Gen 3 progress

[V8 Fireworks]

Tim Edwards:

All is not lost on Gen 3.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/12/01...otally-broken/

However, organisers have far from demonstrated competence that a BMW M2 or Nissan Z with a shorter wheelbase and turbocharged engine will be able to be successfully accommodated under technical parity.

[Tourer]

Wind tunnel may not provide better info than runway testing according to engineer who does know what he's talking about.

His comment that the Indycar teams put more resources, time & effort into runway tests rather than tunnel use is telling.

Will be really interesting to see what comes out of the WindShear tests but there may not be definitive data.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Wind tunnel may not provide better info than runway testing according to engineer who does know what he's talking about.

His comment that the Indycar teams put more resources, time & effort into runway tests rather than tunnel use is telling.

Will be really interesting to see what comes out of the WindShear tests but there may not be definitive data.

It's a shame that the mustang didn't use the new aero at Bathurst as it would have given a "real world" indication of where the aero is at.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

It's a shame that the mustang didn't use the new aero at Bathurst as it would have given a "real world" indication of where the aero is at.

I honestly think that Bathurst is too big a deal to be introducing such changes (regardless of which brand) but as it was outside the rules, wasn't surprised in the least that it didn't happen.

We have of course had 4 races since to give real world and will be interesting to see what happens after the wind-tunnel testing - might need to go back to the airport runway to verify the findings, who knows.

[GTRMagic]

Meantime, the BJR diaries report that the fire suppression system needs to be unstitched in all Gen3 chassis, and updated to 2024 spec..

More money…

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I honestly think that Bathurst is too big a deal to be introducing such changes (regardless of which brand) but as it was outside the rules, wasn't surprised in the least that it didn't happen.

We have of course had 4 races since to give real world and will be interesting to see what happens after the wind-tunnel testing - might need to go back to the airport runway to verify the findings, who knows.

Technical parity is a nightmare imo, it flip flops from one side to the other.

I agree with technical parity to a point but complete technical parity is unachievable and fine adjustments (eg shiftcuts or restrictors) should be made to one make or the other in the end to get the cars closer.

[Casper]

The problem is obvious but if they do what is needed the whole ethos of the category goes down the toilet. What firstly needs to understood is that a car that has to be flogged to keep up with the race pace suffers because tyres and suspension are worked harder and that is a downward spiral that is inevitable no matter who is driving. Lifting the RPM limit on the four valve Ford and change the diff ratio slightly will most probably fix most of it but SC is bound by the idea that all cars must be the same even if it destroys the racing. If they were to do that then there must be some sort of technical education to explain to the fans why it was done. The uproar when a Ford 4 valve wins the first race will be hilarious if there is no explanation because 99% of fans have no idea why all this is occurring. As I said previously, I forecast some years of the possible problems using different configuration motors and I guess I was not wrong.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Casper

The problem is obvious but if they do what is needed the whole ethos of the category goes down the toilet. What firstly needs to understood is that a car that has to be flogged to keep up with the race pace suffers because tyres and suspension are worked harder and that is a downward spiral that is inevitable no matter who is driving. Lifting the RPM limit on the four valve Ford and change the diff ratio slightly will most probably fix most of it but SC is bound by the idea that all cars must be the same even if it destroys the racing. If they were to do that then there must be some sort of technical education to explain to the fans why it was done. The uproar when a Ford 4 valve wins the first race will be hilarious if there is no explanation because 99% of fans have no idea why all this is occurring. As I said previously, I forecast some years of the possible problems using different configuration motors and I guess I was not wrong.

You make a lot of sense imo.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bluesport

You make a lot of sense imo.

Unfortunately the words are just all hot air and somewhere down the line someone will work out that smacking the same brick wall does not give a solution because SC refuse to publicly recognise the problem, after all there are supposedly some bright people in the category. Perhaps some do recognise the issues but the management can't tolerate the changes needed. If that is the case they are on a downward spiral with not much future.

Given what is happening in the industry I can't understand why there is no planning for when the current car format is dead and buried and all of a sudden there are no suitable cars but I have asked that before so I have no expectation of an answer. Why anyone would invest significant money in a category and not recognise that it has no long term future due to industry changes beats me. They must think the category will defy all the changes which are taking place but the whole car racing movement seems to be on the same blind path unfortunately apart from FE.

Back to SC's current problems, maybe what they need to do is run some "engineering" races that are specifically for seeking changes to level the performance over a longer period but are not public and recognising they have to move out of the regulation framework now in place and explore what may be possible. I tend to agree that aero is not the hard answer as most race tracks in Oz are fairly low speed apart from the obvious one Bathurst. Cars change behaviour, drivers do as well over long distances and trends are established so long distance testing should give answers that cannot be seen on an airstrip or in a wind tunnel.

I would not be surprised if the team that tried to get the two motors to perform the same told SC management it won't work and management decided to ignore their advice and go ahead anyway. I can't believe with the huge differences that are seen on track weren't known from day one and those involved just decided to wing it and try and sort things out on the run.

All just my opinion and I can be as wrong as the next person so it is all hot air and a lot of fan discussion takes place with no understanding of the engineering problems.

