RLS 3 chamber shroud request/group buy

[qball]

I had attempted to have these made locally in fiberglass, but the cost was outrageous to have a custom mold made, etc.

So, if someone wants to do this, I'm in.

1. robains
2. spf4000
3. EliseAtLeast?
4. EricH?
5. Qball
6.

[TiGumz]

Put me down for number six. I'd rather try this than fans.


Do we have enough people to get this rolling?

[spf4000]

So as of right now:

1. robains
2. spf4000
3. EliseAtLeast <- Still need to confirm
4. EricH <-Still need to confirm
5. Qball
6. TiGumz
7.

[Bender Unit]

1. robains
2. spf4000
3. EliseAtLeast <- Still need to confirm
4. EricH <-Still need to confirm
5. Qball
6. TiGumz
7. Bender Unit
8.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by robains

I would guess with a well designed shroud and additional air we would see minimum 3X improvement and probably more like <b>5X to 6X increased air flow</b>. Based on the data presented this should be enough to utilize the efficiency of the RLS ICs (version pending).

I hate to keep raining on the parade, since I'm actually glad to see all the interest in increasing intercooler airflow... but come on Rob...

I've made the point (and backed it with real data) that the flow through the intercooler is limited by the minimum cross section of the ductwork that feeds it. The roof scoop's bottleneck is about 8 sq. in., even after fettling. Adding two 3" round ducts (each ~7 sq. in.) changed the minimum cross section by a factor of ~2.75, and not so amazingly, the airflow was changed by about that much.

That said... carry on. I'd still like to see this concept become reality.

[EliseAtLeast]

Originally Posted by robains

And to take it one step further the entire shroud to roof slot could be made into one piece with flexible center where the only attackment point is at the IC itself -- harder yet flexible plastic would be better than the rubber sleeve with two giant worm clamps (which never really do a good job at a snug sealed fit). One piece would be more of a challenge given the way the stock roof slot is attached (major major pain detaching it -- they use some type of super duper pooper scooper glue to attach it).

This is also an idea. It looks like we are still at a very early stage of this with many ideas floating around. Which is not a bad thing.

[EricH]

I am all over it interested but I can't be in the money no object crowd. I need to know the final concept to give my final yes.

Don't they make oval tubing? Would that fit better / allow for larger area with the space we have available?

[robains]

Originally Posted by apk919

I hate to keep raining on the parade, since I'm actually glad to see all the interest in increasing intercooler airflow... but come on Rob...

I've made the point (and backed it with real data) that the flow through the intercooler is limited by the minimum cross section of the ductwork that feeds it. The roof scoop's bottleneck is about 8 sq. in., even after fettling. Adding two 3" round ducts (each ~7 sq. in.) changed the minimum cross section by a factor of ~2.75, and not so amazingly, the airflow was changed by about that much.

That said... carry on. I'd still like to see this concept become reality.

I think you need to re-read what I said, I'm pretty much in agreement with you 100% -- and your data is what I was refering too. Did I mis-communicate something?

Rob.

Yeah, obviously the cost can't be so high that one could just find better existing alternate solutions. So there has to be some cap on cost/sanity -- but we'll just have to wait and see what the RLS folks can come up with for ballpark price.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by robains

I think you need to re-read what I said, I'm pretty much in agreement with you 100% -- and your data is what I was refering too. Did I mis-communicate something?

Rob.

I guess I don't see in your post how you propose to increase the minimum cross sections... are you proposing running larger than 3" ducts from the side scoops, or somehow increasing the cross section of the bottleneck in the roof scoop?

[kmt63]

Originally Posted by qball

I had attempted to have these made locally in fiberglass, but the cost was outrageous to have a custom mold made, etc.

So, if someone wants to do this, I'm in.

1. robains
2. spf4000
3. EliseAtLeast?
4. EricH?
5. Qball
6.

qball,if you are looking to have the mold made for this.i would do it for a reasonable cost.i would need a mock up duct that has all the features you guys are looking for.im deep into mold making right now anyway.

[JungleJim]

Originally Posted by EricH

I am all over it interested but I can't be in the money no object crowd. I need to know the final concept to give my final yes.

