Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Australasian Touring Cars.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1 Aug 2017, 14:18 (Ref:3756721)   #16
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 814
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr View Post
I think before new recs/cars are brought in, a minimum standard has to be set. TheLDM cars are a joke, prehistoric second hand buckets of bolts.
What nonsense. The LDM vehicle with a seasoned driver placed only 0.1 sec from the 3rd slowest car in qualifying (Mr Moffat in the fancied brand new and shiny Wilson Security GRM Commodore) and only 1.1 seconds from pole position. A tiny gap to the rest.

Clearly the engine and car preparation is more than acceptable, and well within 105%. It does not suggest a vehicle from "Planet Mork", running some 100hp down on the competition with clapped out shock absorbers... nothing of the sort. It suggests a well prepared vehicle with comparable power to the competition, competent vehicle setup and properly valved shock absorbers prepared with care.
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 08:56 (Ref:3756867)   #17
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by peckstar View Post
Erebus. ahead of walkinshaw and the factory nissans. driver in the top ten
Yes too many people knock them and say, SBR-Erebus is old, KR-Nissan Motorsport is old, HRT and Walkinshaw are the only ones really the same, the other two were essentially brand new teams as of 2013
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 09:03 (Ref:3756868)   #18
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixer View Post
If you call spending at least $40 million viable?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
That's the issue, too many do gooders saying $40 million is a waste if its racing. Yes $40 million is viable, here's why I think so

1. They are enjoying it as a sport, no different to anyone paying $100 entry fees for Cricket, Football, Soccer.

2. Team sponsors get their name out there in which they wouldn't if it weren't for V8s some wouldn't be around now.

3. Motorsport, regardless of what anyone says, is why we have the car safety we have now, without it we would still be in a car equal to T models, people say but we would have advanced, No we wouldn't have to where we are now. In a sport things are developed well and quickly.

A waste of money in my opinion is (without trying to be too political) giving those on a boat more then the diggers get for protecting our country. Another waste is CEO's and mayors of town councils on almost $500,000 pay a year. Old politicians no longer working earning more then the current prime minister. Not attacking you personally but it annoys me when I see the view of racing is a waste of money
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 09:09 (Ref:3756869)   #19
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umai Naa View Post
Last proper start-up was LDM.

All the others since, were either buy-ins/outs, mergers, RECs serviced by other teams, or doing that prior to going solo (Tekno, CSR).

Relegation/promotion system wouldn't really work. You'd have team after team dropping out each year, with no one else having the wherewithal to step up. Which is why there are a few RECs still sitting in Mr Warburton's bottom drawer.
I disagree, I'd say Erebus, Nissan Motorsport, CSR, GRM were all essentially 'new' to a degree to the point that they had to completely change their cars, from that point of view nothing was the same between a Volvo/ Nissan to a Commodore in terms of componentry same for Ford and Mercedes, so for Volvo and Nissan to come in and do as well as they have given they were 20 odd years off the pace I'd say they made a good choice and the teams were 'new' to a degree, just because they had the same personnel doesn't mean its old. Where did LDM get their crew, other teams so on the logic of LDM were the first new team is wrong as they had crew from other teams.
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 09:18 (Ref:3756873)   #20
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks View Post
What nonsense. The LDM vehicle with a seasoned driver placed only 0.1 sec from the 3rd slowest car in qualifying (Mr Moffat in the fancied brand new and shiny Wilson Security GRM Commodore) and only 1.1 seconds from pole position. A tiny gap to the rest.

Clearly the engine and car preparation is more than acceptable, and well within 105%. It does not suggest a vehicle from "Planet Mork", running some 100hp down on the competition with clapped out shock absorbers... nothing of the sort. It suggests a well prepared vehicle with comparable power to the competition, competent vehicle setup and properly valved shock absorbers prepared with care.
Well based on some comments I have seen here before, how old a chassis is doesn't matter, it does to a degree, but comments here are knocking LDM for having a go. Reality is the haters haven't got a thing against LDM, they aren't dangerous on track, which is the golden rule and they are adding money to V8s, it isn't as bad as we may all say it is if they can skin a car and then get it out after a crash. To a degree, chassis mileage can work against the car as it will get 'stiffer' but the main part of it is
1. Driver talent
2. A good engineer
3. R&D on the car
4. Sponsorship (which for LDM has picked up a massive amount for LDM #62 this year)

I have seen the comments too here having a go at others earlier in the year and LDM turmoil saying where was Triple 8 in 2003, well they just need to remember that. If the team isn't dangerous then it has a right to be there. The only team that didn't warrant being on the grid that I can think of was TKR and that was due to a dangerous car as their drivers said. No one from LDM has said its dangerous, just slow and they don't want to be slow. But I do agree with your comment in regards to their good day pace
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 09:52 (Ref:3756877)   #21
Umai Naa
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,887
Umai Naa should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridUmai Naa should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Utter nonsense.

LDM had absolutely nothing, besides a several million dollar payout from CAMS. He bought a REC from Tasman, a car from Walkinshaw, rented a factory and set it all up from scratch from the get-go. No mergers, or buy-outs.

Erebus, despite what Betty keeps saying year-in, year-out was never technically a new team. Simply a buy-out. That the entire existing workforce and sponsor base left over the course of the following two years, is entirely irrelevent.

GRM has been around for 50+ years. You'd be drawing the world's longest bow to even suggest that they were a new team once they started churning out Volvos using virtually the same personnel that churned out the previous batch of Commodores.

CSR had that REC parked elsewhere and serviced by three different teams before taking it, the core sponsor group, and his driver to do his own thing. Hardly a new team.

Kellys/Nismo were a buy-out of Perkins Motorsport, and subsequent merger of what was left of the two former HSVDT RECs they owned. Not a clean slate concept either.

