RICE RACING

Hmmm lets see...........

I have Mechanical Engineering qualifications myself.
I work in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering department.
We have collegues who are professors and others who have worked in many of the fields I share with you (from aviation gas turbines to motorsports).
I have been applying my formal knowledge since 1994.
I test all my recommendations myself & others replicate them to the letter without fail.

I kinda think I know what I am talking about, but let me just go check google & the GN forums and I will get back to you :P

You sound like you need to learn a thing or two, I have been asked to contribute and hence I am here not to sell kits, but to impart real knowledge on the topic and I happen to have alot of experience with it to boot so its anyones to gain if they want it ......... all in the name of ultimate rotary reliability and BIG HP !

RICE RACING

If you call putting a modified boat bilge pump and a plastic fuel cell in your car with a hotch potch set up of dodgy electronics, valves and lines a shift in thinking then yes your correct, its a shift in the wrong direction !

Its plain dodgy
Its not necessary
Its complex when complexity is not required

Does that make your car better? or a nightmare? I think nightmare is more indicative........... why?

* You need to carry meth all the time, buy it find it, carry big qty's of it, its know bad for health, its not fully legal in every event, you need a compromise on main fuel delivery set up, its not temp controled nor adjusted for changes in atmospheric condtions you are always chasing its tune, you need to run it stupidly rich.......... should I go on in the interstes of best way to make you Mazda reliable????

Happy to do so if people are having trouble finding the masive short falls of your choosen path to pain.

Lets have a look at WATER by comparison...........

*less required (less weight, longer run time !)
*proven performance
*safe
*no cost for product
*does not require tuning
*tuning window is LARGE !!! 9.8:1 to 14.0:1 !!! (I have proven this many times)


Please you prove to me merits of Metahnol *bitza* tune philosophy and I will change my mind tommorrow BUT you will need to show me 100 000km of testing data, actual engine dyno graphs from rotaries and big gains over water injected cars to change my mind.

The bar is set at 580bhp on 1.7bar boost on Optimax with T2 engine block and T66 turbo, not to mention all the other expample s I typed that you deleted of your forum but ones I have listed through this thread and over many years on here (if you care to search )

sdminus

Pete. I seem to remember that most of your WI stuff is pre turbo ?
Do you notice any damage to the compressor blades ?

You have hit a nerve with me on the WI system front. One which i am in the process of sorting.
Scott

RICE RACING

HI Scott,

Yeah I go pre turbo as its documented proven performance gains (not only by me but by others technical writers who have examined it). I dont get any comp wear or damage but I do use special air/water atomizing low pressure misters/atomizers, they are the secret to great system performance.


Peter

ScuttleRX

Hi Peter,

So is all your water injected pre turbo or do you run a pre and post system.

Do you still get the same detonation control from a pre-turbo only set-up as you do from say, one that injects near the throttle body (im guessing you do from your results but thought I would ask to check )

Ive been planning to go pre and post, but dont know if im overplanning and should just stick with pre

RICE RACING

Mine has been pre turbo
engine dyno testing o.s. has been post

Yielded similar end result (power wise) but way too many variables to give conclusive answer based of that data, well no scientist would anyway

Pre turbo for single turbo car is so simplistic its a dream and I have proven personaly and other customers of mine have documented very minor mid range power loss (-5 rwhp on 450bhp @ engine level) on low boost (16psi) due to over water injection rate with NO FUEL MAP MANIPULATION to suit water injection so thats a utopia so far as bolt on reliablity goes, top end power yeilded small gains with all other parameters set as per non WI tune up.

With simple increase of boost, power goes through the roof then if you want more you can lean it out to a proven 14.0:1 if needed to extend your fuel system range or to increase your engine efficiency. Methanol is not capable of this as too much engine temperature is the end result and BOOM, your ugly friend detonation says hello

ScuttleRX

I do like the simplicity of the mechanical system, if I ever go single I think it would be the fisrt thing I do. Im on the twins at the moment and likely to be for a while so im having to do things a little different, still not completely sure how

I remember you saying once the problem with twins is they dont have a linear boost curve like a single does, and make full boost very early. This would lead to too much water being injected at lower rpms.

