VimX Technologies Inc. announces 2007 FSAE Product Sponsorship

[VimxTech]

Qualifying Formula SAE teams are eligible to purchase VimX's innovative new VXI-440 Programmable Ignition Module at a 35.5% discount from list.

Please visit http://www.vimxignition.com/sponsorship/ to learn how to register for this exceptional product sponsorship offer.

VimX offers industry-leading programmable ignition technology for all spark ingnited applications. The x10Spark™ technology incorporated in the VXI-440 Programmable Ignition Module generates a broad range of long-duration, plasma-rich sparks. x10Spark™ technology is ideal for all two-stroke and four-stroke spark-ignited internal combustion engine (ICE) applications. x10Spark™ profiles can be designed to adapt engine performance when using alternative fuels such as E85.

[VimxTech]

Qualifying Formula SAE teams are eligible to purchase VimX's innovative new VXI-440 Programmable Ignition Module at a 35.5% discount from list.

Please visit http://www.vimxignition.com/sponsorship/ to learn how to register for this exceptional product sponsorship offer.

VimX offers industry-leading programmable ignition technology for all spark ingnited applications. The x10Spark™ technology incorporated in the VXI-440 Programmable Ignition Module generates a broad range of long-duration, plasma-rich sparks. x10Spark™ technology is ideal for all two-stroke and four-stroke spark-ignited internal combustion engine (ICE) applications. x10Spark™ profiles can be designed to adapt engine performance when using alternative fuels such as E85.

[VimxTech]

Is there any interest from the Teams to see a video of our x10Spark(tm) in comparison with other spark ignition technologies? If so, I'll see if I can post a short film on our web site and, possibly, on a streaming service like MySpace video or YouTube.

Feedback appreciated.

Thanks.

[Preston Schipper]

I would like to see a video, along with some information as to why this will improve our performance, etc.

[VimxTech]

You can download our video here: x10Spark™ technology demonstration video (http://www.vimxignition.com/blog/2006/10/06/x10spark-technology-demonstration-video/)

You can see a streaming version here : x10Spark™ technology demonstration video (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1254878080)

There are two reasons why I think we outperform ordinary ignition systems:
1) We make the best of a bad situation.
2) We allow you to push the limits.

The true value of a performance ignition system is the elimination of wasted cycles due to misfires and partial misfires. This is particularly true in harsh and demanding engine conditions typical of FSAE competitions. We've tested our ignition system at A/F ratios exceeding 24:1 (a typical harsh operating condition) and we've measured over 25% reduction in the Coefficient of Variance (COV) when compared to a performance Transistorized Coil Ignition (TCI) system. Any ignition will do at stoichiometric and in ideal conditions; the "real" world is far from ideal and we have the technology to accomodate these variations.

A high-performance ignition system should also allow you to push the boundaries without reducing your engine to a pile of well-crafted but horribly deformed metal bits. (Your other engine mods can do that if you wish ;-) We've tested our ignition system on a variety of engine types and configurations. We've consistently shown that we can operate with greater timing advances without pre-ignition (detonation). In a practical sense, it allows our customers to redefine their timing maps for peak performance especially around traditional "knock" zones.

[Garlic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VimxTech:
There are two reasons why I think we outperform ordinary ignition systems:
1) We make the best of a bad situation.
2) We allow you to push the limits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are two reasons that basically tell an engineer NOTHING. Honestly 'reasons' like that make your product sound like a totally marketing gimick.

How about a real technical article instead of buzzwords

[MSJ]

I would really like to read some technical articles, and even better, any comparison data your company has obtained in your vs. TCI system. Especially where you were able to demonstrate more advance than other products.

[VimxTech]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Garlic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VimxTech:
There are two reasons why I think we outperform ordinary ignition systems:
1) We make the best of a bad situation.
2) We allow you to push the limits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are two reasons that basically tell an engineer NOTHING. Honestly 'reasons' like that make your product sound like a totally marketing gimick.

