Talk:Bathurst 1000

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)

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)

I vividly remember watching the race at the time and the booing was 100% about the fact that a 'non-Aussie' car had won. The 'anti-Jap' sentiment had hit a low point especially as Godzilla had won the previous year and had been wiping the floor with the Aussie product and hitting the egos of the Aussie fans. You can bet that the same reaction would NEVER have happened had a Ford or Holden won in the same circumstances on that day. Gut Feeling 17:30, 15 Oct 2008

I recall watching it too, from the demeanour of the crowd and the reaction they gave the previous speakers you could tell that they were angry about the country of origin of the Skyline (how times have changed with young people today). When Richards came forward to speak, you could see that he had enough of this nonsense and wasn't going to pretend that the crowd was notrude. It was a brilliant counter attack. There were no Nissan flags in the crowd at any point during the day. These people were Aussie car fans, of course they were going to pay out on any Japanese car driver. The fact that a local lost -- perhaps unfairly -- only antagonised them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedes350slc (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

There should be a lot more in this section. Firstly it didnnt go straight from series production to group c, there was improved series production in between. Also, the section conetrates almost 100% on holden and ford, and while there is a brief mention of moffats rx-7 and bartletts camaro, what about richards and his jps BMW? what about bond in his alfas. There were many other vehicles and many different classes within each race, and these should be, they are missing from the other sections as well, and while I am sure the pages for individual races list the classes and winners, there should be more mention of them on this page Theloneoutsider (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

List of winners

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

How is it that Peter Brock won the 1972 race with a time of 6h 0m 99.1s (given that there are only 60 seconds in a minute)? http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/bathurst_1972.htm has the same time. --Dlee3178 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps splitting things up a bit more would a better idea? And not just the groupA section. The Early years should be split up into the the different rules it was run under, with the production and series production as well as the improved series production classes as seperate sections. Then, with the Group A section, seperating the World Touring Car Championship years into a seperate section, which can then incorporate the hickenburg(sp?) section into it, which would allow the rest of the groupa discussion to focus on the developments from that point on. IMHO it would clear things up better and reduce the clutter and make the info someone may be seeking easier to locate. Theloneoutsider (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, sections particualr to a single race should be stripped out and mvoed to each race. The long section detailing the races evolution should perhaps be stripped out into its own page, History of the Bathurst 1000. It is perhaps rather over-written. The article should be about what the Bathurst 1000 is. Detailed history of the race's past belong somewhere else. --Falcadore (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Famous Winners

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)

Murphy's lap

(Copied from Kaiwhakahaere's talk page for expediency)

You titled the section race records, and the Skyline 6:19 IS the actual race record. Maybe you should have titled it something else. Murphy's lap was one of the greatest achievements in the race, but qualifying lap records are purely unofficial, essentially a stat created for TV. It does not count for anything and is not recorded in race programs or similar. The official lap record is Whincup's and deserves recognition no matter how sentimental people might get over Murphy's lap. Let's divorce the emotion and state things as they are. This is a serious article, not fanboy cruft. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Falcdore. Your message timed at 05.44. See my change made at 05:37, I hope that overcomes your concern. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Whincup is the official lap record holder, and deserves primary mention. You don't give the gold medal to the guy who was fastest in the Olympic trials, you have to do it on the day. --Falcadore (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no gold medal for fastest lap in practice, qualifying, top 10 or actual race. The gold medal (winner/s trophy) has nothing to do with lap times. The most meritorious lap time is the fastest ever recorded relevant to this race, and that deserves the primary mention, which is why I phrased the section as I did. However, as you object, I am breaking it into separate sections.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking proverbially, but you know that. There is not official recognition for qualifying laps, but there is for race laps. You can't just make stuff up just because of the emotion surrounding Murphy's lap. I have a 20 years worth of official programmes and publications which diisagree with you. The most meritorious lap time can only be recorded in a race. I appreciate that you have an opinion, but wikipedia is not written with opinions. --Falcadore (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. You insist "there is not official recognition for qualifying laps" but you insert shootout lap times in Wikipedia in this edit. But that's OK because it shows that you really do see that shootout times are official, the reason officials use them to determine the first 10 grid positions, and we should correctly acknowledge this. My opinion has no more weight than yours, so let's look at a fraction of the verifiable general perception held by the media/public. Following are a few quotes to ponder.

