Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Australia's fastest GTR is on track to run a 7 sec pass this weekend at the winternationals. With a lazy launch 1.35 60' and wheelspinning on gearchanges the car stopped the clocks at 8.16 and blasted through the traps at 171MPH into a strong headwind. With further setting the car up for the conditions and a better 60' (PB is 1.23) a 7 sec pass is obtainable. Further updates will follow tommorrow night with the 2nd round of qualifing to be held at 7pm.

well done to Mark, Justin, Harry and the team (Julie, Tommi and Ava)

Edited by DiRTgarage
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Australia's fastest GTR is on track to run a 7 sec pass this weekend at the winternationals. With a lazy launch 1.35 60' and wheelspinning on gearchanges the car stopped the clocks at 8.16 and blasted through the traps at 171MPH into a strong headwind. With further setting the car up for the conditions and a better 60' (PB is 1.23) a 7 sec pass is obtainable. Further updates will follow tommorrow night with the 2nd round of qualifing to be held at 7pm.

well done to Mark, Justin, Harry and the team (Julie, Tommi and Ava)

Very cool - good luck guys :D What tires is it running on now, I am assuming full slicks?

***UPDATE***

Tonight in the 2nd round of qualifing the car ran an Australian record equaling 8.07. MPH was 173 with a better 60' of 1.27

Car was turning the tyres hard off the line but due to the lack of a slider clutch is something that will have to be put up with. Car is unloading the tyres front to rear after grabbing 2nd gear but is running straight as an arrow (unlike sydney where it wanted both lanes)

Lambda readings on the MoTeC show the car is running rich in the air conditions at the track. A harder leaner tune will be tried tomm for a shot at the elusive 7.

stay tuned

Awesome, exciting stuff :D 173mph is certainly getting up there, fingers crossed it can get those extra few mph and a 10th less - would really like to see this car as the next 7s one!

Good luck guys.

right...the 60' was 1.27 so up there but not quite a PB. Mark hit the limiter in 1st so even quicker times are on the cards in the finals tomm. Car was gunbarrel straight and in the groove the whole run with a 1/2 track MPH of 141. MPH shows 7.80's are achieveable in the eliminators tomm.

This makes the car the 3rd fastest GTR in the world and the quickest 2.6ltr RB 26 in the world.

Edited by DiRTgarage
right...the 60' was 1.27 so up there but not quite a PB. Mark hit the limiter in 1st so even quicker times are on the cards in the finals tomm. Car was gunbarrel straight and in the groove the whole run with a 1/2 track MPH of 141. MPH shows 7.80's are achieveable in the eliminators tomm.

This makes the car the 3rd fastest GTR in the world and the quickest 2.6ltr RB 26 in the world.

Awesome! Congratulations! :) look forward to hearing how it goes tomorrow

Just got back from the track. Mark's 7.96 @ 176mph was awesome!!! 60 was good then he banged off the limiter. It ran straight.

I recon closer to 180mph with a high 7.8x tomorrow!!! fingers crossed

CONGRATS TO MARK & TEAM!!!

woooooooohooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! bout bloody time!

awesome work and congrats to all involved!

paul what time does he run tomorrow? i'll be out there all day from mid morning on

woooooooohooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! bout bloody time!

awesome work and congrats to all involved!

paul what time does he run tomorrow? i'll be out there all day from mid morning on

his first elimination round is at 10.25am

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...