Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Guys

I am having real trouble finding a seat/rail combination that will fit my car and still leave me with some room for a helmet.

Std GTR seats - not enought support need to lay back a long way to get helmet clearance, SR3 Recaros - uncomfortably tight around the thighs, OMP recliners - almost need to lay down to get head clearance (ok with no helmet).

Can anyone enlighten me with seat/rail combos that actually fit and give you some head room. Would prefer to stay with some form of rail to allow for/aft adjustment but not sure if its possible. All suggestions/experiences appreciated.

Help!!!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/242951-seats-for-r33-gtr-experiences/
Share on other sites

Best bet is steering wheel spacer and jsut recline the seat back...its about the only thing you can do as the std GTR seats sit pretty damn low. Only other thing is getting rid of the rails and bolting to the floor, but again std GTR seats a good things for height

I had the same problem, being 6'5" there wasn't sufficient room for helmet. To fix the problem I fitted a Racetech fixed bucket seat with a Bride LowMax seat rail. Seating position was much better and enough headroom for helmet. I also had a Sparco steering wheel spacer and quick release to bring the steering wheel closer.

Hope that helps...

Guys

Thanks for the replies. Bride low max rail may be a good tip. I have been using either standard or RX rails and they have pushed me too high.

I think I must prefer a more upright driving position as I am only 6' (shite Jack how do you cope)

I have been looking at one of the new Works Bell spacer/tilt units as it may help with the wheel/leg balance.

I have been trying to avoid swapping seats for track to road but it is looking like it may be necessary.

Thanks so far guys. This forum has been really good to me and I do appreciate it - learning the hard way all the time is too painfull and expensive.

Cheers

Edited by WRRR
Guys

Thanks for the replies. Bride low max rail may be a good tip. I have been using either standard or RX rails and they have pushed me too high.

I think I must prefer a more upright driving position as I am only 6' (shite Jack how do you cope)

I have been looking at one of the new Works Bell spacer/tilt units as it may help with the wheel/leg balance.

I have been trying to avoid swapping seats for track to road but it is looking like it may be necessary.

Thanks so far guys. This forum has been really good to me and I do appreciate it - learning the hard way all the time is too painfull and expensive.

Cheers

HEADROOM ISSUES ON OUR TIME ATTACK CAR

911.015.c.jpg

SpeedsterHardtop.jpg

We're having a similar problem with headroom on our time attack project car. We're lowering the roofline to cut down on frontal area, but of course that reduces headroom with the seat in a more upright position. The photos above are of the same short windscreen and roof which we'll be running.

The post with photos about our headroom issues with the lowered roofline is here ...

http://forum.jdmstyletuning.com/showpost.p...mp;postcount=41

The thread about our time attack project starts here ...

http://forum.jdmstyletuning.com/showthread.php?t=10852

Lowering seats and custom seat mounts is definitely the kind of thing that needs to done by a professional engineer especially if it is going to be road registered. The seat mounting system needs to be absolutely rock solid.

So what we're looking at is reclining the seat (by using a side mount seat) and mounting it as low as possible, but with the side mounts attached to rails for fore and aft adjustment.

The seat we are looking at is the Recaro Pro Racer HANS SPA - full carbon kevlar jobs which only weigh 4.5kg.

Pro-Racer-Hans-SPA.jpg

10-b.jpg

PRO-RACER-HANS_01.gif

We're looking at using some late 70's model 911 seat rails which are very very compact and almost flat in cross section, so they will allow us to get the seat very low since we don't have the added height of a thick seat rail to deal with. From memory they are less than 10 mm thick but i'd have to check the exact thickness. We have a trade account with Porsche if you want a set - as far as I know Porsche still have new stock of them.

The issue on our time attack car is the width between the stock mountings for the factory seats - we'd prefer not to cut them out, so we want a seat that can fit between the factory mountings so the bottom of the seat sits lower than the factory mounting points.

If you look at this photo of a 911 seat setup, you can see how there is quite a bit of height between where the seat rails attach and the floor - we're trying to get back some of that space ...

recaro12.jpg

So our thinking is that we'll attach Porsche or Recaro low profile rails to the stock seat attachmentment points on the chassis, then get a U shaped cradle made up that bolts onto the top of those rails with the bottom of the U as close to the floor as possible. The seat's adjustable side mounts will then attach to the cradle, and then the seat attaches to the side mounts.

Or we may attach the runners to the U shaped cradle under the seat, but we think that by attaching the runners to the cradle then the seat on top the runners, the height of the seat would be higher since the runners move the seat upwards by the thickness of the runners - whereas if we attach the runners to the factory attachment points on the chassis, then attach the cradle to the runners and the seat to the cradle, then we can cancel out the thickness of the runners by designer a deeper U-shaped cradle - the depth of the cradle can then cancel out the height of the runners.

That way we end up with both fore and aft adjustment on the sliders, and angle adjustment of the racing seat on the side mounts, so we can tweak the seat position as much as we want, and get the bottom of the seat as close to the floor as we can safely get it.

Here's a photo of a Porsche seat rail ...

P10100011219938977.jpg

Or Recaro also do a nice low profile seat rail - here's a photo of one ...

recaro4.jpg

- Adam

Adam

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I have been looking at the rapfix II (maybe I will win your promo - that would make it easy) but is there any feedback on legality for the road?

Reality is my car is it is not a pure track car and needs to stay road registered (and as close to fully legal as possible).

