Dash

From what hear the Teins are very hard on the road let alone on the ring. I would say Bilstein or KW (i am loong at KW Varient 3s at the moment.) To be honest specifically for the ring the standard setup is not far off perfect

Oh what a comic!

My car is currently going through a "project" at the moment. You need a very complient setup for the ring. Personally I would get the best out of the car first before going FI but thats just personal opinion. With to tyres if its your first weekend I would stick with road tyres as you wont be doing fast times. And the PS wont help you with grip levels or topology. Pads on the standard car lasted me 9k including nearly 60 laps of the ring. Fluid is a must ans if you are doing that ds 2500's will be a big improvement. If you want to discuss more drop me a PM and we can talk by phone or something.

Didnt you forget tyres? 5-700 quid dependending on brand loyalty?

I am a frequent flyer out there. I hope you like my second home.

While I feel for you my friend, it is nice to see that you understand the principle of: Cars or tyres dont make mistakes, people do. Sorry to hear about it , glad you are both ok, also glad you can see the error of your ways, now dont make another error by trying to avoid the insurance co, get on the phone first thing tomorrow.

Im glad you noticed, I was going to say a STANDING quarter should be achievable in under 15s for a zed. and much less in a CSL.

Very easily done Fast run (around 8.15 I expect) Stuck in traffic for a half hour (have you ever seen the exit/entrance to the 'ring when its busy?) Repeated on offs and town driving. (youll only get 2 laps to 20 litres so you will be starting stoping and on and off driving down to the petrol station at dottingerhoe. A lot of car manufacturers claim that the stresses placed on a car at the ring are equivelant to many situations (not just performance) Evo recently reported on this with the help of Jaguar, who claimed that the climbs put the same stress on the air con of the XK as sitting in the deserts with the aircon on full tilt. (This is just one example of how different stresses can be tested, and whilst I admit not relevant to a SC install does demonstrate that the 'ring (whilst not the be alll and end all) is a very good place to start.

I think the 'ring is used due to the fact that it puts alot of stress on an engine and its internals. Climbing over 1000 feet and havein corners that are on 1:6 gradients all helps. Its not very race circuit like for a racetrack. More like a Welsh A road

Yup I have seen it there on a couple of occasions, goes like a rocket compared to standard car. Ill post pics when I find em

At least off topic banter is light hearted and shows we are all humans and have a sense of humour. 6 pages of arguing is not promoting a positive image of the site. Some people love the banter (Lomoto + Liam's Z) and some people hate it (Mudhut!). No body likes to listen to grown men tit-for-tatting. Just agree to disagree. Sarnie I can only apologise for this and I agree (and in this case im one of the culprits ) I for one definitely think it is not a positive attitude to the site but I felt I had to defend myself to the accusations made about things I clearly didnt say. If I have upset you in anyway please forgive me it was not my intention. I just couldnt understand (as a new attendee myself) where some of the posts had gone. An honest question. Apologies again.

Sorry Val words fail you again. There is no difference between the words "delete" and "Edit" I think you will find in the text below that the English Dictionarys description of the word Edit covers off the deleting of something by the use of the word "modifying" Likewise the description of Delete also covers off "editing" (Its a funny language this English isnt it?) edit |?edit| verb ( edited , editing ) [ trans. ] (often be edited) prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it Admitedly you did on that night too I remember, although in the plain light of day I had forgotten. You reminded me of this by telling me earlier on that "you deleted some off topic banter" I accept this despite my pedantic response which was indicating you had contradicted yourself by saying you hadn't and then you had I asked why (that you are correct) someone had edited the posts. Indeed according to the description layed out below and your own words "deleting" , you have edited the posts! Well Ive answered this above You really ahould learn to take people at a more open and honest value then you wouldnt need to make such assumptions This is purely supposition on your part. If it wasnt asking a question why place a question mark after it? I dont make veiled statements. Val no harm done mate, it hasnt upset me in the slightest (more supposition) what has however is that you feel you have to read into it so much and find things that were never said. I think I made it very clear all along in the discussion the set parameters I was speaking about- i.e. WET conditions. It just took you several pages to acknowledge it! But no harm done. Cheers your graciousness knows no bounds (now that was SARCASM! Someone nonone here can vouch for or has any referencable published work (Now that was SUPPOSITION

