Parity Review Has Been Called

[Sandgroper]

Time will tell I guess.

or more complaints

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Ares

About the same as the lead placed into the roof of the Gen2 Mustang. You were not supportive of any changes being made mid-season back then, if I remember you didn't even want any testing done. You are more supportive this time?

Certainly. It was built to the rules, hit the required downforce & drag, and at that time homologation entities were allowed to come back and homologate a new package next season. This time Supercars have had undue control over the process which bizarre ideas like different engine capacities and obviously the control wing and splitter.

I still advocate for it to be competition (just set legality boxes and have at it, just like the body kit competition in the World Rally Championship) and am confident Ford Performance USA can and will do a better job than 888 acting for Chevrolet Racing, unless Chevrolet Racing get similarly interested enough to also devote US resources. Obviously Ford Performance didn't devote US resources this time as it seemed like it would be a waste of time and money if the optimal package they design in the US is just going to be cut up anyway like last time.

Anyhow, the new bootlid extensions can be seen here:


It wraps around the side of the car more. It's a little hard to compare length or angle of attack, but it looks like the new bootlid extensions might have a little more of both and should couple together nicely with the lower rear wing with the gurney flap (not pictured I believe).

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Time will tell I guess.

or more complaints

If the cars are demonstrably even there are unlikely to be complaints and if the Mustangs are mostly ahead there are unlikely to be complaints from Mustang teams, just like the recent lack of complaints from Camaro teams.

Or (probably the best thing) just forget technical parity and make it competition? It would save the mess. The WRC works just fine as an aerodynamic competition, despite having a control spaceframe just like the ATCC.

If I understand correctly, even though the WRC tube frame itself is spec (and some aspects of the hybrid system), the engines (with a fixed capacity, no variable capacity rules!) and aerodynamics remain points of competition: this works quite well.



You can see that each of the aerodynamic packages is different. E.g., the rear wings are all different designs. There is no balance-of-performance, there is no technical parity -- it is not necessary, it is a competition between M-Sport acting for Ford Performance, Hyundai N Division and Toyota Gazoo Racing. Just as the ATCC could be a competition between Ford Performance USA and 888 Race Engineering acting for Chevrolet Racing USA.

Why not say max 5000cc, max 9000rpm and here are the boxes where you can place your front splitter and rear wing: have at it, homologate the best bit of kit you can?

[V8 Fireworks]

A little more enlightening:

Old bootlid extension: https://media.speedcafe.com/wp-conte...e-Aero-001.jpg

New bootlid extension: https://media2.speedcafe.com/wp-cont...e-Aero-009.jpg

Looks to have a little more angle of attack than before.

The 3D printers have been working overtime it seems.

[V8 Fireworks]

Cam Waters pleased with apparent reduction in corner entry instability:

I was starting to feel like I was going crazy inside the car, I’d just forgotten how to drive to the apex, but it’s good they found something.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/07/07...d-aero-a-gain/

Great stuff!

It will take some time to retune the suspension to suit this, but good to see that the issue was identified and apparently fixed.

[Osborne Reynolds]

The MAJOR issue with these cars is the throttle body diameter. The inlet manifold uses a restrictor of 53mm (ish), then a throttle body of Holden 80mm / Ford 87mm diameter. Ford have stuck with 87mm despite Supercars advice to downsize. In fact, both cars would be better with 75mm, and a slight increase in restrictor diameter.

The actual process of obtaining 'parity' has been a little ambiguous, the fault being poor communication between stakeholders, a lack of rigor, and a reluctance to report by Supercars. Additionally, the Ford development team is somewhat inexperienced. Experienced in engine development, yes, but experience with restricted, single throttle body manifolds, no.

You can clearly hear the difference at test days. Drivers are forced to drive around the issue, and Ford drivers more so. Drive by wire 'pedal mapping' has been tried over and over again to help the drivers, but it's a band aid, and can't fix the fundamental problem.

There are also a few questions about engine inertia that have been raised, and questionably addressed, and perhaps a lack of confidence to adjust for empirical results. An engine is NOT a simple sum of rotating inertia elements like a gearbox, it's a pump.

The shift cut settings are an absolute joke as well.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Osborne Reynolds

Additionally, the Ford development team is somewhat inexperienced. Experienced in engine development, yes, but experience with restricted, single throttle body manifolds, no.

Steve Amos and Mostech would have been an ultimately credentialled equal to KRE, but as an outsider it seems Herrod's haven't been up to the task, even if the message at the time was that other than Steve Amos retiring, all the Mostech staff were retained.

Absolutely irreplaceable amount of knowledge and experience to lose, and shockingly bad luck.

[GTRMagic]

Mr Amos provided the power units for Mr Thexton all those years ago as well….

[GTRMagic]

The thing to remember perhaps is that these engines were selected what 2 years or more ago… they could have been running in a TA2 chassis across with full data systems aboard to measure real world parity.

Instead, teams get to buggerise around with engine changes, aero changes.. with a couple of practice sessions to say yes or no as an improvement.

As perhaps inferred above.. are they at the source of the problem, or looking for a Band-Aid..?

