Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just thought I would say a big thanks for nothing to our beloved WA State Government. With the last Rally Oz over and done with we now have absolutely no international class events left in the state.

Atleast now the worthless dogs can go back to focussing full time on being corrupt & incompetent. :)

post-5134-1162439722.jpg

post-5134-1162439786.jpg

post-5134-1162439839.jpg

post-5134-1162440008.jpg

Edited by djr81
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/141511-rally-oz/
Share on other sites

But we do - we have the Red Bull Air Race - oh wait - that would run at a total loss considering they can't/aren't charging admission to see it!

Oh, great a fourth rate advertorial for a dodgy fkn energy drink. In Perth. Unreal. Wouldn't walk across the road to see it.

I will believe that the Bunbury track exists when I am driving down the main straight in my GT-R. Until then it is only a proposal.

Bad enough that country WA gets sod all compared to Perth. Then if you start to consider that Perth gets sod all compared to the east.... How many "National" series never get further west than Adelaide? Just about all of them. It is a joke.

Edited by djr81
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/141511-rally-oz/#findComment-2636710
Share on other sites

your loss is our gain apparently - ie I'll believe it (rally Oz in QLD in 2008) when i see it. but rumour has it, it could be a tarmac rally! yeah!

It wasn't a loss, so much as the government literally couldn't give it away. They didn't want to hold it this year, but had to because of the contracts they signed. Tells you how on top of things they are. They put together some dodgy alledged economic analysis that "proved" $10 spend on a pie & a drink at an Ironman event in Busselton was worth $147 in economic activity. Apparently that same $10 spent at rally Oz was worth $16.

These pillocks reckon the money spent is too much of a drain. How much was this years state budget surplus? $1 billion, no $2 billion.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/141511-rally-oz/#findComment-2636731
Share on other sites

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


  • 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...