Do the Mustang and Camaro have technical parity?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Technical Parity has served the category really well for decades and is a key part of the foundations on which it has been built. However we should always be open to new ideas, particularly as there are now different capacity engines in play.

The transient dyno looks like it could be one of those and now that there is one in Australia that the Supercars tech people have confidence in, it may provide the last piece of the puzzle that enables tech parity to work across engine design / size variations. When both Ford & Holden were running 5L, pushrod engines the current system worked well (acknowledge that it wasn't as good for others running multivalve engines).

In a formula with restricted revs, four-valve, DOHC engines don't get to deliver the usual benefits of that design and it seems that we're seeing that at the moment from what is being said by the Ford group. If a transient dyno is able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, then it'll help identify clearly how the different engines match up against each other.

No reason that Tech Parity can't continue in that case - only have to look at the various comments and threads about BoP on 10/10ths to understand that it isn't ideal either - so it may be a case of "the devil you know".

Tourer, technical parity has been a complete mess from the very beginning.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Tourer, technical parity has been a complete mess from the very beginning.

I disagree Bluesport, but also accept that we may differ in our view. It has of course evolved over time but it has given us very even and close competition for a long time now and I think that it has served the category and fans well.

Not saying it has been perfect, but then what is?

[chunterer]

Interestimg that a couple of posters have mentioned other manufacturers engines having to be 6 pot turbos or similar.
Both Toyota (Lexus) and Bee-em have big v8 lumps in their model ranges although the Germams has erred towards v6's with the current 'M' range I think?

Do Nissan still utilise a V8 in their bigger cars?

Audi are using 5's and 10's.

Can't think of any other mainstream makes with big coupes that have suitable large capacity engines.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I disagree Bluesport, but also accept that we may differ in our view. It has of course evolved over time but it has given us very even and close competition for a long time now and I think that it has served the category and fans well.

Not saying it has been perfect, but then what is?

The racing didn't look even to me and there were too many mid-season parity adjustments which means they never got it right in the first place unless holden had the advantage and then nothing was done.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I disagree Bluesport, but also accept that we may differ in our view. It has of course evolved over time but it has given us very even and close competition for a long time now and I think that it has served the category and fans well.

Ford fans definition of perfect parity is the first half of 2019.

Even after parity adjustment the Mustang won 2019 and got 1 & 2 in 2020.

Then Penske left.

There's your parity.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Ford fans definition of perfect parity is the first half of 2019.

Even after parity adjustment the Mustang won 2019 and got 1 & 2 in 2020.

Then Penske left.

There's your parity.

Ford teams won next to zilch after a mid-season parity adjustment on a car that was peviously deemed to be already paritised......was it in 2021?

[banksie]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Ford teams won next to zilch after a mid-season parity adjustment on a car that was peviously deemed to be already paritised......was it in 2021?

But the results of the 2019 parity testing could never be replicated again... McLaughlin still won Bathurst in 2019, the title and 13 races in 2020.

We've covered all of this. Any challenge that Ford may have done something shady is ignored and not addressed.

In the previous 30 seasons you could probably count the mid-season parity adjustments on one hand. Technical parity has been brilliant for the category.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

No reason that Tech Parity can't continue in that case - only have to look at the various comments and threads about BoP on 10/10ths to understand that it isn't ideal either - so it may be a case of "the devil you know".

The difference is that Toyota Gazoo Racing are demonstrably the best, and there is no reason for sports prototype racing to not be a straight-forward competition of set parameters given the two leading vehicles are substantially similar twin-turbo V6s. Adding 37kg to their vehicle and only 3kg to the slow Porsche seems more akin to success ballast.

Balance-of-performance is better placed to balance disparate types of vehicle like a Porsche 911 against a Lexus RC-F, or indeed a Ford Mustang against a Toyota Supra.

In any case, here's an onboard with the new Mustang GT3... A great bit of kit and it seems more airy than the Gen 3 car too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlPWJAKnck

Assuming promoter duties of the Bathurst 12 hour can be taken away from V8 Supercars (as that is a conflict of interest, and V8 Supercars have shown their past willingness to act anti-competitively by scheduling a test day on the same day as the Bathurst 12 hour before they were the promoter), could Ford Australia ask its ATCC teams to switch to the Australian GT championship and run Mustang GT3s instead?

