Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey phunky, yeah just saw the ignition dvd tonight, turned out good! and yeah you would love it there , certainly gets the blood pumping!!

hopefully we will try to get back there at the end of the year with the r34, all going okay

pauls twoogle , is one beautiful looking r32 too ! it's a credit to him.

ross, yeah, the oil to water oil coolers are great, we are seeing much lower engine oil temps now! before we were seeing up to 130 degree's!

cheers russ

I was going to bite... but.... what the hell. How could I ever compete with something like your R33 Michael. I can only dream of having the same budget, Power and Grip you do. So laugh away, Laugh at my skyline that can only have realy bad suspension geometry because it is so low. Or maybe I've read widely, spent hours making and developing my own parts to overcome the rollcentre issues and other normaly untuneable aspects of an R33.

So yeh, it is a drift thing that forces the guys at the pointy end of drift to research, make and test stuff to get thier cars to do what they want them to do. Because after all, what happens when drifters get over drift and start to explore other avenues of motorsport???? They get laughed at by knobs who think drifters are just silly kids with way too low cars.

i like drift, !

and our next car will be on the deck, none of the cars i saw in japan (other than ours) was more than about 2/3 inches off the deck.!! awsome

like you say just need to do home owrk on geometry an so fourth.

our next car will be on the deck, none of the cars i saw in japan (other than ours) was more than about 2/3 inches off the deck.!! awsome

like you say just need to do home owrk on geometry an so fourth.

Most of them don't know/care about suspension geometry, they just stick rediculous spring/shock rates in them and there is no movement, so geometry is irrelevant. Then they have to stick new super soft tyres on for every run in an attempt to mask the suspension issues.

You kicked most of their asses last year with a comparatively miniscule budget, almost zero practise and infamiliarity with the event and the circuit. Don't fall into the copy cat trap, take the technically superior high ground.

Cheers

Gary

Most of them don't know/care about suspension geometry, they just stick rediculous spring/shock rates in them and there is no movement, so geometry is irrelevant. Then they have to stick new super soft tyres on for every run in an attempt to mask the suspension issues.

You kicked most of their asses last year with a comparatively miniscule budget, almost zero practise and infamiliarity with the event and the circuit. Don't fall into the copy cat trap, take the technically superior high ground.

Cheers

Gary

gary you are absolutely spot on with those comments, it was the first thing we noticed with there set ups.

So yeh, it is a drift thing that forces the guys at the pointy end of drift to research, make and test stuff to get thier cars to do what they want them to do. Because after all, what happens when drifters get over drift and start to explore other avenues of motorsport???? They get laughed at by knobs who think drifters are just silly kids with way too low cars.
Yes! And if it wasn't for silly kids with low cars we wouldn't have parts like this.

photo.jpg

gtr_r_c.jpg

I mean really all they are doing is playing make-believe-GT-racer so they want their car to look like GT500 cars.

And tyres are cheap in Japan anyway, so slap in some steel rods, slam it on the ground and slip on some super softs! :(

Oh and if you get a chance run my signature (which i have had for ages) through Google Translate :D

車高の低さは知能の低さ!!!

http://translate.google.com/translate_t?langpair=ja|en

And below is my racing machine... it is slow, but fun

post-662-1207971861_thumb.jpg

Edited by Laurence

Not since I lost my licence for street drifting unfortunately... >_<

My old car had high rollcentres which is actually quite dangerous, I reckon if the roll centre is under the ground then the car can't roll above the ground! :/

post-662-1208003163_thumb.jpg

post-662-1208003174_thumb.jpg

Edited by Laurence

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...