And what is the issue with surface rust on a shock absorber, it has absolutely no effect on the operation of the shock, so long as the shock is sealed, the piston is lubricated and any adjusters don't get damaged the shock should keep going indefinitely, it won't because it will either leak, the piston will seize due to lack of lubrication, the piston will get bent or the adjusters will get damaged, the chance of your shock lasting so long it leaks due to corrosion of the body is very low. If endurance rally cars can spend tens of thousands of miles through the most abrasive conditions without ever having to replace a shock absorber because it's corroded then what's the risk for you pottering down a clean tarmac road, and actively trying to avoid riding it in bad weather?
If you're concerned about aerodynamics (which you're not) using aviation tape to cover any gaps left by removing the seat would be a far better trade off with weight distribution (and a lot cheaper).
Whatever, I know on the tyres I've driven hard on I can only really tell the difference between cheap and overly worn tyres (scary wet or dry, weird unpredictable balance and low grip levels), premium road tyres (be they Continentals, Avons, Goodyears) to be honest I can't really tell the difference, the difference in grip level, noise, and behaviour is so close that you really can't tell the difference even driving them back to back, and semi-slicks, again only noticeable to due the huge change in grip level and the behaviour is slightly different on the limit. On the road the only sign in the dry is the road noise and level of grip before the limit, if you can feel the true limit of your tyres on the road you're driving far too fast.
Yeah sure it's as effective as pre-war race mechanics filling the flat spots out of needles, theoretically possible, and some probably could do it but I'm sure the vast majority of the time it was just bullshit, the kind of stuff you'd buy.
Cost of a standard air filter = 50p?
Cost of a performance filter = £5 maybe
~90% profit margin, rather large if you ask me...
...and pigs can fly.
SimBin/Blimey have never produced a game with accurate damage, just like 99% of rF mods, they set the threshold of damage far too high and reduce the deformation multipliers, so many race ending shunts don't even register visual damage on the car.
Will be interested in this, more the inevitable conversion and better physics upon conversion to rF of the rather pretty car models.
I'd certainly be interested to here more about the load cell when its ready Niels 
All engines accommodate for air flow within reason, given that the difference in air flow of an air filter is going to be negligible in the real world it's not going to be outside the design limits of air flow so there will be no advantage in remapping or rejetting the engine directly related to the air filter, any gain that could be had could be done before a the air filter is changed.
Valve timing and the air intake determine how much fuel is required to maintain the stoichiometric mixture, there is no good reason why an engine should intentionally run richer. Given that most people who put an injector kit on are running standard cams (complete with variable timing) and the standard intake (but with a million horsepower filter) there is no reason why they need bigger injectors. What's worse is they often seem to be sold/people have the idea that putting bigger injectors on without remapping will allow them to get more fuel in, this may be the case but only because the lambda will shit itself and the ECU will adjust as much as it can but even with the lowest fueling its permitted to use it can't get a high enough air:fuel ratio.
Putting big injectors on a standard/lightly modified road engine and mapping the ECU to suit will result in achieving nothing but burning money, the new injectors should inject just as much fuel as the old ones were able to.
Apologies I didn't really think properly, once a carb has been jetted correctly changing an air filter should not require a rejet, any benefit is likely to be largely down to other factors having changed (ie. adjusters slipping). Many mass produced cars had preset carbs, jettable carbs are only beneficial if a carb has to go onto different engines or a highly modified engine.
Putting bigger injectors (which is originally what I thought you were talking about) onto cars is something that certain types get conned into doing by the same cowboys that run most rolling roads. Putting bigger jets on carbs does have potential benefit but not if you go in blindly with the principle that bigger is better.
If it doesn't run fine with a different air filter something is dangerously wrong, improving flow is unlikely to cause stutter with a carb, restricted air flow can do. Any engine should be able to run quite happily with a reasonably clogged up standard air filter right up to no filter at all, if it can't there's an issue.
Putting bigger jets on is not always necessary and putting the biggest jets available is very rarely helpful. Putting bigger injectors on is utterly pointless in 99% of cases. An air filter does not ever warrant a re-map or re-jetting, any gains possible could have been had without the filter. Exhausts are completely different, significant gains can be had through changing the exhaust (not just the back box) and intake.
Oh come on, what possible harm is going to come of a car parked in public view the only thing you might be able to do is show someone who knows a car where it has been at some point, with this in mind I've carefully decided to blur out anything that might cause trouble in these pictures of my cars...
Just in case you can't see them the registration numbers are L112 VVC and T485 TUM, as you can see they're clearly displayed on the cars for all to see...
