[lesmore49]

The first one is a Sports 2000, which came with a 2 liter OHC engine, and twin SU carbs. IN race trim it set the pace for its class.

The SP310/SPL310 (L for left hand drive) Fairlady/Sports 1500 was introduced in 1963, with a 1.5 liter pushrod engine, the first 300 having only one SU carb, the twin SU setup continuing thereafter.

The SP311/SPL311 Fairlady/Sports 1600 came in 1965, with a 1.6 liter pushrod engine, again with twin SU carbs.

Introduced in 1967, and produced through the end of the Fairlady/Sports 2000 run, the SR311/SRL311 was the first with a SOHC engine, iron block, aluminum head, twin SU carburetors. A performance option was available, Mikuni/Solex carburetors, different cam grind, gauges and a special license plate trim.

In 1968 emissions systems reduced power output slightly. The body and other items were revised slightly.

The cars were campaigned by John Morton, Bob Sharp and others. The sticker price was lowest in its class, but it won its class in C Production (Mikuni-Solex carburetors) and D-Production (Hitachi-SU carburetors), in SCCA racing on a consistent basis even years after production ended.

I have raced against similarly prepared cars with my Z, and they give it a good battle.

Thx for the detailed info.

Datsun/Nissan has brought out some great cars, with lots of potential for racing and rallying and I think that their early rallying success with the 510 doesn't get enough credit, IMO.

Back in '73 I was looking for a new car. It came down to the Toyota Corolla, Datsun 510. VW Super Beetle (yep back then I was a confirmed V-Dubber) and Ford Pinto.

I just didn't want a standard econo box, I wanted something with some sporting pretensions. At that time the Datsun 510 was well regarded for it's rallying prowess, something that always appealed to me and one of the reasons I had previous owned another sporting sedan at the time, a Volvo PV 544 with a B18 , twin carb (SU) engine.

Anyway, the SCCA at the time ran a racing class called Showroom Stock and one of the hot setups in the cheap, economy car competion was the Toyota Corolla, with the following options/deletions. It was the basic model with the 1600cc OHV Hemi 4 cylinder, 4 speed manual, carpet delete, with only rubber floor mats, radio delete, oversize tires (13 inch instead of standard 12 inchers), front disc brakes instead of drum brakes and a few other things I can't remember. It was a lightweight, big (relatively speaking) engine, good brakes, etc....little car that did well in this SCCA class.

So I got it, rather than the others. I regretted getting it, as although it was zippy....it rusted clean through within 2 years, had great difficulty starting in cold and wet conditions, a myriad of head gasket issues, etc. Within 5 years it became a field car for the farm.

My previous cars, particularly the air cooled VW that I had were very reliable, bodies didn't rust near as much, etc....and although they were not as zippy as the Corolla, much more reliable.

My big regret was that I hadn't gone for the Datsun 510. I don't know how it would of been rust wise, reliability wise and durability wise....but I wished I had got that.

I've never had a Datsun/Nissan but I'm the odd man out in our family. In the past decade there have been two Sentras, one Frontier Pro 4X truck, one Rogue and one Kicks.

Me, I've stuck with a variety of GM's....mostly because I can fit into them comfortably ...big guy, hockey injuries....and they have been very reliable and I like the powertrains. Also the GM dealer I use, is top notch.

---------- Post added 08-02-20 at 11:03 AM ----------

I see I'm not the only one fond of hyperbole.

"According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the highest temperature ever recorded was 56.7 °C (134.1 °F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek (Greenland Ranch), California, United States,[8] but the validity of this record is challenged as possible problems with the reading have since been discovered. Christopher C. Burt, a weather historian writing for Weather Underground, believes that the 1913 Death Valley reading is "a myth", and is at least 2.2 or 2.8 °C (4 or 5 °F) too high.[9] Burt proposes that the highest reliably recorded temperature on Earth could be at Death Valley, but is instead 54.0 °C (129.2 °F) recorded on 30 June 2013.[10] This is lower than a 1931 record of 55 °C (131 °F) recorded in Kebili, Tunisia [11] and is matched by a 1942 record of 54 °C (129 °F) from Tirat Zvi, Israel.[12] Recent[when?] readings in Kuwait and Iran have also matched the 2013 Death Valley record. The WMO has stated they stand by the 1913 record pending any future investigations."

List of weather records - Wikipedia.

Weather records.

