2017 Australian GT Championship

[rich07]

Originally Posted by peckstar

So what though, hardly anyone went, its a mountain out of a mole hill

didnt call you a minion, why do you think you are?

You didn't refer to anyone by name but we both know what's implied

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

No hassles if CB is out either

Do you mean apart from the hassles & concerns raised by competitors and promoters regarding GT3 and GT4 being removed from Challenge Bathurst??

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Do you mean apart from the hassles & concerns raised by competitors and promoters regarding GT3 and GT4 being removed from Challenge Bathurst??

did the promoters of Gt3 have an issue with it?

The teams issues seemed to be more about state level events that CB, maybe 1 or 2 did

The promoter of CB has an issue because there went his marketing plan

[velly4]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Actually my key argument is true, and no one even wants to discuss it

But im picking apart everyones argument just as easily, so theirs have just as many holes


the CB test issue is a just a distraction, as hardly anyone tested last yer anyway

I don't think anyone here understands what your point is besides arguing for the sake of it and disguising that argument as agreeing with Cams.

I haven't seen you raise one valid point or argument yet?

Originally Posted by peckstar

Cheers

guess that would mean they are not going to go to a "unofficial test session" then either

better to do your set up and shakedowns and driver familiarization at safer tracks. sounds familiar

So doing a test 8 weeks out from a a major race on a very dangerous, challenging track car wise isn't a good idea but adding more practice sessions is?

8 weeks out you can take more risks than Friday morning of the event. At least you have time to make repairs if necessary in the event something bad happens.

A lot safer to test the limits and find a good base set up at CB.

The simple answer to your question is if there was no benefit in the risk Vs reward no teams would show up at CB. The fact is some see it as a great opportunity.

[bludvl_x19]

Ok, lets spell out scenarios.

Tony DeFelice bought a 458 Gt3 Ferrari. He raced it in the Victorian State Racing Championship against a whole variety of Category 2 vehicles (which his GT3 is also)

IF the current rule was enacted back then, Tony would have had nowhere to test and learn his GT3 other than in the National series.

If Tony had been A. Rich Person and wanted to buy a nice racecar (ala Travers Beynon) say, a Audi R8 GT3 and had never turned a wheel on a racetrack, the only place that said rich bloke could learn would be in the National Series.

Would it be fair to say that it is purely the equipment in this scenario that necessitates being in the National Series?

That is directly comparable to A. Rich Person buying a nice set of golf clubs, but being told that he couldn't use them unless he was in the Australian Open at Royal Sydney. Which is a scenario that is completely crap, and CAMS need to have a good hard look at themselves.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by velly4

I don't think anyone here understands what your point is besides arguing for the sake of it and disguising that argument as agreeing with Cams.

I haven't seen you raise one valid point or argument yet?



So doing a test 8 weeks out from a a major race on a very dangerous, challenging track car wise isn't a good idea but adding more practice sessions is?

8 weeks out you can take more risks than Friday morning of the event. At least you have time to make repairs if necessary in the event something bad happens.

A lot safer to test the limits and find a good base set up at CB.

The simple answer to your question is if there was no benefit in the risk Vs reward no teams would show up at CB. The fact is some see it as a great opportunity.

Most dont see it as a great opportunity, so its no big deal really. Think i keep saying that

More upsetting for the promoter of the event (o brien). Who is trying to capitalise on a series and an event he doesnt own

I think that what should be more upsetting is the state level ban (although does anyone know what that means yet) and currently affects no one (just "potential customers"

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Most dont see it as a great opportunity, so its no big deal really. Think i keep saying that

Can you quote on record other than yourself, CAMS and presumably Tony Quinn and VASC, who exactly do not see it as a great opportunity?

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I think that what should be more upsetting is the state level ban (although does anyone know what that means yet) and currently affects no one (just "potential customers"

quick on the edit button again...

