Modern Group A

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I googled it because i am way too young.

Not something we had in australia, at least i dont think so, as i said, way too young

LOL. I'm a bit too young as well, although I've seen a few of them on the circuits in historic racing and suchlike and some film, too. 'Monsters' doesn't describe them sufficiently.

[formerf1champ]

I think the next evolution in motorsport, will be the development of a spec-GroupA formula. Rules that are controlled (unlike gpA), but allow for a wider range of cars to compete in (like grpA). They'd have to roughly take the same time to do 100/200 kms (as opposed to 3.5 or 1000kms) to make it fair and to show the relative strength of each car/class. It will take a little time to develop the fairness, but it's better than cotf.

[peckstar]

just watching v8 supercars latest instalment of 50 Awesome Bathurst Moments .

its 1984 the end of Group C. crowd was huge on pit straight, although there was less spectator viewing spots back then. (and no big screens)

But it made me wonder, as im too young to truly remember.

Why did we get rid of Group C, it seemed to have what the people wanted and with hindsight i would say group A was a backwards step.

have clear memories of holden fans mocking the ford fans at school regarding this

[Marcos WTF]

Originally Posted by peckstar

all these cars racing that people couldnt identify with didnt help either.

I agree- didn't get to a point where CH 7 were floating a "rebel series'
due to falling ratings?

[racer69]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Not something we had in australia, at least i dont think so, as i said, way too young

We sort of did have Group 5 in Australia. They competed in Sports Sedan racing

The likes of Alan Jones Porsche 935 or the JPS BMW 320 Turbo's were homologated Group 5 cars, and raced in the Sports Sedan/GT Championship

Originally Posted by peckstar

Why did we get rid of Group C, it seemed to have what the people wanted and with hindsight i would say group A was a backwards step.

Because by 1983/84 the Group C rules had become a basket case, largely due to CAMS changing the rules every ten seconds to try and even the competition up.

For instance Mazda would get a concession (say the 13B), which would lead to Holden saying we need this to catch up, and Ford teams saying we need that, so they'd be granted, only for Mazda to say we need another thing to keep up now, while Nissan would say we need another turbo to keep up with that lot & have it granted....while BMW always got knocked back when asking for something. Group C had little future beyond 1984 anyway, only Nissan & Holden would have likely stuck round beyond then.

Group A was seen as a way to take all the arguing out of the teams hands (and off CAMS back) and leave it with the manufacturers and Paris

rules wise, there was little infighting until 1991/92 when CAMS were looking after it all again.

The best Group A years were the early days, 1986 and 1987, before the homologation specials started to rule.... 1990 rates a worthy mention though too.

[Marcos WTF]

Originally Posted by peckstar

just watching v8 supercars latest instalment of 50 Awesome Bathurst Moments .

its 1984 the end of Group C. crowd was huge on pit straight, although there was less spectator viewing spots back then. (and no big screens)

But it made me wonder, as im too young to truly remember.

Why did we get rid of Group C, it seemed to have what the people wanted and with hindsight i would say group A was a backwards step.

have clear memories of holden fans mocking the ford fans at school regarding this

Struth, I find my self agreeing again. I'd like to see a revived Group C series along these lines.
The car must be RHD & sold in Australia through the makers regular dealer
network. Must sell say, 1000 of that shape here.

1) Engines. Must be from the same Maker as the car, Valves are are free, long as the method of actuation & number remains the same.
Cams are free,but must be the same number of them as production. Pistons free, except limited to say, a 10:1 comp ratio. Induction system must the same principle as road going. Maybe a rev limit?

2) Gear boxes. Free, but must have the same number of ratios as the road going version.

3) Suspension. Must retain the original suspension pickup points. And like
for like, ie no replacing a strut front end with a double wishbone setup.
Springs & shocks are free.

4) Brakes. Must be original type, ie no discs for drums. Calipers free, but must retain the same number & pistons as the road going version.
Master cyls free. Not sure how we'd handle ABS.

5) Rear axle. Free, subject to being the same type- ie no IRS instead of
a live axle. Ratios are free.

