djr81

I disagree with that. What F1 does is define what is fashionable on road cars. It has very little to do with technology. Lets be honest do you reckon Force India give a stuff about what technology is in your next Corolla?

Too many people confuse stiff suspension with good suspension. Stock R32 Gt-R spring rates are front 2.4kg/mm rear 2.7kg/mm Pissing competitions about spring rates & how high they should be are about as useful as those centreing how much rim/tyre you can stuff under a guard. Anyway for what it is worth I run 5kg/mm front, 4 rear. Nismo stuff is half a kg/mm higher at both ends. With the right sway bars that is enough spring for the track on R compounds. It is also a reasonable rate for the road. If ride quality is important to you then I would avoid a rod end castor rod & get something with a decent bush in it.

Sounds like a pretty poor excuse for what was ultimately a pretty poor program. If they want prodution car cred they need to go back to the WRC - but maybe just cheat a bit less this time.

My thing with Webber is that he on occasion does try too hard. Too often he bins the car or spears off when he should be more circumspect. Maybe Melbourne this year is an example of that. Bottom line is I reckon Webber was fed up with the Williams unreliability and saw better opportunities elsewhere. I sort of doubt he would have stayed anyway. BMW wanted to do the whole thing - car, motor etc. Point being is they never bettered what they achieved with Williams. So maybe in retrospect they were a bit misguided about it all. It is hard to judge Sam Michaels work now because you never really know how constrained he is with budgets & personnel. I am guessing it is not all sweetness & light in that area for Williams at the moment. I have my doubts on how good the Cosworth motor is too to be honest.

You are going to have to point out the funny bit. What Williams/head have said is A: Spot on in terms of Webber throwing the car at the scenery in races (prior to this year anyway). B: Doubtless accurate in the sense that having lost a major sponsor they couldn't afford to pay a big salary as it would have reduced the money available to spend on the car. Reality is not every team has either a car company to prop it up (eg Ferrari & FIAT) or a wealthy owner (eg Red Bull, Force India). Williams is one of the very few teams that don't have either. Economic conditions at the moment makes it very, very hard for them. A circumstance which is, apparently, hilarious.

Who did you buy them from?

The 7 refers to the spring rate in kg/mm. The 69 refers to the spring rate in Newtons per mm. 1kg=9.81 Newtons. With those spring rates the Whiteline bars will struggle to have an influence. Added to which they are heavy because they are solid, ie rod rather than tube.

Why don't you remove the bracket the ABS sat on. The black thing in the lower middle of the photo. From memory it does nothing else but hold the 5kg or so of ABS system.

Sorry Troy I wasn't trying to suggest they did. The homologation R32 GT-R's (aka Nismo version) had steel turbos. Ages ago I read an article in I think HPI (Maybe Zoom before it got boring) where they published a compressor map of the Group A turbo. Whether or not this was what was on Freddo's cars is a different issue as I thought Group A turbo construction other than meeting some relevent dimensions was a "free" area. I was just trying to line up the claimed Group A cars horsepower number with an 89 shitter R32 still running ceramic turbos. Also I think there were some ex Gibson cams doing the rounds on SAU some time back. The lift/duration numbers were pretty big. Yeah Gary Rogers ran all sorts of 2 litre nonsense. An Alfa, the Nissan. Nothing much else comes to mind but there may have been a third make. Also fwiw I think the sprint engines ran stock rods & the endurance versions ran Carillo's. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

Again from memory it was: 0: 2WD start 1: Normal running 2: P!ssing down raining ie torque forward. I just sort of got the impression (Maybe wrongly) that for a given setting the torque bias was fixed.

