Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just to add to what is still interesting to watch, I can no longer get excited about F1. As a kid growing up I used to always look forward to watching Senna race back when they weren't over aero'd cars with a steering wheel full of driving aids.

I still find the v8 supercars good to watch on the street circuits and think that the racing in it is as good as it's ever been.

Nascar is good fun to watch on the road circuits as it's actually hilarious watching some of the lines the guys take through the corners. It's just a shame the commentators are so unbearable.

BTCC is usually pretty good to watch as the drivers are a lot more agressive than some of the other series making it entertaining to watch imo. Also the races aren't too long so everyone is trying to move up as quickly as they can usually.

I'm definitely in agreeance that they shouldn't allow more aero aids as while it may significantly reduce lap times its most likely going to reduce the quality of racing and make it less entertaining to watch.

Edited by «Cyph3r»
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ZOMG!!! DTM cars give me such a hard on!!!

But yeah, I think also too tightly regulating a series don't do much to help with excitement either... As in take F1 for example, whilst the 90's and early 2000's weren't the must exciting years, retrospectively we can't go back to the 60's and 70's, it just wont happen. However, take the year 2000 in F1, the cars had good power, and the aero was very good but for me, it didn't actually kill the racing. It was once the FIA tried to big-nose themselves into the regulations in an effort to rein in Ferrari that they started screwing with it! I mean in 4 or 5 seasons I think, they mandated the minimum height for the front wing be raised on two or three occasions, quali changed a couple of time also.. Too much tinkering, and tinkering for the sake of it, is a big nono.

The changes they made from 1994 to 1995 proved how you could DO IT RIGHT! Same goes from when they banned turbos for 1989 (iirc), the few years were just as awesome!

For the record, I am against control tyres, and if there must be a control tyre maker, then I'm most definitely against a control compound!! Offer some variation FFS!

DTM are easily distinguishable from one another still, NASCARs all look the same to me...... as far as I can tell they might even be all the same shell with just different head and tail lights

i highly doubt that the V8 supercars will go to being indistinguishable like NASCAR is though. i'm sure that the fans wouldn't like it and more than likely the car manufacturers wouldn't like it either.

i highly doubt that the V8 supercars will go to being indistinguishable like NASCAR is though. i'm sure that the fans wouldn't like it and more than likely the car manufacturers wouldn't like it either.

lol stuffed if I can tell them apart now!

seems to me like cockrane is desperately trying anything to save his crappy concept. hope the whole series continues to decline, and the money going into australian motorsport stops getting clogged up in one crappy street racing series with only 32 cars.

it used to ba a bit of a trend that holden would be prodomantly red in the colour scheme and blue for ford. i think at on stage the even ran blue ford and red holden window banners then all of a suddernt he colours got mixed up and all i used to tell them apart by was the rear wings. now with the VE shape its a bit easier.

to comment on recent posts.

- i would have to agree that the BTCC is the best to watch on TV out of them all as it has a mix of cars. a mix of drive FR and FF and the drivers actualy overtake.

- control tyres are good in the budget classes but i belive that the better way to aproch control tyres is to have a control size and compound and then 2 or 3 different brands suplying them. if say dunlop and yogies were controll for a series and they sold tyres of the same size and compound at the same price it would give compeditiors a choice and it would make tyre companys work to keep there brand on the front row. its not that long ago that V8s were running 2 brands and it makes one brand try to out develop another. that inturn puts more drive into the sport as a tyre company will want to pay a leading team to go and do testing on the new developments ect.

control tyres are somthing id like to see in some levels of drifting as at the moment its more of the person with the deep pockets can achive more.

lol stuffed if I can tell them apart now!

seems to me like cockrane is desperately trying anything to save his crappy concept. hope the whole series continues to decline, and the money going into australian motorsport stops getting clogged up in one crappy street racing series with only 32 cars.

DTM only has 18 cars. and besides, the money also trickles into the mini series, v8 utes, and the konica series.

I would put money on the fact that if you removed the badges and stickers from the current cars, most V8 supercab supporters couldnt tell the difference.

if you can't tell the difference between a falcon and a commodore you need to get your eyes checked. it would be like not being able to tell the difference between a r34 and v35 skyline. headlights are totally different, falcons have the bulge on the bonnet, taillights are different, shape of the body is different, wings are different, etc. basically if you can tell the difference in the street cars you can tell the difference in the race cars.

DTM only has 18 cars. and besides, the money also trickles into the mini series, v8 utes, and the konica series.

if you can't tell the difference between a falcon and a commodore you need to get your eyes checked. it would be like not being able to tell the difference between a r34 and v35 skyline. headlights are totally different, falcons have the bulge on the bonnet, taillights are different, shape of the body is different, wings are different, etc. basically if you can tell the difference in the street cars you can tell the difference in the race cars.

You just explained what a typical V8 supercab fan is like.

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..
    • 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.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
×
×
  • Create New...