Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i now know the reason. clutch is fried. went to do the same type of launch just before and grabs middle of 1st gear then just revs and goes no where :banana: and a little bit at the top of 2nd. rest of the gears are ok. reason for my mph?

new clutch time. whats a good clutch for the power im making. dont want to limit myself either so say up to 260rwk. and need it to last.

i love the assumptions stating i dont have 220rwk. your a moron. i run a hiflow turbo on 13 psi producing 220.6rwk to be exact. shit tyres my friend. if you can do better with my tyres then go ahead

Im not a moron, nor is Adrian. Adrian has raced for a long time, and i did for a while years ago.

You get to workout via expirience what is and isnt true, its not really an assumption, its educated knowledge. :)

220rwkw is NOT 106mph, you need another 5mph at least IMO.

But yeah, slipping clutch could cause the MPH to be down if it was slipping, but sounds like its only just started?

Get it fixed and have another crack

yea it was slipping on the track definately. 1st gear would rev fine to middle of 1st then slip. my friend who was at calder confirmed it cause there was no wheelspin when i took off normally then punched it. clutch was smelling worse and worse after every run. last 2 runs were in the high 14's at 103mph.

im ordering a new clutch on monday and we'll see how it goes. getting an exedy cushioned button.

thanks for all your help people.

Clutch normally slips in the higher gears under the load of the higher gearing?!?!?!?!?!

Just to shed some light on what people are saying re mph. I went to Calder a while ago. My times ranged from 14.2 to 12.9. The mph was always 2-3mph and typically between 110-113mph with about 215-220rwkws

Im not a moron, nor is Adrian. Adrian has raced for a long time, and i did for a while years ago.

You get to workout via expirience what is and isnt true, its not really an assumption, its educated knowledge. :rolleyes:

220rwkw is NOT 106mph, you need another 5mph at least IMO.

I *know* you guys aren't morons and have heaps of experience racing, but saying "220rwkw is NOT 106mph" is ridiculous. Saying its wrong IS an assumption, and given he has a dyno plot for it - is a completely irrefutably incorrect assumption. The fact that it doesn't equate with the dyno you use doesn't change the fact it read 220rwkw on the dyno he ran it on which obviously reads different (not wrong) to what yours does.

DON'T pay too much attention to the dyno results, you're right in focussing on the trap speed as indication of the cars true power. A dyno result however isn't a completely level measuring stick for a cars true power - so you can't realistically (unless you are well used to the particular dyno) make any kind of educated guess on what trap speed it should or shouldn't do for a given power level .

Most people, with a R33GTS-t 220rwkw, run 110-111mph

So its not just 'one' result here, its a culmination of many that one can only gain from talking to people, working out thier results vs thier power.

Now, if your sitting outside the 'norm' then obviously something is either wrong or missing.

Variations should be minor across the board for things like this unless your changing the variables like weight, power and so on.

Its a good indicator (mph vs dyno) from what ive seen, and im happy to keep using it as such - this is provided the run is 'clean'.

Especially once you yourself become consistent, its a very very good gauge of things.

I could get a dyno sheet with 260rwkw on it and run 106mph - again, which is lying? The dyno. Clearly.

But - as we've now been informed, the clutch wasnt perfect, so that is a key point to note as power ISNT being transferred and is therefore a changing of one variable that effects the end result.

Could be the track surface.I had crap tyres on my 250rwkw R33 and had little wheelspin.That was a WSID.

13 flat at 113MPH with 2.0 60footers couldnt get 3rd gear all night.(practise practise practise)

i ran a 13.5@106mph with touch over 200rwkw rb20 r32, a slight amount of wheel spin but nothing to stupid...

on another note ive seen first hand a rx2 run a 10.4@110mph<please explain as when i watched the run i couldnt understand how it did it, the driver didnt back off either.

my quickest time is 13.173 @ 107mph with a 2.119sec 60ft, that is on talon triangles(cheep tyres) on r22 stock rims with tyre pressures at 16psi, i have got around 260rwhp, i rev quite high when i launch and give the clutch a hard time by keepn the revs up while trying not to spin the tyres, i have a few incar vids ill put on youtube of me at the drags and then put link on here

ive seen first hand a rx2 run a 10.4@110mph<please explain as when i watched the run i couldnt understand how it did it, the driver didnt back off either.

did he have big slicks on and get it off the line real well? depends on his gearing, his car might just be set up to boogy off the line but die in the ass at the other end

Just so it's clear, wheelspin, track prep or lack thereof or the shittiest of launch has absolutely NOTHING to do with mph. In fact, in most cases a slightly slower 60' time reults in a n extra mph put on in the top end.

i am finding it amusing that you get on here asking for help, abuse people when they give you good advise, then

turn around asking more questions. seeing that you all ready know everything. Funny. :laughing-smiley-014:

Suggest the pulling in of your head is necessary as these people have the time slips to prove it, dyno sheets mean fcuck

all mate. Your about 6mph short for a 12 and your clutch will slip in the higher gears if it was shot.

i now know the reason. clutch is fried. went to do the same type of launch just before and grabs middle of 1st gear then just revs and goes no where :) and a little bit at the top of 2nd. rest of the gears are ok. reason for my mph?

new clutch time. whats a good clutch for the power im making. dont want to limit myself either so say up to 260rwk. and need it to last.

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...