dyno has the main shortcoming that during a run on a dyno, the air available for the engine to breath has neither the volume nor speed that exists in real world driving conditions (over the same run period). Placing a large fan in front of a dyno fails to achieve two key requirements for a good test:
A fan cannot replicate the quantity or velocity of air that enters the intake during a real world test run.
The "fan" is not there to provide airflow velocity except for the radiator cooling function.
A fan cannot accelerate its airflow at a rate that matches the increasing vehicle and engine speeds during an on track test.
This is particularly important on a Porsche whose inlet is on the backside of the car. As such airflow over the entire vehicle needs to be considered not just over the front as in other applications.
You have this ALL exactly backwards. On a dyno you will have "sea level" reference static atmospheric air pressure at the engine airflow intake. "At speed" the air pressure at the inlet will be largely a function of the vehicle "shape" and forward speed. Have you by chance forgotten why rear spoilers are used, useful, and why they are often elevated high enough to get above at least some of the "disturbed" airflow over the back of the car...??
Why the ¼ mile is a good way to test.
Fixed distance & No corners to consider: The exact measured amount of a ¼ mile eliminates the varied distances involved in road courses (varying lines, braking points, etc.)
Not too long or short: A ¼ mile is distance that allows any car time to show its performance potential without being so long as to introduce too many test variables that can affect results.
Recognized standard: Customers can relate to the figures generated.
Understanding the costs of carbon fiber and why it is a good material
From time to time customers will question the cost of the Carbonio system compared to less expensive offerings in the market. The primary reason for the cost difference is in the process by which a carbon fiber component is produced. The making of a single intake is a labor intensive operation which occupies a great deal of manual labor and expensive materials.
Some points to consider:
- The raw material to make a single intake piece costs more than the completed production of an aluminum equivalent.
- Production time for a single piece is over 4 hours. This compares to approximately 20 seconds for a plastic part or 15 minutes for an aluminum part.
- Each Carbonio intake is baked in a pressurized autoclave oven for several hours. These autoclaves are mainly used in the aerospace industry and are very costly to own and operate.
Why is Carbon Fiber Used? What are its advantages?
Carbon fiber is used for a number of reasons
- The material has excellent thermal properties not offered by other materials. It allows to maintain a cold intake charge thereby maximizing power.
What are the desireable "thermal properties", high "R" value, ability to reject convection heat sources, radiant heat sources...??
- Carbon is very light and strong compared to competing materials
- Complex shapes are easier to achieve therefore giving the designers many more design possibilities then would be otherwise possible.
- The visual impact of a well made carbon part has a strong wow factor for the customer making it a piece worthy of show.
But only Superman has X-ray vision....!!
The visual "impact" would be even greater, and undoubtedly more effective, if it were "chrome" "mirror" power coated in order to raise the capacity to reject the radiant heat from so many sources within the engine compartment.
When judging price it is important to compare apples to apples. Just like it is not fair to compare the price of a Toyota to that of a Porsche (they are both 'just' cars that get you from point A to B...LOL!!!!) it is not equal to compare an engineered full carbon fiber component to a plastic or plastic/carbon hybrid part.
"..engineered.."
Not from my viewpoint...
Some notes on the X51 intake.
When we did our testing we had access to all available competitors including the X51 intake. In testing we concluded the following:
- Over extended driving, the air inlet temp of the X51 was consistently much higher than that of the Carbonio unit.
By what measure...??
Tenths of a degree, or....
The X51 holds a lot of heat and transfers it to the inlet air while the carbon unit does not. While part of the problem resides in the material and shape of the X51, the filter placement is optimized for reduced engine noise rather than full performance.
- The dual inlets of the X51 do not flow more air than the single one on the Carbonio unit. This is because Carbonio took advantage of inlet space that the X51 could not because of its filter placement. The plenum volume on the Carbonio is considerably larger than the X51 resulting in more cool exterior air being accessed by the inlet filter than in the X51.
- The X51 intake requires the cutting of the engine cover which takes away from the re-sale value of the car. The Carbonio unit installs in minutes and can be removed returning the car to totally OEM without any modification. The cars value is not affected, it is not damaged potentially causing problems with leasing companies, and the Carbonio unit can be sold to recover a good part of its initial cost; all things not possible with the X51.
Remember the X51 is an advantage over stock however it is still a production OEM part with the same compromises of performance to comfort inherent in all factory installed parts. The Carbonio unit before anything else is a performance part first. It uses the best materials and best shape without the cost/performance/comfort compromises the OEM need to deal with. The result is a component that yields the highest performance possible.
Test results printed represent the average of at least 20 trials conducted in near identical conditions. When calculating averages, the two best and two worst scores are not counted. Trials that show a consistent gain or loss over the test period are re-tried until consistent results are achieved (the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period).
