Parity Review Has Been Called

[Kingair]

Speedcafe reporting that there will a parity review.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Kingair

Speedcafe reporting that there will a parity review.

By who? Clearly the current group are not competent doing this

[Compromised]

Was this triggered by results rather than data? Because that makes no sense in the spirit of the series, especially when it gives incentive to sandbag...

[Mixer]

As long as the review takes into account:

Tickford has 2 fast drivers who crash all the time (preferably into other Mustangs)
Tickford can't put together a race strategy or read the rule book.
Tickford also apparently can't tighten clamps on a fuel line either

DJR are... Back where DJR were before Penske

WAU has only 1 driver

Grove has only 1/2 a driver

GM teams have used more test days than Ford have.

I have no issue with a parity review as per the rules, but there is a huge fact that Ford teams have not performed as well as GM teams, and that has noting to do with parity. Even if the cars right now had perfect parity, all of the above is still true, and they'd still be behind the teams who have made less mistakes.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Mixer

As long as the review takes into account:

Tickford has 2 fast drivers who crash all the time (preferably into other Mustangs)
Tickford can't put together a race strategy or read the rule book.
Tickford also apparently can't tighten clamps on a fuel line either

DJR are... Back where DJR were before Penske

WAU has only 1 driver

Grove has only 1/2 a driver

GM teams have used more test days than Ford have.

I have no issue with a parity review as per the rules, but there is a huge fact that Ford teams have not performed as well as GM teams, and that has noting to do with parity. Even if the cars right now had perfect parity, all of the above is still true, and they'd still be behind the teams who have made less mistakes.

Parity reviews have been called before with arguably similar circumstances.

1993 springs to mind.

[Mixer]

The thing that I am puzzled about is that whatever Ford has asked for, I guess now 3 different times, they have gotten. Each time it was meant to be the silver bullet. Including an engine map that netted them a pole before Tickford's car self-immolated.

I'm also of the belief that the Ford engine issue isn't put to bed yet, due to torque sensors and transient dyno coming.

So why is it that we need a separate review?

It would be nice if a single one of the Ford teams had actually put up what you'd call a winning performance, but I don't think one can lay that claim.

[Just Do It!]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The thing that I am puzzled about is that whatever Ford has asked for, I guess now 3 different times, they have gotten. Each time it was meant to be the silver bullet. Including an engine map that netted them a pole before Tickford's car self-immolated.

I'm also of the belief that the Ford engine issue isn't put to bed yet, due to torque sensors and transient dyno coming.

So why is it that we need a separate review?

It would be nice if a single one of the Ford teams had actually put up what you'd call a winning performance, but I don't think one can lay that claim.

An air rifle fires a different bullet compared to an anti-aircraft gun

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The thing that I am puzzled about is that whatever Ford has asked for, I guess now 3 different times, they have gotten. Each time it was meant to be the silver bullet. Including an engine map that netted them a pole before Tickford's car self-immolated.

I'm also of the belief that the Ford engine issue isn't put to bed yet, due to torque sensors and transient dyno coming.

So why is it that we need a separate review?

It would be nice if a single one of the Ford teams had actually put up what you'd call a winning performance, but I don't think one can lay that claim.

Supercars need to stop with the bullshit and put an air restrictor on the Camaro, if the mustang is then too fast then put a bigger restrictor and so on until parity is achieved.

[GreenMachine]

Parity includes drivers? Sounds fun ...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Parity includes drivers? Sounds fun ...

When the parity trigger includes laptimes I guess it has to.

Is it fastest laps? Averages?

Parity is an equal TECHNICAL chance of winning for each brand.

Whether your team on any given day is good enough to win is a whole other thing.

[GTRMagic]

Ford presented the chassis and engine they wanted to showcase in the category.
If they have done a job not as good as the Chev homologation organisation we are playing catch up for bad design.

[Mixer]

I just can't get how such serious engine problems got past them during all the testing. That's doing my head in.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Ford presented the chassis and engine they wanted to showcase in the category.
If they have done a job not as good as the Chev homologation organisation we are playing catch up for bad design.

Possibly, but this type of issue dates back to the very early days when the EB Falcon was clearly superior to the VP.

Holden were allowed to effectively catch-up for their bad design. It is what a parity formula allows.

[Compromised]

Of course they get poles, they're "yawing" more through the corners, great for qualy.

Over a race distance though, not so great (tire deg) and since points are only giving for race results....

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Of course they get poles, they're "yawing" more through the corners, great for qualy.

Where is any proof of this?

First it was aero: Ford got it adjusted

Then COG: Adjusted

Then Ford were SURE it was drivability and power in 3rd and 4th gear: also addressed

NOW it's yaw

Meanwhile Ford drivers are inconsistent, chuck their cars at the weeds, team prep mistakes that are unforgivable happen, race strategy is objectively rubbish, Ford teams on average have used 1/3 as many test days as GM teams.

All of these things would also explain poor tyre life - and NO Ford team could match SVG's tyre life in the previous gen car. I don't know why it is surprising that a fast, but impetuous and ragged driver like Waters would complain about tyre life... If you go hard at the start, you can torch your tyres. If your chassis setup isn't right, you can torch your tyres. These cars don't have anti-roll bars. We knew this would be better for some than others.

Funny that people accuse 888 of sandbagging but if you were whingeing for a parity change, you would keep your test days up your sleeve and show what you can do after...

