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

    • Hey y'all! I'm curious about how y'all go about widebodying your cars. I noticed that when running a square setup, my front wheels are a bit more tucked in than my rear wheels. Not by much, maybe 5-10mm. This leads me to wonder - when I widebody, should I use narrower front flares and wider rear flares? I found a set of 40mm rear flares that I really like, and was thinking of pairing them with some 18mm front flares, but I don't want the car to look strange. How have others done this? Note, I'm in a sedan. Thanks!
    • And if it was anything other than an auto tranny part, it might be a problem. But seeing as all auto trannies belong in the recycling bin, it's fine.
    • I have an R32 Fenix rad. It is good.
    • All the schemas I can see, indicate your typical setup of ATF 'cooler' (read: heat exchanger) in the bottom radiator tank..ie; https://nissan.epc-data.com/stagea/wgnc34/5413-rb25det/engine/214/ ...but I can prattle on a bit here. These trannies have a thermistor in the sump ~ the TCU reads this and 1. bumps the line pressure up when the ATF is 'cold' and 2. prevents the TC lockup clutch from operating, until the ATF comes up to minimum operating temp (keeps the ATF 'churning' through the TC so it heats up quicker) -- trigger point is around 55C. In these conditions, the engine coolant temperature rises faster than the ATF temperature, and also helps heat the ATF up, which is why it's best to think of the in radiator tank setup as a heat exchanger ; the heat can flow in both directions... ...with these trannies, the 'hot' ATF comes out the front banjo bolt, flows through the cooler/heat exchanger, and returns to the box  via the rear banjo bolt. This gets a mention, due to the wildly different opinions wrt running auto trans fluid coolers ~ do you bypass the in radiator tank altogether, or put the cooler inline with the in radiator tank system...and then, do you put the additional cooler before of after the in radiator tank system?... ....fact is the nominal engine operating temp (roughly 75C), happens to be the ideal temperature for the ATF used in these trannies as well (no surprises there), so for the in radiator tank system to actually 'cool' the ATF, the ATF temp has to be hotter than that...lets say 100C -- you've got 25C of 'excess' heat, (slowly) pumping into the 75C coolant. This part of the equation changes drastically, when you've got 100C ATF flowing through an air cooled radiator ; you can move a lot more excess heat, faster ~ it is possible to cool the ATF 'too much' as it were...(climate matters a lot)... ...in an 'ideal' setup, what you're really trying to control here, is flash heating of the ATF, primarily produced by the TC interface. In a perfect world, wrt auto trans oil cooling, you want a dedicated trans cooler with builtin thermostatic valving - they exist. These should be run inline and before the in radiator tank system ~ when 'cold' the valving bypasses the fin stack, allowing the ATF to flow direct to the in radiator tank heat exchanger, so it works 'as intended' with helping heat the ATF up. When 'hot' (iirc it was 50C threshold), the valving shuts forcing the ATF through the cooler fin stack, and onto the in radiator tank heat exchanger...and you sort of think of it as a 'thermal conditioner' of sorts...ie; if you did cool your ATF down to 65C, the coolant will add a little heat, otherwise it works as intended... ...the 'hot' ATF coming from the front bango bolt, is instantiated from the TC when in use, so all/any flash heated oil, flows to the fluid-to-air cooler first, and because of the greater heat differential, you can get rid of this heat fast. Just how big (BTU/h) this cooler needs to be to effectively dissipate this TC flash heat, is the charm...too many variables to discuss here, but I just wanted to point out the nitty-gritty of automatic trans fluid coolers ~ they're a different beastie to what most ppl think of when considering an 'oil cooler'... /3.5cents   
    • Been a busy but productive day. Axle and hubs acquired. All fitted up after a bit of modifying. Need to sort out wider mudguards and running light reflector covers but other than that the trailer is gooood to go !!
×
×
  • Create New...