Dare To Be Square! New R2C Performance Technology
#1
11-19-2008, 12:09 PM
Dare To Be Square! New R2C Performance Technology
I wanted to introduce a new intake system designed for the 2005-2009 GT platforms featuring computer designed, Square Tube Technology. This is a patented design that significantly improves profile distribution through bends and offers the lowest restriction intake system in production. This is enhanced by a state-of-the-art filter that is unmatched in engine protection and is #1 in every measured performance category. No oil or cleaners are ever required and it will last as long as the car. Our background is sophisticated, severe duty military systems and filters. The products are made in USA.
Please provide feedback and let me know if you have an interest in more information regarding the development of this technology.
Thanks for looking.
Please provide feedback and let me know if you have an interest in more information regarding the development of this technology.
Thanks for looking.
#4
11-19-2008, 12:49 PM
Filter
The filter media is a lab designed, high loft, variable void synthetic that requires no oil or cleaners and will last as long as the car.
It has the lowest restriction over the entire life of the filter and provides unmatched engine protection.
It has the lowest restriction over the entire life of the filter and provides unmatched engine protection.
#6
11-19-2008, 02:22 PM
Bad design. Flow is lost at the round-to-square and square-to-oval transitions since it is too drastic. Most inlets on the market use round tubing because the transitions aren't as drastic w/ round tubing and usually, at the MAF end, the tube is the diameter of the MAF and as it approaches the TB, it slowly transitions to an oval shape, making the transition gently and therefore reduces flow loss.
#10
11-19-2008, 05:08 PM
yah im not really sure about this thread.
smells like spam.
and i dont see how changing the shape from the circular inlet into a box, then into a circular throttlebody could possibly be good.
the entire transition is bound to cause turbulence and interfere with airflow.
smells like spam.
and i dont see how changing the shape from the circular inlet into a box, then into a circular throttlebody could possibly be good.
the entire transition is bound to cause turbulence and interfere with airflow.
#11
11-19-2008, 07:42 PM
Square tube
Certainly not a paper filter. It's a synthetic that took several months of design engineering to be ranked 1st in every performance category.
In terms of flow through the tube and the transitions, each facet was examined for flow characteristics. R2C has designed sophisticated intake technology for decades. If it didn't offer a significant benefit, it would not have been shaped in this manner. You see many round engine ports? The reason tubes are round is simply because it's an easy manufacturing method. For those of you that would like to see a technical CFD explanation, send a PM.
The design is posted here for feedback, positive or negative. All comments are appreciated.
In terms of flow through the tube and the transitions, each facet was examined for flow characteristics. R2C has designed sophisticated intake technology for decades. If it didn't offer a significant benefit, it would not have been shaped in this manner. You see many round engine ports? The reason tubes are round is simply because it's an easy manufacturing method. For those of you that would like to see a technical CFD explanation, send a PM.
The design is posted here for feedback, positive or negative. All comments are appreciated.
Last edited by DragpackAlex; 11-19-2008 at 09:03 PM. Reason: s
#12
11-19-2008, 09:15 PM
Though intake ports are not generally circular (though they are not square either and some of the best heads have oval ports), in this case, it's all about the transitions. Just look at the Steeda CAI, for example. The transition is so gradual that it induces almost no loss in flow. I'm willing to bet the transitions on the R2C one induces some turbulence since it clearly isn't designed optimally. If it was, the transition would be rounded, not angular and it would be much more gentle and take a larger length to transition. Basically, if the CAI was cut in half, the transitions shouldn't be just a straight line but should look more like the letter S. Combining that w/ a more gradual transition should minimize turbulence, frictional forces, and increase flow rate. However, considering the amount of length being worked w/, the optimum design will be a rounded tube slowly transitioning into an oval since that will induce the least amount of turbulence and friction.
Remember, even though intake ports are not circular, they are also restricted in shape due to factors like cooling jackets, pushrods, etc. In the end, if using a rectangular design was beneficial, you would see it in places where it matters, like in tubing for boilers since any loss in flow rate or pressure means less efficiency since the turbine won't be able to produce as much power. Unfortunately, I will have to settle w/ just examples since I do not have my Thermal/Fluids textbook or notebook w/ me to write down why in terms of formulas/equations.
Remember, even though intake ports are not circular, they are also restricted in shape due to factors like cooling jackets, pushrods, etc. In the end, if using a rectangular design was beneficial, you would see it in places where it matters, like in tubing for boilers since any loss in flow rate or pressure means less efficiency since the turbine won't be able to produce as much power. Unfortunately, I will have to settle w/ just examples since I do not have my Thermal/Fluids textbook or notebook w/ me to write down why in terms of formulas/equations.
