Replies to post #10749 on CurAegis Technologies Inc (fka CRGS)

[dread50above]

Well, welcome to the board, HeBe

Curious what brought you to post just now? Also, you've indicated you are an investor in tech stocks. Have you also invested in Torvec? Certainly not a requirement in order to post here. You may be bringing a new dimension to the discussion.

I guess it is safe to assume you work in the "world of transmissions".

"Ford and GM for instance would need to work on such a prototype for years..." I wonder if that isn't part of their problem? Not saying that these start to show up Nissan's in 2008 but isn't analysis paralysis part of Detroit's problem.

I also find it slightly humorous, gallows humor perhaps, that the likes of Aisin and Getrag have "large teams" and "sixty people" working on their IVT. I think that just validates the incredible gift Vernon Gleasman had for engineering.

So HeBe, by your calculator, the first IVT would roll off the production line about 10 years from now? I guess that seems slow to me but I'm definitely NOT in the "world of transmissions". There will be a Lunar Rover driving around that large orb in the sky by then. They have one shot to get it right. Probably no clause in that contract for "Warranty Repair". Granted, NASA has teams who will be working on this but that makes you wonder why it would take sooooo long for a company already in the automotive business to incorporate such a technology. Then again, this is where large companies do in fact move like dinosaurs while smaller companies can make quick decisions and turn on a dime.

[fiftycentman]

I agree with DREAD- The US manufacturers need to somehow change the Paradigm you describe - "A working prototype is a start, but only that. Ford and GM for instance would need to work on such a prototype for years even before it was considered ‘concept ready’ by them." In the 70's and more recently they were unable to get on board quickly with the smaller fuel efficient vehicles. The Japanese companies did a great job quickly implementing with quality products.

I can see the need to product testing and proving. No company wants to make a mistake and rush out a product before it has been proven like Pontiac did with it's air ride suspension. The proving timeline needs to be shortened. I think possibly TORVEC has been a little slow because it takes lots of cash to do the required testing. Jim mentioned that they are considering purchasing a Dynamometer to test the fuel efficiency in the bus project. It seems like an important tool like that should have been already there.

Do you think that the extended implementation timline you are projecting devalues the technology? Many have waited a long time for their investment in TORVEC to reach it's potential. Is there a threat that the long timeline will allow competitors to develop and implement different technologies that might be as good or better than those of TORVEC?

The tone at the annual meeting seemed to indicate to me that the time is close for a deal to be struck. I think OSK or SAIC both could implement the technologies quicker than FORD GM or even Toyota.

[Artguy]

So what? I'm sure many companies have put some manhours into inventing a better Torsen. How hard could it be? Not that many parts, been around for years, what's the problem with coming up with something better? Did Toyota change it, no. Did Nissan or ANY manufacturer redesign it as well as Torvec AND get a patent on their improvement, no.

Same deal with the CV joint. Why is it with all the resources of all the world's 'leading' manufacturers, the best they can do is 52 degrees and the tiny Trovec team comes out with TWO designs within a couple of years that are stronger, easier to makes and the last one works at 60 degrees deflection. Think about who could use cheaper, stronger CV that would give the most ground clearance. That invention is ready to go on any line RIGHT NOW.

Steer Drive, I.C.E., the FTV are icing on the cake for any company head that goes around his board of directors and transmission division, to work out a deal with Torvec. Is Eaton a big company? Yet with all their resources, even they would LOVE to swap their modified earthmover pump for a Torvec pump. IT would make their entire energy recovery design more efficient and more adaptable for vehicles smaller than a city bus.

Going into production is the big test? OK, who else is going to the moon? An Asian company, Getrag, Jatco? I guess they couldn't produce a workable design to match what tiny Torvec produced. They may not have even been considered as not advanced enough. Going into production. I wonder how close the school bus program is to moving forward. The state budget will have to be approved and funds dispersed this year. In fact funding is flowing right now. Is there pressure from the state to do the program? I think so since they are welding soot traps in school bus exhaust pipes now. Since NY and CA are racing to see who is greener. Since lots of state money is being spent on alternative energy right now. I think 55,000 school buses loaded with kids would have to be considered 'production'.

