Talk:Peter Brock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

King of the Mountain

Um, that song had about as much to do with Brocky as the similarly named song by Kate Bush, Kiss, Bon Jovi, George Strait, etc. That is nothing. I suggest you read the lyrics. - Sorontar 05:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's about Peter Brock. The mountain referred to is Mount Panarama in Bathurst and the valley refers to Macquarie River Valley.
I don't think its about Peter Brock. There are a lot of songs called King of the Mountain which refer to mountains and valleys which are not about Brock. Unless you have a source proving that it is about him, it shouldn't be put into the article. Tangerine 03 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Decapitation

"There was a decapitation". Does anyone have any proof of this? All the sorces I've checked do not mention it.

I also haven't seen this in any source today. IMO it should be removed until someone has evidence it was the case.

All I can find suggests this was not the case. From SMH, Brock killed in hairpin smash:

"It wasn't a very nice thing ... you are looking at your idol and the idol is looking at you in a peaceful way," Mr Andrews said. "You just feel so helpless."

It would be odd for the witness to say to talk this way if the head was also detached. I've removed the sentence and someone can add it again if they have a source. John Bentley 09:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary?

I notice in the death section the quote - "He was killed just four days after fellow Australian celebrity Steve Irwin's death." - is this really necessary to be in the Brock article, it doesn't really have anything to do with him. Riksta 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. All I did was complete the sentence, but I did think of removing it instead. Canberra User 07:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone the next step and done so. JackofOz 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessary. We don't want Irwin's article stating he was killed 4 days before Brock do we? Irwin's death isn't relevant here. -- Longhair 08:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; the fact that his death occurred whilst Australians were still coming to terms with the death of another national icon is notable. Most people in interviews are expressing shock and disbelief at this tragedy so soon after Steve's death. Whilst it doesnt mean Brock should be mentioned in Irwin's article, I think there is merit in documenting the shock this has been to the Australian consciousness.--EDH 10:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure the coincidence of the death of two people who in fact made a living of living on the edge is notable. But is more something should be recorded in a Year Book and not within the article of the present subject.

I don't think it's relevant for either article to link to the other on the basis of the closeness of their deaths and status in Australia. Their deaths are independant events, the public reaction is what conjoins the two. Yes the timing is notable, but I don't think an encyclopedia is the right place to make that note. --Snixtor 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, many newspapers and people - including John Howard, have noted the closeness of their deaths and the destress it has caused for Australia.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In the context of history (which is what we're writing for) the fact that they happened to die in the same week will be little more than a footnote. They both achieved a lot, but it's just a coincidence that one died just as the mourning for the other was in full swing. --Robert Merkel 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I know general policy is not to semi-protect pages in advance - but going by news.com.au's publishing a story about the vandalism in Steve Irwin, do we want to head them off at the pass? -- Chuq 06:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See how things fare. I don't think Brock was as known as Irwin internationally and unless it becomes unmanagable, there's no real need for it. Irwin's article copped quite a hammering upon the news and it did become difficult to keep up with the reverts. I may be wrong though, time will tell. -- Longhair 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a Friday afternoon, so I guess there won't be as many bored kids as usual. It might get worse later tonight or over the weekend. I'm glad I'm not the only Australian sysop who got over here pronto the moment I heard about Brock's death. It's also sad that I have to do that every time I hear someone die because some vandals have no respect for a recently deceased person's biography at all. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree(Nickcirc 06:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

I would not disagree with the action as he was a large celebrity, but only in Australia I would think, so it may not have the degree of vandalism potential to which others are susceptible. One big help is that this is not on the Main Page... Ansell 06:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ummm sorry but it is now on the Main Page. I was about to look for the article but it was already in RECENT NEWS. Prepare for Vandalls. REN 08:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I unprotected it for now. We should do a "well it's going to be hit" type protections. Let's wait until it is hit, which hopefully it won't be. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean "shouldn't"? :) Ansell 08:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I was about to correct myself but you got to it first. Yes. Shouldn't. :) Protection shouldn't be pre-emptive. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Time of Accident removal

I've just taken out the time of accident - conflicting media reports. ABC saying noon, News ltd saying 1:50pm. Need consensus before adding. MojoTas 06:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just before Noon, WST, at 1:50pm, EST. They're both right.jkm 06:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe Jkm is correct. Jpe|ob 06:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Improving article more generally