So im thinking either 1/ a variable map system that can be mapped to boost and TPS and have pre-turbo injection only. OR 2/ limit the size of the pre turbo side and have the extra water coming in post turbo on a seperate mapped set-up.

Problem with 1, sequential nature of twins would mean id either have to being spraying secondary turbo when its not boosting (which im guessing isnt good! although dont know this for sure?) or to prevent this have some type of rpm switch to stop system working till say 4500rpm when both turbos would be online, but obviously would lose a bit from 2800ish-4500.

With 2 Id have the same problem as 1, except as ive got a seperate system post turbo side that would make up for the 'missing' water in lower rpm range.

Of course there could be a 3, if there was a boost source somewhere that is from 2nd turbo only, I could have a seperate set up for each turbo and keep it pre turbo only....

Or 4, same as 3 but with a post turbo side too this is getting pricey now!

Im really keen to try pre turbo with the twins, a healthy bump in compressor efficiency/VE plus retaining the sequential set up sounds like fun. I dont know if my line of thinking is right, but as the twins are generally renowned as quite thermally in-efficient (especially at higher boost)a pre-turbo set up would suit them well and might even prove more effective than on a single that is already quite efficient, not on a 'what makes the most power' level, more on a 'how much more efficient/how much extra power have I gained' level, if that makes sense! A bit like the arguement against injecting pre-intercooler (post turbo), being that it reduces effectiveness of the intercooler.

Ramble over Oh, and im thinking 3 would be the best bet?

RICE RACING

The way around the twin problem is two air water atomizers and a solenoid switch triggered off rpm, one jet up to 4500rpm and other comes on line after this speed, that would solve all problems of constant boost pressure and give similar delivery rate as on single turbo car.

OR

Just buy the ultimate kit like Richard custom made for me a while back Its about keeping it reliable and Aquamist Water Injection is hard to pass up even if it technicaly is much more complex than a simple mechanical pneumatic system.

RICE RACING

Ah simple way round it

Twin pneumatic setup !

twin nozzels located in air box, two solenoids, one each nozzel, two pressure actuated switches (one hooked to each turbo), one or both nozzels get triggered when each respective turbo is on line There is your flow rate adjustment Need to verify second turbo pressure head during transition period but am sure its def below 8psi so can set second turbo trigger switch to 10 psi to be sure, and primary turbo switch to 5psi.

Easy and simple and will work to perfection (just like on single turbo set up) it will be more pricey as you need two jets, two solenoids, two pressure trigger switches and some more line but have the beauty of bullit proof system....... only requires single water storage tank and only trigger system and delivery atomizer is duplicated.

Problem solved

Thanks for making my brain work !

*OR

Can use one normal atomizer in air box and have flow control valve to set low water flow rate (on primary turbo switch trigger) and divert to open non restricted line when second solenoid is trigger by secondary turbo coming on line. Cheaper and easier option which can be more fine tuned as well with needle flow valve/s ......... wow its a reality now, great stuff. No reason why wont work will start to procure some parts ASAP and get this up and running.

BNA_ELLIS

Looks like I need to save the sensible stuff from this thread before it's gets closed down like the last one by the rx7 fbi.

BDC

Nah, post what you've got up, Brian. This thread is just starting to get good.

B

ScuttleRX

Cheers for the ideas Rice, much appreciated and has given me some more food for thought!

I havent got the air box set-up any more, have twin filters now, so dont think i'll be able to apply the last idea. The previous one sounds good though, pneumatic system with two atomisers, one in each inlet pipe I'll write it back to make sure were on the same page...im still learning after all.

The two pressure switches will be hooked up seperate so they can tell when each turbo is making boost (not sure best place to pick up a secondary only boost reading? primarys easy enough though). Once either turbo starts spooling the pressure switch will activate the solenoid for that turbo, and start spraying the wet stuff, with one aspect of the flow rate being dependant on amount of boost as thats what pressurises the system....