Hang on! Not fair! Where have I said anyone was "scheming" I have not accused you of anything. I said a thread had been edited? Had it not? I placed it here as I merely thought this was a suitable thread as it mentioned the editing of posts did it not? I have NEVER accused you of changing ANY posts (Can another moderator please step in and verify this please? ) I aksed the question on the other thread and you answered it. I accepted your answer and said that due to the changes you made it looked different. I was supported by someone else. (something I have no control over) As to Scheming how can you possibly draw such an assumption when you dont know me? To be honest Val it doesnt matter mate, it was only a discussion. Im sorry you have taken offense but what exactly have you taken offense over? I made no accusation? I didnt feel I was crying wolf as you youself admitted the thread had changed? As for my angry smiley I apologise (you see I am capable of admitting an error, jsut like any other person) I shall make my choices more wisely in future. I just dont understand how you contradict yourself? But in the post in question you said Does this not justify my question on this thread? Is the thread not changed by that? If I placed my post regarding editing in the wrong thread (i.e. you feel it shouldnt be in this "censership" thread please let me know and I shall learn from my error and post it in the correct thread in future. I afterall am new to this forum and to be honest am really surprised how I am being treated. I made a point, you responded and then proceed to say I didnt believe you, said I was "crying wolf" make assumptions that I am accusing you of scheming (im not I merely noticed the thread had changed) and asked if it had. Dont take offense, )lifes too short) it was merely an honest question.

Who demonstrated I was wrong? I have not changed my stance. I have no need to change my stance. I have experience knowledge of using a tyre in the wet, and the laws of physics on my side. I have no need to detract from the conversation. (and I have asked a further question of your friend in that thread) I asked was the posts in the "fishtailing" thread edited. And by that I meant that when re-reading the posts it appeared that the thread was not in its original form. And they were. You admitted this yourself Your answer was Therefore the flow of the conversation had been edited. If I wished to avert the conversation I would not reply. I am a big boy now and can admit If I am wrong (unfortunately in this case I happen to have text based evidence to support my opinons by a wholey independant site, and not a member of the public whom has never personally posted on the forum or published his opinions. Let me make this clear. I am here as a member of 350Z UK. I am here independantly (and have stated this also) I know none of you in person. I take you as you present yourselves on this board. Val, in our discussions you appear to take offense to the slightest remark I make, reading into things that slimply arent there. I mean you no offense. In my posts I am merely posting an opinon not an attack. (please stop thinking Im out to discredit you Im not.) I have never doubted anything you have said or questioned your integrity. So please do not begin to question mine.

Maybe it was the off topiic stuff that was missing that made it seem different. Thanks for having a look though, appreciated.

your a tosser! for editing purposes

Im adding to this post as it seems that another post has been edited post the fact. Is there not a function on the Forum software that allows a user to see that a post has been edited? I know that someone should be allowed to edit their comments but it alters the conversation when points that were made earlier are now deleted. Very frustrating. Especially after days of discussion.

The reason for no change in F1 in tyre width is the fact that they are dictated the width of the tyre by the FIA. I see in the post by your engineer friend he refers to size on and not width? we were talking about width werent we?

Why have some of the earlier post been edited? This is evident in the responses I have given no longer relate to the opinions expressed by memebers of the conversation, is this to reflect an altered opinon having saught advice?

Have you ever tried rolling a flat tyred wheel then - its much harder, so on the rollers the flatter the tyre the more power it absorbs and the lower the power figure recorded. The more balloon like the tyre the less power to roll it along but no way you run that high pressure on the road I agree but surely you run the tyres at road pressure ( in order to gain the true at the wheel figure, so its similar to real world rather than inflate them to 50psi and get an (pardon the pun) over inflated figure

I was present at the independant ru ( as were many others) it was up north not far from Oulton and I can vouch that it ran 401. And that was on a VERY cold morning too, I doubt that given the conditions the temperature of his engine (he stayed locally overnight) that there was another 25 BHP in it. G Force had a tendency to overinflate the tyres to increase the bhp. Dont ask me how exactly it works but ive seen people cheat that way before!

To add my two penneth, I have it on very goood authority that the standard engine WILL NOT stand up to 400bhp. 390 is absolute max either FI or NA without internal mods. It may run for a while but not for long. As for WRC I only ever used them once got charged nearly 4 times more than the going rate didnt get what I was told I would get, and they damged my car. Complete muppets. AVOID. I will say Chris is a very knowledgable bloke and without him I doubt WRC would exist.

in·sult (n-slt) Pronunciation Key v. in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults v. tr. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. so the question is was I being insulting OR scornful?

Because I dont feel he is more qualified to make such an assumption over the people Nissan employ to test such things. in other words, you don't believe him thats an opinon not a belief.

NN mate I look forward to hearing what your friend says. I thought the translation was good enough, It was better than my italian