Smh.com.au has a series of stories that could help improve the article more generally:

If we use these articles perhaps we can improve the article in the long run. Cheers and Happy Editing! Jpe|ob 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed a small area needing a touch up: "that his vehicle had lost control on a bend", probably needs to be re-worded along the lines of "he lost control of his vehicle on a bend" in that it's "he who lost control", not "the vehicle". (Would do it myself, but seems like I haven't been registered for long enough :( T h e M a v e r i c k 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Much obliged, my bad. Fixed accordingly. MojoTas 07:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bathurst List

9 times Bathurst 1000 winner: 1972, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987

I cannot see how to merge this list into the text in a seamless manner: I would think that it is somewhat superflous. The article does state that he is a nine-times winner. Robbak 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Brocks death in relation to Irwin's

The statement "Brock was killed just four days after fellow Australian celebrity Steve Irwin's death" is trivial, at best, and should not be in the article. I would have removed it, but already one user has reverted it's removal, and I don't want to instigate an edit war. Please discuss. Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Four people agree already with you in a thread above. As do I. Ansell 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
i reverted it because some people would think their deaths so close together would be worth mentioning - my mistake. PMA 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No harm done. Its reasonably settled now. Ansell 08:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah perhaps it should stay there, I mean - it is more significant to Australians as we have lost two or three well known celebrities this week. It emphasises the fact that it's been a bad week. It's similar to how separate terrorist attacks get linked together, except this week had Australians losing their lives doing what they enjoy. Protiotype 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm, the consensus is that it should not stay. I am not convinced that, even though they were both amazing australians, that even the fact they both died doing what they loved and were known for doing, does not make a link between two otherwise random individuals considerable.
However, if a few news agencies comment on it in more than a trivial way, then I may consider their comments. (notice the many "mays") Ansell 08:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote for leaving Irwin out of Brock's article on the same basis that the Steve Irwin article does not mention that Steve Irwin died on the same day as Colin Thiele, an Australian author who has a strong case for being more significant than either Irwin or Brock. John Dalton 00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of his death 4 days after Steve Irwin's should be put under a trivia section. Nick carson 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are not encyclopædic.--cj | talk 07:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthday close to Steve Irwins

Here's something curious I've just noticed about Irwin and Brock. Their birthdates were 4 days apart in the calendar (22 and 26 February respectively; different years), and their death dates were also 4 days apart (4 and 8 September respectively). JackofOz 08:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed by that random fact. Thank you. oTHErONE My Contributions 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could put that in trivia..? - EmeZxX 11:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could read WP:NOT? --Richmeister 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hate to tell you Richmeister but lots of wikipedia articles, some of which have appeared as feature articles have trivia sections... Anyone who wants to make a trivia section go for it Aaclarkcdr 08:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

I have done some thorough Factiva searches in order to put together a "Personal life" section. If anyone finds good replacement articles that are actually accessible online through newspaper websites, please feel free to replace the ones I have put there (you can't link direct to Factiva articles, and even if you could it would be useless to 99% of people).

One thing which I have some confusion about is whether Bev is the mother of Brock's 3 children. I found one article which said Bev was the mother of his 2 children, so I'm not too sure. If anyone can shed more light on this, please do. - Mark 08:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he was married to someone before Bev, giving him 3 marriages all up. Maybe the first wife was involved with the children as well. JackofOz 08:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
He never married Bev (despite what Seven's 4.30 news said) but yes, there were 2 marriages before they were an item. - Mark 08:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. He was married twice before Bev. Bev was his de facto partner for 28 years, the mother of his 3 kids, and even took his surname Brock, but she was never legally married to him. Still, she's usually described as his "wife", which confuses matters. JackofOz 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Mother of his two kids. James Brock is the son of James McIntosh who Bev was actually married to. James' birthname was Brock McIntosh, named for Peter Brock. Obviously Brock Brock would have been silly so James adopted his father's name.Falcadore 00:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tenses

There's a confusing mix of present and past tenses through the article. PMA 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything should be converted to past tense now. Acetic Acid 11:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Other events

