Thread: BROCK OR WHINCUP?

Ambrose and Moffat, only reason Brock won so many Bathust races was because Holden cheated and ran a small car (4 cyl. Vauxhall, stuffed with a I.L. Six and later a V8) against a full size Ford Sedan, and then they cried all the way up CAMS bum when Dick Johnson smacked Holdens behind in a Pommy 4 cyl. shopping cart, Holden sucks and always will, Regards Frank.

FWIW,Brock and Loundes definitely have the better people skills

Even though i am a true blue Brock and Loundes fan, it is very difficult to not put Whincup at the top.
To win that many races,and championships in a very competitive series is a very good effort.
Races these days are won in thousands of a second,not be half a lap,as it was in Brocks day.Remember he did win Bathurst one year by six laps.

Loundes should have won more,the double stacking cost him quite a few races and possibly a Bathurst,but thats the way the cards fall,sometimes.

There were/are many other good drivers around,they just have to have the good equipment.

Brock
Whincup
lowndes

Yea, I reckon Brocky first, there is a handful that on any given day can be competitive.... but lets face it, the money being pumped into RBRA and the technology of today makes it hard to compare..... Group C and Group A cars were so much more "Seat of the pants" racing, yes they did have some big budgets late in Group A and some reasonable Technology but nothing like todays teams...... one way would be to put Whincup in a Group C car for 6 hours and see how he goes.
For the record, I am a fan of Mopar first, Ford second..... but Whincup is good, he does have the runs on the board after all

could Whincup drive Mt Panorama flat out without brakes for hours?

Brock did.

could Whincup win a round Australia rally one week, then win at the racetrack next week?

Brock did.

Originally Posted by Kev the Fridgy

Yea, I reckon Brocky first, there is a handful that on any given day can be competitive.... but lets face it, the money being pumped into RBRA and the technology of today makes it hard to compare..... Group C and Group A cars were so much more "Seat of the pants" racing, yes they did have some big budgets late in Group A and some reasonable Technology but nothing like todays teams...... one way would be to put Whincup in a Group C car for 6 hours and see how he goes.
For the record, I am a fan of Mopar first, Ford second..... but Whincup is good, he does have the runs on the board after all

good point there mate those group C things were monsters very close to road going cars. Seeing the greens tuf falcon down at DJR at yatala complete with sheepskin seat covers, factory radio nothing like todays cars but the group A's were strangled under the stupid rules at the time and yeah i would like to see whincup in a old school BIG BANGER. must admit i am a closet mopar fan my first set of wheels was a 1969 VG valiant safari wagon 225 slant 3 on the tree, drum brakes and no seatbelts what a beast. even had a VH with a 318 but the 225 used heaps more fuel

[quote=Tank;2116171]Ambrose and Moffat, only reason Brock won so many Bathust races was because Holden cheated and ran a small car (4 cyl. Vauxhall, stuffed with a I.L. Six and later a V8) against a full size Ford Sedan, and then they cried all the way up CAMS bum when Dick Johnson smacked Holdens behind in a Pommy 4 cyl. shopping cart, Holden sucks and always will, Regards Frank.[/quot

! Seriously. This is what u believe. For ****s sake, u clearly haven't got a clue

Whincup the supercar Vettel.
Says it all., not a patch on Brock.