# What would you class as the most debilitating factor in the R32 to R34's handling?



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

We all know its pretty easy to make these things go fast......but let's be honest, they don't stick to the road like a lot of modern day cars do.

I know by the time you are putting out 600hp with shed loads of torque you are defying physics a little, but what improvements can be made to make them corner better?
I know they have a good amount of "flick-ability" for a big car, but sideways out of a corner is not fast

Easy ones would be:

1.5way or Quaife front diff
Wider wheels and rubber (10.5" 295 tyres)
Lowered, but not overlowered
Shimming the rear diff or 1.5/2way 
4x4 controller

But how about the road less traveled?

Caster angles front and rear?
Custom sub frames with improved suspension pickup points?
Front suspension geometry changed....The R32 is the worst of the three?
Under car aero, diffusers, flat bottoms etc?
Adapting some form of "Yaw" control from newer models?

.....Any thoughts on this subject opcorn:


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

A stiffer chassis and less weight would make the best starting point for the above


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

RJT said:


> A stiffer chassis and less weight would make the best starting point for the above


:bowdown1: yep, either a decent rollcage or some chassis bars to help it out, getting rid of the weight is a bit tricker


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

I'm not an expert but I've read around the subject a fair amount recently.

Most debilitating? The weight balance

Sideways exits? actually the cars strong point so long as you don't need to come out of the throttle.

Using maximum caster angle is a given I thought and makes a big difference to steering feel and turn-in. It's only a front geo thing though (even if you keep the HICAS as it doesn't run enough steering angle to have an impact). But as below it does shorten the top arm life if everything else stays the same.

Proper deep front diffuser with an undertray is also a given as the standard aero gives front end lift at speed. I think modern aero theory would lead you to rework the front bumper totally.

Certainly the chassis is floppy so a cage helps. Obviously strut braces too but I'm not sure how effective all these "ultra racing" style chassis bracing bars are really, I'd be interested to see some fea.

Front diff seems popular in the seriously prepped cars but I think the torsen style diff will spin away power if you lift a front wheel, so a plate diff is probably better. I suspect this will make it less pleasant to drive but faster overall.

I think the front suspension kinematics aren't too bad, I saw some plots a while back from memory bump steer isn't as bad as many BUT there's not much camber gain so unless you run stiff roll rates you will get unhelpful front camber angles. 

The front pickup points for the top arms are slightly different on the Nismo circuit link set (which I guess Group N cars would have used) and the lower arms are longer I think, which gives a little more camber and a wider track on the front and more grip in theory (weight transfer being a function of track width, meaning the rear end sees more of the weight transfer). 

The offset angle of the top arms means that adding caster either wears out or binds the top arm bushes (basically the top arms want to twist about their long axis - which is why cheap adjustable top arm bearings wear out and self loosen and break) so the nismo top arm bracket offsets are probably helping mitigate this also. This is even a weak point on the stock geo so the later design top arms are clearly to address this.

Group A cars did move all the pickup points around (within 20mm) and ran a tougher pivoting rose joint top arm and lower arms similar to the ikeya formula ones.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Alexj - thanks for posting that really interesting read

Sub boy - in answer to your question... Quite simply - the driver! 

Why do you think they don't handle as well as modern cars? 

I've only ever driven modified cars so can't really comment but the usual comments I get on track are very positive about the way my 32 handles. Instructors have also commented how nicely balanced the car is. My car has a lot of mods but still full weight.. 

I'd love to drive a standard car though


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Assuming that we are talking about the R32.

I think that the development of the cars over time shows thinking in the development.

Chassis strength/stiffness - torsional rigidity of the R32 isn't great in particular. The R33 and R34 have much stiffer structures. Pretty much any modern car follows the same path.

Mass centralisation - the car has weight hanging outside the wheelbase. The half of the engine is beyond the front axle line and the fuel tank is behind the rear axle. OK the engine remains unchanged but the R33 has the fuel tank within the wheelbase.

Weight distribution - the later cars take from the front and put it at the back. I have the figures for my car posted up in my thread but from memory the car has something like a 60:40 front heavy balance.

Wheels/tyres - 225/50R16 becomes 225/45R17 becomes 245/40R17 becomes 245/40R18 (I don't think that quite right but you get the drift). Tyre technology has similarly advanced to aid with these lower profile wider tyres.

Brakes - not really handling but compare the 370z brakes to the R32 (pretty similar power output/weight). Bigger discs and bigger calipers have happened as time progresses.

Materials - The use of two piece discs/ceramics/forged calipers can bring the weight of braking systems down to decrease unsprung weight (or at least offset the bigger brakes/wheels). Suspension components made of aluminium/CF/unobtainium also appear. I think that the R34 had ally front lower arms.

Aero - I guess on the handling front this only really applies for higher speeds but nevertheless the R32 is a barn door compared to modern tackle. I had a look at the bottom of an Aston Vantage the other day. I've seen pool tables that aren't that smooth. Modern stuff has amazing amounts of time/money put into the details which in the '80s would have taken a million years. Active aero has the stuff of F1 back in the '80s.

'Active' chassis - the reactive systems on modern stuff is very impressive. Active engine mounts, variable dampers (i.e. Skyhook, the Audi system et al) all contribute.

One thing to mention (as commented above) the above is (mostly) about making the car go faster. For me (at least) handling is not a measure of speed/pace but of feedback/fun. My old 205GTI handled beautifully. I suspect that a modern Renaultsport Twingo with approximately the same power-output (more weight) would beat it round a track. I'd rather be in the 205. I had a mk1 Corsa which was much faster round a corner than the AX which preceeded it. Handled like a bus though.


----------



## GTR Cook (Apr 22, 2008)

Sub Boy, can you define what modern cars your comparing to in the handling stakes?


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

Cris said:


> Assuming that we are talking about the R32.


good point, all my comments refer to R32s specifically


----------



## car killer (Oct 27, 2005)

The biggest factor when it comes to handling imo is the driver.
There is a lot of people with all the gear but no idea. Lol
The fastest best handling car won't go round a track fast with a poor driver.


----------



## bladerider (Jun 29, 2002)

Load of ahse

Ronnie won the first TOTB and finished 2nd in handling just behind a Dax rush with a circuit driver as I recall - all in a virtually stock R33 suspension wise.

Best money spent is on the driver
Next best money spent is on weight loss
Spend more on driver getting used to weight loss

Come back to me once the above has been done and I doubt you will be saying what you are saying !! lol

J.


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

car killer said:


> The fastest best handling car won't go round a track fast with a poor driver.


That's why they made the R35 hehe.

Fwiw Ron K completely replaced his r32 suspension and subframes and went macpherson strut all round. I suspect his car as originally built would have beaten grp a cars, its lighter and more powerful.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Alex, Bladerider is referring to a different Ron who had a tuned 33.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

bladerider said:


> Load of ahse
> 
> Ronnie won the first TOTB and finished 2nd in handling just behind a Dax rush with a circuit driver as I recall - all in a virtually stock R33 suspension wise.
> 
> ...


Come on guys it's just a discussion!
I'm just saying around most circuits the GTR isn't the car of choice by top time attack teams, the Evo is.
I understand there is always some quick versions of the Skyline getting around, and in fairness some of the better ones come out of the UK....

But other than slagging off that being a better driver fixes all its issues...I'm not Senna.I'm not trying to say you all own poor handling bags of shit, I have one too!

.....maybe I should have put "What can be done to make it easier to drive fast on the circuit"


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

markM3 said:


> Alex, Bladerider is referring to a different Ron who had a tuned 33.