Besides touring cars Brock drove in Redex and Repco rallies but there's no mention. Gnangarra 14:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • IIRC his co-driver for one (or maybe both) was Kiwi Jim Richards and they won it. We also need to add details about his "abnormal" (ie. non-Holden) drives e.g. the Volvo and the Ford 2-litre. Fans may cringe at those memories but they are very important for his article due to them being "out of character". And did he drive Le Mans one year?
I would also appreciate it if someone could extend the 05 paragraph I started. I believe he was actually employed by the Victorian government in the early 1980s as part of their .05/Road Safety campaign (as distinct from just doing ads). I can't remember what the name of the relevant department was during those years. It would probably be the equivalent to the present-day Transport Accident Commission or VicRoads. - Sorontar 11:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
http://www.brock05.com/brockstat.php has a lot of his race stats. They state he raced in Spa but don't explicitly list it as Le Mans. However, my ancient memory tells me that it was! - Sorontar 11:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right - it was a privateer effort with another Australian driver (maybe Larry Perkins?) but we need to find some confirmation. --Robert Merkel 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The Spa 24 Hour, very definately seperate to the Le Mans races result is interesting, second outright in very much a minor class car a Vauxhall Cheviot if memory serves racing with British veteran Gerry Marshall I think. It was his night rain driving where he starred making significant progress through the field. Will confirm.Falcadore 10:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Brock and Daytona Coupe

Google turns up lots of websites that talk about the Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe that a young designer from GM by the name of Peter Brock designed in 1964. Only six were ever built. The car that Peter Brock was in the the Targa West rally was a 2001 Daytona Coupe (here's a link that talks about the old and new versions [1]). I presume that that was that a different Peter Brock, and would be grateful if this could be confirmed. -- I@n 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The car Peter was driving is a new Australian manufacturer the guy that designed this had created/patiented various electronic dodads for cars. An interview with Peter Brock on 96fm(Perth radio station) before todays events. He mentions the design being a retro body on a commodore chasis with the current 5.7ltr engine. He also said he had an issue with the rear suspension in that it was loose on cornering and they had modified it to tighten it up. Dam i have should have taken more notice Gnangarra 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking around shows that a Peter Brock was involved in some significant part with the original Shelby Daytona Coupe. But it's not the Australian racer Peter Brock, rather an American. [2] It seems as though the original version of the car that Peter Perfect died in, may well have been designed by a different Peter Brock. --Snixtor 09:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's an amazing coincidence, and thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps the Aussie Peter Brock had some interest in the new incarnation of the car because of his American namesake - I presume we'll never know. I made a new article Daytona Sportscar -- I@n 09:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed an interesting coincidence, and I too wondered immediately after seeing it if the Australian Peter Brock was particularly interested in the vehicle because of its "Peter Brock" origins. A further look around reveals that the American Peter Brock was working as the Director of Special Projects for Shelby and worked particularly on aerodynamics of the vehicle. Details here [3] (I'd imagine this page might also serve as a good source of info for the Wiki article on the original car.) --Snixtor 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed section on HDT vehicles

This material belongs in the Holden Dealer Team article, not in this one:

HDT Vehicles VC Brock - 5.0 ltr

VH SS GROUP I - 4.2 ltr or 5.0 ltr

VH SS GROUP II - 4.2 ltr or 5.0 ltr

VH SS GROUP III - 5 ltr, 185 kW, 6.7 sec 0-100 km/h


VK SS - 5.0 ltr

VK SS GROUP III - 5.0 ltr

VK SS GROUP A - 4.9 ltr 190 kW, 6.9 sec 0-100 km/h

VK DIRECTOR


VL SS GROUP III

VL SS GROUP A

VL DIRECTOR


HDT, under Brock's direction and with Holden factory approval, produced a number of modified high-performance roadgoing Commodores through the early and mid 1980s. Some were "homologation specials" produced to meet the Group A racing regulations. Models included the VC Group C, the VH SS Group III with a 0-100 km/h of 6.7 seconds (the quickest Brock of all according to Modern Motor Magazine - Jan 1983), the Blue VK SS Group A and the Burgandy VL SS Group A. These vehicles are all individually numbered with only a little over 4500 HDT's made and are considered to be collectors items due to their rarity. It is not uncommon to see these vehicles selling for over $40,000 for a clean genuine example or even between $50-60,000 for an extremely low km example.

"A pair of showroom condition mid-1980s V8 Brock Commodore SS Group A sedans sold for better than new SS Commodore price at the Australian International Motor Show Auction presented by Shannons at the Sydney Exhibition & Convention Centre on October 17 2004.

