No-one to race V8 Supercars in 2012

[Rollo]

With the global financial crisis taking hold and GM and Ford being total basket cases, it has been announced by both of them that RWD platforms have both been cancelled:

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleId=60193
http://www.caradvice.com.au/20794/gm-cancels-holden-global-rwd-platform/

It follows that without either the Commodore or the Falcon in existance, then there won't be Commodores or Falcons to build V8 Supercars from.

What I'm wondering is that because Holden has had $149 thrown at it by the Australian Government to build a "four cylinder car" and Ford already announcing that they'll be building the Focus from 2011...
what is the future of Touring Cars in Australia from 2012?

Since the carmakers basically dictate the class of racing that goes on, are they likely to adopt WTCC regs or something similar in principle to the CoT from NASCAR? Cause there certainly won't be any big sedans to build cars from.

[thetrooper_uk]

Sad news if that does happen. I love the V8's and I think there will be a lot of unhappy Aussie Motorsport fans if it ended. We can live in hope it doesn't happen as a lot can change in 3 years.

[Marc W]

I guess, it could go in a similar way to the DTM with purpose built V8s that resemble the ordinary Non-V8 road cars that they will be building.

[BDunnell]

Yes, it would have to become a silhouette formula.

[ShiftingGears]

That's unfortunate. I wonder what all the hoons will drive now.

[RJL25]

firstly they will still build sedans of some description, so they can just shove the same V8 and RWD platform into them regardless of what configuration the production car runs. You can't by a 2ltr turbo AWD ford focus but thats what they have in the WRC for example.

Also even though GM won't build any NEW cars off the VE commodore platform, Holdens current plans, even despite the global economy, is to continue with the current VE commodore archetecture through till around 2016 just with a major platform revamp half way through, this news just means that GM won't be making any other cars off this same platform.

Additionally people need to get some perspective, the economy is bad, but it won't stay bad forever, the financial markets will recover and with it car sales globally will again increase and "niche" markets such as rear drive performance sedans may well come back into favour. Some people will have you think the current economic situation is the end of the world as we know it but it just isn't, times are tough but they will eventually rebound.

Certainly though quite apart from all of this its import for V8 Supercar authorities to create a series that is viable to continue under the harshest possible circumstances, they cannot rely on Holden and Ford's support forever, they need to make a series that is more attractive to more manufacturers so that if one or two drop out, there is still a viable series.

My suggestion is turbo diesel V8's, they would still be V8 supercar, but by utilising diesel technology the series would become a much more attractive proposition for the likes of Audi and other european and japanese manufacturers. This is crucial

[racer69]

This move might give Australian touring car racing the overhaul it sorely needs!

I'm all for RWD V8s being a part of the mix, but banishing other makes and types of cars from competing has gone on for far too long

It will be a very sad day when no more RWD V8 production cars are produced in Australia

[RJL25]

other manufacturers where never "banished" from competeing, the rules where open to any locally produced large sedan, toyota and mitsubishi who are the only other manufacturers who build cars in Australia had always just decided not to compete. Two years ago the rules where loosened up even further allowing non-Australian made cars to compete as well.

Probably should ensure you know what your talking about before posting... Also racer69, V8 supercars is one of the only forms of motorsport GLOBALLY who is continueing to grow through these tough economic times with more manufacturers and more sponsors coming in this season, and not one team has closed its doors or downsized. Really, V8 Supercars would have to rank as one of the strongest forms of motorsport from a comercial perspective anywhere in the world, so i reject your notion of it needing an overhaul

[Ranger]

firstly they will still build sedans of some description, so they can just shove the same V8 and RWD platform into them regardless of what configuration the production car runs. You can't by a 2ltr turbo AWD ford focus but thats what they have in the WRC for example.

Also even though GM won't build any NEW cars off the VE commodore platform, Holdens current plans, even despite the global economy, is to continue with the current VE commodore archetecture through till around 2016 just with a major platform revamp half way through, this news just means that GM won't be making any other cars off this same platform.

