Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Your question really depends on what you mean by "motorsport". Whether they are competitive or not will depend entirely on the ruleset. WTAC has some pretty no-holds-barred rules where lightness and simplicity can be a benefit. The R35 is nether of those things.

Pick another competition with some other ruleset, and R35 will smash the others. Pick another, and something else will do it.

1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

Your question really depends on what you mean by "motorsport". Whether they are competitive or not will depend entirely on the ruleset. WTAC has some pretty no-holds-barred rules where lightness and simplicity can be a benefit. The R35 is nether of those things.

Pick another competition with some other ruleset, and R35 will smash the others. Pick another, and something else will do it.

So essentially the s/r chassis is better than anything else, unless they make rules against them 😎

Edited by Blakeo

No?

The WTAC rules heavily favour certain JDM manufacturers. Plus, in the world of time attack, these are also the platforms that guys 20 years ago built and built experience from, now that they have hundreds and thousands of dollars of sponsorships and junk behind them and have a ton of R&D.

From another continent we may see things like Lotus Elise/Exige/Porsche GTX and the Corvette platform smash things. The C6 at WTAC had a 160KG weight penalty. Have a look at Gridlife USA where they have a Ford GT absolutely massacring everything.
 

If you look at Clubsprint (which is still a sponsored class) - but the most "bang for buck", not many Nissans there at all. In a field of 39, there was a 350Z in 17th and a R32 GTR in 22nd.

9 hours ago, Blakeo said:

So essentially the s/r chassis is better than anything else, unless they make rules against them

How to tell me you haven't raced a S or R chassis without telling me you haven't raced a S or R chassis.

  • Like 1
4 hours ago, r32-25t said:

The best Motorsport chassis would have to be pretty much any Porsche 911 

I guess that could be debated too...

Per se against an F1 car?

But then, are we just wanting the best all rounder, hence then we need something that could do rally, in dirt and snow, so the F1 car is gone again...

 

So many variables before you can find "the best".

 

That said, I'd love me a Porsche GT3...

Bang for buck, simplicity and heaps of aftermarket support I would be looking at what BYP are doing with civics and integras.

Really it all depends on what class or what type of Motorsport you are looking to do and also your budget.

Budget to one person might completely different to another 

  • Like 1

Best bang for buck at the moment would be a 86/brz.

Good chassis,  plenty of aftermarket support and parts everywhere.

 

I just picked one up with some quality gear and it drives better than my old 180sx. 

 

Also depending on what your doing and budget. 

An a90 supra is my pick if want to spend more. Great chassis, solid motor, gearbox is good. Development potential is crazy. They are doing well in prod sport and time attack.

All the old jdm stuff needs alot of work as most of it all bent and over priced.

  • Like 4

Yeah the question is really too broad, it depends what you want to do with it.

R and S chassis are still good for club racing, but I'm retiring my 32 GTR from rally because I just can't get hold of body parts (at any price) if a repair is needed.  It is still outright competitive but not practical any more

  • 2 weeks later...

I'll leave this here

Owned it for 5 days, changed alignment and its .7 of a second slower than my 180sx up Noosa hill climb.

Mca reds, cusco diff and short ratio, e85, some gktech arms, endless pads and Nankang CRS Tyres. 

20241020_163921.thumb.jpg.86f543486452f69f9e7ed694a29991e6.jpg

I beat a gt3 porsche with an experienced targa driver too.

  • Like 4
8 hours ago, robbo_rb180 said:

I'll leave this here

Owned it for 5 days, changed alignment and its .7 of a second slower than my 180sx up Noosa hill climb.

Mca reds, cusco diff and short ratio, e85, some gktech arms, endless pads and Nankang CRS Tyres. 

20241020_163921.thumb.jpg.86f543486452f69f9e7ed694a29991e6.jpg

I beat a gt3 porsche with an experienced targa driver too.

There is 100% no denying, a car that doesn't have a lot of power, but has grip, and brakes, can put a lot of cars to shame, especially as you can push them so aggressively, without fear of all the power putting you in the trees.

When you're having to dance around the power, especially at a track you don't get much opportunity to go over and over and over. Lower powered cars that make up for it on the limit for grip are GREAT!

 

IMO, unless you're building a car to race a specific class, the best car for motorsport, is the one you have, and can afford! (Or a cheap car, like a Swift, or Excel, or Corolla)! Then just go do laps and have fun!

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...