The Future of V8SC

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

five new cars wasnt it

And it was not an unrecognised part, it was a part used on the R8 and banned in that use.

[Compromised]

So someone cheated, were caught and punished. How again is this a stinging indictment on GT3? Doesn't that show that cheaters won't prosper? I'd be more worried if no cheaters were ever found...

[Casper]

I would be very surprised...no astounded would be a better word if every V8 SC was legal to the letter of the law. In fact it would be the first time in the history of motor sport me thinks that every car in a given class was built to the letter of the regs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in dreamland and has never built a race car.

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Honest mistakes, you're having a laugh.

These guys deliberately sandbagged and then used a part that had already been shadow banned by the category - they should have far stiffer penalties.

But again we have the much more lax European attitude to "cheating", much like the Europeans that came down to Australia in '87.

ROFL

Dynamik at Woomera
Scott Pye was excluded from multiple events last year

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

ROFL

Dynamik at Woomera
Scott Pye was excluded from multiple events last year

think youare talking about individual teams trying to get an advantage, we are talking about manufacturers breaking the rules with balance of performance

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Mixer

But again we have the much more lax European attitude to "cheating", much like the Europeans that came down to Australia in '87.

Just as many Australian cars got done for "cheating" at Bathurst in 1987 as European cars

And in 1988 it was was a draw again, but both had Holden badges on them.

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

think youare talking about individual teams trying to get an advantage, we are talking about manufacturers breaking the rules with balance of performance

Not when Eggenberger Sierras are thrown in to the discussion

[Umai Naa]

I must say, that considering what they evenutally pinged them for, it doesn't make their dominance that year any less spectacular.

[venturi]

Originally Posted by Casper

I would be very surprised...no astounded would be a better word if every V8 SC was legal to the letter of the law. In fact it would be the first time in the history of motor sport me thinks that every car in a given class was built to the letter of the regs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in dreamland and has never built a race car.

Yup.

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

I must say, that considering what they evenutally pinged them for, it doesn't make their dominance that year any less spectacular.

Definitely, considering that they were ordered to fix the offending guards on the Friday morning of Mt Fuji, and still went on to dominate that event just as supremely as they did the previous three events.

[Langers]

Originally Posted by BrentJackson

This is admittedly coming from a guy who is approximately 14000 km from Australia but who has been following (and having an absolute ball watching) V8 Supercar races since the late 1990s, so for what its worth, I will pop in.

The current model has no future, as the cost involved is too high for privateer interests and the manufacturers are increasingly asking whether the cost is worth it, particularly since Australia's domestic auto industry is (for now, IMO) in its last days. It's not gonna be easy to justify the sorts of costs that V8SC has traditionally charged with the Commodore and Falcon gone, the cars being bought by Aussies being far smaller (not an uncommon theme worldwide) and with emissions and fuel economy concerns making in most places V8s increasingly less common in cars. None of these factors can be changed by the series, and they have to live with it. The multiple holdoffs of the Gen 2 rules show the dilemna the series has to live with it - many of what one would call "traditional" fans IMO will find it rather difficult to relate to a Mustang as opposed to a Falcon, and Holden isn't likely to start selling the Camaro or Cadillac ATS-V just to get a car to promote in V8SC.

IMO, the best way I can see working is to create something new, but with sedans. The idea of allowing turbocharged V6 and inline-4 engines IMO isn't the best of calls, because while it will make the manufacturers happy the fans will absolutely hate it - I'd say the best bet for this is to have a requirement for production-based engines with a minimum of six cylinders, allowing forced induction on engines smaller than 3800cc, with an outright displacement limit of 6000cc. The cars should be similar in chassis design to the current ones, though on smaller platforms - replace the Commodore and Falcon with the Mondeo and Insignia, Volvo retains the S60 and Nissan retains the Altima if they wish to go this route. Other makers of sedan cars should be encouraged this way - Mazda 6, Peugeot 508 and Honda Accord models should be encouraged. The cars should move up some in horsepower-aim for 680-700 horsepower. Allow anti-lock braking and seven-speed sequential gearboxes, but with the shifting always being done from a floor-mounted shift, and with minimum weight kept at 1400 kg. The series-control V8 engine option would remain for those automakers who don't have a suitable production engine, such as Volvo or Mazda. The cars would still retain many of the stylistic elements of the current cars.

The absolutely critical thing for the sedans is to keep the costs of building and racing these things down - let it get too far up and you won't get it back, and there is no other race series that will have anything like this and likely there never will be, so the costs of involvement have to be worked on accordingly. As a result of this, the series would allow anybody to make a car if they wish to, without requiring a manufacturer commitment.