Yeah sure, I was comparing Ronnie's stock suspension r33's success at Totb and lengths Ron K (who loves a r32 as much as any man) went to to make the ultimate performing car.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

I agree, driver is the biggest area of improvement. But people do not help themselves with the way they upgrade the Skyline, more often than not their car is more tuned for balls out power which is suitable for the drag strip than track where you need drivability. We see so many people having monster brakes on the front and std ones on the back, they do not think about getting the braking balance right. Futher more suspension tuning is critical to a good track setup as is weight distribution. 

A car designed in the 80's will have a chassis that is less stiff than an R34, but you can stiffent it up by using proper chassis bracing and getting the shell seem welded in key weak areas.


----------



## Smartdj (Nov 3, 2012)

FRRACER said:


> A car designed in the 80's will have a chassis that is less stiff than an R34, but you can stiffent it up by using proper chassis bracing and getting the shell seem welded in key weak areas.


Would seam welding the boot of a 33 be any help to the strength and righty. My boot has no seam sealer at the moment as I'm currently restoring it and iv been weighing up my options for the last few days :runaway:


----------



## GTR Cook (Apr 22, 2008)

Sub Boy said:


> Come on guys it's just a discussion!
> I'm just saying around most circuits the GTR isn't the car of choice by top time attack teams, the Evo is.
> I understand there is always some quick versions of the Skyline getting around, and in fairness some of the better ones come out of the UK....
> 
> ...


You have mentioned EVO's and a like. I imagine cost comes into it to a degree. A forged 2.1 scooby engine or a forged and stroked 2.4 in the EVO costs considerably less to build and install than a forged RB.

Secondly they are lighter to start with. Most time attack cars have tubular subframes, no slam pannels etc. Go to these lengths and your 32 will be in the same league.

I think setup and learning to make the most of that setup is what counts. This isn't a pop and saying you dont know how to drive, just maybe a few changes to the style may make all the difference. I know when i tracked mine, i was no where near the cars limit but still trundling round at a decent pace and staying with cars with more suspension mods. I am in no way a fast track driver but i hope to get there. Understanding how to get the most from what you have is key in my opinion and something i am still learning.

Having been in Git-r's 32, he is very quick, vastly quicker than more exotic cars which shows the old Datsuns still have it.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

GTR Cook said:


> You have mentioned EVO's and a like. I imagine cost comes into it to a degree. A forged 2.1 scooby engine or a forged and stroked 2.4 in the EVO costs considerably less to build and install than a forged RB.
> 
> Secondly they are lighter to start with. Most time attack cars have tubular subframes, no slam pannels etc. Go to these lengths and your 32 will be in the same league.
> 
> ...


I do agree, the R32 is no slouch,we just have not seen many people mod the car in the right way to get the most out of it. The MGT car has so much power its totally unbalanced grip vs power and almost undriveable. That car does not need all that power but needs more work on chassis dynamics and tuning.

The biggest problem we see is people going totally wrong the wrong way like a half drag and half track.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

GTR Cook said:


> You have mentioned EVO's and a like. I imagine cost comes into it to a degree. A forged 2.1 scooby engine or a forged and stroked 2.4 in the EVO costs considerably less to build and install than a forged RB.
> 
> Secondly they are lighter to start with. Most time attack cars have tubular subframes, no slam pannels etc. Go to these lengths and your 32 will be in the same league.
> 
> ...


Yes and no.....

WTAC in Sydney is on again in a couple of weeks, the car that won it last year was a no budget Evo....money or car req was no option, just build the fastest.
And the car that won the year before, and the year before that was an Evo......at that level these guys are at, the price of the engine rebuild is not factored into it, just making it the fastest is......so why are the GT-Rs not in the top ten.....


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Smartdj said:


> Would seam welding the boot of a 33 be any help to the strength and righty. My boot has no seam sealer at the moment as I'm currently restoring it and iv been weighing up my options for the last few days :runaway:


Not really, Most of the panels behind the rear turrets are just there to make up the body and create a boot area. Seam welding just the boot isn't doing anything to strengthen the shell between the axles which is where the most of the flex will be taking place.

Seam welding of the area around the rear turrets and wheel wells, rear subframe location and chassis legs would be best.

But at that stage, there is no way you wouldn't just weld the whole chassis.

When mine was in bits last, I welded all around the door apertures (under the rubber seals) all the engine bay, and the a-pillars/upper chassis legs.

If you can get a decent cage in there which properly triangulates all the suspension tops and sub frame mounts, then there would be a small benefit of seam welding the entire shell compared to the work it would take.
Not to say that it is not beneficial, if time and money is no object, then do the lot.

The other problem which gets over looked is rust. Even the 34's are beginning to be beyond repair in certain areas, so I dread to think what some of the worst 32's are like. 
They tend to rust from the inside out, even clean looking sill on the outside could be rusting on the inside.
So if you imagine the rust has eaten half way through a panel on the whole underside and inner legs etc, then there isn't much strength left in the already floppy shell.....


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Sub Boy said:


> Yes and no.....
> 
> WTAC in Sydney is on again in a couple of weeks, the car that won it last year was a no budget Evo....money or car req was no option, just build the fastest.
> And the car that won the year before, and the year before that was an Evo......at that level these guys are at, the price of the engine rebuild is not factored into it, just making it the fastest is......so why are the GT-Rs not in the top ten.....


I think part of the evo 'boom' is due to the fact that they are so readily available, parts are cheaper etc etc.

I know that doesn't really apply to the big money builds, but I bet even they had to start somewhere. They wont have gone out from day 1 to build the biggest and best evo, its been a result of development.

Also, many gtr enthusiasts are just that, enthusiasts who prefer to the keep the car how it was. And not willing to sacrifice how it drives on the road, and risk wrecking it on the track


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

RJT said:


> I think part of the evo 'boom' is due to the fact that they are so readily available, parts are cheaper etc etc.
> 
> I know that doesn't really apply to the big money builds, but I bet even they had to start somewhere. They wont have gone out from day 1 to build the biggest and best evo, its been a result of development.
> 
> Also, many gtr enthusiasts are just that, enthusiasts who prefer to the keep the car how it was. And not willing to sacrifice how it drives on the road, and risk wrecking it on the track


Again, no.
Do a search for "Project Nemo" that was a ground up build to be the best,
Honestly, if they thought the best chassis to start with for a Time Attack car was a Aston Martin, they would have bought that.....and that isn't the only one
GTRs on this side of the world are just as cheap as Evo 7's to 10's.....so money is not the factor


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Sub Boy said:


> Again, no.
> Do a search for "Project Nemo" that was a ground up build to be the best,
> Honestly, if they thought the best chassis to start with for a Time Attack car was a Aston Martin, they would have bought that.....and that isn't the only one
> GTRs on this side of the world are just as cheap as Evo 7's to 10's.....so money is not the factor


Well they must have had a reason to buy an evo, its no more than a souped up family car in standard form. The chassis isn't going to b anything special. 

If it was truly a matter of no budget, lets build the fastest car, then wouldn't they have started with the likes of a ferarri fxx or whatever that thing is.

Is that evo the one with all the crazy aero on it and the weird doors. Because to be fair, with that lot on it, you can hardly call it an evo anymore.


----------



## GTR Cook (Apr 22, 2008)

The cars competing in WTAC hardly resemble the car that rolled off the manufacturers assembly line so in that case i doubt it matters what chassis you start with. Ill be honest and admit i dont really follow time attack that closely but dont the R32's from this forum that enter do well?

