Talk:Bathurst 1000

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Richards/Skaife's car suffered a damaged front linkage from an earlier accident causing the front wheel (pretty sure passenger side) to jam and become unresponsive to steering input. Basically they slowly aqua-planed that wheel around part of the track before sliding off and running into a fence. Johnson/Bowe were in the lead at the time, but as mentioned hadn't been in front long enough before the race was black flagged, hence Richards/Skaife's rather unpopular victory. I remember being very annoyed... --150.101.108.23 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The reaction was because the crowd did not understand the actual rules. The crowd believed that Johnson/Bowe had won because they were leading when the red flag came out and they were angry that somehow, their sentimental favourite had not been awarded the win. However, the rules clearly state that in the event of a red flag, the car that lead the lap prior to the flag coming out will be declared the race winner. Nobody without knowledge of that rule could understand how a car, that is crashed into a wall, could be declared the winner and THAT is what they were angry about. As for the previous comment about the fans only wanting to cheer an aussie car... remeber, the Sierra was a european car that was not available for sale in Australia. And, there WAS nissan flags there that day. The reason they were nto all around the podium was because everyone in the crowd thought that a Ford had won, and it wasnt until the presentation that the crowd became aware of the official results.Theloneoutsider (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Could be solved perhaps by looking for footage of a cheering crowd when Dick Johnson drives past the crowd on that last lap - a cheering crowd would acknowledge "We recognise the lead has changed!", but is not 100% proof and I guess is not referenceable either? 203.123.84.51 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Red flag was waved prior to that. That footage in effect occurred after the race was over. Even if you could decide the winner that way it would have no effect on every other position in the race, and as a rule would be utterly useless for the 90% of motor races that occur without television coverage. --Falcadore (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: In response to Theloneoutsider, the crowd were well aware of the rule and results prior to the podium, it was the Skyline winning which was unpopular. Prior to emerging onto the podium Jim Richards had counselled Mark Skaife not to lose his cool, but then Jim went and lost his cool himself. This was alluded to in the recent Bathurst marathon on 7mate in which Neil Crompton referred to the "bewildered Mark Skaife" and said "I'll tell you that story another time" - this is the story he was referring to. Skaife was bewildered by Jim losing his cool after he'd just told Skaife not to lose his cool. i.e. they already knew their win was unpopular prior to the actual podium. Also, Bathurst fans will be familiar with the red flag rule, as it came into play in '81 (and another recent year, not sure which) when there was the huge crash at McPhillamy-Skyline. Dick Johnson has twice won a red-flagged Bathurst, but on this occasion it went the other way, and fans didn't like the Skyline winning, regardless of the circumstances. I thought this was so well-known I was surprised to find controversy about it here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.146.27 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1992 crowd reaction

message: 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)
thread_title: Mini or MINI?

message: 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)
thread_title: End of Group A

message: 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)
thread_title:  Craig Lowndes/Jamie Whincup  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, I agree this does need a better write up - I'll try for mid Feb, 07. --DeafCom
Peter Mckay summarised the split quite well in an old Wheels. The role of Mike Raymond (Ch 7 race guru) is crucial here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedes350slc (talk • contribs) 11:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  V8 Supercar/ 2ltr Supertourer era 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The comment was relevant to what the article said in April. It has since been re-written. --Falcadore 23:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: 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)
replies: text: Improved Production was actually called Group C, unless you mean the the pre-1973 version of Improved Touring Car regs, which were the Australian Touring Car Championship regs, and were never used at Bathurst. To be honest more than half the article need to be dumped and re-written. A large chunk of this article reads more like it should be called History of the Bathurst 1000, rather than what the article should be about. But because of how extensively it need to be re-written it's a slow burn. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group C era 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The reason Rudi Eggenberger's cars were disqualified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: List of winners - Part 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Early years edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tie Me Kangaroo Down Mate

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phillip Island 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: To me this section seems largely redundant in that it is a repeat of much of the information already contained on the page.  Plus it is open to wide interpretation - for example, currently Bob Jane, Craig Lowndes, John Goss, Alan Grice (to name a few) don't even rate a mention - yet they are all very famous as a result of their Bathurst wins.  And Jacky Ickx, also, ok so he isn't famous for winning Bathurst, with 6 Le Mans wins and several GP wins, he is arguably the most famous driver ever to win.  Just my 2c.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnester (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Winners 

message: The circuit map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Panorama_street_racing_circuit_in_Australia.svg) is incorrect in several places.  See the image discussion page for specifics, also http://www.mount-panorama.com/history-a-facts/4-facts/12-circuit-facts. 59.167.51.230 (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in circuit map 

