Parity

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by bluesport

What I am thinking is that people are blaming Ford Aust for whinging and not being pro-active, but Ford haven't committed beyond this year, so the criticism is unwarranted.........it's not them complaining.

I think people would complain whether it was Ford Australia or Ford teams that were 'meant' to be proactive. Most people are happy with the status quo; a sprinkling of Holden teams doing most of winning with the occasional win by Ford, Volvo, Nissan or Erebus, just for fun.

On the surface it does look as if lots of people are winning, however in reality the lion's share of the winning is still being done by 'the lions'.

[chavez]

I know I've asked this before, but does anyone really expect Kelly Racing to be race winners?

888, HRT, FPR and GRM are all proven race winners. Kelly Racing has never been.

Which brings us back to the question are we looking for parity between makes or parity between teams?

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by chavez

I know I've asked this before, but does anyone really expect Kelly Racing to be race winners?

888, HRT, FPR and GRM are all proven race winners. Kelly Racing has never been.

Which brings us back to the question are we looking for parity between makes or parity between teams?

I don't know, but unless the winning is shared around some manufacturers are surely going to walk.

[Umai Naa]

Which brings us back to such things like success ballast.

Ain't going to be a run away victory for #1 or #888, when all the planets align, with 40kg of lead in the boot.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

I don't know, but unless the winning is shared around some manufacturers are surely going to walk.

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Which brings us back to such things like success ballast.

Ain't going to be a run away victory for #1 or #888, when all the planets align, with 40kg of lead in the boot.

Some manufacturers might walk if there is no success ballast, and other manufacturers might walk if there is success ballast.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Some manufacturers might walk if there is no success ballast, and other manufacturers might walk if there is success ballast.

In my personal view I reckon that a fair few fans might walk if there was success ballast (I know that you're not promoting it, just saying).

There are some on here that accuse the series of being contrived but I don't agree with that view, it simply has a set of rules. However, success ballast IS contrived.

I know it's been done by other series from time to time but it's utter bullsh and I think reduces the quality and the edge of the competition.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Some manufacturers might walk if there is no success ballast, and other manufacturers might walk if there is success ballast.

There is only one manufacturer that would walk if there was success ballast, and they haven't walked out since 1980, so that's unlikely. Yes, Holden did pull at that year.

I'm not suggesting there should be a success ballast, although it works reasonably well in the BTCC which now has lots of makes competing, albeit mostly privately funded.

Better to make adjustments to the current system given how painfully antiquated the runway testing procedure is.

[GTRMagic]

Mr Phelps seems to have been leaked some information regarding parity, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph today Here

The outcome seems to be..

Terminal Velocities: (Per DT Article)

Circuit	Erebus	Ford	Holden	Nissan	Volvo	TAvg
Adelaide	240.59	242.11	241.83	242.11	243.75	241.06
Tasmania	262.64	263.02	263.98	263.47	265.76	262.99
Winton	221.61	226.28	224.12	222.66	225.11	222.51
Pukekohe	254.99	256.73	256.73	255.23	258.14	255.58

...which suggests that the Volvo was quicker than most in the first 2 rounds, but the Ford was super quick at Winton (and the Erebus nowhere, despite a race win? ) and Volvo back to quick in Pukekoke

Now terminal velocities are interesting, but the % difference is so great, the laptimes arent moved by the same amount.

Anyways... it seems V8SC arent touching anything... yet...

[bluesport]

Ross Stone said at Puk that the Mercs were a bit down on HP.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Mr Phelps seems to have been leaked some information regarding parity, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph today Here

The outcome seems to be..

Terminal Velocities: (Per DT Article)


...which suggests that the Volvo was quicker than most in the first 2 rounds, but the Ford was super quick at Winton (and the Erebus nowhere, despite a race win? ) and Volvo back to quick in Pukekoke

Now terminal velocities are interesting, but the % difference is so great, the laptimes arent moved by the same amount.

Anyways... it seems V8SC arent touching anything... yet...

Terminal velocities can be helped (short of Vmax of course) by choosing to run less wing too - maybe the Volvo works better that way and gets some small benefit down the chutes?

[davester]

Maybe Volvo ran less wing, giving higher vmax, but lower mid-corner and reduced braking stability.

Very uninformed for anybody to be making judgements based on ONE kpi, as the kpi can be contrived for a number of reasons.

For the last few seasons RedBullF1 chose higher downforce over vMax to achieve a faster race package.

Just like the official V8 Supercars "coast down aero test" can also be contrived to produce a deliberately poor result (preload on hubs anyone, geometry etc???). One can make their car go slower in heaps of subtle ways.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by davester

Just like the official V8 Supercars "coast down aero test" can also be contrived to produce a deliberately poor result (preload on hubs anyone, geometry etc???). One can make their car go slower in heaps of subtle ways.

Exactly, although you would hope V8 Supercar would do some cursory checks before the tests but I imagine there could be tweaks that go unnoticed.

Do representatives from each manufacturer get to check each car or just independent(?) V8 Supercar officials?

Then V8 Supercar goes and gives plenty of notice for teams to bring a 'spare engine' to a race meeting for centre of gravity testing. I wonder how much of those engines actually relate to actual race motors?

Why didn't they take engines out of the actual race cars at the end of the race meeting?

