Crazy custom timing chain tensioner

[Guest iskone]

Hmmm very interesting stuff here. I want one. I just love to make the parts for my car harder to find, replace, repair, tune, live with, etc. I'm serious having a car that can be a real b!tch is half the fun, right?

 

I've got a question about comparing motocycle engines to L series engines. Now I don't want to get into the whole long and drawn out apples to oranges BS. I wonder if a chain/curved guide setup is more forgiving in a engine with FAR less rotaional mass. I'm thining that a Z has 4-5 times more weight to spin than a liter bike therefore putting more load on the chain.

 

Anyway what do you guys think?

 

The crank limits RPM in a Z to answer someones earlier question. You could however buy one of the special dampers from Electromotive, or was it Robello? In any case it cost some big bucks plus you'd have to have a motor that can handle high RPM in other areas such as valve train for starters .

[technicalninja]

The cam tower shims are used to correct cam retardation as the head gets thinner when its milled. As the cam centerline drops toward the crank it retards timing; the shims bring it back up to proper specs. The shims are not built to decrease chain slop although they can help with it anyway. In many cases retarding cam timing is the way to go as it moves the torque peak up in the RPM range which can make better power (especially in small displacement engines like the Z).

I also believe the gear set up will provide better control of the chain at high speed but it will require periodic adjustment and if it is out of adjustment it will either create great wear on timing componets (to tight) or allow more slop than the stock chain set up (to loose). I would be suprised if this piece would increase horsepower in a measurable amount and the other limitations of the L-series perclude the use of the engine at speeds which the stock timing chain parts can withstand. The timing set up has not been the limiting factor on L-series engines.

Its neat looking but cost $$$, won't help power much, creates more places for oil leaks, and increases maintenance.

Not for me. If I was going to this amount of trouble for ultra hi rpm use I would be using a different engine family which has a 4 valve cross flow head like the RB series motors.

[HS30-H]

In the world of structures, NOTHING is "fixed". Metal stretches, parts deform. The higher the rpm, the greater tension in this tensioner is going to be required with this setup to keep that chain from whipping all over the place. Greater tension = greater friction and greater wear.

 

Dan,

Whilst I obviously respect your engineering knowledge, I still have to ask you if you really understand how this thing works? You keep writing about "greater tension" and "that chain whipping all over the place" when the Kameari tensioner doesn't necessarily use greater static chain tension ( the user can choose how much static tension to put into the chain ), and - as I wrote before - the chain literally cannot whip as there is no real slack in it. The major forces acting on the chain are those of the crank driving the cam gear against the valve train, and I wouldn't like to imagine how those forces get multiplied and/or reversed as the chain 'whips' with the stock tensioning arrangement. But then I'm not an engineer by profession.

 

You have not addressed my question about "twang" and the "GEEtahr" string effect. Does this mean you now understand something about the Kameari tensioner that you did not understand before? I hope so.

 

If this were such a great idea, you'd see similar arrangements on superbike engines.

 

Now Dan, you know the Nissan L-series six was designed in 1964, and incorporated basic design features that were not exactly newfangled even back then. It was also never designed to cope with the stresses of the kind that come with race level tuning, so comparing this 1960s low-stress sedan engine to low-inertia multivalve DOHC superbike engines intended to operate at high rpms really is comparing turnips to dragon fruit.

 

Can I point out a slightly more relevant engine design for comparison? One that that is 'in period' and 'in family' to boot. It's the Nissan S20 twin cam engine. Have you ever seen the chain tensioning system on an S20? You'd probably be very happy to see a couple of short rubber-faced chain guides on it, but it also had a pair of jockey wheels - one of which was adjustable for tension with the engine in situ. In fact, adjusting and maintaining correct chain tension was part of the routine maintenance of the engine. There was very little chance of chain whip in the S20. I think it is an interesting engine to use as a comparison. You can see some of the thinking behind the Kameari design in there.

 

Naturally Kameari have tried to create a component that does the job that they want it to do, but nobody is pretending that this is a complete blank page re-design of the L-series cam drive arrangement. Effectively, anything they can get to work on there is going to be a compromise of some sort. But I think that the way they have done it is very clever ( I have never seen or heard anybody enquire as to what the original function or purpose of the casting over which the 'inspection cover' on the front of the L-series heads is sited ) and I take my hat off to them.

