Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

#135

Jim Richards and Mark Skaife hold the record for the fastest Bathurst 1000. In 1991 they completed the classic race in 6 hours, 19 minutes and 14.80 seconds, at an average speed of 158.26km/hr.

I'm trying to remember what car those two were driving back in 1991.............

Edited by scathing
Yes Scathing, but let us be fair, it was before they modified the track.

Thats incorrect, The chase went in after Bathurst 1986 when Mike Bergmans Commodore became airborne and crashed...RIP

Funny Alan...

I couldn't remember the figures of 6 Hrs, 19 min., 14.8 sec in a rain shortened Bathurst 1000 but somehow...

I CAN'T GET JIM RICHARDS' SPEEEEEEEECH OUTTA MY MIND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

ESPECIALLY THE WORD HE USED LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

1992: The race was stopped on Lap 145 because of numerous crashes in the heavily rain-soaked circuit, including the car of the leader on Lap 144. The race was wound back to the previous completed lap 144 as per the usual red flag rule, however in doing so it was discovered that some of the vehicles that had crashed during the storm-burst had crashed prior to the race leader completing the 144th lap. In this rare instance the race was wound back an additional lap so all involved vehicles could be classified as finishers.

Now... Who won the 1992 Bathurst and in what car?

Shit... Couldn't they handle an AWD car in the wet or something?

As to the introduction of the chase...

"The Chase", a large three-corner chicane, added in 1987 to the straight to comply with the FIA's regulations regarding length of straights was dedicated to Burgmann with a plaque embedded in the concrete barriers.

It was not added because of the death, it was to bring the track to FIA standards, but was dedicated to Mike Burgmann, as he died there the year earlier.

Edited by MBS206
1992: The race was stopped on Lap 145 because of numerous crashes in the heavily rain-soaked circuit, including the car of the leader on Lap 144. The race was wound back to the previous completed lap 144 as per the usual red flag rule, however in doing so it was discovered that some of the vehicles that had crashed during the storm-burst had crashed prior to the race leader completing the 144th lap. In this rare instance the race was wound back an additional lap so all involved vehicles could be classified as finishers.

Now... Who won the 1992 Bathurst and in what car?

Shit... Couldn't they handle an AWD car in the wet or something?

As to the introduction of the chase...

"The Chase", a large three-corner chicane, added in 1987 to the straight to comply with the FIA's regulations regarding length of straights was dedicated to Burgmann with a plaque embedded in the concrete barriers.

It was not added because of the death, it was to bring the track to FIA standards, but was dedicated to Mike Burgmann, as he died there the year earlier.

Shit....I beleive that it wasn't a wet track i beleive it was FLOODED and i believe the car was on slicks....Like to see anyone else do that and for the amount of time they did they were fine until they hit the top of the mountain and there was rivers everywhere.

here's one for you. who can remember the lap record holder pre caltex chase? and record that now can't be broken haha :(

George Fury in the Bluebird with the fire extingusher pointed @ the intercooler and the non standard "japanese" IRS rear end!

That young driver next to him did alright for himself though.

You mean the one that is about to go bankrupt? I'd hate to see the straits someone is in who isn't doing alright for themselves.

Shit....I beleive that it wasn't a wet track i beleive it was FLOODED and i believe the car was on slicks....Like to see anyone else do that and for the amount of time they did they were fine until they hit the top of the mountain and there was rivers everywhere.

George Fury in the Bluebird with the fire extingusher pointed @ the intercooler and the non standard "japanese" IRS rear end!

oh yeah. very interesting for qualifying they would wind the boost up so between the qualifying lap and the race they where replacing the turbo. :bunny:

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


  • Latest Posts

    • You won't need to do that if your happy to learn to tune it yourself. You 100% do not need to do that. It is not part of the learning process. It's not like driving on track and 'finding the limit by stepping over the limit'. You should not ever accidently blow up an engine and you should have setup the ECU's engine protection to save you from yourself while you are learning anyway. Plenty of us have tuned their own cars, myself included. We still come here for advice/guidance/new ideas etc.  What have you been doing so far to learn how to tune?
    • Put the ECU's MAP line in your mouth. Blow as hard as you can. You should be able to see about 10 kPa, maybe 15 kPa positive pressure. Suck on it. You should be able to generate a decent vacuum to about the same level also. Note that this is only ~2 psi either way. If the MAP is reading -5 psi all the time, ignition on, engine running or not, driving around or not, then it is severely f**ked. Also, you SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING IT WITHOUT A LOAD REFERENCE. You will break the engine. Badly.
    • Could be correct. Meter might be that far out. Compare against a known 5 ohm 1% resistor.
    • @Murray_Calavera  If I were an expert I wouldn't be in here looking for assistance.  I am extremely computer literate, have above average understanding on how things should be working and how they should tie together.  If I need to go to a professional tuner so be it, but I'd much rather learn and do things myself even if it means looking for some guidance along the way and blowing up a few engines. @GTSBoy  I was hoping it would be as simple as a large vacuum leak somewhere but I'm unable to find anything, all lines seem to be well capped or going where they need to be, and when removed there is vacuum felt on the tube.  It would be odd for the Haltech built in MAP to be faulty, the GTT tune I imported had it enabled from the start, I incorrectly assumed it was reading a signal from the stock MAP, but that doesn't exist.  After running a vacuum hose to the ECU the signal doesn't change more than 0.2 in either direction.   I'll probably upload a video of my settings tomorrow, as it stands I'm able to daily drive, but getting stuttering when giving it gas from idle, so pulling away from lights is a slow process of revving it up and feathering the clutch until its moving, then it will accelerate fine.  It sounds like I need to get to the bottom of the manifold pressure issue, but the ignition timing section is most intimidating to me and will probably let a pro do that part.  Tomorrow I'll try a different vacuum line to T off of, with any luck I selected one that was already bypassed during the DBW swap.  (edit: I went out and did it right now, the line I had chosen did appear to have no vacuum on it, it used to go to the front of the intake, I've now completely blocked that one off at the bracket that holds several vacuum lines by the firewall.  I T'd into the vacuum line that goes from that bracket to the vacuum pump at the front of the car, but no change in the MAP readings).  Using the new vacuum line that has obvious vacuum on the hose, im still only getting readings between -6.0 and -5.2.  I'm wondering why the ECU was detecting -5.3 when nothing was connected to the MAP nipple and ECU MAP selected as the source. @feartherb26  I do have +T in the works but wanted to wait until Spring to start with that swap since this is my good winter AWD vehicle.  When removing the butterfly, did it leave a bunch of holes in the manifold that you needed to plug?  I thought about removing it but assumed it would be a mess.   I notice no difference when capping the vacuum line to it or letting it do its thing.  This whole thing has convinced me to just get a forward facing manifold when the time comes though.
    • Update: tested my spark plugs that are supposed to be 5ohms with a 10% deviation and one gave me a 0 ohms reading and the rest were 3.9ohm<, so one bad and the others on their way out.
×
×
  • Create New...