[mite5255]

https://www.supercars.com/news/super...y-ruyFj1rc7DWg

[GTRMagic]

V8Supercar technical Partner Boned

[billy bleach]

I would not be surprised if the team that tried to get the two motors to perform the same told SC management it won't work and management decided to ignore their advice and go ahead anyway. I can't believe with the huge differences that are seen on track weren't known from day one and those involved just decided to wing it and try and sort things out on the run.


Presumably no lessons were learnt from the Mercedes / Nissan participation

[GTRMagic]

AMG kept banking the cheques and saying everything was ok didn’t they?
And Nissan stopped serious development work after a period as well..

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

AMG kept banking the cheques and saying everything was ok didn’t they?
And Nissan stopped serious development work after a period as well..

Until they realised the claimed parity was a myth

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Until they realised the claimed parity was a myth

In the more liberal Gen2 engine rule set, if you spent enough money you could make improvements. WP arguably had the better of the Chev engines at the end of that era, yet poor chassis year after year seemed to rarely see them maximised.

The Super3 overlords were getting their knickers in a twist not so long ago about Altima runners opting for the latest engine, and previously homologated aero…

Of interest will be what IndyCar choose to do for engines in the future.
Honda and Chevrolet (Ilmor) and very different suppliers
Yet the boss of Honda Racing USA pondered if an engine arms war really was necessary.. and couldn’t Ilmor just build them all and service them.. and allow car manufacturers to fund engine branding..

Not as silly as it might sound..

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

In the more liberal Gen2 engine rule set, if you spent enough money you could make improvements. WP arguably had the better of the Chev engines at the end of that era, yet poor chassis year after year seemed to rarely see them maximised.

The Super3 overlords were getting their knickers in a twist not so long ago about Altima runners opting for the latest engine, and previously homologated aero…

Of interest will be what IndyCar choose to do for engines in the future.
Honda and Chevrolet (Ilmor) and very different suppliers
Yet the boss of Honda Racing USA pondered if an engine arms war really was necessary.. and couldn’t Ilmor just build them all and service them.. and allow car manufacturers to fund engine branding..

Not as silly as it might sound..

Fair point except the Generic Indy Motor would likely be a clean sheet design rather than based on a production unit so presumably Manufacturers are comfortable with that

[TWRv12]

Will never understand how 888 could be part of the design group that builds a car to small for SVG:

Ryan Story’s Gen3 Supercars secret

Ryan Story says he was forced to put his hand in his own pocket during the early days of development of the Gen3 Supercars platform.

https://speedcafe.com/ryan-storys-ge...ercars-secret/

[one five five]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Not as silly as it might sound..

But also very boring from a competitive aspect

[bluesport]

Engine supply had to change.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/nash-why...had-to-change/

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Engine supply had to change.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/nash-why...had-to-change/

Yeah not in the least bit surprising. Robbie Herrod is someone I personally like, but he & his company had no experience at this level & it was foolhardy & unreasonable of Ford to drop the engine responsibility in his lap - very poor management.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yeah not in the least bit surprising. Robbie Herrod is someone I personally like, but he & his company had no experience at this level & it was foolhardy & unreasonable of Ford to drop the engine responsibility in his lap - very poor management.

It looks like DJR have got it right.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

It looks like DJR have got it right.

Oh, the Love Mustang does sound different. Much more low pitched (especially when the Mustang used to be much more high pitched and raspy than the Camaro before).

I wonder if they changed from a 4-2-1 to a 4-1 header?

It sounds like the new engine package includes at least VCT tuning. Unclear if it includes a new intake, new exhaust and (crucially) new internal engine parts to reduce inertia (maybe a more lightweight crank or conrods sourced form the 5.4L M-Sport Mustang GT3 engine from the global Ford Performance parts bin?).

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Oh, the Love Mustang does sound different. Much more low pitched (especially when the Mustang used to be much more high pitched and raspy than the Camaro before).

I wonder if they changed from a 4-2-1 to a 4-1 header?

It sounds like the new engine package includes at least VCT tuning. Unclear if it includes a new intake, new exhaust and (crucially) new internal engine parts to reduce inertia (maybe a more lightweight crank or conrods sourced form the 5.4L M-Sport Mustang GT3 engine from the global Ford Performance parts bin?).

But I thought it was impossible to paritise two different mechanical configurations of engine….

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yeah not in the least bit surprising. Robbie Herrod is someone I personally like, but he & his company had no experience at this level & it was foolhardy & unreasonable of Ford to drop the engine responsibility in his lap - very poor management.

As much as I agree about the experience the not reason Herrods emded up with the project was Steve Amos from MOStech retiring because of I'll health.

Perhaps force majeure but Kenny Mac could have done it....

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mixer

As much as I agree about the experience the not reason Herrods emded up with the project was Steve Amos from MOStech retiring because of I'll health.

Perhaps force majeure but Kenny Mac could have done it....

Yes, that was how it went down I believe - but there were other options (one of which is doing the engines now) with WAY more experience at this level than poor old Robbie Herrod. Whomever at Ford threw him the "hospital pass" on this one really made a very ordinary decision, which impacted Ford teams right through the whole season and I image can't have helped Robbie's blood pressure nor his business' reputation.