Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Is there a link to a detailed thread on the attessa system in the nm35s?

My thinking was its pretty much rwd untill the system senses traction being lost and activates the fwd.

After reading about the rpm diffrence between the break sensor mod while on the stop and go pedals, i wanted to check. Sure enough sat on about 2500rpm as suggested.

Though i did notice small tyre witness marks on the driveway, so tried again the next day with the "Sync" switched on and held it a little longer to be sure, again twin marks.

I would have though the attessa would have not allowed that to happen? Also, i have taken off quckly on loose gravel had had the back spin and step out slightly.

So any more info on the attessa side of things (other then wikkipedia) would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/447319-attessa-question/
Share on other sites

Is there a link to a detailed thread on the attessa system in the nm35s?

My thinking was its pretty much rwd untill the system senses traction being lost and activates the fwd.

After reading about the rpm diffrence between the break sensor mod while on the stop and go pedals, i wanted to check. Sure enough sat on about 2500rpm as suggested.

Though i did notice small tyre witness marks on the driveway, so tried again the next day with the "Sync" switched on and held it a little longer to be sure, again twin marks.

I would have though the attessa would have not allowed that to happen? Also, i have taken off quckly on loose gravel had had the back spin and step out slightly.

So any more info on the attessa side of things (other then wikkipedia) would be greatly appreciated.

If you saw two black lines that would be different. Atessa reaction is not immediate. In fact R32 was quite slow. R33 (and Stagea) is quicker and R34 GTR is quicker still. The answer is in your second sentence - attessa senses traction being lost - it can't somehow anticipate it.

If you saw two black lines that would be different. Atessa reaction is not immediate. In fact R32 was quite slow. R33 (and Stagea) is quicker and R34 GTR is quicker still. The answer is in your second sentence - attessa senses traction being lost - it can't somehow anticipate it.

It does sort of anticipate it, by pushing some drive to the front wheels under hard acceleration, even if there is no slip. The biggest problem with the R32 setup is that its biased much too heavily to the rear. I have a cheapo ebay attessa tweaker in the GTR and it transforms the car. Also R32s also have no preload - ie no drive at all to the front under normal conditions. The R33 and later all send a little drive to the front all the time, which improves response, and is why you need to remove the front driveshaft if you're using a 2WD dyno. In an R32 you can just pull a fuse to use a 2WD dyno.

While we're talking attessa, do NM35s still require flatbed for towing like early attessas?

If you saw two black lines that would be different. Atessa reaction is not immediate. In fact R32 was quite slow. R33 (and Stagea) is quicker and R34 GTR is quicker still. The answer is in your second sentence - attessa senses traction being lost - it can't somehow anticipate it.

It does sort of anticipate it, by pushing some drive to the front wheels under hard acceleration, even if there is no slip. The biggest problem with the R32 setup is that its biased much too heavily to the rear. I have a cheapo ebay attessa tweaker in the GTR and it transforms the car. Also R32s also have no preload - ie no drive at all to the front under normal conditions. The R33 and later all send a little drive to the front all the time, which improves response, and is why you need to remove the front driveshaft if you're using a 2WD dyno. In an R32 you can just pull a fuse to use a 2WD dyno.

While we're talking attessa, do NM35s still require flatbed for towing like early attessas?

I have only ever flatbed towed the car. I wouldn't want to try due to the preload on the transfer case clutch though

I have a feeling the M35 electronic G sensor and Attessa computer is much quicker to respond than the earlier units.

So its more of a case of pecentage of power Vs breaking effect?

If theres a constant percentage of drive being sent to the front and you stand on the break and accelerator, is it just the fact that theres less power and larger breaks up front that allow the rears to turn?

My car breaks traction when my tyres are really cold or when the steep driveway is really wet or the combination and I cannot get up my driveway as the rear wheel is still spinning and I slide back down. This is at a low speed lets say 5km/h? Even with snow mode activated it struggles going up my driveway.

I can launch my car from 3500 or 2500? pissing down rain with the road flooding and not break traction.

My car also leaves chirp like marks when leaving my garage.

But, if going up a steep hill while raining and I floor it, I can feel the rear slip then the car straightens up then I know that attessa has corrected the slip.

  • 2 months later...

FWIW, as well as difference in front vs rear wheel speed from the ABS sensors, and longitudinal G force, they also have a TPS input.

so yep, it's pretty damn good at guessing when you might loose traction.

bloody amazing system for something designed on this

Classic-Games-The-Age-of-DOS-IBM-PC.jpg

FWIW, as well as difference in front vs rear wheel speed from the ABS sensors, and longitudinal G force, they also have a TPS input.

so yep, it's pretty damn good at guessing when you might loose traction.

bloody amazing system for something designed on this

Classic-Games-The-Age-of-DOS-IBM-PC.jpg

Yeah, I've watched my torque split gauge throw drive to the front whilst cornering, and encountering a dip; no loss of traction felt, but it is impressive in it's pre-emptive nature.

A wet road would likely have seen a loss of traction in that combination of conditions.

I have not ran part numbers on the nm35 systems, but from the looks of it they run an r34 pump and clutch packs. The only way to confirm would be to look at the g sensor.

If it is R34 data and programming it takes TPS, G sensor, wheel speed and the map sensor. Calculates over a matrix and runs variable prime pressures.

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...