Hi Octane 34 shifts as does there 32, put a race driver in it and it may creep up the standings a little. The WTAC Evo's are driven by professional racing drivers, not the guys that built them. So you need to ask how much difference that makes.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Sub boy - simple fact is there are more customers for evos than skylines so of course it makes sense for the tuners to showcsase what they can do with them.. In the UK there are only really a couple of tuners that love the skyline the rest are just making a living (the ones that race them and annihilate the opposition)... If the skyline owners had the same pockets as they did 15 years ago I bet youd see more winning races.. For sure my car, as a road car will be quicker than anything ive met on track for a very long time.. Not just track days but lap times.. You cant argue with that,, Full weight, air con, ectric wndows etc doing similar times as the UK time attack cars but with inferior tyres and more weight/less power.. put a proper drive in my car and it'd be quicker still..
I bet folk will be saying this about the r35 in years to come.. 

Lee lol thanks mate but not true.. would really love to see what my car would do with a proper driver:clap:


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

If a skyline had more time put into it for track set up I do not doubt it would struggle against Evos and Scoobies. The problem is those cars are used for track use as many of the owners like to take them to track. With Skyline owners, they seem to have this big obsession with having the most powerful engine and how fast it can do a 1/4 mile. To me that is pretty boring, lot of it is about bragging rights and pub talk, oh my Skyline has 1000bhp and can do the 1/4 mile is 9 seconds! I personally do not see the fun in that. These cars were designed to destroy the Porsche 959 on track and they were loaded with the best technology from the 80's. If Nissan wanted to compete with American drag cars they would have taken a different route and had a dumbed down car.

It is no wonder that Skylines even when they do go on track are totally destroyed by the opposition. Most cases the drivers are not upto it nor are the cars having always forcused on 1/4 mile drag races. I am talking generally of course, people like Sam are doing great things on track with the R32 and it is not even a stripped out dedicated track car.


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

What about the m-speed and prostock r34's. They were pretty serious and that was a few years back. They seemed to concentrate on weight and proper suspension design.
Not just silly power and aero. In fact they were both quite tame in that respect.
Do the Evo guys go to town redesigning the suspension


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

RJT said:


> What about the m-speed and prostock r34's. They were pretty serious and that was a few years back. They seemed to concentrate on weight and proper suspension design.
> Not just silly power and aero. In fact they were both quite tame in that respect.
> Do the Evo guys go to town redesigning the suspension


They are two very well built cars, pity the Prostock 34 never turned a wheel to show us what it can do.


But stepping away from the big builds, and more into club stuff, I was more looking for what ideas to improve the handling on the R32-33, without going to the absolute steps that the Prostock 34 went to.


----------



## xxfr (Apr 28, 2009)

Get some decent swaybars and coilovers to start with. I was on standard suspension on my 34 and went sloshing (within the car) all over the place when I took a bend too quickly.

Installed Cusco swaybars and lowered slightely on coilovers (10kg fronts, 8kg rears) and I have taken the same bend at twice the speed and the car doesn't even budge at all.


----------



## bladerider (Jun 29, 2002)

Simple stuff...

coilovers, arb's and such are a given...then...

seam weld
hefty strut bracing front and rear - you can get under bars too
body brace - do luck i think
hicas removal
diffs front and rear - others can argue 1.5 or 2way
weight removal - such as the vspec control if diff'd - bonnet, boot
poly bush everything
Volks or similar

more extreme...

major cage connecting struts, a,b & c pillars, roof, front turrets, chassis rails etc
fill chassis rails with foam
total weight loss - sound proofing, interior, doors (if caged), roof, glass, mirrors, lights, ac, heater, fans, wiring, etc etc
carbon prop
lightweight driveshafts
relocate stuff for balance - gel battery etc

even more extreme...

carbon panels
remove floors
remove all crash structures and extend cage as needed/spaceframe rest
rollcage pickup for diffs and other key points
rosejoint everything
consider changing from coilovers to pushrod
carbon rims
carbon brakes
billet engine components including cnc block, drysumped, lower CoG
custom loom - zero electrics that are not for engine etc
more aggressive relocation of items for weight balance - rads, etc

after that quarter of a million is used up you might wanna consider some more driver training and then downforce !! lol


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Yup, I've done all the usuals:

Coilovers
Swaybars
Nolathane Bushes and Adjustable arms
Big Brakes
Wider wheels and tyres
Nismo rear diff
4x4 Controller
Undercar Bracing

Was more if there was some geometry improvements going on, I had read that people fit the R33 Subframes onto R32s, so more thing like that?


----------



## GTR Cook (Apr 22, 2008)

Sub boy, I am a little confused, easily done granted!

What are you comparing to? You mentioned world time attack cars and now your just after a good track set up. You seem to have all the right parts, which makes me think they are not being optimised in setup.

What cars are you facing that make you think yours doesn't stick to the road?


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Sub Boy said:


> Yup, I've done all the usuals:
> 
> Coilovers
> Swaybars
> ...


Maybe you should get rid of the tractor engine and get Mines to build you a proper race engine along with a proper suspension setup. Forget all the bling such as polished tanks and plenums. People lose focus on their aim and then wonder why the car cannot perform.

R33 subframe is possible will give more rear anti squat but you should get the basics right first.

Seriously read a book by Carrol Smith called Tune to Win.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

rogerdavis said:


> Maybe you should get rid of the tractor engine and get Mines to build you a proper race engine along with a proper suspension setup. Forget all the bling such as polished tanks and plenums. People lose focus on their aim and then wonder why the car cannot perform.
> 
> R33 subframe is possible will give more rear anti squat but you should get the basics right first.
> 
> Seriously read a book by Carrol Smith called Tune to Win.


:chairshot:chairshot
Did I even mention my engine?
I would be pretty certain engine wise that what I have will out perform a mines RB26 in all rev ranges....

I can't believe that from a simple genuine discussion question about improving handling that I've been told to learn to drive, lose the bling (not that I've got much shiny stuff on my car anyway) and get rid of the engine I have

The reason that I mentioned the Time Attack car was to point out world wide that the GTR isn't used that much by top teams, and yes it may by more of a weight thing, but is it a handling thing also? 

So you all think you are race car drivers, and that your GT-Rs handle perfectly compared to more modern cars like the new 911s, R35s, and Evo9s?

I didn't start this thread looking for conflict, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.....I thought this would be a interesting topic


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Everyone's an expert!

I don't think anyone intends it to come across as having a pop.

I think the reason for the use of evos and scoobs has been covered.... There is much more of a market for tuners to show what they can do. 
As said above, most people seem to choose a skyline to tune it to silly hp, and neglect handling.

Also I suppose, at the end of the day, evos and scoobs were rally cars, so maybe they do have some more focused chassis and suspension from the outset??

Another thing that gets overlooked is that a car can have every bit of adjustable suspension, arbs, diffs etc. but without being setup properly can easily end up handling worse that before.

Proper corner weighting, a bit of rake, alignment and trial and error with arb and damper. settings is often overlooked. Tyre pressures.....
All this is free.

The other thing is, you really need to decide what you intend to use the car for. If you still want it comfortable (ish) on the road. Then track performance is always going to be a compromise. 
Mine is awful now on the road with 16kg/14kg springs. But it's great on the track.

If I'm not mistaken, the auto select cars has 18/18 and 20/20 on the r34.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

I don't understand why people tune to silly bhp as it just compromises the usability IMO.
I'd rather have a nicely set up car that handled better any day.


