Parity Review Has Been Called

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Carrera Cup and Toyota 86 series. I mentioned how one-make series are excellent for parity.

Of course there are still manufacturing tolerances to consider, so nominally 510hp 4.0L flat-six engines may vary by say ±3hp or ±1.0%, but it's a smaller factor than having two entirely different body styles and engines.

A Mustang series would be good? you were talking about that at one stage? But then people say a Camaro series would kill Supercars? [Which it would] So which one is it? You also want 110% parity, but then talk about wanting all different cars with all different engine configurations. They have had this much issue getting these two cars the same. As I have said, the parity is getting very close now, and data will drive any changes. The cars are closer than ever, but the drums are still getting louder.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Ares

A Mustang series would be good? you were talking about that at one stage? But then people say a Camaro series would kill Supercars? [Which it would]

I disagree, I think a Camaro Cup would be fine. At least it would settle the issue as to whether or not it is that WAU and Grove are doing a bad job, or whether they have a car disadvantage.

Supercars are clearly not fussed about retaining Ford Performance as I was saying.

Originally Posted by Ares

You also want 110% parity, but then talk about wanting all different cars with all different engine configurations.

My preference would be to have the various engines as different as possible (5.2L 8200rpm in the Mustang, 6.2L 6700rpm in the Camaro, 3.8L twin turbo V6 in the Nissan Z etc) and use BOP. Essentially any GT3 homologated should be automatically accepted.

The "110% parity" refers to the current plan of a doing a totally spec one-make series just with two superficial makes, which they seem to be having difficulty delivering. Having taken away the ability for teams to tune their own engines (and own suspensions) or for auto makers to design their own splitters and rear wings, it is incumbent on organisers to actually deliver on that plan for a one-make series with two superficial makes that perform identically in every way.

A lack of delivering that promptly will obviously see them lose Ford Performance as a competitor and sponsor. They heard Rushbrook's concerns before the season yet have still not solved the matter conclusively.

[bluesport]

Ford still not on the money says Kostecki.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/08/08...jake-kostecki/

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I disagree, I think a Camaro Cup would be fine. At least it would settle the issue as to whether or not it is that WAU and Grove are doing a bad job, or whether they have a car disadvantage.

Supercars are clearly not fussed about retaining Ford Performance as I was saying.



My preference would be to have the various engines as different as possible (5.2L 8200rpm in the Mustang, 6.2L 6700rpm in the Camaro, 3.8L twin turbo V6 in the Nissan Z etc) and use BOP. Essentially any GT3 homologated should be automatically accepted.

The "110% parity" refers to the current plan of a doing a totally spec one-make series just with two superficial makes, which they seem to be having difficulty delivering. Having taken away the ability for teams to tune their own engines (and own suspensions) or for auto makers to design their own splitters and rear wings, it is incumbent on organisers to actually deliver on that plan for a one-make series with two superficial makes that perform identically in every way.

A lack of delivering that promptly will obviously see them lose Ford Performance as a competitor and sponsor. They heard Rushbrook's concerns before the season yet have still not solved the matter conclusively.

A one make class would not bother me, Mustang Cup would be fine with me. I just don't think the fan base would be. All I want to see is good hard racing, with car and driver on the edge putting on a show. If Cam and Chaz are fighting for the title next season, fine by me. Results are starting to move in a direction that next season that could happen, But they will have to be better next year to beat 888 and Erebus. SVG gone is going to set a different playing field. I hope the P word is gone by then, but probably not.

[Ares]

I also don't think BOP is going to be a silver bullet to fix all your problems. Your idea sounds very messy to me.

[V8 Fireworks]

But I'd say the hardest thing for me to manage is the engine brake. It's one of those things I'm really struggling to get my head around.

- Chaz Mostert
https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/mostert-...nce-in-sydney/

Encouraging signs from a new engine map:

The new map has solved “80% of the engine braking issues” according to our sources within the unofficial test, although Tickford’s Tim Edwards was less equivocal.

“There wasn’t just a new map, there were a few different things,” Edwards said.

https://autoaction.com.au/2023/08/09...-puzzle-solved

Although the AVL dyno testing is still necessary to confirm the engines perform exactly the same going both up and down the gears, and with identical transient response for all throttle application rates.

