Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok Roy - you theory should be tested at Phillip Island by the way (back to the GTST v GTR). You car is more powerfull, lighter and running better tyres than Scotsman.

You should in theory beat him. Do it. :)

I'm a realist, not a theorist. $100 on the R and i'll give 2:1 odds. :D

Oh another funny ones is when you have a GTR driver in the passenger seat and they say "break later, break later". The GTS-T and GTT breaks sure don't hold up like the GTR's. Any later and my car would be a smear on the wall, well an even bigger one than it is :D

HAHA - I only just re-read this - I'm pretty sure the GTR driving passenger didn't say "brake later, brake later" - he infact said "TURN later, TURN later".

There's a big difference. Roy can tell you all about turning in too early.

I'm a realist, not a theorist. $100 on the R and i'll give 2:1 odds.  :D

LOL...doesnt Scotsman have 240odd rwkws?

LOL...If Nige can tune my car to make a comfortable mid 230rwkws (I have see the turbo support 260rwks) then ill take that bet:)

Not that i want to beat a GTR, but i want to get into the sub 1:50s around PI and down to around 1:25-1:27s around Sandown so those times are pretty similar to what some of the std turbo GTRs are doing.

As for turning in too early! Im the KING:(

As for brakes, i don tknow, if someone else can explain it to me. As for him having braking problems after a few laps, well his car does have more power then a Supercar nad weigh about 300kgs more.

I dont know if im righ about the brakes thing?!?!? Its just that i cant think how they are going to stop you any quicker then say a good package like Snowmans with nice two piece rotors, good std caliper run with nice pds and fluid that gets changed occassionally (LOL...looks at Snowman:))

Just to support Roy, the number of pistons and the size of the swept area help to modulate the braking application but won't slow the car any better until after a nuber of applications when the heat comes into effect. The contact patch is still the same and will still lose traction at the same torque. the benefit of that added brake "feel" allows greater subtlety in using all of the available braking force.

I'm not surprised Ben is running out of brakes at his pace. No he just has such a massive setup advantage Snowie as well as higher corner speed but you are doing pretty good with your level of experience and setup.

Your only supposed to change that Castrol SRF fluid once every 6 months / 6 track days aren't you???

:confused:

BTW - Ben's brakes dont have problems after a few laps - its the engine that needs the rest. Gets hot despite all the cooling he has. Don't know why? :D

I thought Chris had 230rwkw's. Either way it damn close to you Troy and you are a lot lighter - and the Dunlops are better than the Advans. Your suspension is set-up decently. Don't know about brakes but PI isn't really dependant on them.

No excuses. I'm happy to join Ben for dinner. :D

The contact patch is still the same and will still lose traction at the same torque.

but can the caliper clamping down on a smaller diameter rotor reach the traction threshold as early? In my previous car I went from 270mm rotors to 330mm rotors and even on the first application the stopping distance was greatly reduced.

That's more a matter of braking feel. Were you running ABS as that can highlight the difference without any operator limitations? With the smaller swept area and smaller pad/piston/master cylinder you can lock up too easily. Also if the old calipers and master cylinder are a bit in need of a freshen up you will have problems modulating. Finally, brake pads make a world of difference. I'm lucky enough to have a stock R33 GTSt in the driveway for comparisons and the Bendix pads have good initial bite but just suck for real braking. I know mine are in desperate need of a rebuild as they are notchy under increasing pedal pressure now. Here's hoping I can find a decent price for a rebuild kit.

sorry I don't beleive that rotor or caliper size makes any difference to braking distances until the rotor, caliper or fluid is too hot.

tyres compound, width, diameter...yep!

camber...yep!

car wieght...yep!

but any car from a crappy kingswood to a gtr has enough braking powre to lock a brake when its cold.....its only after a few stops there is a difference.

Torque = F x D, which is force times distance. So stand at a half open door and push it where the handle is. Piece of piss right? Now try and do the same thing but right near the hinge. You have to apply a hell of a lot more load to close the door as the D (distance) is a lot lower

So applying that to the braking thing, as your caliper’s pistons are now clamping the rotor around 20-20mm further away front he rotor centre, the torque to slow the rotor is much greater for the same amount of pedal pressure. So provided you have rubber that can maintain traction with the road it is possible to better control the rotor and even slow it quicker.

Rather then compare me to Scotsman and GTRs, lets put the money on me getting into the 1:50s at Phillip Island and into the 1:25s around Sandown. LOL, im in for one hell of an ear beating when I fail miserably.:D And it not about one upmanship, but im just setting some goals for me and my car based on the lap times of production cars. Obviously im never going to be really quick as the RB20 just cant punch the car out of corners, or pull from 160km/h like its bigger, more powerful RB engine.

And to clarify, its not a GTR suck thing. Obviously they don’t. But its more a RWD don’t necessarily suck thing. Where you only have to have the tyres hang together for about 4 laps can tyre wear really come into it?

At the end of the day I don’t really care how quick or slow my car is, I like my car and its great fun:) Only I don’t want to have spent all this money on it not to go any quicker.

LOL..im just thinking out aloud, not trying to upset anyone or wanting to argue. I don’t know if im right, im probably wrong, but its just some of the logic behind my approach to modifying my car

sorry I don't beleive that rotor or caliper size makes any difference to braking distances until the rotor, caliper or fluid is too hot.

tyres compound, width, diameter...yep!

camber...yep!

car wieght...yep!

but any car from a crappy kingswood to a gtr has enough braking powre to lock a brake when its cold.....its only after a few stops there is a difference.

One other thing...

Driver...Big yep! At PI I was outbraking HQ racers on slicks and that Laser on slicks and a couple of HSV's on track rubber so it must be the driver in that case. put a good one in and I'd be shown up like I should

Unfortunately my brakes were going off very fast at Sandown and I went from 150 m at turn 1 to 175 to 200 then 220 to try to stop. I feel the front pads are too low and overdone and the whole shebang needs a service.

And Roy, on the road rubber the first flying lap is usually the fastest and then they start to go off. You are right on the braking torque. BTW, I vote all the GTR drivers disable their ABS so they discover what braking control is. :D

I didn't spot roy's in the 2 sessions I stole, although I did compression slide lukey heights a little :D

Cheater tyres, ABS and AWD and you say you're having fun...........................

:bahaha: don't forget power steering rofl

you are right, no abs, no power steer, 2wd is far more challenging, but the other option is just so forgiving of mistakes when you are learning.

but can the caliper clamping down on a smaller diameter rotor reach the traction threshold as early? In my previous car I went from 270mm rotors to 330mm rotors and even on the first application the stopping distance was greatly reduced.

What that means is the larger diameterr rotors have more leverage to slow the car down for the same pedal pressure. But Roy is correct, if you pushed harder on the smaller rotors you would get the car to stop in the same distance. I agree wiht Duncan, ultimately in a road car it is the weight of the car, its tyres and suspension that determin the minimum stopping distance.

Just tor clear something up from a previous post, it is my recollection that ~20% slower rotation of the tyre is the best for stopping distance on a hard surface. On loose gravel or dirt, 100% slower rotation (locked up) is actually best for shorter stopping distances as it piles the dirt up in front of the tyre. That's why ABS on dirt or loose gravel is not a good thing.

:D

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...