Another thing to remember about this.....

Is that the Parker Hannifin Corporation or FedEx people are at least two years behind Torvec's efforts.

They say "A working demo vehicle could be available to FedEx Ground within a year."

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=ACBJ&Date=20071207&ID=7917159&Symbol=PH

Well, the EPA - UPS Hydraulic Hybrid project that Torvec built pumps for has been road tested for a year by now.

Do you remember this article?

"The other item that caught my eye -- and I ended up driving it on Chinese roads -- was a machine with a real difference. It was driven purely by hydraulics. No transmission thingies as we know them and the engine, per se, was only used to keep up the hydraulic pressure.

This was developed by the Environmental Protection Agency in America and was on display at the Michelin event to show how easy it can be to propel a large vehicle (van, SUV etc). Now I won't say this was the finished article but I got a buzz out of driving the UPS van and here's why."

http://www.independent.ie/farming/torque-technology-will-improve-tractors-1236175.html

This guy said that he drove the UPS Hydraulic Hybrid on roads in China. It will be a while before Parker Hannifin Corporation or FedEx gets a unit in China.

I know now that not a lot of people think that the Torvec technology is "in there", but I do.

That does not need to happen.....

IMO, of course. Remember that I'm the one who thinks: "it is in there"; because (among other reasons) JG said "Who says it isn't in there".

So, why approach a competitor?

Remember all of this?

"ROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb. 13, 2004 -- Torvec, Inc. (BULLETIN BOARD: TOVC.OB) announced today that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has signed an agreement to determine the mechanical efficiency of Torvec's paradigm-shifting hydraulic pump/motor at its National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan."

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/02/13/180273.html

Well, Parker Hannifin Corporation is a competitor to the group of "Torvec, the EPA and its partners".

Why would Torvec move from an alignment with this group to pursue a deal with Parker Hannifin Corporation or FedEx?

Do you remember this part too?

"Torvec's Hydraulics' Position Confirmed
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Mar. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Torvec, Inc. (BULLETIN BOARD: TOVC) announced today that the Environmental Protection Agency's display of an hydraulic hybrid sport utility vehicle at the 2004 Society of Automotive Engineers' World Congress has confirmed Torvec's decade old position that diesel equipped, hydraulics hybrid technology is the wave of the future and has the potential to dramatically and cost effectively improve fuel economy, performance and reduce greenhouse emissions."

http://www.advfn.com/news_Torvecs-Hydraulics-Position-Confirmed_7075874.html

Then of course you could review this:

http://torvec.com/pr06182004.html

Hydraulic Hybrid Joint Testing Program......

"CLEVELAND, Dec. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Parker Hannifin Corporation (NYSE: PH) and FedEx Ground, a unit of FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) , today announced they have agreed to test a Class 6 vehicle employing hybrid hydraulic technology that seeks to improve fuel mileage by greater than 50 percent and significantly reduce engine emissions."

"Parker expects the technology to have applications with other classes of vehicles."

http://sev.prnewswire.com/machinery/20071207/CLF01207122007-1.html

I must say that.....

I'll be here in 6-12 months, how about you?
I am sure that I'm more patient than you.
I like your optimism, and I hope your prediction is correct.

But, I must point out that the company is run by the shareholders.

Torvecian, I really feel bad about that....

I really didn't mean for you to try to repost the same message.
I was hoping that you would rephrase the message in a way that would not require it to be deleted and resend it.
Or maybe you could have sent it to me privately.
In any event, I do not think that you are an idiot; I just think that you got all emotional about your response.
That can happen.
I just wanted to read the non-emotional part of your thoughts.
Well, let’s try to get past all of that.

You and I both are trying our best to enjoy all the good that this investment has to offer.
We are sometimes critical and impatient, such as yesterday.
Sometimes it helps to vent a bit.
So, I was venting yesterday.

It just seems to me that if you ran the company, you wouldn't make any changes, and if I ran the company, there would be many changes.

After all, I'm allnumbers, and all business.

Eaton teams with AxleTech for JLTV work....