The floor plan on the GTR makes any flat mount difficult but I will compare your pics and see if a modded porca unit will work.

Cheers

If you're 6' you should have no issues with headroom. Get some Bride low max seat rails and you'll be set. Just speak to a sponsor like RMS and ask them for the lowest Bride rails available for whichever seat you want (side or bottom mount). I'm as tall as Jack and I fit into my 180sx and his GT-R without an issue.

Adam

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I have been looking at the rapfix II (maybe I will win your promo - that would make it easy) but is there any feedback on legality for the road?

Reality is my car is it is not a pure track car and needs to stay road registered (and as close to fully legal as possible).

The floor plan on the GTR makes any flat mount difficult but I will compare your pics and see if a modded porca unit will work.

Cheers

You'd have to check with your local authorities regarding the legality of using of quick releases on road cars on public roads.

- Adam

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'd be installing 2x widebands and using the NB simulation outputs to the ECU.
    • Nah, it's different across different engines and as the years went on. R32 era RB20, and hence also RB26, the TPS SWITCH is the idle command. The variable resistor is only for the TCU, as you say. On R33 era RB25 and onwards (but probably not RB26, as they still used the same basic ECU from the R32 era), the idle command is a voltage output of close to 0.45V from the variable resistor.
    • It's actually one of the worst bits of Nissan nomenclature (also compounded by wiring diagrams when the TCU is incorporated in ECU, or, ECU has a passthru to a standalone TCU).... the gripe ~ they call it the TPS, but with an A/T it's actually a combined unit ...TPS (throttle position switch) + TPS (throttle position sensor).... ..by the looks of it (and considering car is A/T) you have this unit... https://www.amayama.com/en/part/nissan/2262002u11 The connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit, is the TPS (throttle position sensor) ...only the TCU reads this. The connector on the unit body, is the TPS (throttle position switch) ...ECU reads this. It has 3 possible values -- throttle closed (idle control contact), open (both contacts open, ECU controls engine...'run' mode), and WOT (full throttle contact closed, ECU changes mapping). When the throttle is closed (idle control contact), this activates what the patent describes as the 'anti stall system' ~ this has the ECU keep the engine at idling speed, regardless of additional load/variances (alternator load mostly, along with engine temp), and drives the IACV solenoid with PWM signal to adjust the idle air admittance to do this. This is actually a specific ECCS software mode, that only gets utilized when the idle control contact is closed. When you rotate the TPS unit as shown, you're opening the idle control contact, which puts ECCS into 'run' mode (no idle control), which obviously is a non-sequitur without the engine started/running ; if the buzzing is coming from the IACV solenoid, then likely ECCS is freaking out, and trying to raise engine rpm 'any way it can'...so it's likely pulling the valve wide open....this is prolly what's going on there. The signal from the connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit (for the TCU), should be around 0.4volts with the throttle closed (idle position) ~ although this does effect low throttle shift points if set wrong, the primary purpose here is to tell TCU engine is at idle (no throttle demand), and in response lower the A/T line pressure ... this is often described as how much 'creep' you get with shifter in D at idle. The way the TPS unit is setup (physically), ensures the idle control contact closes with a high margin on the TPSensor signal wire, so you can rotate the unit on the adjustment slots, to achieve 0.4v whilst knowing the idle control contact is definitely closed. The IACV solenoid is powered by battery voltage via a fuse, and ground switched (PWM) by the ECU. When I check them, I typically remove the harness plug, feed the solenoid battery voltage and switch it to ground via a 5watt bulb test probe ; thing should click wide open, and idle rpm should increase... ...that said though, if it starts & idles with the TPS unit disconnected, and it still stalls when it gets up to operating temperature, it won't be the IACV because it's unused, which would infer something else is winking out...  
    • In the context of cam 'upgrader' I mean generally people who upgrade headers/cams - not my specific change. I mean it makes sense that if I had a bigger cam, I may get more false lean readings. So if I went smaller, I'd get less false lean readings. To a point where perhaps stock.. I'd have no false lean readings, according to the ECU. But I'm way richer than stock. My bigger than normal cam in the past also was giving false rich leanings. It's rather odd and doesn't add up or pass the pub test. Realistically what I want is the narrowbands to effectively work as closed loop fuel control and keep my AFR around 14.7 on light sections of the map. Which is of course the purpose of narrowband CL fuel control. So if I can change the switch points so the NB's target 14.7 (as read by my WB) then this should be fine. Haven't actually tested to see what the changed switchpoints actually result in - car needs to be in a position it can idle for awhile to do that. I suspect it will be a troublesome 15 min drive home with lots of stalling and way too rich/lean transient nightmare bucking away for that first drive at 2am or whevener it ends up being. Hopefully it's all tune-able. Realistically it should be. This is a very mild cam.
    • Messing with narrowband switchovers is a terrible bandaid. I don't want to think about it. You are a cam "upgrader" only in concept. As you said, your new cam is actually smaller, so it's technically a downgrade. OK, likely a very small downgrade, but nevertheless. But the big thing that will be the most likely suspect is the change of the advance angle. That change could be equivalent to a substantial decrease in cam lobe duration. I haven't gone to the effort of trying to think about what your change would actually cause. But until someone (you, me (unlikely), Matt, someone else) does so and comes to a conclusion about the effect, it remains a possibility that that is the change that is causing what you're seeing.
×
×
  • Create New...