Supercars Gen 3 (2022)

[Casper]

It is a P&L business, to expect anything else would be very naive in the extreme. It is well known that support categories have come and gone due to the financial expectations of the SC promoters.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Yeah, supercars are a clique. I said it on other threads. They will make decisions only for their own benefit, even if it's not in the best interests of motor racing in Australia overall.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Yeah, it a P&L business. But fundamentally is a motor racing series. That's what even long time figures in "the business" don't get. It's also why they're often in a constant state of trying to get their head above water.

P&L can also be used to justify any decision, including those that could be to the detriment to motorsport overall.

"Businesses" attract "business people". It contributes to why there's a lame, corporate culture in supercars.

"Businesses" are also full of self interest. That's one of the underlying reputations supercars have.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

"Businesses" attract "business people". It contributes to why there's a lame, corporate culture in supercars.



"Businesses" are also full of self interest. That's one of the underlying reputations supercars have.

What, precisely do you think ARG is?

Owned and funded by "business people"

If it quacks like a duck....

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Speedy400]

Always entertaining. Thanks for stopping by.

[Casper]

The fundamental reason the category was developed was to make people money. The instrument to do that was racing cars, sport had nothing to do with it. Any professional "sport" is the same, it is organised to make the most amount of money possible other wise it need not exist and could revert to a sport in the true sense.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Yeah, it a P&L business. But fundamentally is a motor racing series. That's what even long time figures in "the business" don't get. It's also why they're often in a constant state of trying to get their head above water.

P&L can also be used to justify any decision, including those that could be to the detriment to motorsport overall.

"Businesses" attract "business people". It contributes to why there's a lame, corporate culture in supercars.

"Businesses" are also full of self interest. That's one of the underlying reputations supercars have.

As I said, a very naive view of professional racing. It should not be called Motor SPORT at all, it should be called Motor RACING to bring it up to date.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Mixer

What, precisely do you think ARG is?

Owned and funded by "business people"

If it quacks like a duck....

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, I have to account for ARG when talking about TCR Australia.

Yes, well, there's three factors regarding TCR. There's the actual racing series, CAMS, and ARG. It's pretty close which is the weakest link between CAMS and ARG. But oddly considering CAMS is one of the factors, it may be ARG by a nose.

I can't account for any silliness from ARG (and CAMS). Had CAMS ever been a good motor racing body, ARG would've been superfluous to needs. They still are, but they've already entered the bed.

They've made some good moves, but most were a no brainer.

Lump onto the Shannons Nationals? No brainer. For 14 years, the SN were a stage for classes that typically fill a support for a feature class (which is typically touring cars).

Running a round at The Bathurst 6 Hour? No brainer. It complements the 6 Hour, and they give each other a boost in attention.

A spot on the GP supports? No brainer. Obviously not any class can get on at Albert Park, but a class of sufficient substance will. CAMS organise a meeting with the AGPC, show the merit of the class and talk to them nicely, TCR was always going to get in. I could've done it.

A designated feature event Bathurst? No Brainer. Bathurst is for ALL cars, not just 5 litre V8s. No doubt a TCR Bathurst won't be as big a deal as the 1000, but it will be a much bigger deal than another 5 litre event. It would've been completely irresponsible from all parties if TCR weren't given it.

The move to C7 is obviously a pat on the back to ARG, even if I think it's a bit premature. The inclusion of the Tasmanian circuits to counter the effects of the pandemic is impressive.

Aside from that, what you'd mostly see of TCR now I'm certain is what would've occurred anyway if CAMS were a good governing body. They could've started TCR 5 years ago, and it would've grown to what we see now or possibly better. And without the burden of having to need a commercial partner.

If TCR "fails", it'll be all down to the inadequacies of firstly ARG, then CAMS.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Casper

As I said, a very naive view of professional racing. It should not be called Motor SPORT at all, it should be called Motor RACING to bring it up to date.

Oh yeah, "professional racing". The merit of supercars as a "professional" class is another conversation. But I'll keep my opinions on that when the time comes.

[tobyobi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

If TCR "fails", it'll be all down to the inadequacies of firstly ARG, then CAMS.

But, of course, no chance that it 'fails' due to the punter in the stands deciding to vote with their wallet and watch a different competing series.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by tobyobi

But, of course, no chance that it 'fails' due to the punter in the stands deciding to vote with their wallet and watch a different competing series.

The "market" and nothing else will decide as it did all those years ago when a similar thing occurred.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Casper

The fundamental reason the category was developed was to make people money. The instrument to do that was racing cars, sport had nothing to do with it. Any professional "sport" is the same, it is organised to make the most amount of money possible other wise it need not exist and could revert to a sport in the true sense.

No category was developed to make people money.

The company AVESCO was formed to make people money, and were handed the category.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by one five five

No category was developed to make people money.

The company AVESCO was formed to make people money, and were handed the category.