"Officials say the eAWD system combined with AxleTech's drivetrain exceeds JLTV performance and safety requirements."

"Based on Eaton's trademarked EGerodisc electronic differential technology, the company's electronic all-wheel-drive rollover protection system integrated with AxleTech's drivetrain provides tactical military vehicles with "enhanced safety, mobility and maneuverability," the release said."

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Briefing/2007/12/04/eaton_teams_with_axletech_for_jltv_work/3359/

And, as I remember, some of us were worried that Eaton would be doing this work with digital hydraulics.

Torque technology will improve tractors...

"Developments in Shanghai could have major cash saving implications for the farm of the future"

"The other item that caught my eye -- and I ended up driving it on Chinese roads -- was a machine with a real difference. It was driven purely by hydraulics. No transmission thingies as we know them and the engine, per se, was only used to keep up the hydraulic pressure.

This was developed by the Environmental Protection Agency in America and was on display at the Michelin event to show how easy it can be to propel a large vehicle (van, SUV etc). Now I won't say this was the finished article but I got a buzz out of driving the UPS van and here's why."

http://www.independent.ie/farming/torque-technology-will-improve-tractors-1236175.html

Just as a suggestion,.....

There wouldn't be so much "are we there yet?" from the back seat.

If there wasn't a constant "We are almost there!!!" from the front seat.

I don't think that you will find anyone more patient than me, but when HQ makes all these presentations that stir the pot this way, it makes patience really hard.

Providing a series of CEO updates that are promised is just one example. A CEO update is controlled only by HQ.

My point is "Why promise it if you are not going to do it?"

What did you think about the last quarterly report that was requested to be sent in late, and then mysteriously it was filed timely?

Yes of course I agree with that.....

And yes, I can wait for the real news also.

But, this is sort of a presentation issue.

Why do we need to present the ability and the intention of making a series of CEO updates on a timely, regular, basis when there obviously is not intention to do them timely or on a regular basis?

That is like doing a financial report with a 4.5% gross profit percentage.

That is like doing an audio interview that no one can hear clearly.

That is like doing a video that is shaking so badly that no one can clearly see the product.

That is like winging it at an annual meeting by saying "who says it isn't in there"

and on, and on, and on.......

This is self inflicted.

PS, Tor; I missed reading your response before it was deleted and I wanted to know what it was. Could you summarize it in a way that won't cause it to be deleted?

Today is the three month anniversary of......

"I plan in my next Update to focus on our IsoTorque™ differential." September 04, 2007.

http://www.torvec.com/messagefromceo090407.htm

Did anyone else think that this update would take more than three months?

Keep in mind there are two updates promised after this one.

Should we do a survey to establish a consensus of opinion on how much longer that update might take?

What could be problem be?
Does anyone know what the problem is?
Could we have a discussion about that?

2009 Ford F-150 may feature Hydraulic Launch Assist....

"If HLA does make an appearance, it'll be the second major shake up in the full-size truck segment debuting in Detroit, the other being Dodge's switch to a coil-sprung rear suspension on the 2009 Ram."

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/29/2009-ford-f-150-may-feature-hydraulic-launch-assist/

Formula 1 racing's energy recovery mandate.....

"The FIA have defined the amount of energy recovery for 2009 season as 400kJ per lap giving the driver an extra 80hp over a period of 6.67 seconds."

http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=93210

So far, the teams are focused on heavy flywheels to store the energy and CVT transmissions to dispurse the energy.

Wouldn't this be a good place for a hydraulic accumulator?

I wonder how a Formula 1 race car can turn a corner when it becomes “like a gyro-scope” with that heavy flywheel turning so fast?

That "sticky" traction fluid must really stick!
Will it will stick the corner, stick the wall, etc....?

EPA comments on disposal of exhausted batteries....

"Reducing the need for two power systems in one vehicle saves fuel and money, and reduces environmental problems posed by the disposal of exhausted batteries, EPA officials said here."

