 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Simulators / Car Simulators / November 2003Bathurst 24-Hours
After 2 hours, the past 30 minutes of it wet, the two Holden Monaro 427 c.i. coupes are running 1st. (Steven Richards) & 3rd. (Peter Brock). There's a bloody Ferrari in the sandwich! :) Bruce. > After 2 hours, the past 30 minutes of it wet, the two Holden Monaro 427 c.i. > coupes are running 1st. (Steven Richards) & 3rd. (Peter Brock). > > There's a bloody Ferrari in the sandwich! :) Holden rules...:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx-- > > After 2 hours, the past 30 minutes of it wet, the two Holden Monaro 427 c.i. > > coupes are running 1st. (Steven Richards) & 3rd. (Peter Brock). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx-- After nearly 9 hours Holden 1-2. Brockie leading. Steve > > Holden rules...:-) > > > > Beers and cheers > > (uncle) Goy > > "goyl at nettx dot no" can anyone else tell me why holden is the only manufacturer allowed to race a non-production car in a production car race? David Corless > can anyone else tell me why holden is the only manufacturer allowed to > race a non-production car in a production car race? > > David Corless $$ The same reason the parent company(GM) got away with racing a prototype for years in the GTS class at LeMans. dave henrie > $$ The same reason the parent company(GM) got away with racing a > prototype for years in the GTS class at LeMans. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Dave... <G> -jde >> $$ The same reason the parent company(GM) got away with racing a >> prototype for years in the GTS class at LeMans. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -jde Yup<VBG>....(having Narcolepsy means I sleep quite well at night..and in the morning, and in the afternoon. Unmedicated, I could sleep as often as a Hobbit eats.) :) Just to clarify...To race a GTS Viper, you first bought a GTS-R Viper and then added your team's tweeks. To race a GTS Corvette, you got Pratt & Miller to build a wider, longer version of the C5. Saleen then followed the Corvette model and built their GTS prototype from the ground up as well. I won't say who complained first about the Saleen... :) dave henrie > Just to clarify...To race a GTS Viper, you first bought a GTS-R Viper and > then added your team's tweeks. To race a GTS Corvette, you got Pratt & > Miller to build a wider, longer version of the C5. Saleen then followed > the Corvette model and built their GTS prototype from the ground up as > well. I won't say who complained first about the Saleen... :) Considering they all have the same rulebook (and French scrutineers at Le Mans) to work with, I'd just say it's your usual sour grapes. ;-) The Viper was originally a GT1 car too, I believe, but elected to drop down to GT2 once Porsche reinterpreted the rules... The Ferrari, Viper, and Corvette are all production-derived race cars. The Saleen is a race car-derived "production" car. While one can argue semantics, it seems pretty obvious that the Saleen is not a high-volume production car modified for racing, per the ACO/IMSA rules. Pratt & Miller are a GM contractor, no different than when ORECA built Viper GTS-R's Just go enjoy the TPTCC mod! :-p :-D -jde Where is it "non-production", David? You mean the 7-litre engine? Isn't that an "option"? Bruce. > > > Holden rules...:-) > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > David Corless well, the 7-litre 427 engine isn't an option: the biggest motor is the Gen 3 chev, which I think is 350cu Neither is the sequential 6-speed holinger gear box. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the major parts aren't available for the road going monaro. Holden spoke about making them available, but never did anything practical towards this. David Corless > Where is it "non-production", David? > You mean the 7-litre engine? Isn't that an "option"? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > David Corless > well, the 7-litre 427 engine isn't an option: the biggest motor is > the Gen 3 chev, which I think is 350cu > Neither is the sequential 6-speed holinger gear box. Correct. > In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the major parts aren't available for > the road going monaro. Also very correct. > Holden spoke about making them available, but never did anything > practical towards this. Yes, they did consider building some for paying customers but they dropped the project when they discovered they would cost much (much, much) more than original estimates. It's another example of pushing the rules to the n'th degree and beyond... - Peter Ogden > Where is it "non-production", David? > You mean the 7-litre engine? Isn't that an "option"? There's nothing 'production' about the Monaro, other than its exterior sheetmetal. Mechanically, it doesnt resemble the Monaro CV8 at all. I can understand its entry last year, when there was a possibility of it entering production, but this year??? It makes a mockery of the series, and is somewhat disrespectful towards the other other competitors that are following the rules. KK They certainly did....a 1-2 finish and the 10th. win at Panorama for Peter Perfect! Bruce. > > After 2 hours, the past 30 minutes of it wet, the two Holden Monaro 427 c.i. > > coupes are running 1st. (Steven Richards) & 3rd. (Peter Brock). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx-- You're not really counting that as a "Bathurst" win are you Bruce? > They certainly did....a 1-2 finish and the 10th. win at Panorama for Peter > Perfect! Why not? Let's look at the facts: 1) Venue = Mt. Panorama, Bathurst. 