We differ in view then because if it was not created to make money it was certainly not created to remain as an amateur category, that bird had long left the nest.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Casper

We differ in view then because if it was not created to make money it was certainly not created to remain as an amateur category, that bird had long left the nest.

It was created as a cheaper set of rules than Group A to save the teams money.

Australian touring car racing had professional drivers twenty years before V8Supercars cane about.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

It was created as a cheaper set of rules than Group A to save the teams money.



Australian touring car racing had professional drivers twenty years before V8Supercars cane about.

You can't take 2 events 5 years apart and make them into one event....

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

You can't take 2 events 5 years apart and make them into one event....

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I haven’t made them one event.

V8 rules were set up for 1993 for certain reasons

AVESCO was set up for 1997 for other reasons

[Casper]

Originally Posted by one five five

I haven’t made them one event.

V8 rules were set up for 1993 for certain reasons

AVESCO was set up for 1997 for other reasons

So in 1993 the category was set up not to make money for a few dominant players and it was purely to provide enetainment and less outlay for those individuals because it was costing too much and they were on the breadline. Sounds very familiar and parallel to what we are seeing today. Reduce the costs but don't reduce the financial rewards to the existing teams.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by one five five

V8 rules were set up for 1993 for certain reasons

Were Nissan and BMW consulted as stakeholders in the drafting of the regulations for the Australian Touring Car Championship?

The "reasons" are IMO untenable and unacceptable, and could have been averted by simply implenting a 2WD only rule and a more realistic turbocharged engine formula equivalence (and bring back rotaries while you are at it!). This would have allowed RWD-only Sierras (with wider tyres as they had always been too narrow) and Skylines at Commodore levels of power (570bhp at the time?) racing on competitively for quite some time.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Casper

So in 1993 the category was set up not to make money for a few dominant players and it was purely to provide enetainment and less outlay for those individuals because it was costing too much and they were on the breadline. Sounds very familiar and parallel to what we are seeing today. Reduce the costs but don't reduce the financial rewards to the existing teams.

Who was there to make money for in 1993?

CAMS had yet to be incorporated and ran all the National championships themselves, making no money from selling category management rights etc.
About the only money CAMS were making from the ATCC in 1993 was the money Channel 7 were paying them for TV rights

There was a teams association in 1993, called Touring Cars International, but they owned no rights to the series and were just a group of competitors in the ATCC. About all TCI could do was lobby CAMS about the rules, campaign for more prize money and ***** about parity. They had no actual power though. The new V8 rules probably saved them some money and appeased sponsors, but it certainly didn’t make the 1993 teams any money.

The circuit promoters are probably the only ones who made any money out of the 1993 rule changes. In 1993 there wasn’t any sanctioning fees they paid to host rounds and the increased fan interest in 1993 would have helped their gate.

Things started to change in 1994, when TCI was dissolved and TEGA officially formed and the teams got together and started demanding things for them to turn up (for instance this killed off the AMSCAR Series in 1994), but it wasn’t until the end of 1995 that CAMS gave TEGA the category rights for V8s, and not until 1997 that AVESCO was formed and that company started “making some people money”.

The 1993 rule changes were not about making anyone rich. Group A was dead so they needed new rules sometime, channel 7 wanted new rules for tv audiences, Holden and Ford wanted V8s because the fans were more interested in that, and CAMS wanted cars on the grid any way possible.

Making money for the ATCC meant nothing in 1993.

Making money for AVESCO meant everything in 1997.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by one five five

Holden and Ford wanted V8s because the fans were more interested in that, and CAMS wanted cars on the grid any way possible.

And so the "solution" was to send BMW, Toyota, Audi and Volvo off to a completely different series by '95... What kind of dumb solution is that!?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

What kind of dumb solution is that!?

Holden and Ford’s solution?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Holden and Ford’s solution?

And Channel 7s

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Mixer

And Channel 7s

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

One of the early proposal was to have the V8 powered cars produce a lap time to match the 2 litre cars.

Thus all comers were welcome.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

And Channel 7s

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Mike Raymond said many times that Channel 7 didn’t want the likes of BMW and Nissan to go.

They certainly wanted V8 Holdens and Fords to be major players in the show, but not the only people in the show.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by tobyobi

But, of course, no chance that it 'fails' due to the punter in the stands deciding to vote with their wallet and watch a different competing series.

Nope.

If CAMS and ARG play their cards right over the next few years, they can create a good series that people will attend. Without even one supercars "fan" crossing over, and the pretentiousness of supercars.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Casper

We differ in view then because if it was not created to make money it was certainly not created to remain as an amateur category, that bird had long left the nest.

ATCC and Bathurst weren't anything other than what they were.

"Amateur" and "professional" are subjective and relative.

Any particular trophy & title up for grabs is just that, a trophy and title. How a competitor wants to go about claiming it, and using it for their own benefit, is their prerogative.

The reference to the atcc being an amateur class prior to the supercars entity forming says more about the inferiority complex of professional domestic car racing competitors in Australia, and the contempt such a clique has for the privateers of the day.