Soarer Central: Improved Production Racing Application

Soarer Central Track and Major Rebuild Car Projects Improved Production Racing Application

Previous Next

Author

Message

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 40
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 06:07 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Hi all,

I am exploring the feasability and interest in having the Soarer (SC400/300) added to the list of approved cars for IPRA under rule 1.1 (iii).

There seems to be no obvious objection from the IPRA boys, but you don't know unless you actually put in the application form.

Being on the list means that if you modify your car within the limits prescribed by the Group 3J rules, then you will be able to compete as an improved production car at sprints, hillclimbs and if you want to go all the way, to circuit racing. I think this offers a lot more opportunity for most of the guys on this forum who are interested in taking their car out for some competition, given the comments I have seen in other threads.

Is there enough interest in the Soarer community for us to bother putting in an application?

cheers
michael

Ben Lipman
Goo Roo
NT
Soarer TT manual, plus TT track car

Posts: 2327
Reg: 04-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 09:06 pm, by: Ben Lipman (Ben12a)

Bit too late for me. I might be beyond the rules by now.

I think this will be one of those situations where once you can run them people might consider building a car.

A bit sort of 'chicken and egg' if you know what I mean.

Is there much work in getting them approved?

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 41
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 09:43 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Not much work, simply filling out a form with details on how many in the country that are on the road and registered, model details dimensions etc. All the info should be available through this forum.

I haven't actually seen the form yet, but if enough people here would be interested then I will get it and scrounge up the info. Happy to do it for the benefit of others if they actually want it.

One of the things they ask for is that the cabin dimensions are big enough to meet the FIA definition of a "Touring Car". Any less and it will be defined as a "Sports Car" and not be eligible for IPRA/3J. I don't think this will be a problem.

I don't really think this class is too appealing for the turbo models because they demand you run a restrictor. The V8 models are better because there is only a $ limit on how much performance you can get.

I am obviously thinking along these lines about building a car to run at the same weekends as Andrew, but comparing to building a 3J U2L Mini which is my thing. For the cost of building a competitive Mini, I can probably build a competitive Soarer as well that will need less upkeep costs because everything is more modern technology. Andrew no doubt wants me to build a Sports Sedan, but I am thinking that being in a different class makes sharing pit resources easier.

Ben Bromhead
Tinkerer
ACT
TT Soarer

Posts: 42
Reg: 02-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 05:49 pm, by: Ben Bromhead (Aflyr3)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe if a turbo is standard on the production car and the induction system isn't modified, a restrictor does not have to be fitted (Section 4.5)... but that's just boring!

Andrew McKellar
TryHard
NSW
Soarer Sports Sedan (well, nearly); '84 MA61 Supra.

Posts: 438
Reg: 06-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 01:58 pm, by: Andrew McKellar (Toymax)

I definitely want to see you in a Sports Sedan, but I like the idea of applying for 3J recognition and having a go in that category. You can also then use your 3J Soarer V8 to tow your Mini around Mike.

Ben Lipman
Goo Roo
NT
Soarer TT manual, plus TT track car

Posts: 2331
Reg: 04-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 05:51 pm, by: Ben Lipman (Ben12a)

There would certainly have to be enough Soarers in the country to suit whatever they require. Sometimes there seems to be more Soarers than other Australian delivered models.

The cabin volume also should suit. The GTR passed, and have you been inside a Gemini...or a Mini?

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1672
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:00 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

I did a bit of looking around a couple of months ago to see how you go about getting a model listed with IPRA - i didnt really get anywhere because there is a complete lack of information online as to how to go about it. But the benefits certainly extend beyond being able to compete in Improved Production itself because other events often use IPRA eligibility as the basis for a class and this is what interests me - While i have no plans to run in IPRA myself (sheer cost rules it out) it would be very useful to have the Soarer approved and i certainly support it! Although it remains to be seen how competitive a Soarer could be given engine and weight restrictions, in many ways it is a better platform to run in IPRA than the JZA80 Supra which is already listed

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 42
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 02:57 am, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Ben Bromhead wrote on Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 05:49 pm:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe if a turbo is standard on the production car and the induction system isn't modified, a restrictor does not have to be fitted (Section 4.5)... but that's just boring!

