Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

r32_bathurst24.jpg

Next...

that isn't a JGTC or GT class race car now is it? that is a group A race car. as was said earlier, all the JGTC and GT class GTR's are RWD, but that is because the rules specify that they must be RWD, and also a NA v8 from memory.

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

r32_bathurst24.jpg

Next...

I hate quoting pictures but do you have a high resolution version of this pic (eg background res).

Thanks

Also I know you guys wanted this thread to die but I picked up on a comment about the closer to 50:50 split they ran the faster their lap times. Is this a predominantly RWD that progresses to 50:50 upon loss of traction, or was it permanently 50:50? Cheers.

Also I know you guys wanted this thread to die but I picked up on a comment about the closer to 50:50 split they ran the faster their lap times. Is this a predominantly RWD that progresses to 50:50 upon loss of traction, or was it permanently 50:50? Cheers.

I think that was me. I didnt quite say 50:50 I said more front bias.

The way it works is roughly as follows.

The stock Attessa cuts front bias when it senses a reasonable road speed & reasonable lateral gee input. This is to "make it feel like a rear wheel drive car". Which is fine if that is what you want. By reducing the influence of the lateral gee input you end up with more front torque. Which if you have a reasonable chassis balance & some horsepowers gives you a quicker lap time.

It isnt a loss of traction thing to be pedantic. Also I have no idea how the fixed torque bias controllers work. Never used one.

For whomever wanted to PM me whatever I emptied the rubbish out of my inbox.

Anyway put the damn thread in a box & bury it. Please. Before RBNT has an aneurysm

that isn't a JGTC or GT class race car now is it? that is a group A race car. as was said earlier, all the JGTC and GT class GTR's are RWD, but that is because the rules specify that they must be RWD, and also a NA v8 from memory.

No it is not. Thankyou for stating the obvious.

I believed this thread was comparing an r32 gts-t to an r32 gt-r.... When someone makes a gts-t as capable as that car then I will be both surprised and accept the original premis of this thread.

I think that was me. I didnt quite say 50:50 I said more front bias.

The way it works is roughly as follows.

The stock Attessa cuts front bias when it senses a reasonable road speed & reasonable lateral gee input. This is to "make it feel like a rear wheel drive car". Which is fine if that is what you want. By reducing the influence of the lateral gee input you end up with more front torque. Which if you have a reasonable chassis balance & some horsepowers gives you a quicker lap time.

It isnt a loss of traction thing to be pedantic. Also I have no idea how the fixed torque bias controllers work. Never used one.

For whomever wanted to PM me whatever I emptied the rubbish out of my inbox.

Anyway put the damn thread in a box & bury it. Please. Before RBNT has an aneurysm

It still won't let me, says you can't receive any new PM's. >_<

No it is not. Thankyou for stating the obvious.

I believed this thread was comparing an r32 gts-t to an r32 gt-r.... When someone makes a gts-t as capable as that car then I will be both surprised and accept the original premis of this thread.

This is a fairly good way to summarize this thread. I am currently starting a very simple build up of a gts-t because I find them a more entertaining drive than the gt-r, I don't hold any delusions of it being faster at this stage. I welcome someone to make the fastest possible rwd R32. That said, Russel from Sau Vic has a nasty habit of beating all the GT-Rs in his gts-t at quite a number of events ;).

I had a go at you? When? Sorry but I do not remember. sad.gif

Sorry, I thought whey you said "I hate quoting pictures" that you were having a go at my thread reply with a picture only but you must have meant you don't like including a pic in your reply.

Anyway, here are some pics I have that are reasonable resolution...

post-26935-0-88637800-1308460154_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-67862800-1308460266_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-02316500-1308460416_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-22871800-1308460577_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-53347200-1308460843_thumb.jpg

Sorry, I thought whey you said "I hate quoting pictures" that you were having a go at my thread reply with a picture only but you must have meant you don't like including a pic in your reply.

Yeah thats what I meant lol, sorry for the confusion, thanks heaps for the pics! :)

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

    • Sounds good.  I don't 100% understand what your getting at here. When you say, "I keep seeing YouTube videos where people have new paint and primer land on the old clearcoat that isn't even dulled down" do you mean this - there is a panel with factory paint, without any prep work, they paint the entire panel with primer, then colour then clear?  If that's what you mean, sure it will "stick" for a year, 2 years, maybe 3 years? Who knows. But at some stage it will flake off and when it does it's going to come off in huge chunks and look horrific.  Of course read your technical data sheet for your paint, but generally speaking, you can apply primer to a scuffed/prepped clear coat. Generally speaking, I wouldn't do this. I would scuff/prep the clear and then lay colour then clear. Adding the primer to these steps just adds cost and time. It will stick to the clear coat provided it has been appropriately scuffed/prepped first.  When you say, "but the new paint is landing on the old clearcoat" I am imagining someone not masking up the car and just letting overspray go wherever it wants. Surely this isn't what you mean?  So I'll assume the following scenario - there is a small scratch. The person manages to somehow fill the scratch and now has a perfectly flat surface. They then spray colour and clear over this small masked off section of the car. Is this what you mean? If this is the case, yes the new paint will eventually flake off in X number of years time.  The easy solution is to scuff/prep all of the paint that hasn't been masked off in the repair area then lay the paint.  So you want to prep the surface, lay primer, then lay filler, then lay primer, then colour, then clear?  Life seems so much simpler if you prep, fill, primer, colour then clear.  There are very few reasons to go to bare metal. Chasing rust is a good example of why you'd go to bare metal.  A simple dent, there is no way in hell I'm going to bare metal for that repair. I've got enough on my plate without creating extra work for myself lol. 
    • Hi, Got the membership renewal email but haven't acted yet.  I need to change my address first. So if somebody can email me so I can change it that would be good.    
    • Bit of a similar question, apprently with epoxy primer you can just sand the panel to 240 grit then apply it and put body filler on top. So does that basically mean you almost never have to go to bare metal for simple dents?
    • Good to hear. Hopefully you're happy enough not to notice when driving and just enjoy yourself.
    • I mean, most of us just love cars. Doesnt necessarily have to be a skyline.
×
×
  • Create New...