The curveball on this is that the series would also allow the GT3 cars, but in a separate class. The GT3 cars would have their own class, but both would be equalized to the best possible degree to allow both to compete for overall race wins. Makers would only be allowed to choose one platform for a series car of choice (a problem I can only see Nissan having), so you don't get duplication. As the cost of making the sedan racers would be brought down to about A$300,000 under the new rules, teams would have the option of building a sedan racer and developing it or buying a GT3 car turn-key, though a manufacturer may make the call for you. (The GT3 car is more expensive up-front and could be more expensive in the event of an accident, but you don't have the cost of development.) The overall idea is that the GT3 cars would be quicker in the corners while the V8SCs would be faster in a straight line, with the two as close to equal on the brakes as possible.

Tires would have limits for the number of that can be used in a weekend, but no limits on who can supply them, provided that they are sold at a spec price and that they are available to any and all teams at any time. The Racing Entitlement Contract system should be shelved and the field to open to all who wish to race in it, though those who paid for the RECs should be paid back for them. The series would use an aggressive BoP and penalty weight to keep the field close.

At all events, the two classes of cars would race for overall positions as well as in its two categories - at Sandown or Queensland or Pukekohe or Adelaide the V8s would have the edge due to straight-line speed (Bathurst probably too, but the GT3 lap record is six seconds a lap faster for the GT3 cars, though much of that was probably Van Gisbergen at the controls on that lap record), whereas at Melbourne or Phillip Island or Surfers Paradise or Kuala Lumpur or Winton the better handling of the GT3s would probably come out ahead.

The idea is that the best driver overall is the champ, regardless of his or her choice of chariot. The use of anti-lock brakes is to give drivers the confidence to really shove on them to get better action, and the whole idea is that the smaller, better-handling GT3s would do battle with the heavyweight four-door racers.

You've obviously put some thought and effort into this post which is why I'm staggered you you support ABS. Why support mediocrity?

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by Langers

You've obviously put some thought and effort into this post which is why I'm staggered you you support ABS. Why support mediocrity?

I'm not, quite the contrary. I don't see on these cars ABS being a big problem, because you want to give the drivers the confidence that if they want to make aggressive moves that a locked front brake won't give them a flat-spotted tire or worse an accident or a black flag. Sure, it removes the threshold braking element, but with cars of this weight and size, locking brakes can be done easily, particularly since there are limits on the number of tires available and thus they have to be harder compound as a consequence. Let them focus on trying to pass rather than worrying about lock-ups.

[mayhem]

I'd argue ABS also makes it easier to hold people up behind you making it harder to overtake. Chicken and egg argument maybe?

[Mixer]

If you want overtaking, I'd suggest ABS isn't something you want.

Longer stopping distances and more variability will encourage overtaking.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by BrentJackson

This is admittedly coming from a guy who is approximately 14000 km from Australia but who has been following (and having an absolute ball watching) V8 Supercar races since the late 1990s, so for what its worth, I will pop in.

The current model has no future, as the cost involved is too high for privateer interests and the manufacturers are increasingly asking whether the cost is worth it, particularly since Australia's domestic auto industry is (for now, IMO) in its last days. It's not gonna be easy to justify the sorts of costs that V8SC has traditionally charged with the Commodore and Falcon gone, the cars being bought by Aussies being far smaller (not an uncommon theme worldwide) and with emissions and fuel economy concerns making in most places V8s increasingly less common in cars. None of these factors can be changed by the series, and they have to live with it. The multiple holdoffs of the Gen 2 rules show the dilemna the series has to live with it - many of what one would call "traditional" fans IMO will find it rather difficult to relate to a Mustang as opposed to a Falcon, and Holden isn't likely to start selling the Camaro or Cadillac ATS-V just to get a car to promote in V8SC.

IMO, the best way I can see working is to create something new, but with sedans. The idea of allowing turbocharged V6 and inline-4 engines IMO isn't the best of calls, because while it will make the manufacturers happy the fans will absolutely hate it - I'd say the best bet for this is to have a requirement for production-based engines with a minimum of six cylinders, allowing forced induction on engines smaller than 3800cc, with an outright displacement limit of 6000cc. The cars should be similar in chassis design to the current ones, though on smaller platforms - replace the Commodore and Falcon with the Mondeo and Insignia, Volvo retains the S60 and Nissan retains the Altima if they wish to go this route. Other makers of sedan cars should be encouraged this way - Mazda 6, Peugeot 508 and Honda Accord models should be encouraged. The cars should move up some in horsepower-aim for 680-700 horsepower. Allow anti-lock braking and seven-speed sequential gearboxes, but with the shifting always being done from a floor-mounted shift, and with minimum weight kept at 1400 kg. The series-control V8 engine option would remain for those automakers who don't have a suitable production engine, such as Volvo or Mazda. The cars would still retain many of the stylistic elements of the current cars.