They changed the rules a few years back so that ALL late model cars require a restrictor vis:

TwinTurbo wrote on Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 05:49 pm:

the relevant regs;

1.1 (iv) Late model vehicle: Any Improved Production race car being of a model of car not manufactured prior to
1 January 1986, and first issued with a log book after 1 January 2004 must be run as a Late Model Car as defined in Article 1.15

Late Model
17.2 Supercharging may only be used if fitted as standard equipment to the model concerned. All vehicles with supercharged engines must be fitted with a restricting orifice. This must be to the dimensions and fitting requirements as detailed in Article 4.5(ii) 4.5.2
Cheers
Gary Cook
NSW Eligibility Person

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 43
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 03:15 am, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Phil Gibson wrote on Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:00 pm:
I did a bit of looking around a couple of months ago to see how you go about getting a model listed with IPRA - i didnt really get anywhere because there is a complete lack of information online as to how to go about it.

I get my info from the IPRA forum. There are plenty of guys on there involved at the national admin and CAMS delegate level to answer the questions I had. Basically, you get the national delegate in SA to send you a form, fill it out and send it back. They present the application at the next meeting of state delegates and if approved, they take it to CAMS who put it in the next issue of the regulations, or a bulletin in the short term.

Phil Gibson wrote on Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:00 pm:
But the benefits certainly extend beyond being able to compete in Improved Production itself because other events often use IPRA eligibility as the basis for a class and this is what interests me - While i have no plans to run in IPRA myself (sheer cost rules it out) it would be very useful to have the Soarer approved and i certainly support it!

Thanks Phil. That is exactly what I was thinking for the majority of Soarer owners. If there are more out there like you, then it is worth it!

Phil Gibson wrote on Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:00 pm:
Although it remains to be seen how competitive a Soarer could be given engine and weight restrictions, in many ways it is a better platform to run in IPRA than the JZA80 Supra which is already listed

Not sure where you are getting that a JZA80 is approved for IPRA under 3J rules. The latest online information I can get is:

CAMS Manual Q3 2010 wrote on Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:00 pm:

List of Approved Models
1. Mitsubishi Mirage Cyborg
2. Nissan Silvia S 13 (turbo and naturally-aspirated)
3. Nissan Skyline R32 (GTS, GTS4, GTS-T, all either 2-door or 4-door body)
4. Nissan Skyline R33 (GTS, GTS4, GTS-T, all either 2-door or 4-door body)
5. Nissan Skyline R33 (GTR, 2-door)
6. Nissan Skyline R34 (GTS, GTS4, GTS-T, all either 2-door or 4-door body)
7. Nissan Skyline R34 (GTR, 2-door)

Is there a bulletin that adds the JZA80 or does it come in because of 1.1 (i) homologated by the FIA in Group A.?

Cheers
michael

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1678
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:28 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

oops haha just realised it wasnt IPRA eligibility i was researching, it was Sports Cars 2B/2F, where the only eligible Toyotas are-
Toyota MR2 (all models)
Toyota Supra RZ
Toyota Celica ZZT (2000 on)

http://www.camsmanual.com.au/pdf/02_race/c.%202nd%20Category/RA18_Group_2B-2F_Eligible_Vehicles_Q310 .pdf

The difficulty came about because teh CAMS manual refers to the Sports Car Racing Association of Australia for eligibility, but the only Google result goes to the Production Sports Car Racing Association of Australia, and their website just points you back to CAMS!

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1679
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:40 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

Oh yes and the Supra is a Group A homologated car too, however as i mentioned before i doubt the 2JZ would be a good engine choice given the need for a restrictor. (the problem also with IPRA is it favours early model cars over late model, but thats a can of worms there ;)

TBH i dont think IPRA as a racing series is suitable for the Soarer as with the relatively limited modifications allowed you would not be able to get even close to minimum weight (1300kg?) plus both the 1UZ and restricted 1JZ would be lumped in the same class as 6 litre Holdens and lighter and equally-powerful early-model cars.

