Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think its Auto Tek, or made under contract to Autotek. I know the magnesium wheels for the R31 GTSR cost a small fortune. The japanese used BBS or something, Gibson the locally made rims.

I think the NSW crew is now running them as a result of their 18" Simmons not being correct. So maybe its something R31_Gun can answer quickly through Terry Ashwood. I doubt his rims are used magnesium wheels from 1990 :domokun:

Interesting it still has the std rear rack. I assume it has been shimmd up. Also the rear hubs are all GMS, though i thought that GMS Cars used Alcons back in the R32 dats???? (Though im not 100% on that)

I love those rear arms and hubs, and the swaybars etc. So wich i could steal that cradle for my car :thumbsup:

Castalloy in SA used to make the the rims. Terry believes that the moulds are no longer in existence if I remember righty.

Ran into a guy who used to work there a few years back, he remembers the team transporter turning up to pick up their rims.

By the way, awesome find.

Cheers

Edited by gtrtech

Terry, Rod and Chris are running 17"Speedlines at the moment.

The Original Castalloy magnesium wheels are past their use by date. Still ok for wets though.

I do like the 1990 colours but it won the ATCC in 1991 colours.

I think 1991 colours look alright as long as you don't run the dark grey wheels like they did at the start of the year.

Apparently that was Alan Heaphy's idea because he didn't like cleaning wheels....or so the story goes...

IMHO 1991 livery, white wheels, and no restrictions.

It was the year they beat up everything :thumbsup:

And Richo and Skaife actually caused quite a bit of panel damage racing each other!

Hooks

I like both of them...

Go the daggy wheel covers...lol

I don't suppose you have any more hi-res images like these....?

This GMS doco project looks very interesting. And I love the 1991 'fake' as well. Awesome stuff.

post-9671-1184145736_thumb.jpg

post-9671-1184146090_thumb.jpg

The Japanese do the same with their roadcars.

Edited by ajrichar

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...