Stingray Corvette Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
Pretty much seals the deal. Curious about what they are using to drive the compressor.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
18,670 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Pretty much seals the deal. Curious about what they are using to drive the compressor.
Hadn't thought of that issue before you raised it, but excellent question! Sure haven't any idea...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
Hadn't thought of that issue before you raised it, but excellent question! Sure haven't any idea...
Based in their drawing and the packaging we've seen so far, it would appear to be driven from the injection pump area. Next up is what about intercooler? See any patents on that design?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
18,670 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
According to Dedicated to America?s Sports Car - CorvetteOnline.com -- with thanks and credit to them regarding their middle/third picture above, here's what they reported:

"And it’s clearly a twin-rotor supercharged engine with the LSA/LS9 style pulley mounted high on the front, and intercooler plumbing also bearing a resemblance to previous heat exchanger setups. Our contact says this came from a “friend of a friend” inside GM’s prototype center, and that it’s a 6.2 liter engine. Don’t get too hung up on the fact it has a conventional engine-mounted transmission instead of a torque tube and transaxle – for testing purposes it’s a lot simpler to use a conventional transmission."

For their complete article, please see following link:

Breaking News: Is this the C7 ZR1?s Supercharged Powerplant? - CorvetteOnline.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
The layout they describe seems to be as odds with the sketch shown in the patent. I did catch what looks to be intercooler lines in the next sketch just to the right of the intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Something to keep in mind is the age of the patent. I doubt GM would have a fully tested and developed system before filing a patent. The patent will proceed the final development. Hence the vagueness of the patent.

Also if you read the full patent it will give more detail as to the drive system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,418 Posts
I have some patents myself. You intentionally write them as vaguely as the patent office will let you by with. The reason is that the more specific it is, the less breadth it covers, and thus the less powerful it is. Just as a random example, if it is vague about the number of cylinders, then it covers any number of cylinders. If you specifically say 8 cylinders, then it does not cover 4, 6 or 12 (or any other number of cylinders).

Also, you put as many claims in the initial filing as you can. For example, one claim may be for "one or more cylinders..." Another may be for "any even number of cylinders..." Another may be for 8. Then the patent office may strike some of the claims in the patent filing down, but let you have the other claims in there. You cast your net as widely as you can, and see what they will let stick. Sometimes you will be surprised at how generous they can be (I sometimes think it depends on how tired the patent reviewers are, or how much work they have piled up - they sometimes allow surprisingly vague claims).
 
  • Like
Reactions: elegant

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
I have some patents myself. You intentionally write them as vaguely as the patent office will let you by with. The reason is that the more specific it is, the less breadth it covers, and thus the less powerful it is. Just as a random example, if it is vague about the number of cylinders, then it covers any number of cylinders. If you specifically say 8 cylinders, then it does not cover 4, 6 or 12 (or any other number of cylinders).

Also, you put as many claims in the initial filing as you can. For example, one claim may be for "one or more cylinders..." Another may be for "any even number of cylinders..." Another may be for 8. Then the patent office may strike some of the claims in the patent filing down, but let you have the other claims in there. You cast your net as widely as you can, and see what they will let stick. Sometimes you will be surprised at how generous they can be (I sometimes think it depends on how tired the patent reviewers are, or how much work they have piled up - they sometimes allow surprisingly vague claims).
I agree with this as well. I've filed a few as well.

I guess my point was more along the lines of the fact that the vague patent was filed after the engine had been developed. I don't feel that GM would risk designing and building the system until they new they had some form of protection in place. So I don't see this patent applying to the Z06 or LT4.

I would view this patent as being put in place for something they would now be developing rather than already had. If they developed a system and then patented later, they run the risk of a leak and someone putting in the patent before they did.

Plus the leaked LT4 pics do show an upper supercharger pulley as well as a dual belt drive balancer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,418 Posts
I suppose it depends on the philosophy of the company, and the industry they are in. Since the USA has historically been a country recognizing "first-to-invent" instead of "first-to-file", we often waited until very late in the development cycle before we filed. One advantage to waiting is once you make something public, competitors can get a better idea about what your product roadmap is; waiting keeps them more in the dark. Also, the longer you wait, the more sure you can be that it really works and is worthwhile. Also, later in development you know more about what the truly critical areas are which must be protected. So some companies take the approach that it makes sense to only file shortly before public release of the product which uses it (you actually have one year from the date the invention appears in a product until the deadline to file or be forced to give up on your claim to the invention).

Given that it was filed in May 2012, I would guess that it is for the 2015 Z06. If that were us, we probably would have only filed a month or two ago if it were for the Z06; so from my perspective, this is either for the Z06, or it was for a product which has since been shelved.

On the other hand, I am in the electronics field where the industry changes so rapidly. Maybe the automobile industry operates on a longer development cycle. What field are you in, Crawler?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,656 Posts
The layout they describe seems to be as odds with the sketch shown in the patent. I did catch what looks to be intercooler lines in the next sketch just to the right of the intake.
Yes, the layout in the patent is not what is being used in the mockups. I personally don't think any of this seals the deal on a forced induction Z06. To me it looks like someone putting together a number of disjointed points of information and trying to draw a conclusion from it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
I suppose it depends on the philosophy of the company, and the industry they are in. Since the USA has historically been a country recognizing "first-to-invent" instead of "first-to-file", we often waited until very late in the development cycle before we filed. One advantage to waiting is once you make something public, competitors can get a better idea about what your product roadmap is; waiting keeps them more in the dark. Also, the longer you wait, the more sure you can be that it really works and is worthwhile. Also, later in development you know more about what the truly critical areas are which must be protected. So some companies take the approach that it makes sense to only file shortly before public release of the product which uses it (you actually have one year from the date the invention appears in a product until the deadline to file or be forced to give up on your claim to the invention).

Given that it was filed in May 2012, I would guess that it is for the 2015 Z06. If that were us, we probably would have only filed a month or two ago if it were for the Z06; so from my perspective, this is either for the Z06, or it was for a product which has since been shelved.

On the other hand, I am in the electronics field where the industry changes so rapidly. Maybe the automobile industry operates on a longer development cycle. What field are you in, Crawler?
All are very valid points.

One spot where I misread, I looked at the publish date and not the file date. So its a bit later in the development cycle than I originally thought.

I'm in the automotive field. Previously I had a fabrication and race shop and used to help develop turbochargers as well as direct and common rail injection systems. So quite often, the companies I worked with would file at time of conception in order to have the greatest market share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdslon01

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
739 Posts
ohhhh I hope so! the ZL1 and CTS V's small 1.9L eaton supercharger we've been able to wind out 700+ wheel HP! With this being DI, it's going to be an absolute monster platform... my hopes are that it's still backed up by a ZR1 styled forged rotating assembly :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Keep in mind it takes approx 3 yrs for patent to be granted. After it is filed it takes about a year to get published and another 2 yrs to get it granted.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Corvette Stingray Forum mobile app
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top