• ".....prizemoney being offered to the driver who can claim pole position and also better his (Murphy's) lap record during the Top 10 Shootout........Murphy’s lap is considered to be one of the greatest individual performances in Australian motorsport history". V8X Magazine, here

• "However, Lowndes was not popular with everyone at the track. He and New Zealand's Greg Murphy, who has the fastest lap ever recorded at Bathurst.....". The Australian report of yesterday's race, here

• "But Murphy - whose Bathurst lap record set five years ago still stands - could not hunt down the Triple Eight Falcon.....". Sydney Morning Herald report of yesterday's race, here

• "Greg Murphy relives the epic hot lap that wrote his name into the Bathurst record book, where it still stands." Wheels Magazine, here

• "His (Winterbottom's) super-quick lap of 2:07.19, less than half a second outside the lap record, denied the holder Greg Murphy........." The Mercury, here

• "But Murphy - whose Bathurst lap record set five years ago still stands - could not hunt down the...." Brisbane Times report of yesterday"s race, here

I think that's enough. Ask any driver whether they consciously try to beat Murphy's time in the Top 10. Tell them that someone wrote on Wikipedia the "most meritorious lap time can only be recorded in a race", and let us know what their responses are. Ask the TV commentators why year after year after year they rabbit on about Murphy's fastest lap. It's because the fastest lap in the history of the event is, well, historically significant, and meritorious, and merits a stand-alone mention in Wikipedia. It is unlikely the fastest outright lap and lap record will ever be one and the same because the shootout pace is quicker than race pace, (Murphy's pole time was almost two seconds faster than the lap record set that day). I am restoring the information, but below race winners as suggested by you, and which I agree with. I am also copying this to the article's talk so readers won't scratch their heads wondering what is going on. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I also put the top ten shootouts in all the other Bathurst articles, including 2003, but I'm not trying to pass the times off as something they are not. None of the publications you have listed are official either. News papers can cite any thing they like. If you want to go for volume of evidence I can start citing 20 years worth of race programs, which actually are official documents which disagree with you.

If you surveyed 100 fans you might find that Craig Lowndes is the most popular racing driver, but that will not make him the V8 Supercar champion. Prior to the Murphy lap, a qualifying performance was never cited as a lap record. There was quite some fuss over George Fury's 1984 pole lap but it was never as misrepresented as the lap record. A cult of hero worship has built up around Murphy's lap, which has continued to be added to by the lack of ability for it to be broken, conveniently ignoring the technical changes which started in 2004 to slow the cars.

Race laps have always been more important than qualifying laps. Formula One used to allocate a point for the world championship for the fastest lap. Originally because of inter-city races where qualifying was impossible, then later grid by ballot or handicapped starts were more popular, indeed the Bathurst 1000 itself was not started by qualifying times until 1967. Prior to that the race was started one class at a time with positions in the class decided by ballot. Additionally scruitineering, world wide, has had a tendency to be less stringent pre-race than post-race, leaving question marks over vehicle legibility. The 1980 Canadian Grand Prix was a case in point, Nelson Piquet had different cars for qualifying and the race, but a turn 1 crash and restart saw Piquet start the race in his qualifying car with the hand-grenade engine that was never going to last a full race distance and did not. The history of the lap record at Bathurst has always exclusively for race laps. This isn't just one editor on Wikipedia, this is the entire history of motor racing.

As for the commentators, their source of statistics is V8 Supercar, which is an intensely revisionist source. Over the weekend the commentators cited the race record as the 1997 Bathurst Classic race, at 6 hours 21 minutes, ignoring the actual record of 6 hours and 19 mins because it was recorded pre-V8s in 1991 by the (say it quietly) Nissan. They also cite frequently Mark Skaife as having recorded 39 rounds wins (up to 40 after the co-driver win with Tander at Phillip Islan) but if you back track through the records it comes up one race short. During the 2007/2008 off season V8 Supercar decided to change the results of all the Adelaide 500 meetings, alterring the race results so that the Saturday races no longer contributed. The result of which is that Mark Skaife was award a race win that he never actually won. Garth Tander's 2000 round win in the stats was taken away and given to Skaife, and similarly Todd Kelly's 2007 win was re-awarded to his brother Rick, all of this in complete violation of the technical, sporting and supplementary regulations those races were run under. So ask yourself can that really be trusted as a source when they pick and choose which statistics they like to use and change the ones they don't? So tell me again why taking a poll of newspaper reporters some of which are football writers who only cover racing once a year is now the accepted form of citing statistics for wikipedia.

