Talk:Bathurst 1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Bathurst 1000 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian motorsport.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] 1992 crowd reaction

I think the booing of Jim Richards and Mark Skaife had more to do with Dick Johnson seeming to win the race but not being awarded it after they brought out the black flag because the conditions got too dangerous. I'm sure Nissan wasn't the most popular make of car there, but the fact they won the race after running into a wall was the bigger factor. Shane King 05:04, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. IIRC there was a lot of resentment towards Japanese turbo toys being the "righteous" "Aussie" V8. Might be time to do a little bit of digging in the newspaper archive... --Robert Merkel 06:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The most recent addition to this subject has implied that the race winner spun in the final lap. Jim Richards didn't spin. He crashed. Twice. First just above the Cutting, then again into the pile of wrecked vehicles below Forrest Elbow. The red flag waved prior to the first crash however. --Falcadore 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, indeed it was a crash not merely a spin. Will amendTartanperil 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sponsor history

Where might we be able to dig up the history of the changing names/sponsors of the race? Back in the 1970's and 1980's it was the James Hardie 1000. Then in the 1990's and 2000's it changed quite a few times. For a few years it was the Toohies 1000. Despite the changes, everyone appears to simply use the generic name of Bathurst 1000. --Imroy 23:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book Australia's Greatest Motor Race 1960-1989 which covers the first 30 years. It started off as the Armstrong 500 at Phillip Island in 1960. Moved to Bathurst in '63. It was named after Armstrong York Engineering who made shock absorbers. '66 it was called the Gallaher 500 after the Gallaher tobacco company. '68 it was named the Hardie-Ferodo 500, '73 the Hardie-Ferodo 1000, '81 it changed to the James Hardie 1000 and it changed to the Tooheys 1000 in 1988. I'll start adding some info from the book whenever I get time.

[edit] Mini or MINI?

SteveBaker asks: You have a link to the Mini entry - I've recently split that into a page relating to the original 'classic' Mini and the new BMW MINI. I can't tell from the context of this article whether I should change this page to point to my new page. Help!

It's the original Mini. Since the mid-1990's the race has been exclusively for V8 Supercars. The original Mini ran and won back in the 1960's. So, no change is appropriate. --Robert Merkel 02:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Bob Holden and Rauno Aaltonen were at the wheel of that Mini

[edit] End of Group A

SouthPacific2 adds/wonders: With regards to the change from group A (circa 1990), if I remember correctly Holden didn't sell enough vp commodores (i.e. >500) to meet the group A reqiurement. Also I believe the Nissan GTRs and Ford sierras under the group A rules of the period were allowed a higher maximum rpm and a lower minimum weight (even with turbocharging) due to their smaller fuel capacities, when compared to that of the 5.0 litre V8s (but this could also be from the commodores racing in group C and I am having trouble finding the regulations and the exact catagory of the individual cars of the period). Hence the manufacturers/market/media reacted the way they did. I believe the end of group A had been decided before the 1992 race, as I'm pretty sure this was the debut return of the V8 Falcon (EB in this case) used afterwards. 09 April 2007.

Absolutely correct about the adoption of the Group 3A (later V8Supercar) regulations. Four Group 3A cars, an EB Falcon and three VP Commodores raced in 1992. There were only 350 off VN SSGroupA cars produced but it was not worth the trouble to ban the car under the circumstances. There was no VP built to meet Group A regulations. The weight point is unfounded as most notably Fred Gibson complained at length about the additional weight his Skylines were asked to carry as a form of parity equalisation. Additionally rev limits were not brought into until Group 3A regs at which the new V8s were forced to run 7500rpm and a set compression as well lower than what the previous SSGroupA Holdens could achieve. If we delete the opening line of the next section where it falsely blames Jim Richards then it should be fine. The 'V8 Supercar/ 2-litre Super Tourer era' section does need to be re-written. It seems to indicate that AVESCo was involved much earlier than it was, when the company was created in September 1996. Falcadore 10:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Lowndes/Jamie Whincup

I was under the impression that they were racing the slightly newer BH falcons this year. Can anyone verify this?

