Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About SilverHorseRacing

  • Rank
    Team Shelby New Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Region
    South Atlantic
  • Interests
    SCCA Road Racing
  1. A little late to respond (we've been busy lately and I only see these posts if I go searching the forum for them) but you've "pulled" the wrong connector. The connector you want is all the way to the left, right before you're back into the dash, and is released by the tab on the left side, then pushed towards the firewall from the seated position. This will yield you the right connector, it is approximately 2" long x 1/4" in width. ALL 05-14 Mustangs regardless of trim level use the same connector, with color codes only being different between the 05-09, and the 10-14 model. HTH. - On edit - somehow managed to reply to the wrong thread even though it is about the start button. Sorry for the double-post / bump.
  2. Their 18 page PDF primer is a good read. Very well written in very clear, easy to understand terminology.
  3. I do not know, but I am friends with the owner of Billet Technology, they are well known in the Dodge market. They are a couple hours south of us, and we have a good relationship with one another, actually promoting one-another's websites and products to our customers that "jump ship" for the other brand. They were aware we were producing this as well going back to 5/2012 and were cool with it. We are still friends, and we still talk with one another regularly. Amazing how that can happen! BTW - if you read the page about their separator, the company they are referring to most is another "known" name in the Mustang world that does not play well with others, and has been sued successfully in the past for such transgressions.
  4. Submitted without comment - single-point threading the head (cap) side of a SA oil separator filmed in real time using a Flip HD camera. filmed 8/19/13 Machine: Doosan 220LM Mill-turn Spindle: 2" thru-bore capacity Chuck: Samchully 7" Thread size: 1 3/4"-12 We actually filmed the entire process, but would like to edit down some of the repetitive routines and basically "clean it up" a bit before posting the complete video.
  5. I was wondering if anyone got the little double entendre on that Thanks... And as stated earlier, we're happy to have the discussion anywhere other than JLT's own company's FB page. However, that said, when we tried to do so over at TMS, Tucker got the thread locked with his behavior in just 8 posts, a harbinger of things to come if we started replying all over the web. It has continued here mostly because it has not been locked even with his name-calling and personal attacks. The "idiot" he banned from his company's FB account that he thinks knows nothing is actually another business owner who is also a moderator at TMS and has been for years....and he's not the one who locked the thread. So, rather than get a bunch of threads locked all over the web since Tucker's posts tend to violate TOS, we're just watching him treat everyone who disagrees with him with the level of respect he feels they deserve. As to other separators on the market - personally I am okay with anyone shopping on price, quality, and features. There are many brands out there, some better than others, and we've never disparaged any of them, even those from some of our direct competitors. It's a product that has been around for a long time, and will be for a long time to come. We make just a few of the many that are available.
  6. No, actually that one was done specifically for Jay in a moment of bad judgment as we knew at Mustang Week there would be some fluff about it whether we had brought normal production pieces or if we had brought nothing at all since this blew up months prior to MW. So instead, we brought him this, which he was happy to buy thru his straw purchase. Again, bad poke at the bear on our part, but everyone makes mistakes, and we have admitted that previously. Again though, it's of no consequence. Our pieces we produce for SA and our own are different, and have been from day one prior to all this, which he has freely admitted. Instead of embracing the differences and explaining why he feels his is better, he is still upset that he has someone else to compete with besides the other 10 or so in the market already. Every attempt to discuss this rationally has been met with personal attacks ("clown, crook, crazy, BS, corrupt, fool") and that's just in one single post. It's sad though how we can coexist with other companies that we have competitive products to (and even produce products for one another), yet he has made this his personal mission in life to attack us every time he gets bored. After 37 pages of this though, it has gotten quite old. I'll leave the rest to Jay, as I feel he has a lot more to say, and to be honest, somewhere in the length of this thread, I think we've about covered every aspect of the production and function of the product, which is really what we first entered the thread to do. I think how he has handled himself towards us and customers that are not even involved speaks for itself and will continue to for some time to come. On edit - I just re-read this entire train wreck since I'm trying to avoid real work at the moment in the shop on a Saturday, and I think posts 510-584 really covered the meat of the discussion. Everything else is pretty much water over the bridge. It's where we entered the discussion just responding factually to the questions at hand. We're working on a video for our site that we'll be releasing soon, showing exactly what was discussed in post 510. Now back to work... http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php/topic/76728-shelby-oil-separator/?p=1439613
  7. That post late on a Friday was so "full of awesome" I just have no idea where to begin... Really though, a bunch of name-calling like that is what got the thread at TMS locked in only 8 posts, hence why we can't go chasing you all over the Internet putting out your little fires, as much as you would enjoy that. Are you just craving some attention, or trying to do our advertising for us (and everyone else in this market) at the same time ?? Heck, even some people not involved on your company FB page have posted alternatives to your product because of your behavior. I'm surprised you have not banned them too. Our product works, and works well, although I'm sure we would just be accused of pouring oil into it for effect since we don't just sit on video pouring liquid oil into a system designed to trap mist... Last weekend we logged 2200 miles, and had to empty our unit twice - once after the shows, and once when we returned, both times with about an ounce of oil trapped. We could have done it only once upon return, but for maximum effectiveness, more often within reason is better. I won't bore you with the airflow details as to why, since you don't believe it is possible anyway. But since you rely on the statements from your "machine shop" to tell you things and then just run to repost them on the 'net only to find that a 1 3/4"-12 thread is not all that "proprietary" in the real world, I'll leave you with this - maybe you should go call McMaster Carr and let them know what you think of them "stealing" your machine shop's thread design... this will thread on your can just fine. http://www.mcmaster.com/#94895a868/=o3f9ey Have a nice weekend Reason for edit - fixed link...