(Obviously steps would need to taken to move Australian GT away from an Am driver format to a full Professional driver format.)

I don't think an ATCC split would necessarily be a bad thing to break up the anti-competitive practices of "Supercars" and their commercial monopoly.

There could even be Corvettes in the Australian GT championship to keep the interest of General Motors fans!

The Australian GT championship, under these new promoters with the backing of Ford, would eventually angle to take over the Adelaide 500, Gold Coast 500, Bathurst 1000 (just start another one like Supercars did) etc one presumes... It would be great: people sticking it to Supercars and their closed-shop organisation and eventually rendering their commercial contracts worthless!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Balance-of-performance is better placed to balance disparate types of vehicle like a Porsche 911 against a Lexus RC-F, or indeed a Ford Mustang against a Toyota Supra.

Not in the situation we have in Australia it isn't - where one event (Bathurst) has bigger significance to the competitors than the championship. BoP is based on lap time - so we see each year at the 12 hour how it handicaps some cars at Bathurst which achieve lap time differently to each other. As always at Bathurst, being fast up and down the chutes is a big advantage and we see the cars with that capability having a big edge over those that are quick in the corners but not as fast in the straights.

That would be unacceptable to the teams competing in Supercars.

As for the rest of your post about a "monopoly" and Ford asking its teams etc etc - sorry, there IS no monopoly, just a manager of one category; and Ford doesn't own the teams, so in reality has little power of persuasion for them to move.

Various people have predicted the end of Supercars (as it is now known) for well over 20 years and one day it may well happen - certainly it doesn't appear to be as strong as it once was at the moment and the big changes in the automotive landscape in recent years (along with that pandemic of course) would make it very hard to work out a good path forward but Supercars is still there at the moment, as are the teams running in the series.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by banksie

But the results of the 2019 parity testing could never be replicated again... McLaughlin still won Bathurst in 2019, the title and 13 races in 2020.

We've covered all of this. Any challenge that Ford may have done something shady is ignored and not addressed.

In the previous 30 seasons you could probably count the mid-season parity adjustments on one hand. Technical parity has been brilliant for the category.

Was it 2021 when the Gen 2 mustang went through another mid-season parity adjustment, didn't win Bathurst or win anything of note in 2022 but there was strangely no problem when holden were winning everything.

[banksie]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Was it 2021 when the Gen 2 mustang went through another mid-season parity adjustment, didn't win Bathurst or win anything of note in 2022 but there was strangely no problem when holden were winning everything.

No, I believe only 2019 saw mid-season parity changes made.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by banksie

No, I believe only 2019 saw mid-season parity changes made.

You're right it was 2019 and then in 2020/21/22 it was all holden and nothing was done to adjust parity.

[banksie]

Originally Posted by bluesport

You're right it was 2019 and then in 2020/21/22 it was all holden and nothing was done to adjust parity.

Except McLaughlin dominated 2020.

van Gisbergen dominated '21 and '22.

Both manufacturers had fair chances of winning in those seasons, it was the drivers/teams that were the difference.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by banksie

Except McLaughlin dominated 2020.

van Gisbergen dominated '21 and '22.

Both manufacturers had fair chances of winning in those seasons, it was the drivers/teams that were the difference.

Scotty was outstanding not the car, there shouldn't have been any parity adjustment in 2019, when Scotty left there was zilch.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by banksie

No, I believe only 2019 saw mid-season parity changes made.

The ZB Commodore engine bay vent change in 2021 was never verified via VCAT as far as I know. That would explain the ZB having a small advantage in 2021 and 2022.

Supercars has rolled out an aero tweak to the Holden ZB Commodore fleet ahead of the 2021 season. Supercars has added a vent inside the wheel arch, which is designed to aid air flow.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2021/02/21...re-aero-tweak/

Originally Posted by banksie

Both manufacturers had fair chances of winning in those seasons, it was the drivers/teams that were the difference.

Maybe, maybe not. Why the unverified engine bay vent aero change? The problem is this change was done without the necessary VCAT testing.