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

I think because the skyline always has a reputation for big hp, as with the supra. So people but them with the intention of chasing that dream.

I guess people more interested in handling, buy the cheaper, lighter evos etc.....


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Cheers RJT, my car is still mostly a road car, but will do more and more track days as I go on. Looks like I need to find a better suspension/alignment guy.


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

It's more trial and error. As long as the guy doing it for you is competent enough to get the settings that you asked for right.

You need to get your tyres up to temp then get some readings across the surface and see how your tyres are behaving. 

Again everything you do for the track will take away from its road drivability.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

CT17 said:


> I don't understand why people tune to silly bhp as it just compromises the usability IMO.
> I'd rather have a nicely set up car that handled better any day.


What do you class as silly bhp? 
What if you had more bhp, but without losing any response than a standard engine?

I've never gone for pure power, I've never even taken the car to a drag strip.....h3ll I can't even remember the last time I launched the car, prob 10 years ago before I bought it!:chuckle:

I do intend to enjoy it on basic track days (about the only place to drive it quickly around here after all the earthquakes ruined the roads) so I have always concentrated on on making it stop and go round corners first.


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

I was with Sam git-r at Brands, his car is "just" a nicely done r32 gtr 500 fwbhp, coilovers, and he's a handy driver, nothing outlandish, it was the fastest car there on pretty much every part of the track. While these cars have their weaknesses they are still very capable and enjoyable on track with the conventional mods and settings its not a mystery.

If you want a really competitive race car thats another thing all together.

Anyway ... here's a good stab at the conventions, thanks to someone who sets up r32 to win for a job:

"Caster, as much as you can get before the front of the tyres hit the guards, usualy ~6 degrees positive
Camber, varies from circuit to circuit, we also run stagger (different side to side) on some circuits. On the front, never less than 2.5 degrees negative and never more than 4 degree negative. On the rear, between 1 and 2 degrees negative.Front stabiliser bar is a Whiteline 24mm (solid) adjustable, most circuits on the softest setting, sometimes 1 or 2 up from that, harldy ever at hardest setting. Rear stabiliser bar is a Whiteline 24mm (solid) adjustable, most circuits on the middle 2 settings. I also have a 22mm (solid) adjustable for when it rains, the 24mm, even on the softest setting is too much antiroll.The final camber settings are determined by tyre temperatures on the day, some circuits (eg; Eastern Creek) have constantly changing grip levels during the day. So easily accesable and referenced stabiliser bar adjustments are an advantage.The front diff is a 1 way and the rear is a 1.5 way, it has 2 extra plates in the transfer case and an ATTESSA controller is fitted, I like the 30/70 (front/rear) setting in the dry. Around 60/40 seems better in the wet, sometimes.I run a little anti dive on the front and quite a bit of anti squat on the rear as the rear spring rate is quite soft at 200 to 250 lbs per inch. The front spring rate is 400 lbs to 500 lbs, depending on the circuit.Most important, the ride height, I run 350 mm centre of wheel to guard on the front with around 10 mm of rake in the dry and 15 mm in the wet or slippery conditions. Obviously it is corner weighted to get the diagonals where I want them, again I run stagger on some circuits.There are so many adjustments available (suspension and 4wd) it is very easy to get lost. When you add the IP car's adjustable bump and rebound settings, you can go round in circles chasing the setup. The best suggestion I can make is to decide on the basic settings and then use the stabiliser bars adjustment to fine tune it on the day."

In context here:
Bnr32 Gtr Alignment Discussion - Street Track Whatever - Suspension, braking and tyres - Skylines Australia

R32 Gtr Club/circuit Susp. Recommendations - Page 3 - Suspension, braking and tyres - Skylines Australia

Setting Up R32 Gtr For Track - Motorsport - Skylines Australia


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Sadly Skyline owners first and fore most crave power, even 800 bhp is not enough, 900 would not cut it, they crave 1000+ bhp and want their car to be a straight line 1/4 mile missile so they can tell everyone how powerful their car is and be the envy of their local pub! Those who do want it to go around corners find themselves confused! :chuckle:

Well hello? this ain't no F1 car, it is a 1980s designed tintop that was only ever made or designed as a road car/touring car. Why do you think group A cars did not got for the biggest kick ass turbo running 3bar plus of boost and 1000 bhp? (Technology was around to have such power, Group B cars made over 650 bhp) because it would be a horrible car to drive!

If I had 50-80k sitting around going spare I would build a race spec Skyline that would be able to compete with the best road cars turned track cars ou t there.

No point mentioning it here because people have had drag racing programmed into their minds from a young age.

A 280 bhp touring car would humiliate a lot of cars out there, so it just shows that engine power is not everything. Porsche Supercup cars are around 480bhp, DTM around the same.

Remember dragsters originate from America where they could not build cars to corner, so they went for straight line, us British and Europeans and Japanese can build cars to corner!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Sub Boy said:


> What do you class as silly bhp?



Me personally, I'd say over 500bhp to the wheels as a ballpark figure.

My R35 was only taken from 520 to 600, but it had the best brakes, good suspension and was well sorted making it great fun.
I like balance, not BHP monsters. 

I know it's personal, but that's what I like.


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Sub Boy said:


> :chairshot:chairshot
> Did I even mention my engine?
> I would be pretty certain engine wise that what I have will out perform a mines RB26 in all rev ranges....
> 
> ...


I am talking more general than specifically mentioning your good self. Why do they not choose a Skyline? I do not know and cannot answer that.

When people think that RIPS is the holy grail and the mother of all engines that bothers me because their engines are designed as out and out drag engines. I am not knocking Robbie Ward, I admire and respect his achievement as well as his engineering ability. But people are so blinded and so gullible and believe everything they are fed.

Remember a drag engine and drag chassis has a totally different design and characteristic to a circuit race engine and chassis. We seem to get people who want to mix the two.

I do have race experience in F3 as well as Radicals so I would like to think I learnt something from my younger days :chuckle:


----------



## TJB (Nov 23, 2007)

roger , do you need a hug , or is it the wrong time of the month ? ..


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Thanks Guys,
Alexj, cheers for the setup suggestions, I will have a look and see how that compares to what I have now, I am running the same ARBs 

Again, I'm not running huge power, I was looking for excellent response, my turbo is quite small (some say too small) for the engine size, but it comes on boost very early, and has a super smooth response so power wise it's very easy to drive.....but still manages to make over 600whp.

I've got nothing against Drag Racing guys either, heck my old man used to have a FED rail back in the 60s-70s, but I was mostly bought up on circuit racing, so that is where my interest lies


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

TJB said:


> roger , do you need a hug , or is it the wrong time of the month ? ..


The missus is calling me to bed so I will be getting more than a hug :chuckle:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

rogerdavis said:


> When people think that RIPS is the holy grail and the mother of all engines that bothers me because their engines are designed as out and out drag engines. I am not knocking Robbie Ward, I admire and respect his achievement as well as his engineering ability. But people are so blinded and so gullible and believe everything they are fed.


You mad? He can't force his customers to build track cars. There seems to be a lot of arrogance about UK car building, which especially interesting when they get put head to head at international events they haven't seem to have delivered the thrashings the talk would make one expect.