However as noted there are other reasons to chase eligibility

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 44
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 08:39 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

From what I understand, the late model Holden and Ford V8s are also struggling to get down to minimum weight. I see a lot of potential in the V8 option as you may as well run a 4.6L version with the higher minimum weight in that capacity class - but that is not the main reason to apply.

cheers
michael

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 45
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 09:07 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 46
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 04:50 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Here are the details on the form that I have filled in so far. Can you help with the red highlighted areas?

cheers
michael

Vehicle Details

Manufacturer:	Toyota
Model:	Soarer Z30 series (JZZ30, JZZ31, UZZ30, UZZ31, UZZ32)
Body:	2 door
Vehicle Weight:	1560, 1540, 1590, 1640, 1730 kg
Years of Manufacture:	1991-2001
Place of Manufacture:	Japan
Sold in Australia:	No
Engine Type:	V8, Inline 6, Inline 6 Twin Turbo
Engine Displacement:	3968cc V8, 2997cc I6, 2492cc I6TT
Bore/Stroke:	87.5 x 82.5 mm (V8), 86.0 x 86.0 mm (I6), 86.0 x 71.5 mm (I6TT)
Induction:	NA, NA, Twin turbocharged
Transmission Type:	Auto, 5sp Manual
Driving Wheels:	rear
Standard Factory Wheel Size:	16” x 7.0” (UZZ30 1991), 16” x 6.5” (JZZ30 1991)
	16” x 7.5” (UZZ30, JZZ30 2001)
Standard Factory Tyre Size:	225/55R16 (UZZ30), 215/60R15 (JZZ30)
Brake Type Front/Rear:	Vented power assisted brakes
296mm (front), 307mm (rear) (JZZ30, UZZ32)
275mm (front), 290mm (rear) (UZZ30, UZZ31, JZZ31)
Suspension Type Front:	Independent, double-wishbone, coil springs, gaspressurized shock absorbers, stabilizer bar. (UZZ30, JZZ31)
Independent, double-wishbone, TEMS airbag springs, stabilizer bar.(UZZ31)
Independent, double-wishbone, Active hydraulic. (UZZ32)

Suspension Type Rear:	Independent, double-wishbone, coil springs, gaspressurized shock absorbers, strut rods, stabilizer bar. (UZZ30, JZZ31)
Independent, double-wishbone, TEMS airbag springs, strut rods, stabilizer bar.(UZZ31)
Independent, double-wishbone, Active hydraulic. (UZZ32)
ABS Standard:	Yes
Traction Control Standard:	No (option)
Stability Control Standard:	Yes /No
Homologation Type:	N/A
Homologation Place:	N/A
Homologation Date:	N/A
Australian Registration No’s:

Vehicle Measurements

The dimensions to be checked are:

B. Height over the front seats (measured between 0° and 15° towards the rear in relation to the vertical).
C. Width for the front seats.
D. Height over the rear seats (measured under the same conditions as B).
E. Width of the rear seats.
F. Distance from the centre of the hub of the steering wheel to the brake pedal (if the steering wheel is adjustable it must be placed in the median position).
G. Length from the centre of the hub of the steering wheel to the bulkhead of the rear seat, or if possible to the rear face of the rear seat (maximum tilt 15°). If the steering wheel is adjustable, it must be placed in the median position.
B and D are measured between the bottom of the seat compressed by a standard mass (see drawing n° 1) the axis of which is vertical, and the ceiling (padding compressed).
If the seats are separate, the measurement is taken in the middle of each of the seats.
In case of longitudinally adjustable seats, the seats will be placed in the median position.
If there is a bench seat in the front, the measurement is taken at 25 cm from the centre-line of the car.
C and E are the maximum widths measured along the vertical plane passing through the axis of the standard masses placed on the seats, being able to be freely maintained over a height of at least 25 cm and a length of at least 40 cm.
The minimum dimensions (in cm) according to the cylinder capacity (in cc) are the following, with H = F+G:
Any car of which the rear seat backrests tilt towards the front cannot be considered as a 4-seater.

Regulation	B	C	D	E	H
From 0 to 1300	Free	90	Free	90	180
From 1300 to 2000	88	110	88	110	200
Over 2000	93	120	93	120	210

This Vehicle	B	C	D	E	H
From 0 to 1300
From 1300 to 2000
Over 2000

Measured by: __________________________ __ Witnessed by: _______________________
Date: ____________________________ Date: _______________________
Position: ____________________________ Position: _______________________

Reasons for Submission

Brand Upgrade Option: No
Low Entry Cost: Yes
Vehicle Availability: Good
Parts Availability: Good
Outright Winning Potential: No
Class Winning Potential: Yes
Concessions Sought: No
Concession Type: N/A
Concession Reason: N/A

Are there any other competitors wanting to campaign this vehicle? Yes

Comments:
This submission is also for the benefit of Soarer owners who wish to compete in sprints and hillclimbs where CAMS 3J rules are used to determine categories and eligibility. Currently Soarer owners have no other category than 3D in which to compete.

