Gtr To Come Back To "v8sc"

[GH05T]

interesting

"NISSAN are considering unleashing a monster with the infamous Godzilla in line for a V8 Supercars return."

http://www.news.com.au/national/nissan-plans-to-revive-infamous-godzilla-car-for-2017-v8-supercars-series/story-e6frfkp9-1227337773999

[Downforce]

That is indeed glorious news!! "The next generation of V8 Supercars, set to be introduced in 2017, allows for two-door cars and V6 engines to compete in the series." 2017 will be awesome!!! About time they reintroduced other cars.... but they are only doing it due to fading interest in the v8 series.

[niZmO_Man]

Pretty soon it might end up like SuperGT in Japan.

[zebra]

That is indeed glorious news!! "The next generation of V8 Supercars, set to be introduced in 2017, allows for two-door cars and V6 engines to compete in the series." 2017 will be awesome!!! About time they reintroduced other cars.... but they are only doing it due to fading interest in the v8 series.

So it will be just Gt3

I will still keep watching GT3

[GH05T]

hopefully

[Anfanee]

Needs the Skyline name re added to it.

[GH05T]

not actually related, but wasnt sure where to put it.

NISSAN V8 STAR RICK KELLY DRIVES GROUP A GODZILLA

interesting part was...

"Kelly was also surprised by how close the car’s overall lap time was to a V8 Supercar, having run a 1:31.5s in his Altima at the recent Sydney SuperTest Shootout.

“I didn’t think that I was pushing it excessively hard, but when I got in the guys said I’d done a 1:36 on my first three-lap run I thought ‘woah, that’s not too bad’,” he said"

http://www.speedcafe.com/2015/05/21/nissan-v8-star-rick-kelly-drives-group-a-godzilla/

Edited May 21, 2015 by GH05T

[djr81]

5 seconds isn't close and RIck Kelly cant drive.

[Anfanee]

5 seconds isn't close and RIck Kelly cant drive.

the fact that he is a professional driver tends to indicate otherwise.

[Anfanee]

not actually related, but wasnt sure where to put it.

NISSAN V8 STAR RICK KELLY DRIVES GROUP A GODZILLA

interesting part was...

"Kelly was also surprised by how close the car’s overall lap time was to a V8 Supercar, having run a 1:31.5s in his Altima at the recent Sydney SuperTest Shootout.

“I didn’t think that I was pushing it excessively hard, but when I got in the guys said I’d done a 1:36 on my first three-lap run I thought ‘woah, that’s not too bad’,” he said"

http://www.speedcafe.com/2015/05/21/nissan-v8-star-rick-kelly-drives-group-a-godzilla/

dude some of the comments on that article are hilarious!

I

[mad082]

Yet another "yay, Nissan is coming back to v8 supercars" style article. Why do people (generally Nissan fanboys) think that having a "gtr" (purposely used brackets because it will only be gtr panels on a blueprint chassis) back in the category means that Nissan will see the same sort of dominance as the exceptionally flawed group A category? Nissan fanboys expected Nissan to come into the v8s and win like they did over 20 years ago. But, as any realist would've expected, they didn't. Times have changed. Sure Nissan has had some success in other categories relatively quickly, but that is with a whole lot more global support than what is put into the v8s. I'm guessing that the new regulations will be just different enough that the gt3 cars won't fit into the regulations and do a whole lot of development will need to be done, resulting in Nissan remaining mid pack.

[Hadouken]

but twin turbo

[GH05T]

the point is more diversity comming back into a league which had been boiled down to 2 near enough identical cars, holden v ford.
now yes with more manufacturers, albiet in v8 sedans.
more diversity is better, more interesting and well needed.

[djr81]

... as the exceptionally flawed group A category?...

Flawed because why?

It provided a set of rules that lasted some ten years (not just here but overseas) which was pretty long lived for the time.

It left us with a legacy of some brilliant cars the likes of which we wont see again.

It generated good racing and rewarded innovation.

Put it in the context of the Rovers that ran in 1984 and compare them to the BMW's and GTR's running in 1992. The changes in technology are huge and serve to demonstrate that the rules were pretty good. Have a look at the winners of the SATCC from 1985 to 1992. Volvos, BMW's 3 & 6 series, R31's, R32's, Sierras. Then you get to the round and endurance race winners - Jaguars, Commodores, Sierras.

That the racing was not so great at the very end when the manufacturers had stopped homologating cars and moved on to other formulas shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[mad082]

Flawed because why?

It provided a set of rules that lasted some ten years (not just here but overseas) which was pretty long lived for the time.

It left us with a legacy of some brilliant cars the likes of which we wont see again.

It generated good racing and rewarded innovation.

Put it in the context of the Rovers that ran in 1984 and compare them to the BMW's and GTR's running in 1992. The changes in technology are huge and serve to demonstrate that the rules were pretty good. Have a look at the winners of the SATCC from 1985 to 1992. Volvos, BMW's 3 & 6 series, R31's, R32's, Sierras. Then you get to the round and endurance race winners - Jaguars, Commodores, Sierras.

