Greg:
1. Ok, according to the web site and your introductory synopsis, the patent has not been issued. How about the Patent registration which we could all check for the Company's claims?
2. Also, I do not get worked up over shorts. The truth almost always wins out. Yet, in this case short fear mongering is even less rational. According to the web site, the company intends to be a pure royalty collection shop. No great need for significant additional infusions of capital which could, in theory, be impacted by a languishing stock price caused by short selling. Why are you all worked up?
3. Since no independent verification of the engine has yet been done, do you truly wish claim that the company's $336 million market capitalization is justified??? (21 million shares x $16 share).
4. While posters continue to be quite liberal with the comparison to the 350 cu chevy V8, I note that the graphs on the web site specifically state "RPM (2000 thru 3000 projected Torque and HP Values)" for the OX2. In contrast, the Chevy graphs start at 2000 RPM. This is an apples to oranges comparison and cannot be characterized in any way other than misleading. Moreover, the graphs for the OX2 extrapolated a linear increase in torque, yet using the graph and the Shelby press release, the increase is clearly not linear. (the Shelby release said 170 torque at 1250 RPM). Therefore, assuming the 1000 and 1500 RPM points on the graph are measured values, then the increase in torque from 1000-1250 was 37, and the increase from 1250-1500 is only 30 ft lbs of torque. That ain't linear, torque is falling rapidly. Now extrapolating to higher RPMS, there is no comparison to a 350 cu in V8.
Comments?
ww
p.s I do not, nor have I ever held a position in the stock, nor do I work in or am affiliated with the securities trading industry. |
