Sydneykid

The standard rear camber adjusters only do 0.25 degrees, so not much adjustment there. Check the ride height, centre of wheel to guard on all 4 corners. Mine was RHS (drivers) down, 8 mm as it spent a lot of its life with one person in it. Levelled it up by swapping springs around and the camber was then even. Post up the ride heights and we will go from there. Cheers : D

Whiteline are currently changing their high end shock and spring supplier, so no news on a circuit kit from them. In the interim I have tested quite a few different valving setups with the Bilsteins for circuit work. I used a coil over conversion kit with Eibach coil springs. They work very well with "R" type tyres or full slicks (different rates used of course). If I remember rightly, the 22mm bar was supplied because you had Teins with rediculously high spring rates. What rear bar do you have? PM me for more details cheers

Regs are ALWAYS open to interpretation, nothing new or startling there. That’s why there are technical officers, scrutineers and stewards. To sort out whose interpretation is correct. So, I am not interpreting the rules to suite me. I asked for clarification and got it, state technical officers and chief scrutineer. I asked for a rule change and was told it wasn't necessary. I have done everything that I believe is necessary to ensure what I have done is OK. Rear steering is only one of those, remember I have been at this Improved Production thing since 1987. cheers

Let's get it straight, this is not MY logic. I asked for a rule clarification regarding rear steering and was told that one wasn't required. If you are confused by the Wheels and Rim rule then please ask for a clarification. You probably could argue that wheels are part of the power steering system, EXCEPT they have their own section. Unlike rear steering, which doesn't have its own section. cheers

R33GTST handle and ride best at ~355 mm front and ~345 mm rear (centre of wheel to guard). cheers

My first guess would be not enough ignition advance. How much knock are you seeing? cheers

Will it FIT, yes. Is it suitable, NO. But you won't be driving it much, so it doesn't matter. R33GTR standard suspension would be better. cheers

11.1 Wheels: Wheels are free. The maximum rim width on cars with engines with a cubic capacity up to 3000cc is 7"; on cars with engine cubic capacity in excess of 3000cc the maximum rim width is 8". The spare wheel, jack and any associated brackets may be removed. Sorry I don’t see the comparison, it specifically mentions WHEELS (plural). In the steering rack rule it only EVER mentions RACK (singular) never RACKS (plural). cheers

PM Sent cheers

Yes, PM sent cheers

Yes The R34GTT has the fork style on the shock bottom, so we have to use the R33GTR shock body. Front is the normal eye, so we use the R33GTST shock body. cheers

Do you want an honest opinion or a pat on the back? PM me if you want the honest opinion off the forum. Pat on the back follows; Looks like a good value for money result. cheers

Aaaah, that's not what I said, this is what I said "Progress from there" means search for regs preventing you from doing what you want. Approach it from the positive not the negative. It doesn't mean go ahead and physically do it. But I am sure you knew that. cheers

Good news and bad news. The bad news is the small airfreight shipment of rear shocks that Bilstein received in July has sold out. The good news is there are 20 (10 pairs) of rear R32GTR shocks arriving early September via seafreight. The bad news is there is ZERO stock at Bilstein in Germany and no production is currently scheduled this side of Xmas. The good news is there are an equal number of fronts in stock. So, if you want a set I strongly suggest that you get in now. cheers

