VTT/Fab Factory Manifold(CFD) Flow Testing

[The Convert]

Hey Chris, your manifold is really a piece of beauty ^^ but air intake manifolds are since BMW Motorsport in real Carbon due to intake sounds and weight....
So for me as a Timattack Driver, I do search every singel lb to get off... would be nice to see some light weight parts in general ^^

In order to create true Motorsport quality carbon components they would have to invest in industrial freezers, autoclaves, and potentially furnaces. All of these would also have to be of a decent size and would likely requires some amount of shop rewiring, argon tank and evaporator tower installation and then the added expenses of refilling that tank and the extra electricity usage. So, very unlikely that it would happen in house.

teaming up with a manufacturing house that specializes in carbon component design and manufacturing would certainly be a better option, but would also result in very expensive parts. At the sales volumes the N54 market would actually produce, the parts would essentially be one off custom pieces.

I don’t know what VTT has done to expand their market, or how many different platforms they support, but if they have a platform with the same customer base as the old VWs or Civics, that could in theory be used to create a partnership with a carbon supplier and allow them to use that partnership to do smaller batch components at smaller “start up” costs.

In the end, very unlikely to see any real quality carbon components hit thisplatform at this point.

 

[JohnDaviz]

Based on the data i see heavy velocity drops with the cylinders on the opposite side of the intake (4-6) and am wondering why you haven put a long fin splitting the intake cross section in half feeding 1-3 and 4-6. As the part is open before assembly it is a pretty easy task and would improve flow immensely.

As an engineer i am not really overwhelmed by the simulation and lack of improvement based on the results. Was more like.. looks okay.. lets use it as PR.

Based on the data a lot of volume of the whole intake is useless or in other words not wanted. Splitting the intake in half and creating two equal sized intake chambers would really improve the design. And of course less material and less weight overall.

The design below for example is thinking of volume reduction towards cylinder 6.

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

Based on the data i see heavy velocity drops with the cylinders on the opposite side of the intake (4-6) and am wondering why you haven put a long fin splitting the intake cross section in half feeding 1-3 and 4-6. As the part is open before assembly it is a pretty easy task and would improve flow immensely.

As an engineer i am not really overwhelmed by the simulation and lack of improvement based on the results. Was more like.. looks okay.. lets use it as PR.

Based on the data a lot of volume of the whole intake is useless or in other words not wanted. Splitting the intake in half and creating two equal sized intake chambers would really improve the design. And of course less material and less weight overall.

The design below, for example, is thinking of volume reduction towards cylinder 6.

Couple things.

1: Manifold has to work from vacuum through high boost. We showed 5 and 30 psi but real world it'll see a much wider range of flow conditions.
2: This is the Fab Factory manifold -we purchased the rights to make it since FF shut down.
3: It's already been proven real world to make the most power (of the manifolds we tested in our batch testing) on the dyno/street/strip.
4: Remember CFD is a tool, not the ultimate authority. It was nice to see the CFD results back up real world performance results.

 

[JohnDaviz]

Couple things.

1: Manifold has to work from vacuum through high boost. We showed 5 and 30 psi but real world it'll see a much wider range of flow conditions.
2: This is the Fab Factory manifold -we purchased the rights to make it since FF shut down.
3: It's already been proven real world to make the most power (of the manifolds we tested in our batch testing) on the dyno/street/strip.
4: Remember CFD is a tool, not the ultimate authority. It was nice to see the CFD results back up real world performance results.

I have your First reply in my mail. Kind of like i stepped on your Foot.

As i Said. AS an engineer i looked at your Simulation data and rather found questions instead of a finished Product. I also attached an example of Design i think would help Velocity to cyl 6. Especially during varying Boost Levels.

Point 3 is meh. Its good but what If it could be better or did you Stop Turbo development because the First Iteration worked?

Interestingly you can find manifolds AS i think of em in the rb26 World. Strange.


Edit: wow. I am not allowed to post anymore as i obviously was asking too much. Sad world.

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

I have your First reply in my mail. Kind of like i stepped on your Foot.

As i Said. AS an engineer i looked at your Simulation data and rather found questions instead of a finished Product. I also attached an example of Design i think would help Velocity to cyl 6. Especially during varying Boost Levels.

Point 3 is meh. Its good but what If it could be better or did you Stop Turbo development because the First Iteration worked?

Interestingly you can find manifolds AS i think of em in the rb26 World. Strange.

Being an engineer doesn't qualify you for much of anything. Relevant experience may. As an engineer I'd expect you'd read the first post and realize this is a finalized design that has been in production for quite some time, that we performed CFD on after the fact for the hell of it and posted those results here for fun. It's not something in development stage.

You are assuming that if the CFD looked better, real world performance would follow suit, and on that front all I can tell you is the tail doesn't wag the dog. CFD is a useful tool, not the end all be all.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[E92 420]

Edit: wow. I am not allowed to post anymore as i obviously was asking too much. Sad world.

VTT at their best my friend!!

Point out possible Improvements to One of their products and get barred from the thread.

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

VTT at their best my friend!!

Point out possible Improvements to One of their products and get barred from the thread.

We are all for improvements. When it comes to an "engineer" telling us how he "thinks" it could be better, then continues to go down the road after it has been addressed, yes we will remove him from the thread (that is why we pay to be here, so we have this power), he is bringing nothing positive to it. If he believes he has the solution for a better manifold, by all means, he is welcome to design one. We purchased a design that is not only beautiful but functional and has been proven by multiple 3rd parties to make solid gains in the real world. No, we are not going to be told we're doing it wrong by someone who may or may not have any experience just because he has a keyboard in front of him. Hey, the proof is in the pudding if he has improvements. Design it, have it drawn up, then run his own CFD results, all things that cost money. Once he has that, then he still has to have one machined (more money), get it on a car, perform real testing, and show results. Once he has done that, then yes he possibly may have a platform to knock on this design, before that point he is just being a detractor. Hence why he was removed.