Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Traction control measures wheel speed of all 4 wheels or of two wheel depending on which ecu you use

Top end ones measure all 4.

It then calculates the amount of wheel spin of these figures and reduces the power output to stop or to reduce wheel spin depending on what % of slip you have programed in.

Its a great advantage for getting power down off turns. Much like when you are trying to accelerate away in a hurry say in a 0-60 time.

Its not legal in a lot of forms of racing due to the great advantage it gives you on lap times with huge power down gains.

On the street these is not those rules and so it can be used and will make a massive difference to getting you off the line.

If you choose not to use it thats fine and your choice.

If you think your awesome enough to drive your car in the wet then thats great and I have no issue driving a high power car in the wet either, but I would like to still be able to accelerate away from the lights quickly and cleanly , this is why I will be using switchable traction control.

Oh and I said 400whp not 400wkw

Edited by waxracing

People just need to harden the f**k up... My car is fine in the wet! I just don't kick the firewall when I accelerate and guess what.... That's right, it is controllable

traction is controlled by your right foot regardless of setup... Want more traction? Use less right foot!

People just need to harden the f**k up... My car is fine in the wet! I just don't kick the firewall when I accelerate and guess what.... That's right, it is controllable

traction is controlled by your right foot regardless of setup... Want more traction? Use less right foot!

LOL + 1 :cool:

People just need to harden the f**k up... My car is fine in the wet! I just don't kick the firewall when I accelerate and guess what.... That's right, it is controllable

traction is controlled by your right foot regardless of setup... Want more traction? Use less right foot!

LMAO

according to my RSM my best time is 4.70s in about 59m i think...

235rwkws ans 235's at the back, but i lose a bit of time with wheel spin from 1st to 2nd, i dont do it often enough to get used to how much throttle i need.

Traction control measures wheel speed of all 4 wheels or of two wheel depending on which ecu you use

Top end ones measure all 4.

It then calculates the amount of wheel spin of these figures and reduces the power output to stop or to reduce wheel spin depending on what % of slip you have programed in.

Its a great advantage for getting power down off turns. Much like when you are trying to accelerate away in a hurry say in a 0-60 time.

Its not legal in a lot of forms of racing due to the great advantage it gives you on lap times with huge power down gains.

On the street these is not those rules and so it can be used and will make a massive difference to getting you off the line.

If you choose not to use it thats fine and your choice.

If you think your awesome enough to drive your car in the wet then thats great and I have no issue driving a high power car in the wet either, but I would like to still be able to accelerate away from the lights quickly and cleanly , this is why I will be using switchable traction control.

Oh and I said 400whp not 400wkw

Are you saying the standard R33 GTS-T/R34 GTT traction control does this? My experience of the standard traction control is that once it kicks in, 90% of power is lost and you barely move. I dont see how this ever would result in a quick take off.

Are you saying this is adjustable too?

Your not talking about the R35 GTR are you haha

Are you saying the standard R33 GTS-T/R34 GTT traction control does this? My experience of the standard traction control is that once it kicks in, 90% of power is lost and you barely move. I dont see how this ever would result in a quick take off.

Are you saying this is adjustable too?

Your not talking about the R35 GTR are you haha

Clearly as I am talking about programing % of wheel slip then I am talking about adjustable traction control as alot of aftermarket ecu,s have built in to them. please re read the thread

You can choose how much slip you have off the line ie the amount of tyre spin you will accept.

Are you saying the standard R33 GTS-T/R34 GTT traction control does this? My experience of the standard traction control is that once it kicks in, 90% of power is lost and you barely move. I dont see how this ever would result in a quick take off.

Are you saying this is adjustable too?

Your not talking about the R35 GTR are you haha

All street car traction control works pathetically just learn how to drive without it...

Clearly as I am talking about programing % of wheel slip then I am talking about adjustable traction control as alot of aftermarket ecu,s have built in to them. please re read the thread

You can choose how much slip you have off the line ie the amount of tyre spin you will accept.

I think you'll find setting this up may be a costly and difficult exercise. My Haltech has traction control but then you need extras to measure wheel speed / slip etc etc and then you need to set it all up / get it working right.

And if i set it up with the standard R34 TCS it will be just about as useless as it used to be...

Not sure if it's worth it...?

Edited by gwilkinson34
I think you'll find setting this up may be a costly and difficult exercise. My Haltech has traction control but then you need extras to measure wheel speed / slip etc etc and then you need to set it all up / get it working right.

And if i set it up with the standard R34 TCS it will be just about as useless as it used to be...

Not sure if it's worth it...?

You are assuming I have not already done it a few times.

Im not speaking from inexperience here I have set up a couple of track cars with it before and seen the results.

I suggest you try the haltech with traction control setup you will be suprised at the results. If you set it up right you barely feel it.

If you just boot it and let it do all the work then yes you will feel it, If you come off a corner and are also trying to control wheel spin you dont actually notice it working in the background. you just dont get those flares in wheel speed anymore as you are feathering the throttle.

I agree the std traction control is way to aggressi ve in its settings and does kill the car, that is the way its setup in the computer not the fault of traction control itself.

Is it worth it on the street well I guess that a choice every one has to make

I think it is for when you are doing a mountain run or something like that, ie helping with power down off a corner.

Edited by waxracing
All street car traction control works pathetically just learn how to drive without it...

Yup thought so, just wanted to give waxracing a chance to have a relevant helpful point. Oh well at least I tried.

I switch off traction control as soon as I start the car. I was actually going to ask my tuner if he could default it to off.

Surely the R35 GTR traction control would be good though!

Edited by Harey
Thats an impressive time

Looks like I should easily be posting flat-low 4s with 273rwkw and Yoko AD08 255s then... if only I had a way to time it!

(and no, I'm not going to bother spending anything on something that will...!)

Wax, learn to throttle control.

You made it sound as though you drive with an on/off switch for throttle. If you can drive an 80hp FWD shitbox in the wet, yet can't seem to handle a 400hp RWD in the wet, you need to reassess your right to hold a driver's license.

Agree? If you agree, you worded what you said wrong. Disagree and you might as well respond with "+2"

Looks like I should easily be posting flat-low 4s with 273rwkw and Yoko AD08 255s then... if only I had a way to time it!

(and no, I'm not going to bother spending anything on something that will...!)

Just gotta get lucky. My RSM was a bargain, 100 bucks with a G sensor aswell. 4 wires, 30 mins install, and its ready to time my terrible, full of wheelspin launches!

Wax, learn to throttle control.

You made it sound as though you drive with an on/off switch for throttle. If you can drive an 80hp FWD shitbox in the wet, yet can't seem to handle a 400hp RWD in the wet, you need to reassess your right to hold a driver's license.

Agree? If you agree, you worded what you said wrong. Disagree and you might as well respond with "+2"

Where do I say I drive cars with an on and off throttle control ? We are all here because we love to drive cars fast and modify them right ??

Well traction control helps you do that. if there was something that gives a clear advantage why would you not use it.

They banned it in formula 1 because it was to much of an adavantage does this mean that formula 1 drivers didnt have throttle control up to 2008 when it was banned ? no.

Its an advantage use it or dont , It doesnt bother me its your choice.

Edited by waxracing

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...