That the racing was not so great at the very end when the manufacturers had stopped homologating cars and moved on to other formulas shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Australia was one of the last countries to ditch group a racing. That's probably part of the reason why the r32 gtr didn't get sold in many other countries. There was no group a left for it to compete in.

As for group a being flawed, it wasn't so much the category itself, but the people running it. The parity controls were exceptionally poor. The gtr dominance was an example of that. I know this won't sit well on a skyline forum, but if there was any sort of decent parity then the gtr wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. As to why the gtr was so successful comes down to one simple thing. The fact that Nissan sat down with the rule book and designed a car from the ground up to win the category, regardless of whether it would actually sell or not. That and the fact that it cost about twice as much to buy as the top model Commodore at the time. They pretty much did the equivalent of bringing the Australian cricket team to a game of backyard cricket. And sure, what they did was within the rules, but it made the racing a lot more boring than classes with decent parity.

But we are going off topic.

[jiffo]

Evolution??

Look at the Americas Cup boats, all the same "J" boat formula for years until some bright spark noted the formula could still apply with a Cat or Tri, so long as the maths worked.

Now we have exciting big Cats and the races are tight and fast.

Rules are still the same, just interpretation.

[Hertz Donut]

*Tries desperately to avoid mentioning underarm bowling...*

Sport is full of examples of rules being bent to win at all costs, the thing is the innovators are the ones who get vilified, because somehow they didn't "play fair". In reality everyone is just annoyed because they didn't come up with the idea first. IMO it's a bit of a quandary, since the best way to avoid this is with control formulae, but that doesn't foster innovation, and quite frankly I find them boring.

[djr81]

Australia was one of the last countries to ditch group a racing. That's probably part of the reason why the r32 gtr didn't get sold in many other countries. There was no group a left for it to compete in.

As for group a being flawed, it wasn't so much the category itself, but the people running it. The parity controls were exceptionally poor. The gtr dominance was an example of that. I know this won't sit well on a skyline forum, but if there was any sort of decent parity then the gtr wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. As to why the gtr was so successful comes down to one simple thing. The fact that Nissan sat down with the rule book and designed a car from the ground up to win the category, regardless of whether it would actually sell or not. That and the fact that it cost about twice as much to buy as the top model Commodore at the time. They pretty much did the equivalent of bringing the Australian cricket team to a game of backyard cricket. And sure, what they did was within the rules, but it made the racing a lot more boring than classes with decent parity.

But we are going off topic.

You do realise that there was a huge amount of parity adjustment in Group A in Australia, don't you? Rev limits, boost restrictions, homologation waivers, the list is a long one. Parity adjustments for fundamentally different cars are enar on impossible, not least with the technology they had at the time. Quite why the current mob are contemplating going back down that road is a mystery to me.

[hrd-hr30]

Australia was one of the last countries to ditch group a racing. That's probably part of the reason why the r32 gtr didn't get sold in many other countries...

... As to why the gtr was so successful comes down to one simple thing. The fact that Nissan sat down with the rule book and designed a car from the ground up to win the category, regardless of whether it would actually sell or not. That and the fact that it cost about twice as much to buy as the top model Commodore at the time. They pretty much did the equivalent of bringing the Australian cricket team to a game of backyard cricket. And sure, what they did was within the rules, but it made the racing a lot more boring than classes with decent parity.

But we are going off topic.

Not exactly fair criticism IMO. The R32 GT-R was probably the largest volume seller of any Group A model in the world (ie versions with the same engine as the race car).

The RS500 Sierra was also built to exploit the rules as much as they could. And if you want to talk boring, that car all but turned Group A into a one make race series. Everyone had them - even Brock. Nissan were about the only ones who genuinely challenged them with the R30 and 31 Skylines before they got serious and revived the GT-R brand with a lot of innovative thinking for the time. It could just as easily have bitten them in the arse if they didn't get it right - more complicated things tend to be less reliable, as a rule. So it was a big gamble by Nissan to build the GT-R. Ford only built 5,500 Sierras with the Cosworth motor in total. Nissan, by comparison, built about 44,000 RB26 engined GT-Rs!!!

GT-R only cost twice as much as a Commodore here because Nissan only brought in 100 of the damn things, not confident of being able to sell them here. The price in Japan was 4,450,000Y - roughly equivalent to $44,500 at 1990 exchange rates. VL Walkinshaws sold for $47,000. How many countries did they sell them in? lol They could barely sell their homologation runs in time here. And how many countries did they sell those 5,500 Sierra's in??? And how much would one of them have cost to buy here!!!

Edited June 15, 2015 by hrd-hr30

[niZmO_Man]

Seen many BMW M3 Evo's for sale?