Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Boof Heads.

How about you all jump in and race in a class, any class, JUST PICK ONE and support this sport by filling fields and racing instead of whinging that the Sport Compact classes are to difficult to race in for your particular ride.

There's a class for just about everyone that falls even vaguely under the S.Compact banner. Get over your petty grievances until you can actually say that you are supporting the future of this sport.

Adrian

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dude you're a goose, there are a few ways to look at that ruling. One is that the cars are meant to be "street" cars, and should be running stock gearboxes. Another is by restricting the transmissions allowed will encourage cheaper parts.

The reality is that the only OEM parts used by the majority of the qualifying field is the outside case. So a $10,000 PPG box is "worse" than a $4,000 Powerglide? From a breakage point of view too the Powerglide will be cheaper to run and maintain than a dog box. How is that a realistic rule?

They way I look at is from a performance perspective, not a cost one. I don't think you can write rules that stop people spending money, they will spend whatever they can afford.

The rule writers are obviously of the opinion that the ability to change to a non OEM gearbox is a performance increaser, that's why they handed out a handicap for doing it. My view is that an high stall speed drag auto is worth more than 150lbs in performance, I chose 200lbs based on the weight/performance index.

I am simply saying that 150 lbs is not enough and that 200 lbs is a more accurate reflection, I don't think you should be attacking me on the basis that they don't need a handicap at all. That is already decided and agreed and included in the current regs. If you want to argue cost (which I think is a valid argument by the way) then you need to do just that.

I should emphasise that I am not asking to run a LIGHTWEIGHT R32GTST, all I am asking is to run a STANDARD WEIGHT R32GTST . So I don't think is is either fair or accurate to tell someone with a standard R32GTST to go and race in another class. Because that's what the current regs say.

:P cheers :)

Edited by Sydneykid
I should emphasise that I am not asking to run a LIGHTWEIGHT R32GTST, all I am asking is to run a STANDARD WEIGHT R32GTST .  So I don't think is is either fair or accurate to tell someone with a standard R32GTST to go and race in another class.  Because that's what the current regs say.

:P cheers :)

Sorry Gary but you say your R32 weighs 1180 kgs with roll cage +driver weight but the stock specs for a standard R32 seem to be 1320kg with no cage +driverhttp://imports.motortraders.net/imports/spec.asp?id=668 but you've only made minimal weight reductions and added weight by adding a cage hahaha

So really a STANDARD WEIGHT R32GTST will have no problems at all racing in SRWD class

Sorry Gary but you say your R32 weighs 1180 kgs with roll cage +driver weight but the stock specs for a standard R32 seem to be 1320kg with no cage +driverhttp://imports.motortraders.net/imports/spec.asp?id=668 but you've only made minimal weight reductions and added weight by adding a cage hahaha

So really a STANDARD WEIGHT R32GTST will have no problems at all racing in SRWD class

I have no idea where they get 1320kgs from, but it isn't correct.

I have the Japan exit weight for mine and it was 1265 kgs, that's a standard 1990 model R32GTST M Spec 2 door with aircon. It had no ABS or sunroof and a little fuel in the tank (not much).

This is an extract by funkymonkey on R32 specs

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...9&hl=definitive

As you can see it quotes 1260 kgs, so mine is no super lightweight. Add an 85 kg driver and you are at 1345 kgs, that means 64 kgs of lead to be added to a stock standard R32GTST.

:) cheers :unsure:

Boof Heads.

How about you all jump in and race in a class, any class, JUST PICK ONE and support this sport by filling fields and racing instead of whinging that the Sport Compact classes are to difficult to race in for your particular ride.

There's a class for just about everyone that falls even vaguely under the S.Compact banner.  Get over your petty grievances until you can actually say that you are supporting the future of this sport.

Adrian

WORD

sport rwd had 98 entires at qld jambo about triple that of sport mod.

exactly the top guys in sport rwd should be advancing into sport mod.

especially when most of those cars fit sports mod rules a whole lot better then sport-rwd....

mick

they have to run slicks to be in sport mod, you cant run street tyres in sport mod.

i dont think the top cars want to run against kier wilson or the 7 sec rx3 from PAC.

exactly the top guys in sport rwd should be advancing into sport mod.

especially when most of those cars fit sports mod rules a whole lot better then sport-rwd....

mick

they have to run slicks to be in sport mod, you cant run street tyres in sport mod.

i dont think the top cars want to run against kier wilson or the 7 sec rx3 from PAC.

Its DYO so i don't know where the fear comes into it...i think the word thrill comes to mind more than fear.....Anyway....who is Kier Wilson ?

yeah isnt it a stock rb26 doing 8s?

lol

that'll show those 'stock' 2js

ahh yes....i do remember reading about that car in a mag.....an engineering marvel

why?

what motors would you like to include?

remembering we are sports compact. its not about big engine displacement?

mick

VQ45 Nissan engine is what he wants included.

