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
Printable View
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
The legacy of having produced probably the best touring car ever?Quote:
Originally Posted by RJL25
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by RJL25
That was not Nissan's attitude at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 (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)
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by racer69
Sadly we'll never know the answer to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malllen
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RJL25
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'
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RJL25
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!
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by RJL25
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!
The GTR's were run earlier than Bathurst 1990Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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??
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by RJL25
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.