^---if thats right could the second turbo pressure switch be set same as the first? I was thinking that in a high rpm/lowish load (well, no WOT) situation, say making 9psi boost, the primary will be getting sprayed but secondary wont even though both boosting, as part of the benefit of pre-turbo is the bump in compressor efficiency and you wouldnt be getting that in turbo 2.... actually thinking about it, this is the type of thing you can test through mapping/etc isnt it, as its all adjustable. As long as the basic set-up will work, looks good to go.

Im very interested in this...my only slight reservation is flow due to quick spool of tubs, but how valid it is I dont know considering I currently run a fixed rate boost activated set-up and havent noticed any bogging down at low end, actually ive nullifyed my own reservation. If a fixed rate system isnt giving me any bogging down, a variable one definately wont, especially as flow rate is effectively halfed under transition point, reservation gone!

Yeah Brian I might do the same, these replies have helped me no end

So Peter, only stumbling block I can think off for pneumatic system is finding a boost source that is from secondary turbo for the pressure switch. I was talking on another forum and we come up with a place that would give at least a binary boost reading, but no-where definate that would be accurate enough for a set psi switch.

If this is the case, is there any reason why both switches cant be set to minimum so any boost will switch them on, as its the boost which varies the flow it should keep flow nice and low at low pressure? or does atomisation quality get affected

BDC

Howard won't be unfair and edit anything I've posted. If anything, he (or Zac) will probably tell me to do it if I've crossed a line. As best as I can tell thus far, that hasn't happened.

"Your very limited knowledge" -- Demonisation attempt #1. Knock the competition down to make yourself look bigger and better.

Research Octane Number vs Motor Octane Number. (RON+MON) / 2 = practical, effective octane rating, or the rating of a fuel to resist knock. The higher, the less propensity for knock it has until it reaches a higher heat and load point.

That's your 2nd attempt in this post to try and knock me down. It won't work on me. I hope everyone else sees this.

So do I and my experience has literally mirrored the Buick guys' experience 100% to the T up to this point. Don't you or anyone else find that peculiar or in the least noteworthy?

What data? Spurratic posts of alleged horsepower figures? Do you know how easy it would be for anyone on here to post that stuff in an attempt to falsify their alleged "plethora" of experience? We see it all the time in many forums on the Internet. It's easy when you're behind a computer; you can hide and make yourself out to be somebody else that you aren't. You can buff yourself up with ridiculous and uncorroborated claims that make you appear to be much more skilled than you really are. Everybody's an expert now on the Internet.

The things I've done are on my own car. I borrow from the Buick/Corvette/GTO experience pool because they're the guys that got me (and Howard) ultimately started. And, oddly enough, my own personal experience mirrors theirs nearly exactly. It's my experience and so far, by the time of this posting, I've got over 50 datalogs to prove it, not to mention alot of local friends here that would attest to it working in the real world.

In other words, my results aren't good enough for you, O' King, even though they clearly prove, beyond any shred of doubt much unlike your "data", that methanol works wonderfully.

I and others are still waiting to see "1/100th" of your alleged "amassed" data. I see you throw around numbers (that are inconsistent from post to post, I might remind the readership) but nothing to back them up.

Who here is quoting against water? I'm not. I think water has its place and, all else remaining the same, seems to be pretty good. I'm speaking against your wild claims. You've yet to prove anything whatsoever. Instead, you've berated people like myself that've questioned your experience, you've made fun of the equipment we use, you've called us "clowns", "internet wannabe's", and all other manner of immature, 2nd grade names.

Speaking of "respect"... You're a product vendor, Peter. Do you really think that your substitution for hard facts and empirical data for abuse is the way to sell something, let alone earn any level of respect from the readership based on what you claim to do?

That's fine to take offense. I've taken a mountain of it from you but I've not one time responded in like manner.

What "misinformation" am I spreading? What I'm claiming is methanol appears to work rather magically above and beyond anything we ever expected. And, not only am I claiming it, I can prove it with a truckload of datalogs and real, hard facts not to mention an extremely fast car sitting in my garage right now.