Qualifying is used to establish the grid for a race, it is not actually part of the race. --Falcadore (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You boys can fight it out, but fwiw, the Mt Panorama Track official website - http://www.mount-panorama.com/history-a-facts/4-facts/12-circuit-facts says this - "V8 Lap Record: 2.06.89 (Greg Murphy, 2003)". Regards Warnester

Is it possible that tracks can have lap records that are not officially recognised by the corresponding sports? I think it might be. Warnester cited the Mt. Panorama web site above. Surely Murphy's lap can be the fastest lap around Mt. Panorama without it being an official V8 Supercars lap. Maybe this should be mentioned in the Mt. Panorama article instead of this one? Either way, there seems to be enough notoriety around this lap for it to cop a mention. Even if we don't count it as official. --Fruv (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is it is official. Not only does the mount-panorama site say "V8 Lap Record: 2.06.89 (Greg Murphy, 2003)" as Warnester pointed out, but the very much official V8 Supercars Australia site here says the following -- "Touring Car and Outright Lap Record, Greg Murphy 2003 Holden Commodore VY 2m.06.8594s". There you go -- note the "outright lap record". WTF can be more official than that? Puzzles me why Falcadore continually tries to find reasons why this shouldn't be mentioned. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not accurate. V8 Supercar is being increasingly revisionist in its facts and figures. The prefer their truth to the truth. The concept that the Australian touring car championship once continued Nissans, Toyotas, BMWs etc and now does not is uncomfortable to explain. Paul Morris was awarded Rookie of the Year in 1998 when he co-drove with Mark Skaife to third position, which was plainly ridiculous as he had been part of Bathurst since 1991, but never in a 'V8', always in BMWs or Toyotas.

History is written by the winners. If inaccuracies are not pointed out when they appear then eventually they get accepted and perpetuated, and the persons truth becomes the actual truth by default. Here is an opportunity to make the corrections. Why not take it? Why perpetuate the myth, when the truth is there? --Falcadore (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First it was not official, now it is not accurate because V8 Supercar is being revisionist for calling the fastest lap ever the fastest lap ever. What?. You know something, I thought yesterday that this was going to result in an edit war which I could do without, so I should withdraw. But I am glad I persisted, otherwise you would have excised relevant, historical and referenced info from the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain this please. http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?12/10/2003.MOUN.R10 --Falcadore (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the official time sheet from the 2003 Bathurst 1000. The original version gets signed off by the chief timekeeper of the race meeting. Right at the bottom: Lap record, Brad Jones 2002. Not Murphy's lap. Why was it not the lap record on the day after it was recorded, but now today somehow it is? This is what I meant by revisionist. --Falcadore (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?10/10/2004.MOUN.R10 - 12months later it still wasn't the lap record.

http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?09/10/2005.MOUN.R12 - or two years later. --Falcadore (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are motivated by naivete, bias or ignorance. When it was demonstrated to you here what is happening today, you respond with something that happened six years ago. Irrelevant. It is what is happening today that is relevant. Perhaps your antipathy towards the people who run these races should disqualify you from editing articles about them. Regardless, you are talking to yourself from here on as far as I am concerned.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but are not the evets we are disputing those which occurred 'six', or was 2003 five year ago, I fail to see how it is not relevant. --Falcadore (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Does any of this mean that the lap can't be mentioned? So we have some conflicting information - great! All we have to do is say so. The word official doesn't necessarily mean truth. If V8SA want to officially recognise the lap then, as far as they're concerned, it's official. If the people who administer the Mt Panorama circuit recognise it as official then, as far as they're concerned, it's official. If the NATSOFT system shows evidence to the contrary then all we have to do is document the fact. We don't have to take sides here or determine the meaning of truth.

From where I sit - I can see people who think the lap should be recognised and people who believe that it's not official. Both sides seem to be able to cite references to support their arguments. That makes it clear that there is controversy here. Let's write about it. It can only make the article more interesting. --Fruv (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between an outright lap record and an official lap record. Lap records are ALWAYS race laps. EVERY form of motorsport restricts lap records to RACE laps, not qualifying, not practice, not shootout.. Organistations will sometimes also keep an outright lap record, which will include any practice or qualifying laps, however, they are not part of official timing results of events organisation or classses. The bathurst lap record was, for many years held by formula 5000 yet this was largely ignored by the majority, despite it being a record to stand for many years. And, it is still the lap record for the old track layout (pre chase) The lap record of baqthurst does not belong to Greg Murphy, however, it could be noted that while this is the lap record, the fastest ever lap of the bathurst track occured during qualifying for the 2003 race when greg murphy completed a lap of xx:xx:xx during qualifying on the friday/saturday This would keep the integrity of the lap record in place and also recognise the fastest time ever recorded. Just my two cents. Theloneoutsider (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Errors in circuit map

