Parity Review Has Been Called

[Langers]

Probably have a new head of motorsport in there soon to have another crack. Who would want that poison chalice is anyone’s guess though.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

aint this a ship show.

Dragging out forever.

Yip! A bit like your builder turning up at the house a couple of years after building it, Hey I have the new doors onboard. What?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Given their data-driven nature, it is imperative these aerodynamic tweaks to further technical parity are approved despite unsporting obstruction from 888 Race Engineering.

Unsporting obstruction?

How about you apply the rules of the sport as regards to a parity adjustment, which are not met at this time, after the changes Ford got before the Bend. Note that the Bend has long flowing corners and Ford wanted more aero - which they got, on top of COG adjustments and multiple engine upgrades. Now strangely when the tracks have long straights, they want to change aero again - I wonder why that might be?

The parity argument whipped up but the shitposting media after Sandown is literally insane. There were 6 Mustangs in the top 10 shootout.

WAU's drivers struck trouble - nothing to do with parity.
Tickford's drives couldn't stay on the black stuff and crashed - nothing to do with parity.
Tanders wheel fell off and hit Waters car - taking out the two fastest Fords - NOTHING TO DO WITH PARITY.

Meanwhile Kevin Estre and Payne proved there is NOTHING wrong with the Mustang speed or tyre life. It's like Estre didn't get the memo that you're meant to overdrive the tyres off the car and then complain you're in a B class car - I wonder what lessons Ford's leading drivers could learn from that?

Meanwhile half the Ford drivers have been let go by their teams, while the 2 teams with Camaros who are doing all the winning have much more stability. I wonder why that might be?

Also note that the new door panels have been pushed for and are being created by Tickford - this is tacit admission that Ford's homolgation team is the problem.

They are simply not as good as 888. No Penske, no Ryan Story, seemingly no Ludo. They are DJR of old - mid pack.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Unsporting obstruction?

How about you apply the rules of the sport as regards to a parity adjustment, which are not met at this time, after the changes Ford got before the Bend. Note that the Bend has long flowing corners and Ford wanted more aero - which they got, on top of COG adjustments and multiple engine upgrades. Now strangely when the tracks have long straights, they want to change aero again - I wonder why that might be?

The parity argument whipped up but the shitposting media after Sandown is literally insane. There were 6 Mustangs in the top 10 shootout.

WAU's drivers struck trouble - nothing to do with parity.
Tickford's drives couldn't stay on the black stuff and crashed - nothing to do with parity.
Tanders wheel fell off and hit Waters car - taking out the two fastest Fords - NOTHING TO DO WITH PARITY.

Meanwhile Kevin Estre and Payne proved there is NOTHING wrong with the Mustang speed or tyre life. It's like Estre didn't get the memo that you're meant to overdrive the tyres off the car and then complain you're in a B class car - I wonder what lessons Ford's leading drivers could learn from that?

Meanwhile half the Ford drivers have been let go by their teams, while the 2 teams with Camaros who are doing all the winning have much more stability. I wonder why that might be?

Also note that the new door panels have been pushed for and are being created by Tickford - this is tacit admission that Ford's homolgation team is the problem.

They are simply not as good as 888. No Penske, no Ryan Story, seemingly no Ludo. They are DJR of old - mid pack.

You are wasting your breath, there more parity tweaks to come and you need to just accept the fact.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

You are wasting your breath, there more parity tweaks to come and you need to just accept the fact.

So we are just going to keep changing the cars so that team and driver excellence isn't required to win anymore?

Just give Davey Reynolds and Nick Percat push to pass until they win?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

So we are just going to keep changing the cars so that team and driver excellence isn't required to win anymore?

No, they are going to keep changing the cars until technical parity is achieved. The wind tunnel and transient dynometer testing in the United States over the 2023-2024 off-season will allow the cars to be properly paritised.

Ideally that would have been done before the 2023 season, but sadly that was not done.

(The Bathurst changes are urgent interim measures to get technical parity closer in time for the high profile Bathurst 1000km race. Statistical analysis of the 2023 season which shows that all Chevrolet teams improved and all Ford teams got worse, makes it seem unlikely that technical parity has already been achieved as if it had been achieved, team performance should be independent of vehicle brand. Recently, Ford Performance has obviously also acquired additional data which suggests technical parity has not yet been achieved during the 2023 season.)

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Meanwhile Kevin Estre and Payne proved there is NOTHING wrong with the Mustang speed or tyre life.

This is uncertain for now. Ford Performance have data to the contrary, while the United States testing will show if that is correct or not.

