V8 Supercars say "no" to US-built Chassis??

[Go Harder.]

Why is the same rule not applied to engines?

[Umai Naa]

Agreed. The manufacturers should have nominated ONE engine supplier each.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Agreed. The manufacturers should have nominated ONE engine supplier each.

I agree completely with that.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Agreed. The manufacturers should have nominated ONE engine supplier each.

For what reason?

What next, control bodies from the one supplier with different stickers to represent different cars headlights and grilles??

[Umai Naa]

Because engine parity is already a known issue.

When you've got two mobs building their own versions of the Ford motor, three for Holden, it just compounds the problem.

The control chassis design does keep the costs down in the long run, as it shifts the R&D away from churning through chassis after chassis, to get a design that works for the team, onto hanging components that could bolt onto all of the chassis. This basically means that unless you've severely bent the thing, or have an interested party looking to buy an existing one, there's no need to keep producing them.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

When you've got two mobs building their own versions of the Ford motor, three for Holden, it just compounds the problem.

Is that not just motor racing?

Inter-marque battles over the years of Australian touring car racing has always been a fierce point of interest, why do we want to stifle that? The likes of the Triple 8 vs HRT intra-Holden battle is as great theatre for the sport as T8 vs PRA

Control bodies for every car irrespective of make will solve the aero parity issue. But If parity is all that matters, then V8SC should be a one-make, one engine, fully spec series.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Because engine parity is already a known issue.

Where does it end though? Should we have them all run Mitsubishi mirages in the name of parity?

[Umai Naa]

Even those weren't entirely identical

[dirtymacca]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Agreed. The manufacturers should have nominated ONE engine supplier each.

There is only 1 manufacturer PACE

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Where does it end though? Should we have them all run Mitsubishi mirages in the name of parity?

Don't make slippery slope arguments. One homologated engine supplier for each make would lower costs significantly and not reduce the quality of the racing.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Tja

I was quite bored tonight so I looked through both the sporting and technical regulations of the DTM and I couldn't find anything saying that the car had to be build in Germany.

That's because it's not a technical regulation. It's a compromise between the ITR and the GTA -the operators of DTM and Super GT, respectively- regarding the unfication of regulations between DTM and GT500.

A big sticking point was where to make build the safety cell that the two classes would run - ITR wanted it in Germany, GTA wanted it in Japan. Both for understandable reasons.

They agreed to do both - build chassis for DTM in Germany and for SGT in Japan. There's no official regulation that one can't be used in the other as they're both the same exact chassis, however.

[Ospi]

Engine parity hasn't been an issue for same marque engines though. Allowing for more independent builders is only good for the sport imo because you keep more people in business, you don't have a monopoly where they can charge what they wish and you have some variety.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

One homologated engine supplier for each make would lower costs significantly and not reduce the quality of the racing.

A single make spec series would lower costs and not reduce the quality of the racing also.

You can't have it both ways

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

A single make spec series would lower costs and not reduce the quality of the racing also.

You can't have it both ways

Slippery slope argument. Logic doesn't hold up. Ignored.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Slippery slope argument. Logic doesn't hold up. Ignored.

What makes it a slippery slope argument?

And why is this any different to wanting control engines per make?

Your logic in wanting complete engine parity but seemingly not complete car parity is logic that doesn't stand up.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

What makes it a slippery slope argument?

And why is this any different to wanting control engines per make?

Your logic in wanting complete engine parity but seemingly not complete car parity is logic that doesn't stand up.

It is a slippery slope because you take one step which has at least merit enough to discuss, and equate it with something which is ridiculous in the context of the discussion. Deliberately, I might add.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

It is a slippery slope because you take one step which has at least merit enough to discuss, and equate it with something which is ridiculous in the context of the discussion. Deliberately, I might add.

There is absolutely no merit in forcing teams choosing to run a make of car to buy engines from the one supplier.

How is making teams all run cars built by one supplier ANY DIFFERENT to making all teams to use engines of their manufacturer choice from the one supplier??

We already have an extreme amount of control components in the series, if you want to add even more parts, why aren't we going the whole way to getting it done and doing it properly, rather than making parity changes up as we go along since 1993??

[Umai Naa]

The chassis aren't all from the same constructor.

Pace, Kelly Racing, and Triple Eight can knock them up from scratch, purchasing the correct grade and dimension of material from a supplier of their choosing. BJR can as well, from memory.

The fact that other teams prefer to buy them in as a flat-pack, partially complete, or mostly complete, or as a going concern, is simply down to economic factors within the team.

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The chassis aren't all from the same constructor.

Pace, Kelly Racing, and Triple Eight can knock them up from scratch, purchasing the correct grade and dimension of material from a supplier of their choosing. BJR can as well, from memory.

The fact that other teams prefer to buy them in as a flat-pack, partially complete, or mostly complete, or as a going concern, is simply down to economic factors within the team.

Yeah BJR buy the flat pack from PACE, put it on a chassis jig and weld it all together in Albury.

I remember reading in the initial article Supercars said they had been approached by other manufacturers asking to build chassis's overseas like Penske. Anyone know any more information regarding this?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The chassis aren't all from the same constructor.

Pace, Kelly Racing, and Triple Eight can knock them up from scratch, purchasing the correct grade and dimension of material from a supplier of their choosing. BJR can as well, from memory.

The fact that other teams prefer to buy them in as a flat-pack, partially complete, or mostly complete, or as a going concern, is simply down to economic factors within the team.

Thats the point I am trying to make

If you guys want all the manufacturer engines coming from the 1 source for parity & cost reasons, shouldn't all the chassis per manufacturer be knocked together from the one source? Preferably the one chassis/body combination and the one engine for the entire series would be the best scenario to achieve this?

[bluesport]

Would it be in breach of any free trade agreements to stop this?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Would it be in breach of any free trade agreements to stop this?

No, but it could potentially be viewed as restraint of trade, but it is highly unlikely to be ruled as such due to the structure of the organisation.