If you built the Veyron, what engine configuration would you use?

[Peuty]

I don't understand why you are questioning the awesomeness of it all?

It's quick, it's reliable and people that can afford them can't get enough of them? Seems like they hit the nail on the head really.

Though a MacF1 is still my kind of hypercar.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Watch the videos on the Veyron being built and you start to get an idea of the huge complexity and difficulty in achieving what they did.

Are there any good ones on YouTube? Or any dedicated DVD/documentaries on it's build that I can get ahold of?? I'd love to see how they made it...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

veyron hating going on what the heck is this forum coming to, they quite literally build the fastest straight line car in the world and in consequence others will be pushing their tech because "those guys did it why cant we" the veyron may not be a very good turner or as several have said "is too heavy" but you can't deny it does what it does and it does it better than anybody else, I also believe they would have exhausted any and all options before they did or chose anything (failure looks terrible on the resume)

Top 10 reasons why some AFF members would hate Veyron

1) It is not Ford
2) It has the same number of letters in its name as Holden
3) It is not a V8
4) It does not run on LPG, CNG, E85 or pixie dust
5) It is quicker than both FPV GT and TE50 T3
6) It does not have stripes, decals or a bonnet bulge
7) It has not won at Bathurst
8) It is not RWD
9) It does not have provision to tow a 2 tonne trailer up hill faster than a (insert other hated model here)
.
.
.
10) They cannot afford the left hand front wheel nut off one even on 1000 days interest free........

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by Blue Beast II

Are there any good ones on YouTube? Or any dedicated DVD/documentaries on it's build that I can get ahold of?? I'd love to see how they made it...

There are 2 long vids on youtube, I can't cut and paste on my computer but just search "making bugatti veyron" and it will come up

[GTP owner]

10) They cannot afford the left hand front wheel nut off one even on 1000 days interest free........[/QUOTE]
I saw a quote for the tyres.....$30,000 for a set! Ouch!

[mik]

no doubt you could build something more powerfull, but the engine already in it was built for the car, it does the job nicely without fuss, if i was a rich speed freak i`d rather send it to a tuner for a tune.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by flappist

Top 10 reasons why some AFF members would hate Veyron

1) It is not Ford
2) It has the same number of letters in its name as Holden
3) It is not a V8
4) It does not run on LPG, CNG, E85 or pixie dust
5) It is quicker than both FPV GT and TE50 T3
6) It does not have stripes, decals or a bonnet bulge
7) It has not won at Bathurst
8) It is not RWD
9) It does not have provision to tow a 2 tonne trailer up hill faster than a (insert other hated model here)
.
.
.
10) They cannot afford the left hand front wheel nut off one even on 1000 days interest free........

Hahahaha you're gold that's the funniest thing I've read all week

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

veyron hating going on what the heck is this forum coming to, they quite literally build the fastest straight line car in the world and in consequence others will be pushing their tech because "those guys did it why cant we" the veyron may not be a very good turner or as several have said "is too heavy" but you can't deny it does what it does and it does it better than anybody else, I also believe they would have exhausted any and all options before they did or chose anything (failure looks terrible on the resume)

No ones a hater. It's awesome no doubt, I'm just wondering 'if you built it, would you try a different configuration...' Like the title suggests.

The only reason I've felt the need to criticise it a bit is simply because a lot of posts suggested my questioning of the use of the W16 at all was somehow insane.

It's an awesome car, an awesome motor, an awesome achievement, but it's not insane to question the configuration of the engine and the motives behind it.

And to ponder alternatives.

I'm certainly not the first one to do so, but it seems some on here think it's complete blasphemy...

It's not a pro or anti Veyron thread... But if you think you would've done things differently with the engine then do tell... :-)

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by mik

no doubt you could build something more powerfull, but the engine already in it was built for the car, it does the job nicely without fuss, if i was a rich speed freak i`d rather send it to a tuner for a tune.

Some might say the car was built around the engine...

[auxr]

I would put a Briggs & Stratton four stroke on each wheel, nice set of clippers on underneath, push the supension lowering device and mow the front lawn with it.

Honestly - the Veyron is and always will be an engineering marvel - hypothetically even questioning it's make up on this forum is somewhat perplexing IMO.