Oh, I believe it can help in enhancing overall power, even if it can only do it marginally. I've no doubt about that. Kudos to those few posters on here (Scott, Brian Ellis, etc.) that are currently experimenting with it and posting legitimate data. But, I don't believe it can enhance power anywhere near the power levels you're claiming as well as in the manner you're claiming it works (just dump an undisclosed amount of water in, no modification to fuel maps, etc. etc.). That's what you've yet to show with any evidence.

You've shown me up? By what, a clever tongue? You flatter yourself at my expense, Peter. That's the 3rd time in this post you've tried to knock me down. A clever tongue is no match for the truth, and that is one thing that you don't appear to have in you. Infact, it's suggestable that your abusive and berating attitude towards several of us suggests that you don't have any real evidence to lean on because (if you did), you'd lean on it, instead It's not an argument against the benefits of WI per se; it's an argument against your ridiculous claims, and the only thing that will change my mind (and probably the minds of many others reading) will be proof.

So, go ahead and keep calling me and others names. We'll keep truckin' right along, breaking old records with new ones day-by-day as we continue to push the envelope even further away from the norm. Keep trying to implicitly convince others that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I've got nowhere near the "amassed" experience you do (therefore, as implied, you're the guy that really has the skinny on things), but for some of us it just doesn't jive.

B

calculon

iTrader: (29)

I'm trying to remain as objective as possible, so please nobody take this as an attack on anything. I have NEVER ONCE used any form of Auxiliary Injection, and I am trying to learn what it is the I need. I'll start another thread about me and my setup and needs later.

Speaking in very general terms, I am doing research. As any person doing research should, I am trying to amass data. . .real QUANTIFIABLE data so that I can begin to draw conclusions. The posting of simple results (substantiated or not) adds NOTHING to a scientific endeavor without the premises and means with which these results were obtained. Rather the converse is highly useful. . .that is to say, being unsure of what your ultimate result will be, but providing the data surrounding your means (i.e. - your setup) and premises (what you've experienced to date in your endeavor and your reasoning to move in the direction that you're moving based on those experiences) offers a great deal of insight to those trying to learn.

RICE - I am in no way questioning your knowledge or experience, so please don't take this as such. If you genuinely want to contribute and promote Water Injection, Please post your setups in detail such that they are useful. . .

for example -
instead of simply saying
580bhp 13BT DD

something to the tune of
580bhp 13BT (A dyno slip isn't entirely necessary, but if you'd like to PROVE your results, it's very useful)
2x850cc primaries & 2x1600cc secondaries
43psi fuel pressure
stock intake manifolds
23 psi boost on 60-1 (A/R, Trim, BB or not, and other specs would be very valuable)
Haltech
Aquamist Pump
CoolingMist Varicool Controller
Nozzle Size
Boost start point
Total flow rate
Ignition setup

IAT
EGT
AFR
IDC
Leading and trailing timing

Would be of actual use to everyone. I've read everything you said, and you don't feel like you have to prove anything to anyone, and you don't. But if your aim is to contribute to the forum and promote WI, you NEED to do this. If you don't fell like contributing. . .please don't. It is just a waste of your time and effort, and clearly, your present approach is not changing anyone that your posts are directed at's mind. However, I would be willing to wager that if you followed my advice, you could actually begin to sway people rather than turn them off. Again, I agree with you that you don't owe anyone anything and don't have to prove anything, but for the sake of the community, please help us out and post up some more details. We need your help.

Thanks
ryan

javrosario

iTrader: (5)

Rice Racing,

Can you tell me how is the water that is injected into the motor making you be able to run 14:1 airfuel ratios on what, pump gas? I want to know what is the water doing to combact the detonation of going 14:1, that's is pretty lean. I never heard that water can actually up the octane rating of water, so what is it that is so magically that it can run those air fuel ratios. I can see how it can drop the air temps, but other than that, I'm really lost. Can you care to explain to me how is that done? How did you come up with the proven 14:1?

