Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was very tempted. Called to clarify overall condition.

Decided it was a waste of money for the street wich is where my focus lies atm.

Good choice :woot:

If a DR30 could ever do 260 should you be looking at the speedo anyway

If a DR30 could ever do 260 should you be looking at the speedo anyway

IF ............................... The DR30 now owned by Cazz was clocked on radar down conrod straight at over 280kph, so why would you think another DR isn't capable of 260?????????

I think my DR in top spec & tune would be capable of something like it, if I could find a track with a straight long enough to get to it.

That aside, it would look really cool eh! Probably a bit more so than the 200kph you wanted to put into yours.

Cheers, D

That aside, it would look really cool eh! Probably a bit more so than the 200kph you wanted to put into yours.

Cheers, D

Would that be the speedo you were going to send me 2 years ago that never eventuated Dennis?

I only wanted a speedo that worked.

As usual you can't read and understand posts properly standing on your soapbox.

Who cares if a DR30 can do those speeds or not , my point was at 260kph should you really be focusing on watching your speedo.

Edited by R34
Would that be the speedo you were going to send me 2 years ago that never eventuated Dennis?

I only wanted a speedo that worked.

As usual you can't read and understand posts properly standing on your soapbox.

Who cares if a DR30 can do those speeds or not , my point was at 260kph should you really be focusing on watching your speedo.

I got the point the first time & yes it was and you were also told 2 years ago that the one I had, had a broken illuminator and you declined the offer.

Are you still looking for one, because you can have the whole cluster out of my DR for shit, I'll put it in the post tonight if you wish?

Maybe you should tell the whole truth and not just selected parts of it that make you feel good & sound like your the guru of understanding?

And when else do you get to look at any gauges but when your hurtling along a straight at whatever plus. In my hay day, it was only the straight that you had time to glance at the gauges to make sure everything was doing it's thing. This is why I have a big 50mm red light on the dash of my DR and when/if it comes on, it's foot off the loud pedal and instant shut down no matter where you are.

And who ever FOCUSES as you put it on a speedo ANYWHERE and at any time???

Cheers, D

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...