Parity Review Has Been Called

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Untried, untested, not in the AVL evaluation, limited supply (they may not have 10x for Bathurst) and actually might make Ford engine performance worse than the regular Swiss cheese version. And of course not (yet) signed off by V8Supercar.

Perhaps wouldn’t be so interesting if Bathurst wasn’t just a couple of weeks away..

Doubt that the new crank would be worse it would likely be better in every respect and isn't the Blanchard car using one for the parity evaluation?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Nobody knew of any crankshaft issues with Ford's engine for the last 18 months either.

Until sandown the engines had been very reliable I thought, it sounds like a bad batch from the supplier.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Until sandown the engines had been very reliable I thought, it sounds like a bad batch from the supplier.

And now they shall seem to use a previously unknown m-to-them supplier of crankshafts in the replacement engines.

There was talk of these crankshafts coming out of China.. not the FoMoCo Performance centre in the US… so a third or fourth party at best…

Imagine building 10x of these engines and they lose even one in practice, without a serviceable spare… just WOW!

[Tourer]

Having engine problems and also looking at an engine parity adjustment leading into Bathurst is a nightmare that no-one wants, that's for sure.

In that linked piece with Brad Jones earlier in the thread, whilst he's not saying it fully outright, it sounds like the Ford engine produced stronger outputs than the Chev on the transient dyno - and Brad is expecting a parity adjustment prior to Bathurst (along with the other Chev teams I suppose). I'd be surprised if any difference is other than minor but from Brad's tone and words, it appears that the difference is there.

Even in this professional age, there is a lot of emotion in the pit lane heading into Bathurst (we used to call it "Bathurst fever") and across the board, as a general rule, the teams all get a bit more uptight and fractious from about 6 weeks out from Bathurst each year.

Any parity adjustment is a bit of a hot potato in pit lane but in the lead up to Bathurst, it's a hot potato, loaded with firecrackers. However, if the transient dyno results show that such an adjustment is warranted, then so be it, as the dyno was the last part of the "measure everything" process and has been sought for some time, particularly by Ford.

To then have crank problems only raises everyone's heart rates considerably & as BJR had a problem with the crank in one of its cars at Sandown, may not just be a "Ford" thing. Perhaps about now is when the idea of going to "production" engines starts to look not so cheap and not so smart overall?

[Casper]

I think a lot of people need to understand that power is a function of rpm x torque.

[bluesport]

I can see another boring, processional bathurst coming up again unfortunately.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think a lot of people need to understand that power is a function of rpm x torque.

Regardless, dyno testing (as most of know it) is one thing, transient dyno testing is another and measures torque & response across a wide range of varying revs and conditions, replicating gear shifts for example (or maybe making the shifts for real as I believe that the transaxle is attached for the Supercar transient dyno tests). Is not just a simple measurement of absolute torque, leading to the absolute measurement of power.

Originally Posted by bluesport

I can see another boring, processional bathurst coming up again unfortunately.

Nah - far too early to know in that regard. Could be a processional race, could be anything but, that is the beauty of The Mountain, it can throw up anything and often does.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Regardless, dyno testing (as most of know it) is one thing, transient dyno testing is another and measures torque & response across a wide range of varying revs and conditions, replicating gear shifts for example (or maybe making the shifts for real as I believe that the transaxle is attached for the Supercar transient dyno tests). Is not just a simple measurement of absolute torque, leading to the absolute measurement of power.

Nah - far too early to know in that regard. Could be a processional race, could be anything but, that is the beauty of The Mountain, it can throw up anything and often does.

I'll be surprised if it's not processional.

[bathurst77]

the last minute change a week or so before bathurst to throw a spanner in one sides preparation move?

Always welcome

[one five five]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I can see another boring, processional bathurst coming up again unfortunately.

Only takes a late safety car to spice it up. Last year was an anomaly based on years previous

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by one five five

Only takes a late safety car to spice it up. Last year was an anomaly based on years previous

Add Rain and makes a whole new ball game.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Is not just a simple measurement of absolute torque, leading to the absolute measurement of power.

But then you get people jumping on here telling us that one motor has more power than the other motor when absolute measurement is debatable at best. Headlines and news bites make for much merriment and misinformation. If they (SC) can't get two motors the same adding a third is going to be absolutely hilarious especially if it was to be a six cylinder turbo. Both Nissan and MB proved that to be the case. I will crawl back into my hole and watch with amusement as all the protagonists debate who is right and who is wrong.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Only takes a late safety car to spice it up. Last year was an anomaly based on years previous

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Add Rain and makes a whole new ball game.

Agree with you both - plus of course other things that can come up such as kangaroos, strong winds, trees down, tarmac issues, shunts & recovery drives etc. etc.