"There is a move afoot, as demonstrated by a Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle project, involving the US Environmental Protection Agency and its “industry partners,” to greatly reduce the role of batteries in hybrid vehicles, especially in those used in commercial and government fleets."

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/features/featuredetail.asp?file=novemberfeatures112007.xml

What's next.....

Just maybe they will comment on the MPG fuel calculation.
Should we include the fuel to generate the electric to charge those exhausted batteries in the MPG calculation?
Or is that charging fuel just going to be ignored forever?

Have all the "industry partners" been disclosed?

I really can't blame you for that....

Watching that video wouldn't really make things better. It would be 8 minutes of your life that would be truly a waste of time.

My point was that Torvec clearly has the superior technology, but has an inferior presentation. This inferior presentation is evident in so many ways. One of the ways is the way that Torvec produces the videos and audios that demonstrate and present the products. If the videos and audios were produced professionally, the products would be presented in a better way for everyone to understand.

This competitor has done that and that action has caused his inferior product to receive awards and to be on center stage without merit.

So, should a 50 million dollar technologies investment be presented with a $200 dollar camera? I think not.

Another Thompson Coupling comment....

Take the time to watch the video of this product. It is very convincing. The quality of the video and audio is 100 times better than any of the Torvec videos that are available.

http://cvcoupling.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=58

Imagine watching a video that has no shaking due to someone hand holding the camera.

Imagine a quality image that you can actually see the product.

Imagine listening to a video that has some audio quality. No wind whistling in the background. No person fighting for his next breath. No annoying coughing or searching for words etc, etc., etc.

This makes me wonder why Torvec decided to use the low quality videos when the high quality images and audio is something that Rochester is noted for.

That's what I thought....

It seems that this CV Joint has little practical use in the automotive field. I could see where it would also be more expensive to produce, be more restrictive on the angle of motion, and be harmed by the shock of movement over rough roads, etc.

It seems that its application would be limited to a perfect environment in a very stable or secure fixture such as a machine application where there are no outside forces for which to compensate.

But, they have a good marketing department; which was able to pull off an award that the world will have to see through.

The next generation of GPS satellites......

"Lockheed Martin Corp., the third competitor for the satellite network controls contract, did not make the cut.

But the nation's largest defense contractor is still in the running for a deal worth nearly $2 billion to build the next generation of GPS satellites.

Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed is competing against Boeing Co. of Chicago for that contract, which is expected to be awarded within weeks."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-defense2807nov28,0,2314441.story

So, will the Navimatic system rely on Lockheed Marti's GPS satellite in order for it to work?

Maybe Lockheed Martin should develope that themselves to control Torvec's IVT. Then there really would be something to get excited about.

Must be that Torvec is working on.....

new and improved aluminum CV Joints and aluminum Iso-Torque differentials.

The R&D cost for this might throw Torvec's gross profit percentage into a loss if they charge all that research and development cost to the cost of goods sold.

But wait, there is hope for the gross profit presentation; maybe there isn't an order and this will not be a sale; so the R&D cost can be accumulated the old way.

Company is pushing aluminum-based light military vehicles...

""If aluminum isn't as strong as steel, why are you using it?" he asked while examining the chassis of a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), developed here by Alcoa with prime contractor Lockheed Martin in Oswego, NY."

"The aluminum frame will also make the JLTV lighter, making it more maneuverable, faster and easier to deploy in air cargo."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_539875.html

Aisin Will Build More Fuel-Efficient Transmissions....

"The company is also developing new systems to help improve fuel efficiency, such as the Navimatic, which links the transmission to the car's in-car navigation system. The vehicle is then able to select the optimal gear based on the approaching road conditions. "

"Output of continuously variable units may almost double in the period, he added."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=agFs.CKhzmH8&refer=asia

"Navimatic"; Now, there's an idea....

Ann Arbor lab's job to develop tougher standards...

