Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It may well have been posted on this forum already but if not I just wanted to share the news from the UK.

At Santa Pod yesterday (25/6) John Bradhaw in 'Project GTST' ran a 9.9 backed up by a 10.02

This car has undergone major work over the last few months by Gary Passingham at GT-Art and is still only in the shakedown stages at the moment

You can find lot more information about the car at www.projectgtst.com but the basics are that it is a R33 GTST using a bored/stroked RB25 and running a T51SPL

Still to come on the car is an Xtrac gearbox (standard box was used yesterday :D ) , the NOS has not been used yet either and the suspension still has a lot of development work to be done too

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123873-9-second-gtst-in-the-uk/
Share on other sites

Just a couple of things.

First, AWESOME work by the projectgtst guys! Car looks and sounds sensational.

Second, Slicks on the back and radial fronts @ 140mph?!?!?!

Lastly, It's not yet the WORLD'S fastest gtst but its getting there quickly.

Well done.

Adrian

From www.projectgtst.com

After much searching I finally managed to find the following information on Drag GTST's.

A) The best 1/4 mile time to date worldwide for the RB25 GTST was achieved by Ryan Quinn from Victoria, Australia. Ryan ran at Calder Park and managed a 1/4 mile of 10.12 secs @ 136.3 MPH !!!

B) The best time worldwide for a GTST regardless of engine spec was achieved by a fellow Australian, Brett Whitbread using a RB26/30. Brett ran at Willow Bank and got a 9.464 sec run @ 150.9 MPH !!!

Adrian

Just a couple of things.

First, AWESOME work by the projectgtst guys! Car looks and sounds sensational.

Second, Slicks on the back and radial fronts @ 140mph?!?!?!

Lastly, It's not yet the WORLD'S fastest gtst but its getting there quickly.

Well done.

Adrian

Keeping the RB25 was a very important part of the project, as is keeping the original rear suspension layout rather than going for a tubbed rear end like a couple of the quick RWD cars have opted to over here.

I will have to confirm but I don't believe the 9 sec GTS i listed was tubbed at all - I think it ran on a 10.5" tyre.

Can you tell me the reason for radial fronts and crossply slick rears? Looks dangerous to me - or am I missing something?

Adrian

I will have to confirm but I don't believe the 9 sec GTS i listed was tubbed at all - I think it ran on a 10.5" tyre.

Can you tell me the reason for radial fronts and crossply slick rears? Looks dangerous to me - or am I missing something?

Adrian

I don't know why John ran that tyre combination, he will be the first to admit that he is a complete novice when it comes to drag racing.

Can you tell us the reason why it is a bad idea to run the radials on the front? I assume the comparative lack of grip compared to a slick should you need to correct it mid strip is the issue?

How good was that.Big turbo.I diddnt think that it was capable of 9s on a 25det.

Doesnt bu5ter run the same in his but with a 3l block 26 head.Though he is in full steet trim.

Brett's hotside is rated at 85 bhp, not 1,000 bhp like the big boy trim.

I don't know why John ran that tyre combination, he will be the first to admit that he is a complete novice when it comes to drag racing.

Can you tell us the reason why it is a bad idea to run the radials on the front? I assume the comparative lack of grip compared to a slick should you need to correct it mid strip is the issue?

Crossply tyres 'wander' as you accelerate down the track and radial tyres don't. What you find is that the back starts to sway as you get faster and faster while the radial tyres on the front track straight and true for the duration of the run.

You end up with an ever-increasing pendulum effect that can end in disaster. Please make sure John buys some crossply front-runners before racing again. Ask him if he noticed any swaying in the deep end that he had to correct.

Over here our regs state that if your cr is quicker than 12.50 and you run crossply (slicks) on the rear, you MUST have crossply fronts.

Brett's T51R is the KAI variant and is rated at 850hp not 1000hp like the SPL in this gtst.

Adrian

Crossply tyres 'wander' as you accelerate down the track and radial tyres don't. What you find is that the back starts to sway as you get faster and faster while the radial tyres on the front track straight and true for the duration of the run.

You end up with an ever-increasing pendulum effect that can end in disaster. Please make sure John buys some crossply front-runners before racing again. Ask him if he noticed any swaying in the deep end that he had to correct.

Over here our regs state that if your cr is quicker than 12.50 and you run crossply (slicks) on the rear, you MUST have crossply fronts.

Brett's T51R is the KAI variant and is rated at 850hp not 1000hp like the SPL in this gtst.

Adrian

Cheers for that Adrian

I think the 'tubbed' issue I mentioned was maybe taken the wrong way, what I meant was a couple of the 'quick' RWD cars over here in the UK have gone for a proper drag set up on the rear end, one in particular is the CRD Supra which runs the 9's but will no longer be allowed to run in the street legal class.

The car will not run in competition again until October so we have a long wait to see how the NOS and sequential Xtrac box will improve the times

the subzero cr was not tubbed, it still ran the factory rear end, then used welded up shock absorbers to keep the camber flat and used the sof side wall of the slick tyre as the suspension. it was well documented inthe zoom article.

Shane, effectively turning the IRS into a live axle.

Shane, effectively turning the IRS into a live axle.

yea thats the idea, i spoke to some suspension people about trying it, but was basically told they didnt want to aid in my hurting myself, there view on it was too dangerous, my car has fortunately worked out to sixty foot quite well so the idea is now long gone.

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 think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
×
×
  • Create New...