R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Nitro On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-07-2004, 02:10 AM   #91
Tech Elite
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,223
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

And more links for those who are interested...

If you want to know what someone like Steve Pond thinks of it...
Link 1

Or perhaps a pic of a RC turbo...
Link 2
Or maybe just a direct link to that pic...
Turbo charged RC engine?

Plenty of other info out there, including info about how a few proper RC model engine makers tired to do all this back in the 60s and 70s...
Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 03:44 AM   #92
Tech Master
 
soc123_au's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Penrith Australia
Posts: 1,554
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Gotta say I agree with Bishop on the picture issue. 1Badtransam may well be an engineering genius & have it all figured out. Good luck to him if he has, if it works I would even consider buying one purely for the wow factor at drag nights. But having seen this topic posted many times before, without ever seeing the goods why wouldnt you be sceptical. It doesnt make sence to announce something like this without proof. Any man or his dog can claim they have invented something, shit I could say I know where Osama lives but I am pretty sure I wont get the cash reward without having some evidence. Read through other threads, people get their asses flamed for maiking claims they cant prove all the time & wonder why

If 1Badtransam has theories on making this work, then that is a different ballgame. Bring it on for discussion & you should not get beaten up. Just say they are theories or a work in progress. Unfortunatley because so many others have been full of it before then you have to "SHOW ME THE MONEY"
__________________
Serpent Radio Control Models
Auswide Hobbies
JPM Racing
soc123_au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 03:54 AM   #93
Tech Master
 
soc123_au's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Penrith Australia
Posts: 1,554
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default Re: Re: Re: dont just BRAG...

Quote:
Originally posted by Palmaris Europe
It is a cult following already.

And for Bishop. No pictures will be made available for a little while but a storm is brewing behind the scenes .

I have always maintained from day 1 that the RB Innovations s'charger is just a piece of eye candy and nothing more. I have always been open in making my opinion be known that those things dont work on our little engines. But I will state now that what 1BadTransam has will work and its going to be proved.
This surprises me, reading your posts going back to pre Palmaris Europe. Having read alot of your opinions I am pretty sure you are no fool when it comes to our engines. Obviously 1 Badtransam has shared some info with you that hasnt been given to the rest of us. Why?? If you post on a public forum then make it public, dont hold out on us. If you want to wait until its all tested thats cool, but dont anounce it untill you are ready to go the distance.
__________________
Serpent Radio Control Models
Auswide Hobbies
JPM Racing
soc123_au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 05:55 AM   #94
Tech Regular
 
KMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 250
Default

LOL! 1Badtransam doesn't owe you guys Jack! there's no law that says you have to post a pic of what you're claiming. In his case I'd say he knows too much detailed info and surrounding information for this to be a scam. I'd bet he's done exactly what he said he's done and am willing to wait calmy for the end result.

This sounds just like the group of idiots who slammed the CEN guy and said it was marketing BS that his car went 73 mph, just because he misquoted his gear ratio. Lo and behold another forum member tested his CEN and made the speed.

Bishop, you're only purpose here is to be disruptive simply because you are skeptical. Probably because you will be proven inferior in knowledge in this area and you simply can't stand it. Maybe you should try to understand what is happening, why it is working, how it is working, how to improve it, can you improve it.......on and on.......rather than do the disservice of continually pestering the people who appear to be making headway.

I can see that you're already concerned that this turbo may be the real deal because you're already laying the groundwork for your escape path by questioning the price, availability, life cycle, power increase, etc.....then go on to claim these are all "valid" issues. Valid to whom? If it works, it works. 1badtransam has made it clear it's for the ultimate performance, not the price & durability. Your efforts to pre-derail the assumed success are very transparent. The only person I see not being consistent is you, as you are all over the map on taking potshots. Your ego must be taking a tremendous hit to have the gain up that high on trying to make 1badtransam look bad.
KMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 06:00 AM   #95
Tech Initiate
 
1BadTransam's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: On the lake in Tavares FL
Posts: 38
Send a message via AIM to 1BadTransam
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bishop
But the point is, you did say it, and it's nice that you can bag someone else's project, yet still get so upset when someone questions yours.
And just to be clear (once again), are you now saying supercharging works?, and is not junk?