Encouraged by the large crowd and numerous phone bidders, the blue 1985 Brock VK Group A SS with just 90km on the odometer sold for a record $57,500 at the auction, while the red 1986 VL Group A SS model which had covered only 38km sold for $55,000 a few moments later. In contrast, a current VY series V8 Commodore SS sedan has a recommended retail price of $50,990." (http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_102881/newsarticle.html)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Merkel (talk • contribs) 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lada period...

There should be at least a mention of the Lada car connection which saw Brock ridiculed. Brock was involved in preparing and modifying Russian Ladas. Not much info on the internet about this but is really should be included ! --60.240.171.118 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)downunder

Definitely. Wheels magazine reported on it at the time...should have kept all the old mags. Will check my university library to see what they have archived for references. --Robert Merkel 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Not So Perfect?

Derryn Hinch published this recently on his website: [4] I think it's worth a look, considering the small creep of suggestion about Brock's violence towards women. Of course, due care needs to be taken--Wiki, or anyone else, shouldn't recklessly beat up on the memories of dead celebs without due cause, but that said, Wiki shouldn't be home to parochialism. -- 15.00 September 16, 2006

Hmmm. I think we've generally avoided hagiography in this article; the fact that he went a tad kooky in the mid-80's is pretty well recorded, we mention that his first two marriages ended in quickie divorces, and that he left Bev to take up with somebody else's missus (who decided to sock him one) is also noted. That he was regularly unfaithful to Bev should probably be added, given that it's apparently been reported in the media.
As to the other allegations, I think I'd like to see them repeated with a bit more certainty than just rumours and anonymous emails before adding them to the article. It's not entirely implausible, given the circumstances of their short-lived marriage and his known drinking at the time. --Robert Merkel 09:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Without references to actual media mentions, or court documents (if they even exist?), I'd not include any of this from Hinch. Hinch's self-authored blog post is little more than a Germaine Greer-like post-death media grab. Has-beens always seem to find the spotlight when somebody else is in it. -- Longhair 09:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well put. If I remember rightly Hinch had his 'post-death media grab' following Graham Kennedy's demise as well. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 9 Bathurst wins??

I know that the actual number of times Peter has won the October Mt Panorama endurance race is 9, but is there any worth in making mention of the time he won the 24 hour endurance race at Mt Panorama in a Monaro driving with Greg Murphy, Jason Bright and Todd Kelly November 2003? See: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=7181 thus making it 10 Bathurst wins. Sa87 13:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of the incident where Paul Morris was awarded the Rookie of the Year trophy at 1999 Bathurst 1000 despite having raced at Bathurst regularly since 1990 because it was first drive in a 'V8'. If we were to include the 24 Hour win for Brock then why not say John Bowe is a five time winner because of his Bathurst 12 hour win and the two mid 90's Touring Car Championship round wins, or that Leo Geoghegan is now a Bathurst winner because of his win at the 1962 Bathurst 6 Hour. General convention has been to stick to the history of the Bathurst 1000 with the exceptions being granted to the Supercar split in 1997 and the Phillip Island 500 because of the races early history.Falcadore 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection again

This article is arttracting a lot of vandalism, perhaps it is time to re-visit semi-protection. Although this runs against me pushing it for ACOTF... life is contradiction... --Falcadore 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

About 5 incidents in the last 10 days or so. I'd leave it for now I think, but if it gets any worse, please let me know. —Moondyne 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the most successful?

Peter Geoffrey Brock ... was one of Australia's best-known and most successful motor racing drivers.

Rather strange for a nation that has produced two Formula One World Driver's Champions: Jack Brabham and Alan Jones (Formula 1).

