2014 Liqui Moly Bathurst 12 Hour: 7-9 February (Merged)

[GTRMagic]

Its on again!

Story Here

[Swedish Brick]

Excellent.
For me it's now a toss up between Melbourne F1 or this race.

[Reload]

Booked my accommodation a couple of days ago for the 3 days and the hotel manager had taken quite a few bookings already.
People are probably thinking that it will be at least as good as this years, but more than likely better.
Problem was Bathurst City Council sent out an email with a different date to all the motels, however it was a different date to the one given on the official 12 hour site...... whoops !!

[Umai Naa]

In before Peckster's ramblings.

[racer69]

I'm already there

[peckstar]

Surely its time this event grew up and we moved it to the GT section of this forum.

After all many tell us that touring cars are for "Bogans" why dont we move this thread away from the "Bogans"

and Please no production car excuses. Its a GT race now

Its also an international event bringing in drivers and teams from international venues. It use an international series as its Rule Base with an international fan base

[KSM86]

annual leave accepted, hotel booked, cant wait! was reading some of the facebook feedback and noticed this "nderstandably everyone wants it live on TV. If that was straight forward to do, it would already have been done. As the major sponsor (LiquiMoly) I can assure all race fans we'll be working very hard with the race organizers to get the race live on FTA Tv in some form for 2014. I'm sure the web streaming issues will be addressed also"

[Swedish Brick]

I'd be quite happy to pay a one off fee to watch something like that in live streaming if it was a steady HD feed

[KSM86]

"Bathurst 12 Hour Sun 09 Feb 14 will see an earlier start - more to follow later" from the bathurst 12 hour facebook site.

[MarkInTheStands]

Originally Posted by KSM86

"Bathurst 12 Hour Sun 09 Feb 14 will see an earlier start - more to follow later" from the bathurst 12 hour facebook site.

Boo

[Reload]

I was quite happy to see the start of the race in daylight as it was easier to see who was who.Whilst always a risk, one of the disappointing things about last weeks race was having cars like Scudd,s Lamborghini and the Z4 out of action early and i worry that the early morning laps in darkness increases the risk of accidents, especially with the speed differential.

[alfacors]

I have standing reservations at my accommodation for both the 12 Hour and the 1000 for as long as I want them. Needless to say I won't be giving them up anytime soon.

[KSM86]

also there will be no bechmark time.

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by KSM86

also there will be no bechmark time.

If true, the only plausible outcomes that spring to mind are:
- CAMS came around, and modified or removed the 130% requirement, or
- There are plans to axe certain classes, or
- The regulations and class structure remain unchanged, and entries that fall outside the 130% requirement don't enter the race.

Providing this is true, I'm leaning toward the latter two options.

[peckstar]

isnt the benchmark time related to the blancpain endurance rules that the series operates on. Nothing to do with CAMS,

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by peckstar

isnt the benchmark time related to the blancpain endurance rules that the series operates on. Nothing to do with CAMS,

No. It's a CAMS requirement: http://www2.cams.com.au/bulletins/B0...0Criterion.pdf

The only BES-inherited regulations are, as far as I'm aware, GT3 BoP reference specs.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by R4z3rw33n

The only BES-inherited regulations are, as far as I'm aware, GT3 BoP reference specs.

Thats my belief also, I havent seen anything else from BES.

[gts300]

[QUOTE=R4z3rw33n;3204402]No. It's a CAMS requirement: http://www2.cams.com.au/bulletins/B0...0Criterion.pdf
QUOTE]

Strictly speaking, and you have to warp your mind to the way of the CAMS world, a Bulletin expires at the end of the calendar year in which is was published.

Our Administration collate those Bulletins into the current CAMS Manual.

In this case it looks like all is well (there have been cases of this not happening and causing grief to all):

http://camsmanual.com.au/pdf/02_race...MSR_2013-1.pdf

Standing regulation 5.4 at the bottom of page 5 of the PDF is the section.

Happy reading.

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by rich07

Thats my belief also, I havent seen anything else from BES.

There isn't much else to be inherited, really. It's not as if BES is running to any extravagant/non-standard sporting regulations, either.

Originally Posted by gts300

Strictly speaking, and you have to warp your mind to the way of the CAMS world, a Bulletin expires at the end of the calendar year in which is was published.

Our Administration collate those Bulletins into the current CAMS Manual.