Additionally people need to get some perspective, the economy is bad, but it won't stay bad forever, the financial markets will recover and with it car sales globally will again increase and "niche" markets such as rear drive performance sedans may well come back into favour. Some people will have you think the current economic situation is the end of the world as we know it but it just isn't, times are tough but they will eventually rebound.

Certainly though quite apart from all of this its import for V8 Supercar authorities to create a series that is viable to continue under the harshest possible circumstances, they cannot rely on Holden and Ford's support forever, they need to make a series that is more attractive to more manufacturers so that if one or two drop out, there is still a viable series.

My suggestion is turbo diesel V8's, they would still be V8 supercar, but by utilising diesel technology the series would become a much more attractive proposition for the likes of Audi and other european and japanese manufacturers. This is crucial

The thing is, Toyota wanted to build a V8 Supercar several years ago, but were knocked back because they didn't build a 5.0L pushrod V8 model.

However that rule was quietly dropped when Holden and Ford no longer produced one.

The point is that V8 Supercars rely on Holden vs. Ford and have it that way because it is a successful formula and so they have no intention to let other manufacturers in... not that I agree with it.

What they should do, IMO, is allow any car to compete under a single formula, but make the manufacturer build the race car in Australia. This supports the local motorsport industry as well as adding variety to the series.

However I think the NASCAR-type control chassis will be introduced, which will be a shame.

[Eurotech]

S2000 but with a V8 engine maybe?

[RJL25]

The thing is, Toyota wanted to build a V8 Supercar several years ago, but were knocked back because they didn't build a 5.0L pushrod V8 model.

Sorry but thats just completely WRONG! V8 Supercars have been trying to get Toyota involved for years, there had been opposition from some parties, but fact is both Toyota and Mitsubishi had investigated joining V8 Supercar a number of times but on all occasions did not join for their OWN reasons. In Mitsubishi's case it was because they didn't have any money and in Toyota's case it was because they decided that rallying was a better fit with their marketing compaigns so they joined the ARC instead

People say that other makes couldn't join because they didnt build a 5.0L pushrod rear drive V8 but fact is that was NEVER in the rules, it was just a myth designed to better support the "V8's killed nissan motorsport" stuff, even though Nissan where asked to join the V8's when they where first established but Nissan was not interested, the rules only ever stipulated that the maker had to build an Australian made sedan, which at the time Nissan did and even that rule was recently removed

[Rollo]

other manufacturers where never "banished" from competeing, the rules where open to any locally produced large sedan, toyota and mitsubishi who are the only other manufacturers who build cars in Australia had always just decided not to compete.

Shenanigans. Shenanigans. Shenanigans.

See Regulation C 1.8
http://www.v8supercars.com.au/content/attachments/extranet/2008_season/opps_manual/division_c-_technical_rules/files/9540/2008%20Div%20C%20FIA%20Approved.pdf

The rules as instituted in 1992 then as now, specifically mention a list of eligible models that are approved to be run. The 5L V8 pushrod rule described the then cars which were allowed to be run; and given that when CAMS submitted the regulations to the FIA which were framed by a ten member committee of teams and manufacturers (basically four teams and Ford and Holden) the rules which followed, they were never going to include another manufacturer and to this day still do not.


Two years ago the rules where loosened up even further allowing non-Australian made cars to compete as well.

No they do not. There are no other models on the prescribed list of cars; therefore no non-Australian made cars are allowed to compete either.

[kmchow]

It makes sense that Australia would switch to the COT since the fanbase/concepts are similar--heavy organizer/results intervention. And Ford/GM are already racing in the series. Both are on very equal grounds.

S2000 is less likely as it only has GM's involvement and Ford as a past supporter. Ford would likely be starting as a backmarker and underdog. Though the biased fan in me would rather see Australia adopt S2000 rules.

[racer69]

On a local motorsport program here in Australia, called in pit lane, Mark Reuss apparently made reference to wanting to race the Cruze in Australia in the future....

.. Super Touring never caught on down here, i don't see S2000 doing any better.


other manufacturers where never "banished" from competeing, the rules where open to any locally produced large sedan, toyota and mitsubishi who are the only other manufacturers who build cars in Australia had always just decided not to compete. Two years ago the rules where loosened up even further allowing non-Australian made cars to compete as well.