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)

What is going on with this circuit map? It is still wrong. It has Griffins Bend marked as "Quarry Turn" and Pit Straight marked as "Main Straight". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.222.26 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Quarry Turn is not actually wrong, it's an older name for the same corner. --Falcadore (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dipper is about 4 corners away from where it really is. 121.45.11.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

quotes and related stuff in "Early Years"

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)

Fastest four door

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)

Do you have a reference that the Mercedes was faster? --Falcadore (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes around Group A

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)

the yearly result pages

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{dead link}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature

By law, the name of this article should be 'Australia 1000'. The last time the 'Bathurst 1000' name was officially used was for the 1999 Bathurst 500 for the Australian Super Touring Championship. Whilst commercially known as the 'Bathurst 1000' since 2006, V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd (formerly known as AVESCO) cannot legally register the event as the 'Bathurst 1000', and to this day is recognised in all legal documents as the 'Australia 1000'. Here is the name's entry at the Australian IP web database. Not solely the logo of the period, as the event name is key here and that trademark (owned by Bathurst Regional Council and used under licence by V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd) runs until 2027. The trademark for "Bathurst 1000" is owned by two parties, one of which no longer exists (and subsequently retired the trademark) and the other is Brisbane TV Limited, better known as Channel Seven Queensland. This trademark was last renewed on 15 December 2016, and is therefore still active and the name 'Australia 1000' stands. Be aware that wilfully breaking trademark law in Australia can result in a fine of anywhere between AU$30,000 and AU$150,000; and this legislation includes false advertising, which this case can be classified as. 2001:8003:3C5B:1700:BDA5:CDEA:46B1:E75B (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Falcadore, Kytabu, SchueyFan, and Prisonermonkeys: It appears we have an unverified legal challenge regarding the event name. Whilst I haven't seen such a challenge in the news, the source looks legitimate. What should we do?

Also, @GTHO: - why did you change the recent event articles to their sponsor names? We're actually trying to go the other way with this, as you wouldn't see the 2019 Australian Grand Prix titled as the 2019 Rolex Australian Grand Prix. Holdenman05 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME rules here. Regardless of business entities and registerred names no-one can seriously argue against that Bathurst 1000 fulfills all the criteria of common name. --Falcadore (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed the name of the page to "2018 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000" to align it with every other related page name from "1960 Armstrong 500" through to "2017 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000". GTHO (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not the 2019 and 2020 race too ? Dave Rave (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the articles should just be called 'YYYY Bathurst 1000', with the obvious exception of the early 500 mile races (which should be 'YYYY Bathurst 500') and the races at Phillip Island where the title is probably more open to debate. WP:OFFICIAL may be more appropriate in 1997 and 1998, although '1997/8 Bathurst 1000' for the Super Touring races and '1997/8 Australia 1000' for the V8 Supercars races would probably suffice there. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the name used in reliable sources. We definitely shouldn't rename the 500 mile races to "Bathurst 500" as that is a made up name which isn't used in any source. "Armstrong 500" is pretty much universally used for the years the race had this name, and similarly for Gallaher and Hardie-Ferodo. There is no requirement anywhere to not use sponsor names as they often are the official name, especially when they are the first sponsor, or are a sponsor for a long time. (Note that "19xx Bathurst 500" is still a valid search term since someone searching for these may not know the old names, and I believe many of these are redirects, some or all I created). A7V2 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

More discussion at Template talk:Bathurst 1000 races. The title of this article should definitely not be changed due to COMMONNAME, but everything outside of the article title is up for discussion. – Kytabu 23:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Precise race distance

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SC RSC B1000 LO HOR FC GRADIENT R POS.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ideas on resolving names of individual races?

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)

• @MarkiPoli: I think there's a case to be made for some of the more recent races to have their name changed. Already each year from 2014 onwards (except 2017 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000) has been moved to simply "xxxx Bathurst 1000", and I think this could be pushed backwards to at least 2006 which was the first year that the "Australia 1000" resumed using the name "Bathurst 1000". Definitely the earlier races, up to at least 1980 but probably more like 1995, should retain the sponsor name. As I said in an above discussion, the governing principle here should be WP:COMMONNAME, so we certainly shouldn't be inventing names ourselves. But definitely in more recent years the common name being "Bathurst 1000" is clear enough. (Also a minor correction that the earlier races were over 500 miles, not kilometres) A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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)