  8. It's "proprietary" and unique until we make public we use a 1 3/4-12 pitch for SA and SHR, then it is "almost proprietary". A coarser thread requires a different thread insert from what we use on other jobs, but no worries... if your machine shop tells you it is special, and you believe them, then by all means have fun with that. We however are the "machine shop" so I can tell you we can run any thread we choose to, as everything we do on the separators is "single point" threaded both on the ID and OD, as well as the fittings. (Just as an aside, tool inserts normally have a range of threads they will produce, like from 20-28, 11-16, etc...) Then it's the same shape until its not. The 90 degree flow heads to eliminate the plastic elbows you used are also just "copies" of a design you don't even produce?? Then it's the same airflow design until its not. Then you drip liquid oil into a system not designed to capture liquid oil and claim failure where there is not since we do not design to capture liquid oil, and honestly you should not either. Then it's the same filter until its not (our design does not even use one)...then only your filter design is "acceptable" even though it is a part straight out of the Dorman / Ford catalog originally meant for the pushrod 5.0. See a pattern? It seems strange that every time there is something "proprietary" that has been supposedly copied it is disproven, then it is not so special and there is backpedaling to the next point brought up. You take our lack of participation as a sign of weakness, when in reality there is just nothing of value to add to the discussion, and since I'm not really into making personal attacks in public, the discussion is obviously pretty one-sided. We even recently took an attack on your company's FB page for "copying" pulleys among other things... of course when the simple fact came up that we were producing products to the prints of a major brand, well that just couldn't be the case. The pulleys we make for our own customers - designed in 2006, and have the drawings to prove it as well as dated photos of the original pieces, but no matter...we still must have copied whoever made the original idler pulley for a serpentine belt according to your "machine shop" as if a round disc with a bearing hole in the center is a new and unique idea... we were also called out for having no original ideas even though we hold two US patents and have more on the way, but we are the "big bad guy who can afford it" even though our company is smaller than yours! Strange... When however your company was asked about the similarity between your product and a patented product of another company that has been around for almost 15 years longer than yours, suddenly it became an argument of "well if he had a case he'd have sued us" (discounting that maybe the owner of the patent simply did not want another patent fight after the one they had with another company) up until the point when you banned the person (not us) who brought it up and deleted all their posts along with the US Patent # in question. Let me just say this... for the most part we just have taken a lot of this because its really not worth getting worked up over - it's a single product in a relatively large product catalog, one of many that we make for SA. You however are single-handedly making everyone aware not only of your ability to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you who is not even party to the dispute, but also that there are many alternatives to your product available, ours and SA's being just one of many even though we do not even have ours on our website for sale at this time. You also have shown that you really don't have that good of a handle on your product's design, other than what you are told by the shop that actually produces it for you, yet you claim you designed it, yet another story that seems to be unraveling the further we read.