The Big Hill is coming up soon.. and indeed Sandown before it.. the power delivery and outright performance between the 2 brands will stick out like Pinocchio’s nose…

[Mixer]

So after one session Ford drivers and fans still whining their tits off about the changes.

Now after quali 5/5 cars in the shootout and Fords in the top 2 including Matt Payne.

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by Mixer

So after one session Ford drivers and fans still whining their tits off about the changes.

Now after quali 5/5 cars in the shootout and Fords in the top 2 including Matt Payne.

Maybe its just their drivers.

As much as I like CAM, he always finds a way to loose sadly

and I WANT HIM TO WIN

[bluesport]

Rear tyre life is still an issue says Chaz.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/mostert-...ownsville-500/

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Rear tyre life is still an issue says Chaz.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/mostert-...ownsville-500/

Interesting in his R1 Townsville 3 stopper, they replaced rests only in each stop..

[GTRMagic]

Ford won. Can the Parity talk stop yet?

Oh, and its the 2nd race win for Ford, not the first... Newcastle anyone?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Ford won. Can the Parity talk stop yet?

I really hope so, but it seems now any Ford driver who doesn't win for any reason will pull the "class win" line out, and it's just ****.

[E.B]

Lets not forget that the Ford that won benefitted greatly from having a shed full off new / minimal use rubber thanks to their early DNF yesterday, allowing them to three stop with new rubber each stop. A far greater and more impactful benefit than any parity consideration.

Im not a follower of either GM or Ford so have no parity grudges either way. I just feel that circumstance played as much / more of a part of today's result than parity.
Actually I think this might be the first post (that I remember anyway) I have written about parity

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by E.B

Im not a follower of either GM or Ford so have no parity grudges either way. I just feel that circumstance played as much / more of a part of today's result than parity.
Actually I think this might be the first post (that I remember anyway) I have written about parity

Would it not be fair to say that the team who has those circumstances deserves to win, and had parity not existing that team would not have won even with those circumstances - which is the way it is being portayed.

Each make or team should be able to win on the day if they do a good enough job.

But not when they have inconsistent drivers, bad team management or rubbish pit work.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by E.B

Lets not forget that the Ford that won benefitted greatly from having a shed full off new / minimal use rubber thanks to their early DNF yesterday, allowing them to three stop with new rubber each stop. A far greater and more impactful benefit than any parity consideration.

Im not a follower of either GM or Ford so have no parity grudges either way. I just feel that circumstance played as much / more of a part of today's result than parity.
Actually I think this might be the first post (that I remember anyway) I have written about parity

That's the bottom line, it's obvious that there is more work to be done to improve tyre life on the Mustang.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

That's the bottom line, it's obvious that there is more work to be done to improve tyre life on the Mustang.

So poles, podiums and a win and you're still special pleading reasons why the Mustang needs to be made faster?

Anton had bad tyre life last year too.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by bluesport

That's the bottom line, it's obvious that there is more work to be done to improve tyre life on the Mustang.

You have to wonder what they were doing in the parity testing in the first place? Are they now going to have to start stacking the other side until the Ford drivers can win 50% of the races? Like if Smith & Jones were the best ford drivers in the field, you'd need to just keep giving them more aero until they were winning? They can only work until the two [cars] test equal. They can't go past that point or it's team and driver parity. Careful what you wish for. Hey lets get more car into the series, then change the name to Australian Parity Wars.

[bluesport]

Wind tunnel testing.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/support-...unnel-testing/

[Ares]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Wind tunnel testing.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/support-...unnel-testing/

like with the Gen2 Mustang.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Ares

You have to wonder what they were doing in the parity testing in the first place? Are they now going to have to start stacking the other side until the Ford drivers can win 50% of the races? Like if Smith & Jones were the best ford drivers in the field, you'd need to just keep giving them more aero until they were winning? They can only work until the two [cars] test equal. They can't go past that point or it's team and driver parity. Careful what you wish for. Hey lets get more car into the series, then change the name to Australian Parity Wars.

It's clear from results in this weekends races that pace although improved is still lacking over race distance due to tyre degradation which doesn't show up in qualifying.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by bluesport

It's clear from results in this weekends races that pace although improved is still lacking over race distance due to tyre degradation which doesn't show up in qualifying.

Yes, maybe. But the cars don't drive themselves around the track. Supercars can only test and make the cars equal. They can't just move into a faze of handing out aero until the ford drivers start winning, that's not what the sport is based on. Maybe the NASCAR way would have been better, all aero under the car and all cars floor pans are the same. No wings or body aero.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Ares

Yes, maybe. But the cars don't drive themselves around the track. Supercars can only test and make the cars equal. They can't just move into a faze of handing out aero until the ford drivers start winning, that's not what the sport is based on. Maybe the NASCAR way would have been better, all aero under the car and all cars floor pans are the same. No wings or body aero.

That's the point, they aren't equal.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by bluesport

That's the point, they aren't equal.

The cars or the teams and drivers running them? If they are not equal, by how much? does anyone have that answer?

Take Erebus out of the equation and you would say it's pretty much the same old same old. 888 and the rest close behind. Erebus doing a great job with two fast driver changes the picture this year. Erebus has been the benchmark this year. If they were struggling how different would this year look from the past? Not a lot.