I didn't fall through anything. You wanted a perfect comparison that I can’t offer and you know that I can't. Regardless, it would be a complete waste of time, I already know the result if we compare a ball bearing turbo with a plain bearing turbo with exactly the same compressor and turbine. Garrett published it years ago, it looks like this; Before we go anywhere, let’s tidy up the price comparison first, because the truth is the GCG Ball Bearing high flow doesn’t cost $1K more. Closer to half that ie; $550. Why? Because for $1750 you get a straight bolt on GCG Ball Bearing High Flow turbo with ALL of the necessary gaskets washers, seals etc. You do not have to spend 1 cent more. Compared to $890, no gaskets, no seals, a water supply that doesn’t fit, an oil supply that doesn’t fit etc etc. You are looking at another $300 or so in parts and modification labour. So the comparison is more like $1200 versus $1750 Now we have to settle on the testing process, I wanted to simply run up the one turbo (I don’t care which one goes first) on the dyno and achieve a power figure at a predeterimed boost. Then swap it for the other turbo and run it up on the dyno. No tuning changes, just a straight this turbo made that power graph, versus the other turbo made this power graph. If I get into individual tuning, then I leave myself open to favouritism claims. Not to mention who is going to pay for the whole day’s dyno time it would take to perfectly tune both turbos. Remember we are looking for response differences as well as average and max power differences. That means perfect tuning, twice, from 2,000 rpm to 7,500 rpm. That’s not a 5 minute requirement, multiplied by 2 The bottom line. I am still up for it, send me an $890 turbo (plus all the bits necessary to fit it) with whatever specification you like and I will do the comparison. I already have a GCG Ball Bearing high flow that I bought and paid for myself, that I can use for the comparison. In addition I am supplying the fitting labour, digital camera, photos, scanner, tuning labour and the dyno time. Plus I will write the review and post it up on here. Over to you for your contribution? cheers

By mentioning 9.14 I was merely indicating that changing squat was not “illegal”. I wasn't saying was that using bushes to change the squat was legal BECAUSE of 9.14. That is quite adequately covered in the bushes and IRS regs. When reading the regs I always keep in mind (and refer back to) the definitions. This is particularly important when the word “free” is used. Very powerful word. For the other readers…………………….. There are two ways to read regs; 1. When you have a problem, look for something in the regs that ALLOW you to fix it. Compared to; 2. When you have a problem, come up with a solution/solutions and then look for something in the regs that STOP you from doing it. Many people only use one of the 2 methods, when the truth is you have to use both. This is where the experienced guys have an advantage. With the IP regs you have to always keep in mind that they were written in the 70’s for 70’s vehicle technology (with a few minor updates along the way). There are literally thousands of models of cars eligible for IP racing (basically any Touring Car of any age). Obviously the regs can’t specifically cover all of the nuances of that sort of variety of vehicles. These two discussion points are examples of that problem. The words “rear steering” aren’t even mentioned anywhere in the regs, because it wasn’t really thought to be applicable when they were written. Similarly IRS with double wishbones and a dedicated (floating) subframe was not exactly mainstream in the 70’s for a Touring Car. So if you go looking for freedoms in those areas (and many others) you simply won’t find it. Hence the #1 approach above won’t help you. For example “it doesn’t say I can remove the rear steering, so it has to be standard”. Approach #2 says, “it doesn’t say I have to leave the rear steering standard”. Then you simply progress from there. If the regs specifically say you can’t do something, then don’t do it, you will get busted, suspended and maybe even fined. However if the regs are open to interpretation then do it, the worst that will happen is you will be told to fix it for the next meeting. If you truly believe what you have is totally legal and can back that opinion up then you have no problems. cheers

I would add that comparing a 500 degree C exhaust gas temperature diesel engine turbo with over 1000 degree C exhaust gas temperature petrol engine turbo is rather misleading. Which is very naughty from a professional in the field. What Slide is saying is that Garret totally wasted their time with designing ball bearing turbos because plain bearing turbos are perfect and need no improvement whatsoever. That’s why Nissan paid Garrett many tens of millions of dollars for the design and supply of ball bearing turbos for their later models. They simply wasted their money. Nissan changed from plain bearings on S13’s to ball bearings on S14’s for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There is no logic at all for Nissan to go to ball bearing turbos on the N1 R34GTR, the plain bearing ones on the N1 R32GTR were just fine. Hang on, let me look in my service book….oh guess what……….. Nissan recommends turbo charger overhauls on R32GTR N1 turbos at 40,000 k’s but on the R34GTR N1 turbo its 100,000 k’s. So Nissan obviously believes that the ball bearing turbos last 2.5 times as long as plain bearing turbos before they need servicing. But hey, maybe Nissan and Garrett are just simply wrong. Somehow, I don’t think so Tim. cheers

