GT3 v's Supercar v's SuperTouring v's TCR - The Ultimate Thread

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by one five five

The good that comes from it is competition.

Only to benefit the tyre manufacturers and their preferred teams.

It'll be just like the 90's all over again. No thanks.

[V8 Fireworks]

If Supercars Australia wants Ford to compete, but Ford Australia do not want to compete (or pay, at least), Supercars Australia should pay for the homologation of the Ford Mondeo perhaps?

[leothedrummer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The things that aren't yet controlled are still a blatant arms race between those that can afford it.

Agree on the car part, part of me wants to see tighter restrictions on the technical regs - or alternatively, have the series become a true parity formula.

But as for a tyre war and costs, who's spending the money? The teams aren't the ones developing the tyres...

I don't have the source handy but I recall reading an article about the tyre situation in Super GT. It mentioned that one of the manufacturers (can't remember who) provides tyres free of charge to it's teams and that Dunlop actually pays a fee to the teams that use them.

Supercar teams pay Dunlop how much money per tyre? Whereas in another series, it's Dunlop that pays the teams! And it's not like it's a mercy payout - in 2017 Dunlop teams won races in both the GT300 and GT500 classes, including an outright win in the Suzuki 1000km - their Bathurst 1000.

What's yearly budget for tyres for a Supercar team? What would it be like if that cost disappeared? Or if it was turned into a profit?

Originally Posted by peckstar

unrelated, interested in seeing how TA2 goes at bathurst and how it fits into this discussion

For comparison, looking at qualifying times at Queensland Raceway in 2017:

Scott McLaughlin - 1:08.8167, Ford Supercar, July 29th
Aaron Seton - 1:11.9538 - MARC Focus, June 17th
Ashley Jarvis - 1:14.9272 - TA2 Camaro, June 17th.

I've seen plenty of TA2 racing in person and they put on a decent show despite extremely low car counts, but onboards I've watched make them seem like a fairly uncomfortable car to drive. Maybe I'm imagining things but the steering wheel seems really small (or perhaps the rack is just abnormally quick) resulting in lots of sawing on the wheel and there appears to be a lot of fairly awkward spins, which is just as likely to be poor handling traits as it could be inexperienced drivers. The behaviour of the cars under brakes also seems somewhat discomforting. But again, the racing isn't terrible.

Will be interested to see how they go with bigger fields and stronger drivers.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Only to benefit the tyre manufacturers and their preferred teams.

It'll be just like the 90's all over again. No thanks.

Of course a few tweaks of the rules to ensure the same tyres are available to all teams would be an improvement.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by chavez

Of course a few tweaks of the rules to ensure the same tyres are available to all teams would be an improvement.

great, so $2000 a tyre, awesome just we want

i pay to watch car racing, not a tyre war, just a part that should do its job well

[chavez]

Originally Posted by peckstar

great, so $2000 a tyre, awesome just we want

i pay to watch car racing, not a tyre war, just a part that should do its job well

And how much is a ZB upgrade kit?

There is very little in Supercars past history that suggests they are seriously interested in cost reduction.

There appears to be a greater interest in creating monopolies for the supply of components then have the teams complain they can't buy parts from elsewhere.

An open tyre allows teams to potentially form relationship with a number of different manufacturers which opens up sponsorship and marketing opportunities.

Of course it won't happen because teams and manufacturers these days (and this isn't limited to Supercars) expect to be instantly competitive through that awful word "parity" rather than put the effort in to develop a winning package.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by chavez

And how much is a ZB upgrade kit?

There is very little in Supercars past history that suggests they are seriously interested in cost reduction.

There appears to be a greater interest in creating monopolies for the supply of components then have the teams complain they can't buy parts from elsewhere.

An open tyre allows teams to potentially form relationship with a number of different manufacturers which opens up sponsorship and marketing opportunities.

Of course it won't happen because teams and manufacturers these days (and this isn't limited to Supercars) expect to be instantly competitive through that awful word "parity" rather than put the effort in to develop a winning package.

an new ZB upgrade kit will cost less than the cost of tyres to run clipsal under your proposal, you are talking massive cost increase for no gain at all. It doesnt improve the racing, just gives some teams a leg up

Yes it increase sponsors for the select few, but increase costs dramatically for everyone else.

I think everybody in the whole world is laughing at your suggestion that teams dont put in effort to develop a winning package, what a disgraceful thing to say.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by chavez

There appears to be a greater interest in creating monopolies for the supply of components then have the teams complain they can't buy parts from elsewhere.

This is just conspiracy claptrap and is clearly not supported by evidence.

Supercars have clearly acted to reduce costs in areas where teams were looking for any advantage at huge cost - markedly through the mid-2000s.

Btw the teams complain when HRT or SBR spend more money on lightweight engine parts than they do - they complain when DJR uses special brakes for Bathurst so they can do a dummy pad change. They complain they can't get hot stuff the factory team gets but then they complain when the controls THEY VOTED FOR result in a reduction of options for what they can buy.