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

[New ownership for series] Does this mean that the bickering in the parity thread will go away? Please?

Relevance? Surely that will only be settled when AVL dyno and wind tunnel testing confirms that the vehicles perform exactly the same in every way -- including both transient engine response and the full aero map of all ride heights, all yaw angles and pitch. Obviously a one-make series -- be it Mustang Cup or Camaro Cup -- would be the easiest way to ensure that.

Originally Posted by Ares

I also don't think BOP is going to be a silver bullet to fix all your problems.

Or a move to BOP, which would allow for balancing not just Mustang and Camaro but also vehicles like the Toyota Supra which have a shorter wheelbase and a turbocharged engine.

Given the current processes can't balance the substantially similar Camaro and Mustang conclusively, even though they are very similar, it seems the current processes would be insufficient to establish technical parity for a shorter wheelbase Supra with a turbocharged inline six engine.

[GTRMagic]

I wasn’t aware that 888 were building GWM V8Supercars…

Story Here

How can the series paritise the brands when 3 cars out of the same shed aren’t even comparable?

Seriously

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I wasn’t aware that 888 were building GWM V8Supercars…

Story Here

How can the series paritise the brands when 3 cars out of the same shed aren’t even comparable?

Seriously

Haha very true, puts to rest the argument of superior T8 build quality and puts egg on the face of those that criticise ford's quality procedures.

[Ares]

No one including T8 themselves know 100% what the issue is. No one has said this is a chassis build problem yet. It could be a control part issue? Maybe we should wait until the actual facts come out, before some of us get to ahead of ourselves again.

[GTRMagic]

Not getting ahead of anything
888 have built more that 60 V8Supercars and should be best placed to at least understand what is being built into their own, and their customer’s toys.

You can kind of understand if a customer bought a ‘B’ spec car based on price and maintenance/technical agreements, yet this is actually an ‘A’ spec car for THEMSELVES!

Maybe the new owners can sort this..

[Ares]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Not getting ahead of anything
888 have built more that 60 V8Supercars and should be best placed to at least understand what is being built into their own, and their customer’s toys.

You can kind of understand if a customer bought a ‘B’ spec car based on price and maintenance/technical agreements, yet this is actually an ‘A’ spec car for THEMSELVES!

Maybe the new owners can sort this..

It would be interesting how close all the TA2 chassis line up. Been down that track before with inhouse built chassis that were not all the same. Hand built must open these things up? Not like off the production line.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Back in the day Mr Brock took Mr Moffat’s Group C Mazda Rx7 prototype for a drive before it was homologated gif racing by CAMS..

Let’s do it…

Story Here

[Mixer]

And these days if you present one for historic racing with the 5 speed gearbox it was homologated rather than the 6 speed it ran with, you will be ineligible :P

Truth is the world was a very different place then.

[GTRMagic]

Grove or WAU to switch to GM?

[Mixer]

WAU have factory cash so surely a contract too?

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Grove or WAU to switch to GM?

Why wouldnt ya tbf

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Why wouldnt ya tbf

If the cars had technical parity there would be no need to switch?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If the cars had technical parity there would be no need to switch?

Supercars promised parity and haven't delivered as yet........technical parity doesn't work.

[Mixer]

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/upgraded...SpGRa-bvVK1wu8

Ford drivers whine for rear aero, get it.

Now they're whining because they have drag.

More aero always creates more drag.

Are these clowns literally trying to get different parity for different kinds of tracks now?

Whine for extra aero before tracks with fast corners, now agitate to have it taken off before Bathurst?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/upgraded...SpGRa-bvVK1wu8

Ford drivers whine for rear aero, get it.

Now they're whining because they have drag.

More aero always creates more drag.

Are these clowns literally trying to get different parity for different kinds of tracks now?

Whine for extra aero before tracks with fast corners, now agitate to have it taken off before Bathurst?

They must have learnt about whining from the holden teams in 2019.

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by Mixer

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/upgraded...SpGRa-bvVK1wu8

Ford drivers whine for rear aero, get it.

Now they're whining because they have drag.

More aero always creates more drag.

Are these clowns literally trying to get different parity for different kinds of tracks now?

