Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I wasn't being a smart ass. Just pointing out what you are wanting to see already exists in another category. So copying another less successful category isn't going to be a very good model

I didn't think you were being a smartass and I understand your point. My point is that there are already multiple racing categories (also less successful) where driver skill is virtually the only important criterion for being successful and the cars on the track are very similar. What we are concerned with, I guess, is the format of the premier racing category. Where the majority of the sponsorship money will go and what the TV stations will give the most coverage to. Personally I think that it was more popular in the Group A days than it is now as V8 Supercars.

Edited by *LOACH*
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

as said, group A racing was pretty rubbish from a spectator point of view unless you were a nissan fan. the parity regulations were very poor so it meant that A) the team with the most money and B) the manufacturer who wants to go all out and design a car that will be able to push the limits wins. which is pretty much what nissan did with the GTR. they wanted to win in group A at any cost, so they built a car to fit in the limits and didn't care whether it sold. so it is to be expected that it won everything, since in most cases the road version of the car cost twice as much as pretty much anything else it was racing, and in a lot of cases the race teams had bigger budgets than the others as well.

also, i think sometimes nissan fans need a reminder that it wasn't just the australians who scrapped group A racing, and it wasn't just to stop the GTR. group A racing around the world was already dying and australia was actually one of the last countries to scrap it.

as for one or 2 teams being successful in the current racing era, that purely comes down to them being able to do everything the best. it has changed over the years as to who could do the best. plenty of racing categories are like that. F1 has certainly been like that. motoGP has definitely been like that.

i welcome other manufacturers joining the category as it ads a bit of variety, and makes the sport more sustainable. i'm not a die hard fan of any manufacturer though, i like the racing because it is good racing. i don't care how old or out of date the technology is. the majority of racing categories these days are using out dated technology compared to road cars. very few racing categories allow prototype technology.

Fair point, I was quite young then so maybe i wasnt as critical of the quality of the racing.

I just like the idea of "improved" production cars as opposed to tube-frame chassis cars with 'car make' body panels and control motors etc.

I daresay that in any discipline of motorsport there will always be teams/manufacturers who have bigger budgets and more backing which often means that they will be harder to beat.

Id still prefer that and be able to hear a R35GTR with a dirty side pipe or a grumpy sounding Evo blasting around alongside the Ford/Holden contingent. From a marketing/fan perspective, I also think it means more for enthusiasts and does wonders for 'brand' loyalty.

My 2 cents

^^^this.. doubt that would ever happen.. it would be embarrassing for Ford and Holden to be beaten again by nissan and the GTR is even further ahead now than it was then.. The big bosses are probably old traditional folks that hate the idea of there being a nissan turbo 4wd that would be unbeatable, its a little bit like the "kerry packer" story i think, the establishment wants things to remain how they like it, The ford and Holden brand/company relies on being popular and desirable at these races, if nissan starts competing could be a bad thing for the car sales of Holden and Ford..even though GTR's are out of the price range for most obviously.

Bring a V8 touring car to japan and watch it get lapped by GTR's ..lol that would be worth watching

my 2 cents

^^^this.. doubt that would ever happen.. it would be embarrassing for Ford and Holden to be beaten again by nissan and the GTR is even further ahead now than it was then.. The big bosses are probably old traditional folks that hate the idea of there being a nissan turbo 4wd that would be unbeatable, its a little bit like the "kerry packer" story i think, the establishment wants things to remain how they like it, The ford and Holden brand/company relies on being popular and desirable at these races, if nissan starts competing could be a bad thing for the car sales of Holden and Ford..even though GTR's are out of the price range for most obviously.

Bring a V8 touring car to japan and watch it get lapped by GTR's ..lol that would be worth watching

my 2 cents

Your 2 cents come from Zimbabwe?

as said, group A racing was pretty rubbish from a spectator point of view unless you were a nissan fan. the parity regulations were very poor so it meant that A) the team with the most money and B) the manufacturer who wants to go all out and design a car that will be able to push the limits wins. which is pretty much what nissan did with the GTR.

In case you were sleeping, Gp A was around long before the GTR started dominating. IMO GP A was a step backwards from the Gp C - they might have ultimately been faster than the Gp C, but too refined. Gp C were over powered, under chassis'd monsters.

Beofre the GTR domination there were all sorts of cars battling for the top spot - BMW (M3 AND 635CSi), Jags, Camaros, Commodores, Falcons, Sierras, r30 / 31 SKYLINES etc. How can you say that was boring motorsport? Of course there were phases where some marques had the advantage but nothing like when the GTR came along and made it boring. I actually hated the GTR at the time for what it stood for.

Can't blame the GTR entirely though - the Sierra were very dominant until the GTR came along, so the writing seemed to be on the wall a couple of years beforehand.

Back on topic - I thought M-B pulled out of the V8 Supercars, because they don't want to be associated with the bogan-ness which is V8 Supercars.

Edited by warps

your profile pic comes from a gay version of ABC for kids

No, actually, it comes from Friendship Is Magic, a gay version of My Little Pony. But that's cool, it's not the first time you've been wrong in this thread.

Seriously though, your 2 cents post was pretty ignorant :/

In case you were sleeping, Gp A was around long before the GTR started dominating. IMO GP A was a step backwards from the Gp C - they might have ultimately been faster than the Gp C, but too refined. Gp C were over powered, under chassis'd monsters.

Beofre the GTR domination there were all sorts of cars battling for the top spot - BMW (M3 AND 635CSi), Jags, Camaros, Commodores, Falcons, Sierras, r30 / 31 SKYLINES etc. How can you say that was boring motorsport? Of course there were phases where some marques had the advantage but nothing like when the GTR came along and made it boring. I actually hated the GTR at the time for what it stood for.

Can't blame the GTR entirely though - the Sierra were very dominant until the GTR came along, so the writing seemed to be on the wall a couple of years beforehand.

Back on topic - I thought M-B pulled out of the V8 Supercars, because they don't want to be associated with the bogan-ness which is V8 Supercars.

Its not an official WB effort. Paid for by private money ad dont get to use the Merc name or AMG name, simply the 3 stay logo on the front grille.

I hear what you say about domination of other cars in other years. The M3 had its time, the Sierra. But all were compromised in one area. M3 grunt. Sierra tyres and others just ordinary. The Commodore was a reasonable package with regards to weight, power and tyre. So it was an interesting mix of compromised cars. The R31 was ok...not quite the power of the Sierra, but better drivability and tyre wear. It wasnt until the GTR came along that a car had no weakness. Which was against the grain of Grp A which was to homologate a bucket mass produced car and get it to lap quickly

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

    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
    • Looked it up. It sounds so expensive lmao I'd rather not. Awwwww but I just love that sound
×
×
  • Create New...