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

    • 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.
    • ..this is the current state of that port. I appreciate the info help (and the link to the Earls thing @Duncan). Though going by that it seems like 1/4 then BSP'ing it and using a bush may work. I don't know where I'd be remote mounting the pressure sender... to... exactly. I assume the idea here is that any vibration is taken up by the semiflexible/flexible hose itself instead of it leveraging against the block directly. I want to believe a stronger, steel bush/adapter would work, but I don't know if that is engineeringly sound or just wishful thinking given the stupendous implications of a leak/failure in this spot. What are the real world risks of dissimilar metals here? It's a 6061 Aluminum block, and I'm talking brass or steel or SS adapters/things.
    • And if you have to drill the oil block, then just drill it for 1/4" and tap it BSP and get a 1/8 to 1/4 BSP bush. The Nissan sender will go straight in and the bush will suit the newly tapped hole. And it will be real strong, to boot.
    • No it doesn't. It just needs an ezy-out to pull that broken bit of alloy out of the hole and presto chango - it will be back to being a 1/8" hole tapped NPT. as per @MBS206 recco. That would be for making what you had in alloy, in steel. If you wanted to do just that instead of remote mounting like @Duncan and I have been pushing. A steel fitting would be unbreakable (compared to that tragically skinny little alloy adapter). But remote mounting would almost certainly be 10x better. Small engineering shops abound all over the place. A lathe and 10 minutes of time = 2x six packs.
×
×
  • Create New...