Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Tough to say cost differential between Iso-torque and Torsen. Best bet to find out from Torvec themselves exactly what is unique about Iso-torque. Looking at the web site, looks like Iso is two gearsets of the balancing gears, yet when you click on 'more pictures', the diagrams and photos look a heck of a lot more like the original Torsen: three sets of balancing gears, three openings in the housing. If the two window design is the primary idea behind Iso-torque, the two fewer element gears is an obvious cost reduction. You still need the side gears, machined casting, those plates they are showing (not sure functionality or just there for picture sake), thrust washers, etc. It is a one piece housing design. So maybe they are proposing alternate materials to achieve the lighter weight and lower cost. Challenge is getting lighter in a power transmitting device such as this and maintaining strength characteristics usually means exotic metals, driving the costing in the wrong direction.
Dread,
Anti-lock brakes can 'increase' performance by reverse application. Since the wheel speed sensors are already in place, instead of detecting imminent wheel locking during braking and pulsing the brake force on that wheel, the system is reversed: the vehicle computer reads wheel speeds during acceleration, and applies appropriate braking force to that wheel to stop/minimize the wheel slippage, thus giving you 'traction control'. This technology was actually one of Torsen's competitors several years ago. Manufacturers liked it clearly, because for minimal investment with ABS system already in place, it gave them another feature to sell.
The 'Gleasman Differential'? Why didn't he call it that from 1958 to the early 80's? I thought it was called the Triple D...
It seems if there was not an exclusive waiver, that there should have been one. If you or I had invented something exclusive, wouldn't you desire to retain the exclusive rights to it? To negotiate a deal, this would be the ultimate position. Why would it be funny to not want this? Anything else would be a comprise, yes, and might ultimately, be the final result once a deal was closed.
Naw, its easier and more fulfilling to take the abuse doled out on Ihub than to set up an answering machine....heck, its only coming from a couple of dozen people...so that is not too rough...why bother answering phone calls. If you were a potential customer calling, you'd probably get a quick response, right? Oh yeah, thats right I almost forgot, some days nobody answers the phone, and there is no place to leave a message.
Automatic email replies, out of the office? Gee, that is too 21st century for this company. Come on Torvec, get your stuff together, these are the simple things that ARE important.
Reads like a Mad magazine parody and made me laugh, although sadly, there is quite a ring of truth in the post.
Some data on Chery Automobile Co., from '05 Guide to China's Auto Market:
Ownership: Chery Automobile Co. - 100%
Models produced: Fengyun, QQ, Qiyun, Son of East, Tiggo
Capacity
2004: 350,000
2003: N.A.
Production
2004: 79,565
2003: 91,223
Unit Sales
2004: 86,567
2003: 85,349
Chery is a smaller player in the China market. The Big 5 controlled 69% of China's rapidly growing market in 2004: First Automotive Works Group, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp., Chongqing Changan Automotive Group, Beijing Automotive Industry Corp. and Dongfeng Motor Corp. Combined sales of 3.49 million commercial and passenger vehicles in '04, up 24% from 2003. Most of their growth came from companies' joint ventures. But growth of passenger vehicles slowed to 15% last year from 76% increase in 2003 - this is significant because the wisdom is that few of the remaining Tier 2 automakers (there are over a dozen, Chery included) have the resources to compete in the price-driven market that is developing in China.
A quote from this guide:
"More auto companies will report losses and some may go bankrupt before the industry consolidates and restructures into a few big players," said Hu Song, an analyst at Haitong Securities in Shanghai, in an interview with Xinhua news agency.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce says that makers with capacity of less than one million will not be able to survive, and those with capacity of less than two million will face strong restructuring pressure.
"Faced with intense price pressure in China, and reluctant to be forced into shotgun alliances, some tier 2 companies such as Chery Automotive Co. are looking at exports to Europe and North America as a possible relief valve."
Source: Excerpts from Automotive News 2005 Guide to China's Auto Market
www.autonews.com/chinaguide
For sure KG & JG are just itching for a good news release to jack up the stock prices. Point taken galileo, if there were substantial results that could be touted, we would have heard about them. Lots of actvity at the compound as reported recently, but nothing significant? aw, shucks. How about some new inventions or new technology?? Tons of discussion here about IVT and the FTV, but what about ice technology (kinda obscure compared to the other stuff), or the six gear differential concept?
