djr81

Yes they are different. They are black, not yellow. Other than that they are the same, ie same amount of camber adjustment.

Maybe Williams can cement its place as the team for sons of former drivers. Hill, Villeneuve, Rosberg, Nakajima.... Rosberg has come on well this year. He got spanked by Webber last year, but tahter than going & having a sulk he instead has driven very, very well. Proof in the pudding has been his qualifying. Nakajima did ok too. Qualifying was horrible, but he raced well. Maybe he listened too much to Alex Wurz. Here is hoping Nelson Piquet's young bloke can get a good drive next year.

Well it is a fitting end to an awful year. Ferrari & the FIA used illegally obtained documents to stitch up McLaren. Ferrari demonstrated how completely bereft of any integrity they are. The FIA demonstrated favouritism not seen since the JMB days. Alonso demonstrated to the world just how big an arsehole he is. Now apparently you can get away with an illegal performance advantage as long as Ferrari don't suffer. Can someone please start a 2008 F1 thread because this year sucked. Were it not for the emergance of Lewis Hamilton & Nico Rosberg there would be nothing positive to remember.

On the off chance you haven't forgotten. Am trying to track down the rear Brembo callipers from the 33 GT-R. Any chance of part number/ price?

Sorry but I made a bit of a blue. The first number is the wire length, ie the length of the bit of wire the spring was made out of . Part numbers are Front B46 1471 Rear F4 - B46 1472 According to the brochure anyway - http://quadrantsuspensions.com.au/pdf/Bilstein%20B6.pdf

Interesting. You may like to try raising the front up. I use 355 front, 345 rear. The more nose down it goes the more it understeers. Secondly, with regard to camber there are two sorts. Static camber, ie measured at rest & dynamic camber, measured when the thing is loaded up through the corners. However much static camber you car may be running you seem to have insifficient dynamic camber. This is shown in the photos as the front wheel "tucking under" during cornering. Anyway, form what I understand, this is a suspension geometry issue tiedlinked to too low a ride height. So it would be worth (IMHO) trying the car with an extra 15mm in the front ride height. Anyway here is mine cornering - note the soft springs (Half your rate) but the front tyre -ve camber is still ok, even though the static is only - 2 degrees. I awill be chucking some harder springs at it today/tomorrow.

Hmm, what ride heights you running (front & rear?)

First lot of questions: 1. How heavy are they (just out of interest) 2. Ideally, but not necessarilly (See below) 3. Yes or with the circlip type height adjusttment. 4. Roll centre adjusters alter the suspension geomtery hence migrate the roll centre. Answering the second lot of questions: 1. So you need more spring stiffness relative to sway bar stiffness. 2. Then big up the spring rates. Dampers will work within a range of springs - but you need to check. 3. I understand where you are coming from. I got the wrong colour springs & I needed to go buy some new handbags, damn it all. I would recommend a combination of Eibach springs & Bilstein shocks. Springs can be chucked at little cost if they are wrong & the shockers re-valved if necessary. 4. Yes. I have some spares somewhere + some drawings if you can get stuff fabbed. 5. Get some more -ve camber! Particularly at the front.

You have some options: 1. Increase the sway bar stiffness. 2. Increase the spring rate. 3. Move the cars centre of gravity. 4. Move the cars roll centre. Unfortunately these all have downsides. 1. Increased sway bar stiffness will hurt traction because it will pick up your inside rear. 2. Increased spring rates will make the car less forgiving but are worth a look. From the photos it looks like your car is falling over the front wheel, so could easilly live with a higher rate. 3. Lowering the c of g is basically impossible relative to the roll centre other than by changing the ride heights. 4. Moving the roll centres is an option. Check moon face racing for their adjusters. Having tried some of the stuff I can tell you that this is a difficult path. From the photos I would recommend you throw some -ve camber at the front end before you do anything.

