|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
22 Dec 2001, 04:04 (Ref:188620) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,632
|
Big Bangers ?
Just a question that has puzzled me over the last few weeks.
Why do they refer to Group C as the last of the big bangers or similar names ? Cheers Buck. |
||
|
22 Dec 2001, 04:15 (Ref:188623) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,221
|
To whom do you refer?
"They" is probably Mike Raymond, who seemed to lament the passing of Group C and thought it meant a downgrading of the cars... but they still got quicker. There was a conception that Group A rules were more restrictive, but in things like brakes they were less restrictive. In fact, a relaxing of Group C rules in the dying days saw those cars fitted with the Group A brakes. There was a return to more normal bodywork, though... |
||
|
22 Dec 2001, 06:38 (Ref:188638) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,632
|
Was up at Mt Panorama last week and heard the term used during the little 15min doco they show you on the way into the museum.
Have also heard the term ebefore and wondered what was the go. |
||
|
22 Dec 2001, 11:39 (Ref:188677) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,485
|
|||
|
22 Dec 2001, 11:55 (Ref:188684) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 5,549
|
The Group C cars had enormous wheels and body kits. The Group A cars ran standard bodywork and much smaller whels. Hence the cars looked smaller and had less presence. Around Bathurst the Group C cars were also 6 seconds a lap faster than the Group A cars.
Where the Group C cars had a full interior and production based brakes and suspension etc. The Group A cars were gutted inside with purpose built racing gear underneath. The Group A regs though were more restrictive under the bonnet |
||
|
23 Dec 2001, 00:49 (Ref:188931) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,040
|
Group C looking back were a great set of rules, pity i was 1 when it finished. Pity also that homologation bickering led to it's downfall, although group A was a suitable replacement.
Group C and Group A weren't all that different in aims. Both tried to get many different types of car to be competitive, although Group C seemed to slighly favour big capacity normally aspirated cars, while Group A favoured small capacity turbo charged cars. Also Group C was much cheaper. I heard mike Raymond refer to them as 'big bangers' on the last lap of Bathurst 1984. I have read that back in '83/'84 there was a bit of media criticism that the cars didn't look like road cars and so on. |
||
|
23 Dec 2001, 04:10 (Ref:188962) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,221
|
One of the major things affecting the NA vs turbo was the homologation requirement. Group A had the FIA homologation rules, Group C our own, with (I'm sure) a lower qualifying number.
The flare kits were as designed by a local entrant or two, then accepted by CAMS and made mandatory... I think it was Garry Willmington and Murray Carter who had most input into the XD stuff. The wheels weren't much bigger, I don't think. 10" was the maximum width anyway, I'm fairly sure. For sure, Sierras suffered due to this, especially after the Eggenberger cars were ruled out... |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
stock cars and bangers | btcc-lad | Trackside | 4 | 4 Mar 2004 18:02 |
Big Bangers are back! | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 3 | 7 Jul 2002 12:39 |