Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perhaps with the extra boost and extra acceleration, the thing is revving out quicker and even higher. (assuming you are not bouncing the thing off rev limiters as a shift point.

So if you are normally changing gear at 6,500rpm in 2nd because acceleration is starting to trail off, but with more boost there may be a little more top end, so you rev the car that couple of hundred rpm harder.

Go for a drive down the street at 7psi and bounce the thing of the rev limiter, then do it again at 10psi...you will see that your road speeds are the same.

I am a mechanical engineer...

You aint no mechanical engineer, you explained that concept far too well to be a mech engineer... there werent even any typos or speling mistaks :rant:

Perhaps with the extra boost and extra acceleration, the thing is revving out quicker and even higher. (assuming you are not bouncing the thing off rev limiters as a shift point.

So if you are normally changing gear at 6,500rpm in 2nd because acceleration is starting to trail off, but with more boost there may be a little more top end, so you rev the car that couple of hundred rpm harder.

Go for a drive down the street at 7psi and bounce the thing of the rev limiter, then do it again at 10psi...you will see that your road speeds are the same.  

I like your point, but were not talking about a 5 or 10 km/h difference, we're talking about a full 20km/h difference. I never hit rev limiter, only ever hit it once, i always shift at 6500... My Apexi computer even tells me that. So its not just a guess of when i actually shifted.

Oww and i dont shift at 6500 because im loosing power, im shifting at it because its peak power right there and its the best time to shift.

"more boost there may be a little more top end, so you rev the car that couple of hundred rpm harder." Yeh good point, but a couple extra hundred RPM wouldnt explain for a whole 20km/h. Dont worry, I'll be testing tomorrow.

:run:

/me awaits Sydneykid to tell me I'm wrong.../

Your WRONG Ronin, I have a son but he is neither long nor lost. :slap:

As for Jamesh3, I have seriously pissed my pants several times reading the drivel :bonk:

In a manual car there is a SOLID connection between the wheels and the engine. In the same gear it is impossible for the rpm of the wheels to change if the rpm of the engine doesn't. :flamer:

As for single, double or triple clutching on the up change being faster, I can not believe anyone is that stupid :headspin:

How long does it take you to;

lift off the throttle

push the clutch in

move the gear lever to neutral

push the clutch in

squeeze the throttle

lift off the throttle

then move the gear lever into the next gear

lift off the clutch

squeeze the throttle

If you are really good it's 0.15 of a second.

Compare that to;

lift throttle

move gear lever into the next gear

squeeze throttle

If you are average that's 0.02 of a second

In a 1/4 you make 3 gear changes, 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. Using the double clutch method you spend 3 X 0.15 = 0.45 not accelerating. Compared to 0.02 X 3 = 0.06 not accelerating.

You just lost the drag by 0.4 second. :kick:

I can't believe I managed to type this without laughing my self sick. :throwup:

How long does it take you to;

lift off the throttle

push the clutch in

move the gear lever to neutral

push the  clutch in

squeeze the throttle

lift off the throttle

then move the gear lever into the next gear

lift off the clutch

squeeze the throttle

Wrong. Thats like truck double clutching. Not Racing double clutching... Doop!

Firstly Read post #27 & #24.

Lol mate, thats the other form of Double Clutching most people think when they hear that term. You are ignorant like many others,i dont blame you but perhaps you should read posts 27 & 24 about Double Clutching which you've probably never even heard of before then read another about "Popping" & "Fanning" which is the same thing... Once you have finally read the post and then know why double clutching is faster for turbo cars, you may be the once laughing at your self.

"I can not believe anyone is that stupid"

Ignorance is Bliss aint it! :flamed: hahah

You got that one pretty much spot on, well explained...  It's also called double clutching by people, it seems the term 'double clutching' has 2 different explanations and most people think the other.  From now on so theres no confusion i hope I'll be calling it "fanning" or "stepping" or "popping" hehehe.

NO, double clutching does not have two explanations!

NO, fanning, stepping or popping is not the same as double clutching!

Whoever these "most people" are, they are wrong and have misinformed you! this is cause most people dont know sh1it about cars.

How many reaplies does it take on here for you to believe what double clutching actually is??? just accept it: you are wrong, and so are most people

**this is a perfect example of someone thinking they know all about driving a car fast just cause they drive a fast car**

in simple terms, i've always thought of double clutching as a longer period between each gear change, hence, less accelerating. Why spend more time changing gears? doesn't make sense at all :confused: I think SydneyKid explained it very well.

When i see someone taking the Mines R34 GTR out for a spin, or any track battle of ANY turbo car, and see someone "double clutching" (as they have a cam view of the pedals) i will come back to this thread and say i'm wrong. But as long as the crazy nutcases in Japan are flying around in beasts of cars like the Mines R34 GTR, and shifting "normally" i will continue to think of "double cluthing" as something that belongs, and should stay in, the Fast and the Fubarb.

cheers :D

OH MY GOD!!!!

I DONT THINK THAT ANYONE HAS EVER TOLD SYDNEYKID THAT HE IS WRONG!!!

YOU KNOW WHY?

CAUSE HE IS NEVER WRONG!!! NO EXCEPTIONS!

Well I tell him he is wrong all day long.....

But online, this is not the first time... won't be the last, but might be the  funniest :headspin:  

dont you think its strange that you are the only odd one out here?

/me runs into corner and cries... shut down by Sydneykid  :D /

Can the REAL Son of Sydneykid please stand up.....

:wavey:

That's right, been here all along......

Don't diss la

Wrong.  Thats like truck double clutching.  Not Racing double clutching... Doop!

Firstly Read post #27 & #24.

Lol mate, thats the other form of Double Clutching most people think when they hear that term.  You are ignorant like many others,i dont blame you but perhaps you should read posts 27 & 24 about Double Clutching which you've probably never even heard of before then read another about "Popping" & "Fanning" which is the same thing...  Once you have finally read the post and then know why double clutching is faster for turbo cars, you may be the once laughing at your self.  

"I can not believe anyone is that stupid"

Ignorance is Bliss aint it!  :flamed: hahah

:bs!:

guys i figured out why he gets higher speed with higher boost! :D

he's using tyres that expand when they heat up (some drag cars have this?). with the extra power he's getting, with the added excitement that he's gonna "double clutch" like in the movies, he performs his (incorrectly named) double clutching in each gear, he's spinning the wheels and getting another few cms diamater in the tyres with more heat than he could with the less power, therefore high speed in 2nd gear!!

(as for "granny shifting" claims, as if ur granny shifting ur not even really reaching full boost before changing, i dont see how he's getting 0-100 in 6s with that, man imagine the car when it hits full boost!!)

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

    • Thanks for the reply mate. Well I really hope its a hose then not engine out job
    • But.... the reason I want to run a 60 weight is so at 125C it has the same viscosity as a 40 weight at 100C. That's the whole reason. If the viscosity changes that much to drop oil pressure from 73psi to 36psi then that's another reason I should be running an oil that mimics the 40 weight at 100C. I have datalogs from the dyno with the oil pressure hitting 73psi at full throttle/high RPM. At the dyno the oil temp was around 100-105C. The pump has a 70psi internal relief spring. It will never go/can't go above 70psi. The GM recommendation of 6psi per 1000rpm is well under that... The oil sensor for logging in LS's is at the valley plate at the back of  the block/rear of where the heads are near the firewall. It's also where the knock sensors are which are notable for 'false knock'. I'm hoping I just didn't have enough oil up top causing some chatter instead of rods being sad (big hopium/copium I know) LS's definitely heat up the oil more than RB's do, the stock vettes for example will hit 300F(150C) in a lap or two and happily track for years and years. This is the same oil cooler that I had when I was in RB land, being the Setrab 25 row oil cooler HEL thing. I did think about putting a fan in there to pull air out more, though I don't know if that will actually help in huge load situations with lots of speed. I think when I had the auto cooler. The leak is where the block runs to the oil cooler lines, the OEM/Dash oil pressure sender is connected at that junction and is what broke. I'm actually quite curious to see how much oil in total capacity is actually left in the engine. As it currently stands I'm waiting on that bush to adapt the sender to it. The sump is still full (?) of oil and the lines and accusump have been drained, but the filter and block are off. I suspect there's maybe less than 1/2 the total capacity there should be in there. I have noticed in the past that topping up oil has improved oil pressure, as reported by the dash sensor. This is all extremely sketchy hence wanting to get it sorted out lol.
    • I neglected to respond to this previously. Get it up to 100 psi, and then you'll be OK.
    • I agree with everything else, except (and I'm rethinking this as it wasn't setup how my brain first though) if the sensor is at the end of a hose which is how it has been recommended to isolate it from vibrations, then if that line had a small hole in, I could foresee potentially (not a fluid dynamic specialist) the ability for it to see a lower pressure at the sensor. But thinking through, said sensor was in the actual block, HOWEVER it was also the sensor itself that broke, so oil pressure may not have been fully reaching the sensor still. So I'm still in my same theory.   However, I 100% would be saying COOL THE OIL DOWN if it's at 125c. That would be an epic concern of mine.   Im now thinking as you did Brad that the knock detection is likely due to the bearings giving a bit more noise as pressure dropped away. Kinkstah, drop your oil, and get a sample of it (as you're draining it) and send it off for analysis.
    • I myself AM TOTALLY UNPREPARED TO BELIEVE that the load is higher on the track than on the dyno. If it is not happening on the dyno, I cannot see it happening on the track. The difference you are seeing is because it is hot on the track, and I am pretty sure your tuner is not belting the crap out of it on teh dyno when it starts to get hot. The only way that being hot on the track can lead to real ping, that I can think of, is if you are getting more oil (from mist in the inlet tract, or going up past the oil control rings) reducing the effective octane rating of the fuel and causing ping that way. Yeah, nah. Look at this graph which I will helpfully show you zoomed back in. As an engineer, I look at the difference in viscocity at (in your case, 125°C) and say "they're all the same number". Even though those lines are not completely collapsed down onto each other, the oil grades you are talking about (40, 50 and 60) are teh top three lines (150, 220 and 320) and as far as I am concerned, there is not enough difference between them at that temperature to be meaningful. The viscosity of 60 at 125°C is teh same as 40 at 100°C. You should not operate it under high load at high temperature. That is purely because the only way they can achieve their emissions numbers is with thin-arse oil in it, so they have to tell you to put thin oil in it for the street. They know that no-one can drive the car & engine hard enough on the street to reach the operating regime that demands the actual correct oil that the engine needs on the track. And so they tell you to put that oil in for the track. Find a way to get more air into it, or, more likely, out of it. Or add a water spray for when it's hot. Or something.   As to the leak --- a small leak that cannot cause near catastrophic volume loss in a few seconds cannot cause a low pressure condition in the engine. If the leak is large enough to drop oil pressure, then you will only get one or two shots at it before the sump is drained.
×
×
  • Create New...