 

I'm sure this company means well' date=' but I'd put my money on Kawasaki's and Yamaha's engineering and development over Kameari's when it comes to designing a camchain layout that maximizes output and revs and valve control and minimizes losses.[/quote']

 

There you go again, comparing turnips with dragon fruit. Saying that they "mean well" seems to imply that they are fools who do not know what they are doing. I hope that is not what you are implying.

How you think a small company like Kameari ( and I mean small ) trying to improve something - all the while knowing that they are effectively just putting a Band Aid on their turnip.... - can be compared with a major manufacturer having the benefit of starting from scratch is beyond me. There just is no point in the comparison.

 

I think it is a pity that this component is being talked about the way it is. Look at the title of this thread for example. No disrespect to dfn_doe intended, but describing it as "Crazy" kind of gets things off on the wrong foot to my mind. Kameari are a low-profile company ( they don't even have their own website ) and don't needlessly 'big-up' their products in Japan let alone anywhere else. They don't come across as bigheaded egomaniacs when you meet them, and I'm sure that they would prefer to explain this product to a prospective customer on a one-to-one basis with the thing on the table and/or on an engine in front of them, rather than having me voluntarily defending it on here.

 

Its neat looking but cost $$$, won't help power much, creates more places for oil leaks, and increases maintenance.

 

More place for oil leaks? Where from? I don't understand this comment. Increases maintenance? You have some personal experience of this component, then? Adjustment is a five minute job with the engine in situ, and I would expect Kameari intend the tensioner to be used mainly by the kind of people that either race, or run their engines hard enough to require careful regular maintenance rather than a 100,000 mile fit-and-forgetter. They have never - I believe I am correct in stating this - claimed that it 'increases power' per-se. That is not its intended function.

 

Neat looking? Personally I don't think it is. I would prefer it to be completely hidden, and in fact I know somebody who has hidden his. He doesn't have to explain it to anybody, which would appear to be a benefit worth investigating further....

 

Costs $$$? It is made in Japan, and in small batches. The components are expensive to manufacture in small quantities, and are of good quality. Something like this is never going to be 'cheap', and is never going to be popular. I believe Kameari understood that when they designed and manufactured it.

 

Alan T.

[HS30-H]

Alan' date='

Can you still get these from Japan? If you prefer to discuss this offline pm me or send me an email.

Thanks,[/quote']

 

Sorry Ruben ( and everyone else who has asked me),

I don't want to get involved in acting as a middleman for purchases between three continents again. I still import their goods to the UK from time to time, but sending it on to the USA makes no sense.

 

I stand to gain nothing in return for a lot of work, a financial risk and what little good reputation I might have being put on the line.

 

Hope you understand.

 

Alan T.

 

PS - I recommend that you investigate buying through a Kameari re-seller in Japan such as PIT ROAD:

http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~kyuusya/index-3.htm

[JMortensen]

The cam tower shims are used to correct cam retardation as the head gets thinner when its milled. As the cam centerline drops toward the crank it retards timing; the shims bring it back up to proper specs. The shims are not built to decrease chain slop although they can help with it anyway. In many cases retarding cam timing is the way to go as it moves the torque peak up in the RPM range which can make better power (especially in small displacement engines like the Z).

Ninja, it's apparent that you haven't experienced the chain guide being eaten firsthand. If you just mill a head say .050 and slap it back on and adjust the cam timing with an adjustable gear in short order, say 5000 miles you'll hear the timing chain chewing through the bottom of the curved guide. Shimming the cam towers is pretty essential to making the chain run tightly on the curved guide. Another trick for really shaved heads is to run the Z22 slack side guide. The Z22 left side guide is curved and takes up some more of that slack. Again, this modification is done to make the tight side run tight enough to not eat the curved guide.

 

There is a spec for the tensioner "extension", I off the top of my head I think it is 1mm of extension from it's housing. Any more than that and you will have problems with chain slop and that slop will chew away at the guide. I've seen it more than once up close in person, and I know it's been discussed here too.

 

Alan, when the tensioner was described as "crazy" I think you took it the wrong way. I think they meant that it is crazy in a good way.

 

Also, Dan is right about tensioned parts still being able to twang. Take the guitar string example. Lots of tension, but you can still twang it. The more tension, the higher the frequency of the twang, but you can still twang it. Some of this will still happen with the Kameari setup IMO, but I just don't feel that a bit of twang between the idlers compares to the stock setup which has all kinds of slack between the cam and crank gears. The big difference that I'm seeing between the motorcycle and the L series tensioner is that the motorcycle unit pushes the WHOLE guide into the chain, where the L series uses the little foot just above the crank gear. I think this might be a pretty big difference, especially as Alan mentioned earlier when going from accelleration to decelleration, because the slack would suddenly go from one end of the chain guide to the other, and the L series has no tensioner up top. That's my guess anyway.