Probably should ensure you know what your talking about before posting... Also racer69, V8 supercars is one of the only forms of motorsport GLOBALLY who is continueing to grow through these tough economic times with more manufacturers and more sponsors coming in this season, and not one team has closed its doors or downsized. Really, V8 Supercars would have to rank as one of the strongest forms of motorsport from a comercial perspective anywhere in the world, so i reject your notion of it needing an overhaul

Considering i've been following the series for 20-odd years, i believe i do know what i'm talking about.

Why were manufacturers who didn't sell V8 cars going to build & race V8s? How was telling Nissan you can race but it must be a V8 etc etc.. going to entice them to compete? They had developed a very good touring car within the rules and were being told to scrap it and go build a car which had nothing to do with their range.... Nissan had also stopped manufacturing in Australia (or very close to) at the end of 1992....

BMW were allowed to compete in 1993, and infact made a bigger committment than Ford or Holden (they ran 4 works cars). They had supported Australian touring car racing effectively non-stop (bar 1989 & 1990) since 1981.... they were paritied out of competitiveness to fill the grids in 1993, then couldn't compete due to the 'made in Australia' rule

Toyota wanted to promote their small cars & Mitsubishi hadn't been properly involved in the ATCC since 1985, and both by then were concentrating on rallying.... if they weren't banished, then the rules were written knowing they were never going to compete.....

I'm sorry but it was a farce that they were written out of the rules. The regulations certainly needed a change as Group A had run its course.... but look at what it has turned into..... makes alot of money for the teams, but its lacking in the sporting department (in my opinion)

[RJL25]

Oh for goodness sakes you people are just going to stick to what you think no matter what, forget the fact that Tony Cochrane who runs V8 Supercars has been running around for years saying "we want Toyota" and forget the fact that last year the V8 board unanimously voted to change the eligability criteria to allow foreign makes and forget the fact that Ford do not sell a pushrod V8 in falcons anymore, so if the eligibility criteria requires a 5.0L pushrod V8 to be in the production car, then both Holden and Ford themselfs would have become ineligable quite a long time agon, Holden in 1999 when they introduced a 5.7ltr motor and Ford in 2002 when they introduced a DOHC motor.

But no you blokes just ignore the facts and stick vigilently to what you think.

By the way Rollo those technical rules are what the RACE CAR must run, it doesn't mean that the production car of which its based necessarily has to run those things, its the same as how the Ford Focus WRC has a 2ltr turbo and AWD but no production Focus has the same

[RJL25]

kmchow - Australian motorsport has always been based around touring cars, Nascar was tried in Australia and it flopped badly, V8 Supercar will never go down the COT route because the cars look crap and the manufacturers have publically stated that they would absolutely definetly not be interested

[RJL25]

Also Rollo - the technical regulations for V8 Supercars have changed ALOT since 1992, also the Falcon and Commodore are the only models on the eligability list because they are the only models that where presented for inclusion, if other makes presented themselfs to be included then V8 Supercar board would evaluate and decide whether or not to include them as well, and i can assure you that at the moment they DESPERATELY want more manufacturers in the series so they would definetly be welcomed provided they make a 5 year commitment to the series, the V8 Supercar board do not want anyone who will come in and bugger off after only a year or two which i think is fair enough so they demand a significant commitment which i think is good.

[Rollo]

Also Rollo - the technical regulations for V8 Supercars have changed ALOT since 1992, also the Falcon and Commodore are the only models on the eligability list because they are the only models that where presented for inclusion,

Um. The process for inclusion of new models has NOT changed alot since 1992, in fact it's virtually identical:
http://www.geocities.com/rollo75/1993regs212.JPG
It is the board which approves new models that may be included for eligibility, and that board is made up of now as then of a panel of team owners (4 from TEGA), the management company Sports & Mgt Ltd (2) and two independent directors).