"The lab's next major effort is to help develop a fleet of UPS hydraulic hybrid delivery trucks that can recover and reuse energy generated by braking, allowing for a 70% increase -- up to 18 m.p.g. -- in fuel economy."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071125/BUSINESS01/711250595

"Besides refining test methodology, the EPA’s Ann Arbor, Michigan lab is also to help develop a fleet of hydraulic hybrid delivery trucks with UPS, using technology originally developed with military funding, which is expected to yield additional fuel economy of up to 70% or 18 mpg."

http://www.eemsonline.co.uk/news/26-11-07_2

Does anyone have a comment about this?.....

"The Thompson Coupling is certainly amongst the most important inventions since the advent of the internal combustion engine. It is the world's first and only, practical, constant velocity joint to have no load bearing sliding surfaces."

http://cvcoupling.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=58

It wasn't a question, Tor....

I was just pointing out that the iBox needs to be updated for the HQ phone numbers, that's all. That might have been difficult to determine after the post that I was responding to was deleted.

The old numbers are listed as Office: 585.248.0740 Toll Free 877.248.0740 in the iBox.

The company moved.
There are new phone numbers.
They are in the last CEO update.
Quite a few times, I have been asked to call the company with any questions that I have, but I don't want to waste their time.
So I won't be doing that.

Everyone have a good holiday and let's all be thankful for all the good news that we have recently received.

I won't be calling HQ, but in case....

someone would take your advice and do that; it would be easier for them to get
"all(the right)numbers"
if you could update this board site with
"all(the new)numbers".

One of your questions wasn't completely off topic....

The one, "When is the fat-lady suppose to be singing?"
What did he say about that one?
Do any of Leitrim's suggested singers qualify as a fat lady?

I know the answer to one of your other OT questions, but I would like to know how HQ's responded to it. Did they say that they read this board and can respond, if they want to, in a public format such as a CEO update? That way the information will be part of public information and will not be all twisted around by a member of this discussion board, taken out of context and thereby become confusing in the process. Or did they say, that there sometimes isn't a need to respond, only a need to think about changing the way that they are doing what is asked about so that it could be better for the company in the future?

I sure hope that we don't have to wait for a resurrection for the fat lady to sing.

While we are waiting for the CEO update....

could you share with us some of the questions and answers that you were able to review with headquarters?

I think that the insights that HQ shared with you would be comforting and since you took the time to ask your questions and they took the time to answer them, it could be a timesaver for you to share those Q&A's with us.

Did they say anything in particular about the reason for the decision to change the reporting of the research and development costs for the engineering that is being done on the new products? These types of costs were never were reported as a cost of the goods sold in the past. If they had been reported that way in the past, the cost of goods sold would have been approximately $48,920,000 higher. All of those previous $48,920,000 costs were part of the same effort as the current engineering for the current research and development.

Did they say anything more about the reason to report the revenue from the "sale" of the Ice Technology back to Ice Engineering as deferred income?

I think that they mentioned it this way in the current quarterly report: "The Company has accounted for the receipt of the proceeds as deferred revenue, such amounts represents an initial payment and is subject to additional installments. In the circumstances, the recovery of the full selling price is dependant upon Ice Engineering having the necessary resources to make all payments under the agreement."

Of course, neither one of these factors are reasons to report this sale as deferred income.

Keeping this revenue reported as deferred income makes me wonder if they really expect to get the ownership of the technology back as collateral on an obligation that is expected to become in default.

Is this expectation what they mean by "the circumstances"?

Thanks for checking that out....

It looks like they were able to convince the "auditors" of that concept too. What that means to me is that the items sold were not production ready. They were selling items that are still in the development process, or they wouldn't have had any engineering costs to allocate directly to the sales at this point.

Well, in any event, my point was at a different level than this discussion. It was simply to think about presentation as long as we are in the presentation stage. This looks odd given all the current bantering from everyone. Simply put, a bit inconsistent.

For another example, if the gross profit was 4.5% then paying out a commercialization bonus of 6% wouldn't make any sense.

Keeping the research and development costs where they use to put them and keeping them out of the Cost of Goods Sold section of the financials does present itself in a more consistent manner. That's all.

Granted the costs have to be incurred and they have to be presented, I just would have expected them to be presented differently.

