Jump to content
SAU Community

BMW in V8SC  

97 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

But not only was the racing pretty awful so was the telecast on seven (you'd get an hour squeezed in between the football or failing that on after the late movie on a Sunday night ie 10.30 start). People should remember that there used to be one race of less than an hour on Sunday with only qualifying on Saturday. So there is much more actual racing nowadays. Added to that there were relatively few cars - the 1992 rounds for Tassie and WA had maybe a dozen entrants.

The legacy of group A is the great cars it generated. The racing was ordinary & the set up unsustainable once it lost manufacturer support. V8's for all its faults has atleast allows more teams to prosper and is actually less dependent on the manufacturers than group A.

Yeh, I remember I had to record the Lakeside rounds and watch them later as I was not allowed to stay up that late to watch the 10.30pm race telecast, ditto F1 :)

The Mike Raymond/Moffat thing wasnt too bad and I really like Mark Oastler, they use to give coverage to the Sports Sedans and FFs in the later years of GrpA. But Channel 7 didnt do a great job of telecasting it and so many rounds where you would struggle to get ten credible cars.

And i hear what Nee-San says about overtakes etc, i used to love AJ and Larry, as from memory they were the only ones that turned on good racing (Longhurst had plenty of memorable drives too) but the Bathurst quali shootouts were always something special to watch. And I agree they are more fun to watch years later then I think they were at the time. V9s have spoiled us, but agree a little more variety in cars would help, but look at all the other series that have come and gone globally since Grp A! The V8s have done pretty well compared to all the other series that have imploded

Yeh, I remember I had to record the Lakeside rounds and watch them later as I was not allowed to stay up that late to watch the 10.30pm race telecast, ditto F1 :)

The Mike Raymond/Moffat thing wasnt too bad and I really like Mark Oastler, they use to give coverage to the Sports Sedans and FFs in the later years of GrpA. But Channel 7 didnt do a great job of telecasting it and so many rounds where you would struggle to get ten credible cars.

And i hear what Nee-San says about overtakes etc, i used to love AJ and Larry, as from memory they were the only ones that turned on good racing (Longhurst had plenty of memorable drives too) but the Bathurst quali shootouts were always something special to watch. And I agree they are more fun to watch years later then I think they were at the time. V9s have spoiled us, but agree a little more variety in cars would help, but look at all the other series that have come and gone globally since Grp A! The V8s have done pretty well compared to all the other series that have imploded

There was a time when I would have hapilly have shot Mike Raymond - the useless fat fk. But in hindsight maybe he wasnt as annoying as his commentary. He did some good work keeping alive the broadcast of motorsport in Aus. At one point there channel 7 didnt even want to telecast the ATCC. Just Bathurst. Hell the 89 (?) Sandown 500 was shown on the ABC because no one else was interested. For that matter the Aaaaab did a pretty good job of telecasting the early 80's Group C stuff. Most of it is now being sold by Chevron on DVD's.

Most of what I remember of Longhurst was that you could just about set your watch for the time into the race when he would punt Bowe off into the boonies.

You are right though. Compared to just about every other touring car series the V8's are going great. I mean they are entertaining bids for the ownership of it running into tens of millions of dollars. Madness.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
×
×
  • Create New...