6) Roll cage/seats/ harness, to current standards.

7) Minimum weights for each model.

8) Fuel cells, can be relocated, but must retain production car capicity plus say 30%?

9) Interior. Must retain all interior trims except carpets, console. & passenger seats & belts.

10) Aircon, stereo air bags to be removed.

11) Steering. Free as long as original manner is retained. No rack 'n' pinion
replacing recirculating ball for example. Not that's there's many cars left
with recirculating ball anyway.
12) Body. Guards my be flared/bulged,subject to limits. Aero package-
I propose a system which would give a a particlar surface area for the wing & endplates. How you'd use them is up to you. Maybe trade endplate
area for wing area?
Looking down on the body in plan view, the aero package would only be able to extend a limited distance past the original dimensions. Height restrictions on the rear wing.

13) Cooling system, free as long as radiator stays in the same postion- plus or minus a little.

13) Forced induction. Dunno how I'd handle that- some kind of fomula to reduce capicity on them? Or RPM limits? Number of turbos to remain the same. Max boost retrictions.

Thats all I can think off now. Time to don the helmet & get behind the
parapet.

[Oldtony]

Looks good except for item 9.
Leaving interior trim in place is dangerous as is the idea of using original seating in a race car.
A few of the other details could be debated but overall a good idea.
And I wonder about the modern crowd claims.
Bathurst always gave the impression of attracting bigger crowds in those days than it does today.

[Marcos WTF]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Looks good except for item 9.
Leaving interior trim in place is dangerous as is the idea of using original seating in a race car.
A few of the other details could be debated but overall a good idea.
And I wonder about the modern crowd claims.
Bathurst always gave the impression of attracting bigger crowds in those days than it does today.

Sorry, should have made it clearer, I didn't mean to use the original drivers
seat. Seats would be free.

[Redzone]

You could do away with the compression ratio limit & boost pressure limit by specifying 98 octane road fuel with no additives!

I think the above plus banning awd would be the only two changes from group a rules that would be needed to keep the dinosaurs in with a chance!

[db120176]

Originally Posted by racer69

rules wise, there was little infighting until 1991/92 when CAMS were looking after it all again.

Didn't Australia keep Group A for a season or two longer than the rest of the world? Or at least Britain and Germany

[Umai Naa]

The UK bailed on it and went to what eventually became Super Tourers, in 1991.

They were calling it DTM in Germany, but I believe it was '89 when that happened, and the cars started getting pretty radical.

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The UK bailed on it and went to what eventually became Super Tourers, in 1991.

They were calling it DTM in Germany, but I believe it was '89 when that happened, and the cars started getting pretty radical.

DTM (Deutche Tourenwagon Meistershaft, or German Touring Car Championship) were still running effectively Group A rules until the end of 1992, however they had banned turbo's after 1989.

Right from the start of the series in 1984 though, DTM had always preferred a one class style system of Group A, and had used parity measures to even up the competition. The Sierra RS500's were so restricted to the point that Ford Germany lost interest.

The 2.5ltr BMW M3 that Tony Longhurst used in 1991 and 1992 down here, was only homologated in 1990, primarily for use in the DTM.

Didn't Japan hold on to Group A until the end of 1993?

[Umai Naa]

Yeah, but even Japan had their own spin on the rules.

[db120176]

Originally Posted by Marcos WTF

Struth, I find my self agreeing again. I'd like to see a revived Group C series along these lines.
The car must be RHD & sold in Australia through the makers regular dealer
network. Must sell say, 1000 of that shape here.

1) Engines. Must be from the same Maker as the car, Valves are are free, long as the method of actuation & number remains the same.
Cams are free,but must be the same number of them as production. Pistons free, except limited to say, a 10:1 comp ratio. Induction system must the same principle as road going. Maybe a rev limit?

2) Gear boxes. Free, but must have the same number of ratios as the road going version.

3) Suspension. Must retain the original suspension pickup points. And like
for like, ie no replacing a strut front end with a double wishbone setup.
Springs & shocks are free.

