Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

That Monaro time is not a bad time for a 24 hour race considering they would want to take it "easy" on the engine etc. Skaifes time in the GTR isnt that bad is it! Duncan do you know how much extra ballast the GTR's had to have?

I may be wrong but here i go...

In their first Bathurst in 1990 (they only ran the R32 alongside the R31 in the last few rounds of the SATCC) the GTR weighed 1360kg. Boost was something like 1.6bar

In 1992 at the last Bathurst they weighed 1500kg (140kg ballast which could be moved around the chassis so whilst it hindered performance, it was located so as to mimise impact) and had a pop off valve limiting boost to 1.3bar.

The GTR has HICAS disconnected and ran fulltime 4WD at a ratio that could be changed to maximise handling characteristics, and 18" wheels

But keep in mind that Nissan did cheat by homolgating a sports car, whilst the rest of the field had to build hot sedans and hatches to go racing. I cant recall how much slower say the Group A Commodores were, the Sierras courtesy of some boost would often qualify quicker.

Considering the Intl rules the Commodore had to run under i think it held its own, especially in the wet where due to the bodykit and tractable nature of the V8 would often be quicker then the Sierras.

The difference in times can be largely attributed to tyre technology.

Fair point about the GTR just being a road going race car - its the same thing that pissed me off about the monaro in the 24hr race - pretty unfair for the rest of the field...

Anyway, how do they compare in times at other tracks? Bathurst is really a power circuit with those long up and down hills.

  • 3 weeks later...

That stat doesn't really tell the story cause it doesn't take into account how many times the pace car came out to slow them down, or it it was raining like hell. But still is a good stat to have next to the GTR's name. :)

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Originally posted by Southo

Keep an eye out for an upcoming Zoom Magazine when the interview with Fred Gibson is printed.....  You will be surprised just how many teams cheated and what they got away with...

alot of teams did and still do :) it isn't cheating it is bending the rules :P

They come up with some great ideas on how to get around stuff.

Well, at the risk of starting an off-topic fight, I totally disagree. Cheating sure as hell is cheating, and the amount that goes on at all levels of motorsport is disgraceful.

Why shouldn't teams have to start with a level playing field and rely on their driver's skill and their teamwork in pitstops to decide the outcome. Warren Luff's cheating his way to the Brute title last year being an excellant example.

Cheating exists in all sports. Look at horse racing. All the glitz and glamour to hide that dirt all over the place.

In motorsport most of the times it's "bending the rules". Renault with the launch control system was an absolutely brilliant idea, but was later banned.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...