Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

practice and race engines were the same spec, the race engine would be a fresh one for the 1000km race, vs Brock's well used practice engine... I doubt that was a disadvantage for Perkins! In fact Perkins top speed on Conrod was 277.9, Brocky 277.8 so how can you suggest Brock made up all his time down Conrod???

split time at Forest Elbow was a 1:30 for Brock and they originally said 30.9 for Perkins, but there was some confusion over it and they changed their minds to a 30 as well, probably because they were so convinced his smoother lap was going to be faster as they had been saying all the way through it. Maybe they just didn't want to be proven wrong on national television...

Meh, i dont know. They said LP was the quickest to Forrest Elbow, and i dont know any different...but i do expect that a race engine to be down in power and/or not rev'd as hard as a practice-quali engine. From memory the V8s in Grp A trim had a higher rev limit, higher compression ratio limit and more cam freedoms then they later enjoyed when they moved to the control formula?!?!? (Based on memory only)

I think you need to listen to it again. all that stuff in my previous post is what the commentators said. I didn't just make it up. eg:

commentators about Brock's split time: "fastest time at forest elbow, one minute thirty"

commentators about Perkins split time, after talking him up for the whole lap about how smooth he was and that's why he's going to be faster than Brocky's ragged lap: "split time to the elbow was a thirty point nine, so...<insert pregnant pause>... No a thirty! So quickest so far"

and what do you know, after doing identical speeds down Conrod (277.9 vs 277.8kph), Brock was 0.9 up at the finish line. I think the original 30.9 split for Perkins was correct, the commentators just couldn't accept it...

the identical terminal speeds say more about the equivalence of their engines than any theorising about which may have had more power...

Edited by hrd-hr30
I think you need to listen to it again. all that stuff in my previous post is what the commentators said. I didn't just make it up. eg:

commentators about Brock's split time: "fastest time at forest elbow, one minute thirty"

commentators about Perkins split time, after talking him up for the whole lap about how smooth he was and that's why he's going to be faster than Brocky's ragged lap: "split time to the elbow was a thirty point nine, so...<insert pregnant pause>... No a thirty! So quickest so far"

and what do you know, after doing identical speeds down Conrod (277.9 vs 277.8kph), Brock was 0.9 up at the finish line. I think the original 30.9 split for Perkins was correct, the commentators just couldn't accept it...

the identical terminal speeds say more about the equivalence of their engines than any theorising about which may have had more power...

Terminal speed accounts for nothing.

Its the highest average speed that results in better lap times. Just because they had near identical terminal speeds ignores which car was travelling fastest down Conrod for the longest. At higher speeds it takes a exponentional amount of hp to punch a hole through the air. Those cars could have been within 20hp of each other and still ended up with near identical terminal speeds because or wind resistence, gearing, etc.

Edited by juggernaut1

ffs, the cars are as near as is possible to being identical! same weight, same gearing, same wind resistance, same engine specs. they're both built to the same set of rules, by the same team!

are you suggesting that if one of those identical engines had 20bhp more, that's enough to accellerate an identically 1250kg Commodore fast enough to make up 0.9 of a second in the 19 seconds it takes to run down conrod alone???

I'm suggesting that identical terminal speeds and peak hp means nothing as to which car will produce faster lap times or a faster sector time even if the cars are "identical".

But your right.....your comment that "the commentators just couldn't accept it" sounds much more plausable. :cool:

Edited by juggernaut1

Have I got this right for how to corner?

Come up to the corner.

Brake in a straight line.

Clutch out.

Blip throttle.

Stop braking.

Clutch in and engage lower gear.

Should now be at corner turn in.

Turn wheel. :)

Flat on throttle until apex.

Slowly give it some gas and floor it on exit.

Rinse and repeat?

You shouldn't stop braking that early. If you're trail braking, you won't stop braking until you're practically at the apex.

Even if you're not trail braking, you should be braking during that gearchange (assuming its necessary). I'd swap the "engage lower gear" and "stop braking" points around.

Have I got this right for how to corner?

Come up to the corner.

Brake in a straight line.

Clutch out.

Blip throttle.

Stop braking.

Clutch in and engage lower gear.

Should now be at corner turn in.

Turn wheel. :D

Flat on throttle until apex.

Slowly give it some gas and floor it on exit.

Rinse and repeat?

Sequence is roughly like this.

At the start of the braking zone. Smash foot onto the brakes ie brake hard as you can without lockup early in the stop.

If you need to heel/toe down change do it as early as the road speed allows (ie don't buzz the motor) with the idea of being in the gear you need on corner exit before you turn in. You are still braking as hard as you can at this point.

Ease off the brakes as you turn the car in carrying a little brake pressure to the apex to keep the nose interested. (Mostly for GTR's as they are understeering cops)

Get on the gas as soon as you can and always bear in mind once on it it stay on it - don't stab at it. On some circuit set ups this may even happen before the apex of the corner.

The best advice is buy a book on track driving techniques that includes an explanation of tyre behaviour and chassis behaviour. There is a lot more to it than can be explained in one post let alone one chapter of a book.

Try amazon & pitstop for the books.