I'm off to World Time Attack in Oz in a couple of weeks, there were one or two UK cars there last year (definitely Redbrick - didn't really put on much of a show, can't remember exact result) and did the same attack on Japan a few years ago and the same kind of result... Oz/Japan and the occasional Kiwi cars and drivers dominating the event. I'm sure if things were so certain there would be a car coming over to lay down the law

Here's a race car with a RIPS engine in it: GTR racing at Manfeild NZ - YouTube - not sure what you think is so drag specific about a torquey powerful engine, but this seems to be coping. Maybe no one told it that it was going around corners


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

rogerdavis said:


> When people think that RIPS is the holy grail and the mother of all engines that bothers me because their engines are designed as out and out drag engines. I am not knocking Robbie Ward, I admire and respect his achievement as well as his engineering ability.


I have never professed to be a "track guy" or an engine builder specialising in track engines, but believe it or not I have actually done quite a few engines for track GTRs and all of the owners of said cars have back to back dyno proof and on track proof/lap times that prove a vast improvement over the engines they had previously run (RB25s,26s,28s and 30s) Every single one has commented on how much EASIER the car was to drive, with far LESS "aggression" just a much broader, smoother power band with more torque and higher peek power, all resulting in quicker lap times.

One in particular I like is the ex VIP petfoods R34 GTR track/targa car, stupidly quick round a race track yet reliable and driveable enough to be thrashed for hours and huge miles on long closed road courses.



rogerdavis said:


> }Remember a drag engine and drag chassis has a totally different design and characteristic to a circuit race engine and chassis.


I agree.



rogerdavis said:


> I do have race experience in F3 as well as Radicals so I would like to think I learnt something from my younger days :chuckle:


There is no question a 500-600kg purpose built track car is going to destroy a high powered well handing GTR around a track but some guys just want to have a street based car they like the look/sound of, something that will give them a thrill on a windy track or road and out perform "most" other street/track cars they are likely to come up against and to build a suitable engine for those cars, is actually not rocket science at all.

Rob


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Lith said:


> I'm off to World Time Attack in Oz in a couple of weeks, there were one or two UK cars there last year (definitely Redbrick - didn't really put on much of a show, can't remember exact result) and did the same attack on Japan a few years ago and the same kind of result... Oz/Japan and the occasional Kiwi cars and drivers dominating the event. I'm sure if things were so certain there would be a car coming over to lay down the law


Me too, I'll see if I can spot you there
I went last year as well, and you are right, Redbrick were nowhere....

This year looks to be the best yet, can't wait!opcorn:


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Lith said:


> You mad? He can't force his customers to build track cars. There seems to be a lot of arrogance about UK car building, which especially interesting when they get put head to head at international events they haven't seem to have delivered the thrashings the talk would make one expect.
> 
> I'm off to World Time Attack in Oz in a couple of weeks, there were one or two UK cars there last year (definitely Redbrick - didn't really put on much of a show, can't remember exact result) and did the same attack on Japan a few years ago and the same kind of result... Oz/Japan and the occasional Kiwi cars and drivers dominating the event. I'm sure if things were so certain there would be a car coming over to lay down the law
> 
> Here's a race car with a RIPS engine in it: GTR racing at Manfeild NZ - YouTube - not sure what you think is so drag specific about a torquey powerful engine, but this seems to be coping. Maybe no one told it that it was going around corners


Is world time attack an international event? UK teams tend to do pretty well in world motorsport (e.g. F1) but not so much local events (e.g. Nascar). I seem to remember Ron (I think it was) doing quite well in the middle east a while back. I cannot imagine that there would be a massive market in Oz/NZ for a UK company given the established markets there. Racing is all about money at the top level.

With repsect to Rob I'd imagine that his work would suit the drag/street community better. You can get plenty of power from an RB26 with relatively cheap mods. If I were building a track car I would be looking at other areas than the super engine build if I wanted to get round a track faster. At the end of the day money is finite (for most of us) and if you pour an extra £5k into the engine then that money doesn't get spent on a cage/tyres/whatever. I'm no expert on drag racing but I'll bet money is better spent on the engine/gearbox.

NB I'm assuming both set-ups strip out weight (which is cheap if you do it yourself) and tyres (again relatviely cheap, unless drag tyres are unusually expensive).

Back to topic - one thing I have wondered is if with say a Ruzic controller you were to update the R32 FWD to be always on (as in the R33/34) you could translate this into a faster track time. I assume so (why else would Nissan have done so) but would be interested to see a 'before and after' comparison.


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

Cris said:


> Back to topic - one thing I have wondered is if with say a Ruzic controller you were to update the R32 FWD to be always on (as in the R33/34) you could translate this into a faster track time. I assume so (why else would Nissan have done so) but would be interested to see a 'before and after' comparison.


Interesting point, you read different things about Grp A, Grp N cars and various cars in current series running awd, 2wd, factory ATTESA, remapped ATTESA, fixed torque split, HICAS etc.

There's some face validity in the idea that a really race driver will end up fighting with active systems like attesa and hicas, which is the reason I seen given for going with fixed torque split (not sure if Ruzic or Full race units can do this). But some racers also do seem to have good success with leaving the system active and I've tracked a car with fixed torque split and it can be understeer city.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Cris said:


> Is world time attack an international event? UK teams tend to do pretty well in world motorsport (e.g. F1) but not so much local events (e.g. Nascar). I seem to remember Ron (I think it was) doing quite well in the middle east a while back. I cannot imagine that there would be a massive market in Oz/NZ for a UK company given the established markets there. Racing is all about money at the top level.


Yes it is international, up until last year it was won by Tarzan from Japan.....
You are right, the UK is right at the cutting edge of most circuit racing, but a class of racing that was born from Japanese Tuning Companies to test and show off their talents.....The UK is pretty far behind. But that is not to say they they couldn't do well in it, it's just that Japanese performance cars are still a bit rare in the UK on a grand scale.
Heck, the guy that designed the aero package on the car that placed third last year (first 2wd) is Barry Lock, Ex-McLaren F1 aero man.:thumbsup:


----------



## mambastu (Feb 13, 2002)

Lith said:


> There seems to be a lot of arrogance about UK car building


Did you just post that ? Looking at the posts on this forum over the last ten years it would seem that you Kiwis are world leaders at self promotion. opcorn:

Don't read too much into Rogers posts. They appear to be pretty confrontational, I remember a Kiwi that used to be on here that posted in a similar way. Theres always the ignore button if you need it.

Personally I'd rather have a torquey 'tractor' motor (surely its a fork lift motor Roger ?) and am currently building one to go in my 32. I know why the GT-R was built with a 2.6 but they're heavy old buses and the older I get the less I can be bothered to rev the tits off a car to get it to move. 
As far as too much power goes the car has 4wd and the ability to cope with a lot more power a lot more of the time so assuming the rest of the running gear is upgraded to match why the hell not.

Sub Boy - you seem to have tackled most of the usual areas most people tackle over here. Risking on SAU has modified R32 subframes to revise rear geometery so it would be a good idea to contact him if you haven't already. The anti-squat improvement would seem a good idea for corner exit but then one of the new ATTESSA controllers might offer similar traction gains with less aggro. 

Re-aero. Really a ten-tenths thing. Simon McBeaths book Competition Car Aerodynamics is very good for pointers and worth a read if you haven't already. 
For a joint road/track use car you're not going to be able to go too nuts because you won't be able to run the car low enough to get flat floors and diffusers working _really_ well but any drag reduction of the underside is going to be a good thing. 
Not convinced about rear diffusers on R32's. The Top Secret and Abflug diffusers are pretty poor designs because they're designed to bolt on under/around the rear silencer and rear mounted fuel tank. To stand any chance of getting a shallow angle long diffuser on the back you'd have to have a shallow/relocated fuel tank and a raised silencer or side exit exhaust.