[Sandgroper]

Lets be honest, are we ever going to get it 100% correct?
Theres always going to be winners losers, better crews, drivers etc etc
No matter the vehicle parity some teams do it better.

HOLDEN may have had a great package at the time but rarely sighted BJR or Charlies teams winning.
FORD had a great package for Scotty but no other ford teams to match him.

So its it the driver, the team, the car or a combination.

[GTRMagic]

PA Sells Boost Camaro

Wonder who to? A Ford team?

[Mixer]

Not a parity topic, and posted elsewhere.

[bluesport]

Complete technical parity can never be achieved.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Complete technical parity can never be achieved.

Carrera Cup and the Toyota 86 Series have no problem achieving it. A Mustang Cup would have simplified matters, pending finding a second manufacturer to financially commit to the series. The Brasil Stock Car series has often operated as a one-make cup in times when there was no second manufacturer.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Complete technical parity can never be achieved.

It has been achieved before (between two makes at least) but there's no question that with the current cars both being 2 door coupes for the first time & also having different engine sizes and configurations for the first time that it appears to be harder than it was. Maybe they'll "get there" or maybe they won't - but personally I don't think that the concept of technical parity should be discarded just because it is hard - that is part of the challenge of running the sport. Ultimately it may prove to be a fruitless exercise, particularly with the different engines but it's too early to throw it in the bin just yet.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Carrera Cup and the Toyota 86 Series have no problem achieving it. A Mustang Cup would have simplified matters, pending finding a second manufacturer to financially commit to the series. The Brasil Stock Car series has often operated as a one-make cup in times when there was no second manufacturer.

Such an idea (regardless of what brand is on the cars) runs completely against the history and ethos of the series here - the tribal nature of the fan base (& even the teams) has changed since the demise of Holden but it is till there. Whichever brand ran a one-make series would result in alienating a big chunk of the current fan base and thus, it isn't an option worth considering unless the intention is to effectively end what is there already and then start over with something completely new.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Whichever brand ran a one-make series would result in alienating a big chunk of the current fan base and thus,

It's funny how little such concern was given to the problem of alienating Nissan fans in 1993.

Originally Posted by Tourer

the history and ethos of the series here ... it isn't an option worth considering unless the intention is to effectively end what is there already and then start over with something completely new.

It's definitively necessary for the category to move towards a format that includes Asian and European cars (again), as a lot of fans seem to now have trouble identifying with the Detroit pony car contest and don't see these cars as the same as Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores (even if these were American-owned cars) anyway.

Gen 3 could've been that, but they didn't make sure to do it. Very odd. If there are going to be only Detroit pony cars, I don't think it really matters if there is one model or two as the Camaro and Mustang are very similar and they are both rare cars on the road (the Camaro especially so).

It would have been more logical to prioritize getting some of the turbocharged Asian and European sportscars (back) out there in Gen 3, rather than a second pony car in addition to the Mustang IMO.

Ideally a Ford Mustang v Nissan Z format would've been better for Gen 3 if only two makes could be managed, it would have restored Nissan's prominent place in the Australia Touring Car Championship and avoided the odd issue of the obscure (in Australia) Chevrolet brand being very prominent which seems rather a marketing dead-end.

With very different wheelbases and engine types and so on, it would have forced the hand of organisers to go to Balance-of-Performance with sliding ballast and boost and throttle restrictors and so on, which is an easier way to equalise cars.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It's funny how little such concern was given to the problem of alienating Nissan fans in 1993.

Well completely different times 30 years ago and different people / organisation running the game then of course, plus Nissan was only one of a number of makes at the time, whereas losing either Ford fanbase or Chev fanbase now would amount to a much larger percentage. I guess you could also say that organisations and people learn from mistakes of the past.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It's definitively necessary for the category to move towards a format that includes Asian and European cars (again), as a lot of fans seem to now have trouble identifying with the Detroit pony car contest and don't see these cars as the same as Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores (even if these were American-owned cars) anyway.

Gen 3 could've been that, but they didn't make sure to do it. Very odd.

Don't know about definitely necessary but it would be a good thing - provided of course that the manufacturers concerned are prepared to allow their IP / designs to be used in the series. There was of course work being done on at least one other engine type (turbo 6), plus a "category" engine but it all got shelved for various reasons. Guess for Gen 3 at least to start with they've focussed on the brands that wanted to be represented and the number of those may expand in the future (or not).

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

It has been achieved before (between two makes at least) but there's no question that with the current cars both being 2 door coupes for the first time & also having different engine sizes and configurations for the first time that it appears to be harder than it was. Maybe they'll "get there" or maybe they won't - but personally I don't think that the concept of technical parity should be discarded just because it is hard - that is part of the challenge of running the sport. Ultimately it may prove to be a fruitless exercise, particularly with the different engines but it's too early to throw it in the bin just yet.

Previously they got close with technical parity but with different body shapes it can never be achieved and now with different engine characteristics technical parity is even further from reality, one manufacturer will always have an advantage although it might not be a huge advantage.

[Compromised]

Is it such a crazy idea to organize a test day with T8 and DJR (maybe Tickford instead) and swap the cars? Both teams have incentive to prove the competitors car is fast so there's no chance of sandbagging.

Surely the cars are similar enough now it shouldn't take long to adjust to any set-up nuance's.