That too was my own favorite part.....

as it always has been. You see this has been in all of the recent quarterly and annual reports. The dates have changed from time to time. For an example, the quarter ended September 30, 2006 put this concept into these words:

"The company believes that current, ongoing discussions with governmental agencies and private sector companies worldwide could very well create a revenue producing transaction during fiscal 2006. However, it can not predict when such a transaction will be consummated and therefore, the company does not know whether it will generate revenues from its business activities during fiscal 2006."

With all that has happened in this last year, this statement seems more and more creditable as time goes by.

The new Commercialization Event Plan...

seems to be a fairer plan, both for the existing shareholders and the entire management team of the company.

The old plan distributed 10.27% of the company’s entire value to only nine members of management while the new plan distributes 8% of the company “new” revenue to the two larger groups to be shared on an equal basis within their specific groups. (6% for one group and 2% for the other group)

The “new revenue“ starting point seems to be good because it does not “re-distribute” the pre-commercialization company value to the team, only a percentage of the incremental value established due to the commercialization event.

Also, due to the fact that now more persons are sharing in the value to be attributable to the commercialization event, there will be more drive to make that event happen.

Of course, there may be other “not so obvious” benefits.

Question: Why was this change not part of a separate SEC filing back in October?

Question for the experts in this group…..

(Including the more "brilliant" ones among us)

How can it be that the gross profit percentage on Torvec’s sales is only about 4 to 5% in the series of recent financials that have reported sales?

The most recent report shows that the gross profit percentage is actually declining.

Is anyone else troubled by this fact?

Does Torvec plan to make it up on volume, or is the gross profit percentage really being reported wrong?

It seems to me that there may have been some motive to lower the selling prices for these first sales out of the box in order to get things going, but wouldn’t that corresponding sales discount be recorded as some type of expense and allow the financials to have the intended sales price recorded on the books?

Or,… maybe Torvec has just absorbed too much of the non direct operating costs into the cost of goods sold that caused the gross profit percentage to be so low.

In any event, I can’t believe that this company has a 4 to 5 gross profit percentage.

Torvec’s reporting the gross profit percentage on sales in this manner is really not good for the mission at hand which is to entice acquiring companies to look at acquiring Torvec for their own.

We might have to do another survey, but.....

It would seem to me that there will be a January meeting.

It also seems that the Commercialization Event Plan was abandoned and re-written in order to better facilitate a desirable offer from a formidable suitor.

The old plan to issue shares would have been an obstacle, IMO, for certain types of Commercialization Events.

It seems to me that the board found it necessary to change that plan in order to eliminate the problem for an acquiring company.

I can't see how that could happen between now and the January meeting date, however, it certainly could.

Thanks for the update on the SEC Filing....

Torvec's net income increased by a significant amount, just as I thought it would.

The report was: “The net loss for the three month period ended September 30, 2007 was $569,000 as compared to the three month period ended September 30, 2006 net loss of $2,291,000. The decrease in the net loss of $1,722,000 is principally related to decrease in consulting expense of $1,450,000 and an increase in other income of $143,000 generated by the acquisition of Variable Gear, LLC.”

I would call that significant.

$1,722,000 in reduced loss is something to celebrate.

This must be part of the reason that Torvec decided to file today instead of waiting.

What do you make of the new plan to replace last year’s Commercialization event plan?

That seems like a significant matter also.

I would anticipate a significant change...

in the results of operations due to the fact that the SEC report asked for a comparison between that same quarter last year and this year's quarter. Last year's quarter had a very large loss. It was 2.356 million dollars. I just don't think that, with all of the recent history, Torvec will book a 2.356 million dollar loss this past quarter. I think that it will be significantly less of a loss.

My comment was related to why it would be that the company would state that it would be that large again this year. That is the statement that they made in yesterday's SEC report. I think that statement may be wrong, but we will see very soon.

Why do you thing that the loss will be significantly similar to the 2.356 million dollar loss that was reported last year.