I don't know how well he was known internationally, but the first time I heard of him was from the confusion caused by his death, which was often misinterpreted as the death of the American engineer Pete Brock. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How well known is Richard Petty known outside his homeland? Or Bobby Unser? Or Gerry Marshall? Or Kazuyoshi Hoshino? Or Jim Richards (race driver)? Or Albert Poon? Success is rarely defined by whether you've made it to Formula One or not, although it does help. Brock's record pretty much speaks for itself after a career in which he was one of the top five drivers in the country from 1972 to 1994. Two weeks before his death he was a guest of honour at the Goodwood historic festival in Britain. I think the International community had plenty of respect for him. --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Petty and Unser - not as well-known as Mario Andretti, although probably much more so than Phil Hill. I have never heard of Hoshino, Richards, or Poon, and my ignorance of Marshall is such that I thought you were talking about American movie and TV director Garry Marshall.
With the exception of Japan and Hong Kong, however, I can say that each country has drivers that are more famous internationally. The US has the aforementioned Andretti, Dan Gurney, and A.J. Foyt. The U.K.... don't make me laugh! Even sticking to England there's Graham Hill and Stirling Moss; if the entire U.K. is included then the Scots make the list large indeed. Among Japanese drivers only Satoru Nakajima and Takuma Sato come to mind. New Zealand is easier: Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulme, and the unfortunate Chris Amon. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is, that international success is not a prerequisite for fame. A countries most famous actor may never have made a Hollywood film but still be the most famous actor because of their body of work in their home country. The current crop of NASCAR stars may never have raced internationally but that is not a good reason to not consider any of them and then state say that Sebastien Bourdais has been the best driver in America of the last five years and you will find virtually no-one given such a claim credence. Who is America's best footballer? Captain of the national Association Football team, or the Gridiron MVP? Motor Racing has so many different branches and disciplines that Formula One, or international racing in general can never claim complete ascendency. Is Sebastien Bourdais the best French driver in the world because he is in Formula One, or is it Sebastien Loeb? Who is more successful Jimmie Johnson or Scott Speed? Greg Murphy or Jonny Reid? Giancarlo Fisichella or Valentino Rossi? It also does not claim he is the most successful but one of the most successful.
I tell you what though, I had a long chat recently with a few New Zealanders on many a subject earlier this week and while they all knew and were fans of Greg Murphy, they had never heard of Bruce McLaren. --Falcadore (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
International success might not be a prerequisite for fame, but the initial statement included "and most successful". How does one measure success in motor racing? By the total number of races won, by the total number of championships won, by the highest level attained, or by the number of races or championships won at the highest level attained?
And as for New Zealand motorsports fans never having heard of Bruce McLaren, not even as the founder of one of the most successful Formula One teams ever much less as being a F1 and Can-Am driver, I think that is a damned shame. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And if you've never heard of Brock or the Bathurst 1000, well the exact equivalent would be me never having heard of the Daytona 500 and Richard Petty or Dale Earnhardt or Le Mans and Derek Bell or Jacky Ickx. The man was given a state funeral in the same week as Steve Irwin's death. Nine Bathurst wins, the last of which changed the outcome of the 1987 World Touring Car Championship, nine Sandown wins, both records, the all time record holder of touring car victories that was not eclipsed until over a decade later and only after the number of races held per season was doubled, to suggest Brock is not one of Australia's most succesful is frankly, laughable. Motor racing success is not defined by a single branch of the sport. --Falcadore (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim which I can't verifiy

I've done some searching since the source used it no longer working and I've failed to find any sources to back the claim

Somewhat ironically, given his strong identification with the Holden brand and only driving Fords for a couple of years, Brock's casket was driven from Melbourne Airport in a Ford hearse. Funeral directors organising his farewell arranged for a Holden Statesman hearse to bear him to his final, private cremation. [5]

so I've removed it from the article. Bidgee (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of attention was given to that fact at the time, however I like that it's been removed. I find it insulting to the man's career that more time has been spent on the state of his marriage, and the badge on his hearse than the amount of editorial work done on his career, and I'm including myself in that. --Falcadore (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a vegan

Peter Brock was not a vegan.

The reference point that says he was [8], is from an interview that says he ate eggs. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1417325.htm

I think this should be removed. Vegans by definitions do NOT consume animal products. Linsanity (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Linsanity

Well, go for it. Be bold. --Falcadore (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Brock Foundation?