I think you mean BF Falcon. And no, they were using the BA Falcon. The BF Falcon won't be used in V8 supercars until the start of the 2007 season. GK1 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V8 Supercar/ 2ltr Supertourer era

This section seems like someone having a bit of a rant at AVESCO/V8 supercar rather than anything encloyedic. The prose needs cleaning up and I don't remember the split happening exactaly like that - I might be wrong, but the language can be made much more neutral here. I am planning to expand this article in the near future and I will look in to this, but for now I've added the apporiate tags. Teiresias84 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been added a couple weeks ago by this edit. I've returned the original text, but left the replacement (and tags) for the moment as well as I think there's a few points worth capturing, but it's too late for me to try to pick through it now. --Scott Davis Talk 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this does need a better write up - I'll try for mid Feb, 07. --DeafCom

[edit] Deaths

This section is inaccurate. There have been eight driver deaths, not four. http://www.motorsportmemorial.org/query.php?db=ct&q=circuit_a&n=160,161 Falcadore 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The other four driver deaths were associated with other races at the same circuit. (and two spectators as well) This article is about the race, but the link makes interesting historical reading. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.213.84 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The comment was relevant to what the article said in April. It has since been re-written. --Falcadore 23:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Group C era

Why is there nothing here on the Group C era at Bathurst

Why don't you write it? --Falcadore 07:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The reason Rudi Eggenberger's cars were disqualified

according to this it was because of irregular body work, but I read somewhere (wish i could remember the source) that it was actually a fuel irregularity. the overflow vessles actually had some higher octane fule in them than the regs defined, and when it came to refueling this fuel would go into the tank as well. i will try and find a source for you. Lynx Raven Raide 04:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The fuel was tested and was initially quite suspect, to the point that Channel Seven pit reporter Neil Crompton reported as such on camera, the testing equipment on hand at the circuit was not sufficient to provide a result that would not get chucked out later. The issue, as appealed by the JPS BMW Australia, Frank Gardner was the widened and fattened wheel arch flares, widened sufficiently that it allowed the Eggenberger team to fit taller tyres not available to those Sierra teams running standard production guards. It was appealed twice and rejected all the way to the FIA world council. --Falcadore 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of winners

Can you please provide these links in the appropriate places please. --Falcadore 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of winners - Part 2

There is some redundancy here with the names of the races and the names of the winners listed twice. I propose to rationalise this by talking the race names out of the table and cutting the list of winning drivers to only those who have scored multiple wins. Announcing beforehand in case of objections. --Falcadore 08:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early years edits

There's a few things that should be pointed out. People were aware quite early in 1967 that the Mini Coopers were going to struggle against the new V8 Falcons in 1967 so calling the Minis favourites is quite wide of the mark, and indeed the lasting story of the race should be how the V8 Falcons almost lost the race to the Alfa Romeos, indeed at one point Paul Hawkins was looking good to take the win until a stone holed his radiator. --Falcadore 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Group A

The newly re-written Group A section is very pro-Holden, and not really reflective of the state of affairs of the time. --Falcadore 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Group A section is not pro-Holden. It is highlighting the fact that Bathurst was originally an Australian event and during this international group A era the only truly Australian represenation was Holden and its Commodore. Holden carried the hopes and pride of Australian car production. While Ford Australia decided to drop its Falcon in favour for its overseas substitutes such as the Mustang and Sierra, Holden continued to perserve with the Commodore despote the fact it was uncompetitive against they highly developed and technologically advanced foreign cars. This was no mere feat, and the effort required to keep the Commodore competitive is worthy of honorable priase and recognition. Holden could have looked oversea to the US and Europe and source Chev Corvettes and Vauxhall Firenzas, but didn't.
The true and original fans of Bathurst were Australian, and they supported Australian cars. Ford Australia did not race Australian cars, and thus in effect we admitting that Australian built cars were inferior. This was a bad choice which had almost disaterous consequeneces for Australian racing, which brought Australian motor racing to its knees after the 1992 Bathurst.
The influx of foreign cars did nothing to aid the motor sport cause in Australia, and cars like the Skyline and Sierra almost destroyed it. This is what led to the return of the traditional Holden Commodore versus Ford Falcon rivarly that ultimately led to the rise and rise of the highly popular V8 Supercar series. The Group A article is not bias or pro-Holden. Rather it is pro-Australian, in that it highlights the fact that Bathurst is primarily an Australian event contested by AUSTRALIAN BUILT CARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSVMAN (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
So your defence is that Bathurst is an Australian race and therefore an Australian slant is true and correct. OK, I can acknowledge that, except, Wikipedia is not an Australian website. I'm afraid you have just underlined why the section fails NPOV. --Falcadore 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I would like to state that it was not my intention to be biased. I would like to recitify this. However, my invitation to you Falcadore is rather than critically point out the mistakes of others, I invite you to suggest what should edited in order to get rid of this 'Holden bias'. I must admit, I am a Holden fan, but I am also open-minded and do not hate or hold any bias against Ford. I just thought it was relevant to mention that Ford Aust. pulled out of racing, leaving Holden alone to fly the Australian flag. I did not assume this would be classified as bias. So what do you suggest should be changed to rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSVMAN (talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Holden Commodore would continue to battle bravely against these highly-developed and well financed European and Japanese race car teams, and overcome huge odds to embarrass them on occasions." This section highlights the problem. The teams run by Frank Gardner and Fred Gibson were all Australian teams, just as much as Dick Johnson and Peter Brock teams were and the funding came from a variety of sources, Dutch and British oil companies, British and American tobacco makers. I have no problem with mentioning about For Australia ceasing their direct involvement in Australian motorsport, although it had been in decline since '73 it had really ended prior to the '79 season, well before the advent of Group A. "Flying the Australian flag" is as much the problem. Bathurst is a motor race, not the Olympics. The teams do not represent nationalities any more then Formula One does. --Falcadore 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Changes have been made to the Group A section in order to achieve a NPOV. Hopefully the disputed NPOV tag can be removed, as I believe it now portrays a truly historic description of events. HSVMAN 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Haven't had to time to do much more than skim but one thing to note is for such a long re-write is you'll recquire some references the article will recquire a tag like that is at the top of the V8 Supercar article. Did you type all that from memory? If so then other edittors could pop in and slap a citation needed tag on each individual claim, throughout the article. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that no original research can be done towards Wiki articles and that any claim has to be refenced and backed up. It's supremely annoying but its the sort of thing you need to avoid lawsuits.
Long stories about each particular race should be avoided, as each race has it's own page (for example, 1979 Bathurst 1000, and stories about specific races belong best on the page for that race. The article about the Bathurst 1000 should be about the Bathurst 1000 as an overview rather than a race by race description. Think of the article from the perspective of the reader, will a casual reader want to want through 12 paragraps describing most races, or will the casual reader like to see some highlights and controversies, and then, if curiosity is piqued, investigate each race that catches their interest?
It is also recommended that any article reaching 40-50kb is size needs to be split into smaller articles, I haven't checked how long Bathurst 1000 is, but it is a potential concern. --Falcadore (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tie Me Kangaroo Down Mate