And, if you don't think that it will be that large of a loss or if you think that it will be significantly different; then why is that statement on the SEC report ok with you?

Torvec made the Daily Messenger newspaper today....

"Torvec signs deal with
Lockheed Martin
ROCHESTER — A
small Rochester technology
company called Torvec
Inc. is now a partner with
military manufacturing
and technology giant
Lockheed Martin.
Torvec will provide stability
and control technologies
for Lockheed
Martin’s tactical wheeled
vehicle programs. Those
programs are based in
Owego at Systems Solutions
at Lockheed Martin
Systems Integration.
Torvec’s designs will
improve vehicle suspension
on rough terrain and
provide greater protection,
performance and
payload, according to
Torvec president Keith
Gleasman."

Boy, I sure hope so because.....

The Profit (loss) from the September Quarter of 2006 was reported as $(2,356,000).

And, when Torvec says that there is no significant difference between the last year's quarter and this year's quarter then the loss for this quarter would be somewhere close to $(2,356,000).

I don't know about you, but I was anticipating a significant positive change in the results of operations.

There must be a real good chance that.....

this delay is not caused by the auditors.

Is there something that makes you think that the auditors are causing the delay?

The sad thing is that Torvec is saying that there will not be "any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof."

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFiling.go?name=TORVEC%20INC:%20NT%2010-Q,%20Sub-Doc%201&link=http%3A//quotemedia.10kwizard.com/filing.xml%3Frepo%3Dtenk%26ipage%3D5282408%26doc%3D1&type=TEXT

With all that is happening, one could have expected a significant change in the results of operations.

Production ready becomes production reality....

"Honda’s DN-01 is also on show, the futuristic concept now due to become a production reality. This large, automatic sports-cruiser is powered by a liquid-cooled four-stroke 680cc V-twin engine, which gives effortless torque and power through Honda’s unique ‘Infinitely Variable Transmission’ system. This gives the rider three modes – Drive Mode, Sports Mode and a 6-Speed manual mode – a world-first for any manufacturer."

http://195.224.59.217/news/archives_2000/news_details.asp?id=5550

BorgWarner Introduces Next Generation Dual-Clutch Transmission..

"BorgWarner innovations in advanced materials and control systems have lead to fuel efficiency that is projected to be 40% greater than the improvement delivered by the already fuel-efficient dual-clutch transmissions in production today."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-12-2007/0004703192&EDATE=

Sounds exciting, right?
However, the 40% is the percent improvement of the original improvement.
The original improvement was 5% (rounded up).
40% of 5% is 2%.
So, all of this 1.95 Billion of new sales is based on a 7% improvement (rounded up twice).

Didn't Torvec prove more than a 7% improvement quite a few years ago? I remember that they did, and I remember that they didn't try to stretch the numbers in this way. I also remember that they showed the percentages to 3 or 4 decimal places.

Here are the Torvec testing percentages:
http://www.torvec.com/steady_state.html

In fact Torvec's percentages here were shown in the most reduced way of showing percentages.

SAIC Motor to Set Up Transmission Subsidiary...

"The new arm is to be engaged in the research and development, manufacturing, and provision of automobile transmission assembly both at home and abroad. It also focuses on the manufacture of automotive gearboxes used in the high value-added passenger cars and commercial cars."

http://www.tradingmarkets.com:80/.site/news/Stock%20News/806609/

Deadline eased for $15 billion Humvee replacement project

"The deadline rush is off for designers and contractors on a $15 billion project to replace the Humvee in the U.S. military vehicle fleet."

"TACOM was hoping to enter a preproduction phase next year and begin production by 2010, but in late summer, the agency returned to its original 2012 deadline."

"Sheldon Smith, public affairs specialist for the Army in Washington, agreed that the move back to 2012 reflects a "global strategy" to make Joint Light Tactical Vehicles a more permanent next-generation transport in all military campaigns."

http://crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071112/SUB/711120314/1033/toc/-/-/deadline-eased-for-15-billion-humvee-replacement-project

Torgo, your concerns seem to be valid today.