In the header it lists a sumamry of most things, but does include the foundation that he set up. I would think this to be an important part of his life as it was set up by him and he put great effort into it. Also, his legacy section... is it worth noting the annual Peter Brock Day car show in melbourne? While it started before his death, it continues to this day with the event constantly growing. (Id add myself but dont have access to all the resources due to lousy work firewalls) Theloneoutsider (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its worth nitpiking on this article. I desperately needs a ground up re-write, various sections have been given dispropotionately large and small amounts of coverage. Not reall sure any part of the current article is salvageable. --Falcadore (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Its sad it is in such desperate need of an update, if it wasnt for my firewall and work id spend all day every day bringing it up to scratch. having just gone through half of the article so far, there is so much information missing, placed in worng places, vague etc. I only had one hero through my childhood. oh, and I just found the small mention of the foundation so at least it is in there somewhere. I might have to find me a place i can spend a week fixing all this. except... id probably have to spend a week prior learning how to do all the tags and stuff Theloneoutsider (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bathurst History

"His 1979 win was remarkable in that he claimed the flag by six laps, a record that (due to changes in race regulations introduced in the 1990s) will never be broken" Just what rule means that a person cannot win the race by more than 6 laps? I believe the rule change refers to the fact that for the race in question, Brock drove the race solo, and the rule changed was the rule specifying that a driver restricted to the number of laps that he could drive. Is it better to say "His 1979 win was remarkable in that he drove the entire race without a co-driver, claimed the flag by six laps and broke the circuit lap record on his final lap, a feat that(due to changes in race regulations introduced in the 1990s) will never be broken"? Confirmation that this was the the solo race before updating.. Theloneoutsider (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Brock did not do the race solo. The solo races date back before the expansion of the race to 1000 kilometres. When the race was expanded from 500 miles to 1000 kilometres in 1973, the option to race solo, (which I think had always existed previously, but drivers only really started solo runs in 1970) was deleted.
As to why it could not be done now? Pure mathematics. Last years race to 6:26 hours, which makes for a average lap of about 2:23.8 minutes. To win by six laps means second place car would have to complete 155 laps in 6:26, which makes for a lap average of 2:29.4. The race winning car would have to lap six seconds per lap faster than the entire field for the entire race. This was possible in 1979 because less than ten cars in the entire field were capable of lapping within six seconds of the Brock/Richards Torana. If those ten cars strike problems, as did in 1979, then we're good. Now-a-days the entire field qualified within four seconds, even those in trouble. So the chances of trouble striking all 29 potential rival cars are well.. you can imagine.
And bear in mind the race would also have to run without safety car. If say safety cars bunch the field up but the race has a clear run from half distance, then the leading car now has to lap 12 second per lap faster than the enitre field to get six laps clear.
Yes it is theoretically possible, but it is practically impossible to achieve a six lap win now. --Falcadore (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The change in regulation would be the introduction of the safety car in 1987 specifically. --Falcadore (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, got my dates confused with the solo win. But, still, the rule change did not make it impossible, regardless of how improbable it is, it could still be done. The days of cars winning by just a single lap are long gone, however, there si nothing in the rules that prevents this from happening. Theloneoutsider (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it does. The safety car in combination with the parity rules (which also did not exist in 1979) that deliberately keep vehicle performance level (a trend begun in the late 1990s), and the removal of small capacity class cars from the field, (1995 was the first race without them) all combine to make it actually impossible. Improbable does not cover the circumstances recquired to re-create a six lap victory today. --Falcadore (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to seem so pedantic, but, seeing as claims should be verified and such and claims should be backed up, there is no such rule in existance that says a car cannot win by 6 laps, cannot win by 50 laps or cannot win by 1 lap. I totally agree that rule changes make it virtually impossible to do. However, it reads as if a specific rules has been changed on the principle of preventing that from happening. like "no car shal be allowed to gain more than a single lap on the field" Changing the wording to "rule changes introduced in 19xx mean this feat/record is not likely to be beaten" Remember, tis not just rule changes that have improved the closeness of racing at bathurst, but the reliability as well. Go back to the early v8SC races at bathurst and look at the number of retirements to mechanical failures compared to present day occurances. In days of 40+ car fields, half the field would have lost time and precious laps due to mechanical failures and only 4 or 5 cars on the lead lap. Now, you are lucky to have 10 cars losing large amounts of time to failures and there will be 10 to 15 cars on the lead lap. Thats not because of rule cahnges but because of reliability. Theloneoutsider (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It could easily be broken if the rules are changed in the future. "Never" is a really long time! Grassynoel (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter Brock/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Seeing as he died I would suggest High importance. - Mike Beckham 05:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed. Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
He's as well known as Steve Irwin? Iorek85 12:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Brock/Archive_1&oldid=1088816844"