The regulations were written up to keep the power where it was and for this reason I seriously doubt this statement:

if other makes presented themselfs to be included then V8 Supercar board would evaluate and decide whether or not to include them as well, and i can assure you that at the moment they DESPERATELY want more manufacturers in the series so they would definetly be welcomed provided they make a 5 year commitment to the series
I have never seen a policy document to this effect. In fact, back in April of 2003, Mitsubishi were turned down after building a Future Tourer. SBR were even threatened with a fine if they tested it.

My question is still, if faced with not having the larger sedans to build a racecar from, what would they use? If Detroit speaks, then Australia acts without question.

[RJL25]

Ok this is getting rediculous, YES the board is made up of team representatives, however its the TEAMS who want more manufacturers! With less and less teams being given direct manufacturer support, they want more manufacturers to come in so there is more manufacturer money going around. Holden and Ford have no presence on the board because they are expressly forbidden from team ownership so even if they are against it, they technically don't get a say.

As for Mitsubishi and the future tourer, Mitsubishi DID NOT make the future tourer, that was made by a privateer to run in the future tourers championship, at no point did it EVER have the support of Mitsubishi Australia and although Mitsubishi are rumoured to have invistaged V8 Supercar racing, they are no point have ever approached V8 Supercar about entering.

The SBR story you refer to is completely ficticous by the way.

Also that page you posted has no relevance, its from 1992 and has no relevance at all to modern V8 supercars, have you noticed we don't still run around in VP commodores anymore? ofcourse there is an eligability list, their always is in every catagory in the world, and it goes without saying that only cars that have been presented by manufactuers to compete are included in this list. The only reason there is no Toyota Aurion for example on the list is because Toyota has not presented one to V8 supercar for evaluation and subsequent approval.

There has been stories running on and off for ages about how V8 supercars WANTS more manufactuers involved, the fact your arguing against this is bewildering because its common knowledge that for the last 2 years V8 Supercars Australia and Tony Cochrane has been actively chasing new manufactuers.

Infact 888 lost their Ford funding from this year onward for a variety of reason, principally of which is because they where in negotiations with Toyota about bringing them into the V8's, and when Ford found out about this they said "well see ya later then"

[RJL25]

Rollo - being in England i understand it may be difficult to keep up with the latest v8 supercar news, but there is an internet magazine with a reletively low subscription fee called Motorsport E News, http://www.mnews.com.au, they put up a weekly internet magazine with all the latest Australian motorsport news. Go back over the last 6-12 months of issues and you will see just how rediculous your arguments are and how obvious what I am saying is true, because there has been dozens of news stories and even interviews with Tony Cochrane himself where he expressly states his desires for more manufacturers to join.

Mate, your just wrong, sorry!

[RJL25]

haha i just can't get over how you are presenting a CAMS policy document from NINETEEN NINETY TWO as the basis of your argument over V8 Supercar eligability in TWO THOUSAND AND NINE!

[Rollo]

Did you not see post 12? I believe I was answering your allegation.

[RJL25]

This is what you said



No they do not. There are no other models on the prescribed list of cars; therefore no non-Australian made cars are allowed to compete either.

And again, NO cars are going to be on the presrcibed list unless a manufacturer presents a car for inclusion! A team can't just front up to race a BMW 5 series for arguments sake if BMW hasn't submited a BMW 5 series for homologation under V8 supercar rules, thats just common sense and is the same accross any touring car catagory in the world.

The reason why only a Ford and Holden is on the list is because they are so far the only manufacturers to present a car for homologation, which is quite a lengthy process because they must evaluate the aero of the car, the configuration of the proposed engines etc etc to ensure they conform with the Project Blueprint regulations which is what governs the design of modern V8 Supercars.

V8 Supercars are not going to build a raft of prototype V8 supercars for all of the worlds different manufacturers now are they, the manufacturers have to do that themselfs, just as Ford and Holden must do, and then present that car for homologation to V8 supercar who either approve or dissprove the car. Its the same as how last year 888, FPR and SBR where hired by Ford to work together on a prototype FG Falcon V8 Supercar to present to the V8 Supercar board, who then evaluated the car in a series of tests before approving the car to race and then adding it to the approved car list, untill this was done however it was NOT added to the approved car list, even though the model was on sale.