If there is no chance to do a VCAT test, then leave the cars in 2020 specification and have the Commodore runners manage component temperatures by themselves as they did merrily in the 2020 season.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Various people have predicted the end of Supercars (as it is now known) for well over 20 years and one day it may well happen - certainly it doesn't appear to be as strong as it once was at the moment and the big changes in the automotive landscape in recent years (along with that pandemic of course) would make it very hard to work out a good path forward but Supercars is still there at the moment, as are the teams running in the series.

Fans just want to see the Australian Touring Car Championship back in a good place! The TOCA Australia split was messy and should have been avoided by better accommodating BMW Motorsport. The ARDC Bathurst 1000km split was also messy and of poor ethics by "V8 Supercars".

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Fans just want to see the Australian Touring Car Championship back in a good place! The TOCA Australia split was messy and should have been avoided by better accommodating BMW Motorsport. The ARDC Bathurst 1000km split was also messy and of poor ethics by "V8 Supercars".

The "TOCA Australia split" as you call it was close to 30 years ago and wasn't a good time in the sport but TOCA (Mr Gow) has also admitted that with hindsight it made some big mistakes and was just as much to blame for the "split".

The Bathurst split was also nearly 30 years ago, and also was most definitely a one-sided situation but neither TOCA/ARDC nor AVESCO was prepared to give ground to the other - so, again, blaming the Supercar people alone is completely unrealistic with this one too.

Of course, with those events nearly 30 years ago, there's been a lot of water under the bridge, some really, really top-shelf racing and success and a long history, with two complete changes of ownership and structure since then, so it really isn't relevant to the organisation of today at all.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

You're right it was 2019 and then in 2020/21/22 it was all holden and nothing was done to adjust parity.

Yeah apart from Scotty Mac 1st in the series and Cam Waters second in 2020.

21 and 22 conducted with no further parity changes.

You literally prove my point.

When Ford wins, you are happy even if it's not fair competiton.

You are unhappy even when Ford doesn't win because of team and driver issues, when parity is clearly demonstrated to be equal.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Yeah apart from Scotty Mac 1st in the series and Cam Waters second in 2020.

21 and 22 conducted with no further parity changes.

You literally prove my point.

When Ford wins, you are happy even if it's not fair competiton.

You are unhappy even when Ford doesn't win because of team and driver issues, when parity is clearly demonstrated to be equal.

Once Scotty left ford didn't win anything which proves it was the driver not the car.

In 2021/22 the mistakes supercars made in 2019 were never re-addressed

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

21 and 22 conducted with no further parity changes.

ZB engine bay vent added in 2021 was unverified. Not the same specification as 2020.

Fans do not trust "Supercars" parity processes, having 888 design the Gen 3 chassis was another blunder. Hopefully the front suspension does not in any way resemble previous 888 front suspension, but you do wonder...

Originally Posted by Mixer

When Ford wins, you are happy even if it's not fair competition.

There is nothing wrong with setting parameters for drag and downforce in a straight line at 200 kph and permitting the designers to develop the best aerokits possible within that constraint!

On that basis, it would have been logical for 888 Race Engineering to come back and homologate a better aero kit for the start of the 2020, while hitting those required numbers.

In any case, aero kit design and engine balancing is out of the hands of the competitors now, hence all the more scrutiny on it.

The pushback of Supercars against North American design and build is worrying (be it Team Penske sensibly offering to build more affordable chassis or Ford Performance developing an aero kit), all while seeming to have an undue closeness to 888 Race Engineering...

A minor regional touring car championship shouldn't be stressful to follow, the category can't even take care of its only manufacturer properly -- you can see why folks do not want to bother with it, and prefer to follow Formula One and similar!

How is Mark Rushbrook meant to form an opinion on technical parity being correct when Supercars will not provide the data...

We are able to race Coyote-based engines competitively in other series and do great things with it, so I’ve got confidence in that.

Ultimately, though, it’s the technical parity process that determines whether that engine hardware and those great people are capable of delivering.

I think that comes back to the data transparency.

In every racing series, outside of Supercars, we have full transparency into the data, and we know what we are doing relative to our competitors on track.

So we know where we, as a manufacturer, may be falling short, or succeeding – or our partners, whether it’s an engine partner or a team – we have that as a dashboard in front of us.

We don’t in Supercars so, to be honest, we can make observations based upon what we see on-track and what data is available from our teams, but until there is data transparency, we can’t draw clear conclusions of engine parity or anything else.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/06/02...percar-engine/

You can see how he would get frustrated by the category organisers and decide that Ford Performance should not bother with the class at all.