I think this company needs engineers, that might just be the crux of the current situation. Vern was the key master (sorry, :). Without a solid engineering staff to be able to refine, explain, improve, test, document, develop, create, teach, sell (to other engineers at potential customers), these cool inventions don't appear to be attractive enough for potential suitors. The company seems to have enough brain power in management and board postions.
Who knows, maybe this thing will blast off soon.
Dread,
Catching up on posts, the first message here where the guy reports spikes of fuel efficiency, reminds me of a story from a friend at a vehicle testing facility several years ago. One of his co-workers bought a new Volkswagon, and was bragging about the great fuel economy. He measured it every tankful. So these guys schemed a plan to play a practical joke on him by adding gas to his tank every week. They had him really going, after a few weeks; his gas economy kept getting better and better, to the point where it was almost double where he had began. They had to finally let him in on the scam... One of the few reasons why you could possibly get a lot better miles per gallon rather than poorer mpg.
Thank you for your reply putting some logic to these test results. Comparing diesel fuel efficiency results to gas is not an 'apples to apples' comparison; very difficult to make valid conclusion. To fairly evaluate a modification, keep the same baseline. If the improvement in fuel efficiency on turbo diesel to turbo diesel was 38.5%, does this infer that the fuel economy went from say 18 mpg to 25 mpg?? What was the test procedure used? City driving, highway, constant speed? That is a significant improvement, if accurate. What is the automotive world waiting for? Is there a weight penalty? Can't be, 'cause that would show up in the test results. Must be design limitations, cost, or durabilty, otherwise, you would think this transmission would now be in the final development stages for mass production.
I guess one would expect KG to at least wear a suit jacket if he had a potential customer(s) in for a demonstration. Heck, maybe he wears a suit jacket everyday to work...Why is Keith doing all the driving?
Something else - when was this picture taken? Recently? Don't see any snow, and I thought the FTV was currently outfitted/being outfitted for DARPA. How many FTVs are in existance?
1. There is not much disparity in the actual raw material prices worldwide. It is the labor and value added going into the component parts made from those raw materials that begins to define price differences from the low labor rate countries vs. high labor. Those component parts sourced from Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers would be going into an assembly plant somewhere for manufacture into IVTs for the OE's.
2. Yes, wouldn't matter where IVTs were manufactured. Regardless, teardown analysis is done by all the automotive manufacturers and suppliers. Right down to the last ball bearing, and internal reports on the competition are distributed. A lot of the technology in a complex mechanism such as IVT is not apparent to the eye, and would not necessarily be disclosed in a patent. So there are some things that kept as trade secrets, would be difficult for someone else to acquire.
1. Share price should increase, based on increased demand if a Chery deal was announced.
2. Make 'em in China - do the engineering development here and manufacture there to keep costs down. Kinda crazy to ship transmissions all the way there for assembly into Chinese vehicles destined for the USA.
3. None. TOVC probably wants badly for Chery or anbody to manufacture the FTV; it all comes down to how much or how little they want to license the rights to do so.
German Engineering: "Can you imagine selling a German engineering they didn't have a part in? Can you imagine getting a German to change their mind? The answer is a resounding YES, and it happened with the Torsen Differential. The Torsen is the heart of the Audi Quattro drivetrain. Has been since the mid 80's when tested, developed, and adopted. The Germans love mechanical solutions to engineering challenges, and Torsen was a fit. For any readers uninformed, the Torsen was an original invention of V. Gleasman. No question about it, mature proven product (now). Does the Iso-Torque measure up?? Is it really lighter, stronger, cheaper to manufacture, more durable, or make substantial improvements over Torsen? Who knows? You can look at the design compared to the Torsen and see a lot of similarities. Looks like two sets of outside gears have been removed and thrust plates installed. More questions than answers. We need more information. Information that seems to be held 'close to the vest'. The world needs more information, not just the few stockholders here who have a vested interest in seeing the company take off.
Your point on raising short term quick cash has validity.
What is the company doing right now?
Last checked, there are 3 employees (is this still right?).
So there might be salaries to cover..
Presumably the infamous Tahoe testing continues and has some cost associated with it....