This could go on forever, as would a Stewards hearing. Hence even if you lost you wouldn't be charged because it's an arguable point of interpretation. Most certainly not a deliberate breach of the regulations. So all that would happen is you would be asked to remove/return whatever for the next meeting. At least we have agreed they are pivot points, I think? The subframe pivots around the 4 mounting studs and it’s a suspension component. If the alloy donuts were simply a spacer then you MIGHT be able to get away with using them. But they obviously aren’t, they make the bush (standard or otherwise) redundant. Plus they arguable stop the “pivot” ie; it’s no longer a “pivot point”. Whereas the polyurethane pineapples still allow some “pivot” no matter how much you tighten down on them, unlike the aluminium donuts which would lock if sufficiently tightened. Keep in mind that the regs allow me to replace a “bush” with “bushings”, that means I can use 2 (or more) bushes to replace 1 bush. Otherwise it would simply say replace “a bush” with “a bush”. Due to fitment difficulties it is often necessary to use multiple piece bushes, and the regs were written to identify that. I would also argue that the intent of the IRS rule is to allow you to adjust the squat (among several other things). Which is exactly what spacing the rear subframe achieves. Hence I would argue that polyurethane pineapples achieve that intent. Then I would point out that wheel alignment settings are free and that squat (and dive) adjustments are in fact changes in alignment. I don’t know what else to say about the rear steering, it seems quite simple to me (and the technical officers) the regs say “rack” not “racks”. Hence “the steering rack (or box)” means “one steering rack” not “every steering rack” or “both steering racks” or “all of the steering racks”. Early last year I asked for rule 9.13 to be clarified such that any rear steering was free, and hence could be removed. I was told that it wasn’t necessary for the reasons I have given. I have a copy of that response with my log book (amongst several others), so if any one protests I will simply produce that response. As I said this is a bit too technical for this forum and probably rather boring to readers not into IP racing. So I will stop now. All I can do is suggest you contact the IPRA Qld technical officer and ask his opinion. cheers

Hi Adrian, simple question, complex answer. With the large valve stack in a Bilstein giving a lot of flexibility in damping, I can revalve a shock to give those attributes for drag racing. At the same time, because of the valving sophistication, I don’t have to sacrifice too much, such that the car is not difficult to drive on the road. I can retain the high frequency bump valving suppleness so the car is not harsh on the bumps. There is also enough high frequency rebound damping to control the spring when driving around the road. Keep in mind it’s not PERFECT solution for both worlds (road and drag), you would need quad adjustable shocks to achieve that. But that would mean spending 4 times as much money. So the revalved Bilstein solution is the best value for money. Hope that answered your question cheers

I understand and agree (partially), but that's not how it works. The regs say "steering RACK", note the singular. Hence if there are two racks, only one need comply with the regs, the other rack is free. So in the Skylines' case, the front rack complies and the rear rack is free. The subframe moves in 3 dimensions around each of the 4 cassis mounted studs. The subframe can (and does) rotate, albeit a small number of degrees, around each of the studs. Hence it "pivots". That's it, don't add any more to it than that bare minimum of definition. When reading regs, don't fall for the common usage meaning, more importantly don't apply the "racing" industry meaning. Lastly, don't add words that aren't there. Think like a CAMS Steward, not a mechanic. cheers

Suggestions follow; 1. Yep 2. Not after it's high flowed 3.Yep cheers

Nope, as previously posted The change in shock body diameter is usually the give away, not always, but most times. cheers

You are reading it too literally, reread 9.14 in conjunction with 9.10 and look up the definition of "pivot points". Also keep in mind that Rule 9.3 includes the words "not otherwise specified". Plus you need to be aware of the use of the singular and the plural eg, it does NOT say ONE bush must be replaced by ONE bush. Not one techinical officer, three technical officers. With two technical officers agreeing on the HICAS ruling where they supported the view that 9.13 "All other components of the power steering system are free" includes a rear steering system where fitted. Probably too techinical a subject for this forum. cheers