2) Event = Endurance motor race. 3) Driver's name = Peter Brock. 4) Finishing Position = 1st. 5) Number of previous first-places in endurance motor races held at Bathurst = 9. Yep - I reckon that all adds up to win number 10. Bruce. > You're not really counting that as a "Bathurst" win are you Bruce? > > > They certainly did....a 1-2 finish and the 10th. win at Panorama for Peter > > Perfect! > Why not? > Let's look at the facts: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yep - I reckon that all adds up to win number 10. A hollow victory. A car that couldn't lose (barring unreliability), that didn't even conform to the racing series' technical regulations. KK > > Why not? > > Let's look at the facts: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > KK A car that couldn't loose. What about driver error, animals on track, weather, tyre failure(one team had seven punctures). Fatigue(driver, pit crew, car). No driver or car is ever guarenteed a win in any race. So many variables to take into consideration. As to conforming to regulations. If the officials allow it to race, its legit. If the other teams want to protest, they can. This is the second year and I haven't seen a court challenge to its legallity yet. It all boils down to money. How many more people are watching on TV or going to the tracks to see these cars, just because there is an Australian designed and built car racing? All motorsport has one purpose. $$$$$ If the Monaro puts bums on seats at the tracks, I see it as a good thing. Steve > > A hollow victory. A car that couldn't lose (barring unreliability), that > > didn't even conform to the racing series' technical regulations. > > As to conforming to regulations. If the officials allow it to race, its > legit. If the other teams want to protest, they can. This is the second > year and I haven't seen a court challenge to its legallity yet. Sounds remarkably similar to the Michelin saga.... 'If the officials allow it to race, its legit'.... ? Just because the officials allow it to race, doesn't make it legit. It just means that allowing it to race serves some agenda which benefits the officials. A number of teams cried foul in the Monaro's first year... I imagine they decided not to bother this year because it was clear upon which side of the fence the officials sat. > It all boils down to money. How many more people are watching on TV or > going to the tracks to see these cars, just because there is an Australian > designed and built car racing? All motorsport has one purpose. $$$$$ > If the Monaro puts bums on seats at the tracks, I see it as a good thing. Funny, I thought the purpose of motorsport was racing. It's a sad day when a formula allows the racing to take a back seat to the $$$. KK Sadly, that is the name of modern motor-racing, Kasper, and has been so for at least two decades. > Funny, I thought the purpose of motorsport was racing. It's a sad day when a > formula allows the racing to take a back seat to the $$$. Unfortunately, Holden (Australian GM) has owned major motorsport here in Aus for a while now. It has become their own advertising campaign and no one seems to mind too much. Or has the power to stop them. Case in point - a few years back, testing was carried out on the front spoilers of the GM cars for parity - carried out by - wait for it - the Holden Dealer Team! LOL. > Funny, I thought the purpose of motorsport was racing. It's a sad day when a > formula allows the racing to take a back seat to the $$$. > > KK "Can't lose"? Obviously you haven't checked LAST year's results, Kasper! :) Bruce. > > Why not? > > Let's look at the facts: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > KK You keep saying this........ >>didn't even conform to the racing series' technical regulations.<< .....yet have not given a reason as to WHY it was racing, why NOBODY protested the cars and why NOBODY protested the results. Show me the CAMS technical regulations for the event which specifically go against the Monaro's - as entered - being ineligible. Obviously you must have them, or at least know the area(s) which preclude the Monaro? Bruce. See, the following is the general description of the A Class.... Class A: For cars complying with the current technical regulations for; Australian Nations Cup ? Group 1, FIA Series Grand Touring Cars (N-GT), British GTO, All Japan GT - Group 2, American Grand ? Am (GT), Lamborghini Trophy. PROCAR Australia Pty Ltd, in conjunction with the CAMS reserve the right to invite vehicles from other Categories whose Technical Regulations are based on FIA Series N-GT regulations and a copy of such rules must be submitted at the time of the entry. From their web-site. Bruce. > You keep saying this........ > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Obviously you must have them, or at least know the area(s) which preclude > the Monaro? Nations Cup/FIA-GT/etc are *production* categories. The Monaro 427 is not a production car... different engine, different drivetrain. The rules have been cleverly worded to allow the Monaro to compete, despite being entirely against the spirit of the series. KK > The Monaro 427 is not a > production car... different engine, different drivetrain. Technically speaking, doesn't the 911 GT3-RS use an engine not directly derived from the production engine? I seem to remember that being discussed when they were griping about the "illegal" M3-GTR. -jde > > The Monaro 427 is not a > > production car... different engine, different drivetrain. > > Technically speaking, doesn't the 911 GT3-RS use an engine not directly > derived from the production engine? I seem to remember that being discussed > when they were griping about the "illegal" M3-GTR. Not sure... what sort of differences? Different block? KK From what I have read on usenet, the car was "meant" to be a production car but this decision was conveniently changed after they built enough to race. And apparently when they worked out how much a road going car would end up costing to the public. > Nations Cup/FIA-GT/etc are *production* categories. The Monaro 427 is not a > production car... different engine, different drivetrain. