Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

FineLine

Posted Today, 06:07 PM

Marlin, on 27 May 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Tire rack doesn't list A050's?! Only A048's

Edit - Or O3G's......

Anyone shed any light on that?

Edit - I've emailed them a request for info on those.

I rang them and couldnt get any sense out of them regards the o3g's Ben. I hope you have more luck.

No Re55s listed either. I've been on toyo's for the last 2 seasons on the GTR and really keen to try something better. I tryed a worn out set of medium Ao50s and they definatly impressed me. really want to try some new ones. Can you please ley me know how you go Ben?

pretty sure the fastest Aussie car at last year's WTAC was on Kumho V70A - Luff in the Lotus.

yep Harry is correct, the lotus ran on Kumho last year

damn that car only weighs in at only 750kg according to the spec list this year with 500+awhp

thats almost half the weight my car will be! R35 drivers really do need to pray to the Horsepower and AWD electronic trickery gods for an advantage

_MG_2446.286.JPG

yep Harry is correct, the lotus ran on Kumho last year

damn that car only weighs in at only 750kg according to the spec list this year with 500+awhp

thats almost half the weight my car will be! R35 drivers really do need to pray to the Horsepower and AWD electronic trickery gods for an advantage

_MG_2446.286.JPG

They are actually building a motor for it this year rather than just the race motor that he uses to compete in the GT series with (which is what they did last year).

Was looking at Natsoft results and from the creek yesterday and seen this:

Allan Simonsen Lamborghini Gallardo 5212 A 8 12:52.3149 1:28.0570R

Doing a 1:28.057 in a 8 lap race is dam impressive, may need more GT cars to enter World Time Attack like the little Lotus

Was looking at Natsoft results and from the creek yesterday and seen this:

Allan Simonsen Lamborghini Gallardo 5212 A 8 12:52.3149 1:28.0570R

Doing a 1:28.057 in a 8 lap race is dam impressive, may need more GT cars to enter World Time Attack like the little Lotus

More GT cars , yes please.

yep Harry is correct, the lotus ran on Kumho last year

damn that car only weighs in at only 750kg according to the spec list this year with 500+awhp

thats almost half the weight my car will be! R35 drivers really do need to pray to the Horsepower and AWD electronic trickery gods for an advantage

_MG_2446.286.JPG

Hate to say it Mark but 1500kg+ (at any power level or tech wizardry) will have no chance against the Lotus.

Btw anyone get the email from SL asking people to register what tyres they are running, so the manufacturers are stocked up? You have to wonder how gullable we are i suppose!

Was looking at Natsoft results and from the creek yesterday and seen this:

Allan Simonsen Lamborghini Gallardo 5212 A 8 12:52.3149 1:28.0570R

Doing a 1:28.057 in a 8 lap race is dam impressive, may need more GT cars to enter World Time Attack like the little Lotus

Slicks I assume? I wonder how it would go with semi's?

Hate to say it Mark but 1500kg+ (at any power level or tech wizardry) will have no chance against the Lotus.

Btw anyone get the email from SL asking people to register what tyres they are running, so the manufacturers are stocked up? You have to wonder how gullable we are i suppose!

Yes, my point exactly. We have no delusions of defying physics, especially in the time attack format with available tyre selections.

Slicks I assume? I wonder how it would go with semi's?

Yes would be on slicks, but still be on a harder compound I would think as they are racing. Would love to see some times on very soft slicks or semi’s that would only last 1 lap.

No Re55s listed either. I've been on toyo's for the last 2 seasons on the GTR and really keen to try something better. I tryed a worn out set of medium Ao50s and they definatly impressed me. really want to try some new ones. Can you please ley me know how you go Ben?

No good news Coop;

"Thanks for the email.

I'm sorry but we don't carry those model tires.

Kind regards,

Steve Huffman | Sales Specialist"

  • 4 weeks later...

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...