Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

:werd: .. someone come up with a better alternative, and when he falls from his mantle we can sink the boot in:)

I cant see how the V8s dont have the Nations Cup (Whats it going to be called this season?) . And i cant believe thaty circuits arent being supported by the countries premiere class of motorsport. We race in China instead of Phillip Island:confused:, Eastern Creek was getting two rounds whiel Mallala missed out:confused:

Cochraine needs a sharp blow to the temple:)

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You have to admire T.Cochrane in one respect. He saw an opportunity (not unlike B.Ecclestone) to organise a disorganised rabble into some sort of commercially viable entity. And he has done an admirable job. In a country that really only has one truly great permanent race track (Phillip Island) the concentration on trying to get more temporary circuits as mentioned earlier while they or he pockets millions in revenue is a little sad, predictable, regrettable. The show should not be all about supercabs. I don't even know what the supports for the rounds are this year. I'm guessing Porsches and umm nope no idea. Surely there is room for some other stuff to spice up the show a bit. Nations Cup showed some real potential and I for one quite liked it with the exception of S. Newman trying his hand in a Ferrari! I think with the right promotion GTP or some sort of variant with a few Skylines of course would be good. Leave the big show as supercabs but for ****sake a bit of variety wouldn't go astray. And of course F3 should be given a run even if I am the only one watching rich kiddies racing on daddies coin for one season before they disappear or buy a supercab team for themselves.

Why does everyone think Group A was killed off by the GTR? Group A died world wide there was no more GT category so each nation had to make do with their own category and in australia they chose the V8 supercar route. Realisticly this is what the majority of australia wants to see FORD Vs HOLDEN its always been that way and thats what the public was given and its $paid$ off hasnt it. I dont see antying wrong with other car manufacturers entering the category but toyota and mitsu will have to have a rwd v8 built and sold in this country until then it wont happen.

I know if i was a pro race driver i wouldnt hesitate in taking up a drive in the V8 supercars! i dont know why it gets bagged soo much especially from so called motorsport fans!

nope, I've not driven a formula car, since I can't get the sponsor backing to do so, while I can get support for touring car racing.

You are absolutely right about all the names you have listed above, they all started in formula cars, and every single one of them has spent years racing touring cars.  As I said, that is simply because there are more commercial opportunities there, and there are very very few people who can pay their own way all the way to F1.

However, I totally disagree about the situation around the world, in every major country touring cars are the most sucessfull categories, and these days they are 90% silohette/sport sedan style.

eg.

Super Taxis in Aus

Nascar in US (much bigger than Cart and Indy put together)

DTM in Germany

BTCC in Britain  

and to a lesser extent ETCC in Europe.

Yes Europe and UK have sucessful F3 series, but I would say that 90% of those drivers see it only as a tranition to F1, and their supporters and sponsors are only in it in the hope they will make it to F1.  Feel free to name someone who has raced in a single formula series (except F1) for 3 or more years.

John bowe , kevin bartlett alf costanzo are just 3 i could think of that was in formula 5000 and before that they all raced formula ford in the early mid and late 60's and early 70's open weeler racing was huge in oz.I just thought of another

Larry prkins raced formula ford for years over here.

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

    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...