It could be that the likes of WAU are mistaken and their Mustang package is 100% technically paritised with the Camaro package already, but only the United States testing (all yaw angles, all ride heights, all throttle ramps & engine braking profiles) can prove this for certain one way or the other -- no?

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

This is uncertain for now. Ford Performance have data to the contrary, while the United States testing will show if that is correct or not.

It could be that the likes of WAU are mistaken and their Mustang package is 100% technically paritised with the Camaro package already, but only the United States testing (all yaw angles, all ride heights, all throttle ramps & engine braking profiles) can prove this for certain one way or the other -- no?

Wouldn't it be funny after all the testing in the States, shows the Mustang to be the better car. Then what?

[mite5255]

Originally Posted by Ares

Wouldn't it be funny after all the testing in the States, shows the Mustang to be the better car. Then what?

Wouldn't that be fun

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Ares

Wouldn't it be funny after all the testing in the States, shows the Mustang to be the better car. Then what?

Would be even funnier if the testing was even further behind than first thought and not as funny as having no commodores on the grid at bathurst.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by mite5255

Wouldn't that be fun

All the testing will be kept secret, teams included. Saving face at all costs.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

No, they are going to keep changing the cars until technical parity is achieved. The wind tunnel and transient dynometer testing in the United States over the 2023-2024 off-season will allow the cars to be properly paritised.

Now you are just plucking stuff straight from your ass.

According to the pre-established rules of the category, no conditions exist for more parity changes after the changes made at The Bend, which were to Ford's satisfaction.

The door panels are not a parity adjustment, as they are a measure to allow the porky Mustangs to actually reach current parity - the fault being with DJR for being not as good at 888 at engineering, and having to be saved by Tickford.

Here's hoping Ford can get some results at Bathurst - but just like Sandown - car performance isn't usually the thing that hurts you in endurance racing.

[Tourer]

Wasn't sure whether this suited the race thread better or should live here but there is a meeting of the teams at Bathurst to look at whether or not aero changes should be applied to the Mustangs.

Must say, it would be pretty hard to have a definitive answer and also if on a team to really have a handle on the Mustang, when the car hasn't run in exactly the same spec at any two race meetings this year.

I imagine that it is likely to be a pretty lively meeting one way or the other.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Must say, it would be pretty hard to have a definitive answer and also if on a team to really have a handle on the Mustang, when the car hasn't run in exactly the same spec at any two race meetings this year.

They ask for lots of different changes, get them all, then complain they can't get a handle on the car because of all the changes and demand more.

Originally Posted by Tourer

I imagine that it is likely to be a pretty lively meeting one way or the other.

Simple fact is there's no parity trigger, pace at The Bend was very good, pace at Sandown also was very good, and the race result had zero to do with any parity concerns.

The change in panels is a good and fair change but if they get both front and rear aero changes, out of step with pre-existing parity policy, then it isn't fair and equitable.

Ford seem to want to have different aero depending on the circuits they go to.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mixer

They ask for lots of different changes, get them all, then complain they can't get a handle on the car because of all the changes and demand more.

Don’t know if they’re complaining - more of an observation from me. Between mapping changes, shift cut changes, throttle body changes, aero changes this year, if it was me, I’d want to run the car as it was at Sandown, to use the data from there to assist with engineering it through the weekend up the hill.

[Sandgroper]

Meeting of Teams tomorrow to discuss changes @ the 13th hour (rolls eyes)

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Don’t know if they’re complaining - more of an observation from me. Between mapping changes, shift cut changes, throttle body changes, aero changes this year, if it was me, I’d want to run the car as it was at Sandown, to use the data from there to assist with engineering it through the weekend up the hill.

The changes should be approved and if the mustangs are too fast in practice/qualifying then lengthen the shift cut until they are on par with the camaros.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

The changes should be approved and if the mustangs are too fast in practice/qualifying then lengthen the shift cut until they are on par with the camaros.

The politics of it will play out but there’s a lot at stake as we all know at Bathurst, with plenty of emotions at play, plus plenty of variations due to tyres, fuel loads, which driver, best engine or not in practice & even qual. Be sheer folly to be mucking around with shift cuts during the meeting imho.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The politics of it will play out but there’s a lot at stake as we all know at Bathurst, with plenty of emotions at play, plus plenty of variations due to tyres, fuel loads, which driver, best engine or not in practice & even qual. Be sheer folly to be mucking around with shift cuts during the meeting imho.

Disagree, failing to have the changes implemented the ford teams should all agree to start from pitlane and race for the mustang cup.

