COTF reliability

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Samwhk

Apart from that, did anyone hear anything else reliability related from Saturday? Or any update on the brakes?

Adcafe is saying that a thicker rotor was tried in the test day which seems to have been successful.

[GTRMagic]

So... any bets how many cars will DNF at Bathurst with gearbox issues

Albins have a fix... apparently... Here

[Umai Naa]

Part of me says that supporting an Australian manufacturer like Albins is great, but on the other hand, a known quantity like a Hewland unit, might've been a better idea.

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

So... any bets how many cars will DNF at Bathurst with gearbox issues

Albins have a fix... apparently... Here

BS about having problems testing parts. Why can't they do a deal with one of the small teams to run development parts.

[rik]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

BS about having problems testing parts. Why can't they do a deal with one of the small teams to run development parts.

Or the two test COTF chassis owned by V8SC???

Certainly makes Albins look bad.... and given the team owners haven't been outraged, you'd have to bet Albins are having to supply all the extra components for free.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by rik

Or the two test COTF chassis owned by V8SC???

Certainly makes Albins look bad.... and given the team owners haven't been outraged, you'd have to bet Albins are having to supply all the extra components for free.

I wouldn't count on that. Team owners are extremely ticked off. But they're dealing with it behind closed doors. They realise there's nothing to gain by going off publicly. But this has been bubbling away since before the first round.

No idea about what restitution Albins is making, although I'd be surprised if they're supplying maintenance parts for free. At the moment the issue is the life cycle of the parts.

Funnily enough, one crew chief who first highlighted this to me before Adelaide said (paraphrasing) "If this isn't fixed quickly, it has the potential to bankrupt Albins".

Now this fellow does tend to see half-empty glasses of cyanide quite regularly, but I'm starting to think he might be on to something.

[Racenut]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Part of me says that supporting an Australian manufacturer like Albins is great, but on the other hand, a known quantity like a Hewland unit, might've been a better idea.

A known quantity such as the Holinger which has been used for years would be reliable and local made. I cannot understand why they went to the transaxle. Just making an independant rear end using the 9" centre makes more sense to me.

Could there be a conspiracy and/or payoff?

[EfiOz]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

So... any bets how many cars will DNF at Bathurst with gearbox issues

Four.







No science behind that guess at all, BTW.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by EfiOz

Four.







No science behind that guess at all, BTW.

There are 4 cars at FPR who have been hungrier than others with gearbox parts... certainly the Tekno pair are big consumers... and a couple of others across the event.. 4 might be right.. although I suspect it might be more..

[Racenut]

It might be easier to predict who will not have gearbox issues. BTW can they change them during the race? If so how quick can T8 change one?

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by Racenut

It might be easier to predict who will not have gearbox issues. BTW can they change them during the race? If so how quick can T8 change one?

They can, but not quickly. Certainly not quick enough to stay in contention during the race.

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by Racenut

A known quantity such as the Holinger which has been used for years would be reliable and local made. I cannot understand why they went to the transaxle. Just making an independant rear end using the 9" centre makes more sense to me.

Could there be a conspiracy and/or payoff?

Too right.

They could've used a Harrop 9in IRS, for instance.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Racenut

A known quantity such as the Holinger which has been used for years would be reliable and local made. I cannot understand why they went to the transaxle. Just making an independant rear end using the 9" centre makes more sense to me.

Could there be a conspiracy and/or payoff?

Totally agree, the change to the transaxle was always the potential weak link in the COTF program in my view.

Unfortunately, the person who from the outside appeared to be the big supporter and driver of the change has long departed V8 headquarters so others are left to deal with the fallout and fixing it - if it can be fixed.

All those totally bulletproof, known quantity Hollingers and existing rear axles would be looking like a mighty good idea to the teams right now based on what everyone's hearing.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by eduardo1

They can, but not quickly. Certainly not quick enough to stay in contention during the race.

That'd be true right now - what are the chances that some teams are going to start working on quick change options? Be bloody expensive and caused totally by the decision to change driveline for COTF.

Compulsory brake pad changes were brought in for Bathurst & Sandown to stop teams going off and spending megabucks on trick brake systems that would go the distance - could we be about to see compulsory transmission changes during the longer races if this product problem doesn't get resolved?

Only a little bit serious with that question but stranger things have happened......

[formerf1champ]

Speaking of the cotf. Greg Murphy was on radio saying the cotf doesn't feel different form the previous generation car. He said had he not known it was a new car, he'd have thought it was one of the older cars.

Wasn't this car supposed to handle differently, much more of a typical racing car, Porsche like?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Speaking of the cotf. Greg Murphy was on radio saying the cotf doesn't feel different form the previous generation car. He said had he not known it was a new car, he'd have thought it was one of the older cars.

Wasn't this car supposed to handle differently, much more of a typical racing car, Porsche like?

Interesting - particularly when every other driver who's been asked has talked about how different the new car feels. Might just be that now the cars are getting more sorted, they ARE feeling more like the previous cars, as that what the drivers are going to feel more comfortable with so development has headed down that path.

[Umai Naa]

I think it was David Reynolds who said he'd set his current car up to feel like last year's and it went quicker.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Speaking of the cotf. Greg Murphy was on radio saying the cotf doesn't feel different form the previous generation car. He said had he not known it was a new car, he'd have thought it was one of the older cars.

Wasn't this car supposed to handle differently, much more of a typical racing car, Porsche like?

That was the intention, and possibly it did feel that way at the beginning.

Whincup said that the car was harder to drive because the 18-inch tyres gave less warning when they were going to lose grip than the old 'marshmallow' 17-inchers.

As others have said, it seems they're learning to set the cars up more to how they felt last year.

I spoke to Warren Luff at the Porsche meeting and he also said there's almost no difference in driving them from previous cars.

