Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well my first time back at wsid in about 8mths with high hopes and that's where it ended. My car is now running better than ever and once again I still couldn't grab a decent time, I feel like headbutting a brick wall :(

I did manage to get a new PB but only by literally a bee's dick.

1. 14.489 @ 94.84mph / 2.190sec

It felt nice and smooth, launch was the usual but for some reason I was -way- down on mph, I didn't even miss a gear :D

2. 15.265 @ 100.23mph / 2.737sec

First run after a 30min rain period. Absolutely no grip on the greazy track and simply bagged em up!

3. 14.145 @ 102.07mph / 2.167sec (<- new PB)

Tried to slam the gears harder, felt smooth once again and managed to get a new PB (old PB was 14.163 @ 100.20mph / 2.148sec).

4. 14.252 @ 100.87mph / 2.166sec

Once again was trying to work the gears hard but was slightly slower even though it felt just as good *shrugs*

5. 14.571 @ 98.02mph / 2.184sec

Used low boost this time (7psi) just for shits n giggles (even though high boost is only about 8-9psi haha).

As you can see my launches are pretty much spot on everytime (even though 2.1xx sec is not overly impressive atleast it's consistent). Sure I could grab some semi-slicks or even drag nitto's etc and probably shave off a tenth or 2 but I shouldn't need to when i'm making a solid 195+ rwkw. I'm a good 0.5sec off the pace of where I believe I should be (and the times others are doing in similar powered cars) and im stumped as to what it is (obviously it's the driver).

Was a great nite of racing (besides the rain periods). Some awesome cars about and probably the biggest meeting i've seen in a good 5-6mths. Wish I left my car in the carpark and spectated instead.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/64153-wsid-9-2-05/#findComment-1203612
Share on other sites

i only ended up getting 240RWKW

need to lower compression gonna get a steal head gasget, that will bring her up to the 290 mark.

im gonna buy some slicks soon, just gotta find out how to fit them without removing the brakes, 16" is the only size that can go on.

any1 know where i can get piks from last night??????

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/64153-wsid-9-2-05/#findComment-1203992
Share on other sites

mods

td06 20G

Greddy Manifold

HKS 50mm External Wastegate

FMIC

Custom Plenum

550cc Injectors

600HP fuel pump

Nismo GMAX twin plate clutch

Power FC

Q45 AFM

KN Air filter

Sard Fuel Pressure reg

Coming

Head gasget

Forgies

Rods

Cams

Big F**K off turbo

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/64153-wsid-9-2-05/#findComment-1204002
Share on other sites

i only ended up getting 240RWKW

need to lower compression gonna get a steal head gasget, that will bring her up to the 290 mark.

im gonna buy some slicks soon, just gotta find out how to fit them without removing the brakes, 16" is the only size that can go on.

any1 know where i can get piks from last night??????

Sorry mate as I've said several times in the past the 20g wont flow enough to make 290 its impossible, maybe some decent drag radials would be better then slicks as then you don't have to worry about the added cost of front runners

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/64153-wsid-9-2-05/#findComment-1204051
Share on other sites



  • 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...