Parity Review Has Been Called

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by Mixer

When a car with $30m worth of development up against one that had $2m worth of development you will have issues.

But anybody who knows Penske... It's not like nobody was warned.

Very true, and also helps to illustrate my point nicely - the Mustang fiasco was a massive blow to the authority of Supercars.

That "authority" was integral to the parity process. Once the teams themselves sensed blood in the water they struck, as is their prerogative.

We have a situation where Supercars have essentially had their pants pulled down by Penske, so nobody trusts what they say, but the teams themselves are extremely bias and will sook and whinge even if they have an advantage. So it's chaos, no leadership

The substitute teacher is filling in today and boy, don't the kids know it...

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Funny 2003-2005, 2008-2010, 2018-2020 I don't recall hearing about any issues with technical parity?

What would have been the point in talking about it, nothing would change.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

When a car with $30m worth of development up against one that had $2m worth of development you will have issues.

But anybody who knows Penske... It's not like nobody was warned.

It was the same when holden were the only manufacturer in supercars, pooring in more $$$ and were wiping the floor with the opposition, very strange that you weren't concerned about that.

[Alan52]

I have no dog in this fight but my idea of parity for this class is
-close to equal number of wins between the 2 manufacturers
-whichever make wins the Championship the other one wins Bathurst
It is results that mean parity to me.How they get to that is irrelevant in a self called parity class.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by Alan52

I have no dog in this fight but my idea of parity for this class is
-close to equal number of wins between the 2 manufacturers
-whichever make wins the Championship the other one wins Bathurst
It is results that mean parity to me.How they get to that is irrelevant in a self called parity class.

If the top two or three teams in a competitions are running one particular brand, how are you going to get a win ratio like you mention? The likelihood of one of those top teams winning Bathurst and the championship are also very high.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Alan52

-close to equal number of wins between the 2 manufacturers

This is absolutely not what parity is about.

You want success ballast or something.

Parity is to give each make EQUAL TECHNICAL CHANCE of winning.

Not about making the racing socialist so even the **** teams can win.

[GTRMagic]

PA Sells Boost Camaro

Wonder who to? A Ford team?

[Mixer]

Not a parity topic, and posted elsewhere.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Not about making the racing socialist so even the **** teams can win.

Lower midpack teams like Team 18 and Matt Stone Racing just won two races, "**** teams" rather than lower midpack if you prefer, so clearly something is not right.

Originally Posted by Ares

If the top two or three teams in a competitions are running one particular brand, how are you going to get a win ratio like you mention?

Four of the top five teams are now running Mustang-bodied cars, so their poor results seem illogical if the cars have equal performance.

2022 Teams Championship
1 Red Bull Ampol Racing 5900pts
2 Shell V-Power Racing Team 5172 -728
3 Tickford Racing 4656 -1244
4 Walkinshaw Andretti United 4448 -1452
5 Penrite Racing 3866 -2034
6 Coca-Cola Racing by Erebus 3856 -2044
7 Team 18 3401 -2499
8 Brad Jones Racing 3260 -2640
9 Truck Assist Racing 2502 -3398
10 Nulon Racing 2418 -3482

The upturn in form by every single one of the 6th to 10th placed teams seems beyond coincidence.


Fox Sports notes the inexplicable improvement by General Motors teams:

Qualifying
Let’s start by comparing raw qualifying pace on like-for-like circuits — Albert Park, Wanneroo, Symmons Plains and Hidden Valley.

Average pace, 2022: Ford ahead by 0.149 seconds
Average pace, 2023: GM ahead by 0.342 seconds
Difference, 2022–23: GM improved by 0.491 seconds

The Camaro has resulted in an almost half-second turnaround in qualifying performance year on year compared to last season’s Commodore.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/motorsp...c2f96823afd64b

Hmm...


Conversely, the downturn by every single one of the 2nd to 5th placed teams seems beyond coincidence too. They are all different teams and different engineering groups in those 6th-10th placed teams and 2nd-5th placed teams respectively, so you wouldn't expect such a body shape-related trend if performance is independent of what body shape of car you are running.