You know I'm getting accused of all sorts of stuff, but really I'm just trying to clear up a lot of the inconsistent info coming from you, you have even gone back and edited some of your older posts to correct some of that, yet you still accuse me of twisting what you say to make it work against you, well perhaps if you were more consistent, it would not even be an issue.

In a way, it's funny that a thread about your invention, keeps coming back to being more about me, than it is about your project.

And you know I just have to say it again, so what the heck...
Still no pics?


no, supercharging is innefficient and barely makes enough power to compensate for the added weight. thats why i said it is junk. but i didnt say that it didnt work. also, I didnt bring up the companys name, you did.

i edited 1 post, for a spelling error, and i took the screenshots offline on another. so get the fu*k off of my back. everyone here knows you are just on this post to break my balls, look at your first post on this forum. yep, its right here...

you continue to lie about things that i have posted to make yourself look good, and just because you cant read straight, doesn't mean that I have contradicted myself.
1BadTransam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 08:26 AM   #96
Tech Elite
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,223
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

*sigh*
I guess it's just too much of a case of "I want to believe" (the old x-files joke), rather than anyone who has a foot hold in reality.
You know it's almost a little surreal in here currently, cause the whole vibe now being kicked around is that "I" need to "prove" it does not exist, rather than "him" having to "prove" it does, which is just like totally spinning me out dude...

In truth, honestly, I really don't care if it works or not, if it does (with decent proof of course), and makes me look foolish, then so be it, but unlike some here, my sense of pride and reputation does not ride on the outcome here, everything I have said about this project is based on pre-established two stroke tuning and engineering principles (please do some proper reading people), meaning I personally have nothing to loose based on the outcome (other than my faith in 40+ years of two stroke development history), for others though, it's a much different story...

And what is it with the continued obsession (still) with me in this thread?, or paranoia that I have like some form of personal vendetta against 1bad or something?, like wow, even he seems to think I have it in for him, when all I'm doing is to "still" try and bring a dose or reality (or perhaps just the common/established tuning theories & methods) into all of this.
At least try to be objective guys, as I'm sure this whole thread is turning into a running joke for some of the "real" two stroke engine builders out there who may read this...
Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 09:22 AM   #97
Tech Master
 
mop_iko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: JOHOR BAHRU, MALAYSIA but now working in SHANGHAI
Posts: 1,797
Default guys....

guys... please put your brain on the right place... stop blabbing.

continue with the necessary discussion. i am afraid people wont come in this thread anymore reading all those 'finger pointing' and 'pride joisting'......

i am getting too tired with all these thing.

FIRE + FIRE = THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BURN including yourself.
FIRE + WATER = THE WHOLE WORLD LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

understand?

not too technical eh?

ENGINE + TURBO = POWER
ENGINE + WATER = BUY A NEW ENGINE.

ok?

mop
mop_iko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 09:28 AM   #98
Tech Regular
 
KMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 250
Default

I wouldn't really call it obsession with you or paranoia; more like irritation at your chronic disruption of an otherwise interesting thread. Debating the theories, results, assumptions, etc... is one thing and is always good, but your sidetracking with innuendo, accusation, and the like leads me to believe your intentions aren't all that noble. The more you post, the more you convince me you don't have the maturity of someone with 40 years of experience at anything; probably 2 years of experience 20 times over.

The only joke here is the guy that won't open his mind to the fact technology may be passing him by and he's stuck in the old school.
KMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 10:44 AM   #99
Tech Elite
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,223
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by KMac
The more you post, the more you convince me you don't have the maturity of someone with 40 years of experience at anything; probably 2 years of experience 20 times over.
That would be 40+ years of "the industry" playing with the concept of forced induction of two strokes, and nothing to do with my age.