The adversarial approach taken in 2019 has set off relations with Ford Performance on a bad foot indeed. Rushbrook even had to come out with a mid-season statement: "We will not accept any more changes to our Mustang package."

It would have been a far more sensible move for Supercars to ask 888 Race Engineering to go to the drawing board and come up with a better aero kit for their ZB Commodore for homologation for the 2020 season (if Kelly Racing wanted to continue with the Altima, they could have developed an up-to-date aerokit for the Altima too). After all, Ford Performance were specifically told to "build a better car (while hitting the VCAT drag and downforce requirements)" by the Holden homologation organisation so they did it, so for the rival homologation organisation to then complain about that afterwards is just bizarre.

For its faults, at least Group A was a fair competition between Ford, General Motors Holden, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc. They always had the opportunity to develop their cars to be as good as possible. To bring out the next "500" or "Evo" of the Sierra or of the Commodore or of the Skyline or of the M3 or of the 190E 16V or of the Audi V8 with improvements to the breed of motor car.

The looser requirements of World Rally Car and Super Touring where more changes could be made to the best car also worked fairly well, up to a point. Though it was always baffling why the Lancer Evolution 6 and its actual yaw control -- so superb in Group A -- never amounted to much when Ralliart moved to WRCar (and the Lancer WRCar based on a base model Lancer, as they all were), even to the point where the Ralliart team replaced the electronic differentials with mechanicals one at one point for some reason (I don't recall why).

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

ZB engine bay vent added in 2021 was unverified. Not the same specification as 2020.

On that basis, it would have been logical for 888 Race Engineering to come back and homologate a better aero kit for the start of the 2020, while hitting those required numbers.

The adversarial approach taken in 2019 has set off relations with Ford Performance on a bad foot indeed. Rushbrook even had to come out with a mid-season statement: "We will not accept any more changes to our Mustang package."

It would have been a far more sensible move for Supercars to ask 888 Race Engineering to go to the drawing board and come up with a better aero kit for their ZB Commodore for homologation for the 2020 season (if Kelly Racing wanted to continue with the Altima, they could have developed an up-to-date aerokit for the Altima too). After all, Ford Performance were specifically told to "build a better car (while hitting the VCAT drag and downforce requirements)" by the Holden homologation organisation so they did it, so for the rival homologation organisation to then complain about that afterwards is just bizarre.

For its faults, at least Group A was a fair competition between Ford, General Motors Holden, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc. They always had the opportunity to develop their cars to be as good as possible. To bring out the next "500" or "Evo" of the Sierra or of the Commodore or of the Skyline or of the M3 or of the 190E 16V or of the Audi V8 with improvements to the breed of motor car.

The looser requirements of World Rally Car and Super Touring where more changes could be made to the best car also worked fairly well, up to a point. Though it was always baffling why the Lancer Evolution 6 and its actual yaw control -- so superb in Group A -- never amounted to much when Ralliart moved to WRCar (and the Lancer WRCar based on a base model Lancer, as they all were), even to the point where the Ralliart team replaced the electronic differentials with mechanicals one at one point for some reason (I don't recall why).

Do you think the engine bay vent was the difference between van Gisbergen's performance across '21 and '22 compared to the rest of the field? I don't.

The problem with the 2019 VCAT was that Ford's data could never be replicated. So why would other teams have to spend money re-developing it's aero kits to match this?

There is no point raising categories that were relevant 30+ years ago, they no longer exist for plenty of good reasons. The age of throwing more and more money at developing a new car are long gone.

2023
Aero package has technical parity. All sides agreed.
Engine parity is achieved based on the current measurements. But are the current measurements sufficient? Time will tell with the impending additional tests.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by banksie

2023
Aero package has technical parity. All sides agreed.

The VCAT test is not sufficient to prove that 100% for all yaw angles and ride height combinations. It is still important for Supercars to send the cars for wind tunnel testing with a turntable wind tunnel, up to at least 15 degrees yaw to confirm this 100% identical performance.

Of late though, there have been suggestions again that the Mustang may be on the wrong end of an aerodynamic disparity, notwithstanding that it was seen fit after the second round of VCAT to give a small increase in front downforce to the Camaro.

