Was it right to ban the factory Nissan, BMW, Toyota (Audi, Volvo) teams from ATCC?

[V8 Fireworks]

This poster thinks so, praising the rulemakers for their bold decision making that saw undesirable (?) 2000cc entrants banned from the ATCC by 1995 and from the Bathurst 1000 by 1996:

Originally Posted by jiminee

Sorry, that doesn't fit your story line but the immediate success of the category and the fact it has been running for nearly 30 years now suggests they made the right choice.

But I am not convinced. If you could have wide-ranging manufacturer support, why would you avoid it?! Why not adopt the popular 2000cc regulations from Britain that allow for a wide range of manufacturers?

Or develop regulations, which at the very least, allow for existing BMW, Nissan and Toyota factory teams to continue in the Australian Touring Car Championship. E.g., allow a provision for turbos up to 2L with rear wheel drive only? Or allow the BMW 540i to race despite not being made in Australia and not having a pushrod engine, likewise the similar Nissan Cima V8 sedan?

Concerns of "Americana" plauge the category even to the present day, with homologation of Supra, Z and M4 twin-turbo sixes to the rules seeming to be of low priority for the rulemakers compared to homologating the Camaro and Mustang naturally aspirated V8s from auto city Detroit.

Originally Posted by jiminee

And who was going to pay for it?

Despite claims that those manufacturers would no longer provide financial support to touring car racing, BMW continued to provide financial support to the their touring car team in Australia until 1997, Toyota returned with a locally built Camry in place of the old Corollas and Supra, and Audi and Volvo provided support until 1999.

[Tourer]

I was overseas in the early 90s so much of what I know about then is 2nd hand but here is what I understand from the time:

Firstly, Nissan, BMW etc weren't banned - there was a new set of rules drawn up that replaced the old structure, simple as that. Although they didn't have suitable machinery to play in the new structure, they weren't actually banned.

Secondly, there is a long history of factory teams competing in motorsport, not just touring cars, withdrawing on a whim and leaving a big hole, sometimes effectively killing a category - the decision was taken early in the peace that factory owned teams would not be allowed in the category, to hopefully provide better stability (there were a range of measures put in place to provide that stability).

Australia had several years of experience running to regulations developed in Europe - the move to 5.0 litre cars was a conscious move to go back to locally developed rules and avoid the pitfalls of the euro rules in Australian conditions - so the "popular" 2000cc regs (were never all that popular here) would not have been considered with the push for local regulations.

Equivalency regs covering multiple types of engines, drivelines etc are difficult & expensive to genuinely make work across all race meetings (bear in mind that having an advantage for one race meeting - Bathurst - would not be accepted by the other competitors) so the complexity of all that was avoided by going down the route that was chosen.

Put simply, there were enough competitors and commercial backers that wanted a local V8 series, they put their money where their mouths were, took a chance and made it work - and it has been working ever since (although is at a pretty crucial point at the moment).

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Firstly, Nissan, BMW etc weren't banned - there was a new set of rules drawn up that replaced the old structure, simple as that.

Didn't the rules require not only a large sedan with a V8, but that it be made in Australia and have a pushrod engine? Hence rendering the otherwise eligible BMW 540i and Nissan Cima as ineligible? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Didn't the rules require not only a large sedan with a V8, but that it be made in Australia and have a pushrod engine? Hence rendering the otherwise eligible BMW 540i and Nissan Cima as ineligible? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct - there was a new rule set and the vehicles you mention weren't eligible - but they weren't "banned" - in the same way that NA engines weren't "banned" when F1 went to hybrid, Group C cars weren't "banned" when a new rule set came into play etc.

[one five five]

The rules written made it virtually impossible for an importer not selling a V8 model to enter. Coupled with the attitude that the other manufacturers weren’t wanted.

Nissan had backed Aussie touring car racing unbroken since 1981, BMW for a similar period bar 89 and 90. The way they were made to feel unwanted was disgraceful.

The way BMW were kept around for 1993 to just make up the numbers was appalling too, especially as they provided more factory support to the 1993 season than Ford or Holden!

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by one five five

The rules written made it virtually impossible for an importer not selling a V8 model to enter. Coupled with the attitude that the other manufacturers weren’t wanted.

Nissan had backed Aussie touring car racing unbroken since 1981, BMW for a similar period bar 89 and 90. The way they were made to feel unwanted was disgraceful.

The way BMW were kept around for 1993 to just make up the numbers was appalling too, especially as they provided more factory support to the 1993 season than Ford or Holden!

The sport needs the manufacturers.
Currently we have Ford.

