Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Loading up a track car

i have a 33gtst i use as my track car (pic below)

The car trailer i have makes it hard to load up as the ramps are to short and the front lip of my car hits when loading...

Its not as easy to put longer ramps on due to the design of the car trailer and how they are stored.

I dont want to make the car higher etc and im sick of putting my shit bumper on to load up

any ideas....? would finding a pair of 20s and chucking on some cheap tyres with a huge tyre profile lift it enough to get it on? finding 20s for a skyline could be tough that fit over evo brembos also

Any other ideas!?

14753691_10157552023035231_852476422316146072_o.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/471151-loading-up-a-track-car/
Share on other sites

A lot of people I've seen just remove the front bar in this situation, using Dzus fasteners or similar to make it quick and easy.

Otherwise, could try carrying blocks of wood around to help at the start of the ramp.

I feel like 20's with high profile will certainly have massive clearance/rubbing issues

I've got timber for my driveway. You have to reinforce it where it is lowest, and shave the ends so they sit flush against the two ends but they work well. And cost a grand total of $14 and one hour.

I should add we also used them for loading and unloading my car onto a trailer. Exactly as described above.

the easiest way to improve both the angle of the ground to ramps and ramps to bed of the trailer (where sometimes zorst scrapes) is to raise the rear of the tow car on caravan leveller/ramps or similar.  I've seen the same trick with a jack under the towball but I think that puts a hell of a lot of weight on a jack...

And if that's not enough go the blocks of wood suggested above at the start of the ramp, you can even have them flat on the ground as long as they are lower than the distance of splitter to ground on the car.

And if you can work out how to do it, long ramps are the real answer.  About twice what a normal trailer allows for is lovely.

 

  • Like 2

My car has a splitter on it and removing and re-attaching is a pain, I made 2 stage ramps with some handles from pine sleepers. They just sit on the trailer behind/in front of the car and are held on with tie downs. 

Ghetto as but works and was cheap. 

I could only find these 2 photos quickly and added one of the Silvia to show the splitter height. GTR clears it too. 

The length was determined by how long needed to hit wheel before splitter edge hits timber. 

I also have some of those little plastic Cusco ones that allow you to get just enough height to get a jack under it which is enough for people. 

 

10940633_10153529480094838_5058965375245851535_n.jpg

13669713_10154973157104838_7629420797594087401_n.jpg

FB_IMG_1499575557860.jpg

  • Like 1

I'd like to make a V2 that's lighter or I did consider running a drill through them to take core sections out but was worried about them cracking and splitting. 

I am not a great builder/fabricator and have limited power tools so this was "easy" for me to do. 

I've seen layers of ply screwerd together and then cut at one angle so there's no "steps" like mine. Would could be a better idea?

I have the same problem. I use the car ramp approach too. Back the rear of the truck onto the ramps to dip the trailer then a small plank that sits under the trailer ramps that the front wheels lift up on before the main ramp to help the nose clear.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...