But that does bring up a serious question I would like to ask, and we do all want these questions asked don't we?, I mean that's what you keep saying right?, debate?, questions?, and all that sort of thing...

If the industry in general has had such limited to non existent success with turbocharging "regular" two stroke engines over the last 40 years, what makes 1bad think he can succeed where they have failed?
And yes it was asked before, but I'll ask it again quite seriously this time, what would this turbo of yours cost?, if you have already made some prototypes, you must have a rough idea of production cost by now right?, ballpark figure at least?


And with that, I suppose I'm kind of done in here, either the questions get answered, or not, no matter, but it's not really worth continuing on in here until some form of proof is actually presented (and even then probably not as I did make that promise, which I still intend to keep), so I'll just lurk and post elsewhere in the forum if I feel the need, as anything more I post in here is bound to just keep the arguments going, and I never wanted it to degrade to that level in the first place...

(Someone please PM me if it gets interesting or you have any direct comments, as once I unsubscribe I probably won't notice anything in the way of updates, and this ain't my regular RC board...)
Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 11:06 AM   #100
Tech Adept
 
rodrigo1508's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 183
Default

I agree with bishop, not giving us pics of his work and saying he have pics does make me think he could be just playing with us.
rodrigo1508 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 11:10 AM   #101
Tech Master
 
mop_iko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: JOHOR BAHRU, MALAYSIA but now working in SHANGHAI
Posts: 1,797
Default

bishop....

ur links are quite interesting to read.

some of them can be CASE STUDY.

we need more reference and links of more of the discussions and questions and answer. so that we are exposed to more things.

all those links need to be carefully analyse.

we dont want 1badtransam do the wrong things that others have done...


mop
mop_iko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 11:13 AM   #102
Tech Master
 
mop_iko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: JOHOR BAHRU, MALAYSIA but now working in SHANGHAI
Posts: 1,797
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by rodrigo1508
I agree with bishop, not giving us pics of his work and saying he have pics does make me think he could be just playing with us.
this is old issue.


everybody know 1badtransam is still working on it.

and he cant release more pic coz it is still early and maybe some people just want to copy those HARD WORKED design of 1badtransam.

DONT ASK for pic from now on...

we know he will post it sometime in future.

we need more discussion so that 1badtransam wont do wrong thing to his design..


mop
mop_iko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 11:53 AM   #103
Tech Initiate
 
1BadTransam's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: On the lake in Tavares FL
Posts: 38
Send a message via AIM to 1BadTransam
Red face

well well, you have been in the industry? if you were, you would know how good this setup works. when done with a wastegate and a blow-off valve, even with carbs, it is easy to tune, and reliable. go past 25 psi with the boost, and you have a 400hp 2.0L timebomb on your hands, but that is because the bearings were only disigned for a certain amount of rpm, and t-charging makes this thing turn twice its rated amount.

but you are a 40 yr experience expert, so you already knew that.

1BadTransam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 12:48 PM   #104
Tech Initiate
 
1BadTransam's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: On the lake in Tavares FL
Posts: 38
Send a message via AIM to 1BadTransam
Default

oh yeah! cant forget about the Simon motorsports 500HP 2 stroke sand rail.
1BadTransam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2004, 05:27 PM   #105
Tech Addict
 
ctardi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In my house
Posts: 524
Send a message via Yahoo to ctardi
Default

bishop, you wouldnt happen to be sheldon on racetech, would you?
ctardi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TD05H Turbocharger HarKonnenD Other Items: For Sale/Trade or Wanted to Buy 23 09-22-2008 07:20 PM
RC turbocharger joe of loath Chat Lounge 13 10-18-2007 12:35 PM
to true or not to true tyres on club days ?? mrgsr Nitro On-Road 4 08-11-2005 06:11 AM
Turbocharger???? hpiracer007 Nitro On-Road 30 11-28-2004 04:59 PM
CE Turbocharger question R_Andersen Electric On-Road 5 05-10-2002 10:44 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 11:44 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net