 

Another guess is that the reason the guide gets worn on a shaved head is because the foot can't handle the extra mass of the chain that is now bunched up at the tensioner on a shaved head, and becomes too weak to do it's job. Either way, the L setup is definitely not weak (if you don't ask too much of it it works fine for a very long time), but definitely not the be all end all of accurate timing IMO.

[Guest dfn_doe]

I think this might be a pretty big difference, especially as Alan mentioned earlier when going from accelleration to decelleration, because the slack would suddenly go from one end of the chain guide to the other

 

I don't think that makes any sense. No matter whether you are accelrating or decelrating, the crank always drive the cam. The tight side will always be in tension and the slack side will always have slack. Myabe I'm misunderstanding your statement....

 

As for me calling it "crazy" I meant crazy as in something unusual and didn't really mean to assign a good or bad judgment on the part. I hadn't ever seen a tensioner like this for an L-series and I got directed over here from my normal group (Bluebirds Mailing List) because a guy over there heard that someone over here had one on his ride.

 

With regards to the stock setup failing, under most normal circumstances the stock setup will suffice. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. The original site that I saw the pictures of the tensioner on, the car that was using it had a very high spinning big displacement L motor with super exotic ITR EFI and programmable ignition etc... The owner also has pictures on his site of the fragged stock timing chain tensioner which grenaded his motor and snapped his custom forged crank. I don't know about how thick any of your guys wallets are, but a 500~USD part that adds an additional margin of protection for a multithousand dollar tempermental engine sounds like money well spent.

[JMortensen]

If you're decelerating the pistons aren't driving the crank. The crank is driven by the wheels through the diff, transmission, clutch, etc (some newer FI systems actually shut the fuel off during decel) and the chain is no longer driven by the acceleration forces on the crank. Instead of powering the car, the crank is now decellerating the car, and this causes the slack side to go tight and the tight side to go loose, because the cam just follows the crank and it doesn't care which side of the cam gear does the pulling. That's a pretty piss poor explanation, but I hope you get the idea.

 

When the Mitsu Eclipses first came out I worked for a Jeep/Eagle dealer. We had at least 2 Talons a week come in with all the valves bent. Every one was the same. The owner had accelerated with their foot to the floor to redline, then let off and decelerated. The timing belt in that case would then jump 2 or three teeth and the valves and pistons hit, etc. Eventually that problem was taken care of, but I was a Jeep guy so I don't recall what the fix was. I would assume it had to do with the tensioner or possibly the routing of the belt.

 

EDIT--I'm a dumbass. I've been calling the slack side the tight side and vice versa. Dumbass In thinking this through it suddenly occured to me that the the left side is the tight side.

[Guest dfn_doe]

If you're decelerating the pistons aren't driving the crank. The crank is driven by the wheels through the diff' date=' transmission, clutch, etc (some newer FI systems actually shut the fuel off during decel) and the chain is no longer driven by the acceleration forces on the crank. Instead of powering the car, the crank is now decellerating the car, and this causes the slack side to go tight and the tight side to go loose, because the cam just follows the crank and it doesn't care which side of the cam gear does the pulling. That's a pretty piss poor explanation, but I hope you get the idea.

 

When the Mitsu Eclipses first came out I worked for a Jeep/Eagle dealer. We had at least 2 Talons a week come in with all the valves bent. Every one was the same. The owner had accelerated with their foot to the floor to redline, then let off and decelerated. The timing belt in that case would then jump 2 or three teeth and the valves and pistons hit, etc. Eventually that problem was taken care of, but I was a Jeep guy so I don't recall what the fix was. I would assume it had to do with the tensioner or possibly the routing of the belt.[/quote']

 

You could explain it like that all day and it still doesn't make sense. it doesn't matter if the crank is being driven by the pistons or by the drive wheels via the transmission. It is always spinning in the same direction and it is always pulling tension on the tight side of the chain to drive the camshaft. Chain tension only swaps sides if the output side and input side have their roles reversed. In order for the situation that you are explaining to happen the transmission would need to be driven off the camshaft!

[JMortensen]

It is always spinning in the same direction and it is always pulling tension on the tight side of the chain to drive the camshaft.