[Alan52]

It was conceived at the start as a Ford v Holden V8 category.It was never going to be more than that.
It was what Mike Raymond and 7 were convinced was what the punters wanted and they were proved right almost immediately.
Other manufacturers could run in Super Touring which started in 1994 a year after the first V8 ATTC.
I was convinced a Ford v Holden V8 category would be so monochrome people would get sick of it after a few years.I think I might have been wrong.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Alan52

It was conceived at the start as a Ford v Holden V8 category.It was never going to be more than that.
It was what Mike Raymond and 7 were convinced was what the punters wanted and they were proved right almost immediately.
Other manufacturers could run in Super Touring which started in 1994 a year after the first V8 ATTC.
I was convinced a Ford v Holden V8 category would be so monochrome people would get sick of it after a few years.I think I might have been wrong.

Mike Raymond stated more than a few times in the years after his exit from the sport that he never wanted the series to be ford and Holden only, just that he wanted Falcon V8s and Holden V8s to be contenders

The original rules were conceived that V8 falcons and commodores would be paritied to race against the expected new FIA 2.5ltr touring car regs for 1993. When this didn’t happen CAMS said the V8s would be paritied against the British 2ltr regs for 1993.

Holden and ford moaned and threatened to withdraw, shell and channel 7 got behind them and the group of four threatened CAMS they’d all withdraw their involvement in the ATCC if the V8s were slowed to match the 2L cars, hence for 1993 we got the two-class series with 5ltr and 2ltr cars.

When it became clear that there wouldn’t be enough new 5ltr cars or 2ltr cars on the grid, then CAMS allowed non-turbo Group A cars to run for 1993 to fill the grid allowing the B&H 2.5ltr M3’s to have another season. But then at the last minute Holden & Ford got worried that the 2.5ltr M3’s would be too quick so pressured CAMS to penalise them further to slow them down as they were supposed to just be field fillers. The BMWs were also-rans all season despite fronting with more works cars than ford or Holden….

During 1993 the 2ltr runners complained they weren’t getting enough coverage, so led by BMW who were going to be banned from the 2.5ltr M3’s after 1993, pushed for CAMS to start a standalone 2ltr series for 1994, which is what happened.

2ltr cars were still eligible for the 1994 ATCC as Steve Ellery did two rounds in the Sierra, and the 2ltr cars weren’t written out of the regs until 96-ish. Mike Raymond made comments during 1995 when the 2ltr series competitors were complaining about a poor TV deal with Ch9 that he didn’t understand why they were complaining when the cars were still eligible for the ATCC and Ch7 could accomodate them and even said if seperate races were required they could do it…..

Tony Cochrane even said in 1998 that in his utopian world super tourers and V8Supercars would be competing in the same races as seperate classes.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by one five five

...then CAMS allowed non-turbo Group A cars to run for 1993

Why ban turbocharged vehicles at all?

Why not just ban AWD?

Originally Posted by one five five

The original rules were conceived that V8 falcons and commodores would be paritied to race against the expected new FIA 2.5ltr touring car regs for 1993. When this didn’t happen CAMS said the V8s would be paritied against the British 2ltr regs for 1993.

It would seem logical that adding turbochargers to vehicles up to say 2000cc (so having Nissan revert to the RB20DET engine and rear wheel drive only, and Sierras to continue perhaps with wider tyres and better aero kits -- indeed with all cars permitted to add aero kits similar to the Group 3A Falcon and Commodore) would be the best way to ensure equivalence between turbocharged and non-turbocharged 5000cc engines, no?

While not ideal that the BMW team would therefore need to develop a custom turbocharged 2.0L BMW 318i just for Australia (obviously the new rules should drop a lot of the homologation requirements), it would have still been (presumably) more competitive for outright ATCC victories than the naturally aspirated M3 Evo or naturally aspirated BMW 318i.

Such regulations would have showed the ATCC making their best efforts to ensure Nissan and BMW's ongoing involvement IMO.

Instead, inexplicably, ATCC regulators seem to place little to no emphasis on ensuring continued Nissan and BMW participation as a top priority!

[bathurst77]

Having lived through that time as a huge touring car fan, I can remember the reasoning.

Group A was losing spectator interest and crowds and TV viewers were falling. There was wide spread view that it was carss you cant buy in Australia with little road relevance. Also for a few years it was formula sierra then formula GTR. Holden were given many freedoms and picked up the odd win. And turbo 4 cyl with awd were expensive to run and lacked the sound and spectacle of a rwd v8 in anger.