Certainly could be different this year if they use the full course yellow methodology too.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Casper

But then you get people jumping on here telling us that one motor has more power than the other motor when absolute measurement is debatable at best. Headlines and news bites make for much merriment and misinformation. If they (SC) can't get two motors the same adding a third is going to be absolutely hilarious especially if it was to be a six cylinder turbo. Both Nissan and MB proved that to be the case. I will crawl back into my hole and watch with amusement as all the protagonists debate who is right and who is wrong.

No-one has (yet) said that they can't get 2 motors the same - that's what the transient dyno testing is for and it has only just been completed. We'll see what comes out of that.

[Mixer]

The difference is also sub 1%

[Casper]

The proof will be in the torque curves and of course they will make those public won't they. The problem remains the same, because power is a function of torque x RPM the 2 valve is starting to fall over at peak RPM and the 4 valve is not and could rev even further for more power gains if the limiter was lifted to a higher figure. Lower the limiter and the 2 valve would be a match for power but in the end the torque curve for both would likely be the problem. I bet we never see the torque curves of both just a statement to say the power has been matched which of course is only a small part of the story. I can't be the only one here who understands this stuff and it disappoints me that others have not raised these issues already. I can't wait to see the mess when Toyota gets involved. I must admit I have lost faith with the idea of parity because of the disparity in the motor configuration, BTW who owns the dyno they are using?

[Mixer]

Yeah I am sure you know more than Craig Haysted or Kenny Mac....

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Casper

The proof will be in the torque curves and of course they will make those public won't they. The problem remains the same, because power is a function of torque x RPM the 2 valve is starting to fall over at peak RPM and the 4 valve is not and could rev even further for more power gains if the limiter was lifted to a higher figure. Lower the limiter and the 2 valve would be a match for power but in the end the torque curve for both would likely be the problem. I bet we never see the torque curves of both just a statement to say the power has been matched which of course is only a small part of the story. I can't be the only one here who understands this stuff and it disappoints me that others have not raised these issues already. I can't wait to see the mess when Toyota gets involved. I must admit I have lost faith with the idea of parity because of the disparity in the motor configuration, BTW who owns the dyno they are using?

I agree with you totally but others can't see it because they don't want to see it.

I've been watching quite a bit of racing on youtube at Goodwood lately and the racing is outstanding, what makes it so good is disparity and the different specs of the cars being raced.........much more enjoyable than anything that supercars dish up.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Yeah I am sure you know more than Craig Haysted or Kenny Mac....

My understanding is not the point the question is do you understand it?

You are one of those people who can't accept any view of it that differs from your own and the evidence is in every post so denying it is futile. You are also one of the reasons that this forum has such a low contributor base, it may surprise you to know that there are motor sport fans who can't understand why anyone such as yourself can be so one eyed about motor sport. You obviously do not understand the technical issues and do not want to acknowledge that they exist because it interferes with your rabid support of one side of SC's.

[Mixer]

You try to say I am biased but you are special pleading to make your case.

At least I am to blame for something, saved one that Skaifey normally gets blamed for.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by Mixer

You try to say I am biased but you are special pleading to make your case.

At least I am to blame for something, saved one that Skaifey normally gets blamed for.

Maybe you can explain why Skaife is so disliked. When Larko was set to get the bullet there was an outcry, which saved his position. Many, and I mean 'MANY' were calling for Larko to stay and Skaife to go. Is it just the fact that everyone gets the same up my own backside vibe that I get? And that "up my own backside" is why he feels he can put other people in their places, as he feels he is a very special person in the sport, in his mind probably the most special. Very few like the guy if you haven't noticed.

[bluesport]

AVL fine tuning.

https://www.supercars.com/news/super...urst-1000-gen3

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think a lot of people need to understand that power is a function of rpm x torque.

And the categories measure is the integral of rpm x torque (cumulative power) over the relevant rev range. So any specific power value is not relevant.

But by all means the engine should be as equal as possible in both cumulative power, power (torque) at every specific rpm and transient response rates in every situation.

Originally Posted by Casper

The proof will be in the torque curves and of course they will make those public won't they. The problem remains the same, because power is a function of torque x RPM the 2 valve is starting to fall over at peak RPM and the 4 valve is not and could rev even further for more power gains if the limiter was lifted to a higher figure.

It sounds like this will be fixed by making 32-valve DOHC engines mandatory in 2026. The Coyote and 2UR are already similar, and Chevrolet will bring an engine that falls into line with convention. A sensible move!

[Tourer]

Minor engine mapping changes for parity about to come online for Bathurst.

Interesting that Mr Edwards isn't giving much info but the writer of the article suggests that the Fords had a little more top-end power and a little less torque around 5K rpm. We may hear more once the changes are loaded and the cars hit the track.

[bluesport]

Parity questions quashed.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/parity-q...hange-quashed/