And by "potential" are you referring to the 3 actual on hold orders Troy Russell has been quoted on?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

Can you quote on record other than yourself, CAMS and presumably Tony Quinn and VASC, who exactly do not see it as a great opportunity?

the record is clear. 2016 entrants at CB compared to the cars/ drivers who competed in the 2017 12 hour

but look at you, the gist of it, Those who are protecting their intellectual property.

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

the record is clear. 2016 entrants at CB compared to the cars/ drivers who competed in the 2017 12 hour

but look at you, the gist of it, Those who are protecting their intellectual property.

I have no idea what that means

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

I have no idea what that means

which part

in 2016 the BC was held and about 10% of 2017 Bathurst 12 hour teams/cars bothered to show up. An even smaller percentage of drivers. thus to velly's comment, most dont see BC as a good opportunity to test

My second part refereed to what i believe is the real issue. O'brien trying to take advantage of the intellectual property of Supercars and Tony Quinn to promote his event

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

did the promoters of Gt3 have an issue with it?

The teams issues seemed to be more about state level events that CB, maybe 1 or 2 did

The promoter of CB has an issue because there went his marketing plan

And some of his customers - he is quite entitled to be annoyed and pursue this.

Mark Coffey and Steve Richards et al have both raised concerns about the implications of the change for Challenge Bathurst.

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

which part

in 2016 the BC was held and about 10% of 2017 Bathurst 12 hour teams/cars bothered to show up. An even smaller percentage of drivers. thus to velly's comment, most dont see BC as a good opportunity to test

My second part refereed to what i believe is the real issue. O'brien trying to take advantage of the intellectual property of Supercars and Tony Quinn to promote his event

Dont confuse those that cannot afford the time or cost to do CB as not wanting to do it.

VASC and Tony Quinn have IP in an event and a series respectively. They have no IP in the cars or where they run.

The real issue is why are CAMS stepping in with rules that should be up to the inividual promoter to decide

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

And some of his customers - he is quite entitled to be annoyed and pursue this.

Mark Coffey and Steve Richards et al have both raised concerns about the implications of the change for Challenge Bathurst.

he was never approved to do it though was he

they (Mark adn steve) raised some concerns, but so what really, they will move on

Mark was going last year also, but he didnt. Hyperbole i suggest

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Cheers

guess that would mean they are not going to go to a "unofficial test session" then either

better to do your set up and shakedowns and driver familiarization at safer tracks. sounds familiar

While everyone here is qualified to offer a guess - I would opine that a modest representation of AusGT teams may find it more beneficial and invaluable to do work on the mountain months in advance - mostly for the insurance of being able to turn around a car for the proper race weekend should an accident occur.

In regards to John Casey's comments - many teams find the most value in making it to race day (commercial reasons).

Any reduced 12hr weekend running (while not confirmed yet) would present a strong case for local teams to attend CB.

However, the teams should be left with the choice of their attendance.

Last year it wasn't popular but many small teams have since invested in new machinery so they may well be enticed to attend this years event.

I agree basic Shakedowns, driver/car familiarisation can be done anywhere - as it is typically done at PI a few weeks out - but mountain data is handy regardless of if you are up against multi-million dollar factory efforts - or simply squaring off against the other guy down the street.

BMW is the proof of the pudding in that regard, pace wise. Their days at the mountain had a very obvious benefit to their pace - and i'm sure many others sat up and took notice.

So if anything, two relatively cheap, truncated days at the mount are better than nothing.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

Dont confuse those that cannot afford the time or cost to do CB as not wanting to do it.

VASC and Tony Quinn have IP in an event and a series respectively. They have no IP in the cars or where they run.

The real issue is why are CAMS stepping in with rules that should be up to the inividual promoter to decide

you just explained why. To protect the intellectual property of Supercars and Quinn

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by StueyB83

While everyone here is qualified to offer a guess - I would opine that a modest representation of AusGT teams may find it more beneficial and invaluable to do work on the mountain months in advance - mostly for the insurance of being able to turn around a car for the proper race weekend should an accident occur.