Please, understand the facts, if you do you will see your error

[racer69]

Oh for goodness sakes you people are just going to stick to what you think no matter what, forget the fact that Tony Cochrane who runs V8 Supercars has been running around for years saying "we want Toyota" and forget the fact that last year the V8 board unanimously voted to change the eligability criteria to allow foreign makes and forget the fact that Ford do not sell a pushrod V8 in falcons anymore, so if the eligibility criteria requires a 5.0L pushrod V8 to be in the production car, then both Holden and Ford themselfs would have become ineligable quite a long time agon, Holden in 1999 when they introduced a 5.7ltr motor and Ford in 2002 when they introduced a DOHC motor.


But Ford & Holden still sell cars with V8s in them, there is still the V8 relationship between the road car and race car.

What point would it have been for Nissan to compete if they had to run a V8?? They didn't sell a car with a V8, what would there have been to be gained? BMW weren't pushing their V8 range down here, plus there's Toyota (who did back the 2L category for a season) etc etc.....

The likes of Nissan and BMW didn't want to develop cars solely for Australian touring car racing, they wanted to bring developed cars in ready to race, and infact that was part of the original idea when the 'post-1992' regs were announced.

[RJL25]

ok firstly, Opel don't sell V8 Astra's, but that didn't stop them being involved in the DTM for a long time.

Secondly, try and guess what the most expensive catagory in Australian motorsport history was? I'll tell ya, it was Group A!

You see you say that the "whole idea of the post 1992 regs was to bring developed cars in to race" but mate thats exactly what Group A was, and it was so bloody expensive that hardly anyone could compete!

Fred Gibsons GTR's are commonly recongnised around the world as the fastest Group A Nissans ever made, BUT it helped a lot that there was only one other team that was competitive anyway in Dick Johnson Racing, their was only two truly competitive teams out there because the catagory was just too darn expensive. Grids of 12 cars was the norm.

Now the catagory maximum is 30 cars and they could easily field more, the reason was because in 1992 they came up with a set of regulations that was CHEAP. As the years went on and it became V8 Supercar and more and more money came in with greater TV deals etc slowly the sports technical regs evolved and the cars are now quite sophisticated even though some people like to point at the pushrods and think "low tech!" even though that is just one very small aspect of the overall package, but this is digressing, they needed to change the rules to a very cheap package and developed production cars wasn't the economically viable solution people seem to think it is, they needed to move away from this and Nissan got the sooks because they wanted production car racing, even though production car racing still exists to this very day in Australia and guess what Nissan aren't involved, go figure.

Fact is the only manufacturers interested where Ford and Holden so originally the rules where modelled around them, however at no point where other manufacturers "banned" from competeing, at worst the rules discouraged them, but they where absolutely never EVER banned from competeing and as we speak in this very day, V8 Supercars are actively persuing new manufacturers to get involved, thats fact

[RJL25]

by the way, people talk as if Australia is the only country that moved away from the Group A regulations and therefore "banned" the group A Nissan GTR, but thats just plain crap.

Group A was abandoned all around the world, not just in Australia, and infact Australia was one of the LAST countries to move away from the Group A regulations.

Facts of the matter are that Group A died GLOBALLY, so each championship around the world which used it had to find a replacement, Australia chose V8's, but many other countries chose many other things, Australia wasn't the only country that moved to a set of regulations that didn't particularly suit the GTR, which is why Nissan isn't involved in a lot of touring car racing GLOBALLY, not just in Australia...

And anyway Nissan was just plain ripping people off anyway, they where selling factory Nissan "Nismo" parts to group A privateers for stupid money, $18,000 for a turbo, $9,000 for a water pump, they where even selling "ready to race" group A skyline engines, for a huge price, producing 500HP. Here in Australia Gibson Motorsport's Nissan's where producing 625HP, but Nissan Japan prevented Gibson from selling any of their stuff because obviously it would cut into Nismo's business.

In the end, in many ways, the demise of Group A around the world gave Nissan exactly what they deserved!

[I am evil Homer]

And yet they were very successful in the BTCC with the Primera.

V8s at the moment are odd (much like DTM IMO) because it bears little resemblance to road going cars. When you have to chop your wheelbase and body to make it fit existing regs it stops being touring cars and becomes a prototype series.