I'll give it one more shot then I'll see if someone else can come up with some better wording. WHY is there always tension on the tight side of the chain? Because the pistons are driving the crank which rotates the chain. When the pistons AREN'T driving the crank, then the tension isn't there anymore.

 

Think about a rope and a pulley, you're holding one end, and on the other end of the rope on the other side of the pulley is a 50 lb weight. So as you pull on the rope, the side where you're pulling gets tight until the weight comes off the ground. Now imagine you yank down on the rope as hard as you can for 2 feet, then stop. The tension increases until the weight starts moving, then the weight starts climbing rapidly. When you stop pulling, the weight doesn't stop immediately. It has it's own inertia now and it will continue to raise up until that inertia is gone. The rope will actually get loose in your hand for a second before the weight falls back down. That is basically what happens to the chain going over the cam gear as you accelerate and decelerate. The Kameari system seems like it would have much more control at that time.

[Dan Baldwin]

Dan' date='

Whilst I obviously respect your engineering knowledge, I still have to ask you if you [i']really[/i] understand how this thing works?

Of course I understand how it works. I also understand why some might think it's a better solution. And I understand why it's NOT a better solution. There is a long length of chain on the "slack" side that is unsupported between the tensioning pulleys. The ONLY thing to control it is chain TENSION, and a lot of it. I believe having the chain follow the curved guide under lower tension is a better solution.

You keep writing about "greater tension" and "that chain whipping all over the place" when the Kameari tensioner doesn't necessarily use greater static chain tension ( the user can choose how much static tension to put into the chain ), and - as I wrote before - the chain literally cannot whip as there is no real slack in it.

There are very BIG inertial forces acting on the chain. It is heavy, and it is MOVING, and being asked to follow a very, er, "interesting" path. The chain STRETCHES. Particularly at high rpm, when the valvetrain load is greatest. The stretch induced by valvetrain load equates to reduced tension on the slack side. I.e., more tension required. And no matter HOW much tension you put in it, it will move around. Having a long unsupported length of chain means one of two things: Big pretensioning load, or uncontrolled chain motion.

You have not addressed my question about "twang" and the "GEEtahr" string effect. Does this mean you now understand something about the Kameari tensioner that you did not understand before? I hope so.

Dude, a length of chain, which has considerable MASS, and zero bending stiffness (in one direction anyway, and one is all that's needed), under tension, with absolutely NOTHING preventing even first-mode oscillation *IS* (figuratively) a twanging geetahr string!

Lesse, if you constrain it on both sides halfway between the two tensioning sprockets, you can either cut the chain tension or increase the rpm. Constrain it again at 1/4 and 3/4 length, and again you can reduce tension and/or increase rpm. Continue ad infinitum and you end up with with zero tension and with physical lateral support (i.e., a GUIDE) for the chain all along the slack side. Make a big inside curve out of it and you actually make the centrifugal acceleration of the chain reduce the drag against the guide. Voila, now you have a single big curved guide and next to no tension required on the slack side. And that's what you find on ANY well-developed high performance engine that uses a cam chain.

comparing this 1960s low-stress sedan engine to low-inertia multivalve DOHC superbike engines intended to operate at high rpms really is comparing turnips to dragon fruit.

What we're considering are ways to control the cam chain at high rpm operation. Same issues in a superbike engine and in the L6. I'm just pointing out that a curved guide on the slack side is a workable and efficient solution that is utilized in high-rpm high-performance applications. And tensioning sprockets with NO guides and straight-line chain paths is NOT a solution that's utilized in the most demanding modern applications.

How you think a small company like Kameari ( and I mean small ) trying to improve something - all the while knowing that they are effectively just putting a Band Aid on their turnip.... - can be compared with a major manufacturer having the benefit of starting from scratch is beyond me. There just is no point in the comparison.

I think the more pertinent question is why you'd be so eager to believe they've come up with something novel and inherently better despite not having the resources to develop and test it.

 

Whether or not the company's big or small is not pertinent to whether or not the design is a good one or a bad one. BUT, if I have fundamental problems with a design idea, if it came from Yamaha or Kawasaki or Nissan i'd at LEAST have some reassurance that an army of engineers developed and analyzed it and that an army of technicians tested it. In this case there are no such reassurances. Therefore I feel it to be my duty to speak up about my misgivings.