Ford, obviously had zero interest in promoting or backing sierras and holden were not keen on being midfielders. The ATCC was in trouble, so they devised their own formula for rwd aussie v8s. And it was popular and successful almost instantly. Fans loved seeing big brutish falcons and commy v8s rubbing panels and spitting fire. Before project blue print they were still heavily modified production line falcon and commodore bodies.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Fans loved seeing big brutish falcons and commy v8s rubbing panels and spitting fire.

So was it right then to ban the Nissan and BMW works teams? To not even allow a big brutish flame spitting BMW 540i V8 that would meet the broad requirements, if not the specific requirements (pushrod, live rear axle, made in Australia): requirements seemingly contrived to keep the BMW 5 Series out?



Granted it must said that while the while the VP Commodore was a little ungainly, the crisp lines of the Ford Falcon EB with Group 3A aero kit, especially with the winglet front bumper, was a very sleek and good looking racing sedan!

Originally Posted by bathurst77

The ATCC was in trouble, so they devised their own formula for rwd aussie v8s.

It can't have been in that much trouble if they were happy to turn away multiple works teams!

Note that Audi too had a big, brutish model called simply the "Audi V8"... The perfect basis to lure Audi to join the ATCC (rather than "other" Australian touring car series) under a more accommodating regulator?



If these manufacturers had been better accommodated in the 1990's, then perhaps the likes of BMW and Audi wouldn't be so unwilling to invest in an ATCC program in the 2020's (despite being willing to fund other racing programs in Australia like the Bathurst 12 hour even though that has a lower profile; they seemingly object to the ATCC's market positioning, brand perception, etc despite the ATCC having many major events)?

[mountainstar]

In the context of the time it's what was necessary to happen and as always not everyone was gonna be happy. Group A had been all played out, Australia had just been hammered in a big recession and things were at a low point. I think trying to go with an unequal formula trying to balance all sorts of engines and stuff wasn't on the cards for the time. These days with all the simulation capabilities, data logging and such, it's easier to figure out which is why categories like GT3 and GT4 work well. But back then I don't think it would have been worth the money to try to figure it out and make everyone happy.

In the end, the category had a good 25 year run till the end of the Falcon and Commodore and it still continues to this day with the new Mustang and Camaro. If someone can come up with a better idea going forward, I am all ears.

[GTRMagic]

…while Nissan had just shuttered their Victorian car manufacturing base, with redundancies and brand damage ensuing..

It would be fanciful to suggest that Nissan might continue with an ‘Altima-esque’ car when the rules for V8Supercar made it mandatory for cars raced in that category, to actually be assembled here..

[mountainstar]

I read the AMC article. Yes it is sad that somehow Nissan and BMW got lost in the shuffle there but in the end would they have accepted having to develop a car for a whole different rule set at the time? With Group A they were able to amortize the cost as Group A was raced elsewhere in the world.

Like i mentioned before we have to consider the times. The world was going through a massive financial and technological and political shift. A lot of race series were either going out of business or having to change to suit local conditions and financial realities to stay alive. Keep in mind professional sports car racing at the time just about died for instance.

In the end they made the right choice for the times as history has shown. Obviously with the brutal death and assassination of local car manufacturing "Supercars" has had to adapt and who knows what it will look like 10 years from now.

[bathurst77]

I do think that now there is no more holden or aussie ford the formula has run its course and the gm/ford thing is now history.A

After the Gen 3 cars have repaid their production costs and its time for gen4 they should look to gt 2 and 3 or some thing similar to tcr.

A return to multiclass highly modified road cars. Maybe rules like "based on cars sold in aust at least xxx per year" and classed based on the donor road cars price caps etc.

V8 was the right product for that time and has lasted 30 years, the longest of any atcc class, so it was a successful change at a time when the category was in freefall. In the 90s v8 ford holden made sense. but that story has ended, its time has passed.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I do think that now there is no more holden or aussie ford the formula has run its course and the gm/ford thing is now history.A

After the Gen 3 cars have repaid their production costs and its time for gen4 they should look to gt 2 and 3 or some thing similar to tcr.

A return to multiclass highly modified road cars. Maybe rules like "based on cars sold in aust at least xxx per year" and classed based on the donor road cars price caps etc.

V8 was the right product for that time and has lasted 30 years, the longest of any atcc class, so it was a successful change at a time when the category was in freefall. In the 90s v8 ford holden made sense. but that story has ended, its time has passed.

Hard to say what will happen and how the future will look.

I think one answer is whether manufacturer support is forthcoming for any motorsport. If the car manufacturers are not willing to throw big dollars at it, then really no need to cater to them and "Supercars" can do whatever they want to maximize interest from spectators and sponsors.

[Tourer]

Whoops - typo (thick fingers) that should read "until the end of 1987" I hate it when that happens!