I'm with Eric on this one. Interested but want to know what I am paying for.
Jim

[lwein]

i would be interested if it worked--------------
"Trust,but verify!"
So I am almost in----------------

[robains]

Originally Posted by apk919

I guess I don't see in your post how you propose to increase the minimum cross sections... are you proposing running larger than 3" ducts from the side scoops, or somehow increasing the cross section of the bottleneck in the roof scoop?

You saw about a 3X flow improvement with your setup/data. With an improved 3 chamber shroud design with no path collisions and minimal deflection, I would expect to see an additional 2X - 3X improvement over your setup (hence my 5X to 6X improvement).

Light weight tubing would be a big benefit running from shroud to side scopes using rubber sleeves (to allow motion) and clamps similar to IC tube that RLS produced -- and this would also be a case where a smooth/polished inside surface would benefit flow since there is no fuel mix. Taking that one step further, add nozzle fittings for a misting setup for those that feel they can find a misting system to get the job done (unfortunately the Seine Systems I tried didn't work so well).

IMHO (and that's all it is), the collision of three different air pressures in your setup is not maximizing the air flow/pressure from each source (left, right, and roof). Air likes to be guided (no sharp angles and no collisions) to minimize turbulance and hence reduction is pressure/flow. I believe we can see an additional 2X or 3X improvement over your flow data if the air is guided directly to the IC fin and each flow path is separated (no collision).

I maybe optimistic in those numbers -- and if this RLS shroud/scoop setup ever gets built within a reasonable costs -- we can validate or invalidate.

I hope I made my opinion a little more clear now.

Rob.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by robains

You saw about a 3X flow improvement with your setup/data. With an improved 3 chamber shroud design with no path collisions and minimal deflection, I would expect to see an additional 2X - 3X improvement over your setup (hence my 5X to 6X improvement).

Light weight tubing would be a big benefit running from shroud to side scopes using rubber sleeves (to allow motion) and clamps similar to IC tube that RLS produced -- and this would also be a case where a smooth/polished inside surface would benefit flow since there is no fuel mix. Taking that one step further, add nozzle fittings for a misting setup for those that feel they can find a misting system to get the job done (unfortunately the Seine Systems I tried didn't work so well).

IMHO (and that's all it is), the collision of three different air pressures in your setup is not maximizing the air flow/pressure from each source (left, right, and roof). Air likes to be guided (no sharp angles and no collisions) to minimize turbulance and hence reduction is pressure/flow. I believe we can see an additional 2X or 3X improvement over your flow data if the air is guided directly to the IC fin and each flow path is separated (no collision).

I maybe optimistic in those numbers -- and if this RLS shroud/scoop setup ever gets built within a reasonable costs -- we can validate or invalidate.

I hope I made my opinion a little more clear now.

Rob.

OK... you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly have to say that I don't think there's any aerodynamic/mathematic justification for your projected improvement... it just seems like conjecture to me. We'll just agree to disagree until there's actual data.

[robains]

I'm certainly not this fellow:

[shay2nak]

I'd have to see the design to commit to buying it.

[deddie]

I am definitely a buyer if it works and the cost makes sense.

[qball]

Originally Posted by kmt63

qball,if you are looking to have the mold made for this.i would do it for a reasonable cost.i would need a mock up duct that has all the features you guys are looking for.im deep into mold making right now anyway.

Been there, done that... no

I basically took a stock shroud, a bunch of diagrams and photos of the stock setup. and two 3" inlet ducts and brought it to a fiberglass mold fabricator.

Cost was about $2k for the mold and $300 each for the finished product.

He claimed the reason for the expense was that the inlets coming from the side would not allow the duct to be made in one piece. It would have to be made in two pieces and then grafteed and finished.

Karl

[kmt63]

Originally Posted by qball

Been there, done that... no

I basically took a stock shroud, a bunch of diagrams and photos of the stock setup. and two 3" inlet ducts and brought it to a fiberglass mold fabricator.

Cost was about $2k for the mold and $300 each for the finished product.

He claimed the reason for the expense was that the inlets coming from the side would not allow the duct to be made in one piece. It would have to be made in two pieces and then grafteed and finished.

Karl

yea thats about right for walking into a shop and wanting a mold made.i just finished the glove box molds for the elise/exige.it is three molds.very high quality tooling gel coat.parts can be over cured.my offer was to do the molds for this project at a very reasonable price(far less than what you where quoted).to help make this happen for you guys.

[qball]

Is anyone gonna run with this?