Gen 2 Supercar

[Compromised]

Is it delayed on purpose?

[gtcapri]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Is it delayed on purpose?

I'd be interested into what the issues with it are in a technical sense.
To be fair to the category, at least they had an implementation plan. Many of us can recall when CAMS would just simply outlaw vehicles from various championship incarnations forcing teams to build/buy entire expensive new platforms to compete from scratch without much return for the 'old' platforms they just outlawed.

[Compromised]

That's what I'm interested in too. Id like to know if its been delayed due to the current unknown status (and future) of Gen2, or are they having technical issues with the turbo engine?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by gtcapri

To be fair to the category, at least they had an implementation plan. Many of us can recall when CAMS would just simply outlaw vehicles from various championship incarnations forcing teams to build/buy entire expensive new platforms to compete from scratch without much return for the 'old' platforms they just outlawed.

Didn't V8Supercars do that to themselves at the end of the 2012?

[Umai Naa]

Isn't that what the Dunlop series is for; to offload old stock to the privateers and the upcoming talent?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Isn't that what the Dunlop series is for; to offload old stock to the privateers and the upcoming talent?

Sure, but how much 2012 main series hardware was on the 2013 DVS grid?

Probably about as many as Group A cars found themselves new homes in 2-litre, 5-litre or Sports Sedan guise in 1993, or Group C cars found themselves new homes in Sports Sedans or Group A in 1985.

The point was more that if you were a main game series competitor, your cars were redundant and couldn't be used in the 2013 title, just as the likes of DJR had already gone through at the end of 1984, and again at the end of 1992.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Sure, but how much 2012 main series hardware was on the 2013 DVS grid?

Probably about as many as Group A cars found themselves new homes in 2-litre, 5-litre or Sports Sedan guise in 1993, or Group C cars found themselves new homes in Sports Sedans or Group A in 1985.

The point was more that if you were a main game series competitor, your cars were redundant and couldn't be used in the 2013 title, just as the likes of DJR had already gone through at the end of 1984, and again at the end of 1992.

I guess the main difference between 2012 and the other examples mentioned is that the upcoming change was flagged several years out so the teams could plan long-term for it and the teams were part of the process so had a say and input into it.

I well remember the "last of the big bangers" time in the changeover from Group C to Group A and whilst (from memory) the teams had a season or so warning, they seemed to hold a fair bit of resentment to the change - mind you that could simply have been them playing politics as well.

[Stram_man]

The cars have no DNA back to the road cars (much like Group A), the Holden/Ford rivalry is gone (why we moved from Group A to V8SC), there is no driver loyalty (eg. Brock, Moffat, etc) and it is being positioned (priced) out of reach in terms of sponsorship and on track attendance.

Must say the GT racing last weekend was interesting and seems to be attracting more and more attention, manufacturers and sponsorship. It appeals to the grass roots fans and teams; it is not entertainment created by venture capitalists and sold to foxtel. While people may say the hard core fans are not enough to sustain a sport we must remember that more and more young men do NOT have an interest in cars/motorsport. So in the end the hardcore fans will make or break a category IMO.

In the bigger picture is V8SC on a downward slop?
There are many categories in Australia that have had their decline back to state level (eg Sports sedan's, rally, open wheelers to name two)

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I well remember the "last of the big bangers" time in the changeover from Group C to Group A and whilst (from memory) the teams had a season or so warning, they seemed to hold a fair bit of resentment to the change - mind you that could simply have been them playing politics as well.

The likes of Brock & Grice (and probably alot of the battlers) i've read were preferring we kept Group C (though Grice had well and truly embraced the change by 1986)

Though the likes of Dick Johnson, Frank Gardner and Allan Moffat were quoted at the time being very much in favour of dumping Group C and adopting international Group A rules

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally Posted by Stram_man

The cars have no DNA back to the road cars (much like Group A), the Holden/Ford rivalry is gone (why we moved from Group A to V8SC), there is no driver loyalty (eg. Brock, Moffat, etc) and it is being positioned (priced) out of reach in terms of sponsorship and on track attendance.

I'm confused by your first line. Are you suggesting that Group A cars had no DNA link to the road cars?

