Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Dale from psi said on the 10th Aug

Sorry for the lateness of this reply, only just realised nobody had gotten back to you. They were sent off to a manufacturer for quotation however we were not happy with the end price. We have identified someone else who will being giving us another quote so that we can look into getting this finished soon.

  • 3 weeks later...

Just another update. After much deliberation with an international company to try and get the best possible price for you guys, I was astounded when we received a quote for the mold at $10,000USD. Needless to say that we are now trying to find another company again. It seems that this project is simple in my head, however getting the right people at the right price seems to be a lot harder than I ever imagined.

  • 4 weeks later...

Another quick update, after trying unsucessfully with several different Chineses factories, we have decided to return the lenses back to Australia and get them done at the same place where the clear engine covers are manufactured (Sydney Company), so that we can have complete control over the process and get the desired result for you all.

We would like to thank you all for your patience in regard to this project, as we could not forsee the time blow-out, ridiculous quoting and time turn-around from overseas companies.

  • 3 weeks later...

Another update.

Just received this email from the company in Sydney that produces the clear RB25 engine covers:

Thank you for sending the units for me to look at. Unfortunately we will not be able to help you with these as they are injection moulded and we cannot produce anything similar through vacuum forming.

There goes any chance for making these affordable. Once you start to get into injection moulding the costs balloon and minimum runs are in the hundreds. We will keep pursuing this, however it's looking like this project will never get off the ground.

If anyone else has ideas, please share them as we are always open to opinions and ideas on products.

  • 5 months later...
  • 1 year later...

ok Ive revived my plans to modify the r33 series 2 driving light lenses to fit the front indicators to have both clean glass lenses on the front bar....

I have a pair of glass lenses, they have been sitting there a while waiting for me to get the courage or tools to attempt to cut them down to fit...

through my work I cut alot of thick marble and tile onsite. the dif between glass and marble is that auto glass is highly tempered so that it shatters into chunks not shards, so my fear has been as soon as I try to cut them they will shatter and bye bye lense.

I got tired of waiting so I did a test of using a small diamond hole saw to cut a hole, if it shatters it certainly cant be done if not then yes its can...

and guess what it can be done, next step is to get a 110mm diamond encrusted holesaw and do it, alternatively I can continue using the small holesaw and do many holes, this glass could possibly be shaped also with a fine file...

post-26316-0-70800300-1389338141_thumb.jpg

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...