New carbon fiber airbox release!!!!!! and group buy!
12-09-2008, 04:31 PM
#31
Burning Brakes
Great, so if I buy two x-51...I can buy another Porsche to put it in
12-09-2008, 09:03 PM
#32
12-10-2008, 02:22 PM
#34
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
Two carbon wrapped plastic airboxes do not equal a single 100% carbon box from carbonio lol. Why would Porsche design an aftermarket carbon air box that requires modding/cutting anything what so ever?
12-10-2008, 02:25 PM
#35
Burning Brakes
And with respect... an aftermarket piece with internet claims of better airflow and improved power do not equal an OEM Porsche designed piece that offers well documented improvements as part of a complete package.
12-10-2008, 02:34 PM
#36
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
I will be posting up tracking times to support Carbonio's claims by the end of the week. Their man in charge of the tech department is at the Thunderhill 24 race and should be back in tomorrow. So for those who are so quick to bash a new product (even when it's backed by a company that has been in business for over 35 years) hit the pause button for a couple days and you will soon see the truth behind this product.
12-10-2008, 04:22 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
Taking It
I will be posting up tracking times to support Carbonio's claims by the end of the week. Their man in charge of the tech department is at the Thunderhill 24 race and should be back in tomorrow. So for those who are so quick to bash a new product (even when it's backed by a company that has been in business for over 35 years) hit the pause button for a couple days and you will soon see the truth behind this product.
12-11-2008, 08:26 PM
#38
Three Wheelin'
The Carbonio system looks somewhat airflow restrictive in appearance. However, the x-51 air box is less restrictive due to high volume openings (2X) and larger air filter element.
12-11-2008, 11:52 PM
#39
12-17-2008, 08:05 PM
#40
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
12-17-2008, 08:06 PM
#41
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
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).
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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. 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).
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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. 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.
12-17-2008, 08:24 PM
#42
Not in MA anymore
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
more snake oil.....
Matt
Matt
12-17-2008, 11:19 PM
#44
Burning Brakes
My bottom line X-51 is pretty...this other stuff looks UGLY and belongs in a Toyota not a Porsche.
No...change my mind, Toyota, may be too good for it, belongs in a YUGO. Now lets quit the crap about my product is better because its 100% carbon blablabla. When you open the hood do you want that snake looking thing looking at you...or do you want that beautiful X-51? Frankly, people who have to write pages about their product to prove a point tells me that the product itself is not good enough to sell itself. A good product doesn't need all this snake oil pep talk..IMHO.
Does a gorgeous woman have to tell you how pretty she is....hell, NO! All she needs to do
is walk by and the rest is history.
abe
No...change my mind, Toyota, may be too good for it, belongs in a YUGO. Now lets quit the crap about my product is better because its 100% carbon blablabla. When you open the hood do you want that snake looking thing looking at you...or do you want that beautiful X-51? Frankly, people who have to write pages about their product to prove a point tells me that the product itself is not good enough to sell itself. A good product doesn't need all this snake oil pep talk..IMHO.
Does a gorgeous woman have to tell you how pretty she is....hell, NO! All she needs to do
is walk by and the rest is history.
abe
12-18-2008, 11:02 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Panama City Beach, Florida
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The conjecture that airbox power improvements cannot be measured on a chassis dyno, but need to be determined at the track, has been brought up before. I remember seeing it in some propaganda about the $3500 Champion airbox that was never very specific. I don't think that they ever actually posted any real numbers or test methodology.
How exactly was this done here? There must be a mathematical formula that depends on some combination of car weight, ET, trap speed and/or drag coefficient. I think that the drag racers often use something like this to estimate power. What formula was used here and what were the parameters? Before/after? If the claimed power gains were quantified from actual track testing, the numbers must be available.
As far as the X-51 airbox is concerned, I have never seen any information about its power gains, whether on the dyno or at the track. Do you have any of this data from your testing? Was your claimed improvement a comparison to the stock system or X-51? The write-up also stated that "all available systems" were tested. To my knowledge, this includes Evo, Fabspeed and K&N. Their results?
How exactly was this done here? There must be a mathematical formula that depends on some combination of car weight, ET, trap speed and/or drag coefficient. I think that the drag racers often use something like this to estimate power. What formula was used here and what were the parameters? Before/after? If the claimed power gains were quantified from actual track testing, the numbers must be available.
As far as the X-51 airbox is concerned, I have never seen any information about its power gains, whether on the dyno or at the track. Do you have any of this data from your testing? Was your claimed improvement a comparison to the stock system or X-51? The write-up also stated that "all available systems" were tested. To my knowledge, this includes Evo, Fabspeed and K&N. Their results?