1. Uni's have had full fee paying students for a very long time. Overseas students are mostly full fee paying students. The difference is the Liberals have allowed some Australian full fee paying students. Amongst a whole range of other changes. You may have a point about the funding levels to uni's, however. 2. Well Reith lied about the Tampa. You can easilly say that Howard was at minimum misled by Reith. Mostly it is just used as an excuse by the ALP for losing an election they should have won. As for the GST well he went to an election with that in his platform, so one throw away line (Never ever) is not really worth all the hostility heaped upon him for it. 3. Labors new workplace agreements (whatever they will call them) have a similar fairness test. So take your pick. I know many people who are better off for their AWA's - they like them. 4. We have a Kyoto (unratified) target which apparently will be met. As opposed to places like Canada who have a ratified target which wont be met. The fact that ours is a pathetic target shouldn't cloud anyones judgement. Rudd's 2050 (or 2060) target is meaningless. Who is going to measure that & hold him accountable? Simply no one because no one can.

Hmm, interesting. 1. The Hawke/Keating government introduced the HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme) which means if you go to uni you pay the tax man. Plain & simple. O/S (full fee paying) student have been at our unis for many, many years. Good on them. Why should they be denied an education as well? 2. All politicians are liars. Plain & simple. Actually they are not. If you (or anyone else) had everything they ever said scrutinised & debated & misrepresented then you too (& me & everyone else) would be termed a liar. Rudd has the advantage of not having been around long enough to have piled up baggage. 3. Howard fkd up on the first change when they introduced the AWA's. But now that they have implemented a no disadvantage test covering the most important benifits you can't get little of no compensation for trading your penalty rates etc. Try working on a salary - you don't get any O/T, penalty rates or anything other than your salary. Not everyone works on wages or can even get access to AWA's. 4. Kyoto is a lame duck. Ratifying it will make bugger all difference. If Rudd had any bollocks he wouldn't be banging on about a target in 2050 - thats what four changes of government & 15 elections away. He would map out a short term target (say every year until 2020) & set out how he would achieve it. So would Howard. But they are both too gutless. To finish: what I hate the most about this election is the me too, cloning that is going on in the policy areas. Weak as piss.

Bump.

This should answer your question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGyH8Kf_0Fg

What is your point, I mean obviously they are best mates. They hang out on weekends, don't they?

Well it sort of does because the computer system that runs the DSG works out how many revs the engine needs to match the next selected gear & modulates the throttle accordingly. Therefore the driver doesn't need to bother.

Try the GIO car one instead. Should be pretty straight forward.

I don't believe that the F1 programs (any of them) & the road car programs cross pollinate to any degree. Hell John Barnard used to design the F1 cars (The 640 was a particularly pretty example) in England - GTO meant Guilford Technical Office. Historically Ferrari road cars were never particularly high tech, but then again neither were the F1 cars. Take a random example as the F40 - the first road car to make use of carbon fibre - but they used it for meaningless purposes & still built the bloody thing with a bundle of steel tube in it. Could you imagine anyone else getting away with that? Gordon Murray did it properly a few years later. Maybe I am just bitter because I could never afford either a 288GTO nor a 365GTB.

Well my contention is simply this: as often as not manufacturers use motorsport to add some interest and glamour to an otherwise dull model range. The more prosaic their product the more likely it is they will pump big dollars into formula one. As for the BMW thing - well they should sack Chris Bangle, but anyway. My favourite BMW's were from the late eighties/early nineties. A time when BMW were involved in touring car racing & not F1. The Brabham BMW's from 1982 to 86 & then subsequent Megatron/BMW engines in the Benettons & Arrows were a marvellous thing for a time - although the laydown Brabham was an abject failure due in part to the engine. That it took the life of my favourite GP driver probably put me off BMW for a bit. Anyway I remember the god awful engines in the road cars when unleaded was introduced. These were some of the worst BMW's you could imagine. Gutless & all torque no hp. The original M5s we saw in Australia is (along with the M635csi & the M3's) probably the finest of all cars ever to come from Bavaria. The shame of it is their model range has just gotten fat and stupid - like me probably. The 2002 was derived from touring car participation, as was the M3. Touring cars have done much more for BMW than F1 & even the sublime skills of Nelson Piquet ever could.