How about a real technical article instead of buzzwords </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The challenge to selling technology to large, heterogeneous markets is to distill complex technical features into memorable benefits. If the summary is compelling enough, I hope that it will drive the reader to seek additional information. As far as I'm concerned, it serves as an invitation to learn more.

And on that note, I'll respond to MSJ's query for more information.

[Preston Schipper]

Well for those of us trying to pursure more information it would be good if you replied to questions sent through your website. Sent a question last Friday and still waiting....

[VimxTech]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MSJ:
I would really like to read some technical articles, and even better, any comparison data your company has obtained in your vs. TCI system. Especially where you were able to demonstrate more advance than other products. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the request for additional information.

We are presently drafting a report of our initial tests with a third party laboratory. They have a Waukeshaw CFR test engine that they've adapted for HCCI testing; it is a great test bed for investigating our lean-burn capabilities. We sought to compare our ignition versus a TCI system from MSD (MSD Blaster).

The budget called for testing the ignition system over two days at two operating points - at stoichiometric and in lean-burn conditions. I'm attaching the results from a portion of the lean burn investigations. I'd be interested in your observations and comments.

The test procedure called for opeerating with a fixed RPM, spark advance and air flow (90% WOT) while steadily decreasing the fuel rate. This gives us our first data points represented by squares. As you can see, the VimX spark ignition showed better performance as the mixture was leaned out.

When we reached 10% COV Imep, we then started to advance the spark advance to see what effect this had on engine operation. No surprise that both systems benefitted from additional advance but VimX consistently outperformed the MSD ignition.

http://www.vimxignition.com/images/lean-burn/vimx-lb-graph.png

The test bed operator did not want to test with more than 55 deg advance so we stopped the tests there. However, it should be noted that we had not yet attained the MBT for VimX (or MSD for that matter) in lean conditions. In other words, we think the BSFC would have continued decreasing if we had been allowed to advance the timing further. Despite this, VimX showed roughly a 25% decrease in %COV Imep, a 4.4% increase in IMEP and a 4.1% decrease in BSFC when compared to the MSD ignition system.

The attached table summarizes key combustion parameters.

http://www.vimxignition.com/images/lean-burn/vimx-lb-table.png

We believe that our x10Spark™ technology has potential for even leaner operation but additional tests were outside the original budget. Bear in mind, we did not have any opportunity to investigate the effects of spark profile, spark duration, end of spark timing and their potential relationships with combustion speeds. We hypothesize that they may have an impact on flame kernel development and flame front propagation but this remains to be tested.

If you've ever performed combustion research, you'll appreciate that there remains quite a lot of testing to be performed before we could say that we've fully characterized our x10Spark™ technology. We are committed to completing this testing. If you can think of any scenarios we should cover, please don't hesitate to communicate them to me.

[VimxTech]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Preston Schipper:
Well for those of us trying to pursure more information it would be good if you replied to questions sent through your website. Sent a question last Friday and still waiting.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

Sorry we haven't replied sooner. This has been our Thanksgiving long weekend and I think you can appreciate how important it was for all of us to be with our families.

That said, I haven't seen your query. Did you use the mail form on the Contact page or did you send us an email. We've had a he** of a time with spam mail and it could be that the rules need to be rejigged. Sorry for the inconvenience but if you don't mind resending I'll turn off the junk mail filters for a little while. You may want to try this address since our info mailbox is the worst hit : marketing@vimxignition.com

[VimxTech]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VimxTech:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Garlic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VimxTech:
There are two reasons why I think we outperform ordinary ignition systems:
1) We make the best of a bad situation.
2) We allow you to push the limits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are two reasons that basically tell an engineer NOTHING. Honestly 'reasons' like that make your product sound like a totally marketing gimick.