#13
12-01-2008, 06:34 AM
R2C Intake System - Mustang GT
A copy of the reply to bassman97. He must have not been on the forum since I sent it in order to post it here:
Hey bassman97,
It's my impression that you are a student with some area of engineering as a study.
I'll provide feedback in this PM rather that in the post and you can decide if you'd like to make it available.
A little background:
Unlike the majority of intake manufacturers who do not have an extensive engineering background in engine air intake design and manufacturing or in fluid dynamics, R2C engineers have over 100 years combined in these specific fields. Each area of the intake system design phase is carefully considered in these terms. Nothing happens by accident or simply to assist in ease of manufacturing. R2C has been involved in the design of sophisticated military systems and filters for decades.
To address your concerns:
It's not all about the transitions. You have made some general statements, however, they do not describe the design conditions you're applying them to. First, there are 2 types of conditions that occur to cause pressure losses in a duct; friction losses and dynamic losses. The conditions you describe are dynamic losses but you ascribe them friction loss values. It doesn't matter since neither assumption was correct in this instance.
The transition from the MAF tube may appear steep it does not add restriction. It may not capitalize on all of the pressure regain that may be available. This transition moves fluid from a smaller to a larger cross sectional area and consequently, the velocity pressure actually decreases at this transition.
The transition at the tube outlet has only the potential to cause some pressure loss but if you calculate the numbers, I think you'll find that it doesn't happen. First, the cross sectional area of the tube and the oval outlet are virtually equal so there is little to no change in velocity. Second, just changing the velocity does not itself create turbulence ( a dynamic loss and not a friction loss).
Turbulence generally results from a change in flow direction or the flow passing around an obstruction. To assume that a change in velocity will create turbulence, it is accepted that the Reynolds Number of the fluid flow must exceed 4000. That's the RN, not the velocity. Values above that are typically assumed to be in the turbulent regime. RN values in the 200-4000 range are considered to be transitional while numbers below 2000 are considered laminar. If you perform the calculations ( we can supply the formulas if you haven't tracked down your Thermal/Fluid textbook), I believe you'll find that this flow falls well into the lower transitional zone. So, there is no change in state and no pressure loss, at least not in this instance.
An oval tube is not a bad design for this application but the boundary layer in a square tube is typically considered much better formed and it has a larger hydraulic diameter that an oval shape so restriction will be lower in the square tube. There is much more to understand here that I can share if you have a series of manometers and a pitot tube.
I assume that you relied on the boiler analogy to bolster your argument and not as a technical claim with merit in this case. You're comparing a pressure vessel to an air duct. Granted, the hoop strength of a circle is greater than a square, but we're talking about flow restriction and not burst pressures. That's why boiler tubes are round and not square.
Now consider how wonderful the R2C intake system looks in comparison! The R2C MaxxFlow Intake System will outperform the system you mentioned in every measured category.
We hope to hear back from you. There is much engineering yet to be discussed in this case.
Thanks.
Hey bassman97,
It's my impression that you are a student with some area of engineering as a study.
I'll provide feedback in this PM rather that in the post and you can decide if you'd like to make it available.
A little background:
Unlike the majority of intake manufacturers who do not have an extensive engineering background in engine air intake design and manufacturing or in fluid dynamics, R2C engineers have over 100 years combined in these specific fields. Each area of the intake system design phase is carefully considered in these terms. Nothing happens by accident or simply to assist in ease of manufacturing. R2C has been involved in the design of sophisticated military systems and filters for decades.
To address your concerns:
It's not all about the transitions. You have made some general statements, however, they do not describe the design conditions you're applying them to. First, there are 2 types of conditions that occur to cause pressure losses in a duct; friction losses and dynamic losses. The conditions you describe are dynamic losses but you ascribe them friction loss values. It doesn't matter since neither assumption was correct in this instance.
The transition from the MAF tube may appear steep it does not add restriction. It may not capitalize on all of the pressure regain that may be available. This transition moves fluid from a smaller to a larger cross sectional area and consequently, the velocity pressure actually decreases at this transition.
The transition at the tube outlet has only the potential to cause some pressure loss but if you calculate the numbers, I think you'll find that it doesn't happen. First, the cross sectional area of the tube and the oval outlet are virtually equal so there is little to no change in velocity. Second, just changing the velocity does not itself create turbulence ( a dynamic loss and not a friction loss).
Turbulence generally results from a change in flow direction or the flow passing around an obstruction. To assume that a change in velocity will create turbulence, it is accepted that the Reynolds Number of the fluid flow must exceed 4000. That's the RN, not the velocity. Values above that are typically assumed to be in the turbulent regime. RN values in the 200-4000 range are considered to be transitional while numbers below 2000 are considered laminar. If you perform the calculations ( we can supply the formulas if you haven't tracked down your Thermal/Fluid textbook), I believe you'll find that this flow falls well into the lower transitional zone. So, there is no change in state and no pressure loss, at least not in this instance.
