Talk:1993 Australian 2.0 Litre Touring Car Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points[edit]

I have removed the paragraph re points being available for drivers attaining outright top ten positions in the Final races as I don’t believe this to be correct. Firstly it seems unlikely that the results of what was essentially a class championship would be influenced by outright placings and more importantly, Australian Motor Racing Yearbook 1993/94 page 118 has this to say re the Heat at the final round at Oran Park.

“….John Cotter clashed heavily with Smith on the final lap, just as the Corolla driver seemed headed to a victory that would have made him champion” GTHO (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was anticipated that the 2.0 litre and 5.0 litre cars would be closer to each other in terms of pace. The 2.0 litre cars were supposed to be faster, and remembering no pukka imported 'Super Touring' cars appeared in the championship until 1994. If someone had brought out BTCC cars they might have pushed for points, particularly at some of the poorly attended rounds like Symmons Plains. The V8s were also supposed to be slower than they turned out to be. Just how far outclassed the 2.5 litre BMWs underlines this, even with the penalties imposed on the Beemers. Those penalties were gradually removed but only Winton where the straights are short and Barbagallo, where the other three team BMWs performed mechanical donations to keep Longhurst's car running, were the BMWs close to front running pace all year. Given however the form throughout the season which the 2.0 litre cars had been unable to crack the top ten at any point it was more than a reasonable assumption to say the championship was decided in the preliminary race.
Additionally the official ATCC program defines that all three races (under the original format seen at Amaroo) counted towards points at each round. You've got the Mallala program, I've got the Lakeside program, the points structure outlined on pages 63-65 outline the points. --Falcadore (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mallala program goes in to great detail re the ATCC points sytem but doesn't mention the A2.0LTCC points system at all. Does the Lakeside progam cover this? GTHO (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pointscore systems for both classes were identical. It says that. The 2.0 Litre cars could take points off the 5.0 litre cars in the final race of the weekend, and theoretically pole position. The only time the two classes were scored separately within the same race was in the preliminary race from Symmons Plains onwards where their own 5.0 litre free heat race was merged into the V8 preliminary heat race. The intent all season was that there would be two separeate heat races and a combined final for larger points. When only three cars fronted at Symmons Plains the two heat races were merged out of neccesity then never split apart again. --Falcadore (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond doubt that the 2.0 Litre cars were eligible to score ATCC points in the Dash and the Final as well as in the Heat. But do we have any evidence that the 2.0 Litre cars were eligible to score A2LTCC points in the Dash and the Final as well as in the Heat? GTHO (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we've taken a sidestep somewhere... you are seriously the only person in history to suggest there were two separate 2.0 litre pointscores, let alone one with such an apparently meaningless distinction. There is also no evidence that the same pointscore system was in use for the version of the 1993 ATCC that only Fords competed for. Or drivers from New South Wales. Or cars that included pink in their paintschemes somewhere.
This is far from the first, or last, time that the intent of the regulations was overtaken by events before the ink was even dry. Remember the first Adelaide 500 when you had to finish leg 1 to start leg 2 and the two cars sponsored by the series sponsor DNFed in leg 1, causing an overnight rules re-write to something completely different that they were still fixing the cracks in the regs that caused ten years later? Or the great Australian Formula 1 reboot post-Tasman when CAMS announced free-design 2.0 litre engine regs and the competitor base said, but hang on a minute we all bought F5000s already.
The text was fine, and accurate, the way it was. Please revert. --Falcadore (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neither case can be supported with a direct reference I have amended the article accordingly GTHO (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no direct reference that there is not two different point score systems for 2.0ATCC and 2.0 litre class of the ATCC, because nobody previously thought that someone would would create two point scores from one.
The reasons there is no direct reference is because it never existed. There is no class points versus separate champion, the two were one and the same. You can't references a hypothetical. I do no know how you have come up with this line of reasoning. The class points WAS the 2.0 ATCC points, there was no separation. There is no reference to there being a separation because it never existed. --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CAMS would have defined how the winner of the 1993 Australian 2.0 Litre Touring Car Championship was to be determined. We have yet to come up with a reference to this. GTHO (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from personal experience on exactly this issue, CAMS sign off on what the categories officials recommend to them rather than calculate it themselves.
I thought the article in the race program, which made absolutely no mention whatsoever of even the concept of two separate pointscores, made it very clear. --Falcadore (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1993_Australian_2.0_Litre_Touring_Car_Championship&oldid=1196273749"