In regards to John Casey's comments - many teams find the most value in making it to race day (commercial reasons).

Any reduced 12hr weekend running (while not confirmed yet) would present a strong case for local teams to attend CB.

However, the teams should be left with the choice of their attendance.

Last year it wasn't popular but many small teams have since invested in new machinery so they may well be enticed to attend this years event.

I agree basic Shakedowns, driver/car familiarisation can be done anywhere - as it is typically done at PI a few weeks out - but mountain data is handy regardless of if you are up against multi-million dollar factory efforts - or simply squaring off against the other guy down the street.

BMW is the proof of the pudding in that regard, pace wise. Their days at the mountain had a very obvious benefit to their pace - and i'm sure many others sat up and took notice.

So if anything, two relatively cheap, truncated days at the mount are better than nothing.

Coped without it in the past. Not really a big deal is it. Well apart from creating a bigger gap between the haves and the have nots

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

he was never approved to do it though was he

they (Mark adn steve) raised some concerns, but so what really, they will move on

"But so what really"

Peckstar here is an example of you looking for an argument for the sake of it.

Now you are talking on behalf of Mark Coffey & Steve Richards??

Mods - understanding that you read every single post - I'd encourage you to have a look at this.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

"But so what really"

Peckstar here is an example of you looking for an argument for the sake of it.

Now you are talking on behalf of Mark Coffey & Steve Richards??

Mods - understanding that you read every single post - I'd encourage you to have a look at this.

Im what?

All i have said they while welcome to there comments they will move on like most grown up people if they dont get their way

The CB is really not an issue for anyone outside the promoter Any Gt3 teams that drivers that were thinking of testing will either not test or go elsewhere.

[T-star]

everytime

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I think that what should be more upsetting is the state level ban (although does anyone know what that means yet) and currently affects no one (just "potential customers"

I think you'll find a some teams will disagree on that;

Notably MPC who maintains a lot of the older R8s for state level owners only.

The current KFC sponsored car for instance; has only come about because the owner started in Vic state series.

Other higher profile drivers; Andrew Macpherson races in state events, so does Yasser Shahin... A great deal many GT3 cars find their way to low-profile private runners who only do state events.

Kill it at State level and National series gets no growth - Unless that's what you want.

GT4 ban is even more ludicrous.

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Coped without it in the past. Not really a big deal is it. Well apart from creating a bigger gap between the haves and the have nots

Well thats what I first thought a few days back - they coped without it yes - but in this day and age of GT3 cost escalation and rule book narrowness - every advantage is worth exploring - so I can understand why teams may warm to the opportunity.

And I don't think I can say that anyone who owns a recent model GT3 can be put in a "have-not" basket

Its really - how much do you value your toys?

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

you just explained why. To protect the intellectual property of Supercars and Quinn

What do you not understand? That IP is in the series and event. It has nothing to do with the cars and where they run. CAMS has no mandate to do what they are doing

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

What do you not understand? That IP is in the series and event. It has nothing to do with the cars and where they run. CAMS has no mandate to do what they are doing

Agreed I understand that. Except now your comment is no longer true, because CAMS have decreed you are wrong and have protected the intellectual property of Supercars and Tony

CAMS believe they have a mandate. i guess this is about to be tested. Maybe. Maybe its just bluster

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by StueyB83

I think you'll find a some teams will disagree on that;

Notably MPC who maintains a lot of the older R8s for state level owners only.

The current KFC sponsored car for instance; has only come about because the owner started in Vic state series.

Other higher profile drivers; Andrew Macpherson races in state events, so does Yasser Shahin... A great deal many GT3 cars find their way to low-profile private runners who only do state events.

Kill it at State level and National series gets no growth - Unless that's what you want.

GT4 ban is even more ludicrous.

Lets wait and see on this. Currently we dont have all the information. CAMS have said they will communicate more next week. Im not convinced older model cars are caught up with this. Certainly older model Gt4's are not