On that, Rushbrook refused to confirm or deny he had any suspicions, instead reiterating his call for data transparency.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/06/02...percar-engine/

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by banksie

Engine parity is achieved based on the current measurements.

If regulators are making such obtuse statements like that privately it will serve only to drive Ford Performance to withdraw support of the category. If Supercars administrators have views like that, that is totally untenable.

You have to provide a red carpet treatment to your ONLY manufacturer.

Originally Posted by banksie

The problem with the 2019 VCAT was that Ford's data could never be replicated. So why would other teams have to spend money re-developing it's aero kits to match this?

Mere rumour and speculation that does not show good faith to Ford Performance and Dick Johnson Racing. Refer to the required red carpet treatment.

It is important that any political leverage of 888 Race Engineering and "Chevrolet Racing" (a proxy for 888 and not actual involvement of Chevrolet Racing?) is completely and totally dismantled.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

ZB engine bay vent added in 2021 was unverified. Not the same specification as 2020.

It is a ****ing air vent. Same spec as the one on the Mustang.

NOT a performance change.

Face facts, the cars were very equal post-adjustment in 2019.

Ford teams and drivers did in 2020 and then when Penske's money left, so did the organisational excellence.

The organisation now is a rabble, and doesn't deserve to win. Parity doesn't make this formerly great team run at the back.

The current CEO is fresh from destroying and AFL club, so DJR fans have only darkness to look forward to.

Meanwhile Tickford can't do anything right in race strategy and pit execution, and their 2 drivers who are capable of running up the front crash constantly.

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

You have to provide a red carpet treatment to your ONLY manufacturer.

No. That is the worst thing you could do. Everyone wants parity, don't pick favourites. Keep testing and proving/aiming for parity.

You complain that Holden/GM were given preferential treatment previously, but advocated for exactly that to Ford now. No one should be given red carpet treatment.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by banksie

You complain that Holden/GM were given preferential treatment previously, but advocated for exactly that to Ford now. No one should be given red carpet treatment.

Chevrolet do not even compete in the series officially. The series has only one manufacturer and will lose it if they are not careful. Zero race victories is damning. Some say it is damning of the teams rather than the vehicle but the problem is this CANNOT BE PROVED as by their own admission Ford Performance have not been given the data in a transparent manner.

This lack of data transparency is unacceptable, correct?

Originally Posted by banksie

Everyone wants parity, don't pick favourites. Keep testing and proving/aiming for parity.

This does not mesh with Rushbrook's complaints for parity to be sorted before the cars debut falling on deaf ears so that he had to go to the press.

I hope they have the weighted LS flywheels ready for the AVL dyno testing with different levels of weight at the perimeter to make sure the LS engine has inertia equivalent to the Coyote.

But that is still a failure, those heavily counterweighted flywheels should have been on those LS engines already from the start of the season, no? One engine having less inertia is not technical parity.

The Blanchard Racing car doing a faster laptime with the new engine map in Practice 1 then they did for the rest of the entire weekend is also damning of the old engine map detuned by Mr. Hasted with good intentions (I agree that Craig Hasted is not biased) being way off the mark and having unforseen problems from the way ignition timing and cam angle has been reduced to reduce performance in combination with allegedly a smaller throttle restrictor than the other engine.

Originally Posted by Mixer

The current CEO is fresh from destroying and AFL club, so DJR fans have only darkness to look forward to.

Meanwhile Tickford can't do anything right in race strategy and pit execution, and their 2 drivers who are capable of running up the front crash constantly.

Such obtuse statements will just make ATCC fans turn to other forms of motorsport like Formula One, if they haven't already. At least Formula One is a competition where teams and manufactures can develop their own cars and engines to the best of their ability...

Not just tune springs, dampers, swaybars and alignment on a kit car with an expectation to "trust" the kit car is 100% equivalent in every way to the other kit car (without the manufacturer having been provided the data to prove it...).

If the Ford RBPT engine will be competitive or not it will be on them, same for the Red Bull Racing chassis.

Originally Posted by Mixer

It is a ****ing air vent. Same spec as the one on the Mustang.

NOT a performance change.

Speculation. If it was not a performance change then DO NOT implement the change.