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1684
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 11:08 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

JZZ31, UZZ30 and 31 are 15x6.5 rims, 215/60 tyres
JZZ30 and UZZ32 are 16x7 rims, 225/55 tyres (were the late-model 16s wider?)

No stability control

front and rear suspension types are identical between JZZ30, 31 and UZZ30

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 49
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 06:41 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Thanks Phil.

Can anyone help with measuring the interior dimensions of the standard car?

Not much response in the request I made in General Chat. I put it there because I figured more people look.

Is everyone so busy with the damn election that they can't take 5 minutes to get the tape out and measure their car?

cheers
michael

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2286
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 07:22 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

ill try do some measuring this wknd but i cant do the seat to roof as i have bucket seats but i guess i could check it against the standard seats in the shed. also there would be 2 different heights with and without sunroof

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2287
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 07:40 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

b: are they actually talking from the seat with a person sitting on it to the roof lining, as in sit it between your legs lol

c: guessing between bottom of b pillars inside car just below seat belt

d: from the rear seat base with seat out to roof?

e: across the seats with the side trims in? or just to edge of the seats at widest point

f: direct from steering wheel hub where wheel attaches to the column to the brake pedal rubber on pedal or to where it comes off firewall.

g: from centre of steering wheel to the backrest of the rear right seat or the body backing when the seat is removed

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 51
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 06:29 am, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Aaron Casey wrote on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 07:40 pm:

b: are they actually talking from the seat with a person sitting on it to the roof lining, as in sit it between your legs lol that would work, but if the dimension without the "standard mass" is greater than 93cm, then the compression of the foam by sitting on it is academic

c: guessing between bottom of b pillars inside car just below seat belt It is actually the seats that have to be measured the way i read it. Again if there is more than 120cm width across the seats 25cm above the base then it will meet the minimum limits.

d: from the rear seat base with seat out to roof? roof and/or rear windscreen at 0deg to 15deg towards rear

e: across the seats with the side trims in? or just to edge of the seats at widest point It is actually the seats that have to be measured the way i read it. Again if there is more than 120cm width across the seats 25cm above the base then it will meet the minimum limits.

f: direct from steering wheel hub where wheel attaches to the column to the brake pedal rubber on pedal or to where it comes off firewall. i'll take that as the first option

g: from centre of steering wheel to the backrest of the rear right seat or the body backing when the seat is removedi think you should measure to the top of the back seat, where it meets the bulkhead, as long as you don't have an angle of more than 15deg. Again if the total dimension H is more than the 210cm allowed by measuring directly to the front of the back seat, then it doesn't matter to measure to the actual bulkhead

Thanks for taking the interest Aaron!

The idea of these measurements is to ensure that a sports car like a porsche 911 with it's fake little rear seats and severely sloping rear cannot be accidentally classified as a "touring car". I don't think the Soarer will have this problem, but the IPRA guys need to have the dimensions to be sure.

cheers
michael

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2288
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 09:56 am, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

yeah no worries ill try get them this weekend and ill try do mine with sunroof and my brothers uzz31 without a sunroof and take pics while doing it to verify it

Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1712
Reg: 10-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 11:13 am, by: Damian Ware (Frozenpod)

Phil Gibson wrote on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 11:08 pm:
No stability control

UZZ32's have an early form of ESP.

ABS was optional.

Quick question does the car have to run factory rims?

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2289
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 12:28 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

B. Height over the front seats (measured between 0° and 15° towards the rear in relation to the vertical).

96cm (from seat cushion to rooflining)

C. Width for the front seats.

138cm (across the front of seats between doortrim or 145 between b pillars right behind the seat backing)

D. Height over the rear seats (measured under the same conditions as B).

90cm (measured from the back of the seat cushion to the roof lining)

E. Width of the rear seats.

144cm (across between side trim to side trim or 138 across the seat cushion itself)

F. Distance from the centre of the hub of the steering wheel to the brake pedal (if the steering wheel is adjustable it must be placed in the median position).