[Peuty]

Replace the B&S with a Tecumseh and then you're in business

[auxr]

Originally Posted by Peuty

Replace the B&S with a Tecumseh and then you're in business

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

What a lot of people forget is that the 1000hp figure is not the whole story. It actually makes around 2,000hp, but it takes up to 1,000 to actually keep it cool, run all of the pumps and ancillaries, and make it all day long at maximum power. So these engines touted as possible alternatives will turn to junk when asked to do everything this w16 does.
These engines meet emissions regs, have a warranty, will do 100,000km, and are driveable from idle. Sure a stroked factory style block may make a peak of 1200kw with dohc and twin turbos, but how long will it actually last? Will it do it meeting emissions? Will it do reasonable fuel economy?What are the emissions like? How will it cope running the 12 or so radiators and cooling systems? What about running it on dodgy fuel?....The list goes on. Watch the videos on the Veyron being built and you start to get an idea of the huge complexity and difficulty in achieving what they did.

So what you're saying is the Veyron is even a more inefficient pig than most people think it is, so therefore electric power makes even more sense. Go Jaguar!

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

REPLY BY LOFTIE

Top 10 reasons why some AFF members should LOVE Veyron

1) It is not Ford (If there was only Fords out there, who would we beat on race day???)
2) It has the same number of letters in its name as Falcon
3) It is not a V8 (It infact has 2 x V8s... making it twice as awesome!)
4) It does not run on LPG, CNG, E85 or pixie dust (but it will chew thru 140l (36gal) faster than an XY GT-HO Phase III)
5) It is quicker than both HSV GTS and HSV W427
6) It does not have stripes, decals or a bonnet bulge- (But it is Two-Tone Like an XE ESP)
7) It has not won at Bathurst (though neither has an XT, XB, AU or an FG)
8) It is not RWD (But it can get sideways just like a RWD)
9) It does not have provision to tow a 2 tonne trailer up hill faster than a (insert other hated model here) (but if they were to develop a Hayman-Reece pack for a Veyron - it would certainly get you to the caravan park pretty quickly!!!)
.
.
.
10) They cannot afford the left hand front wheel nut off one even on 1000 days interest free........ (Though they can buy one for their kids - See:http://cgi.ebay.com.au/NEW-VEYRON-SP...item4cf22dd1df)

I for one - LOVE IT!!!

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by flappist

Top 10 reasons why some AFF members would hate Veyron

1) It is not Ford
2) It has the same number of letters in its name as Holden
3) It is not a V8
4) It does not run on LPG, CNG, E85 or pixie dust
5) It is quicker than both FPV GT and TE50 T3
6) It does not have stripes, decals or a bonnet bulge
7) It has not won at Bathurst
8) It is not RWD
9) It does not have provision to tow a 2 tonne trailer up hill faster than a (insert other hated model here)
.
.
.
10) They cannot afford the left hand front wheel nut off one even on 1000 days interest free........

I know we haven't agreed on much before, but that Sir is pure gold. Take a bow

[Grobbo]

4 litres. 6 Cylinders. 2 Turbos = 1200hp. (9ff)

Looks perfectly reliable to me... :-)

[mrbaxr6t]

OK since you prodded if I was to make the veyron I would be trying to use as much proven good tech as I can get my hands on (the v8s they used are apparently very good alone but not capable by itself) which is pretty much what it looks like they did grabbed the best motor they had doubled it then boosted it, sounds perfectly logical to me..

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

The only reason I've felt the need to criticise it a bit is simply because a lot of posts suggested my questioning of the use of the W16 at all was somehow insane.

Well mate, off you go. You try to build a 1000+ hp engine that doesn't have to be stripped down and rebuilt every second weekend.
The W16 is a reliable engine (in the context of supercars). It has a warranty, can cold start, and can be driven practically daily.
There are very few other cars that can claim the same thing. That american thing - the ugly shelby thing - that's quicker in a straight line on paper, but it would be consistently broken and on your hoist.

The W16 doesn't have a lot of boost smashed into it, and everything is designed to last over 100,000kms.

