Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i just found something very disturbing under my car. i have a huge tear in the chassis, almost directly under the drivers seat. i think it's in a channel where some wiring travels under the car from back to the front. i'm hoping that it's only going to need to be smashed back into place and welded, but any thoughts would be great.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/81455-disturbing-discovery/
Share on other sites

You should be able to get it repaired and fixed up. At least it is only a small section. ylwgtr has a thread in the melb section where he shows how he repaired his chasis rail to as good, if not better than new.

p.s. somebody is stuck under your car there, better let them out :rofl:

You should be able to get it repaired and fixed up. At least it is only a small section. ylwgtr has a thread in the melb section where he shows how he repaired his chasis rail to as good, if not better than new.  

thanks.  i can't seem to find ylwgtr as a user but at least it's good to know that it should be able to be fixed.

p.s. somebody is stuck under your car there, better let them out :rofl:

it's amazing the places one will put themselves to get the right picture isn't it

i just found something very disturbing under my car.  i have a huge tear in the chassis, almost directly under the drivers seat.  i think it's in a channel where some wiring travels under the car from back to the front.  i'm hoping that it's only going to need to be smashed back into place and welded, but any thoughts would be great.

how did that happen? take a speed bump at 40km/h?

how did that happen? take a speed bump at 40km/h?

i have no idea how it happened. i definatly don't take speed bumps fast. i can't stand my car hitting or scraping anything. i woke up this morning searching back through my memory to what could have caused it and the only thing i can think of is . . . a year or so ago i was driving home from work on a fairly dark stretch of road and i heard and felt a reallly loud bang/bump under the car in just about that exact position. i had a look when i got home but couldn't see anything obvious (i only noticed this time 'cause i had the car up on stands and was further under it). i'm guessing there was something pretty solid on the road that i didn't see which i caught under the tyre and flung it up in a way that caused it to rip this big freakin hole. although, the more i look at it, it looks like it couldn't have happened with the car driving forwards. it almost looks like the tear happened from the back to the front . . . . i might drop by the panel beater's today and see what they say.

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


  • 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...