There's your history lesson, sunshine.
Umai Naa is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 10:09 (Ref:3756880)   #22
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umai Naa View Post
Utter nonsense.

LDM had absolutely nothing, besides a several million dollar payout from CAMS. He bought a REC from Tasman, a car from Walkinshaw, rented a factory and set it all up from scratch from the get-go. No mergers, or buy-outs.

Erebus, despite what Betty keeps saying year-in, year-out was never technically a new team. Simply a buy-out. That the entire existing workforce and sponsor base left over the course of the following two years, is entirely irrelevent.

GRM has been around for 50+ years. You'd be drawing the world's longest bow to even suggest that they were a new team once they started churning out Volvos using virtually the same personnel that churned out the previous batch of Commodores.

CSR had that REC parked elsewhere and serviced by three different teams before taking it, the core sponsor group, and his driver to do his own thing. Hardly a new team.

Kellys/Nismo were a buy-out of Perkins Motorsport, and subsequent merger of what was left of the two former HSVDT RECs they owned. Not a clean slate concept either.

There's your history lesson, sunshine.
For someone who has just done a massive history lesson, it was a waste of time as you don't get what I am saying. How did LDM hire people, certainly not spuds off the street. GRM may have 50 years of experience but 50 years doesn't guarantee getting a dirty old Volvo to the front, Read what I have said in my opinion and I can have at a guess that a number of people in the industry would say something similar. How I phrased 'new' wasn't in LDM 'new' but it was new to the point that it was an unknown challenge, in which anyone watching would say a 'new' challenge
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 10:22 (Ref:3756884)   #23
Umai Naa
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,887
Umai Naa should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridUmai Naa should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Clutching at straws.
Umai Naa is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 10:39 (Ref:3756888)   #24
one five five
Veteran
 
one five five's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,252
one five five should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by mceci1 View Post
3. Motorsport, regardless of what anyone says, is why we have the car safety we have now, without it we would still be in a car equal to T models, people say but we would have advanced, No we wouldn't have to where we are now. In a sport things are developed well and quickly.
And yet most Supercar supporters speak with pride when they say that Supercars and modern motor racing has little in common with road cars because they are boring to watch


Quote:
Originally Posted by mceci1 View Post
I disagree, I'd say Erebus, Nissan Motorsport, CSR, GRM were all essentially 'new' to a degree to the point that they had to completely change their cars, from that point of view nothing was the same between a Volvo/ Nissan to a Commodore in terms of componentry same for Ford and Mercedes, so for Volvo and Nissan to come in and do as well as they have given they were 20 odd years off the pace I'd say they made a good choice and the teams were 'new' to a degree, just because they had the same personnel doesn't mean its old. Where did LDM get their crew, other teams so on the logic of LDM were the first new team is wrong as they had crew from other teams.
On that logic nearly every team on the grid was new in 1985 and 1993....

The same team changing cars does not make them a new team
one five five is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 10:58 (Ref:3756894)   #25
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
"And yet most Supercar supporters speak with pride when they say that Supercars and modern motor racing has little in common with road cars because they are boring to watch."

Motorsport in all forms has every bit to do with modern safety. Anyone who says motorsport didn't help is a na´ve braindead because it has helped in many ways
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 11:00 (Ref:3756895)   #26
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
On that logic nearly every team on the grid was new in 1985 and 1993....

The same team changing cars does not make them a new team[/QUOTE]

The prehistoric era is different to know, with cars that are that much more complex. A new car is the face of a team and shows how hard they are to get on top of. IF you lot would read my original comment, I said that regarding the new era of CoTF it is a 'new' team essentially. Stop being blind and look into what I said instead of just surface skimming
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 11:15 (Ref:3756903)   #27
peckstar
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2004
Cayman Islands
Posts: 14,942
peckstar has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umai Naa View Post
Utter nonsense.

LDM had absolutely nothing, besides a several million dollar payout from CAMS. He bought a REC from Tasman, a car from Walkinshaw, rented a factory and set it all up from scratch from the get-go. No mergers, or buy-outs.

Erebus, despite what Betty keeps saying year-in, year-out was never technically a new team. Simply a buy-out. That the entire existing workforce and sponsor base left over the course of the following two years, is entirely irrelevent.

.
Erebus brought a REC from sBR and leased the other, then they built an entirely new car/brand including motor. they didnt turn up the next day and just keep doing the same thing.

they put new people in charge to run things and the people who were there had to learn a totally new product to go racing

hardly justa buy out.

By your definition even LDM is not a new tean, because they bought a rec and a car
peckstar is offline  
__________________
Scott and Chaz 1-2 in 2017

well that's my hope
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 11:38 (Ref:3756909)   #28
mceci1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Australia
Posts: 575
mceci1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by peckstar View Post
Erebus brought a REC from sBR and leased the other, then they built an entirely new car/brand including motor. they didnt turn up the next day and just keep doing the same thing.

they put new people in charge to run things and the people who were there had to learn a totally new product to go racing

hardly justa buy out.

By your definition even LDM is not a new tean, because they bought a rec and a car
Finally someone who can see what I was trying to tell them. Buying a team with cars already but building a new car and new manufacturer is a challenge
mceci1 is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 23:19 (Ref:3757082)   #29
T-star
Racer
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 386
T-star should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
If you two are agreeing then that's 2 against the entire forum.
T-star is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Aug 2017, 23:33 (Ref:3757083)   #30
peckstar
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2004
Cayman Islands
Posts: 14,942
peckstar has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-star View Post
If you two are agreeing then that's 2 against the entire forum.
Relevance?

and its 2 vs 1 anyway
peckstar is offline  
__________________
Scott and Chaz 1-2 in 2017

well that's my hope
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 18:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2016 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.