Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

f**k, i didnt even know this was on, was this day advertised on mallala.com?

Private track days aren't actually public spectating days, and hence are not advertised.

I guess we were a little bit naughty in inviting so many people out (well a couple of invites somehow turned into an entourage - but you get that), and no doubt a few of the drivers who shelled out big bucks were a little bit miffed there were so many gawkers in their way about the place.

But hey, a bit of hype over the first track day of the 1st street legal R35GTR is not entirely a bad thing.

I noticed Martin take some shots of us vultures surrounding the R35GTR when we got there, that will no doubt make the pages of HPI sooner or later :) It was a bit of an excited throng of Nissan lovers .... and with good reason - that car is HOT!

Hey Michael, do you know what times Steve got out of the 35GTR? I had to leave half way through his session :( And yes, I agree - your car looked (and sounded) pure porn out there Michael :rofl:

I was really hoping to make it out there.

Too much drinky not enough sleepy fixed that though.

On times, Martin posted this:

1:15.6 as driven there on the stock tyres etc.

Timed using a Performance Box, peak logged speed 213km/h at the braking zone into the northern hairpin

So comparing to some of the other lap records:

Porsche Cup Cars

Matt Coleman (Porsche GT3)

01:11.8 4/08/2002

Saloon Cars

Bruce Heinrich (EA Falcon)

01:20.6 29/06/2002

Improved Production

Adam Allan (Datsun)

01:16.2 22/08/1998

V8 Supercars

Greg Murphy (Commodore)

01:08.1 13/07/1997

Super Touring

Brad Jones (Audi)

01:10.3 19/07/1998

That's pretty damn impressive - enter it into improved production without any improvements! LOL

The R35 would have been much quicker on proper semi-comp rubber, with maybe somewhere around a 1:14.5 to be had on the new Proxes R888 20s that have just been released (time will tell) :)

However, to my knowledge our R35 was the fastest ever factory specification road car to lap Mallala :thumbsup:

Edited by Martin Donnon

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...