The absolutely critical thing for the sedans is to keep the costs of building and racing these things down - let it get too far up and you won't get it back, and there is no other race series that will have anything like this and likely there never will be, so the costs of involvement have to be worked on accordingly. As a result of this, the series would allow anybody to make a car if they wish to, without requiring a manufacturer commitment.

The curveball on this is that the series would also allow the GT3 cars, but in a separate class. The GT3 cars would have their own class, but both would be equalized to the best possible degree to allow both to compete for overall race wins. Makers would only be allowed to choose one platform for a series car of choice (a problem I can only see Nissan having), so you don't get duplication. As the cost of making the sedan racers would be brought down to about A$300,000 under the new rules, teams would have the option of building a sedan racer and developing it or buying a GT3 car turn-key, though a manufacturer may make the call for you. (The GT3 car is more expensive up-front and could be more expensive in the event of an accident, but you don't have the cost of development.) The overall idea is that the GT3 cars would be quicker in the corners while the V8SCs would be faster in a straight line, with the two as close to equal on the brakes as possible.

Tires would have limits for the number of that can be used in a weekend, but no limits on who can supply them, provided that they are sold at a spec price and that they are available to any and all teams at any time. The Racing Entitlement Contract system should be shelved and the field to open to all who wish to race in it, though those who paid for the RECs should be paid back for them. The series would use an aggressive BoP and penalty weight to keep the field close.

At all events, the two classes of cars would race for overall positions as well as in its two categories - at Sandown or Queensland or Pukekohe or Adelaide the V8s would have the edge due to straight-line speed (Bathurst probably too, but the GT3 lap record is six seconds a lap faster for the GT3 cars, though much of that was probably Van Gisbergen at the controls on that lap record), whereas at Melbourne or Phillip Island or Surfers Paradise or Kuala Lumpur or Winton the better handling of the GT3s would probably come out ahead.

The idea is that the best driver overall is the champ, regardless of his or her choice of chariot. The use of anti-lock brakes is to give drivers the confidence to really shove on them to get better action, and the whole idea is that the smaller, better-handling GT3s would do battle with the heavyweight four-door racers.

Sounded interesting until you got to the part about incorporating GT3 cars.Any formula that allows a Ferrari 488(or any other GT3 car) to be on the same level of competitiveness as a Nissan Altima,Mazda 6 or Commodore has zero credibility.Manipulating the regs like this would kill GT3 in the same way that farcical Monaro did to Nation Cup.
Agree with the importance of cost control.The poor job Skaife did on this has been a big problem for COTF.

[Mixer]

I fail to see how the Monaro was any worse than the M3 GTR though? Or stuff like the Mosler or other stuff that suited people at one time or another...

[velly4]

With you there Mixer. At least the Monaro was based off a road car.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Longer stopping distances and more variability will encourage overtaking.

A point most fail to understand. Faster lap times also inhibit overtaking but no one wants to listen.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Mixer

If you want overtaking, I'd suggest ABS isn't something you want.

Longer stopping distances and more variability will encourage overtaking.

The key to overtaking is to give drivers the opportunity to make a mistake. Locked brakes, too early on the throttle, a little too fast into the corner, a missed gear change...

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Woolley

The key to overtaking is to give drivers the opportunity to make a mistake. Locked brakes, too early on the throttle, a little too fast into the corner, a missed gear change...

I would add: Getting balked in traffic. That's why I think many touring car series would profit from being multiclass.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Woolley

The key to overtaking is to give drivers the opportunity to make a mistake. Locked brakes, too early on the throttle, a little too fast into the corner, a missed gear change...

And not trying to decrease the lap times as they are currently doing in F1. No one seems to get that one but eventually the penny will drop.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I would add: Getting balked in traffic. That's why I think many touring car series would profit from being multiclass.

Couldn't agree more.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Couldn't agree more.

really, i have never seen anyone happy (apart from the passing driver)when a pass is made because of being held up by a slower car.

Totally frustrating for all,

That's a massive gimmick. No place in racing

[peckstar]

I see NASCAR have brought in lower downforce this year and the drivers are talking it up

[chavez]

Originally Posted by peckstar

really, i have never seen anyone happy (apart from the passing driver)when a pass is made because of being held up by a slower car.

Totally frustrating for all,

That's a massive gimmick. No place in racing

Except it was very much a part of racing for 100 years.

To watch a Senna or Moffat slice through traffic and make their rivals pay for not being as decisive was a joy to watch.

Sadly missing from today's sport.