[wedge]

And yet they were very successful in the BTCC with the Primera.

V8s at the moment are odd (much like DTM IMO) because it bears little resemblance to road going cars. When you have to chop your wheelbase and body to make it fit existing regs it stops being touring cars and becomes a prototype series.


Primera was FWD. Audi ran 4WD quattro but 4WD got banned.

The regs in V8SC is no different to super2000 touring cars today running ballast - different ways and means of ensuring parity and close competition.

Off topic but any idea why Nissan couldn't continue the GTR in Class1 guise in DTM the regs then were perfect - driver aids, TC, ABS, 4WD.

[Rollo]

Off topic but any idea why Nissan couldn't continue the GTR in Class1 guise in DTM the regs then were perfect - driver aids, TC, ABS, 4WD.

The DTM until 1996 (before a brief hiatus until 2000) were limited to 2500cc. Although the R32 GTR was orginally designed to have a 2350cc engine, owing to a multiplication rule in Group A, the car was redesigned with a 2568cc engine which pushed it up a class and therefore meant that it sat on wider tyres.

[wedge]

The DTM until 1996 (before a brief hiatus until 2000) were limited to 2500cc. Although the R32 GTR was orginally designed to have a 2350cc engine, owing to a multiplication rule in Group A, the car was redesigned with a 2568cc engine which pushed it up a class and therefore meant that it sat on wider tyres.


Ahh forgot Class 1 was limited 2.5L. Would've been interesting if Nissan thought about homologation to Class 1 even though JTCC still ran Group A regs in the early 90s.

[RJL25]

because Nissan had the attitude that if the rules where not written to preference them, then they took it as an insult and took their bat and ball and went home

[Ranger]

In the end, in many ways, the demise of Group A around the world gave Nissan exactly what they deserved!

The legacy of having produced probably the best touring car ever?

[racer69]

Fact is the only manufacturers interested where Ford and Holden so originally the rules where modelled around them.....

BMW weren't interested???? Even though they fronted with a 4-car works team for 1993, got paritied out of competitiveness all season and constantly told they were only there to fill the grid.....


because Nissan had the attitude that if the rules where not written to preference them, then they took it as an insult and took their bat and ball and went home

That was not Nissan's attitude at all.

The Group C rules didn't suit their cars at all, didn't stop them 95% of all the Group C races in 82/83/84, then battled on with their uncompetitive Skyline against the Sierra's, still fronting at all the meetings and putting in a decent effort (they ran 3 cars in 1989 for instance)

Can you blame them for taking it personally when they had supported local touring car racing since 1981 (and Australian motorsport since the early 70s), yet were shoved aside for Ford's and Holden's interests?? Ford never even got serious in V8s anyway until the late 90s......


Like i said earlier there was a need to move on from Group A, but what they chose wasn't the way to go (RWD V8s only, they had to be included, but not solely)

[RJL25]

so what, CAMS should have just put up with grids of 10-12 cars in their premier Australian motorsport catagory with about 16 spectators turning up to each round and no one bothering to watch on TV except at Bathurst time just so that Nissan's feelings where spared?

No, CAMS had to move to a catagory that was A) cheap to run, and B) the fans where interested in, and look it was a resounding success! Super tourers came along and where supposed to shove the V8's aside because they had more manufacturers and "more sophisticated" race cars and all the rest of it, but they barely registered a blip and before long where gone. Oh and by the way, given how involved Nissan was in the UK with super tourers, why did they never compete in Australian Super Touring? Facts are mate, most of the money for Gibson Motorsport came from Winfield, Nissan Australia only pumped in a negligable amount because they where annoyed with Gibson for not buying the Nismo parts, ever notice how Fred Gibson wasn't all that upset when the V8's came along? Surely he had the most to loose, but he just quietly got on with it and you know why? Because he knew that it was for the good of Australian motorsport because Group A was both too expensive and at the end of the day the fans where not interested, END OF STORY!