I highly doubt that the Volkswagen group would have spent the millions upon millions that they did developing the thing if there was a cheaper, simpler alternative. You don't agree to lose a million bucks per car if there was a better way to do something.

Friggin armchair engineers, ripping on things just for the sake of it.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

Well mate, off you go. You try to build a 1000+ hp engine that doesn't have to be stripped down and rebuilt every second weekend.
The W16 is a reliable engine (in the context of supercars). It has a warranty, can cold start, and can be driven practically daily.
There are very few other cars that can claim the same thing. That american thing - the ugly shelby thing - that's quicker in a straight line on paper, but it would be consistently broken and on your hoist.

The W16 doesn't have a lot of boost smashed into it, and everything is designed to last over 100,000kms.

I highly doubt that the Volkswagen group would have spent the millions upon millions that they did developing the thing if there was a cheaper, simpler alternative. You don't agree to lose a million bucks per car if there was a better way to do something.

Friggin armchair engineers, ripping on things just for the sake of it.

Cool, so your vote is: "W16 with quads just like they did"
Thank you for your participation.

Hopefully there's still some others who are brave enough to say: "Actually, I might've tried something different - how about this...." without fear of being shot down...

Which is what the intention of the thread was.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

OK since you prodded if I was to make the veyron I would be trying to use as much proven good tech as I can get my hands on (the v8s they used are apparently very good alone but not capable by itself) which is pretty much what it looks like they did grabbed the best motor they had doubled it then boosted it, sounds perfectly logical to me..

Whereabouts are these V8's used on thier own btw?

They are 'VR8's' as such - VR6 + 2 cylinders - if you don't know they are almost straight 8's.

I wasn't aware of any such engine in production? Audi's and the like are conventional quad cam, 90 degree jobbies.

[drew`SEVNT5]

There were Passat W8's a few years back.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

There were Passat W8's a few years back.

Yeah aware of those, they are VR4's x 2, rather than VR8's tho.

ie they are only 2 cylinders long, and 4 wide, if you catch my drift, not VR8's like a Veyrons...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

The Veyron uses two 'VR8' motors stuck together in a V, if you ignore the 15 degree angle, it is basically a V16, albeit with the cylinders of each bank kinda 'overlapping' to squish 'em all in. That probably makes no sense but what I'm saying is it must be at least as long as a V10, perhaps even a V12.

And I don't think it's much of a revver...

I think it's fair to question the value of the W16 when the 9ff and the Aero tt came out and made similar power and speed figures with half the turbos and half (or less than half) the cylinders...

Not saying those cars are better, but they do highlight my point quite nicely... :-)

There's not many Jouno's who rate the Veyron at the top of thier list of mega cars... Too heavy!

If the W16 is so big (straight 8 big in your words), how did they fit the same engine in a Golf that was a driving concept car?

So basically what you are saying is the W8 is more compact than a V8 but larger than a I4 (so probably somewhere between a I4 and I6), I would agree with that. So due to the offset of the cylinders, it is a length that is longer than a V8 (of similar bore size) but much shorter than a V16 with similar bore sizes. The disadvantage of the V8 is to achieve the same capacity, you either have to increase the stroke (reduces the rev capacity and increases piston speed to unmanageable speeds) or increase the bore (increases the length of the motor and the weight due to a lot more block). The simple fact is the W16 is not as long as a straight eight of half the capacity, yes it is longer than a V8 of half the capacity but it is shorter than a V8 of similar capacity.

A lot of this can be seen here on the web site.
VW VR and W engines

To understand this you need to think about why VW came up with the VR configuration (VR6, the forefather to the W8 and W16) and the W configuration, they did it to fit larger engines with more cylinders in FWD transverse mounted configurations, something many other manufacturers could not do.

The actual length of the Bugatti Veyron engine is 71 cm, the length of the rocker cover of my Ford I6 is 75 cm (actual engine length is probably more like 85 cm) and the length of my Mini I4 rocker cover is 48 cm (actual engine length is probably more like 58 cm). So it appears VW have managed to jam 16 cylinders and 8L of quad turbo goodness producing 883 kw (in super sport) in less overall length than my FPV I6T at 4L and 270 (ish) kw. To me that puts the engineering marvel into perspective.