All I know is the hottest day I've ever experienced was in Great Falls, Montana and the temp was 109 F....I know this to be true as I got the temp on my Timex Fishing watch when I was walking across a vast, black top parking lot to get to a book store.

When I got to the bookstore, I was perusing the magazines next to U.S. military serviceman, when an older man sidled up beside him and started whispering somewhat loudly to the serviceman, how he had done secret undercover work for a govt. agency.

I almost dropped the People magazine I was reading at the time as I started to listen in to the conversation, and then when the guy who claimed he was a secret operative said.....

Geez excuse me, I seemed to have gotten way off the subject here and I think that may be contravening a forum rule...sorry about that.

---

Last edited by lesmore49; 08-02-2020 at 09:04 AM.

[Racer X 69]

This Willys has a huge hood ornament. The nice young lady thinks it may fall off, and is trying desperately to keep it from doing so.



Happy Sunday Bob.

Did you remember your daily bacon ration?

A Bacon, Egg And Cheese McBob™, perhaps?

[FantasticMrFox]

She wasn't attentive enough to keep someone from stealing the tyres though.

[mkgd1]

No hyperbole gentlemen. The truck, like most newer vehicles, had an outside temperature gauge. As mentioned, I had spent 3 days roasting in the hot sun on the California/Arizona border at 130 degrees. Given I was parked at a truck stop, surrounded by dozens of trucks, all idling and generating heat, all parked on dark, greasy pavement, the conditions would have influenced the temperature locally. The 150 degree heat when I stopped for the blowout may have also been biased by the conditions, a large expanse of pavement, trucks and cars all idling with air conditioning pumping heat away from them.

So I submit that the numbers displayed by the thermometer on my truck were as accurate as any thermometer.

You are right, the recorded temperatures quoted are in the shade, in a Stevenson screen. Ground temperature in the sun is often much more. Measured with an infra red thermometer, the dark gravel in my yard often exceeds 150F. Yesterday I could not touch my galvanized pole gate without gloves.

[savoche]

I did ask myself why all the hobbies involving optical systems have to be so pricey ...

I was looking for a decent Newton on an equatorial mount, but living on the fourth floor in Munich with no balcony, garden, or car I'll have to be able to lug the thing around on a bicycle to get to somewhat dark places in the countryside. So I tried to find the best optical system that I can still get around that way, and I think I found it in a Skywatcher Heritage 150P. Only takes 1.25" eyepieces, unfortunately, but it's a 6" truss tube Newtonian with decent optics that collapses and weighs less than 4 kg (that's like 44 bananas or 0.04% of a football stadium or something like that, for all the Imperials around here) - I'll take it off its mini-Dobsonian mount and put it on a sturdy photo tripod fitted with a ball-head for a mobile set-up It comes with 25 and 10 mm eyepieces that I will probably replace sooner rather than later, but only ordered a 5 mm Planetary with it so far, plus a laser collimator. I'll make some modifications too - tighten the focuser, line the tube with velour, make a little shroud, maybe add a better finder later rather than the included laser finder.

Yes, those flextubes look tempting. I suppose they can take a bit longer to set up, especially if you intend to cover the tube in something - which I suppose you will want to unless it's a really pitch black night. The other way to reduce size is to get a cat. They are quite heavy for the size, and you will lose a bit of light compared to the same diameter Newtonian, but a 6" cat is quite portable. I suppose it has a bit longer cooling time, though. A Celestron NexStar 6 is one I've looked at (but not through).

It will be interesting to hear how the 5mm works out. From what I understand that is quite short on a 6". Mmmyes... That's the next problem. If you want a clearer image you need a larger diameter scope. First you get a 6", then an 8", and before you know it you've bought a van and a bigger flat to have room for that 16" Newton

As for photography - yes, that'd be nice ... But not with this scope. I quickly realised that I can have a portable set-up that I can get around, or I can have a photography-ready one - but not both in one. If I ever get bitten by the astrophoto bug I'll get myself a small Apo, HEQ-5, small guide scope and camera, and second-hand DSLR that I'll pry the IR filter off. Or in case I'm not rich by then I'll slap a Samyang 135 f/2 on my K-Unspeakable and that on a small tracker - I saw an image of the Horsehead Nebula alongside the Orion Nebula taken with a similar set-up that was truly impressive.

No, AP is not nice! When you see one of those gorgeous shots of the Horsehead Nebula you think AP would be nice. Then you read the description: "Almost 38 hours of exposure time was required over 7 different channels over the course of 20 nights." (That's an actual quote from an article about photographing the Horsehead!)

