Gen 2 Supercar

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by peckstar

i cant really imagine that any of the brands that are predominately sports car makers would be interested.

This will be more about main brands showcasing a hero car of some sort, as it has always been

Ah but we have a brave new world now. You dont need a V8 engine of 5L capacity to play any more.

We are closer to the 'run what ya brung' area, as long as the aero and engine are homologated, that the control chassis is used...

I would hope that the approved cars for competition would be factory homologated, or we may end up with some orphans...

[chavez]

Originally Posted by mikuni

Technically it will be based on a regular 911, of which a minimum of 5000 units must be sold globally per year, so that restricts the real rare stuff. Also it will have to fit on the control chassis and have the engine in the front, so that will limit the options for manufacturers.

A minimum decibel level is interesting, though just noise isn't always good. It has to be good noise. If that makes any sense.

All in all, nothing hugely game changing, they still need to tell us how exactly they will get parity between a small turbo engine and a 5 litre NA V8.

We had parity - it was called Group C and Group A.

It worked more times than not.

[one five five]

Reads like Bernie's PROCAR formula has finally been adopted nearly 30 years after it was proposed...

[FIRE]

New rules seem okay to me.

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

yes is the answer

Porsche sells around 30,000 911's per year apparantly... you could drop a current 911 RSR body design over the control chassis, place the 'right' engine for this model in the front (470bhp without any tuning bits attached!) and go SC racing...

The challenge I see is that the existing category compares (mostly) cars the average person can buy. A Falcon, Commodore, Altima... maybe a Volvo.. and the aspirational Benz...

How much fun might it be for a luxury brand to be in that category, to be beaten by the Falcon/Commodore/Altima....?

Isn't there a rule engine has to be in the same location as in road car?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by FIRE

New rules seem okay to me.


Isn't there a rule engine has to be in the same location as in road car?

unable to see that rule in todays guidelines, however confident that will want a front engined vehicle, but that doesnt necessarily mean the donor vehicle has to be front engined, Imagine it might to be hard to engineer a change though and keep the shape of the car

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chavez

We had parity - it was called Group C and Group A.

It worked more times than not.

I don't think I agree with that. Group A was typically dominated by whichever manufacturer had gone the hardest on the road car base vehicle - turning other makes into cannon fodder each time the latest mouse trap came out.

Group C might have worked better now with professional technical management but at the time was a continual massaging of spec, allowances on various components and vehicles etc and a constant source of headlines where teams complained / lobbied. Different era though so hard to really compare apples with apples. Personally I really liked Group C but parity - no.

Originally Posted by one five five

Reads like Bernie's PROCAR formula has finally been adopted nearly 30 years after it was proposed...

Nah, no single seater chassis with composite lift off bodies here, no F1 engines either.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I don't think I agree with that. Group A was typically dominated by whichever manufacturer had gone the hardest on the road car base vehicle - turning other makes into cannon fodder each time the latest mouse trap came out.

Group C might have worked better now with professional technical management but at the time was a continual massaging of spec, allowances on various components and vehicles etc and a constant source of headlines where teams complained / lobbied. Different era though so hard to really compare apples with apples. Personally I really liked Group C but parity - no.

Group C was a political nightmare, fighting every year with the eligibility committee to update the cars with new aero, new engine bits, new wheels & tyre widths... plus not allowing some cars like the Rx7 for a loooong time...

Admittedly there were very few pro teams back in that era, but most squads only ever had one of everything, so if it broke or crashed, then most had to borrow stuff or go home.

[Reload]

Single supplier earmarked for Gen2 Holden V6 turbos

11 July 2015 - V8 Supercars NewsHolden Motorsport boss Simon McNamara has revealed plans to consolidate the company's V8 Supercars engine program to a single supplier as it prepares for a new era with V6 turbo power Read More

[Umai Naa]

Only way forward, with regards to parity and cost management.

[birtek]

Originally Posted by Reload

Holden Motorsport boss Simon McNamara has revealed plans to consolidate the company's V8 Supercars engine program to a single supplier as it prepares for a new era with V6 turbo power

I hope he's asked Roland

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Reload

Single supplier earmarked for Gen2 Holden V6 turbos

11 July 2015 - V8 Supercars NewsHolden Motorsport boss Simon McNamara has revealed plans to consolidate the company's V8 Supercars engine program to a single supplier as it prepares for a new era with V6 turbo power Read More

Maybe Mr McNamara reads 10/10ths too.

[Ospi]

Guess it won't be innov8 eventhough their walkinshaw engines are the top of the Holden pile

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Personally I really liked Group C but parity - no.

During from 1981 to 1984 when turbocharged 4 cylinder cars raced against V8's, straight 6's and rotaries, at no stage was there a runaway dominant marque.

The make-up of the top ten of the starting grid of the '84 James Hardie 1000 was a fantastic show of how a parity formula could work.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by peckstar

unable to see that rule in todays guidelines, however confident that will want a front engined vehicle, but that doesnt necessarily mean the donor vehicle has to be front engined, Imagine it might to be hard to engineer a change though and keep the shape of the car

Honda tested it once.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chavez

During from 1981 to 1984 when turbocharged 4 cylinder cars raced against V8's, straight 6's and rotaries, at no stage was there a runaway dominant marque.

The make-up of the top ten of the starting grid of the '84 James Hardie 1000 was a fantastic show of how a parity formula could work.

I referred to Group A with the dominant Marque comment - it's right there, clear as you like in the post.

Group C had a wide variety and I really liked it, but it was a constant mess of adjustments and arguments about who go what. Like I said, different era and the same or similar rules now with a more professional management approach could be good - parity at the time (as we know it today in any case) no but there was definitely variety and some teams would shine at track a, others at track b and so on.

