Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Jeremy, what are you chasing exactly??

A normal attessa is more than capable of providing the driving ability /handling required.

As mentioned, a torque split controller will provide the adjustment required for the spirited driving phase when required.

As far as using a pro? I think it is only V Spec vs normal and in the R34 GTR, you would need to be VERY switched on to pick the difference, especially for street application.

Cheers

Ken

Ken,

Im not getting enough torque to front wheels during 7 grand launches, the gauge is reading max 30kg/per(whatever the measure is) rather than going up to the full 50 and I get wheel spin at rear when belting it around corners. this apparently means its an electrical issue rather than a clutch pack issue in the transfer case. Thus my enquiry about attessa pro which throws more torque up front

Cheers

Jeremy

Yeah all you guys need is an atessa controller to move more power to the front wheels. I understand the HKS ones are getting harder to find but there are a few different ones out there.

Generally if the xfer case is working OK you can adjust between 0 and 50% front torque

Ken,

Im not getting enough torque to front wheels during 7 grand launches, the gauge is reading max 30kg/per(whatever the measure is) rather than going up to the full 50 and I get wheel spin at rear when belting it around corners. this apparently means its an electrical issue rather than a clutch pack issue in the transfer case. Thus my enquiry about attessa pro which throws more torque up front

Cheers

Jeremy

Jezza, I don't think I have seen any of my GTR's get to 50% and even with the HKS torque split controller, they don't get there in mine. Not saying they won't but maybe I am not brutal enough :rofl:

Virtually all the GTR's ( once again) I have had also spin the rear tyres somewhat during cornering as the reaction/action of the computer and fliud is not instantaneous. Mind you, it's is more fun than rex understeer..

Cheers

Ken

i honestly am not a genius or anything on this topic, i have limited knowledge (very) so don't flame me buuttt.....

In theory, wouldn't it be better to leave it as is and have much more rear-bias torque split rather than an even 50/50 split etc...?

I say this because i know (in theory) that the front wheels pulling on the 4wd does induce a certain amount of understeer thus I would have thought that it would be better to run a 30/70 (front/rear) split rather than say even 45/55 or 50/50 etc for the sake of being able to pull the car round a corner/curve/bend etc exceptionally whilst still maintaining a tight line... :confused:

I understand the rear wheelspin and oversteer is also an issue for consideration 'cause it can get annoying but if it was that big an issue wouldn't you turn to tyres, suspension, weight distribution etc before contemplating the possibbility of reducing the cornering cpabilities of the car by using the torque splitting.... :confused:

Then again... if it's a drag car, my theories just go totally out the back door don't they... lol!... can someone elaborate on this for the benefit of expanding my knowledge?... Cheers.

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...