Does anybody have a rule change suggestion that doesn't directly influence their race car??

Ahh yes there is one person....see second post.

VQ45 isn't eligible right now - due to the maximum 4.1L displacement rule. Any thoughts on the maximum discplacement rule?

V8's are not currently eligible to run in Sport Compact either. I am open to arguments for and against though. I am yet to be convinced one way or the other as to whether hi-tech, late model injected OHC bent eights should be allowed to run or not.

Adrian

VQ45 isn't eligible right now - due to the maximum 4.1L displacement rule.  Any thoughts on the maximum discplacement rule?

I think it should be the same as the NHRA Sport Compact at 3.5 litres maximum limit.

it will always be dyo,

dyo is harder racing than head up any way, you have to think about it way more.

DYO is all about preventing racing becoming too expensive for most to compete.

DYO can have it's own moments of excitement, but there's something intrinsically wrong with sandbagging, buttoning off and braking during a drag race.

I think it's a good concept but it can have awkward moments, especially during the infancy of Sport Compact where field sizes are so low. You can get really embarassing ETs for class winners which does not provide excitement for the spectators.

In my experience 99% of spectators do not understand DYO or the handicap starts. If they were better educated they might understand some of the excitement as the quicker car tries to hunt down his competitor and all the drama about should I or shouldn't I at the top end.

Even fewer understand index classes, but then there are none in Sport Compact at the moment.

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

    • Yucky. Things haven't gotten any better though. Now you have Emerson and Honeywell pushing these massive DCS/Scada things with proprietary hardware. They're not a PLC, they're not a computer, they're a...distibuted PLCish/DCSish monster of thing, that only they can program because they make the barriers to entry for anyone else so fricking high. And their developers are all located in the third/developing world (and India, in case anyone does not include that place in that category) and there are terrible failings of the ESl variety, of the care and common sense variety, and f**king forget about Functional Safety. Not a one of them has any idea what it means to comply with an IEC 615xx series standard.
    • All of the ECU grounds are to the chassis, the IGN grounds are to the cylinder head and i believe all the OEM body harness are left in original locations, im trying to work out if i can tell if the sensor voltage itself is losing any power to it from the very low ECU voltage. But yeah a manual pressure gauge will help in picking which path to actually chase. Also please dont bully my wiring plan i never designed it to be universally understood hopefully it still can make sense to you, im a wiring virgin.  1 thing i have just noticed the pressure sensor in question relays both pressure and temperature, the temperature reading holds nice and steady despite the low ecu voltage but the pressure reading is the one that jumps around alot so maybe it is really a pressure issue? wiring plan.xlsx
    • Gday, Due to not finding much up to date info on this topic I thought I'd make a thread to get peoples latest opinions/recommendations. Background info -  I've got a S1.5 R33 GTST as a fun project car, mainly for street use and occasional drag strip, apart from all the cosmetic things I'll be doing a full rebuild of the engine with forged internals. Since it'll be getting new cams (kelford) and springs to match I thought I might as well get new lifters and valves while I'm at it, the dash says 160k KMs but the engine seems pretty tired, compression measures about 130psi across all cylinders so I'd like to freshen everything up. This is where I'm tempted to just fork out the extra and go solid lifters while it's all apart, aiming for 400-450kw atw with a flex tune. Assuming all supporting mods (oiling, fuel and all bolt ons) with a lightly ported head and turbo to match (yet to make a decision possibly gtx3582r or similar from Hypergear) I've seen the Tomei kits with just the buckets getting around, Supertech sells most things - Supertech High Performance Cam Followers | Trusted Racing Cam Followers Questions -  Has anyone found the Hydraulic lifters to limit them at this power level? Is it usually found that you can just clean the stock lifters and find they work fine?  Does going solid lifters save any headaches/issues with hydraulic lifters in the future? Any recommendations on other things that will need to be replaced, I know I'll need to get the solid profile cams but can you use the same type of valves and springs/retainers and is it recommended to change the guides and stem seals?    Summary -  Basically looking for pros/cons and wanna know if I'll actually need the extra RPMs from solid lifters or it'll just be bragging rights to say it ReVs OvEr 8000 Cheers
    • Ha ha ha, this stuff they had was installing Toshiba PLCs that were made some time in the 1990s, and they were replacing GEM80 PLCs. To let those two talk (staged upgrade along a ~1.2km long building that was split into 4 sections), was a bunch of WinXP machines running Java gateways... There was no way to put something like ProfiSafe in... Most of the HMI machines were WinXP, with Java program, with a custom button board emulating a keyboard... About the only buttons in the operator stations that went direct to the PLCs was the eStop. There was some interesting design stuff in that place...
×
×
  • Create New...