67cm from steering wheel to middle of brake pedal rubber in standard non compressed state and steering wheel middle position)

G. Length from the centre of the hub of the steering wheel to the bulkhead of the rear seat, or if possible to the rear face of the rear seat (maximum tilt 15°). If the steering wheel is adjustable, it must be placed in the median position.

142.5cm (from centre of steering wheel at griphon to the back seat just below headrest parallel to the ground in steering wheel central position)

H = F+G
H = 209cm

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2290
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 12:37 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

so does that mean we cant get in?? i can try measure it again without the seats in or actually compressed as it says so can get them final few cm

2000+

needed / actual

b: 93 / 96
c: 120 / 138
d: 93 / 90
e: 120 / 144
h: 210 / 209

so by that miss out by 1cm with H and 3cm with rear seat height at uncompressed values

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2291
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 01:03 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

ok compressed the cushion on the rear seat by hand and got measurement of 93.5cm so that will get that part in. only problem is still 1cm out with H so maybe if someone else can double check the measurements that would be great

2000+

needed / actual

b: 93 / 96
c: 120 / 138
d: 93 / 93.5
e: 120 / 144
h: 210 / 209!!!

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1692
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 03:30 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

Aaron could you not just retract teh steering wheel a little closer to the dash? (if its only 1cm you need i doubt anyone would argue the "median" point as long as its not obviously as far as it will go)

I'll measure mine tonight and see

Damian Ware wrote on Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 11:13 am:
UZZ32's have an early form of ESP.

I did think about the 32's and whether you could classify it as "stability control" WRT modern designs

But the point i came to was its unlikely anyone is going to seriously race a 32 (and somewhat ironically it's probably the least-suited of all Soarers for track work) so its largely irrelevant anyway

Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1714
Reg: 10-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 04:42 pm, by: Damian Ware (Frozenpod)

Uzz32's do have stability control, just like in modern cars applying the brake to indiviual wheels to prevent the back end steping out.

Just like the holden ad.

I'm not so sure about no one racing them, whilst most are kept under lock and maintained in very good condition and key there are a few shabby ones getting around.

They hold the road exceptionally well, just a matter of how much weight and power draw penalty there is. It has certainly crossed my mind to use a uzz32 as a track car but they are not cost effective.

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2293
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 05:44 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

damian i tried moving the steering wheel forward and back and if you move it further in you gain a few cm towards the rear measurement but you lose it to the brake pedal measurement.
the other thing i was thinking was to tilt the wheel higher but then wouldnt be at median setting.
one thing i was thinking is ill try my car tomorrow as at the moment mine doesnt have the adjustable headrests so may be less thickness to seat backrest cushion. also with that measurement i could try applying pressure on the cushion and would easily give us the cm. but if the cushions dont actually have to be in at the time and measure ment goes to the sheet metal the seat rests on it will pass the dimensions easy!!

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2294
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 05:55 pm, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

here is the pics

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1694
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 10:51 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

*bulkhead... rear face of the rear seat* ;)

i get (without moving my steering wheel from its normal position)

F=62
G=162

H=224

Damien - reason i say the UZZ32 wouldnt be suitable is there is no way to adjust the suspension to compensate for a 200+kg reduction in weight and to change the bias of handling from the factory setup which you will undoubtedly have to do for serious track work.

And sure its reliable on the road but the 4WS is of little benefit and the whole system is just one more thing to go wrong under continued race stresses. If there is a handling benefit i cant see it outweighing the penalty of the extra weight and power drain}

Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1718
Reg: 10-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 27, 2010 - 08:11 am, by: Damian Ware (Frozenpod)

Phil Gibson wrote on Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 10:51 pm:
Damien - reason i say the UZZ32 wouldnt be suitable is there is no way to adjust the suspension to compensate for a 200+kg reduction in weight and to change the bias of handling from the factory setup which you will undoubtedly have to do for serious track work.

And sure its reliable on the road but the 4WS is of little benefit and the whole system is just one more thing to go wrong under continued race stresses. If there is a handling benefit i cant see it outweighing the penalty of the extra weight and power drain

I'm sure it isn't going to be cheap to make the system reliable under serious track work (it might not be even possible without custom suspension pumps ect) but there are ways to adjust the factory UZZ32 suspension.