As for your point of the W16 not revving too well, it produces its max power at 6000 rpm, to me that seems pretty good. Show me another 8L engine that revs to 6000 rpm and carries a factory warranty, the list would be very small. Yes an Enzo engine revs to 8000 rpm, but it is a V12 at 6L capacity and only produces 485 kw and 657 nm compared to the W16's 883 kw and 1500 nm. My god, what were VW thinking?

Of course other manufacturers are going to criticise the configuration, they could not achieve the same characteristics or performance. As far as I am concerned, when they have done better they will then earn the right to criticise.

Lets face it, nothing on this earth will get you to a higher velocity, with as many comforts and with as much reliability, end of story (for now). Did they use the right engine configuration? It would appear so as they have set the standard because nothing else compares, who are we mere mortals to judge?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

4 litres. 6 Cylinders. 2 Turbos = 1200hp. (9ff)

Looks perfectly reliable to me... :-)

The 9ff GT9 is being replaced by the GT9-R, offering up to 1,120 bhp (840 kW; 1,140 PS). The engine is available in 3 stages from 4 to 6 cylinders and can be upgraded at anytime. It has been designed to take the speed record for a street legal car with a claimed speed of 414 km/h (257 mph).[2]
It does 0–100 km/h (62 mph) in 2.9s and 0–300 km/h (190 mph) under 16s.[5] As with the original GT9, only a limited number of GT9-r will be produced and only 20 with the largest engine.[2]
Before the GT9-R top speed was independently verified, the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport achieved a record top speed of 431.072 km/h (267.856 mph).

This is still beaten by the Veyron Super Sport, plus the Veyron which does 0-100 in 2.5 secs, 0-300 in 15 seconds and a top speed that has been verified at 431 km/h. Not only that, you can drive it across europe, in traffic, with air conditioning and not pee blood at the end of the adventure.

[tranquilized]

The Veyron is unusual in that two key requirements were specified by Ferdinand Piëch before development had begun - it was to crack 400km/h, and have 1000bhp.

The engineers struggled to meet these requirements, with a lot of different engine configurations trialled and tested before settling on the W16.

For this reason, I'd vote for the first option - W16 - just like they did.

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If the W16 is so big (straight 8 big in your words), how did they fit the same engine in a Golf that was a driving concept car?

So basically what you are saying is the W8 is more compact than a V8 but larger than a I4 (so probably somewhere between a I4 and I6), I would agree with that. So due to the offset of the cylinders, it is a length that is longer than a V8 (of similar bore size) but much shorter than a V16 with similar bore sizes. The disadvantage of the V8 is to achieve the same capacity, you either have to increase the stroke (reduces the rev capacity and increases piston speed to unmanageable speeds) or increase the bore (increases the length of the motor and the weight due to a lot more block). The simple fact is the W16 is not as long as a straight eight of half the capacity, yes it is longer than a V8 of half the capacity but it is shorter than a V8 of similar capacity.

A lot of this can be seen here on the web site.
VW VR and W engines

To understand this you need to think about why VW came up with the VR configuration (VR6, the forefather to the W8 and W16) and the W configuration, they did it to fit larger engines with more cylinders in FWD transverse mounted configurations, something many other manufacturers could not do.

The actual length of the Bugatti Veyron engine is 71 cm, the length of the rocker cover of my Ford I6 is 75 cm (actual engine length is probably more like 85 cm) and the length of my Mini I4 rocker cover is 48 cm (actual engine length is probably more like 58 cm). So it appears VW have managed to jam 16 cylinders and 8L of quad turbo goodness producing 883 kw (in super sport) in less overall length than my FPV I6T at 4L and 270 (ish) kw. To me that puts the engineering marvel into perspective.

As for your point of the W16 not revving too well, it produces its max power at 6000 rpm, to me that seems pretty good. Show me another 8L engine that revs to 6000 rpm and carries a factory warranty, the list would be very small. Yes an Enzo engine revs to 8000 rpm, but it is a V12 at 6L capacity and only produces 485 kw and 657 nm compared to the W16's 883 kw and 1500 nm. My god, what were VW thinking?

