Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixer
After 2 races with the possibility of 2 cars already potentially needing a re-shell, albeit at a track notorious for serious accidents, I hardly think its a ridiculous assertion.
Obviously Gregg Hansford died in similar cars to TCR at this track, and it is a fairly well held belief that the crash between Courtney and Premat at PI could have resulted in a fatality if the car had been a production shell with driver in the standard position, rather than the COTF.
So you can't argue with the fact that TCR is less safe, and more expensive to repair serious crashes than a bespoke racing chassis, but they are half the price to buy.
Are TCR cars as fast as super tourers were?
The AA article made it sound as though Mazda was "arranging" for the cars to be shipped down here and was going to own them.
Yeah and Bernie Ecclestone never owned F1.
They were THE Volvo factory racing outfit, and they are the Geely factory racing outfit, in every other way other than paper ownership.
Even the press says it:
It is semantics, but if you look at the colours and talent in that team, it is as much a factory effort as their Supercars, WTCC, STCC etc has been.
|
Motor Racing is dangerous and surely touring cars just are what they are? You have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to keeping the integrity of a touring car series. Proper touring cars are built from production shells, BTCC current regs do this for instance.
Supercars might trade off a touring car heritage, but the cars are purpose built prototypes, what separates them from a Radical??
-----
As for works cars, are there any complaints about Schnitzer's GT3 BMWs that race in factory colours, and have been a works BMW team for decades? Similarly the Msport Bentley's, or the Joest GT3 Audi's of the past.
GT3 has the same works Entry principles as TCR, why don't those GT3 entries raise any ire but the Cyan entries do?