An oval tube is not a bad design for this application but the boundary layer in a square tube is typically considered much better formed and it has a larger hydraulic diameter that an oval shape so restriction will be lower in the square tube. There is much more to understand here that I can share if you have a series of manometers and a pitot tube.
I assume that you relied on the boiler analogy to bolster your argument and not as a technical claim with merit in this case. You're comparing a pressure vessel to an air duct. Granted, the hoop strength of a circle is greater than a square, but we're talking about flow restriction and not burst pressures. That's why boiler tubes are round and not square.
Now consider how wonderful the R2C intake system looks in comparison! The R2C MaxxFlow Intake System will outperform the system you mentioned in every measured category.
We hope to hear back from you. There is much engineering yet to be discussed in this case.
Thanks.
#14
12-01-2008, 06:57 AM
SpamPackAlex:
You said it urself in your very first post: " Dare to be square " Answer: No, I don't swing that way. No squares here; every time you talk all i hear is wa wa wa wa waaaahhh like I'm putting my head inside a square pan that is being repeatedly beaten with a square spoon.
You said it urself in your very first post: " Dare to be square " Answer: No, I don't swing that way. No squares here; every time you talk all i hear is wa wa wa wa waaaahhh like I'm putting my head inside a square pan that is being repeatedly beaten with a square spoon.
Last edited by Havokk; 12-01-2008 at 07:29 AM.
#15
12-01-2008, 07:31 AM
R2C
Havokk,
Well, sound is pressure so at least it will flow better into your head through the square tube.
How about cotton gauze filters? Are you a proponent of those as well?
Well, sound is pressure so at least it will flow better into your head through the square tube.
How about cotton gauze filters? Are you a proponent of those as well?
#16
12-01-2008, 07:37 AM
, I eat proponents for breakfast!!
Last edited by Havokk; 12-01-2008 at 07:42 AM.
#18
12-01-2008, 10:43 AM
A copy of the reply to bassman97. He must have not been on the forum since I sent it in order to post it here:
Hey bassman97,
It's my impression that you are a student with some area of engineering as a study.
I'll provide feedback in this PM rather that in the post and you can decide if you'd like to make it available.
A little background:
Unlike the majority of intake manufacturers who do not have an extensive engineering background in engine air intake design and manufacturing or in fluid dynamics, R2C engineers have over 100 years combined in these specific fields. Each area of the intake system design phase is carefully considered in these terms. Nothing happens by accident or simply to assist in ease of manufacturing. R2C has been involved in the design of sophisticated military systems and filters for decades.
To address your concerns:
It's not all about the transitions. You have made some general statements, however, they do not describe the design conditions you're applying them to. First, there are 2 types of conditions that occur to cause pressure losses in a duct; friction losses and dynamic losses. The conditions you describe are dynamic losses but you ascribe them friction loss values. It doesn't matter since neither assumption was correct in this instance.
The transition from the MAF tube may appear steep it does not add restriction. It may not capitalize on all of the pressure regain that may be available. This transition moves fluid from a smaller to a larger cross sectional area and consequently, the velocity pressure actually decreases at this transition.
The transition at the tube outlet has only the potential to cause some pressure loss but if you calculate the numbers, I think you'll find that it doesn't happen. First, the cross sectional area of the tube and the oval outlet are virtually equal so there is little to no change in velocity. Second, just changing the velocity does not itself create turbulence ( a dynamic loss and not a friction loss).
Turbulence generally results from a change in flow direction or the flow passing around an obstruction. To assume that a change in velocity will create turbulence, it is accepted that the Reynolds Number of the fluid flow must exceed 4000. That's the RN, not the velocity. Values above that are typically assumed to be in the turbulent regime. RN values in the 200-4000 range are considered to be transitional while numbers below 2000 are considered laminar. If you perform the calculations ( we can supply the formulas if you haven't tracked down your Thermal/Fluid textbook), I believe you'll find that this flow falls well into the lower transitional zone. So, there is no change in state and no pressure loss, at least not in this instance.
An oval tube is not a bad design for this application but the boundary layer in a square tube is typically considered much better formed and it has a larger hydraulic diameter that an oval shape so restriction will be lower in the square tube. There is much more to understand here that I can share if you have a series of manometers and a pitot tube.
I assume that you relied on the boiler analogy to bolster your argument and not as a technical claim with merit in this case. You're comparing a pressure vessel to an air duct. Granted, the hoop strength of a circle is greater than a square, but we're talking about flow restriction and not burst pressures. That's why boiler tubes are round and not square.
Now consider how wonderful the R2C intake system looks in comparison! The R2C MaxxFlow Intake System will outperform the system you mentioned in every measured category.