4) Brakes. Must be original type, ie no discs for drums. Calipers free, but must retain the same number & pistons as the road going version.
Master cyls free. Not sure how we'd handle ABS.

5) Rear axle. Free, subject to being the same type- ie no IRS instead of
a live axle. Ratios are free.

6) Roll cage/seats/ harness, to current standards.

7) Minimum weights for each model.

8) Fuel cells, can be relocated, but must retain production car capicity plus say 30%?

9) Interior. Must retain all interior trims except carpets, console. & passenger seats & belts.

10) Aircon, stereo air bags to be removed.

11) Steering. Free as long as original manner is retained. No rack 'n' pinion
replacing recirculating ball for example. Not that's there's many cars left
with recirculating ball anyway.
12) Body. Guards my be flared/bulged,subject to limits. Aero package-
I propose a system which would give a a particlar surface area for the wing & endplates. How you'd use them is up to you. Maybe trade endplate
area for wing area?
Looking down on the body in plan view, the aero package would only be able to extend a limited distance past the original dimensions. Height restrictions on the rear wing.

13) Cooling system, free as long as radiator stays in the same postion- plus or minus a little.

13) Forced induction. Dunno how I'd handle that- some kind of fomula to reduce capicity on them? Or RPM limits? Number of turbos to remain the same. Max boost retrictions.

Thats all I can think off now. Time to don the helmet & get behind the
parapet.

Will the tyre width still be based on the engine power?

[one five five]

I see it mentioned earlier that it was a mistake to get rid of Group C for Group A? Why so?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by one five five

I see it mentioned earlier that it was a mistake to get rid of Group C for Group A? Why so?

I asked it it was a mistake, didnt say it was though.

Why did we get rid of Group C, it seemed to have what the people wanted and with hindsight i would say group A was a backwards step.

the reasoning was that the crowds and interest in the series shrunk by the end

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I asked it it was a mistake, didnt say it was though.



the reasoning was that the crowds and interest in the series shrunk by the end

So by this reasoning are we nearing the end of V8 Supertaxis?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by David Towe

So by this reasoning are we nearing the end of V8 Supertaxis?

yes 3 months away, its a given.

but that aside Sandown was up 20% with increased corporate guests

Bathurst will either be a record or no 2 biggest this year. grandstands will be a record

But really unrelated to the topic

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

but that aside Sandown was up 20% with increased corporate guests

You mean compared to last years Sandown 500

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally Posted by racer69

I grew up watching Group A so have a soft spot for it... however there certainly were flaws in the system.

The main ones, in my opinion, were the 'homologation special' rule with the short run of 500 cars, and the turbo equivalency factor was way too low... changing the tyre width rules in '88 didn't help either

It never bothered me watching Sierra's and Skyline's, as mentioned earlier you had to expect that with an international formula, plus although Holden was a little hampered by the regulations, they could still run near the front.... infact if you take out the GTRs, the VN Commodore's were every match for the Sierra's and M3's in 1991.

You'd be pushing it uphill to get a ruleset like that introduced anywhere in the world for a frontline touring car series these days though, everyone has gone too far down the 'spec' path to turn back.

Post of the day. Can't find a thing I don't agree with.

Group A would work today, if it was global and just three changes were made:-
1. No specials, minimum build 5,000, not 500.
2. Boost limit or restrictor to reign in the turbos.
3. Weight penalty for AWD.

In every other way, the Group A rules were excellent.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

You mean compared to last years Sandown 500

No, compared to both the phillip island 500 last year.

but also compareds to the sandown round last year.

As a spectator Sandown has the best facilities of permanent track in the country

[db120176]

What makes and models would you compete? V8 Falcons and Commodores up against euro 4 and 6 cylinders or would it be Mondeos and Cruzes?

[Umai Naa]

If there was class structure, you could run just about anything you like.

Personally, build quantities need to be a lot higher than 5,000. 25,000 more like it.

Car manufacturing plant throughputs are a lot higher now than they were in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Samwhk]

Do you mean say 25,000 Commodores, or 25,000 Commodore 'SV7000' specials for homologation?

[Umai Naa]

25,000 of the exact model they plan to homologate.