In this case it looks like all is well (there have been cases of this not happening and causing grief to all):

http://camsmanual.com.au/pdf/02_race...MSR_2013-1.pdf

Standing regulation 5.4 at the bottom of page 5 of the PDF is the section.

Happy reading.

Cheers. I'm not versed with CAMS process - I was wondering why there weren't any appended or more recent bulletins concerning such.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by R4z3rw33n

No. It's a CAMS requirement: http://www2.cams.com.au/bulletins/B0...0Criterion.pdf

The only BES-inherited regulations are, as far as I'm aware, GT3 BoP reference specs.

maybe you are right, but the benchmark time (2.06) is not mentioned in cams rules anywhere. Its a rule set by the actual race organisers, my understanding is it comes from the Blancpain series regulations.

the 130% is a cams base rule (as you linked and as GTS300 updated) that can be changed (reduced) by series organisers if they want to

its good we get rid of the 2.06 rule, will mean we get rid of some slower class cars

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by peckstar

maybe you are right, but the benchmark time (2.06) is not mentioned in cams rules anywhere. Its a rule set by the actual race organisers, my understanding is it comes from the Blancpain series regulations.

Your understanding is wrong.

It's a (CAMS) rule which is applied to multiple circuits, categories, and events.
There's sense in declaring generally applicable (% defined) confines, despite there being no sense in the rule itself - 'If you're handed a turd sandwich.'

As the organisers have had the rule mandatorily thrust upon them, there's no escaping its use as a window of eligibility.
For better or worse, they've elected to place the window such that the bounds of eligibility are broadened.

Originally Posted by peckstar

the 130% is a cams base rule (as you linked and as GTS300 updated) that can be changed (reduced) by series organisers if they want to

its good we get rid of the 2.06 rule, will mean we get rid of some slower class cars

Regardless of whether the goalposts are moved, its confines are static.
I'd much prefer the event retain a decent number of production touring classes. It's multi-class, endurance racing. There are already a decent volume sanitised, single-class GT3 series/events.

While the minimum time (and penalty) are ridiculous, it's of no great consequence, and doesn't (in theory, and if infraction hasn't occured) impinge on any entry's ability to lap faster than such during the race.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by R4z3rw33n

Your understanding is wrong.

It's a (CAMS) rule which is applied to multiple circuits, categories, and events.
There's sense in declaring generally applicable (% defined) confines, despite there being no sense in the rule itself - 'If you're handed a turd sandwich.'

As the organisers have had the rule mandatorily thrust upon them, there's no escaping its use as a window of eligibility.
For better or worse, they've elected to place the window such that the bounds of eligibility are broadened.



Regardless of whether the goalposts are moved, its confines are static.
I'd much prefer the event retain a decent number of production touring classes. It's multi-class, endurance racing. There are already a decent volume sanitised, single-class GT3 series/events.

While the minimum time (and penalty) are ridiculous, it's of no great consequence, and doesn't (in theory, and if infraction hasn't occured) impinge on any entry's ability to lap faster than such during the race.

Mel rose was clear that he couldnt lap faster than 2.15, i assume thats part of the invitational rules though and would continue

Why would CAMS allow the Ferrari to do a 2.04 at sprint Bathurst but only a 2.06 in the 12 hour?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by peckstar

maybe you are right, but the benchmark time (2.06) is not mentioned in cams rules anywhere. Its a rule set by the actual race organisers, my understanding is it comes from the Blancpain series regulations.

the 130% is a cams base rule (as you linked and as GTS300 updated) that can be changed (reduced) by series organisers if they want to

If download the rlm podcast of practice & qualifying, you will hear the commentators state that the benchmark time is a CAMS rule.

Blancpain Series doesn't have this rule, you just have to watch the races to see that...

Originally Posted by peckstar

There was an interesting discusion about it in the GT forum. I'm not sure why they would discuss it in a GT forum though

It has been perfectly ok, with permission of the mods, for us to discuss things like Australian GT/Sportscar racing, Sports Sedans (even Aussie NASCAR at some points) etc etc in here for years, i'm not sure why you alone need to kick up a fuss about it all of a sudden now....

[Rob Bailey]

2015 awesome,if I'm still in Australia,shall be there at Bathurst watching live.

[Reload]

Front right bodywork damage to the Erebus #63 will definitely affect aero.