Also don't forget that all this happened only a short period before Nissan stopped manufacturing cars in Australia and became an importer only, at the time all of this went on the writing was already on the wall for Nissan in Australia and CAMS knew that there was a good chance that any involvement Nissan had in Australian motorsport would soon dry up, so why would you model a new set of regulations around a manufacturer that you KNEW was not going to hang around? These are things people never consider when they bring up the whole "V8's killed the skyline" arguments

[RJL25]

The Group C rules didn't suit their cars at all, didn't stop them 95% of all the Group C races in 82/83/84, then battled on with their uncompetitive Skyline against the Sierra's, still fronting at all the meetings and putting in a decent effort (they ran 3 cars in 1989 for instance)

Can you blame them for taking it personally when they had supported local touring car racing since 1981

As I said above, this was all going on while they where still making cars in Australia, but once that stopped, they didn't have the money to be involved in local motorsport at such a high level, which is why they never got involved in super touring, and its why CAMS couldn't rely on their future involvement in Australian motorsport when they where drafting their "group A replacement" rules.

[Rollo]

The legacy of having produced probably the best touring car ever?

Sadly we'll never know the answer to this.

The BTCC adopted an all 2L in 1991, but the DTM didn't switch to their 2.5L cars until 1993. The GTR debuted at Bathurst 1990 which was after the end of the 1990 BTCC season (so it probably never raced in Britain) but it could have conceivably gone up against the Audi V8 in the DTM in 1992.

Who knows?

[racer69]

so what, CAMS should have just put up with grids of 10-12 cars in their premier Australian motorsport catagory with about 16 spectators turning up to each round and no one bothering to watch on TV except at Bathurst time just so that Nissan's feelings where spared?


The 1992 ATCC attracted plenty more than 10-12 cars. The smallest grid being the round at Symmons Plains, which has always had a smaller grid.

There were a few rounds in 1991 that attracted a minimum of 12 cars, but that was in the middle of the 'recession Australia had to have'


No, CAMS had to move to a catagory that was A) cheap to run, and B) the fans where interested in, and look it was a resounding success! Super tourers came along and where supposed to shove the V8's aside because they had more manufacturers and "more sophisticated" race cars and all the rest of it, but they barely registered a blip and before long where gone. Oh and by the way, given how involved Nissan was in the UK with super tourers, why did they never compete in Australian Super Touring? Facts are mate, most of the money for Gibson Motorsport came from Winfield, Nissan Australia only pumped in a negligable amount because they where annoyed with Gibson for not buying the Nismo parts, ever notice how Fred Gibson wasn't all that upset when the V8's came along? Surely he had the most to loose, but he just quietly got on with it and you know why? Because he knew that it was for the good of Australian motorsport because Group A was both too expensive and at the end of the day the fans where not interested, END OF STORY!


Fred Gibson was actually quite outspoken about the change of formula. He was also actively trying to keep his Nissan links alive into 1993 by trying to put together at 2L deal, but Nissan Australia didn't sell the Primera, and didn't want to develop a car locally (bar the Hyundai, that never happened in Australian super touring full stop). Gibson was also quoted as saying that his team didn't have much trouble getting to grips with the new rules, as it was a fair way behind the technology they were used to.

Winfield was only seen on the Nissan for 1 season (1992), and the team did not have a major sponsor for the 1989, 1990 or 1991 ATCC... Nissan paid the bills for three seasons and there wasn't much of a shortage of budget. Where do you get that Nissan weren't happy Gibbo didn't buy the Nismo bits? They seemed happy to fund him for 2 seasons before Winfield came along!


Also don't forget that all this happened only a short period before Nissan stopped manufacturing cars in Australia and became an importer only, at the time all of this went on the writing was already on the wall for Nissan in Australia and CAMS knew that there was a good chance that any involvement Nissan had in Australian motorsport would soon dry up, so why would you model a new set of regulations around a manufacturer that you KNEW was not going to hang around? These are things people never consider when they bring up the whole "V8's killed the skyline" arguments

Nissan and BMW were quite outspoken about the rule changes, and also their willingness to continue supporting local touring car racing for years after (just look at the AA's from that time)

If the problem with Group A at the end was car numbers as you say, then why did the new rules need the old Group A cars to fill the grid in 1993, and they were still propping up the grids as late as 1995!