  9. Sorry to disappoint, but no, not again. We just saw that we're getting trashed by Jay at JLT all over the place after MW, and it was getting old so we responded at TMS then saw the newest video made its way over here so we just did a copy-paste of our response, which I think we'll continue to do as needed where we feel appropriate. We watched people get banned from JLT's FB page that didn't agree with him and brought up counterpoints including some of JLT's own indiscretions (patent infringements, etc.), but that of course is not in his agenda to talk about so they were berated, kicked around, and then banned. We already said what we felt was needed here prior to this latest flare up, so other than this we have nothing to add. It's just a lot of drama and dirty laundry that has been building up for some time all coming out at once even though it shouldn't instead of being handled privately as it should have been before it ever had the chance to get started. Jay was told personally by me this was in play long ago before any piece was made for anyone (something he does not deny as true), yet instead of voicing concerns at that time, for whatever reason he just blew it off in passing conversation saying he did not care "as long as it doesn't look just like mine", which it does not, nor does it function like his either. Now he is claiming to be the victim, when the reality is indeed much different.
  10. As Jay has decided to now make a run of all the forums in his free time, I have posted a straightforward and non-insulting response over at TMS. It encapsulates most of 30 pages here with one exception - the reason Jay has his new toy to make videos about...I'll repost that portion here to save everyone the trip. Of course, when called out on FB over patent infringement and other issues by someone unrelated to either company, Jay's response was to berate the person asking about it, then ban them from his FB page, deleting the posts, but leaving his responses - strange...I was equally slammed for "never having designed anything" by a representative of his manufacturer, and not knowing the first thing about programming a machine tool, even though as an equally small-business owner we have 2 US patents and others on the way and I have been in the machine tool business since 1995, and my family since the 1940's. We've also been accused now of copying pulleys - round parts with a bearing hole in the center, even though some of them we produce for companies are produced to their engineering drawings and specifications, including tolerances, surface finish callouts, etc.. but due to non-disclosure agreements with our customers we cannot post the drawings online. Anyway, here's the relevant part of our response: "The piece shown in the video was one we made specifically for JLT, because this fight already went on for a while already back in ~April in the Shelby forum. We knew that they would be at our booth at some point during Mustang Week in July, hence why we made a "special" piece just for them to let them think they were being sneaky when sending a straw purchaser over to our booth on late Saturday to purchase one of our new units. We watched the piece walk back over to the JLT booth after "digging it out" of our trailer - because the chrome production piece on our table was ignored by the buyer ! The buyer was checking over his shoulder to see if we were watching as he left - we were. He was wearing a white golf cap and a red shirt, not that we noticed... In hindsight, we probably should not have thrown gas on the fire in this manner since Jay was already upset and instead sent a production piece to him, but at the time it sounded like a good idea since we had already been the brunt of a lot of anger from Jay and had pretty much taken it just as a part of business. It probably wouldn't have mattered though, since he has publicly berated our production piece that is different than his previously in other forums as being a "bedazzled" version of his. In the meantime though, if we were going to be accused of knocking off a part exactly, we decided to have some fun with it and show him how we could do it if we wanted to, just we choose not to. The video they took time to create and edit is the result you see with the piece in question." So while it probably wasn't our best moment, sometimes you only can take so much before giving some back... it obviously has taken up quite a bit of Jay's time this week, so maybe it was worth it.
  11. You are absolutely right. * You ask for results, we provide them, you discredit them as impossible even though we're all looking at the same pictures. * You discredit computer modeling of the airflow and function in the face of what almost all capable companies use daily to do the same. * You ask for more tests, we conduct more, then you argue that because we used a still camera and not a video camera they are not as worthy as your tests. * You argue the product is a copy, and when you finally admit that it is not, you argue that your product is superior and that we are incompetent because we intentionally did not copy your product. Yet in the same breath you suddenly have a "revised" piece coming after successfully selling the same piece for years? Why revise it, and why now? * I explain how we arrive at our finished dimensions, provide links to the equipment used to do so, yet you have no explanation why your product is produced the way it is. * I provide links to industrial equipment we use here that functions using the same theories as our unit, yet you ignore them as well even though they cost thousands of dollars and have been in use for many years in manufacturing all over the world. * Instead of just sticking to facts, you continually try to make this a personal attack, resort to name calling, and blind refusal of any comments not in-line with yours, whether from us or from customers. And with that, I will end our participation in this thread.