The only tenuous link is that there are a lot of former 888 customer teams running the Camaro body shape that may have been advantaged by the Gen 3 car favouring experience with a 888-style suspension setup, which the Gen 3 car wasn't supposed to favour -- it was supposed to be a neutral, impartial control suspension despite being designed by 888.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Mixer

This is absolutely not what parity is about.

You want success ballast or something.

Parity is to give each make EQUAL TECHNICAL CHANCE of winning.

Not about making the racing socialist so even the **** teams can win.

Every set of rules aims to do that.That is not parity.
Parity in the eyes of fans is all about results.No matter what technical numbers are offered no one can believe that there is parity between Camaro’s and Mustangs in 2023.If Ford fans get sick of being whipping boys and walk away there goes half your fan base.
I’m not even a Supercars fan.Except for the races I went to at Albert Park I have only watched 1 Newcastle race onTV.A quick look at Natsoft results tells me the state of car parity.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Alan52

Every set of rules aims to do that.That is not parity.
Parity in the eyes of fans is all about results.

Fans like this can go watch TA2.

Teams who do not deserve to win should not win.

We are not doing participation trophies.

Meanwhile Supercars are out testing some new Ford engine parts and potentially new aero on one of Tickford's cars.

Despite ALL the whining, Supercars responds every time there's a complaint, and this has to be down to Ford's homologation team and engine builder.

[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.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Lower midpack teams like Team 18 and Matt Stone Racing just won two races, "**** teams" rather than lower midpack if you prefer, so clearly something is not right.




Four of the top five teams are now running Mustang-bodied cars, so their poor results seem illogical if the cars have equal performance.

2022 Teams Championship
1 Red Bull Ampol Racing 5900pts
2 Shell V-Power Racing Team 5172 -728
3 Tickford Racing 4656 -1244
4 Walkinshaw Andretti United 4448 -1452
5 Penrite Racing 3866 -2034
6 Coca-Cola Racing by Erebus 3856 -2044
7 Team 18 3401 -2499
8 Brad Jones Racing 3260 -2640
9 Truck Assist Racing 2502 -3398
10 Nulon Racing 2418 -3482

The upturn in form by every single one of the 6th to 10th placed teams seems beyond coincidence.


Fox Sports notes the inexplicable improvement by General Motors teams:


https://www.foxsports.com.au/motorsp...c2f96823afd64b

Hmm...


Conversely, the downturn by every single one of the 2nd to 5th placed teams seems beyond coincidence too. They are all different teams and different engineering groups in those 6th-10th placed teams and 2nd-5th placed teams respectively, so you wouldn't expect such a body shape-related trend if performance is independent of what body shape of car you are running.

The only tenuous link is that there are a lot of former 888 customer teams running the Camaro body shape that may have been advantaged by the Gen 3 car favouring experience with a 888-style suspension setup, which the Gen 3 car wasn't supposed to favour -- it was supposed to be a neutral, impartial control suspension despite being designed by 888.

I wasn't talking about Supercars its self, any competition. I am talking about the cars winning the races, your list doesn't reflect that. My opinion of a top team may differ from yours. Some teams are living off past glory's, and have for awhile. Check the 2023 teams list.

[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.

[Mixer]

I'd say they have something in mind in terms of a laptime gain, so they are testing the Mustang back to back with parts they've created.

I don't mind going where the science leads us, but Ford's not inspiring confidence with the shifting sands of their excuses.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by 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.

It would have to be a shedload better than testing while interrupting rookie driver days..

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

It would have to be a shedload better than testing while interrupting rookie driver days..

They didn't interrupt anything. Tickford have done a day now as well as DJR and apparently we will see new parts at Townsville.

But will the teams actually improve the things costing them results?

Neither Tickford or DJR seem to want to acknowledge the fact that they will just throw away more potential race wins with impetuous driving or rubbish pit stops and strategy.

[bluesport]

More parity testing.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/djr-to-c...arity-testing/

[bluesport]

What to expect from the Supercars parity review

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/06/30...parity-review/

[banksie]

Slight increase to the Mustang's rear downforce.

Supercars statement.