Forgive me if I am incorrect, but was it not Jim's son - Steven Richards - who hit the kangaroo in 2004. I seem to remember that Jim was racing for the HRT team at the time, where it was a Castrol car that hit the roo. Other web sources seem to be confused as well...203.113.232.179 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can suggest is your recollection is mistaken as it seems to disagree with the official record published by Chevron. Also refer 2004 Bathurst 1000 for the 2004 results and driver pairings, from there you can also access the official timesheets which also say Jim was not at HRT. --Falcadore (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Island

The Phillip Island event was most certainly not cancelled. The Organisers that were associated with Armstrong-York simply shifted from the Phillip Island circuit to Bathurst. The Australian Grand Prix did not cease to be the Australian Grand Prix by moving from Adelaide to Melbourne. If anything the race was cancelled after 1999 Bathurst 500 after the split in two which occurred in 1997. --Falcadore (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Race

I've noticed that the term Great Race is used consistently throughout the article instead of Bathurst 1000. The introduction of the article states It is known among fans and broadcasters as "The Great Race" but Wikipedia is not a fan or broadcaster. I think it's correct for the article to point out that the race has a nick-name but I don't think it's encyclopaedic to adopt it here because it makes the article sound informal (see WP:TONE).

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Fruv (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughs exactly - the article should refer to it as the Bathurst 1000, but mention that fans and broadcasters call it "The Great Race". Wongm (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not exactly uncommon that a nick name supplants the actual name, for example the Indianapolis 500 has completely supplanted the original name, IIRC, the International Sweepstakes. Bathurst 1000 is if anything a rarely used term. It's either referred to simply as 'Bathurst', or by the sponsor name in use that particular year. In its own way Bathurst 1000 is just as contrived as 'The Great Race'. Bathurst 1000 is merely the generic sponsor free name that has been informally adopted by convention.
The whole article needs a back to basics overhaul. The long section describing the race's history isn't very encyclopedic and much of that would be better situated in the individual race articles. --Falcadore (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you to some extent about the race's name however, the article is entitled Bathurst 1000. It then goes on to be an article about The Great Race. I also agree with you about the article needing an overhaul so this is probably a moot point anyway.
The question is, what do we do about an overhaul? How many people are willing and able to dedicate the time to it? Fruv (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to do it myself - but it might be a slow burn. --Falcadore (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the same. Not much time available to do a rewrite. We might just have to chip away at the existing text one step at a time. As they say, slow and steady wins the... well, you know. Fruv (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

My standard paste:

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.

I'm not doing anything, but I see there is no POV dispute listed in the discussion page, though there is current commentary. I would suggest that if that is the case and you all have consensus, that you remove the tag. Many tags were placed wrongly or so long ago that they have no meaning anymore. It's up to you, but be bold.....Jjdon (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

POV is discussed at length above under under Group A - the POV subject. You are welcome to add to that to try to achieve consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)