I'm just really lost, because man you australians must have some magical water that I need to start importing into the states

ScuttleRX

Quick ****** from another forum about effects of water in combustion of hydrocarbon fuel

ronbros3

VERY WELL SAID !! Ron

ScuttleRX

'Just a lowly cut and paster'

Heres the full thread, Bills very clued up on the chemical side of it http://ausrotary.dntinternet.com/for...er=asc&start=0

Think you may need to register

ronbros3

HEY! Rice do you think we could do away with the intercooler and all that darn plumbing, or would you need it at road cruising, sure would simplify things. Ron

ScuttleRX

This was my original intention but at the moment ive been convinced otherwise....still very interested in though.

If I do get a pre-turbo system up and running id like to stick an airtemp sensor before the intercooler to see whether theres enough of a cooling effect to warrant ditching the IC, Peter have you ever done this? Be interesting to see if you havent, couple of runs with WI off and on

sdminus

I believe he is injecting water pre turbo. i have tried this and it workd like a dream. I can see no reason why you cant go back to 14:1. The water is displacing the extra fuel the engine requires. There is no black magic to this. I think what pete is trying to say is that you could never do this with methnol becasue it is a fuel. If you went back to 14:1 with meth it would bite you in the ***. ( methanol will detonte in over rich or over lean situations) What is being suggested is that water can never detonate becasue it is not a fuel therefore enabling you too lean back your afrs. When you run a rich mixture with water it is counter productive that is why you have to lean righ back.
As long as the main fuel ( gasoline, petrol etc ) is stable in the combustion chamber or more precisely at PPP then all is good.

You can not compare the style of tuning when talking about water, watermeth or meth. They require a differant approach and a completley differant tune to get them to work correctly.

At the begining of this thread i was tuning water. I gave up that persute because my WI kit was making the tune awkward and i have voiced these ideas but to a less receptive audiance.


If any of this is in correct please fill me in

Scott

RICE RACING

I dont recommend that (you need too much water is my experience to achieve the same charge density),

The heat exchanger is an important part in any artificaly boosted system and as such should remain....... that does not mean you cant optomize it by running top mount or V mount coolers rather than the popular big sized front mounts and excessive charge plumbing some do.

Just need to be smart about it. You can bring the cooling to the IC (water jacket it if you must to gain extra efficiency).

hondahater

iTrader: (2)

I wonder how one could inject pre turbo using a kit he already has? Does the aquamist injectors do a good enough job of atomizing to just use thier injectors?

RICE RACING

"Ricardo and others have documented that under certain conditions ( normally
supercharged ) water can replace fuel up to about 50% and develop the same
power output, or that the power output can be increased by up to 50% addition
of water"

^ Who is this Ricardo ?
Its now my belief that water is not suitable for anything else but drinking.
All these *claims* and not one Haltech data log screen shot ?

LOL

RICE RACING

Mr BDC wrote:

"Oh, I believe it can help in enhancing overall power, even if it can only do it marginally. I've no doubt about that. Kudos to those few posters on here (Scott, Brian Ellis, etc.) that are currently experimenting with it and posting legitimate data. But, I don't believe it can enhance power anywhere near the power levels you're claiming as well as in the manner you're claiming it works (just dump an undisclosed amount of water in, no modification to fuel maps, etc. etc.). That's what you've yet to show with any evidence. "


^ Hmmm you have difficulty with the basic concepts of Engineering integrity and honesty?

I have already told you once very clearly, DO NOT DISRESPECT peoples achievements, it only makes you look like a clown

Your belief counts for nothing
My results and guarantee's stand for much more, as unlike yourself I deliver proven results, and have done so for many many years........ *have a look at the water injection or other, experience thread*

Stop turning every thread into a pissing match with your ignorance and 2 cent value dismissive comments about Water Injection, I am tired of responding to your garbage and will not do so anymore. If all you can do is slander people & their proven results and skills then your best off going back to your own little forum and preaching to like minded ignorant people who would not know any better other than to listen to someone like yourself who has NO KNOWLEDGE OF WATER INJECTION let alone ANY RESULTS THAT CAN REPLICATE WHAT I HAVE DONE WITH IT !.