From memory (A dodgy one at that) the original number was about 600hp. Then it reduced to something like 480 when the boost retrictions were put in place. But hell you can get near on 400 horepower out of a stock RB26 on pump fuel with stock ceramic turbos - hence my scepticism. Also: Sort of reading between the lines I formed the impression that the GMS cars didn't use the ATTESSA system much and bascially ran (after the start line 2WD mode) in fixed 4WD, rather than varying the torque split. You will note on the old videos the commentators banging on about the GT-R starts which did appear to be better than the other cars - something that is hard to reconcile with a 2WD start. All turbo cars were outlawed at the end of 1992. Basically Group A was a dead category and it needed replacing. They went to V8's (Although the BMW's were still ok for 1993) hence no turbos. To say the GT-R were banned is just a bit of Nissan merketing hype, really. DTM = German Touring Car Championship. Super Touring = Two Litre atmo cars. (Nissan ran a thing called a Primera? in England & I think Steve Richards was their test driver for a while. Can't remember if Gary Rodgers ran one over here, though.) Super GT = Japanese formula. So, no. No R33's ran at any high level sport circuit sport in Australia - well none that I can remember anyway.

Yeah but to be fair the 1990 R32 was very short on development. Have a look at the photos of the thing in practice at Bathurst & the nuts wheel alignments that is was running. (Only one car that year by the way. Skaife wrecked it at Adelaide AGP not long after) By all accounts it was a horrible thing to drive at Bathurst that year. Also take with a vary large grain of salt anything that was said at the time about the engineering/competitiveness/operation of the GT-R's or for that matter most of the Group A cars. I for one don't even vaguely believe the tiny horsepower outputs claimed by Gibson Motorsports for the Rb26.

There are many issues when you start playing about with this stuff. For example: Roll centres move (migrate) when the car rolls. This is one of the reasons you need to draw the suspension up. You may well want to move the front and rear roll centres by differing amounts. The centre of gravity (which with the roll centre is what defines the roll couple) is next to impossible to work out. What this means that even with a plotted roll centre you are going to struggle to determine the couple - which is what you actually want to know. Roll couples & suspension roll resitance are different front & rear. But for the purpose of the exercise the chassis is stiff. You need to understand and reconcile these two concepts ie car is wanting to roll different amounts front & rear but cannot. This is very important as it is a powerful tuning tool. There is no point getting the roll centre spot on at the price of making a nonsense of the suspension geometry. Moving the pivot point on the LCA is the easiest way of moving the roll centre - both front and rear. Having tried this (& failed to get a result) I would suggest the best way forward is to get yourself a set of spacers (Front & rear) and then do a bit of testing. The downside of this is it takes alot of time & effort. From which you may not get a result. This is why most people recommend a sensible ride height that stops too much roll centre movement relative to the cog. Theory always matches reality - except when it doesn't. In which case it usually works in the opposite way to what you think. Hell I would be happy if someone could acccurately measure the pickup points for the suspension arms front and rear....sounds easy. Isn't.

Well good luck figuring out how much of a spacer you need.

Depending on what LSD you have try this: http://www.nismo.co.jp/en/products/competi...df/repair04.pdf

Yes they do. All they do is lower the pivot point on the outside of the LCA. There are ones for front & rear. The rear ones are easy enough to turn up on a lathe if you or someone you know is handy.

Please be aware you don't actually need the arms, just the spacers.

Having seen what happened to Garth Tander's missus Mini at Wanneroo last year I can't help but agree with that.

Assuming the tyre widths are proportional to rim widths then you will be enjoying bulk understeer. So maybe fix that before getting too far into spring and shocks & buying tyres. For my ten cents on the the rates if you are on R comps then the kg/mm number should be in the single digits and the front harder than the rear. Just don't get sucked into thinking that a bigger number = better. Doesn't necessarily work like that for springs.

Moonface Racing do them. Which end do you want them for & how much adjustment are you after?

If you check the obvious import sites you should be able to get them for less than $250. Also Nismo make steel wheel nuts in various lengths. they don;t appear to have the little collar on them like the project mu ones, however.

I have some of these & would recommend them above any alloy nuts. It is pretty simple - you don't want them failing. You don't want to have to worry about them failing. YOu don;t want to have to continually replace them. On that basis they are actually pretty cheap. Light too for that matter.

If it is just road undulations then it is low speed. Mostly high speed is for when you are kerb hopping.

Yeah too many pies.

Have you seen how fat he has got so far this year?