How about a real technical article instead of buzzwords </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The challenge to selling technology to large, heterogeneous markets is to distill complex technical features into memorable benefits. If the summary is compelling enough, I hope that it will drive the reader to seek additional information. As far as I'm concerned, it serves as an invitation to learn more.

And on that note, I'll respond to MSJ's query for more information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I'm curious to learn which bit(s) of information the viewers of this thread would find more informative regarding their evaluation of this technology: the "marketing" summary or the technical post?

Is there something missing or unexplained?

Thanks for your help.

[JP Venturi]

I would deduce that most of the people on this forum would be greatly interested in learning more about the technical aspects of this product versus the marketing hype. Basically with any racing team, especially non professional ones such as this one, it comes down to the question of "how does this make the car faster?"

I would say that before any of us abandoned what we have now to strap in a brand new unproven technology is lots of testing and research, and the proof that this is a quality product. As students we do not have time to iron out the bugs of an extra system, when there exist already a multitude of extremely complex systems on the race car. What i personally wouldnt mind seeing is a report of how this technology outperforms existing technology.

If it sounds to good to be true it usually is, unless you can prove it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Garlic]

Wasn't going to comment but since you asked (be careful what you ask for)

I find the marketing drivel just that, and totally useless. 'Pushing the limits' (when the limits of what are not defined) means exactly zero to me, and anyone else with a brain.

Now that I've said something mean, I'll say something constructive (hopefully).

The graphs are interesting. Not much data but it's something, and putting it out there deserves some respect. At least you're showing something.

However, what I see from your product website, and also here, is that one of the main features of your product is a better combustion event in very lean running. This is hard to do, definitely. You have more consistant power production, and better BSFC data to prove it out a bit.

But- racecars don't run at these lambda levels. and if they do, it is in decel or rev limit when there is no desire (or at least, little return) for a little extra power or a little smoother running. So what is the incentive for these teams?

So, there's some feedback http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif hope it's not totally offensive and useless to you.

[VimxTech]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JP Venturi:
I would deduce that most of the people on this forum would be greatly interested in learning more about the technical aspects of this product versus the marketing hype. Basically with any racing team, especially non professional ones such as this one, it comes down to the question of "how does this make the car faster?"

I would say that before any of us abandoned what we have now to strap in a brand new unproven technology is lots of testing and research, and the proof that this is a quality product. As students we do not have time to iron out the bugs of an extra system, when there exist already a multitude of extremely complex systems on the race car. What i personally wouldnt mind seeing is a report of how this technology outperforms existing technology.

If it sounds to good to be true it usually is, unless you can prove it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the feedback. Much appreciated. Yes, this is a technical forum and I'm still working at how best to answer your basic question. In my opinion, we are still a ways off from explaining the primary science behind what exactly is happening in the cylinder before, during and after combustion. If you've had an opportunity to review the published literature on different ignition systems and their effect on combustion, you will know how difficult it is to properly analyze and model combustion. (BTW, Bruce Cheroudhi puts on a decent course courtesy of the SAE.) This is costly, time-consuming primary research outside the means of a startup. So, in the interim, we look to third party measurement of the delta between our system and stock ignitions but that too is a challenge.

For example, on our website we quote from the UMan Racing Team, "With new sponsorship from VimX ignition, we installed the new system with the Honda CBR 600 F4i and saw an 8.5 Brake Horsepower (BHP) gain from 89 BHP to 97.5 BHP at 13,000 RPM with the stock engine configuration." Most every team with full-time access and experience with an engine dyno immediately disqualifies this statement. Why? Because they know that dyno results vary according to many different variables. Air pressure, temperature and density, fuel type and source, fuel system performance, ignition timing maps, time of day, dyno operator, data acquisition system accuracy, O2 sensor, ECU performance, the list goes on. As well, and this is just a personal observation, I think that most engine tuners only believe it if they see it.

