Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

And my Optus bill saga lives on!

Here's the bill in question:

06 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 561 KB $0.25

07 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 55 KB $0.02

08 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 8504 KB $3.78

09 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 5 KB $0.00

13 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 9204 KB $4.07

14 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 353 KB $0.14

15 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 45127 KB $612.75

16 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 7392 KB $100.81

18 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 39632 KB $17.57

19 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 23277 KB $10.31

20 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 34668 KB $15.37

21 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 3655 KB $1.62

22 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 156 KB $0.06

23 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 39736 KB $17.63

24 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 96072 KB $42.64

25 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 44736 KB $19.85

26 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 7833 KB $3.47

27 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 3786 KB $1.67

28 Feb yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 14452 KB $6.41

01 Mar yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 35405 KB $15.70

02 Mar yes$79 Cap+Unlimited Text 19967 KB $8.86

Total volume: 424 MB $882.98

See that in bold? I've been charged at some magical rate for only those 2 days compared to the rest! And when I say magical, I mean... stupid.

Called today, got through to a Aussie (hooray) but... got told "those charges must be legit!" YET he couldn't even tell me at what rate/why I've been charged extreme amounts for those 2 days! It was normal internet usage just like all the other days - not in roaming, etc.

Everything else EXCEPT those 2 days has been rolled into my data caps.

Now it's been raised with the Billing Investigations Team. Sounds fancy but lets hope they know how to do their job.

Edit: and yeah, blah blah blah this is a car forum... but we're all family here.

Edited by CRoNic...
id be quite happy for him to defend the looked after CA's, after all, he has a mean one that would eat alot of RB25's.

and a highly modified RB25 will eat alot of RB26 and a highly modified RB26 will eat alot of Ferraris....

Sorry, I'm always skeptical of things like this. There are no details on it, and it could be anyone's.

Got a print out detailing your car?

That's alright the people that need to know, know the validity. There are no details about my car anywhere online. There is a build thread on NS but it hasn't got any plate/VIN numbers on it and that is the way it'll be staying. Besides the details in the box that I have edited out are entered when you put the car on the dyno anyway so they shouldn't be taken as gospel anyway.

Edited by D_Stirls
and a highly modified RB25 will eat alot of RB26 and a highly modified RB26 will eat alot of Ferraris....

And so on and so forth ...

I see, and agree with, your point. :)

yeah your right vu, but for the sake of defending the CA, im saying that they aren't shit engines, the guy behind the wheel over their 18 year life makes them a shit engine, combined with not changing fluids every 5000-10000k's for the last *at least* 5 years.

yeah your right vu, but for the sake of defending the CA, im saying that they aren't shit engines, the guy behind the wheel over their 18 year life makes them a shit engine, combined with not changing fluids every 5000-10000k's for the last *at least* 5 years.

Hear Hear :)

And here's some more proof;

innan%20vm.jpg

705whp.jpg

I dont mind CAs.

BUT. think about howmuch you have to spend just to get it up to RB25s power levels. Also how much you are pushing the engine,

Add as much as you want. IMO id rather a RB thats pushing good power without massive mods.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/R3...le-t260355.html

Rims have ruined a half-decent GTR...

But that's WAY to cheap... apart from the body work, I'd dare say the engine is in need of some repair...

my money is on a shagged motor, that thing was for sale by its last owner around a month or so ago, now its back up again so soon.... and atleast 5k cheaper.... seems fishy

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/R3...le-t260355.html

Rims have ruined a half-decent GTR...

But that's WAY to cheap... apart from the body work, I'd dare say the engine is in need of some repair...

Hell for that price, you'd have a few coin left over to fix up the engine.

I agree the rims are ;)

Buyer beware :)

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...