Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3rd place- #22 Pro-Staff R Magic FD3S Mazda RX-7 (Best Lap: 55.947sec, Top Speed: 217.742 km/h)

fastest rx7 this year... but it was beat by 2 GTR's.. R34 me thinks :ermm: but 55.94 secs is fkn quick lol

Was it just me or did that rx7 have much more stick than the GT-R did on the straighter parts of the track? I think the 35 did very well. Was not completly outclassed in the corners and braking, and hasnt had 12 years of development like the rx7 does too. Very impressive for its weight. Now Mr Nissan, can we have a lightweight version of this car!

Thats a fairly heavily developed rx, the gtr sounds almost whisper quite in comparison.... Was it just a stock road car?

Sorry I don't speak Japanese...but I did catch them say the rx had a killer engine.

Was a fun clip, thx.

Edited by madbung

what im waiting for tho is when someone is able to do a full transplant of the 35R running gear into a 34/33/32r chassis. that would be a major task but imagine the possibilities???!!

the R32/33/34 weigh around 300kgs lighter then the 35r.. that thing will easily do 10's on the stock engine and road tyres maybe!

what im waiting for tho is when someone is able to do a full transplant of the 35R running gear into a 34/33/32r chassis. that would be a major task but imagine the possibilities???!!

the R32/33/34 weigh around 300kgs lighter then the 35r.. that thing will easily do 10's on the stock engine and road tyres maybe!

35 GT-R will do 10's on the stock engine on stock tires with stock interior so obviously a lighter car would do it too.

There's probably 100kg + of wiring and electronics, strenghtening the chassis to take the weight and power.

Doubt it'd come in much under the r35's weight, if at all.

Haha you have to be kidding me.

No interior, CF bits etc.

Heres the real kicker - The GTR is on stock standard tyres - so the faux pas R-Comps

The FD is on real deal Advan R-comps.

Id love to see it re run with both cars on the same tyres, the RX7 would get hosed.

On street tyres the RX7 would have no traction, and the GTR on R-comps would have so much more grip.

Expected result anyhow, highly modded FD which are a fantastic handling car as is versus light modded heavy and big car.

Haha you have to be kidding me.

No interior, CF bits etc.

Heres the real kicker - The GTR is on stock standard tyres - so the faux pas R-Comps

The FD is on real deal Advan R-comps.

Id love to see it re run with both cars on the same tyres, the RX7 would get hosed.

On street tyres the RX7 would have no traction, and the GTR on R-comps would have so much more grip.

Expected result anyhow, highly modded FD which are a fantastic handling car as is versus light modded heavy and big car.

Nah I'm not kidding at all...so why not strip the r35 and swap some carbon fibre panels.

Like for like... by the time all the added electronics are moved across and you strengthen the chassis of the r34 to handle it + new mounting points ect. You can't just slap it in there and throw some plates on it.

It'd be very close in weight... Just think about it a little.

Nah I'm not kidding at all...so why not strip the r35 and swap some carbon fibre panels.

Like for like... by the time all the added electronics are moved across and you strengthen the chassis of the r34 to handle it + new mounting points ect. You can't just slap it in there and throw some plates on it.

It'd be very close in weight... Just think about it a little.

Because MCR havnt gotten that far with the car - I have no doubt sooner rather then later it will lose its interior, sound deadening, and anything it doesnt need.

At the time of filming the car wasnt that far developed.

Your telling me that the FD has added 300kg or so by putting in a boost controller, ecu, intercooler and bigger brakes?

Put the pipe down.

RE Amemia churnes out the most insane Rotors ever.

But my son of rajab can Tsuchiya drive! Look at that steering work!

He's overdriving the car.

Any racer will tell you that. Even i was told when i was racing superkarts that "less is more" - the less input through the wheel, the faster you will be grasshopper.

It makes sense - wheel movement costs you time.

Simple as that.

Because MCR havnt gotten that far with the car - I have no doubt sooner rather then later it will lose its interior, sound deadening, and anything it doesnt need.

At the time of filming the car wasnt that far developed.

Your telling me that the FD has added 300kg or so by putting in a boost controller, ecu, intercooler and bigger brakes?

Put the pipe down.

I'm not saying anything about the fd at all...never did.

Now for a 3rd time.

I was replying to the suggestion that an r34 with r35 running gear would be lighter than the r35 because the r34 is "300kg"lighter than an r35. As I said previously..........

By the time you put all the running gear across plus the shit load of electronics and plumbing to match, strengthen the chassis and fabricate new mounting points it will no longer be 300kg lighter.

You say the r34 is 300kg lighter, I say when every thing is swapped over there wouldn't be much in it.

You went off on some tangent re: put carbon fibre bla bla....then I said you could do the same with the r35 so why bother?

So like for like.. you build an r34/5 street car or track car it'll end up around the same as a comparable r35.

Your lack of basic comprehension is astounding. Still got an issue?

Put he pipe down????? insulting little shit...

Get a clue.

Just to clarify teh R35 does have exhaust and breathing mods and upgraded suspension and light weight carbon/kevlar Bride seats. And Advan Neova are not semi slicks, they are performance tyres much like what the GTR was running. If anything they are a generation behind the Dunlops so not as good a tyre.

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...