[chavez]

I agree that Group A went the way of having a dominant marque (sorry, I got that mixed up a little).

But when CAMS serious about parity in 1992, 6 cylinder turbo, V8, 4 cylinder normally aspirated and 4 cylinder turbo all took race victories during the season.

During the Group A years '85, '88, '89 & '91 were dominated by on marque. '86, '87, '90 & '92 weren't.

[mikuni]

Ok, so since this is going a little off topic anyway, can I ask a question that is somewhat on topic?

Some have expressed concern that manufacturers won't want to race, for instance, a Nissan GT-R against a Holden Commodore for various reasons, but mostly because it will reflect poorly on a sports car being beaten by a family sedan.

I am a little young to actually remember how it was handled in the last era when Nissan and Ford (with the Sierra RS500) took on the family sedans, but I've never really thought of it the way that people are concerned about now days. Even back then a Holden racing car was so far removed from what you would see on the road, it was still racing car vs. racing car, or am I missing something?

[bluesport]

Will different capacity V6 engines be allowed? What if holden go for 3.5 litre and nissan want to use the 3.8 litre out of the R35?

[GTRMagic]

Or what if we find a chassis to put that jewel of an engine out of the Ferrari 488 GTB into? 3.9l twin turbo V8 coming with 492kW/760Nm from the factory.

Imagine that engine in a (V8)Supercar screaming its head off everywhere....

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Or what if we find a chassis to put that jewel of an engine out of the Ferrari 488 GTB into? 3.9l twin turbo V8 coming with 492kW/760Nm from the factory.

Imagine that engine in a (V8)Supercar screaming its head off everywhere....

Chrysler 300 would be a good home for it.

[Reload]

Mazda Australia says the new-for-2017 Gen2 rules won’t be enough to persuade the manufacturer into funding a V8 Supercars programme.

With the Gen2 regulations set to allow greater diversity in terms of body shapes and engine configurations, V8 Supercars bosses have been meeting with all of the manufacturers and importers in Australia to help shape the new rules.
However, Mazda Australia says that despite having met with V8 officials, a factory presence in the top-tier of Australian touring car racing is unlikely.
"They will let us do our own bodies and engines but... all of the dimensions and weights are still geared on the V8 base engine and not on a turbo four or something else, so making those other things work would require a lot of adaptation,” Mazda Australia boss Martin Benders told motoring.com.au.
"I just don't think it works for us.
"I wasn't 100 per cent convinced," he added. "It was sort of like we [Supercars] want to change but we haven't quite changed yet.
"I may have that wrong but my guess is that it still needs to change a bit more before we could even entertain it. It is still set up to be a V8 racing series.
"I think they realise that change has got to happen, but they think they won't be able to change it too fast because they realise they have to take their supporter base with them and I get that.
"It just means we are probably not ready for it."

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Reload

Mazda Australia says the new-for-2017 Gen2 rules won’t be enough to persuade the manufacturer into funding a V8 Supercars programme.

With the Gen2 regulations set to allow greater diversity in terms of body shapes and engine configurations, V8 Supercars bosses have been meeting with all of the manufacturers and importers in Australia to help shape the new rules.
However, Mazda Australia says that despite having met with V8 officials, a factory presence in the top-tier of Australian touring car racing is unlikely.
"They will let us do our own bodies and engines but... all of the dimensions and weights are still geared on the V8 base engine and not on a turbo four or something else, so making those other things work would require a lot of adaptation,” Mazda Australia boss Martin Benders told motoring.com.au.
"I just don't think it works for us.
"I wasn't 100 per cent convinced," he added. "It was sort of like we [Supercars] want to change but we haven't quite changed yet.
"I may have that wrong but my guess is that it still needs to change a bit more before we could even entertain it. It is still set up to be a V8 racing series.
"I think they realise that change has got to happen, but they think they won't be able to change it too fast because they realise they have to take their supporter base with them and I get that.
"It just means we are probably not ready for it."

It just sounds like Mazda doesnt quite get it...

[MS Fan]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

It just sounds like Mazda doesnt quite get it...

Or perhaps they do and it doesn't work.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by MS Fan

Or perhaps they do and it doesn't work.

If you take a comparison to the support Mazda offers Speedsource in the ALMS competition, they drop a Mazda engine into a bespoke P2 series chassis, and go racing with the Mazda emblem all over it.

V8SC is offering a similar platform, to put their sedan silhouette over a control chassis, to offer their engine to the program.

No need for homologation or hot rod road car specials. Its the same chassis as everyone else has under the skin.

Make the engine work, develop the right aero package to be competitive with the field, and the brand has a chance of winning.

In this instance, there will arguably be far more Mazda DNA in a V8SC Gen2 chassis and race car than supplying just an engine & some stickers in ALMS...

[one five five]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

If you take a comparison to the support Mazda offers Speedsource in the ALMS competition, they drop a Mazda engine into a bespoke P2 series chassis, and go racing with the Mazda emblem all over it.

V8SC is offering a similar platform, to put their sedan silhouette over a control chassis, to offer their engine to the program.

No need for homologation or hot rod road car specials. Its the same chassis as everyone else has under the skin.

Make the engine work, develop the right aero package to be competitive with the field, and the brand has a chance of winning.

In this instance, there will arguably be far more Mazda DNA in a V8SC Gen2 chassis and race car than supplying just an engine & some stickers in ALMS...

Maybe Mazda in the US and Mazda in Australia have different marketing objectives? Maybe the fact that TUSC is a Sportscar Championship and V8Supercars puts itself across as 'touring cars' plays a part in a decision making as well?

Just because a manufacturer has the gall to not be interested in a V8Supercar program does not mean they don't "quite get it"