Edited by djr81

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

    • I have been being VERY quiet about what you're alluding to, as it is something that ticks me off... The number of cars from factory that run coil overs is HUGE! Most of them these days do... The other part that annoys me, is people saying "Well all the incabin adjustable suspension is illegal by blah blah blah"... If that's the case, then why can I buy a car brand new that can do it if, FULL STOP in cabin adjustable suspension is illegal...   Also, I could just chuck some aftermarket shocks in my car, throw the stock springs on, after my blue slip, dump my super low springs back in. Same shock and spring style setup... Hell, they could also be the same colour springs etc.     I'm voting, BlueSlipper didn't want to touch the above car for some reason. Whether it be some sort of bias against the car, the owner, them maybe having previously done dodgy shit and now they're being super careful in case they get slapped in the face by the Gumbyment again... Find a new blueslip place.   And can confirm as you had said, yes there are holy bibles of vehicle heights, and all sorts of other suspension stuff. Heck your run of the mill mechanic, and tyre shop has access to all of that stuff. It's how they do wheel alignments...
    • Funny story Heading to Sydney this morning on the HWY there was some slow traffic, so I gave it the beans and midway through my overtaking "power run" I lost all power It seems that I missed a hose clamp,  and the MAF and filter went WiFi To make this more problematic, the little tool kit that lives in the boot, is sitting in the sun room at Goulburn......LOL Luckily for me I found a bit of steel on the side of the road that could be used like a rusty and bent flat head screw driver to tighten it up enough that it got me into Sydney, it is now all tight like a tiger with the aid of a 8mm socket Note to self: Use my brain and double check stuff, and always keep that little tool kit in the car for when I have a brain fart
    • Oh, and as for everyone with their fuel economy changes, I switch between E10 and 98 in the company car. Even do when I had personal cars that could run on E10. You know what changed my fuel economy in any noticeable way? How I drove, and where I drove. Otherwise, say on full tanks of just back and forth from work only (So same trips, same sort of traffic), couldn't notice a difference that I can correlate to the type of fuel in use. In the current vehicle, that's over 42L of USABLE fuel. While 98 is all "more energy dense", it also has higher knock resistance as it takes more energy to get it to ignite too. The longer hydrocarbons, typically more tightly bound. So running the same ignition map, can also produce less power, if there isn't enough time to get it all burnt through properly, as yep, the flame propagation speed is different from lower octane fuel to higher (Higher has a lower flame propagation, due to the more tightly bound and harder to self ignite funs. This is also typically where, a vehicle that is designed purely to run on 91 (Whether it be E10 or normal 91) usually sees absolutely no real world difference in fuel economy for the normal man, woman, or dog.
    • We've got some servos around me that have 91 with E10, 91 (no E10), 95, and 98. At those stations the change from 91 E10 to 91, is typically around 8c/L.   But lets not get started on the price of fuel in Oz. It's ridiculous. All the service stations around me, bar one, the price of fuel has been over the $2 mark per litre for the cheapest, 98 being around $2.45. That one service station is a CostCo, fuel from it comes from the same refineries, and makes no pitstops, it runs great, including the 98. In fact, I've had no issues on CostCo fuel, but plenty of issues at other stations!. The CostCo fuel, was $1.65 roughly this week for 94 with E10. $1.88 for 98. Servos directly across from it, $2.10 for 91 E10, and $2.48 for 98. The part I had to laugh at? If I drive multiple HOURS away from Brisbane, say out near Nanango, or Kingaroy, or even out to Goondiwindi, the price of their fuel, is the same as what it is at the CostCo... Oh, and that BP servo at Goondiwindi is HUGE and goes through epic turnover of fuel, so it's not sitting there for weeks going to shit. And what blows me away, my mate is one of the people who drives the Fuel Tanker all around QLD, delivering to all those places. At the same company his previous role was doing the "local haul" deliveries... Same truck, same driver, same pickup point it all comes from. So you tell me, how the hell it is 60c/L CHEAPER for fuel, when nearly all else is equal, except they require a B-Double to drive half a day out of Brisbane, and half a day back, every second day, compared to the delivery that can be under 30 minutes drive from the fuel pickup point... Not to mention, go five blocks down the road, and Ampol to Ampol will vary 30c/L... And I've had this conversation with my mate... The way it's priced, is just typical, pure and utter rubbish... He also does runs from Brisbane, to all over QLD, down to Newcastle, Sydney, Nowra, Melbourne, Geelong, and even out to parts of the NT depending on the companies needs. His main stuff is all the longer distance away from home for a few days at a time, then when he's back, he loves to just pickup extra shifts wherever he can in whichever truck, hence all the weird different places.   Oh, as for getting E10 into all the fuels in Australia... It was very quickly highlighted, that we don't have enough biomass available to use to make E10 sustainably like they require, and it would dramatically cut into our, and the worlds food chain supply...   I vote we all just start running on liquid methane gas... Plenty of that just getting tapped off at tips from underground decay... (Note, this is pure just stupid commenting. I could very easily highlight the reasons its not a good idea especially on scale...)
    • Am I correct in assuming that the R35's are getting the classic skyline haircut off the odometer?  Quick search on carsales, there are 33 08 and 09 GTR's for sale, only 2 of them have more then 100,000km's on them (116,075 and 110,000 respectively).  And somehow there are about 25 for sale with around 60,000kms? Looks like the classic skyline haircut to me =/
×
×
  • Create New...