I own a couple of Group A Touring Cars and it's amazing how many standard parts are on the car. The shells started life as road cars and even have Australian Compliance plates fitted. Every panel is standard, bumpers, lights, grille, all the glass, dash pad, all standard. Even the block and head are factory parts, the crank and rods are still stock standard, as is the gearbox housing and the tail shaft, diff and rear axles.

Group A Touring Cars are full of road car DNA.

[Umai Naa]

Driver/brand loyalty is long gone, for many reasons.

Back in the day, the likes of Brock and Moffat, were either employed by the manufacturer directly, or required a close relationship with a manufacturer, for the benefit of the team they owned. And let's be honest, all the stars with their so-called badge-allegiances all moved around a bit, to suit their wallets or business cases.

Nowadays, drivers can't be directly employed by the manufacturer. They're all employees of a team (The Kelly brothers are a slight exception to the rule). They go where the team goes, again, to suit their business case (unless you're SvG).

Why people make such a massive deal out of it all, is beyond me.

But then again, there are still a concerning number of 'fans' who believe Lowndes, etc are driving the exact same car you can buy off the showroom floor.

[mayhem]

Warburton says Gen 2 on track for 2017

Loving the decisiveness form this bloke.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by mayhem

Warburton says Gen 2 on track for 2017

Loving the decisiveness form this bloke.

however he also said that he didnt think there would be any cars running gen 2 in 2017.

[mayhem]

He's a poor man's Tony Cochrane.

[Compromised]

When you're looking for people to invest millions into your product, it's probably best not to chop and change on the details too much...

Gen2 for 2017.

Gen2 delayed.

Gen2 for 18/19.

Gen2 good to go for 2017 (but no one actually running a car under the new regs).

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Compromised

When you're looking for people to invest millions into your product, it's probably best not to chop and change on the details too much...

Gen2 for 2017.

Gen2 delayed.

Gen2 for 18/19.

Gen2 good to go for 2017 (but no one actually running a car under the new regs).

sounds like a media beat up then. Auto fiction creating headlines with not much facts

[mayhem]

Except twice they've quoted old mate PMTC*.

* - Warburton.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by mayhem

Except twice they've quoted old mate PMTC*.

* - Warburton.

did they quote him, or did they partially quote him and then use it out of context and create an article about part of a quote

if you could get me a quote where warburton said

gen 2 delayed, or gen 2 for 18/19 (has 19 even been mentioned to that post)

far as i can see , this recent article is consistant with any recent comments

[velly4]

"While V8SC tech staff are opposed to the notion of adapting bigger V8s"

Why? I don't understand this?
Wish they would just allow anything and use restrictors like every other parity/BoP category

[Samwhk]

Originally Posted by velly4

Why? I don't understand this?
Wish they would just allow anything and use restrictors like every other parity/BoP category

Agreed. Why limit the regs to 3.85L twin turbo V6? Why not turbo V8s? Why not V10? Why not rotary? Why not supercharged V12? Why not run what ya brung?

Must be because they're not 'relevant', like a a V8 RWD Altima is. Off topic, we just fitted a twin stainless exhaust to the old mans 450GT Nissan Fuga, which IS a RWD Nissan V8 sedan, and it sounds like the ghosts vikings past coming from Valhalla.

[peckstar]

Sorry whats the benefit of those bigger performance motors, just comes down to horsepower race which we then neutre to make equal

surely the limitation is that they are happy wheer they are performance wise and dont want to excede that

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by Samwhk

it sounds like the ghosts vikings past coming from Valhalla.

Nice...

[Samwhk]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Sorry whats the benefit of those bigger performance motors, just comes down to horsepower race which we then neutre to make equal

surely the limitation is that they are happy wheer they are performance wise and dont want to excede that

Variety is the spice of life

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Samwhk

Variety is the spice of life

but we are not talking about life, we are talking about parity

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by peckstar

but we are not talking about life, we are talking about parity

But we essentially have parity now. Even with very similar motors it took years, jungle juice and fuel drop rules, but we are finally there.

If parity is such a vaunted characteristic of the series, do you think allowing smaller motors and turbos will help or hinder efforts to retain this? How many years/new regs will be required to achieve parity?