From what I have seen most 4ws systems like skyline's result in problems with track work and people doing track days and building race cars lock the rear steering out but the toyota system is different and doesn't seem to suffer the same issues.

IMO until someone does it we will never know but I think there would be a potential gain but as you say would this out weight the weight penalty.

Aaron Casey
Goo Roo
nsw
'94 jzz30 gttl, 2 mini's one supercharged :-)

Posts: 2295
Reg: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 27, 2010 - 09:39 am, by: Aaron Casey (Blownminiturbo)

awesome thanks phil with them measurements we should be able to get approval then

Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1696
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 27, 2010 - 08:24 pm, by: Phil Gibson (Sciflyer)

I did come close to getting a cheapish 32 as a project with possible track duties, it wouldve been interesting to see how it went but as it turned out i got a 31. I think the two best possibilities as far as the V8s go are either as late a model as you can get (you start with a better engine and ECU, at least if you plan to keep it n/a) or a UZZ30 - less weight and in particular wiring to pull out

Peter Nitschke
Junk Filterer
South Australia
UZZ30 UZZ31

Posts: 11781
Reg: 11-2004

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, August 27, 2010 - 10:59 pm, by: Peter Nitschke (Pen)

Peter Scott did some good track days in his 32. His Phillip Island V8 times were only beaten by Justin's 31 - which had an outstanding engine. Pretty sure he beat all the TT's too, up to the seriously high power one belonging to David Ross.

Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1719
Reg: 10-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Saturday, August 28, 2010 - 09:46 am, by: Damian Ware (Frozenpod)

Peter Scott did a 1.57.5665 last weekend in someone elses uzz32 with narrow semi slicks (although they look very close to slicks with only two groves for tread).

Modifications M90, torsen roughly 180rwkw. Full street trim which had which would probably be roughly the same power to weight as Juzza's 31 which I believe was stripped out.

Reportedly slicks to semi slicks is roughly a saving of 3 second per lap at PI.

Not a perfect comparison but Peter Scott would have likely been faster than Juzza if it was his own car and if he was running on wider tyres and full slicks.

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 53
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 02:32 am, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Damian Ware wrote on Saturday, August 28, 2010 - 09:46 am:
Peter Scott did a 1.57.5665 last weekend in someone elses uzz32

Best qualifying time by a late model class Nissan R32 GTR was 1:54.5369 in April.

Next best by a BMW E30 2900cc was 1:55.3014, VK Commodore 5800cc was 1:56.3886.

Best car of similar weight was VN Commodore 5000cc @ 2:00.0561, another VN 6000cc @2:09.4222.

Just from that sample I would say a UZZ32 is in the right ballpark. Strip it out and modify within the 3J IPRA rules and you could have a very competitive car - e.g lose 100-150kg depending on cage design and material, use the 5700cc 1UR to get the capacity up near the chev engines in the Commodores.

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 54
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 02:46 am, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

Thanks for all the dimensions guys.

I think this will definitely become a reality, but due to the need to have the dimensions measured and witnessed by an IPRA state eligibility officer (who apparently have a standard tool, which I assume is a minimum dimension template) or scrutineer, I think it might have to wait till early next year when I have my feet back on the ground in Oz.

I put Aaron's pics up in the IPRA forum so they can tell us if the technique was way off. Will let you know what they say.

cheers
michael

Michael McKellar
Tinkerer
Overijssel
Mini

Posts: 55
Reg: 08-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 06:36 pm, by: Michael McKellar (Mickmini)

TwinTurbo@http://www.ipraforum.com.au wrote on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 9:25 am:

The FIA "standard mass" is a 60 kg donut, usually lead, and you place it on the seat and measure, through the hole in the donut, from the compressed seat cushion upwards. You can achieve pretty much the same result with a 75 to 85 kgs person sittng in the seat. When doing the vertical measurements you are allowed to compress the roof lining upholstery to the actual roof. The width measurements, ie; "c" is with the doors closed.

The concept of the form is to have the applicant do a rough measurement, which you have done, to see if it's close. Then have it confirmed by the local Eligibility Officer. That gets rid of the rediculously small (Sports) cars and saves wasting time on cars that aren't even close. You have followed that process, now it's time to get your local EO involved to sign off on the measurements.

Cheers
Gary Cook
NSW Eligibility Person