[one five five]

SuperGT, WRC, WEC etc etc don't have control tyres

The series is crying out loudly for more investment. It might even improve the racing and spice up the results, and it is much less atrtificial than fuel drops.

some of the arguments calling for so many more standard control components makes me wonder why Carrera Cup isn't more popular? it's basically what some are arguing for in this thread if you don't want technical differences in any of the cars.

the adoption of control tyres in 1999 didn't improve the competition anyway, a non-Bridgestone aligned team (from pre-1999) never won a title until 2010, and that is the only one

[Umai Naa]

And that was on Dunlops. Your point being?

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Mixer

This is just conspiracy claptrap and is clearly not supported by evidence.

Supercars have clearly acted to reduce costs in areas where teams were looking for any advantage at huge cost - markedly through the mid-2000s.

Btw the teams complain when HRT or SBR spend more money on lightweight engine parts than they do - they complain when DJR uses special brakes for Bathurst so they can do a dummy pad change. They complain they can't get hot stuff the factory team gets but then they complain when the controls THEY VOTED FOR result in a reduction of options for what they can buy.

Is the COTF relatively cheaper to build, run and maintain than all previous versions of Supercars going back to the 1992 rules package?

If it is then I am happy to be wrong.

And with the fantastic TV deal and record breaking events surely the teams are far better off than they were in the mid nineties? Or is the truth that the costs have outrun the available income?

It is very interesting that things that were possible when teams were run out of back yard sheds are no longer possible in this golden age of the sport.

[chavez]

A spec series by definition cuts down significantly on development of a winning package.

Can you honestly say the a new manufacturer to Supercars would go through the same heartbreaking development likeNissan did with the Bluebird or DJR did with the Ford Sierra?

Of course they wouldn’t - they be granted the wish of parity in all aspects of the design and development of the car.

Where was parity when George Fury manhandled his Skyline around Bathurst in ‘86 without any aero aids? Back the Nissan went out and developed a better car. Today they’d be given a parity adjustment.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by chavez

A spec series by definition cuts down significantly on development of a winning package.

Can you honestly say the a new manufacturer to Supercars would go through the same heartbreaking development likeNissan did with the Bluebird or DJR did with the Ford Sierra?

Of course they wouldn’t - they be granted the wish of parity in all aspects of the design and development of the car.

Where was parity when George Fury manhandled his Skyline around Bathurst in ‘86 without any aero aids? Back the Nissan went out and developed a better car. Today they’d be given a parity adjustment.

yeah we did that, it failed, becasue a maufacturer builds a better car and then the other manufacturers (who are light on now) decide they cant be bothered spending the cash to build an even better car. Its costly and expensive and no benefit and doesnt make the racing better and in the modern world doesnt make cars better either because people arent buying car that we race

Seriously the 60's are over time for a few people to let it go, Everything being suggested has been tried and found wanting, so people who spend the money did it smarter

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by chavez

Is the COTF relatively cheaper to build, run and maintain than all previous versions of Supercars going back to the 1992 rules package? If it is then I am happy to be wrong.

Cheaper to build no, but cheaper to repair and much, MUCH safer - yes.

Originally Posted by chavez

And with the fantastic TV deal and record breaking events surely the teams are far better off than they were in the mid nineties? Or is the truth that the costs have outrun the available income?

Thanks for the straw man argument - do you have something on the topic?

Originally Posted by chavez

It is very interesting that things that were possible when teams were run out of back yard sheds are no longer possible in this golden age of the sport.

It is called progress.

Originally Posted by chavez

Where was parity when George Fury manhandled his Skyline around Bathurst in ‘86 without any aero aids? Back the Nissan went out and developed a better car. Today they’d be given a parity adjustment.

Great example - a car that literally killed almost every touring car series in the world in one fell swoop. The ultimate expression of an unsustainable arms race.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chavez

Is the COTF relatively cheaper to build, run and maintain than all previous versions of Supercars going back to the 1992 rules package?

Of course not.

But the 1993 era cars were only cheaper because that was all that had to spend, and therefore relatively unsophisticated cars were the result for *most* entrants.

Have you seen the build quality of the 1993 Brock Advantage Racing VP? http://www.v8sleuth.com.au/news/2014...s-to-australia It could be politely termed "not brilliant" compared to the carbon-fibre and CNC
crafted modern 2011 car like this: https://duttongarage.com/Holden-VE-C...Supercar~17768

The BTCC really led the way, with the huge budgets of the BTCC allowing for superb, finely crafted build quality of 500,000GBP race cars in the mid-90s -- which of course eventually filtered throughout the V8 Supercars field starting at HRT in the late 90s and reaching everyone by the mid-to-late 2000s.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Great example - a car that literally killed almost every touring car series in the world in one fell swoop.

Nonsense.