[racer69]

Sadly we'll never know the answer to this.

The BTCC adopted an all 2L in 1991, but the DTM didn't switch to their 2.5L cars until 1993. The GTR debuted at Bathurst 1990 which was after the end of the 1990 BTCC season (so it probably never raced in Britain) but it could have conceivably gone up against the Audi V8 in the DTM in 1992.

Who knows?

The GTR's were run earlier than Bathurst 1990

They'd been running in Japan all year, and in Australia had debuted at rd6 of the ATCC in Mark Skaife's hands, he retired while leading.

Would the German's have let it run??

[RJL25]

look i could go through everything you have said again, present counter arguments which in turn you would produce more counter arguments, and it would go on and on and on untill eventually one of us gets sick of it. Well i'll just put an end to it now then

your right, everything you have said is 100% correct, boo V8 Supercar, how dare you become the most successfull form of Motorsport Australia has ever seen, boo hiss you killed the GTR even though the entire world moved away from Group A not just Australia and most of Europe moved away from it before Australia did, boo hiss raaa

whatever man..

[racer69]

look i could go through everything you have said again, present counter arguments which in turn you would produce more counter arguments, and it would go on and on and on untill eventually one of us gets sick of it. Well i'll just put an end to it now then

your right, everything you have said is 100% correct, boo V8 Supercar, how dare you become the most successfull form of Motorsport Australia has ever seen, boo hiss you killed the GTR even though the entire world moved away from Group A not just Australia and most of Europe moved away from it before Australia did, boo hiss raaa

whatever man..

Where have i said it was a problem that the GTR got banned??? And if you read my posts you will see i actually agreed that Group A had had its time...

All i've said is that RWD V8s should have been included in the new-for 1993 ruleset, but not been the only option available to anyone wanting to race in the outright class.

[RJL25]

maybe, but how where you going to make a 2.0L BMW competitive with a 5.0L Holden or Ford? I understand what your saying, but it wasn't realistic, they needed a catagory that was cheap (early V8 Supercars where VERY cheap to build and run) and also was very competitive, ie no one make winning everything and other makes not being competitive, and it had to appeal to the fans.

Taking all of these things into account, the V8's where the only realistic solution that made sense, it was unfortunate that BMW and Nissan had their feelings hurt, but at the end of the day after just one season of the V8's and the 2.0L's running together the 2.0L's went off and made their own series, the Australian Manufacturers championship, ie super tourers, and fact is Nissan NEVER joined, never even looked like joining, so really that just proves what I said that with Nissan shutting up their Australian operations, they where never realistically going to hang around with factory support for Australian motorsport, it was proven because the super tourers at first where quite popular with BMW, Audi, Volvo and even Hyundai getting involved as well as Ford and Holden providing under the table support to some privateers.

The fact Nissan never got involved just proves what I said. And yes they didn't sell the primera in Australia, but once the GTR was superceeded what where they planning to use anyway? Even if they where included in the new ATCC rules what where they planning on running? Obviously nothing...

[Frank84]

Very interesting thread, thanks a lot!

I think that if 5L cars won't be sell well in future (as thinks Alan Gow) it shouldn't be death for the V8S racing. Because people still will be in love with big powerful cars and teams will be build them special for racing. Look, F1 teams build cars which costs much more than any touring by definition and lives 60 years! Of course, "win on Sunday sell on Monday" will be in memories, but I don't think that S2000 cars in Bathurst 1000 which seems horrific now are real.

(excuse me in advance for rough English)

[Eurotech]

well in all honesty dropping the powerful cars didn't do any harm to the BTCC in the early 90's

[RJL25]

different culture though mate... England's car heritage includes a lot of little nimble type cars, MG's etc, but Australia's car culture has ALWAYS been centred around big bangers, Big V8's, thats always been the thing over here and thats what our motorsport has been built off. Its all well and good saying "well europe and the UK don't use big cars so why does Australia need them" but its an entirely different situation. Australian motorsport has gone down the european route before with Group A and it nearly killed the Australian Touring Car Championship.