Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

they look shithouse ......... sorry i just dont like the look of them.

Umm, you don't buy one for it looks, it's not like they're meant for picking up chicks :lol: *for no panels & a pure chassis type car, I reckon it looks pretty darn good.

I'd love to drive one on the road, you'd get so many looks & blow ANY thing away... Awww man, I want one so bad…. Lmao @ poombahs comment, I’m with ya on that one buddy.

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, two threads on the Atom created in a matter of days. It must have left an impression! The other thread has the link to the 5th Gear video review as well if people want it.

Anyone happen to capture the Beyond Tomorrow video? i wouldn't mind having a look. I don't normally watch the show coz it pisses me off for some reason.

I seem to remember the Atom being closer to Lotus Elise money (for the s-charged model) in the UK, so I very much doubt that you could get one on road for less than $80k in Aust. Remember that similar vehicles like the Caterham Super 7 start at about $70k for the NA 1.6 litre engine. $100k on road would not suprise me.

EDIT: Just looked at the NZ Openwheelers site. They reckon about NZ$70k for the NA model. With our harsher importing laws, I'd say you're looking at AUD$70k here in Aust. I would not be suprised to see a AUD$30k price difference between the NA and supercharged model, so my $100k estimate remains.

Edited by Big Rizza
slap a rb26 in it and see what happens?

If you want more power and fun add a NOS bottle and get all the power you could need without the weight adn for a fraction of the price.

PS - can I be the listed benificiary(sp?) in your will?

power_laps.gif

I'm sure you've all seen the Top Gear power board, but here it is again. Note that it is missing a few cars. There was a Maserati that ran quicker than the Enzo (1:18.9?) and a few other race cars for the road that are competitors to the Arial in the UK (Hayabusa engined Westfield ran quicker than the Zonda in the low 1:20s I think, and Hayabusa engined Radical ran about 1:19ish). Can't remember the times exactly, but looking at that list you can appreciate what a marvel the Arial is!

slap a rb26 in it and see what happens?

Why would you want to?

Even if it fit in the confines of the car's engine area, it would take a shitload of effort to adapt a driveline to suit. Of course the engine would also weigh a lot more than the all-alloy 4 pot that's currently installed in it, detracting from the handling.

Considering the supercharged version already makes 600hp/ton on a relatively mild tune (I would have preferred to leave it NA and run a big set of cams and new internals instead, and settled for 500hp/ton) it doesn't exactly have a dearth of power.

lol, i was joking about the rb26 thing guys!

although i work vtec would go hard.

what you want is 1:1 power to weight!!

Is that 1000 bhp per tonne or 1000 kw per tonne? And is that at the wheels or at the engine? Whichever way, it's rediculous! And unnecessary! I doubt you could get that power to the ground with the Atoms skinny tyres :D

I reckon you could tune the VTEC engine from 300hp to 500hp without too much trouble. And at 500kgs that would give the 1000hp per tonne you want! :D

Alternatively you could go for a 1500hp GTR. Or a 2500hp Landcuiser. :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



  • 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...