Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i couldn't download it, it would just dl a 1Kb file :P

Could be browser related. I used firefox the first time and it wouldn download. Then tried it in Opera and it worked. Not sure with IE. Also, first link is closed, used second one for 92 bathurst

Edited by DC_GTST

No problems for me either, downloading on Firefox. I have had the odd file just not download, and give me a 1kb file too. I just cancel and re-download and it normally works fine afterwards.

EDIT: And thanks very much for the video, it's really good!

Edited by HannahMc

I downloaded the 92 one last night and just found the 91 one. Must say I was really disappointed about all the idiots at the end of the 92 race. So short sighted - they really didn't see how crappy Bathurst was going to become with the holden versus ford taking over again. Actually they are probably too stupid to see that it's crap now. I know of guys that blindly follow fords etc - nissans are for gays apparently - some people are thick.

Bathurst is so boring now I can't even be bothered watching it - just imagine what it would be like to see a variety of cars like the old days - xu1 toranas, mustangs, chargers, even minis and vw's once upon a time!

Even in the 92 race there were corollas, bmw's, skylines, fords, holdens, and cosworth sierra!

Now you can't even tell the fords apart from the holdens and about the only original parts used are the windscreens and engine blocks.

Just disgraceful.

Cheers

Edited by gtst25
Bathurst is so boring now I can't even be bothered watching it - just imagine what it would be like to see a variety of cars like the old days - xu1 toranas, mustangs, chargers, even minis and vw's once upon a time!

Yeah, its pretty pathetic now after CAMS and everyone started crying about how no one was going to the races so they scrapped group A to make a dollar appealing to the lowest common denominator. Now its the equivalent of something equally retarded like NASCAR in its banality.

Frankly with huge manufacturers like GMH and Ford they could have easily dumped huge amounts of money into being competitive, but no they buckled and went backwards and to think of the development that could have been passed down to domestic cars for us instead just makes me feel a bit crook really.

The bar was raised to international standards, they failed to meet it and Bathurst is dead to me.

I downloaded the 92 one last night and just found the 91 one. Must say I was really disappointed about all the idiots at the end of the 92 race. So short sighted - they really didn't see how crappy Bathurst was going to become with the holden versus ford taking over again. Actually they are probably too stupid to see that it's crap now. I know of guys that blindly follow fords etc - nissans are for gays apparently - some people are thick.

Bathurst is so boring now I can't even be bothered watching it - just imagine what it would be like to see a variety of cars like the old days - xu1 toranas, mustangs, chargers, even minis and vw's once upon a time!

Even in the 92 race there were corollas, bmw's, skylines, fords, holdens, and cosworth sierra!

Now you can't even tell the fords apart from the holdens and about the only original parts used are the windscreens and engine blocks.

Just disgraceful.

Cheers

Um, neither the windscreen, nor the engine blocks are original.

Having watched Bathurst for more years than I care to remember I can assure you you've never had it so good. What people forget are the desperately thin fields, the massive winning margins (As often as not by multiple laps) & in comparison to today, the rank amateurism of the whole thing.

Group A was a dying formula when the V8's were launched. No one is seriously suggesting you would have a Nissan factory effort in any Australian racing presently, nor one from BMW. Toyota & Mitsubishi never took touring cars seriously & anyone else was pretty much an also ran other than perhaps Mazda who never really took on Group A - they only ever ran hard under group C rules.

Besides what formula would you use? The BTCC is just ordinary & the only other one of note is ze Germans - which are pretty inapplicable & unaffordable for us.

V8's may not be everyones cup ot tea. I despise the whole bogan/boofhead crowd component as much as anyone. There again, people have been whinging about that since day dot.

I agree 100%. Really, there was no SERIOUS competition. Various manufacturers homologated successful cars, but they successively raised the performance bar so generally not a lot of parity between makes at any given time. Volvo 240GT, BMW 635CSi, Sierra RS500, then GTR. The Walkinshaw Batmobile was really not what you could call a great success, nor the Brock Group A (carburettored) and they really had to wring them out (Perkins buzzed his to about 8800) to keep pace. Then there were reliability problems for the Holden camp. Alfa, Toyota, Mazda? Barely raised a blip on the screen.

The concept of Group A was great, but in practice the competition was nothing like as close as now. Mind you, the whole "safety" Pace Car aspect of the current scene was laughed at as something quaintly American because it produced contrived competition. I think it's a farce, but guess it does produce a watchable spectacle.

Probably the biggest current complaint is that Ford/GM are actively resisting bringing in other marques to parity racing. I'd like to see some Japanese or Euro V8s head to head with them, in full knowledge you can't get anything like them off the showroom.

Edited by Dale FZ1

Cheers fullas, I actually watched these races but was too young, I always remembered them as red nissans, not a particular car, cause i couldnt.

Remember skaife calling em a pack a wankers, cant remember why, after I go back and watch them should be interesting... isnt this the race with the yellow BMW that the driver had a heart attack an went into the rails down conrod?

eh, il go watch it, 200kbps each, come on, slow shite, to lazy to segment a download......

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...