The springs have the rate written on them. You will see 0800.250.0225 which is in order coil diameter, coil length & coil rate in lb/in. The fronts are 275lb/in. As for trapping oddly Eibach don't seem fussed by the last quarter inch or so. Check their website for install tips. Strangly they reckon you get less noise with a small gap. Personally I don't like that idea much, but that is just me. I ordered a couple spanners from Perth.

How stiff? Very. No amount of damper adjustment will make up for that.

There used to be a time when F1 was all about invention. Ahh, happy days. As for engines you could say the same for Ford, Peugeot, Honda, Subaru (!), Alfa Romeo, Jaguar, Matra, Lamborghini and any number of others who have tried & succeeded/failed to build proper F1 motors. As for the MB versus Hyundai comparison, well not every Benz is an AMG. There is a C180 in the car park most mornings when I get to work. Whenever my mind strays to thinking about its rubbish 8V 4 cylinder motor, vinyl trim, (Mmmm, MB tech) acceleration you need an hour glass to measure, well it doesn't make the link to F1 cars. Mostly it just makes me feel nauseous. Curiously there is also a 300SE with purple embroided cushions on the parcel shelf - logo reads F1. I would contend that if any technology transfer is to be had from F1 it does not come from the constructors - it comes from the suppliers. Like Bridgestone (But who is to say their F1 program yields better results than its touring car program?), AP, Rays, Enkei - even down to the suppliers of stuff people don't take a blind bit of notice of - things like sensors & electrical connectors. There again no car was ever sold because it had fancy electrical connections - although people bought XM Citroens discovered they may have been a good idea. Recent trends in car design have included the more common use such things as diesel engines, DVD screens, run flat tyres, hybrid engines etc etc. None of which has any use in F1. For the marketing departments F1 is about glamour & competition. Show me someone who bought a Camry because Ralf Schumacher qualified 22nd & I will show you a certifiable fkwit. Same goes for any other road car and any other grid position. I usually find that for a car company F1 success coincides with their road cars being awful. Take BMW. F1 success in the early eighties & again now. Both times their range was crap. Same for MB. Same for Ferrari.

May also prove how irrelevent technology is to Ferrari road cars....

I did say the last 20 years, but anyway: CVT: are only used in small cars. Turbo's: Renault used them on their F1 cars in 1977. GM used them on their road cars in 1962 - the shitbox that was the Corvair. Mid engines: Well to be honest I dont think the Fiat X1-9 owes anything much to what Charlie Cooper once did. In any case the Fiat used a transverse engine, the Cooper didn't. Ground effects: Well designers have worried about aero approximately for ever. Ground effects implies a sealed side skirt which is something no road car has ever had. Note there is a difference between invented & made fashionable.

Very, very little of what is developed in F1 ever sees use in road cars. It is far too specialised & expensive. It is all about marketing & perception. Overwhelmingly any of the crumbs that do fall to the productions cars are from component suppliers, not the manufacturers direct. Can anyone name one bit of equipment in the last 20 years that has made the transfer. Semi auto gear changes? Wank factor that never works properly. 20,000rpm V8's? Not likely. Carbon fibre anything? Older than 20 years & most manufacturers just use it for trim anyway. Carbon brakes? Older than 20 years. Push rods/monoshock front ends/torsion bars/third dampers/aero profile wishbones? Nup. Do you think Frank Williams/Patrick Head give a flying fk about what the motor in next years Camry will be & whether it has variable fuel/ign maps to allow it to make it through to next weekend? Take Honda for example. Their most useful end product of being in F1 is the training that it provides their engineers. Nothing more. Hyandai is no more or less pedestrian than Renault or Toyota. Just another mainstream car maker. So why shouldn't they try & leverage F1's halo effect like the others do. The fact that they would be far better off going back to the WRC is perhaps something to note, however. Sorry if that sounds offensive. I just have never believed that F1 needs to justify itself. No other sport appears to need to. And yes it does take more than money. But I think Minardi proved that it does atleast take that.

Is the code you are referring to the one the compliance shop grinds off the key before you get the damn thing?