message: From the Early Years section.. " This led to the birth of the widely accepted adage stating that "there is no substitute for cubic inches on the Mountain", which would become synonymous and change the face of racing at Bathurst forever."
I was always under the impression this phrase referred to drag racing rather than being attributed to the race. A source for the origin of this would be nice to support the claim or a rewrite to remove the implication that the phrase was borne of the race.
also in the Early Years section.... " This proved to be a great marketing opportunity to increase sales and market share in the local market, and so the famous "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" concept was born." Again, its my understanding this came from a different source, the US Stock car racing scene It is difficult to believe a market as small as Australia would lead toa  world wide uptake of this phrase in such a short time.
This is then followed by "This Series Production battleground between the "Big Three" was fought at Bathurst, and soon spawned the introduction and development of Australia's most famous muscle cars which became affectingly known as "Bathurst specials". These included Ford's Falcon GT and later GT-HO, Holden's Monaro and Torana, and Chrysler’s Pacer and Charger models"
While the GT and later GTHO were bathurst models, it was the GTS (for Monaro), XU-1 (for the torana) and the R/T (for charger/pacer) I harldy think a 4 cyl hb torana would count as a "Bathurst Special"
Later on "after the Phase One's special tyres failed under the Falcon's heavy weight and great V8 power." What was "special" about the tyres? I vaguely recall they were not the standard cross ply tyres and that they introduced a tyre for the phase one without properly testing it, which is why they faield, but just saying they were "special" implies they were nto standard equipment, which they needed to be to run in the race.
"Brock and Bond were drivers for the Holden Dealer Team (HDT), which had been formed earlier in the year to take the fight to the factory Ford Special Vehicles division " Ford Special Vehicles is a non entity, in that it never actually existed. There was Ford Australia, or there was the Ford Works Team.
"It also signaled the first Bathurst victory for a six-cylinder engined car, which was an achievement that would not be repeated again until the maiden Bathurst win of the Nissan Skyline GT-R ‘Godzilla’ much later in 1991." Well the article is about the race, not just the track, and as the race had been won by a 6 cyl vehicle before, then this should not be considered such an important fact.
"Finally, it also began the Torana legend which would enable this innovative and unique muscle car to become one of Australia’s most successful touring cars ever" I would argue that the beginning of the Torana legend was the LC based XU-1 rather than the LJ variant. While the LJ started the winning culture at bathurst, the LC variant had been successful at other venues and in other forms of motor sport.
Is there an article to reference the "supercar scare" that can be linked? It would be nice to be able to iniform a neutral reader just what that meant. I know its not part of the actual race, and so exlanation should nto be placed here, but linking to a relevant page would be nice.
Theloneoutsider (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes and related stuff in "Early Years" 

message: Those saying the 1973 Falcon GTO Fase III was the fastest 4 door car in the world, forgot about some of the other fast cars in the WORLD. Mer Benz 300 6.9 at the time was also a fast car. I owned a GTS 350 and then a GTHO III and I drove the Mer Benz - I vote for the Mer Benz 300.--58.179.50.151 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference that the Mercedes was faster? --Falcadore (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastest four door

message: I've reverted recent changes to the Group A section for the following reasons. The Jaguar XJS Group A homologation expired in 1986. They were no longer class legal after that so comparing them to the Nissan GT-R is a nonsense. Similarly the Starion was only raced by back marking teams in 1990 and similarly the BMW M3 had disappeared from competitive teams as well during the GT-R's first season, not reappearing until in force until '91. Similarly when the BMW did re-appear it was with a new car, the M3 Evolution with the 2.5 engine, a new for 1990 car so stating the GT-R was racing against 1987 cars was inaccurate, especially as the BMW was in fact newer than the Nissan.
Also the primary point of controversery of the 1992 race was how it finished. Issues of CAMS restructuring of the ATCC regs belong in the ATCC article, not here. Vehicle regulations complaints were all over and done with months before Bathurst came around. The line about Dick Johnson also is not appropriate for Wikipedia's encyclopic tone. Refer WP:TONE
Also FISA did not develop the 2.0 litre touring car regulations later termed Super Touring Cars. They were developed locally by British Touring Car Championship organisers TOCA and later copied by the FIA (not FISA) and by other CAMS equivalent bodies in Europe like ADAC for several championships across Europe, although the Touring Car World Cup was the only one the FIA ran themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes around Group A 

message: to use the infobox for a motorsport event that shows 1 line, couldn't we use a better infobox that shows more ? Dave Rave (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the yearly result pages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bathurst 1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.v8supercar.com.au/news/latestnews/newsdisplay.asp?Ind=M&gid=12038318
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923143846/http://bathurst.v8supercars.com.au:80/ to http://bathurst.v8supercars.com.au
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bathurst 1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305132459/http://www.v8supercars.com.au/news/v8-supercars-announces-prestigious-endurance-cup to http://www.v8supercars.com.au/news/v8-supercars-announces-prestigious-endurance-cup
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bathurst.v8supercars.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It appears the very precise race distance of 1000.293km has been calculated by 6.213km lap distance multiplied by 161 laps. If we want to specify the race distance to this level of accuracy, the specifics of the start & finish lines need to be taken into account. Refer to Mount_Panorama_Circuit#The_Pit_Straight
"The Pit Straight of Mount Panorama, which is adjacent to the pit complex, has a different start line and finish line. For the standing start only, the start line is 143m closer to Hell Corner so that traffic does not go too far around Murray's Corner when the start grid is formed. The finish line is positioned such that all of the pit bays are located after it."
Therefor the precise race distance is 1000.150km. But do we really need to be so precise in the first place?
203.149.68.43 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's needlessly precise. Also, since the length of the track is only given to 4 significant figures the length of the race should only be given to 4 significant figures so far as scientific standards are concerned. Also the precise length of the race can't really be given to more than a couple of hundred metres anyway (even if you were to measure the length of the track to a precision of 7 significant figures) since the exact length of the race depends on what position a competitor starts in anyway, let alone the start line/finish line difference further muddying things. 4 significant figures is enough. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise race distance 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There are a few "classes" of race, as far as i can tell (correct me if i'm wrong)
* Pre-1972: First at Phillip Island then Bathurst, 500km
* 1973-1996: 1000km, no ambiguity. 
* 1997, 1998, 1998: contested, two dueling 1000km races in 1997 and 1998, 1000km and 500km race in 1999.
* 2000-present: 1000km, no ambiguity.
I propose, for now, just changing all article titles that aren't currently "<Year> Bathurst 1000" from 2000 to today. The others can stay as they are.
I'm not sure what the case would be before 2000, but at least since then, the common name hasn't been anything other that Bathurst 1000. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For avoidance of doubt, I would be supportive of making the change you propose from 2006 onwards, and I suppose I'm neutral for the years 200-2005. A7V2 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas on resolving names of individual races?