Oh, and once I'm rich I want a platform on the roof of my house with a permanently installed 16" Ritchey-Chretién Or I'll buy one of those second-hand once ESO moves over to the ELT:

The budget option is to build you own.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

What do you use to peer at the stars up north?

That's the sad part: I don't

I've spent some time researching, though. My conclusion is that the telescope I want will be too big to be used much, too big to store, and too expensive not to be used And since the nights are too bright in the summer I would have to use it in the winter. And cloudless winter nights are bloody cold. I don't like cold. So something rare occurred. I came to my senses and didn't buy one!

My DIL bought herself a 5" cat a while back. I'll have to test it when we stay over, or on our next mountain trip together. She's been quite enthusiastic about it, like when she for the first time could see Saturn's rings a couple of nights ago.

Yeah, I might still get one

[savoche]

No hyperbole gentlemen. The truck, like most newer vehicles, had an outside temperature gauge. As mentioned, I had spent 3 days roasting in the hot sun on the California/Arizona border at 130 degrees. Given I was parked at a truck stop, surrounded by dozens of trucks, all idling and generating heat, all parked on dark, greasy pavement, the conditions would have influenced the temperature locally. The 150 degree heat when I stopped for the blowout may have also been biased by the conditions, a large expanse of pavement, trucks and cars all idling with air conditioning pumping heat away from them.

So I submit that the numbers displayed by the thermometer on my truck were as accurate as any thermometer.

Yep, no reason to doubt the thermometer. Well, some reason, as with all consumer grade implements. But no matter, there is no reason not to believe that the temperature over a big, black surface can't be considerably higher than the official highest.

Those official meterings must meet several criteria to be considered correct. This is from a paper from the World Meteorological Organisation:

For general meteorological work, the observed air temperature should be representative of the free air conditions surrounding the station over as large an area as possible, at a height of between 1.25 and 2 m above ground level. The height above ground level is specified because large vertical temperature gradients may exist in the lowest layers of the atmosphere. The best site for the measurements is, therefore, over level ground, freely exposed to sunshine and wind and not shielded by, or close to, trees, buildings and other obstructions.

Edit: Source, for those interested... What? Nobody? Ah well, here it is anyway: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3149

[FantasticMrFox]

The other way to reduce size is to get a cat. They are quite heavy for the size, and you will lose a bit of light compared to the same diameter Newtonian, but a 6" cat is quite portable. I suppose it has a bit longer cooling time, though.

I got a random one rather than 6", because my local pet store doesn't stock them based on size. I was also told not to put it in the fridge or freezer, so that's that for cooling times. Now what? I know cats have great night vision, but I cannot look through the cat. And now that the cat is using the telescope, I cannot peer through that one either.

That was TERRIBLE advice, savoche, absolutely shocking!

[tim60]

Yep, no reason to doubt the thermometer. Well, some reason, as with all consumer grade implements. But no matter, there is no reason not to believe that the temperature over a big, black surface can't be considerably higher than the official highest.

Those official meterings must meet several criteria to be considered correct. This is from a paper from the World Meteorological Organisation:


Edit: Source, for those interested... What? Nobody? Ah well, here it is anyway: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3149

Of course you would doubt the thermometer if it was supplied by VW, or attached to a VW.

[tim60]

I spent 3 days in the Flying J at Ehrenberg, Arizona, waiting for an oversized load permit.

No trees.

No shade.

130 degrees F, 54.4 degrees C.

When I finally go the permit I headed East. About 50 miles West of Phoenix a drive tire exploded. I limped on down the shoulder to a rest area and waited for tire service.

It was 150 degrees F, 65.6 degrees C.

I felt sorry for the kid that came out to change it.

When I first saw your picture I thought it was of Lewis Hamilton’s tyre.

He is a very rare case of a F1 driver who limped on with a flat. And he won the race after most of a lap on three proper wheels.

Hmm - Robin Reliant wins Silverstone GP.

[Racer X 69]

Yep, no reason to doubt the thermometer. Well, some reason, as with all consumer grade implements. But no matter, there is no reason not to believe that the temperature over a big, black surface can't be considerably higher than the official highest.

Those official meterings must meet several criteria to be considered correct. This is from a paper from the World Meteorological Organisation:


Edit: Source, for those interested... What? Nobody? Ah well, here it is anyway: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3149

The sensor for automotive temperature gauges is usually located in the grille area, shielded from the sun and wind, and placed so the heat fromthe engine cooling system will not influence the readings.