I think it is a pity that this component is being talked about the way it is. Look at the title of this thread for example. No disrespect to dfn_doe intended, but describing it as "Crazy" kind of gets things off on the wrong foot to my mind. Kameari are a low-profile company ( they don't even have their own website ) and don't needlessly 'big-up' their products in Japan let alone anywhere else. They don't come across as bigheaded egomaniacs when you meet them, and I'm sure that they would prefer to explain this product to a prospective customer on a one-to-one basis with the thing on the table and/or on an engine in front of them, rather than having me voluntarily defending it on here.

Look, it's human nature to root for the little guy. I LOVE to see valid technical advancements come from the little guy. But the actual usage conditions aren't going to take it easy on this component just because it was developed by a small company rather than a huge company. The design has to stand up on its own merits regardless of where it came from.

[Guest dfn_doe]

I'll give it one more shot then I'll see if someone else can come up with some better wording. WHY is there always tension on the tight side of the chain? Because the pistons are driving the crank which rotates the chain. When the pistons AREN'T driving the crank' date=' then the tension isn't there anymore.

 

Think about a rope and a pulley, you're holding one end, and on the other end of the rope on the other side of the pulley is a 50 lb weight. So as you pull on the rope, the side where you're pulling gets tight until the weight comes off the ground. Now imagine you yank down on the rope as hard as you can for 2 feet, then stop. The tension increases until the weight starts moving, then the weight starts climbing rapidly. When you stop pulling, the weight doesn't stop immediately. It has it's own inertia now and it will continue to raise up until that inertia is gone. The rope will actually get loose in your hand for a second before the weight falls back down. That is basically what happens to the chain going over the cam gear as you accelerate and decelerate. The Kameari system seems like it would have much more control at that time.[/quote']

 

That makes a little more sense, I thought when you said accelration/deceleration you were refering to the whole drivetrain. Not Just the engine. And that you were implying that the engine being loaded from the transmission versus the piston was making the difference. I can know see where the miscommunication entered our discussion

Except your explaination is saying that there is enough intertia in the valvetrain that it will spin faster than the crank on rapid engine deceleration. I don't know that this is the case, but don't really have anything to support that either way. But it seems like the cam overcoming the reciprocating load of the valves and springs would cause enough drag to prevent the cam from outpacing the crank....

Anyone have any insight to clear this one up?

[JMortensen]

What about the Talon example? That's a pretty clear case.

[Guest dfn_doe]

Of course I understand how it works. I also understand why some might think it's a better solution. And I understand why it's NOT a better solution. There is a long length of chain on the "slack" side that is unsupported between the tensioning pulleys. The ONLY thing to control it is chain TENSION' date=' and a lot of it. I believe having the chain follow the curved guide under lower tension is a better solution.

 

There are very BIG inertial forces acting on the chain. It is heavy, and it is MOVING, and being asked to follow a very, er, "interesting" path. The chain STRETCHES. Particularly at high rpm, when the valvetrain load is greatest. The stretch induced by valvetrain load equates to reduced tension on the slack side. I.e., more tension required. And no matter HOW much tension you put in it, it will move around. Having a long unsupported length of chain means one of two things: Big pretensioning load, or uncontrolled chain motion.

 

Dude, a length of chain, which has considerable MASS, and zero bending stiffness (in one direction anyway, and one is all that's needed), under tension, with absolutely NOTHING preventing even first-mode oscillation *IS* (figuratively) a twanging geetahr string!

Lesse, if you constrain it on both sides halfway between the two tensioning sprockets, you can either cut the chain tension or increase the rpm. Constrain it again at 1/4 and 3/4 length, and again you can reduce tension and/or increase rpm. Continue ad infinitum and you end up with with zero tension and with physical lateral support (i.e., a GUIDE) for the chain all along the slack side. Make a big inside curve out of it and you actually make the centrifugal acceleration of the chain reduce the drag against the guide. Voila, now you have a single big curved guide and next to no tension required on the slack side. And that's what you find on ANY well-developed high performance engine that uses a cam chain.

 

What we're considering are ways to control the cam chain at high rpm operation. Same issues in a superbike engine and in the L6. I'm just pointing out that a curved guide on the slack side is a workable and efficient solution that is utilized in high-rpm high-performance applications. And tensioning sprockets with NO guides and straight-line chain paths is NOT a solution that's utilized in the most demanding modern applications.

 

I think the more pertinent question is why you'd be so eager to believe they've come up with something novel and inherently better despite not having the resources to develop and test it.