K&N filters will not add 2-3bhp, that is a huge increase, especially in a low power engine. There is no point in reprogramming the ECU when you change your air filter, it is already designed to accommodate and adapt for different grades of fuel and air flow. An ECU only has to be mapped after substantial changes to the engines internals. Putting bigger jets on to try and confuse the ECU into putting more fuel into the engine is just plain stupid and will only result in anything useful if the engine is highly modified, remapped and can't get sufficient fuel out of the standard system (very unusual).
Get a nice E30 over a cheap E36 Evo anyday. Having worked on a few road M3s there really is a huge difference between the well looked after cars and £2000 worth of M3. Finding a well looked after car is hard, most cars have either been abused, crashed or stripped for racing. I'd spend the money on getting a good condition non-M3 anyday.
Presumably you drove an early one which wasn't blighted by power steering, no bad thing.
I paid £350 for my car and reckon it's underrated. I'm not going to consider paying its scrap value on air filter though. Although there's a natural desire to spend money on any old heap I'm only going to spend money on things that are actually useful or make it better to drive. My wish list of things I'll spend money on/make for my car would be a sump guard (will sort one as soon as I my insurance comes up for renewal and I switch to a specialist company), bushes (modified standard ones = no cost a bit of a hassle), a larger anti-roll bar (can be done with attaching two standard ones together = low cost a bit of a hassle), new seats (some tatty old buckets will do nicely), a rollcage (adapted from something), and spot lights in that order. Bearing in mind I rally the thing every item has got a definite purpose, either to protect the car, its occupants, or actually make a noticeable difference to the handling. All of that should be achieveable for less than the price of the car.
If I ever wanted to do anything to the engine (which I currently see no need to do) and wasn't building it to specific regulations the standard unit would come out and a 2 litre Fiat Twin Cam would fit in nicely, doing an engine swap is the only way to get a substancial cheap boost in power without fully rebuilding the current engine to a higher spec, which whilst you can get a lovely engine as a result the power increase is always minimal and the cost even of a self-build (unless you happen to have a fully equipped machine shop in your shed) is going to be in four figures.
No the road was bone dry and I was following behind an old Talbot minibus (that had no issues negotiating the roundabout at this speed).
This car didn't, which is strange, the steering geometery/camber gain must be so bad that turning the steering wheel just resulted in tyre squeal there's no hint of body roll or a lateral force on you before it decides to understeer which most vehicles built in the last 100 years have managed to achieve.
On what possible grounds? Although very front wheel drive and a big too light to drive 306s maintain some connection between you and the car, are pretty agile and don't just understeer before giving you some warning they're going to.
Aside from driving satisfaction which the 306 can provide some, the Proton doesn't even have any to measure, the trim in the Proton is horrible compared even to a 306. If you're going to buy a car for something other than driving satisfaction then it should at least be comfortable and give good fuel economy, both of which the Proton fails badly at.
I recently had to drive a green R reg Proton saloon that looked suspiciously like yours, it was the single most incompetent motor vehicle I have ever driven approaching a round about without even trying to drive it quickly I was suprised to be greeted with huge amounts of understeer, without being accompanied by any sense of loading or even comical body roll before reaching such a state. Having just come out of a 1978 shape Mitsubishi Colt (don't ask the Lada was definitely the best motor I drove that day) I couldn't quite believe this thing was so bad to drive, with an awful knackered torque converter the only thing it could do was maintain a reasonable pace in a straight line, other than that it was truely horrible to drive and be in. A car like yours is a device to get you from A to B the chance of actually getting any satisfaction from driving it is non-exsistant, don't bother spending money on it, I'd take the Colt anyday at least it was an entertaining experience!
There is absolutely no point, just buy a better car if you have to go faster, it'll cost you a lot less in insurance premiums.
American roads are very different, you have highways that a wide and straight going straight over mountains, not something we have in the UK. What you don't have though is the narrow country road, tight and twisty with few passing places, lots of blind bends and a significant minority of traffic that blasts down them at ridiculous speed. Americans drive exceptionally badly, on a straight piece of road they drive quickly with little spacial awareness, get to a vague bend in the road and they come to an abrupt stop and crawl round it at 5mph. Road rallies would be pointless in the US, the roads may have stunning scenery but they always manage to be wide and straight, honestly the best roads in the US that people seem to travel hundreds of miles to spend a weekend driving are nothing compared to roads within 15 minutes of where I live.
Interestingly I have driven a car equipped with the Escape engine, it does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and is an absolute hoot to drive why, because it's light with a low centre of gravity and great handling and no powersteering, abs, traction control and other such nonsense, if Morgan can achieve this in a car (quite literally) using 1920s technology then there's really no excuse for Ford to still be producing an overweight shed that can't get there in twice the time. More than ever in the middle of a recession with a failing car industry car makers should be producing simple light cars that cut the overweight crap, a 200bhp V6 should be the realm of fast sports cars, not everyday drivers.