Of course other manufacturers are going to criticise the configuration, they could not achieve the same characteristics or performance. As far as I am concerned, when they have done better they will then earn the right to criticise.

Lets face it, nothing on this earth will get you to a higher velocity, with as many comforts and with as much reliability, end of story (for now). Did they use the right engine configuration? It would appear so as they have set the standard because nothing else compares, who are we mere mortals to judge?

/thread

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If the W16 is so big (straight 8 big in your words), how did they fit the same engine in a Golf that was a driving concept car?

So basically what you are saying is the W8 is more compact than a V8 but larger than a I4 (so probably somewhere between a I4 and I6), I would agree with that. So due to the offset of the cylinders, it is a length that is longer than a V8 (of similar bore size) but much shorter than a V16 with similar bore sizes. The disadvantage of the V8 is to achieve the same capacity, you either have to increase the stroke (reduces the rev capacity and increases piston speed to unmanageable speeds) or increase the bore (increases the length of the motor and the weight due to a lot more block). The simple fact is the W16 is not as long as a straight eight of half the capacity, yes it is longer than a V8 of half the capacity but it is shorter than a V8 of similar capacity.

A lot of this can be seen here on the web site.
VW VR and W engines

To understand this you need to think about why VW came up with the VR configuration (VR6, the forefather to the W8 and W16) and the W configuration, they did it to fit larger engines with more cylinders in FWD transverse mounted configurations, something many other manufacturers could not do.

The actual length of the Bugatti Veyron engine is 71 cm, the length of the rocker cover of my Ford I6 is 75 cm (actual engine length is probably more like 85 cm) and the length of my Mini I4 rocker cover is 48 cm (actual engine length is probably more like 58 cm). So it appears VW have managed to jam 16 cylinders and 8L of quad turbo goodness producing 883 kw (in super sport) in less overall length than my FPV I6T at 4L and 270 (ish) kw. To me that puts the engineering marvel into perspective.

As for your point of the W16 not revving too well, it produces its max power at 6000 rpm, to me that seems pretty good. Show me another 8L engine that revs to 6000 rpm and carries a factory warranty, the list would be very small. Yes an Enzo engine revs to 8000 rpm, but it is a V12 at 6L capacity and only produces 485 kw and 657 nm compared to the W16's 883 kw and 1500 nm. My god, what were VW thinking?

Of course other manufacturers are going to criticise the configuration, they could not achieve the same characteristics or performance. As far as I am concerned, when they have done better they will then earn the right to criticise.

Lets face it, nothing on this earth will get you to a higher velocity, with as many comforts and with as much reliability, end of story (for now). Did they use the right engine configuration? It would appear so as they have set the standard because nothing else compares, who are we mere mortals to judge?

I think that Golf was all engine from the front seats back no? And no turbos.

71cm eh - dunno where you found that figure but if it's right then we'll at least be able to fit a V10 in there - schweet. I wonder how wide the W16 is - surely must be a bit wider than a conventional V8 - even tho each 'bank' only has one head.

My point was I don't think they had big revs at the top of thier list of priorities as it's a blown motor. Which also makes it hard to compare to anything else N/A but I'm sure if they'd wanted to build a TTV10 that revved to 6k, they could've.

The Veyron project went over budget, over time and the thing came out over weight, they had a lot of fun trying to cool the ttttW16 and I'd hazard a guess this might be repsonsible for a bit of the extra weight.

The car is amazing and certainly ticked all the boxes it was supposed to, no doubt.

I've certainly now been more swayed towards thinking maybe the W16 wasn't such a bad choice after all, and maybe it wasn't a car built around an engine as some suggested at the time?

But still, I do wonder if it could've had a simpler configeration and been just as fast and a bit lighter.

Nothing wrong with wondering, I certainly don't think it's crazy to do so - I'm not about to go out and build a Veyron beater, I'm not even claiming I could, so it's all pretty harmless in my books - it's not like I was bagging a car anyone owns on this forum... :-)

This thread is a question, not a criticism... Might be a stupid question in some peoples books, but in that case they can simply tick the W16 box and go read another thread.