Haven't tuft tested a R32 yet although I have tuft tested a RS13 and S14.
If the aero figures that you see for the 32 are correct then they need some work at the front end so a front undertray and front splitter would be a good idea. Not sure on the merits of a front splitter that sticks miles out in front of the car - 10cm should be more than enough. Wouldn't be difficult to make a slotted splitter that could be adjustable to slide fore and aft for trimming.

From the front of a R32 you can see the front tyres so some drag reduction could be made there by changing the shape of the front bumper or by adding some dive planes to guide the air around/over the front wheels. Also fill in any unused front ducting for drag reduction.

The rear window to boot lid angle on a R32 is much sharper than on the S14 and you could see airflow distrubance at the base of the rear screen on a S14. I would suspect the airflow in that area on a R32 would be more turbulent so if you don't mind losing the rear wing then a lower 'duck tail' type spoiler for drag reduction with a high mounted rear wing for downforce would seem the go. 
If you don't want to ditch the rear spoiler then the Nismo rear lip is obviously designed to increase the downforce from the standard rear wing so that would be worth doing. Forget the stick on 'Flugel flaps' that you see for the standard rear wing. The standard rear wing already has a good sized gurney flap built in to the rear edge so sticking the daft flap on is just going to increase drag and will give the wing a weird profile which will undoubtedly decrease downforce. 

Cheers

Stu


----------



## PS30-SB (Jun 13, 2003)

AlexJ said:


> Fwiw Ron K completely replaced his r32 suspension and subframes and went macpherson strut all round. I suspect his car as originally built would have beaten grp a cars, its lighter and more powerful.


The Japanese Gr.A cars were built ( to a set of rules... ) to run in races that averaged around 300km in distance. Some of the bigger events were 500km +.

No disrespect to Ron K or anyone else, but I highly doubt his car would beaten a works Gr.A car in the events that the Gr.A cars were built to take part in.....


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Sub Boy said:


> Yes it is international, up until last year it was won by Tarzan from Japan.....


Genuine interest here - I've not heard of World Time Attack before is this the event - World Time Attack Challenge | 18th – 19th October, Sydney Motorsport Park, Australia

To my eye it looks like a single event held in Oz. Are there other events in the series perhaps?

Or maybe I've got the wrong event - the entrant list doesn't have a UK team so am I looking at the wrong event?


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Thanks Mambastu, I agree with the engine size, from what I have read the R32 was to have the 3ltr motor, but was changed in the middle of design to the 2.6ltr to fit within a CC size class for racing.

I'd still be interested in the revised rear subframe, I do run a Full-Race 4x4 controller, but yet to really try its merits on the track.

Aero, I don't think I can do a lot here as you mentioned due to the car mainly being road based, I do have front and rear diffusers, I think the front one helps a little, but in fairness I bought the back one mainly for looks


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Cris said:


> Genuine interest here - I've not heard of World Time Attack before is this the event - World Time Attack Challenge | 18th – 19th October, Sydney Motorsport Park, Australia
> 
> To my eye it looks like a single event held in Oz. Are there other events in the series perhaps?
> 
> Or maybe I've got the wrong event - the entrant list doesn't have a UK team so am I looking at the wrong event?


Yes it is a once a year thing, and always held in Sydney at Eastern Creek Raceway.
There maybe no UK cars this year, but cars from Japan, Korea, Mexico, USA, Aust, and NZ are coming. They also have large trade stalls there, and plenty of exotic cars and ex race cars like the Gibson and GIO grpA GT-Rs, grpB Rally cars like the S2 Audi swb and MG Metro 6R4......not just on display either!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

PS30-SB said:


> The Japanese Gr.A cars were built ( to a set of rules... ) to run in races that averaged around 300km in distance. Some of the bigger events were 500km +.
> 
> No disrespect to Ron K or anyone else, but I highly doubt his car would beaten a works Gr.A car in the events that the Gr.A cars were built to take part in.....


.....and some even bigger, Bathurst 1000


----------



## xxfr (Apr 28, 2009)

Just get the damn thing out and start driving it around. Show us some videos already. Maybe you need to stop building that car and start driving/enjoying it more.


----------



## PS30-SB (Jun 13, 2003)

Sub Boy said:


> .....and some even bigger, Bathurst 1000


Japan had 1000km races too. 

My point being that you can turn the wick up, but the brighter light burns only half as long.

Comparing a car built for sprinting / Time Attack with a proper Gr.A car ( homologated and built the best part of 24 years ago ) is not really ideal. That's just Top Trumps. 

Having said that, how many people realise just how complex ( just how _different_.... ) and just how _fast_ the Gr.A cars were in period?


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

xxfr said:


> Just get the damn thing out and start driving it around. Show us some videos already. Maybe you need to stop building that car and start driving/enjoying it more.


Lol! Maybe you're right!:clap:
I will power up the camera this weekend and at least get a wee vid of it running, it doesn't have any Rego at the moment as it failed the last WOF due to no reverse lights (now sorted) but will sort rego next week.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

PS30-SB said:


> Japan had 1000km races too.
> 
> My point being that you can turn the wick up, but the brighter light burns only half as long.
> 
> ...


That is one of my fav sayings, I used it on customers hat wondered why their subwoofers didn't last as long when they put more power into them

You are right, I've had an extensive look over and under a Gibson gpA GT-R and there is not a lot mechanically that resembles the road car.
They were certainly fast, it took over a decade for the Aussie touring cars to beat the lap time that the GT-R set at Bathurst, and when they weren't boost restricted in 90-91 they ran close to 700hp in quali trim.


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

It's the first time I've seen this thread. Funny enough I was having this conversation the other night in the pub. It is true the weight distribution of the car is where it shows its age, but don't forget the 32 was devised in the 80's. then the r33 showed up 94. Even then there wasn't anything close to them. The evo 4 was the first of the decent evos in 96. Anyway, it's the exiting speed where the skyline excels. Slow it down before the corner so you can get a quick exiting speed.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Sub boy - you have a lovely motor and no one is having a pop at you mate 

This is a great thread and some really good posts here 

If I can quote a 997.2 gt3 driver I met on track: "I couldn't go any quicker but you still caught me up and it looked like you were having more fun doing it. I could see your car moving around a lot in the corners, my Porsche seems so boring in comparison.. " 

The moving about is why I love the skylines so much but maybe if you could eradicate this it would be quicker, BUT!!! Would you enjoy driving it as much? 

To chase the last few tenths on track might sacrifice that involvement you get from the GTR's when turning in on the brakes and balancing oversteer with corner exit speed, trying to stay on the right line etc... I never really manage to get this right but it's so much fun doing it!!! 

I would have moved away from GTR's years ago if it wasn't for this 

Maybe you should try driving it without the 4wd controller? 

Alex - thanks mate - that was such a great day


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

git-r said:


> Sub boy - you have a lovely motor and no one is having a pop at you mate
> 
> This is a great thread and some really good posts here
> 
> ...


Thanks Git-r:thumbsup:
Love that conversation you had with the GT3 guy! You must be pretty reasonable peddler!
I think half of my problem with driving the car is I haven't found the limit in cornering (like you perhaps have) our track in CHCH is quite old and doesn't have a lot of runoff room.....
I have driven it without the 4x4 controller, and also without the front drive shaft....it's fun, but not fast.
I know what you mean about about driving it, I have driven quite a few other cars (maybe not quite as fast as I've driven mine) but I like the "sense of occasion" you get in it, and the rawness it has compared to a lot of modern cars....but it is a little harder to drive:nervous:


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Hopefully you'll find that the hardness to drive will become the fun ness to drive lol! 
Also, I'd definitely recommend taking it somewhere that is safe to lose it and try lots of different ways to do the same corner... On brakes, on power, coasting etc... We're quite luck to have a few places to do this in the uk but I'm sure you'll have similar there 

I wouldn't say I've found the cars cornering limits - don't think I ever will - but this is what makes me never want to stop driving the thing... Lol I don't think id ever get bored of doing lap after lap of the same track  

I've spun my car thousands of times - always in a safe environment but have learnt so much about what happens when I do some thing really stupid.. I don't really do these days anymore but if you could find something like this to do you will have a lot of fun and hopefully learn a bit more about the way your car handles: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jhsX0elVG2k - I think the car handles beautifully!!!


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

PS30-SB said:


> The Japanese Gr.A cars were built ( to a set of rules... ) to run in races that averaged around 300km in distance. Some of the bigger events were 500km +.
> 
> No disrespect to Ron K or anyone else, but I highly doubt his car would beaten a works Gr.A car in the events that the Gr.A cars were built to take part in.....


Especially with me driving it lol


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

RKTuning said:


> Especially with me driving it lol


I'd disagree with that


----------



## TommyGTRLSX (Aug 29, 2012)

git-r said:


> I'd disagree with that


Me to ;-) 

Great thread by the way some really good opinions! I have a fairly limited experience of these cars at the mo but am learning quickly I have only done a few suspension mods so far but they have totally transformed the car and showed up the tires so that's my next port of call.


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Ive just weighed the front and rear axle weights on mine this morning and there is 207kg more over the front!!!

Is going to be hard finding that much weight to move/remove


----------



## Bigalow (Oct 21, 2011)

RJT said:


> Ive just weighed the front and rear axle weights on mine this morning and there is 207kg more over the front!!!
> 
> Is going to be hard finding that much weight to move/remove


That's a stock BNR32?


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Haha, no, sorry. it's a modified 33. I should have said!


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

RJT said:


> Ive just weighed the front and rear axle weights on mine this morning and there is 207kg more over the front!!!
> 
> Is going to be hard finding that much weight to move/remove


If it helps the two easiest wins are the battery and washer bottle I reckon. I've not gotten along to the washer bottle yet but it shouldn't be too hard. 

Short of cement bags in the boot the only way I can see a 50/50 distribution is with an ally block engine which I think would be a bridge too far.


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

Cris said:


> If it helps the two easiest wins are the battery and washer bottle I reckon. I've not gotten along to the washer bottle yet but it shouldn't be too hard.
> 
> Short of cement bags in the boot the only way I can see a 50/50 distribution is with an ally block engine which I think would be a bridge too far.


If its track only you can go to town; headlights, bumperbar/rebar, cf bumper, rear mounted rad, dry sump with rear mounted oil tank. There's probably 50kg to move, reducing the difference by 100kg.

Its partly this freedom from restrictions in weight and weight balance along with aero, wheels/tyres, brakes and engine power the lead me to say cars like mgt and rk have built would be faster than Grp A cars which had lots of limitations put on them. Like any ground up built package they'd need enough testing and development times to get them working at max ability but you can't argue with the physics.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Maybe the MGT/RK cars have more power, but I would say they are better. Sometimes they look rather clumbsy and lot of that must be down to the suspension setup/design?

We never saw the full potential of GRP A cars I agree, there were a lot of restrictions as well as politics by CAMS - they went from 630bhp to 450bhp as well as a weight penalty to try to stop them destroying the opposition.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

AlexJ said:


> If its track only you can go to town; headlights, bumperbar/rebar, cf bumper, rear mounted rad, dry sump with rear mounted oil tank. There's probably 50kg to move, reducing the difference by 100kg.
> 
> Its partly this freedom from restrictions in weight and weight balance along with aero, wheels/tyres, brakes and engine power the lead me to say cars like mgt and rk have built would be faster than Grp A cars which had lots of limitations put on them. Like any ground up built package they'd need enough testing and development times to get them working at max ability but you can't argue with the physics.


I'm assuming that the car will be road legal.

I see it's an R33 so the battery is already done.


----------



## PS30-SB (Jun 13, 2003)

FRRACER said:


> We never saw the full potential of GRP A cars I agree, there were a lot of restrictions as well as politics by CAMS - they went from 630bhp to 450bhp as well as a weight penalty to try to stop them destroying the opposition.


You seem to be talking only of the Australian situation (?).

The above didn't happen in Japanese Gr.A.


----------



## PS30-SB (Jun 13, 2003)

AlexJ said:


> Its partly this freedom from restrictions in weight and weight balance along with aero, wheels/tyres, brakes and engine power the lead me to say cars like mgt and rk have built would be faster than Grp A cars which had lots of limitations put on them. Like any ground up built package they'd need enough testing and development times to get them working at max ability but you can't argue with the physics.


But what kind of race series / event would such a car be eligible to take part in? With those kinds of changes, it would likely only be legal to race against things that it had no chance of beating. In which case, why start with an R32 ( R33, R34.... ) in the first place?

And the trouble with the "physics" is that it's mostly _on paper_, or just hypothetical. For a privateer to beat a factory Gr.A car at its own game ( even 24-odd years later ) he's still up against the full might of the factory's race parts design and manufacturing, and thousands and thousands of hours of testing and racing experience. 

I still don't think people realise just how complex ( and yet comparatively simple by today's standards ) the factory Gr.A cars were, or indeed just how fast they were. The whole thing was a huge effort with the full might of a massive company and its suppliers dedicated to it. I think a lone privateer has very little chance of understanding the cars fully, let alone besting them.


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

PS30-SB said:


> But what kind of race series / event would such a car be eligible to take part in? With those kinds of changes, it would likely only be legal to race against things that it had no chance of beating. In which case, why start with an R32 ( R33, R34.... ) in the first place?
> 
> And the trouble with the "physics" is that it's mostly _on paper_, or just hypothetical. For a privateer to beat a factory Gr.A car at its own game ( even 24-odd years later ) he's still up against the full might of the factory's race parts design and manufacturing, and thousands and thousands of hours of testing and racing experience.
> 
> I still don't think people realise just how complex ( and yet comparatively simple by today's standards ) the factory Gr.A cars were, or indeed just how fast they were. The whole thing was a huge effort with the full might of a massive company and its suppliers dedicated to it. I think a lone privateer has very little chance of understanding the cars fully, let alone besting them.


Mgt and rk cars were built to race in a uk series. The rules were changed before the season started to prevent them racing/winning. Rk reconfigured the car (not sue of the final spec, thats why i said "as originally built") and mgt did timeattack instead as i understand it.

I think you underestimate the effect of the Grp A limitations. As you say all hypothetical of course but i dont think you'd find a racer who'd turn down the chance of less weight, better weight balance and more power so i suspect there's something in the physics.


----------



## PS30-SB (Jun 13, 2003)

I don't think the Gr.A regulations were/are as severe a handicap as the relative lack of manufacturing might and relative lack of testing would be for a privateer. The privateer would still need to be bolting 'tuning' parts from outside companies to his car, in a combination and setting that _he_ would be developing. Lighter weight ( especially in the doors and glass ) a big advantage I agree, although I can't help wondering how well a proper Gr.A car would be with those same freedoms.