In the UK there are many roads where a WRC car couldn't average the speed limit, let alone stick to it. If the limit was set at the speed you were expected to drive the entire length of the road at in the UK the average limit would be about 15mpg as soon as you turn off the main roads...
Last edited by ajp71, .
Standard ECUs are not normally re-mappable.
A Mini 1000 will be slow, you can only go so fast with 39bhp, the sense of speed in a Mini is on a different level though
v and w are not the same.
v = tangital velocity = ds / dt (m/s)
w = angular velocity = d(theta) / dt (rad/s)
Angular acceleration = r x w^2
So F = ma
= m x r x w^2 = what Tristan's come up with for the angular force.
v = tangital velocity = ds / dt (m/s)
w = angular velocity = d(theta) / dt (rad/s)
Angular acceleration = r x w^2
So F = ma
= m x r x w^2 = what Tristan's come up with for the angular force.
I don't see a lot of point in changing the cars, the idea with the tracks is far more interesting though.
Presumably you're talking about a business multi-car insurance policy? Whether that policy chooses to insure you has no relation to what you can legally insure and drive at any age.
If you get something pre-2001 tax will only be £120 or £180 depending on the capacity.
Unfortunately Minis are expensive to both purchase and insure because they're so popular (and crashed lots by young drivers). Getting parts (including modified parts) is very easy and affordable though and you're right it'll be worth pretty much the same in a years time.
Very true but a more unlikely classic will cost less to purchase and be a lot less to insure as a young driver, I was tempted by a Austin A35 or Wosley 1500 before I bought my tank. The problem you'll find with insurance is that the run of the mill companies won't insure anything pre-mid eighties and classic/specialist insurance isn't interested in making a realistic quote until you've got a years NCB (which I understand entirely).
You can but at a large extra cost, at 19 and with a years NCB it is now quite realistic for me to get specialist insurance.
I've had quotes for both the Lada and a 1.4 hatchback modified for competition use up to full stage rally spec in the region of £500-600 with 10,000 road miles, road event cover and 2 extra young named drivers. Richard Egger was the best, I spoke to him in person at Race Retro, very realistic and unlike Tesco was very keen to get rollcages/proper safety equipment into road rally cars the only thing they don't like is engine modifications and obviously will tell you to f*** off if you want neons, bodykits and subs.
Utter bollocks... I took my test in a 2 litre car.
Insurance companies also always ask what type of license you have when you take out insurance...
Try getting a quote on something that isn't such a commonly crashed car by young drivers, whilst Corsas may be chavved up and crashed by those wanting a 'wicked sub install' Kas and Micras are crashed lots by incompetent young drivers, more typically the types who just can't drive and have somehow managed to pass their test on the third attempt. My Dad's 1.6 Focus was only £800 comprehensive with Tesco with me as a named driver.
Those two are popular cars for young drivers, as such they are statistically worse for a young driver to insure and have higher premiums than something a bit unusual or quirky that isn't a common car for young drivers, especially chavs who crash Corsas lots killing everything in their path in the process.
It's perfectly possible to insure a rear wheel drive car as your first car, my first years insurance has cost me £450 on my RWD car.
Very little, it may be slightly less restrictive but you're not going to notice any real improvement. The only time when it's worth to go for a better filter as far as I can see is to get a tiny advantage in competition when you're restricted to standard intake or for endurance rallying, where extra filtration and the ability to clean the air filter at the side of the road is essential.
They're usually just the same old K&N style performance filters, or on serious short distance closed surface racers no air filter is often used, but obviously it is at a huge risk, go through kicked up dust and gravel and bill is substantial.
I'm a great believer in carrier bags and am not going to buy a bag for life. Carrier bags are reusable though and undeniably wasting them costs money and is harmful to the environment, there's no point in using a carrier bag if you've got a better bag on your back or for a bottle of coke.
Be a bit more organised and always have a carrier bag inside your rucksack for keeping things dry then... and what actual advantage does Nectar points have? It's just yet another card shoved inside my wallet that only benefits the shop in question.
It's a travisty that the supermarket gives you a free carrier bag to carry 3 items, when you no doubt have a rucksack on your back, they most certainly shouldn't give you a motivation to throw some plastic onto landfill (or no doubt the street because you can't be bothered to use a bin). I always back my own bags, even when the cashier offers to, it lets them serve the person behind reducing the queues that morons like to moan about.
In the UK we do not have state issued ID cards for everyone (yet) and photo driving licenses have only been around for a few years and the old paper documents are not dated (like the new cards) so there's no incentive for people with old licenses to pay to get a photo card when they get IDd so rarely (the only time I'm routinely asked for it is at clubs and rarely when buying alcohol from supermarkets).
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG