Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yesterday the nissans on the new fuel smashed qualifying. Today they are back to their usual mid pack results and the Kelly boys were comparable on times. Maybe there was something in the claims of performance from the new fuel. Have to wait and see how they go in the race. But I certainly find it a bit suss....

yeah agreed....although they went to the trouble yesterday to point out they were still 1-2% down on top speed compared to the falcodores yesterday (a lot on a small track). But that doesn't mean there wasn't a gain in the midrange somewhere.



ultimately supercars is a parity formula, so there will be adjustments to different cars at times. And the cars that get the adjustments will be happy, and the ones that don't will have a sook


lame dancer is lame.

BTW they were 5th and 8th again this afternoon until about 3 laps to go (they didn't pit for tyres and lost a few spots to the cars that did). So the speed poorer today, but not by an order of magnitude

Since when does E70 make more power than E85? It is an economy argument, not a power argument. The data traces showed no gain anyway. Aside from that the rest of the teams signed off on it so what are they whinging about?

Anyway was nice seeing Moffat junior taking the piss out of his choked up old man on the tv on Sunday.

Good on them for

A: Winning

B: Hosing the Kelly's.

Yeah the traces didn't show much, but they were both from quali laps, which doesn't show as much of the story as the race data. But if the economy was better then they could've gotten gains from running less fuel at the start of the lap.

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

    • Yes I can see how that would put you off HFM, especially with the price of good quality brake fluid. From what I understand it as you say the BM50 is the standard BMC for a R32 GTR, I must admit I would like to go far a Genuine Nissan BM57, but lack of cash prevents that at present. With the price being so close between the genuine BM50 and BM57 a BM57 New it seems a better choice as you gain that 1/16 bore size with the BM57, I would be interested in how much difference you feel with the BM57 fitted. I am going to take SteveL's advice in the short term and see how much actually comes out of that proportioning valve vent and save up for the Genuine Nissan part. Thanks for clarifying the HFM failure
    • Thanks mate. I just got the post inspection 1/2 done from state roads when the starter motor packed up, either that or the car alarm system is having trouble.  OEM part number 23300-AA112.
    • Hi, I though I was coming to an end in finding a replacement starter motor for a rb25de neo. I came across a starter motor from Taarks and a message below stating: Direct fit. 11 Tooth count. All below part numbers have been superseded to 11 teeth. Can some body shed some light on going from 8 teeth to 11 teeth apart from 36-month / 25,000 km warranty for passenger vehicles to 12 Month Warranty. Compatible with the following Nissan part numbers: 23300-20P00 23300-20P01 23300-20P05 23300-20P10 23300-20P11 23300-AA111 23300-AA112 23300-AA300 23300-08U10 23300-08U11 23300-08U15  
    • Low battery? Maybe check capacity? I know first-hand, on BMWs if your battery drops below 80% capacity, it starts causing strange issues.
    • 8.5 +37 = should fit rear, but I think it'll hit on front. What you want is low 30s/high 20's front, mid 30's rear. That 17" screenshot you posted looks good, I'd run it on my R32 (but that's long dead now). For tyre sizes, my rule of thumb is: 8': 235, 9": 255. But that's just my opinion. Nismo sizes: 18x8.5+35/18x9.5+38 is a good starting point.
×
×
  • Create New...