But do you see what I'm saying re the regulations for the modern privateer? Why would you start with an R32 ( or R33 / R34 ) when you could start with a tube frame / monocoque car, 'kit' car or whatever else has a natural advantage?

I'm sorry, I don't know the regulations of Time Attack or whatever series we are talking about here - but I would have thought something like an BNR32 was starting with a disadvantage in an almost 'anything goes' formula because it was effectively _designed and engineered as a road car_ with 1989 Gr.A race regs in mind....?


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

I believe grp A cars were overweight relative to their competition but made up for it in other areas, do correct me if am wrong. So say for example having awd and 6cyl iron block hampers you to the tune of 100kg. The factory team can spend thousands finding other ways to make up for that 100kg and regain that lost 5-10% performance. Or find a series that allows you to jump straight to a 200kg weight loss thanks freedoms not available to the factory no matter how much they spend. It seems to be cars have 90% of their performance out of the box if they are designed well, the money goes into the remaining 10%. A privateer building to more friendly regs may build a car that only delivers 75% of its performance, but this may still be more than the fully developed car with tighter regs can produce. Obviously a factory team with the same regs to work with would do better still.

Why start with a R32? Maybe because the regs say it has to be a production car, or to market your business or because you like them, i dont know, i'm not building one.


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

For Time attack the cars have to be an original road car with the original chassis and vin in place.
There are occasional entrants with non eligible cars, allowed as a 'one hit wonder' but the times don't count. There was a space frame carbon Astra dtm car a month or two ago.

Most of the serious evos/scoobs taking part seem to be around the 1100-1200kg mark with around 7-800bhp.
A skyline is going to struggle to match that power/weight without big bhp, but then that sacrifices track driveability and reliability to a degree.


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Cris said:


> If it helps the two easiest wins are the battery and washer bottle I reckon. I've not gotten along to the washer bottle yet but it shouldn't be too hard.
> 
> Short of cement bags in the boot the only way I can see a 50/50 distribution is with an ally block engine which I think would be a bridge too far.


Battery is already in the boot, washer bottle behind drivers seat, fuse box and electrics in cabin, already dry sump so tank is on the boot.

All these are very light in the grand scheme, but help. 
The problem is, that weight balance is how it stands with those modifications already in place.
Putting the rad in the back is just going to sacrifice cooling to a degree and create more weight with pipes, ducting, extra water, extra pump.
As the car is clearly track orientated, I will be loosing the lights, crash bar and a lot of the tin making up the front panel once the t45 cage goes in.
Also making carbon front panels, possibly even a full one piece carbon front clamshell if I get time over winter.

I spent much of Saturday visualising how to move the engine back. Wouldn't be too hard really, done like the garage Ito/prostock r34.

Moving it back 30cm would allow the driver to sit further back also.

But would require work to the firewall and therefore make it ineligible for time attack


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

Shame the rb26 is such a good engine. How much lighter is the rb20, or even sr20det? I once read somebody changed for a smaller engine for weight reasons. Can't for the life of me remember where I read it or what car. It was in Japan I do remember


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

I think it was one of the top secret supras.
It had an mr2 engine.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

I've seen a Z32 with an SR20DET. Might have been a drift car.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

RJT said:


> Battery is already in the boot, washer bottle behind drivers seat, fuse box and electrics in cabin, already dry sump so tank is on the boot.
> 
> All these are very light in the grand scheme, but help.
> The problem is, that weight balance is how it stands with those modifications already in place.
> ...


Sounds like you're well on the way then.

Vague thoughts, you may have done these already:

Electric power-steering - I'd imagine that the electrical unit is lighter than a hydraulic system. Or ditch it entirely.

ABS system - ditch

Front lower arms - R34s used ally arms, I'd imagine that they are lighter. Good place to loose weight

Are you allow to cut out the arches? Could strengthen up the front pick-up points no end.

If the races are short could you ditch the alternator and run total loss?


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Cris said:


> Sounds like you're well on the way then.
> 
> Vague thoughts, you may have done these already:
> 
> ...


I'm considering the electric p/s. I doubt the it would save any weight, but the ability to move the pump and reservoir to the back would go towards the weight bias. However it could suffer from lag being so far from the rack.

The other option would be to use a fully electric rack, but I've heard reports of loss of feel, so I'll have to look into that more.
It would be a good way to save a few kg's and move weight back though.

Abs is gone already.

Lower arms is a possibility. I wasn't aware they were ally on the 34. Surely only minimal savings there though.

Do you mean the arches as in the outer bodywork, or the inner wheel wells?

I think you can do pretty much what you want so long as you leave the factory firewalls and floor pan in place, and don't space frame it.

I'm not sure if I want to go to the extent of having no alternator. I'm sure the hassle it will cause far out weighs the weight loss gain.

I'm thinking of ways to remove weight from the front suspension. 
And also perhaps make a tubular subframe.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

PS30-SB said:


> You seem to be talking only of the Australian situation (?).
> 
> The above didn't happen in Japanese Gr.A.


Yes I am talking about ATCC


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

Yes it was the supra I read about. Electric p steering is a good idea if it's free to do. It would also be one less pump driven directly off the engine too. It'll be interesting to see how much you can centralise the weight. Out of interest has anybody corner scaled a standard 33?


----------



## bladerider (Jun 29, 2002)

The Supra was meant to be a GT300 copy and hence had the 3s-gte engine

Its fairly common for the SR to replace the RB in drift cars, usually R32's as the GTS only has a RB20 and they are so much more expensive to tune, repair, maintain etc

Double bonus as well is overall weight and the fact that you have much better weight distribution with an SR sat back in the engine bay.

Triple bonus is that then gives room to bring things like radiators and intercoolers further back to help with weight balance, as well as the triple bonus double bonus of then having V-mount space and this helps with also keeping valuable components further away from damage through contact which is obviously a highly likely thing for drifters.

J.

PS: Im never certain about the benefits of V-mount for temps before anyone thinks I have missed something, I think thats a spurious thing, shortened IC piping for weight and spool maybe, temps Im not so sure of the benefits outweighing the drawbacks


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

V-mount is a bit of a style thing and people end up doing it to copy others because its perceived as a cool thing to do.

I personally think that unless proper thought is put into its design, then its a waste of time. 
The lower cooler (usually the rad) needs to be properly ducted out of the sides of the car, usually into the wheel wells (on a spaceframe dtm/gt1/lmp car this would be easy)
Otherwise the air exiting is going under the car and is going to wreck downforce.

Also the coolers need 'turning veins' in front of them to direct the air through the core. Otherwise the air is just going to skim over the surface of the core at 45 degrees and not efficiently flow through it. 
Air is a funny thing in free stream, you cant pressurise it so its not going to go where it doesn't want to go!!

Much better to stack the two coolers closely and angle them slightly to be able to duct the air out the top of the bonnet

Anyway that's a bit off topic.

Putting an sr in would be sacrificial surely!! haha


----------



## bladerider (Jun 29, 2002)

RJT said:


> blah...


You're missing most the key issues and you are wrong about controlling airflow with pressure, but nice long post anyway. :clap:

Thats as much effort as Im putting into discussing bloody V-mounts though !! lol

J


----------



## RJT (Mar 4, 2011)

Hmmm ok. No need to be so arrogant about it!

What issues?

And I don't know what you mean about controlling airflow with pressure? 
I said you'd need to control it with some sort of turning vein...


----------