If you don't think it's overly stupid to suggest a different configuration for such an engine, then please, by all means, post up your opinion - don't be scared, no ones gonna hold you accountable! :-)

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The Veyron is unusual in that two key requirements were specified by Ferdinand Piëch before development had begun - it was to crack 400km/h, and have 1000bhp.

The engineers struggled to meet these requirements, with a lot of different engine configurations trialled and tested before settling on the W16.

For this reason, I'd vote for the first option - W16 - just like they did.

OK this makes a lot of sense - do you reckon they were his only two requirements? I think he may have also demanded it was 4WD. Who knows what else.... It was certainly a bit of an ego project.

I'd love to know what else they tried...

Thanks for voting!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

OK this makes a lot of sense - do you reckon they were his only two requirements? I think he may have also demanded it was 4WD. Who knows what else.... It was certainly a bit of an ego project.

I'd love to know what else they tried...

Thanks for voting!

I think you will find one of the design criteria was definitely AWD which puts a lot of pressure on them to have a compact engine package to allow room for transaxles, transfer cases etc.

Yes a V10 of similar design to the BMW M5 motor may have fitted in the area that was allocated to engine bay in the veyron and yes it may be simpler than the W16 design (not that the BMW is a simple design by any stretch of the imagination). The problem is the M5 V10 is 5L and produces 373 kw and 500 nm, which is 510 kw and 1000 nm less than the W16. Yes the M5 is NA and you could increase these figures by bolting on 2 or 4 turbos, but to get an increase in power of nearly 250% and an increase in torque of 300%, it would have to run some serious boost pressures which will have a detrimental effect on reliability. Also having a lower capacity engine relying more on boost pressure from turbos is more likely to have a peak torque curve that comes in later in the rev range than a large capacity motor running lower boost pressures. So the other option would be to increase the capacity of the V10 to that of the W16 at 8L. Lets just say we do not want to increase the stroke too much as we do not want a truck motor with long strokes and slow to rev (think of the boss motor here, it has often been criticised for its undersquare dimensions). The BMW M5 motor has a bore/stroke of 91.94/75.13 mm, very oversquare and one of the reasons it revs to 8000 rpm but also a reason it does not produce max power until 7750 rpm. Now to produce a V10 that is 75% larger in capacity to 8L and keep the present motors bore/stroke ratio you will end up with a 160 mm bore and 131 mm stroke. I think you will find there is no where near enough meat between cylinder to take a 5L V10 bore out to 160 mm (even if you could touch the bores together which you can't it would end up 80 cm long which is already longer than a W16). Just for the sake of argument, lets just say BMW have managed to fit all five cylinders per bank on the 5L V12 in the same space that VW have fitted 8 and thus have ended up with a motor length of 71 cm as well (I doubt it, I think you will find the M5 motor is longer but I can not find figures). To increase the engine capacity to 8L without increasing the length of the stroke too much you have to increase the size of the bores so lets say we increase the stoke by 25% (now 93 mm) and the bore by 50% (now 137 mm). To increase the bore size by that figure of 50% and keep the same cylinder wall thicknesses you will of course have to increase the overall length of the motor by at least the same amount to accommodate it. Motor length is now 106 cm long (35 cm longer than the W16). Suddenly your V10 requires the length of engine bay that a dodge viper has, not very conducive to mid engine, AWD and reasonable weight distribution.

The end result, which I am sure I have clearly demonstrated is that to achieve the same power levels from a motor that does not have to run small capacity and large boost, either requires a lot of cylinders or very large cylinders. Simple logic tells us that more cylinders can equate to big capacity with smaller cylinder sizes than fewer cylinders can. By doubling the rows of cylinders (2 rows per bank rather than 1) you can increase the number of cylinders without a proportional increase in overall dimensions of the motor. That is exactly what VW has done.

I have to wonder if smaller capacity or fewer cylinders (V10 or V12) running boost could achieve the same result, why was it not done ages ago?

[auxr]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

OK this makes a lot of sense - do you reckon they were his only two requirements? I think he may have also demanded it was 4WD. Who knows what else.... It was certainly a bit of an ego project.

I'd love to know what else they tried...

Thanks for voting!

No idea - why don't you send him a memo and ask the question.