This makes it sound as if you're flipping a coin, calling "heads" while its in the air and then disregarding the adverse results as "inconsistent".
As such the 11-15hp and 12-16lb/ft of torque gains are a function of consistent elapsed time drops and increased trap speeds observed at the drag strip. While we used a few extra sensors to measure air temp and inlet air velocity, these are not needed for calculating performance gains as the only variable we changed was the intake (we even weighed the car after each pass and added fuel to make sure the car weighed the same at the start of each run). Customers wishing to verify our results can do so by employing the method used above and comparing the before and after times and speeds. As explained below dyno testing is all but useless for intake design which explains why we do not use it in our development; its just the wrong tool for the job.
Why a dyno is not reliable for testing an intake.
The performance of a cold air intake is greatly influenced by the quantity and velocity of airflow around its inlet. Testing the effectiveness of an intake on a dyno has the main shortcoming that during a run on a dyno, the air available for the engine to breath has neither the volume nor speed that exists in real world driving conditions (over the same run period). Placing a large fan in front of a dyno fails to achieve two key requirements for a good test:
A fan cannot replicate the quantity or velocity of air that enters the intake during a real world test run.
The "fan" is not there to provide airflow velocity except for the radiator cooling function.
A fan cannot accelerate its airflow at a rate that matches the increasing vehicle and engine speeds during an on track test.
This is particularly important on a Porsche whose inlet is on the backside of the car. As such airflow over the entire vehicle needs to be considered not just over the front as in other applications.
You have this ALL exactly backwards. On a dyno you will have "sea level" reference static atmospheric air pressure at the engine airflow intake. "At speed" the air pressure at the inlet will be largely a function of the vehicle "shape" and forward speed. Have you by chance forgotten why rear spoilers are used, useful, and why they are often elevated high enough to get above at least some of the "disturbed" airflow over the back of the car...??
Why the ¼ mile is a good way to test.
Fixed distance & No corners to consider: The exact measured amount of a ¼ mile eliminates the varied distances involved in road courses (varying lines, braking points, etc.)
Not too long or short: A ¼ mile is distance that allows any car time to show its performance potential without being so long as to introduce too many test variables that can affect results.
Recognized standard: Customers can relate to the figures generated.
Understanding the costs of carbon fiber and why it is a good material
From time to time customers will question the cost of the Carbonio system compared to less expensive offerings in the market. The primary reason for the cost difference is in the process by which a carbon fiber component is produced. The making of a single intake is a labor intensive operation which occupies a great deal of manual labor and expensive materials.
Some points to consider:
- The raw material to make a single intake piece costs more than the completed production of an aluminum equivalent.
- Production time for a single piece is over 4 hours. This compares to approximately 20 seconds for a plastic part or 15 minutes for an aluminum part.
- Each Carbonio intake is baked in a pressurized autoclave oven for several hours. These autoclaves are mainly used in the aerospace industry and are very costly to own and operate.
Why is Carbon Fiber Used? What are its advantages?
Carbon fiber is used for a number of reasons
- The material has excellent thermal properties not offered by other materials. It allows to maintain a cold intake charge thereby maximizing power.
What are the desireable "thermal properties", high "R" value, ability to reject convection heat sources, radiant heat sources...??
- Carbon is very light and strong compared to competing materials
- Complex shapes are easier to achieve therefore giving the designers many more design possibilities then would be otherwise possible.
- The visual impact of a well made carbon part has a strong wow factor for the customer making it a piece worthy of show.
But only Superman has X-ray vision....!!
The visual "impact" would be even greater, and undoubtedly more effective, if it were "chrome" "mirror" power coated in order to raise the capacity to reject the radiant heat from so many sources within the engine compartment.
When judging price it is important to compare apples to apples. Just like it is not fair to compare the price of a Toyota to that of a Porsche (they are both 'just' cars that get you from point A to B...LOL!!!!) it is not equal to compare an engineered full carbon fiber component to a plastic or plastic/carbon hybrid part.
"..engineered.."
Not from my viewpoint...
Some notes on the X51 intake.
When we did our testing we had access to all available competitors including the X51 intake. In testing we concluded the following:
- Over extended driving, the air inlet temp of the X51 was consistently much higher than that of the Carbonio unit.
By what measure...??
Tenths of a degree, or....
The X51 holds a lot of heat and transfers it to the inlet air while the carbon unit does not. While part of the problem resides in the material and shape of the X51, the filter placement is optimized for reduced engine noise rather than full performance.
