Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

lol @ 200sx Jonoe posted...equivalent R33 GTS-T would be like 7/8k. Though that one does seem overpriced for the mileage. Face it Astro, nothing gonna beat a Skyline for the dollar value. In your position I'd consider a Rex though.

lol what happened to mr keen for fourteen with a RWC...

Taking it in for a check on Monday.

Probably a tyre kicker but meh, I'd be happy if I got less than that

lol @ 200sx Jonoe posted...equivalent R33 GTS-T would be like 7/8k. Though that one does seem overpriced for the mileage. Face it Astro, nothing gonna beat a Skyline for the dollar value. In your position I'd consider a Rex though.

Its expensive cause its manual.

Same spec/year in same condition (even lower k's) auto is like 8-9k.

lol @ you both

What you need to understand is that the worlds decisions and choices arent driven by Engineers.

Marketting/Finance/Shareholders set unrealistic demands with fk all money and expect the world.

Wont make this a tl;dr but have a think; What gets more money? Redesigning the powersteering system or adding iPod connectivity? You can sell a lot more cars advertising iPod connectivity than mentioning redesigned brake master cylinder.

If it was Engineers final decision, everything would be designed & built correctly, but unfortunately world is driven by money and the yuppies who pass through a finance diploma make all the calls.

The engineers are squarely to blame. It was pathetically designed, without cause for the conditions.

There is no one else to blame unless someone can produce a paper where by the engineers explicitly state this is a high risk in the documentation of the project.

Regardless of any Shareholders or Finance, which is a stupid point given the wheel has now cost FAR MORE than

1. It should have

2. Lost public confidence

3. Cost ING a lot more money in the entire docklands precinct.

As IF the commissioning of the wheel came down to S/H & F. :rolleyes:

don't start getting technical kunts just admit that we are behind Japan/America tech wise not just cars just in general

Manufacturing wise - yes. Tech wise not really. There is some pretty serious gear (industry) that gets designed here for Mining, Agriculture. Whilst not an iPhone - it's tech none the less.

Look @ the 'tech' coming out of Taiwan, Thailand & similar with regards to electronics. They don't "have" the tech, they have foundries that make it. The tech to create/produce at that level is there as well which is far above the design of something that uses that process for without it you'd have nothing.

This is where Australia is losing and will continue to do so under the Carbon Tax, mark my words - manufacturing in Aus is already dropping and it'll disappear once everything is in full swing.

Aussie roads & conditions are certainly not part and parcel of many places in the world as well.

The local car market is very good. Hate them as i might, Holdens & Fords - you get a LOT more for you money these days than you did 10 years ago when purchasing a car.

That's with rising costs, inflation & base material costs.

If anything it's a testament to how well it's been done.

I'd suspect Europe is the forefront of engineering if your talking exclsivley cars the luxo brands (love them or hate them) lead the tech race IMO.

Id love to see Hyundai create something like the veyron

As for ford and holden they are great cars but everyone has to have the badge value these days, forget the strain the cost of keeping up appearances puts as long as we got a flashier (base model BMW) car than shaz & Daz next door it's all swoit

I'd argue that, depending what kind of tech - R35 owns the track, the Ferrari looks and sounds better. The C63 is safer.

Any manufacturer could create their own Veyron if it was in their interests to do it...there's just no point to making a flagship concept when Hyundai don't sell sports/luxury cars. They make small and medium family cars on a budget and do that job better than Bugatti, hence there's a lot of them on the road. Bugatti could compete...no point to it.

Engineers build supercars in their backyards, just look at the land speed record holders at the salt flats in the states...all private teams. The difference between manufacturers with regard to technology, is in having the market or R&D backing to do it, not necessarily the intelligence of their engineers, who are given orders and constraints - though where I concede is that the brightest will usually be the highest paid and employed by the wealthiest of manufacturers.

In the end there's only so much you can put in a car and that's why Aus is catching up / has caught up, on a dollar for dollar vehicle comparison.

The engineers are squarely to blame. It was pathetically designed, without cause for the conditions.

There is no one else to blame unless someone can produce a paper where by the engineers explicitly state this is a high risk in the documentation of the project.

Regardless of any Shareholders or Finance, which is a stupid point given the wheel has now cost FAR MORE than

1. It should have

2. Lost public confidence

3. Cost ING a lot more money in the entire docklands precinct.

As IF the commissioning of the wheel came down to S/H & F. :rolleyes:

With any capital project, a budget is determined based on the payback period. Any capital spending must be repayed in X years for the project to be viable to go ahead. The easiest way to get more capital is to promise shorter payback period to your shareholders/finance department.

So the project managers goal is to have the lowest cost of build so the payback period is shorter and that finance/shareholders/directors are willing to invest.

So what's the best way to do this? Substitute Material A for Material B etc until the construction cost falls within your X years payback period.

The engineering department would build/design to whatever budget is given to them however it's their responsibility to flag any risks. It's up to the project manager/directors to accept this risk.

The difference between Australia and the rest of the world is company's culture in payback period. For example, Germany would have a payback period twice as long as Australia which means more initial capital investment.

Engineers dont build Ferris wheels just because they want to Ash lol. It's all about the payback for the business.

tl;dr

Sorry Pat,

Would have to disagree with you here.

I find it highly unlikely that the engineers built the ferris wheel knowing the risks and that it was due solely to budget. If they knew theithere was a risk in it failing upon being built, I would say that they would have abandoned the project or asked for additional funding.

Moreso that they just stuffed up.

Also their are alot more factors to determine if a project is viable other than payback period. I.e NPV,IRR,and other economic factors such as cash flows, good will and additional interested attracted to the area.

Yes. Just beat my PB at the Island from April by .5 of a second after being set back by a traumatic crash in October. In an exhausted state as well!

Now down to 1:46.3 oooooooh rah! Only ten more seconds to go :D

power fc people:

Can you store more than one tune, if so, can you pick between them using a hand controller?? tell me someone

From what I know, you can't store more than one map in the ECU, I think Hamish carry laptop containing both 98 oct and E85 tune and transfering via PFC datalogit.

I'm sure Hamish will correct me if I'm wrong.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...