In a big truck, that location will be about 1 meter off the ground.

The engine management computer uses the ambient temperature readings to help decide how much fuel the engine gets, when to squirt it into the combustion chamber, and when to ignite it. In fact, all vehicles with internal combustion engines have the equivalent of a weather station, measuring temperature and barometric pressure. The only thing not measured is wind, although the incoming air feeding the engine is measured with (usually) a mass airflow sensor.

[FantasticMrFox]

It will be interesting to hear how the 5mm works out. From what I understand that is quite short on a 6".

That comes to x150 magnification on a scope that's theoretically capable of x300. Even with less than ideal seeing 5 mm should still be very usable on planets.

Mmmyes... That's the next problem. If you want a clearer image you need a larger diameter scope. First you get a 6", then an 8", and before you know it you've bought a van and a bigger flat to have room for that 16" Newton

I went with the old photographic adage that the best camera is the one you have on you, and as the 6" flextube is the biggest thing I can comfortably lug around, there I went

No, AP is not nice! When you see one of those gorgeous shots of the Horsehead Nebula you think AP would be nice. Then you read the description: "Almost 38 hours of exposure time was required over 7 different channels over the course of 20 nights." (That's an actual quote from an article about photographing the Horsehead!)

Yeah, if you're crazy, you're crazy. But I've gathered that you can take decent enough images with single sessions of a couple of hours

The budget option is to build you own.
Giant 70" Telescope Built By Truck Driver - YouTube

Yeah, came across that one some time ago - would love to peer through it at least once and see what it's capable of.

I've spent some time researching, though. My conclusion is that the telescope I want will be too big to be used much, too big to store, and too expensive not to be used And since the nights are too bright in the summer I would have to use it in the winter. And cloudless winter nights are bloody cold. I don't like cold. So something rare occurred. I came to my senses and didn't buy one!

My DIL bought herself a 5" cat a while back. I'll have to test it when we stay over, or on our next mountain trip together. She's been quite enthusiastic about it, like when she for the first time could see Saturn's rings a couple of nights ago.

The thing about catadioptric scopes is that they offer more magnification (at least most amateur ones) at the expense of light gathering, as you said yourself. Makes them great for planets, comets etc., but not for DSOs. And as I want to look at DSOs as much as planets, I went for a normal Newtonian.

Yeah, I might still get one

You first look at scopes and propose a budget, then you read all the articles and peruse all the forums, you see what's possible, and you slowly keep correcting that budget upwards, because with just a little more size and a little more funds you can see just that much more, and then there's another option, just a bit outside your budget, and why not add two inches of opening and BAM you're ready to spend thousands on a monster of a telescope

If you're truly interested in getting one and just keep losing yourself in the options, just get a basic quality scope and start out. And if it's fun you can always upgrade, and if it's not you can sell it. You don't have to start with 'too big to store' - I'm not either

[Racer X 69]

When I first saw your picture I thought it was of Lewis Hamilton’s tyre.

He is a very rare case of a F1 driver who limped on with a flat. And he won the race after most of a lap on three proper wheels.

Hmm - Robin Reliant wins Silverstone GP.

Verstappen should have stayed out. He would have passed Hamilton and won the race.

[savoche]

I got a random one rather than 6", because my local pet store doesn't stock them based on size. I was also told not to put it in the fridge or freezer, so that's that for cooling times. Now what? I know cats have great night vision, but I cannot look through the cat. And now that the cat is using the telescope, I cannot peer through that one either.

That was TERRIBLE advice, savoche, absolutely shocking!

Don't blame me of you buy a cat that turns out to be a dog! Anyway, there's more than one way to peel a potato (sorry, I'm told that's what we're supposed to say to hurt cats' feelings - but who's speaking for the potatoes?)

Really, all you have to do is to look through the back end of it. If nothing else you can then tell the cat "I see Uranus".

[FantasticMrFox]

If nothing else you can then tell the cat "I see Uranus".

Ts ...

[mkgd1]

I got a random one rather than 6", because my local pet store doesn't stock them based on size. I was also told not to put it in the fridge or freezer, so that's that for cooling times. Now what? I know cats have great night vision, but I cannot look through the cat. And now that the cat is using the telescope, I cannot peer through that one either.

That was TERRIBLE advice, savoche, absolutely shocking!

So that's what a cat scan looks like!