Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I don't think the issue is the numbers any more Duncan, I think it has more to do with getting it through the planning approval stage as the usual NIMBY attitude still prevails, even out in the sticks.

Look at all the issues Gary is having with residents around MDTC and that is well and truly in the middle of nowhere with very few residents even near the track. He at least managed to get it off the ground but for how long?

+1

There has been talk about a track at a couple of places up north including Wyong on the Central Coast. Last I heard they have trouble with approval because no-one wants it near them. A few people whinge and thats it, bad luck no track.

:domokun:

I don't mind them building a track next to my place but I'm not sure they can fit one in surry hills? all the noise I've had is just pissed cnts leaving the brothels of a night, or bloody bible bashing protesters who keep up a 40 day a year 24hr a day protest outside the abortion clinic across the street. nothing like waking up at 2am to hear their chanting and candle waving bullshit. much rather listen to someone bouncing it off the armco (looking at you fatz).

yeah it is 100% on the cards ben...just sorting out a date. the conditions are still bullshit (ie we take the financial risk if it's not full, they make all the profit if it is full or overfull)

WSID is under new management, Read is gone, so maybe its time to approach WSID to organise another drag day!

thanks for the update ben. i'm a bit out of the loop on these things. glad to hear it. a change of management might bring about some positive change in the culture of the place. the way it was managed before was very poor in my opinion. especially the way they treated club hire not to mention the rife nepotism etc. for a facility that is backed by masses of government money and supported by money from club hire it didn't always behave in the public interest.

Back to E/C for a momemt as I couldn't care less about WSID.

I have been a member of the ARDC for some years now and much like every other car club most big decisions are made by the exec comittee with little input from members.

If the ARDC had asked me what I thought about the place I would have said,,,spend the taxpayers millions (7 I think) and the clubs 2 million on fixing the place. Bulldoze turn 2's hill and bulldoze corporate hill so spectators can actually see some more of the track. Move all the rubbish/landfill over to the tip,,,fill it up and close it down permanently.

Thats the big bugbear with the joint,,,you can't see most of the track. Build cement step type undercover smaller stands around the place so people have somewhere to sit and enjoy the racing without the heat and rain killing them. The other big problem is as usual with Govt depts,,,they build or approve housing ect with next to NO public transport at all. Try getting to E/C one day with a family on the cheap,,,it's not going to happen. People need to get to these venues cheaply,,,Oran parks new housing estate is a prime example,,,is there a rail link,,,is there a Bus link,,,,NO.

Personally I don't want E/C to change the track layout at all,,,I like it just how it is.

Cheers

Neil

yeah good point neil and I agree. everyone always whinges about poor spectator numbers at EC but the fact is there is only 1 stand and all you can see from it is turn 12, the straight and turn 1. the rest of the track may as well be underground. who wants to drag their family out there (only way to get there is drive), then pay big bucks to squat on a pile of landfill. you are absolutely right, get rid of all the bloody hills that obstruct viewing, build a few small, covered stands and people will come to watch. 1 day at eastern creek standing in the open can see you get burnt in the morning, wet in the arvo, then eaten by bugs in the early evening. not nice.

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

    • It's a fun daydream but personally just looking at OEM implementations of twincharged engines like the recent Volvo engines it makes my head hurt. So, so much complexity compared to even other GDI turbo inline 4s. 
    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
×
×
  • Create New...