Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey s13drifter,

Still a bit of work to do to get SAU up and running....looking at next month probably.

As for an ACT chapter...well this was discussed...and it's not totally out of the question. What we're doing (for now) is combining NSW/ACT.

We'll see how many ACT ppl actually become official members of the club. If we get the numbers...we can maybe look at forming our own chapter.

We would need several ppl serious about forming a committee....a President, two Vice Presidents, a treasurer & a secretary at the minimum. These ppl would need to be dedicated and available to help & put a bit of work in :cheers:

So, for now we will join up with the NSW guys and organise our own events and stuff in the ACT. If any of you guys have any ideas or want to organise stuff here...then go for it! Just cos we're part of the NSW chapter doesn't mean we have to wait for NSW to have a dyno day or whatever.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/752-how-many-of-us/#findComment-16915
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...

How many of us do we need to form our own chapter

Was looked at several years ago but fell down in a few areas

1. NSW president at the time did not want it, told us to go ahead and form our own club.

2. There was little interest in forming a separate formal club and doing the required paperwork each year etc.

Considering most tracks are in NSW and the NSW club currently do a good job ofrunning track days etc, there's little reason to form a club to run these events.

If you want to have a cruise, just post it up, you don't need to be part of a club

We already have meets on Fridays, though somewhere warm and with food would be good.

ACT has a banner and a shade tent for car shows already, participation has been a bit low recently. Those organising such events in Canberra have tended to doit once and never do it again, considering the non-constructive feedback from some people who don't even turn up, I don't blame them.

However considering the importance of the territory and growing numbers of skyline owners, I'd like to see a chapter, formal or informal. Considering the growing power of SAU having a presence in the territory where the high level decisions are made could be beneficial if SAU look at taking a proactive long term approach to improving issues for skylines. In the short term maybe meet up at a club a couple times a year to discuss and pass feedback through someone like Shell who can then take it to the NSW meetings.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/752-how-many-of-us/#findComment-6214502
Share on other sites

so wait, are we ditching the skylines and starting a bikie gang now :/

Nooo just putting biker gear on and driving in our slylines :D

Me three.

But only if you put a sticker/logo on your car that reads " Air Force One and a half" :D

Jimmy you make it and ill put it on honestly lol

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/752-how-many-of-us/#findComment-6216484
Share on other sites

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...