 

Whether or not the company's big or small is not pertinent to whether or not the design is a good one or a bad one. BUT, if I have fundamental problems with a design idea, if it came from Yamaha or Kawasaki or Nissan i'd at LEAST have some reassurance that an army of engineers developed and analyzed it and that an army of technicians tested it. In this case there are no such reassurances. Therefore I feel it to be my duty to speak up about my misgivings.

 

Look, it's human nature to root for the little guy. I LOVE to see valid technical advancements come from the little guy. But the actual usage conditions aren't going to take it easy on this component just because it was developed by a small company rather than a huge company. The design has to stand up on its own merits regardless of where it came from.[/quote']

 

 

This is a good and informative post! Lots of information to parse. But, I think you are neglecting the fact that the Kameari twin idler setup appears to retain the curved slack side guide of the original setup. I couldn't find a picture of the whole system installed with the timing chain cover off. But here's one with the upper idler installed along with the stock curved guide and the OEM oil-pressure driven tensioner block still inplace (w/o the actual piston and tensioner in it though)

 

 

The translation I'm reading of the source page is pretty hard to get any detail from, but I'm pretty sure he's saying that the lower idler bolts on inplace of the original tensioner and block and that the curved guide stays in place between the two idlers. The chain path between the two idler gears looks rather straight and from what you were aying about increased slack from chain stretch at high RPM appears that it would allow the chain to go slack and be thrown towards and deflected from the curved guide...

 

This is all academic as far as I'm concerned as I sure ain't spending the money on getting one of these setups imported And just for the record I think it's a neat piece of kit, but I'm not 100% convinced of it's benefits nor am I trying to claim that it's the coolest thing since sliced bread...

[Guest dfn_doe]

What about the Talon example? That's a pretty clear case.

 

The only thing clear is the symptom. I don't know anything about the cause...

//not being argumentative, just trying to be objective...

[Ruben]

Alan,

 

I do understand and thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

[JMortensen]

The only thing clear is the symptom. I don't know anything about the cause...

//not being argumentative' date=' just trying to be objective...[/quote']

Well I guess I can't provide any "proof" then but there wasn't any doubt as to why it happened at the dealership back in 92 or 93.

[HS30-H]

.... But, I think you are neglecting the fact that the Kameari twin idler setup appears to retain the curved slack side guide of the original setup. I couldn't find a picture of the whole system installed with the timing chain cover off. But here's one with the upper idler installed along with the stock curved guide and the OEM oil-pressure driven tensioner block still inplace (w/o the actual piston and tensioner in it though)

 

No, this is not the case. You posted a picture that does not illustrate the full componentry of the Kameari tensioner. This is misleading. The picture captions tell you what is going on, but your translation software won't be able to do the Japanese explanation justice.

 

I'll dig out some pics of the whole system as it should be installed, and post links to them here later.

[Forrest]

I think the more pertinent question is why you'd be so eager to believe they've come up with something novel and inherently better despite not having the resources to develop and test it.

 

They obviously developed it - why do you assume they didn't test it? To my understanding they developed it for their own use, and tested and ran it in races on their own cars. Turns out it works pretty well. I feel very fortunate they decided to manufacture a few for end-users.

[HS30-H]

I think the more pertinent question is why you'd be so eager to believe they've come up with something novel and inherently better despite not having the resources to develop and test it.

 

I find that an extraordinarily condescending comment to make. I have definitely changed my opinion of you as a person because of it.

 

What do you know about their development and testing processes?

 

Two years ago I sat in front of the designer while he explained the theory behind and the development process to me. I have seen and heard it in use on cars in Japan, inspected it with my own eyes, fitted one to an engine myself and used it with what appeared to be good results ( but then, what do I know? ).

 

I have also supplied one that was fitted to a race car here in the UK over a year ago, and that car is winning races. The driver and the engineer both report favourably on it.

 

It is a great pity that a relative fool such as myself chose to defend the Kameari product. There is no doubt that I can't do it the justice of a fair defence.

 

 

 

 

 

I have put some photos up on a website for reference purposes. Hopefully these will show more detail than has previously been seen. I have included scans of the instructions that come with the kit, which will also I believe help to illustrate further detail.

 

http://at.fotopic.net/c583112.html

[Dan Baldwin]

ZERO evidence has been shown of ANY benefits from using this setup. If there is any, present it. All else IS hype.

 

As for being condescending, I don't mean it that way. But in the immortal words of Randy Newman, "I'm not saying I'm better than you. But maybe I AM."

 

Ok, ok, now I AM being a jerk...

 

Please believe that all the dick-headed things I say and the asinine way I present them are actually intended in the MOST light-hearted way!