[EfiOz]

Porsche like is not like any other racing car. They require as odd a driving style as teh old spec V8SC.

The transaxle arrangement has worked fine in the past and has it's advantages. The Prodrive 550's and the recent Corvette Gt cars come to mind. I have no idea how they made a transaxle like that generate so much heat.

[rik]

Originally Posted by EfiOz

The transaxle arrangement has worked fine in the past and has it's advantages. The Prodrive 550's and the recent Corvette Gt cars come to mind. I have no idea how they made a transaxle like that generate so much heat.

And COTF doesn't even have an LSD.... the Albins locker is going to be giving that 'same old' feeling. Even if the weight distribution is a bit different.

[rik]

Originally Posted by eduardo1

Whincup said that the car was harder to drive because the 18-inch tyres gave less warning when they were going to lose grip than the old 'marshmallow' 17-inchers.

The COTF cars were supposed to be 1-2 secs quicker than the old... hasn't eventuated at most circuits. Perhaps the 18 inch tyres haven't performed as expected?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by rik

The COTF cars were supposed to be 1-2 secs quicker than the old... hasn't eventuated at most circuits. Perhaps the 18 inch tyres haven't performed as expected?

Presumably the cars will get better when the technogumbies figure out how to do more with the damper & suspension package, and not rely so much on the flexing and bag height of the tyre.

The VE & FG Project Blueprint architecture had been in place for a number of years... these guys are still learning

[formerf1champ]

Aside from allowing to make them look like other manufacturer's cars, I'm not seeing much reason for cotf. v8sc were unique handling cars, and this was supposed to make them conform to a regular racing car, instead of being a specialist machine.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Aside from allowing to make them look like other manufacturer's cars, I'm not seeing much reason for cotf. v8sc were unique handling cars, and this was supposed to make them conform to a regular racing car, instead of being a specialist machine.

There was a list of reasons for cotf - taking them to a point of being a bit less unique to drive was one of them fore sure, but there were other reasons. From my point of view, with the transaxle still using a spool "diff" the likelihood was always strong that the teams would want to get the driving experience as close to the previous generation of cars as possible - more familiar for drivers and at least similar to the car behaviour that teams are used to, helping them to get a race weekend planned and sorted.

If the spool is replaced with a different type of diff, THAT will be a big change - my understanding is that the intention was there originally to do that with cotf either initially or after an acclimatisation period - don't know if there are still plans to do away with the spool.

Cotf was also about an increase in safety for the driver within the structure and you'd have to say that it appears to have done that, so a tick there.

It was also meant to be cheaper to build - from everything that we're hearing, been a fail in that regard so far but teams have yet to start building replacement cars and with the initial development costs spent on the first cars, later cars MAY be more cost effective.

It was also meant to be cheaper and easier to repair - mixed results on that one by all accounts - some things are more straightforward but there are other things that are more complicated and expensive - including regular maintenance work from what I've been told. The teams are regularly spending longer nights at the track on the cotf than they did on the old cars but some of that MAY ease back as they get their heads around life cycles, pre-programmed maintenance etc.

Much of this seems to be due to the transaxle - nothing wrong with a transaxle per se as EfiOz has pointed out, they're used in a vast range of motorsport applications - the issue appears to be with this particular brand of transaxle, in this particular type of use.

On balance, you'd have to say that COTF has been a pass but not a total success so far. Gave us some unpredictable results early in the year but feels like the status quo is starting to impose itself as the previous front runners get their cars consistent - early in the year was more of a lottery.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by Tourer

There was a list of reasons for cotf - taking them to a point of being a bit less unique to drive was one of them fore sure, but there were other reasons. From my point of view, with the transaxle still using a spool "diff" the likelihood was always strong that the teams would want to get the driving experience as close to the previous generation of cars as possible - more familiar for drivers and at least similar to the car behaviour that teams are used to, helping them to get a race weekend planned and sorted.

If the spool is replaced with a different type of diff, THAT will be a big change - my understanding is that the intention was there originally to do that with cotf either initially or after an acclimatisation period - don't know if there are still plans to do away with the spool.

Cotf was also about an increase in safety for the driver within the structure and you'd have to say that it appears to have done that, so a tick there.

It was also meant to be cheaper to build - from everything that we're hearing, been a fail in that regard so far but teams have yet to start building replacement cars and with the initial development costs spent on the first cars, later cars MAY be more cost effective.

It was also meant to be cheaper and easier to repair - mixed results on that one by all accounts - some things are more straightforward but there are other things that are more complicated and expensive - including regular maintenance work from what I've been told. The teams are regularly spending longer nights at the track on the cotf than they did on the old cars but some of that MAY ease back as they get their heads around life cycles, pre-programmed maintenance etc.

Much of this seems to be due to the transaxle - nothing wrong with a transaxle per se as EfiOz has pointed out, they're used in a vast range of motorsport applications - the issue appears to be with this particular brand of transaxle, in this particular type of use.

On balance, you'd have to say that COTF has been a pass but not a total success so far. Gave us some unpredictable results early in the year but feels like the status quo is starting to impose itself as the previous front runners get their cars consistent - early in the year was more of a lottery.

Good summation. My 2 cents, the only thing that COTF has definitively achieved is the addition of manufacturers (3 new ones - big tick) and shaking up the field, albeit temporarily.

Costs are a big issue. To achieve their aims they need to be able to build the next round of cars for approx. half of what the initial build costs were. Nobody I've spoken to knows how they'll achieve that.

Maintenance - the cars are far more time consuming to service at the track and more expensive to run (in no small part because of transaxle). However, based on limited experiences so far, notably Scott Pye's car, they are a little bit easier to repair after major shunts and the driver safety appears to be even better.