Supercars should have told ford earlier in the year to take a car to america, update the aero and re-submit rather than continually tinkering around the edges, the processes that supercars have adopted are a minefield and it's impossible to achieve complete technical parity.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Meeting of Teams tomorrow to discuss changes @ the 13th hour (rolls eyes)

The poor attitude of some of the Chevrolet teams is unbeliveable.

Hopefully the good guys like Brad Jones and Matt Stone vote the correct way in favour of the changes.

The parity trigger is irrelevant, if DJR and Ford Performance have the data showing the technical disparity as they now do and that the changes as tested by Will Davison on the #98 improve the technical parity situation and lessen the disparity, then it is essential the designed changes are implemented.

Fortunately Brad Jones + Matt Stone is at least six TRC charters, so that goes some way to having a sensible vote with the correct outcome.

Supercars is keen for agreement on any changes to avoid protests and other possible legal action.

https://autoaction.com.au/2023/10/03...ange-confusion

If the changes are unilaterally imposed or otherwise adopted without agreement and 888 Race Engineering goes through with their threat of legal action against the category, that would show them for the unsporting competitors which they are.

It's honestly better for the Ford Performance teams to run with the new parts without approval (modified front splitter, wider rear wing), win the race and be disqualified, than to race with no chance of victory.

That would deliver the ATCC a delightful crisis of their own making due to their own incompetence and lack of sufficient technical parity action during the incredibly lop-sided 2023 season.

[GTRMagic]

Why wouldnt a homologation team protest thru the avenues available to them against a change in vehicle specification so substantial that there is no precedent or trigger in the current rules to do so ?

Sporting/not sporting... in reality due process should be followed.

If Ford have stuffed up their wiggly lines on their CFD processes, despite having had several attempts at change and STILL finding no silver bullet... why should the other side just let them walk around in the dark changing anything and everything at seemingly every race meeting?

It would be interesting to understand from the Ford team point of view how happy they are at having to junk perfectly serviceable body panels and aero parts and every other thing, including spares, to reequip, then to be asked to change again and throw away more stuff again.

Fix it once.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

If Ford have stuffed up their wiggly lines on their CFD processes, despite having had several attempts at change and STILL finding no silver bullet... why should the other side just let them walk around in the dark changing anything and everything at seemingly every race meeting?

Because the goal is technical parity?

Ford Performance and DJR have only recently been provided with the Camaro comparison data according to Speedcafe reports.

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Fix it once.

There were no less than five or six different sets of changes in 2019... Was the parity trigger really activated before Commodores received a bootlid gurney flap in Pukehoke before Bathurst?

By all means Ford Performance are thrilled for this to be fixed properly with wind tunnel and AVL dyno over the 2023-2024 off-season (which they would have been preferred to have been done before the 2023 season).

The urgent concern, however, is that the Bathurst 1000km occurs before this testing can be done and Ford Mustangs having a credible chance of winning the Bathurst 1000km is essential. As mentioned, the comparative data has only recently been provided to Ford Performance -- hence the inability of this data to impact previous changes before the data was made available.

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

It would be interesting to understand from the Ford team point of view how happy they are at having to junk perfectly serviceable body panels and aero parts and every other thing, including spares, to reequip, then to be asked to change again and throw away more stuff again.

They just want to have a chance to win the Bathurst 1000km in ways other than strategic hail Mary in what is meant to be a technical parity formula. It's not an unreasonable request!

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

They just want to have a chance to win the Bathurst 1000km in ways other than strategic hail Mary in what is meant to be a technical parity formula. It's not an unreasonable request!

And what happens if this new change doesnt fix that? Or if it goes too far the other way, and the Fords are too fast relative to their Chev competitors?
Biggest race of the year and they are still buggerising around with vehicle specifications

I am sure the world will make 888 the bad guys here, but if the other side does a poor job at homologation, why is that their problem?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I am sure the world will make 888 the bad guys here, but if the other side does a poor job at homologation, why is that their problem?

When 888 did a poor job of homologation in 2019, why were their errors fixed for them?

The different levels of urgency are very bizarre to see, as much as fans hope organisers are unbiased.

I agree that Ford Performance should have spent more time and resources on the Gen 3 homologation in the US and not left it up to DJR. As we saw, Ford Performance in the US did a great job in 2019 and it was unwise for Ford Performance to leave it up to DJR in 2023 and assume ATCC organisers would determine technical parity appropriately.

Regardless, it has reached a crisis point where Ford Performance's ongoing intellectual property approval for 2025 onwards is severely under question, with trackside advertising and support vehicles already withdrawn for 2024.

It would be in the best interests of the sport to diffuse the crisis!

[bluesport]

Supercars and the teams need to decide if they want to survive or nor, if all teams end up running camaros then it is doubtful.