So we hired a world-class research organisation with a million dollar test bed to help us understand what's going on. This was the source of my earlier reply but, (and there is always a but ;-), it's not a race engine, its a fuel/combustion research engine. The Waukesha CFR engine traces its design back to 1928. Will this data help answer questions from the racing community?

Which leads to the question: What would most FSAE teams consider to be a reasonable report? What does it tackle, on what type of engine, with what kind of fuels?

I understand that you don't want to expose your car program to unnecessary risks but, honestly, what is the risk of installing our ignition system? At worst, it operates exactly as your current ignition and you've added 450g to your ride; at best, it truly does improve combustion and you have to retune your engine to take advantage of it. You manage the financial risk with our 60-day money-back guarantee. As for product quality, Glen Clarke raced with two units in his Porsche 911 over 2,100 kms during the 2006 Targa Newfoundland without a problem. The 22 km endurance race should be a light snack. Quite frankly, it has been my experience that most problems arise from poor wiring technique than from product failure.

Again, thanks for taking time to reply.

[VimxTech]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Garlic:
Wasn't going to comment but since you asked (be careful what you ask for)

I find the marketing drivel just that, and totally useless. 'Pushing the limits' (when the limits of what are not defined) means exactly zero to me, and anyone else with a brain.

Now that I've said something mean, I'll say something constructive (hopefully).

The graphs are interesting. Not much data but it's something, and putting it out there deserves some respect. At least you're showing something.

However, what I see from your product website, and also here, is that one of the main features of your product is a better combustion event in very lean running. This is hard to do, definitely. You have more consistant power production, and better BSFC data to prove it out a bit.

But- racecars don't run at these lambda levels. and if they do, it is in decel or rev limit when there is no desire (or at least, little return) for a little extra power or a little smoother running. So what is the incentive for these teams?

So, there's some feedback http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif hope it's not totally offensive and useless to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken; 'Pushing the limits' is not an intelligent summary. Either I needed a drink, or I had one too many when I wrote it ;-) My challenge then is not to write marketing drivel but an interesting, insightful resume. I'll need to work on it and try it out here later.

I've been working as an engineer approaching twenty years now (can't believe it myself...) and I've made it a priority of working with the best data possible. I think it is extremely important and this is just the beginning; only time and money stand in the way :-) We've collected lean burn data mainly because this is the future direction for production engines. We think we have an extremely cost-effective implementation for the next gen engines.

We don't have much data on race engines. Most of it is anecdotal, interesting certainly, but not hard data. I think FSAE teams have an opportunity to explore something Glen Clarke, who I mentionned in my previous post, observed when working with our systems on his engine. He writes on his web site: "We have been running a very methodical testing program with VimX and we are seeing benefits with our engines: our engines start easier and run cleaner at idle even with aggressive high overlap cams, we've noted lower electrical power consumption and the engines run leaner with no apparent loss in performance (better fuel economy)."

Glen specifically came to us because his engine design was giving his old ignition system fits and hard to start. He was planning to rebuild his engine with with the new cam and was concerned that it would make matters worse. He not only solved these relatively mundane issues once he added our modules but to someone who races over 2,100 km with 100 octane fuel, improved BSFC is a massive benefit.

I believe FSAE teams have the talent, skill and curiousity to investigate if they can do better...

Thanks for the feedback. Good or bad, it's always appreciated.

[MSJ]

VimxTech, another market your company should give some consideration to (albeit it might be small) is alternative fuel injection system manufacturers and installers. Catalytic converters specifically designed for gasoline engines (as these are the vehicles that alt. fuel people convert) that use CNG or LPG are extremely sensitive to lean conditions and complete catalytic degredation can result by running too lean for only a breif moment.

Just an idea for you. Good luck.

[VimxTech]

MSJ,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

Other opportunities to look into include alternative techniques to reduce Diesel Particulate Matter using our x10Spark™ technology.

[VimxTech]

Corrected url link to call up table instead of a second copy of the graphs.