Selling the technology to Chery and others doesn't necessarily carry a high cost ---> meetings, tele-conferences, and a travel budget should cover that...
which leaves the DARPA challenge. How much investment is going into this venture? It may be good for the company in the long run, in landing military contracts but how long will this take? Certainly if Torvec wins the DARPA, the $2 million prize money would be nice. No team won it last year.
But anyway, Dread is right, $150,000 is not very much operational money in the grand scheme of things.
Dread,
Did you see the article in Automotive News entitled "China needs off-road axles".
Part of it reads:
"China's fast-growing demand for off-road commercial vehicles is creating oppurtunities for axle suppliers. Two years ago,
Dana Corp. formed a joint venture with Dongfeng Motor Co. Ltd. to produce truck axles in China.
China is a key part of Dana's plan to generate 50% of its revenue outside N. America by 2007, up from 30% last year."
The article is a lead-in for Automotive New's China conference in Shanghai, theme "How to prosper in a Buyer's Market". www.autonews.com/china2005.
Are any of Torvec's BOD attending this event?
GotTraction? could not use qestion mark in alias name field.
Artguy, You are right, Ford hasn't always had a better idea. I've owned Fords, first two were beater Pintos; currently own a Windstar - on which, the tranny blew up at 28K miles. Luckily it was fully warranteed, but they rejected request to provide free rental car during the repair. From Ford's perspective, saving $0.50 here and .50 there adds up pretty quick when you're talking several million vehicles.
OK, I've been reading for a couple of weeks, and feel the need to post a few comments based on stuff written here....I'm not invested now, considering a position...my immediate problem is too many random comments, where to start...
All right, Chery (two r's or one?) the Bricklin connection is a wildcard, he has not had a great track record, not to say anyting wrong with continuing to try, was it Thomas Edison that said something to the effect of genius being 98% hard work - fail, fail, fail, and you will succeed one of those times. Sorry for butchering that quote.
Someone posted recently about 2007 MY SUV for distribution in US - hey, I'm sure you all realize the development cycle times for any vehicle manufacture; this is 2005, duh, Tier 1's have all been awarded business and are well into development right now for models being launched in '06 - '07. So keep smoking whatever you're smokin if you think an IVT or Iso Torque differential will show up on a 2007 vehicle.
Yes, NIV, not invented here syndrome is rampant in Detroit - and for pretty good reasons, all the manufacturers have solid engineering talent and development capabilities (don't kid yourselves thinking they don't - Dodge is definately not dumb). Naturally lots of pressure within organizations to develop their own technology and several side benefits as a result: no outside $$ spent for someone elses' technology, they can synergize heavily internally with other groups/ideas, possibly resulting in more oppurtunities for spinoffs due to high level of in house technology. Don't misinterpret, if a great idea comes along, for sure it presents an excellent oppurtunity for an OEM to make a huge leap to a new level - the hitch of course is no one wants to commit to spend the money to get it. Someone there has to make that decision to hang their hat on a new technology, the natural fear being if it doesn't pan out, they've submarined their career. And from the OE's persepective, its a pain in the ass to negotiate with a startup company, for something that may or may not be fully proven. Someone on the board recently had a good point, w.r.t. Daimler Chrysler, about working with an engineering group at an OE and up the food chain, only to reach a decision maker that nixes the whole deal, for whatever reason. Of course, that can be the reverse too, if you get the right high level person sold on your product, technology, it can fly.
Which brings the next point - question - what testing is being conducted on this Tahoe? Does anybody know? Which products (this may be somewhere on Torvec web site, maybe I missed it) Specifically, what tests? Performance testing, durability, comparison, developmental, ?? Is this the IVT or Iso Torque differential? I just checked the Resource Library on Torvec web site, do not see a white paper on Iso Torque. Does one exist?
One more open question - where does the key engineering talent reside in this company, now that the brainchild, V. Gleasman, has passed away? A whole bunch of patents are a really great thing, but someone has to be able to explain them, know them well enough to challenge their own assumptions, and be able to teach others (growth, growth, growth) so the technology can be applied.
Minor correction: I believe that the company that owns Torsen now is Toyoda not Toyota...
Enough rambling.
Off the rant.
PS - I am not short.