On the surface the whole process seems abysmal.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by davester

Just like the official V8 Supercars "coast down aero test" can also be contrived to produce a deliberately poor result (preload on hubs anyone, geometry etc???). One can make their car go slower in heaps of subtle ways.

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Exactly, although you would hope V8 Supercar would do some cursory checks before the tests but I imagine there could be tweaks that go unnoticed.

Do representatives from each manufacturer get to check each car or just independent(?) V8 Supercar officials?

Then V8 Supercar goes and gives plenty of notice for teams to bring a 'spare engine' to a race meeting for centre of gravity testing. I wonder how much of those engines actually relate to actual race motors?

Why didn't they take engines out of the actual race cars at the end of the race meeting?

On the surface the whole process seems abysmal.

"On the surface" it may seem abysmal but in actual fact, V8s have been onto all the things you both raise plus a range of other potential "fudge" areas right back to when aero tests were first done over 10 years ago. The teams are fully informed as a group, as are the manufacturers and they can all check out each other's stuff and sign off on the process.

In regard to the engines, there has been a sealing and full testing process in place going back to about 2000, plus random sealing of whole cars which are checked on a jig after race meetings, plus jig checks during race meetings etc. The technical side of the checking process has been done pretty well for quite a few years.

[Chris - Melb]

Things are not all sweet judging by this: http://www.speedcafe.com/2014/05/06/...ical-director/

[Langers]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Things are not all sweet judging by this: http://www.speedcafe.com/2014/05/06/...ical-director/

Wonder if this is serious or not - will they get someone truly capable in there (that person would be v. expensive I would imagine and would go into the role knowing they may have a very short lifespan), or is it just window dressing...

[Langers]

Originally Posted by Biggy G

What I don't get with these changes is that Volvo isn't dominating, they're on the same level as the other top teams, why do changes need to be made? They're not blitzing anyone.

V8SC have always said CoTF is a technical parity formula, not a performance parity formula. I.e. the individual components that are not controlled items (aero, engine, shocks and a few others) should be as close as is technically possible in performance, and then it is up to the teams to make the best of the package.

[Buckshot]

There's a lot of finger pointing going on from fans at the moment, people suggesting it's brand x or team y whinging about parity.

Does anybody know for sure who is making these parity complaints ? Because the racing this year has been great with multiple brands, teams and drivers all winning or getting podiums.

Did I miss something when I skipped through all the fluff of the telecasts and to only watch the races ?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

There's a lot of finger pointing going on from fans at the moment, people suggesting it's brand x or team y whinging about parity.

Does anybody know for sure who is making these parity complaints ? Because the racing this year has been great with multiple brands, teams and drivers all winning or getting podiums.

Did I miss something when I skipped through all the fluff of the telecasts and to only watch the races ?

i think its everyone.

a number of holden drivers and teams complained/mentioned about Volvo straight line speed at NZ round

ford reps have previously mentioned their bonnet issue

obviously Nissan reps had complained a few things aero and motor

Erebus have mentioned fuel economy issues

Havent heard volvo complain yet

[Buckshot]

Originally Posted by peckstar

i think its everyone.

a number of holden drivers and teams complained/mentioned about Volvo straight line speed at NZ round

ford reps have previously mentioned their bonnet issue

obviously Nissan reps had complained a few things aero and motor

Erebus have mentioned fuel economy issues

Havent heard volvo complain yet

Not having a go at you Pecky as you're just the messenger here but:

Volvo still haven't won a race. They've snatched a few poles and podiums but are hardly dominating. They currently sit 7th and 25th (last) in the championship.

Ford are leading the championship, they need to stop whinging if it's them and also take into account they only have one driver that's a serious championship contender.

Weren't the Nissan, issues dealt with over the Xmas break with their new aero package ?

As for Erebus, with every car having to take on the same amount of fuel during a race haven't fuel economy issues been removed from the equation ?

No one make or team has dominated thus far this year...where's the disparity ?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

No one make or team has dominated thus far this year...where's the disparity ?

Some have bigger budgets than others?

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

Volvo still haven't won a race. They've snatched a few poles and podiums but are hardly dominating. They currently sit 7th and 25th (last) in the championship............No one make or team has dominated thus far this year...where's the disparity ?

When you take a look over the last 18 months at the huge number of Holden wins by so many Holden drivers I'm sure even blind Freddy can see the disparity.

History shows (Nissan and Erebus) that it takes time for a new manufacturer to come up to speed. Volvo surely hasn't even scratched the surface of engine development, not to mention the other areas of car development. It would suggest the Volvo package is quite clearly potentially quicker than even the Commodore as it stand at the moment.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

When you take a look over the last 18 months at the huge number of Holden wins by so many Holden drivers I'm sure even blind Freddy can see the disparity.

History shows (Nissan and Erebus) that it takes time for a new manufacturer to come up to speed. Volvo surely hasn't even scratched the surface of engine development, not to mention the other areas of car development. It would suggest the Volvo package is quite clearly potentially quicker than even the Commodore as it stand at the moment.

Why slow the Volvo's down? They're making the racing interesting and they haven't won anything anyway.

[Umai Naa]

Volvo had a 12 month headstart on the chassis development.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Volvo had a 12 month headstart on the chassis development.

What do you mean by "a 12 month headstart?"........in what way?

[Umai Naa]

The same team ran a pair of COTF chassis last year, did they not?