What's wrong with Nissan taking their rightful position of domination, with their superior technical marvel?

Where was Holden making a AWD DOHC twin-turbo!? Napping?

If antiquated pushrods and an antiquated live rear axle is the best Holden can manage for their so-called Group A SS "homologation special" surely Holden *deserve* to lose?

[chavez]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Seriously the 60's are over time for a few people to let it go, Everything being suggested has been tried and found wanting, so people who spend the money did it smarter

My opinion is based on my interest in racing cars and the lack of interest in the current generation of cars.

Superscars is the best touring car series in the world but this is due to the variety of different events such as Adelaide, Bathurst and Newcastle, the drivers and the promotion of the series.

It is certainly not due to the cars. RedBull launched their car this week and the talk hasn't been the about the 50 horsepower they found over summer, the new tyres they've developed with Dunlop, the 7 speed gearbox that is due to be homologated, the 50kg in weight they saved but about paint job and how the colour of the splitter makes it look big............

The cars simply lack personality.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Nonsense. What's wrong with Nissan taking their rightful position of domination, with their superior technical marvel?

So I dreamt up Super Touring basically appearing all over the world by 1994?

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If antiquated pushrods and an antiquated live rear axle is the best Holden can manage for their so-called Group A SS "homologation special" surely Holden *deserve* to lose?

Nice red herring - irrelevant to the article. The Sierra to some extend and ultimately the GTR killed outright Group A, resulting in Super Touring rising in most of the world, and Supercars in Australia.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by chavez

It is certainly not due to the cars. RedBull launched their car this week and the talk hasn't been the about the 50 horsepower they found over summer, the new tyres they've developed with Dunlop, the 7 speed gearbox that is due to be homologated, the 50kg in weight they saved but about paint job and how the colour of the splitter makes it look big............

The cars simply lack personality.

It is remarkable the interest some people have in the launch of a new paint scheme

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by chavez

My opinion is based on my interest in racing cars and the lack of interest in the current generation of cars.

Superscars is the best touring car series in the world but this is due to the variety of different events such as Adelaide, Bathurst and Newcastle, the drivers and the promotion of the series.

It is certainly not due to the cars. RedBull launched their car this week and the talk hasn't been the about the 50 horsepower they found over summer, the new tyres they've developed with Dunlop, the 7 speed gearbox that is due to be homologated, the 50kg in weight they saved but about paint job and how the colour of the splitter makes it look big............

The cars simply lack personality.

The great unwashed don't care about any of that.

As far as they're concerned, they could buy the exact same car from the local GMH agent, and just not put the stickers on it.

[one five five]

Does that mean though we should *******ise motor racing because of people who don't care about the details?

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

And that was on Dunlops. Your point being?

Non-Bridgestone teams in 1998 were further behind in 1999 on control tyres than they were in 1998 with an open tyre supply.

The only teams to win Championships from 1999 were either teams that had raced on Bridgstone in the open tyre formula (HRT/Walkinshaw, SBR) or teams that didn't exist pre-1999 (888).

Suggests to me the teams were making the difference more than the tyres, especially as a Dunlop runner took the Championship to the final round in 1998....

Originally Posted by Mixer

Great example - a car that literally killed almost every touring car series in the world in one fell swoop. The ultimate expression of an unsustainable arms race.

What touring car Championships did the Skyline DR30, that chavez was referring too, kill?

While we are at it the Nissan GTR did not almost kill every touring car championship in the world in any swoop, letalone one. Japan perhaps it did, and it redefined the rules for Australia post-1992, but please tell us what other Championships??

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

So I dreamt up Super Touring basically appearing all over the world by 1994?

I think Super Touring is fantastic, and it was a pity ATCC did not adopt Super Touring / 2000cc regulations for outright honours thereby (presumably) retaining ongoing works support in the ATCC from BMW, Toyota and Nissan.

Ford and Holden could have easily created suitable cars, and it may have even ushered in a return in support from the likes of Mazda, Volvo and Alfa Romeo. Plus fresh manufacturers like Renault, Peugeot, Hyundai, Honda and Chrysler.

It would have been so fantastic!

Albeit the collapse of Super Touring in early 2000s due to spiralling costs was most unfortunate...

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

As far as they're concerned, they could buy the exact same car from the local GMH agent, and just not put the stickers on it.

To be fair, it is generally true that a VL Wakinshaw or VN Group A SS for Australians or Ford Sierra RS 500 for Brits is substantially similar to the racing version -- albeit with heavily detuned version of the same engine, much softer springs and shocks, road-grade oil pumps/fuel tanks, fitted luxuries like air conditioning and stereo etc.

VL Commodore race car...



VL Commodore road car...

[Umai Naa]

Same mantra applies to the new ZB, according to the chatter I've seen.

[bludvl_x19]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Same mantra applies to the new ZB, according to the chatter I've seen.

I wonder how much they have to chop out of the car to make it fit the COTF chassis.