We hope to hear back from you. There is much engineering yet to be discussed in this case.
Thanks.
Hey bassman97,
It's my impression that you are a student with some area of engineering as a study.
I'll provide feedback in this PM rather that in the post and you can decide if you'd like to make it available.
A little background:
Unlike the majority of intake manufacturers who do not have an extensive engineering background in engine air intake design and manufacturing or in fluid dynamics, R2C engineers have over 100 years combined in these specific fields. Each area of the intake system design phase is carefully considered in these terms. Nothing happens by accident or simply to assist in ease of manufacturing. R2C has been involved in the design of sophisticated military systems and filters for decades.
To address your concerns:
It's not all about the transitions. You have made some general statements, however, they do not describe the design conditions you're applying them to. First, there are 2 types of conditions that occur to cause pressure losses in a duct; friction losses and dynamic losses. The conditions you describe are dynamic losses but you ascribe them friction loss values. It doesn't matter since neither assumption was correct in this instance.
The transition from the MAF tube may appear steep it does not add restriction. It may not capitalize on all of the pressure regain that may be available. This transition moves fluid from a smaller to a larger cross sectional area and consequently, the velocity pressure actually decreases at this transition.
The transition at the tube outlet has only the potential to cause some pressure loss but if you calculate the numbers, I think you'll find that it doesn't happen. First, the cross sectional area of the tube and the oval outlet are virtually equal so there is little to no change in velocity. Second, just changing the velocity does not itself create turbulence ( a dynamic loss and not a friction loss).
Turbulence generally results from a change in flow direction or the flow passing around an obstruction. To assume that a change in velocity will create turbulence, it is accepted that the Reynolds Number of the fluid flow must exceed 4000. That's the RN, not the velocity. Values above that are typically assumed to be in the turbulent regime. RN values in the 200-4000 range are considered to be transitional while numbers below 2000 are considered laminar. If you perform the calculations ( we can supply the formulas if you haven't tracked down your Thermal/Fluid textbook), I believe you'll find that this flow falls well into the lower transitional zone. So, there is no change in state and no pressure loss, at least not in this instance.
An oval tube is not a bad design for this application but the boundary layer in a square tube is typically considered much better formed and it has a larger hydraulic diameter that an oval shape so restriction will be lower in the square tube. There is much more to understand here that I can share if you have a series of manometers and a pitot tube.
I assume that you relied on the boiler analogy to bolster your argument and not as a technical claim with merit in this case. You're comparing a pressure vessel to an air duct. Granted, the hoop strength of a circle is greater than a square, but we're talking about flow restriction and not burst pressures. That's why boiler tubes are round and not square.
Now consider how wonderful the R2C intake system looks in comparison! The R2C MaxxFlow Intake System will outperform the system you mentioned in every measured category.
We hope to hear back from you. There is much engineering yet to be discussed in this case.
Thanks.
zing
#19
12-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Filters
Who said anything about paper filters?
Check out these replies? It just makes you proud.
Check out these replies? It just makes you proud.
Zing?
Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!?
wa wa wa wa waaaahhh like?
Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!?
wa wa wa wa waaaahhh like?
#20
12-01-2008, 01:00 PM
Alright, if i can admit that some of my responses are both squareheaded & homophobic could you admit how full of **** you are?? Show me some proof SpampackAlex, some numbers, something...
Last edited by Havokk; 12-01-2008 at 02:46 PM.
#22
12-01-2008, 02:30 PM
Mustang CAI
Lazerred6
What are you driving? The company may issue a test system for evaluation and independent dyno testing.
What are you driving? The company may issue a test system for evaluation and independent dyno testing.
#27
12-01-2008, 02:49 PM
How can you back it up with your mouth so much when you don't even have the statistics for the "new" technology?? It's probably going to get the same damn results as any other brand intake its just going to be shaped like a ******* square.
#29
12-01-2008, 04:01 PM
straws are not squares are they? Does a Square suck/flow more than a Circle? spampackalex seems to think so...
So, he is basically saying his square poopy CAI suck the smoothest and most efficiently...where can I buy this wondermarvel of engineering stupendessness? walmart? kmart? spammart?
looks like poo...works like poo...its poo...CAI's dont do **** anyway really...they are more for looks these days...the square **** looks like ****...so whats the point? Id spare the 1hp at the crank gain for a decent looking CAI...a round one...made by Steeda for example.
So, he is basically saying his square poopy CAI suck the smoothest and most efficiently...where can I buy this wondermarvel of engineering stupendessness? walmart? kmart? spammart?
looks like poo...works like poo...its poo...CAI's dont do **** anyway really...they are more for looks these days...the square **** looks like ****...so whats the point? Id spare the 1hp at the crank gain for a decent looking CAI...a round one...made by Steeda for example.