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > KK So this is the "real" Bathurst in your book now Bruce? So what's the V8 Supercar one then? Mate, it's gotta be part of the ATCC to qualify - in my book. Gee people get obsessed with their heroes and nice round numbers like "10"! :) > Why not? > Let's look at the facts: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Peter > > > Perfect! Well, Byron old mate, I've never really thought of the "V8 Supercars" as "real Bathurst" anyway. In MY book, real tin-top racing died there when the event was reduced to two makes and one class. The "Australian Touring Car Championship" with just Ford and Holden V8's? You've gotta be kidding?! This is a manufactured project, specifically designed for TV and nothing else. So, in MY book, the 24-hour is neither better nor worse than the ATCC - in fact, with its class break-up, it is certainly closer in format (yes, I know that the types of cars are different) to what the ATCC used to be like than the rubbish which passes as "touring car" racing today. Peter Brock is neither hero nor villain for me but is simply one of those drivers I associate with the days when I used to attend every bloody event at Oran Park, Warwick Farm, Catalina Park, Amaroo Park and Bathurst! But then that was when motor-sports were for two classes of people: competitors and track-side spectators. Bruce. > So this is the "real" Bathurst in your book now Bruce? So what's the V8 > Supercar one then? > > Mate, it's gotta be part of the ATCC to qualify - in my book. Gee people > get obsessed with their heroes and nice round numbers like "10"! :) No argument from me, but.... Although the Holden/Ford only ATCC has become stale, it is still the ATCC. And what this really means is that the best of the aussie drivers, with a few international drivers mixed in, are there. Not so for the 24 hour race. The 24 hour race is too international, too liberal with the rules and most of all it's a one off. This particular win is nothing like Brocky"s "legitimate 9" and to say it is only cheapens those 9 in my opinion. And the man himself. No comparison. Let him grow old gracefully. It's like a 70s band trying to make a comeback! :) > Well, Byron old mate, I've never really thought of the "V8 Supercars" as > "real Bathurst" anyway. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mate, it's gotta be part of the ATCC to qualify - in my book. Gee people > > get obsessed with their heroes and nice round numbers like "10"! :) "Cheapens the other nine"?!! Gimme a break! Taking part in punting ANY car around Panorama for 24 hours is in no way "cheapening" any previous six-hour effort, irrespective of when it took place and in what type of car. Bruce. > This particular win is nothing like Brocky"s "legitimate 9" and to say it is only cheapens those 9 in my opinion. All this 24 hour race is is a showcase for GM. They own it! Not a level playing field for the top runners at all. Joke. Don't tell me Bruce, that when they ran the 4 bangers there that you thought that was a legit "Bathurst" race as well? Anyway, so your saying that this 24 hour race is the new "Real Bathurst" race and that the V8 Supercar one is just another race at Bathurst? Gimme a break! :) > "Cheapens the other nine"?!! > Gimme a break! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > This particular win is nothing like Brocky"s "legitimate 9" and to say it > is only cheapens those 9 in my opinion. Give it a rest, Byron. You know what you like; I know what I like. Leave it at that. BK > All this 24 hour race is is a showcase for GM. They own it! Not a level > playing field for the top runners at all. Joke. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it > > is only cheapens those 9 in my opinion. Ok then. I'm counting this as my 10th usenet victory then. LOL. > Give it a rest, Byron. > You know what you like; I know what I like. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > it > > > is only cheapens those 9 in my opinion. > No argument from me, but.... > Although the Holden/Ford only ATCC has become stale, it is still the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >man himself. No comparison. Let him grow old gracefully. It's like a 70s >band trying to make a comeback! :) "too international, too liberal with the rules and most of all it's a one off." Sounds like the year that Bathurst was a round of the failed World Touring Car Championship. > You're not really counting that as a "Bathurst" win are you Bruce? > > > They certainly did....a 1-2 finish and the 10th. win at Panorama for Peter > > Perfect! I would include it as win number 10. If you look back at the changes in the rules and car specs since Brock started racing at Bathurst. The cars have gone from street legal road cars to purpose built race cars. Considering it was still an endurance race and they coverered over 3000kms, yeah its win number 10. Maybe now Brock can relax without the fans wishing for that magic number 10!!:-) Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.