Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i dont fkn know.

if it is as iain says they are stiff as all f**k and he would have to go to hospital if the damper was below 15, it kind of seems like they went backwards.

im pretty sure your the only one in aus who has taken the car on a track, and honestly when is a 2 tonne family wagon going to be considered as a full time track car for the suspension to be that stiff.

dont get me wrong, BR's may be awesome compared to v1's, my point is - I CANT JUSTIFY IT. i hope thats alright with you Craig :turned:

yeh well done editing your post

i dont fkn know.

if it is as iain says they are stiff as all f**k and he would have to go to hospital if the damper was below 15, it kind of seems like they went backwards.

im pretty sure your the only one in aus who has taken the car on a track, and honestly when is a 2 tonne family wagon going to be considered as a full time track car for the suspension to be that stiff.

dont get me wrong, BR's may be awesome compared to v1's, my point is - I CANT JUSTIFY IT. i hope thats alright with you Craig :turned:

yeh well done editing your post

I did the edit because I didn't want to in force a logical comment on you!

dude its the same man, im telling you.

check your spring loading. mines only just tightened up. and 15 all round pretty much its still firm but comfortable because of the springs.

everythings the same man

V1; 44mm piston in a 50mm damper

BR; 46mm piston in a 53mm damper.

bigger piston and damper diameter, and more oil. thats straight from the BC website.

youll say its only a few mm difference, but when youre talking 50mm to 53mm thats a 7-8% increase in diameter, and over the entire length of the damper, thats a significant volume difference.

V1; 44mm piston in a 50mm damper

BR; 46mm piston in a 53mm damper.

bigger piston and damper diameter, and more oil. thats straight from the BC website.

youll say its only a few mm difference, but when youre talking 50mm to 53mm thats a 7-8% increase in diameter, and over the entire length of the damper, thats a significant volume difference.

perhaps.

but i was told that extra volume is only noticable if your on a track, beating the shit out of the suspension. but lets leave the argument here, because i could also just be biased because im starting to get sick of the stagea.

there is no perhaps about it lol

there is a difference, the setups are similar but not the same, hence the price difference in the 2 sets.

its not an argument, i was stating facts.

i guess the larger volume will give you the thermal capacity on the track, it would probably help on the street too, but bugger all i rekon.

there is no perhaps about it lol

there is a difference, the setups are similar but not the same, hence the price difference in the 2 sets.

its not an argument, i was stating facts.

i guess the larger volume will give you the thermal capacity on the track, it would probably help on the street too, but bugger all i rekon.

thats what i said?

back to my original thought

I(me) could not justify the extra price in getting th BR's. comprende` mi amigo?

i agree you said that, but you said you couldnt justify the price difference when there was no difference in the product.

anyway, i understand :P

no difference to me.

i dont think i said that enough lol

You know what I realised?

1. You guys don't have a day job, because if I was your boss and caught you guys jibbering this stuff during work I would fire you! Forget facebook :D

2. Aaron is a tight arse :P

3. Aaron isn't really concerned with the life of his shocks on the track (the larger dia reduces the shear on the oil, as the shock damping holes can be larger as the piston area is greater) Fine by me.

4. This isn't really M35 Info. It's more like "M35 Lets have a conversation so when people are looking for information they have to trawl through 65 pages of goodness to get it INFO" Why doesn't someone create a new thread/topic to discuss this or is that too logical?

<end rant>

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...