Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

IM ALRIGHT WITH THIS BECAUSE IF THE TITLE GOES DOWN TO THE FINAL ROUND... WHICH I WONT... AT LEAST ITS NOT IN A TIMEZONE THAT IS HORRIFIC FOR ME TO HAVE WAKE UP IN

SORRY FOR CAPS... FCUK IT, IM NOT RETYPING IT NOW

DVR mang, you need one.

Sucks for me, doing 7on 7off out of town. Can't stay up to watch races, or cant watch them when I'm on nightshift. Then have to wait till wednesday when I get back home while avoiding facebook etc so one of the F1 pages or one of my friends doesnt ruin it on there. It really is shit hanging out to watch it lol, but really is one of those first world problems....

Couldnt find much on any launch dates. Did find something that said Mclaren were announcing their new title sponser on the 2nd of December but no news on that either. Hopefully no more chrome cars!

Does it even need to be that elaborate? Make a car min weight exclude driver and then when you specify minimum dimensions for the cockpit you include a weight that uses ballast in the form of seat weight, both bum and backrest %) to control driver weight. DONE!

What I would do is have a mandated standard cockpit area in size, weight COG and polar moment of inertia.

This is given to teams, let's call it "The Box"

So no matter who or what you put into "The Box" it has to meet the mandated standards.

Not at all.

I've actually changed my mind on this I was overthinking it, lengthen cockpit area for taller drivers and add ballast to seat to meet minimum driver + seat requirements, then let it rain cheeseburgers. Ric at 170 odd cm weighing 65kg and being told he needs to drop another couple of kilos is a joke.

Lol. Cheezeburger ftw.

Agree. Saw a pic of Dan in shorts with his mates. He is scary thin once you put it in perspective. Has no bearing on the racing, and having great drivers excluded for being physically different is stupid (within reason).

What's the swept volume got to do with it?

Yes I'm fully aware that it's a 3.9 litre running at 1/3 crank speed - nothing new there.

Longevity? all engines die if not treated right. Rotaries can and will last a long time if built and treated correctly.

Sound? Dam - you got me there

There's also the dreadful specific fuel consumption of the rotary, but that doesn't matter to enthusiasts, does it?

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...