  12. We have already supplied that, as well as customers in the field already reporting the same... I was actually done with this thread barring any customer questions, but since you said: I did just that for you this morning. We had an install to do at Source Interlink's HQ in Tampa. It is ~300 miles round trip, mixed highway and stop-and-go driving. Oil separator was empty and wiped dry prior to leaving. During our trip and when we returned, we took photos. Again, this is our design with no filter media, backing up the computer simulation with real-world driving tests, not putting cold liquid oil into a system that was not designed to be trapping that. If your engine has cold liquid oil dropping into the PCV system, trust me the oil separator's efficiency is the least of your problems . As a matter of fact, while you don't have a camera inside the separator in your test (and I really wouldn't expect you to in all fairness), I would be *guessing* that the reason oil came across one and not the other was due to wicking of the liquid across the top of the unit. Since your unit has a filter at the head, it probably eliminates much of this under this specific test condition. But in a real-world application, there should not be much, if any wicking because the oil should not be in liquid form when it hits the turn-down point of the inlet hole. Again though, this is only a guess as to why they performed differently in this specific test. So is 300 miles in one day sufficient? Or do I need to drive until our unit is full (which I've done in a long day as well @ around 1300 miles)- I'm a little confused as to how many xxx makes it valid or not. As to your video test being extreme, I'd say your test is equal to both units, however it is not an accurate representation of the real world and only "extreme" in the respect that an engine with that much liquid in the PCV is not long for this world. I have a test in mind, but again, I never said yours didn't work, just that ours does work. You want to have a "test war", but we've already disproven your assertion that ours cannot work, so anything more is just prolonging this discussion for no reason. For someone who does not care about a competitive product being available though, you sure are spending a lot of time with these comparisons... video editing alone takes hours to do after shooting is complete. It is, and I did. Nice jabs, but I'm a big boy... FWIW, you do realize that all the "big boys" use computer simulation to test things now, right? To dismiss simulation as a valid method of initial data gathering goes in the face of everything done in aerospace and automotive to a lesser extent for at least the past 40 years. Boeing and F1 teams might want to know if flow simulation tests are invalid for modeling purposes, they could probably save a lot of money! All of them will have some passage of oil, that is a function of the fact that you don't want to have to put a lot of pressure on this to get airflow - that would lead to gasket blowouts and engine damage, something you might want to consider. Get a stuck PCV valve on an older engine - or better yet a plugged inline filter in a separator with no bypass mechanism - and you will see this firsthand. The Shelby unit if it were to have a clogged filter would automatically go to bypass mode, something your design cannot do. Because as has been stated ad nauseum, nobody was attempting to copy your product. But just so I read that correctly, you state that this isn't a copy of your product? Because I thought the last 8 pages or so were stating exactly that. Now that it does not fit the narrative for the discussion, both the Shelby and SHR units are inferior, since if they were copies, then by extension your unit would be equally ineffective, correct? Looking at the attached photos, taken today I think answers your request for proof. But you don't want to see it, so you ignore it. The weather photo through the windshield - that was Orlando at about 3pm approximately 90 miles from returning to our facility - check radar logs if you'd like to confirm that this test was conducted on 5/22/13. The bottle shown with the trapped oil (looks like I should do an oil change soon) is a 20oz soda bottle for reference. And guess what - it looks similar to other 20oz bottles on the market - amazing! But we have tested for that long, so it was a real-world test over an extended period of time because that's how we do things. Shelby has had plenty of time to do the same - are you really suggesting both companies did not have the ability or desire to offer a functional product and that your design is the only viable solution to a problem that has been around for 40+ years? You are correct in stating that the tests are easily repeated, that's good. What's in question is your methodology, which leads to your questionable results. Or just skip all the units on the market and use a standard clear coalescing filter only, and see that it works too... of course it isn't as "cool" as some that are available, but it does work. I'm willing to state that publicly, are you?
  13. Here's a screenshot of one simulation attached since you asked... there are more, but I think it shows we did our own homework. I've explained the diameter as a function of machine capability, linking even to the machine specifications we use to make them, and the height as a function of PCV height / valve cover / hood. we've also linked to how these systems can work without filtration or with it, again dismissed. By the way, based on the photos you've posted, it looks like you're running the head in a mill, and the can in a lathe (not the most efficient way to go), where we run completely in our lathe from the start under almost full automation. That's just what I can guess from the machining marks I can see in the pictures, not that I pay attention to things like that... However, in the end, I don't think it matters. The fact that they all function differently internally does not matter to you, and the fact that ours visually looks nothing like yours or the Shelby unit does not matter to you either. I submit that no matter the piece, if it was somewhat round and trapped oil, this discussion would have gone almost identically to the way it has played out. I've answered the questions posed with specific, factual answers, ones that it seems do not meet your expectations, so unless customers have technical questions relating to the function or installation, I really don't have much more to add to the discussion at this time.
  14. That there was funny! I don't care who you are, I was playing that video linked above while responding, and rolling La - la - la, la - la -la !!!
  • Create New...