Whine for extra aero before tracks with fast corners, now agitate to have it taken off before Bathurst?

hahahahah I thought this exacty trying to hold my tounge.

Upgrades worked today right? No win but competitive !

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Upgrades worked today right? No win but competitive !

Encouraging but one swallow doesn't make a summer.

It remains to be seen if the parity crisis has been solved yet.

Funny to see how these "no hoper" Ford drivers like Randle and Mostert can now seem to drive competently (and the "no hoper" teams can set up the cars just fine too).

Originally Posted by Mixer

Ford drivers whine for rear aero, get it.

Now they're whining because they have drag.

It's the same amount of aero, just done with less wing angle and a Gurney (on a lowered wing) and a more cambered boot lid extension. The change was to remove the rear wing stalling behaviour -- i.e., the loss of aero under dive during braking, not to increase the rear aero load.

Obviously wings at lower angles of attack (now max. 5 degrees compared to max. 9 degrees before and max. 10 degrees on Camaro) are less prone to stalling than those at higher angles. Then the Gurney flap and boot lid extension camber are meant to restore the load that is lost by reducing the angle of attack and by lowering the wing.

D2H should have picked up on that stalling in the first place having set the original wing position (ideally Ford Performance should have picked up on that stalling but it's unclear if they did any development on this S650 ATCC aero kit), but oh well. As long as it gets sorted eventually.

Now that the specifications have changed since VCAT, they will be checking if both rear wings at their lowest position (and highest position) enable the cars to produce identical drag. The Ford unfortunately only has three rear wing positions available for setup now, compared to five on the Chevrolet.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

They must have learnt about whining from the holden teams in 2019.

See you think you have a good argument but you score an own goal.

Very consistent feedback and one major set of changes happened to bring that car back to the field in the middle of 2019.

After that, 2 championships to Ford and 2 championships to Holden.

Both dominated by driver and team performance.

In other words: technical parity.

We have none of that consistency now.
Supercars can't know what Ford wants because Ford doesn't know what Ford wants.

Holden teams also didn't immediately start winning necessarily, and unless Ford teams win with ease, it seems they are apt to keep complaining.

Plenty of good evidence from SMP and The Bend that the Ford's are competitive.

However if teams just blame the car, they are not looking in the mirror.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

See you think you have a good argument but you score an own goal.

Very consistent feedback and one major set of changes happened to bring that car back to the field in the middle of 2019.

After that, 2 championships to Ford and 2 championships to Holden.

Both dominated by driver and team performance.

In other words: technical parity.

We have none of that consistency now.
Supercars can't know what Ford wants because Ford doesn't know what Ford wants.

Holden teams also didn't immediately start winning necessarily, and unless Ford teams win with ease, it seems they are apt to keep complaining.

Plenty of good evidence from SMP and The Bend that the Ford's are competitive.

However if teams just blame the car, they are not looking in the mirror.

Stop whining ffs, parity is an ongoing process and if the teams think there is a problem they have to talk about it as they are not allowed to change anything themselves, everything has to go through supercars.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Encouraging but one swallow doesn't make a summer.

It remains to be seen if the parity crisis has been solved yet.

Funny to see how these "no hoper" Ford drivers like Randle and Mostert can now seem to drive competently (and the "no hoper" teams can set up the cars just fine too).




It's the same amount of aero, just done with less wing angle and a Gurney (on a lowered wing) and a more cambered boot lid extension. The change was to remove the rear wing stalling behaviour -- i.e., the loss of aero under dive during braking, not to increase the rear aero load.

Obviously wings at lower angles of attack (now max. 5 degrees compared to max. 9 degrees before and max. 10 degrees on Camaro) are less prone to stalling than those at higher angles. Then the Gurney flap and boot lid extension camber are meant to restore the load that is lost by reducing the angle of attack and by lowering the wing.

D2H should have picked up on that stalling in the first place having set the original wing position (ideally Ford Performance should have picked up on that stalling but it's unclear if they did any development on this S650 ATCC aero kit), but oh well. As long as it gets sorted eventually.

Now that the specifications have changed since VCAT, they will be checking if both rear wings at their lowest position (and highest position) enable the cars to produce identical drag. The Ford unfortunately only has three rear wing positions available for setup now, compared to five on the Chevrolet.

Thanks for that, good post.