- The dual inlets of the X51 do not flow more air than the single one on the Carbonio unit. This is because Carbonio took advantage of inlet space that the X51 could not because of its filter placement. The plenum volume on the Carbonio is considerably larger than the X51 resulting in more cool exterior air being accessed by the inlet filter than in the X51.
- The X51 intake requires the cutting of the engine cover which takes away from the re-sale value of the car. The Carbonio unit installs in minutes and can be removed returning the car to totally OEM without any modification. The cars value is not affected, it is not damaged potentially causing problems with leasing companies, and the Carbonio unit can be sold to recover a good part of its initial cost; all things not possible with the X51.
Remember the X51 is an advantage over stock however it is still a production OEM part with the same compromises of performance to comfort inherent in all factory installed parts. The Carbonio unit before anything else is a performance part first. It uses the best materials and best shape without the cost/performance/comfort compromises the OEM need to deal with. The result is a component that yields the highest performance possible.
09-13-2009 | 03:32 PM
#32
Drifting
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,467
Likes: 14
From: redmond wa
There is nothing factory about the X51 kit, it required cutting/modifcation of the sheet metal on your decklid and if your going to compare apples to apples, the X51 is not 100% carbon fiber and it is indeed 100% plastic with a carbon overlay.
The carbonio intake also has more CFM than the x51 kit.
Also FYI, on higher horsepower performance engines it's better to have an oiled filter over a paper filter. It filters out the dirt much better than the paper filters.
The carbonio intake also has more CFM than the x51 kit.
Also FYI, on higher horsepower performance engines it's better to have an oiled filter over a paper filter. It filters out the dirt much better than the paper filters.
It doesn't matter how well or carefully you re-oil the K&N. If you under-oil it then your engine will be subject to more dirt ingestion and if you over-oil it you will be subjecting the MAF/IAT to a thin coating of oil wicked off of the K&N in the high velocity airflow and then eventually a coating of dirt over the oil.
A properly designed, "..engineered.." intake would simply bypass the OEM filter but only at the reasonably rare times of WOT, rare for most of us. The very idea of a CAI is just simply BONKERS.
09-13-2009 | 03:58 PM
#33
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 265
Likes: 1
From: SF
GT3 class, 911 cars at Daytona used K&N "type" filters only because the cars spend a LOT of at at WOT wherein the filter might be a substantial flow restriction rather than the throttle plate itself. The 3-5% gain of a K&N over an OEM filter might make enough difference in a race. The race teams are of full understanding that the 3-5% gain is to the detriment of extended engine life but then we're talking about engines that get torn down and inspected after each race.
It doesn't matter how well or carefully you re-oil the K&N. If you under-oil it then your engine will be subject to more dirt ingestion and if you over-oil it you will be subjecting the MAF/IAT to a thin coating of oil wicked off of the K&N in the high velocity airflow and then eventually a coating of dirt over the oil.
A properly designed, "..engineered.." intake would simply bypass the OEM filter but only at the reasonably rare times of WOT, rare for most of us. The very idea of a CAI is just simply BONKERS.
It doesn't matter how well or carefully you re-oil the K&N. If you under-oil it then your engine will be subject to more dirt ingestion and if you over-oil it you will be subjecting the MAF/IAT to a thin coating of oil wicked off of the K&N in the high velocity airflow and then eventually a coating of dirt over the oil.
A properly designed, "..engineered.." intake would simply bypass the OEM filter but only at the reasonably rare times of WOT, rare for most of us. The very idea of a CAI is just simply BONKERS.
Other companies started marketing CAI to compete against those open air filter systems, when really it's cold air compared to the open cone filter in the engine bay systems. It should not be confused that a CAI gets colder air than what the car gets stock because stock systems are CAI's in this respect. The manufacturers simply don't care to state the difference because they want you to believe that you are getting colder air to sell you more snake oil.
09-14-2009 | 12:31 AM
#35
Instructor
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
From: 996C2,6sp, Fister-d mufflers, K&N CAI, Savannah, GA
the heck with carbon fiber- for this price it should be GOLD plated!
im no rocket scientist, but i think we can all agree that total surface area of a filter is an important measuring tool for determining a filters flow capacity. so which has more surface area, stock or the cone?
im no rocket scientist, but i think we can all agree that total surface area of a filter is an important measuring tool for determining a filters flow capacity. so which has more surface area, stock or the cone?
09-14-2009 | 01:35 AM
#36
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 265
Likes: 1
From: SF
the heck with carbon fiber- for this price it should be GOLD plated!
im no rocket scientist, but i think we can all agree that total surface area of a filter is an important measuring tool for determining a filters flow capacity. so which has more surface area, stock or the cone?
im no rocket scientist, but i think we can all agree that total surface area of a filter is an important measuring tool for determining a filters flow capacity. so which has more surface area, stock or the cone?