The problem is exactly what you say - 'seeking their OWN solution'. Which is why the world is flooded with electric clutches, paddle shifting, belts, pulleys, chains, bent axels, and other, BIG, complex, slightly better than what is already in use, designs. Build all the plants you want, it only takes one manufacturer or program to fundamentally change the playing field. I believe that company is Torvec and whoever they partner with or whoever buys their tech.

NASA's no time for hype selection of Torvec confirms the efficiency of their design. Even a casual review of their CV joint makes it obvious that they have something special. When you run your IVT for several years to EPA test specs, in several different vehicles with different engines and you have a design that does NOT require any redesign of engine bays or bodywork, THAT is production ready. It does NOT require special, exotic, manufacturing, it's been tested, AND the patents are rock solid. It is production ready. It's going to work on the harshest conditions mankind can find and it is ready to transport you kids more efficiently than anything any current transmission manufacturer can build. I'm sure they would argue differently, but they better hurry. Before they know it they might be passed by a NY school bus with a Torvec designed IVT. Koenigsegg is a whole nother story.

The conventional thinking is an interesting mental block. Conventional thinking is what led Ford to put a conventional CVT into their Ford 500 car. Too bad. If Ford wasn't thinking so conventionally, they might have tried harder to put a Torvec IVT into their car. Then they would have had a LOT more power to the wheels with Prius plus gains in fuel economy at exactly the right time for them. Instead they hedged their bets and took a baby step towards greener fuel savings. It flopped. No real difference in fuel savings and doggish performance. Now the entire company is on the brink of going down the tubes.

At the end of all this is the hardware. Doesn't matter how much money was spent on it or how many manhours were used to make it. How WELL does it work? Every test so far seems to confirm that the Gleasman family has the better idea, from Torsen to IVt to a simple joint that is stronger and yet bends more. The engineering isn't the issue, the problem is what is all this worth and who wants it more?

[zendo]

Much of my work career was spent at Xerox, the last 10 years or so working on their flagship production printer, the iGen3. When Jim stated at the annual meeting that all the technologies were production ready I must admit that it raised an eyebrow. At Xerox the first "production" units were part of what was referred to as the B-1 build. It was probably about 5 years after that that the program was officially turned over to manufacturing and the development people took up a supporting role. It should be remembered that the base model of this machine sold for around $500,000 and was much more complex than e.g. the isotorque. Bottom line: hebjb has a point when asking for a definition of "production ready".

Last spring/summer TOVC was a couple of months late in delivering the isos to Nissan because of manufacturing problems in Rochester. The iso is probably our most advanced product in terms of readiness and certainly much less complex than the IVT. I doubt that Nissan thinks they are production ready in the way that most people would understand the term. It would be nice to know what Nissan is doing with the units they currently have and if the order for additional units has been placed. That's a piece of info that might show up in the annual report along with the financials that would tell us how much money we got from NASA.

The city of Roch has been in the "final stages" of trying to sell a d*mn used boat for close to a year. Paetec went to market twice with an IPO and pulled back because they couldn't get a "good" deal prior to this week's merger. These things take time. Talk to people about a money making idea you have and they likely will gush all over the place. Then ask them how much of their money they are willing to throw in the pot. The atmosphere changes very quickly. The entire industry is in turmoil with very big money and careers on the line. We're looking good but it's still a high risk game.

[dread50above]

I read that Torvec is considered to be ‘production ready’. I would like to see a definition of this. -hebgb

Good Afternoon HeBe,
Morning here so I'm assuming it's afternoon where you are.
I spoke with the company this morning to get a better feel for Jim's use of "production ready". His response basically was that as a result of 50 years of experience in the industry, they have a very good feel for what it will take to bring each technology into high volume manufacturing. Every part has been designed with standard auto tolerances in mind, just as Artguy had stated. Nothing customized.

The other point HQ made is that regardless, in the structure of the deal they are planning, namely a stock swap, it isn't like shareholders will be waiting 5-10 years for payday based on commercialization.