Parity Review Has Been Called

[Ares]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Team18 were also struggling for rear tyre life at the same race weekend, and placed well down the order. Do I demand a parity adjustment for it?

At what point does car setup and driving get factored into tyre wear?

None of the teams blaming parity for tyre life were able to match 888 on tyre wear last year.

Arguably both Waters and Chaz both have issues with aggression and maturity which easily explains poor tyre life.

Yes, that why I said they need more running before any more changes. Also the weekends track is going to magnify any issues. It is just not a good look after all the testing pre season to be finding discrepancies like they have. I wonder if the whole process needs overhauling. like personal and structure.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Simplistic special pleading.

So far:

Aero
COG
Engine Maps
Aero again

Now Ford are saying the engine is their issue, and their credibility is shredded.

Meanwhile Cam Waters has another dive down the order because of reliability issues.

In two weeks time Ford fans will be holding up the championship points again and blaming parity, when parity had nothing to do with that result, and not for the first time.

Have you got a link to the engine issue?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Team18 were also struggling for rear tyre life at the same race weekend, and placed well down the order. Do I demand a parity adjustment for it?

At what point does car setup and driving get factored into tyre wear?

None of the teams blaming parity for tyre life were able to match 888 on tyre wear last year.

Arguably both Waters and Chaz both have issues with aggression and maturity which easily explains poor tyre life.

Team 18 were probably on a 2 stop strategy where a 3 stop strategy would have been better.

[Sandgroper]

SO thus far, are we suggesting the new Cars introduced a shambles or has it been good for the sport?

It has been nice to see different people on the podium thats for sure.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

SO thus far, are we suggesting the new Cars introduced a shambles or has it been good for the sport?

It has been nice to see different people on the podium thats for sure.

Teething troubles, it will eventually be sorted but everything has to be done with supercars blessing which takes time.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting that this is getting tested apparently this week.

Also on the issue of costs and cost-cutting.

The steering racks everyone is having trouble with were off the shelf and chosen because they were cheaper than the one 888 made to spec.

Who knew hacked up road car parts would fail in a race car?

This is where focus on up-front cost is meaningless.

[Osborne Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Mixer

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.

Indeed it's very sad that Steve is unwell. For clarity, I was referring to the US Ford stakeholders, not so much the Australians involved.

[Osborne Reynolds]

In many restricted engine categories, the design approach for a natural aspirated, UPSTREAM throttle, with FIXED restrictor size, and FIXED displacement would be to maximise throttle diameter to reduce loss... until the point where drivability is traded off against absolute power... But this is NOT the approach / rule / methodology being used... and CANNOT be used, because the engines have a different displacement. (note, the configuration is a downstream throttle, which is a little trickier to manage, but the principles are the same)

A correct approach would be to select a restrictor and throttle on the larger displacement engine, to obtain required maximum power (600HP), and a designed part throttle response (note: look at part throttle power curve on other/prior race engines deemed to be 'drivable')... lets select some values to make this easy to digest. Say the Camaro was 'nice' with 53mm restrictor and 75mm throttle. Then you need to find a combination of restrictor and throttle diameter for the smaller displacement Ford engine, to create the 600HP, and match the part throttle power curves of the Camaro.

Lets imagine, for the Ford you create the 600HP with ANY of the following combinations:

53.0mm restrictor / 85mm throttle
53.5mm restrictor / 80mm throttle
54.1mm restrictor / 75mm throttle
54.8mm restrictor / 70mm throttle

You select the correct combination that gives the Ford the same part throttle response of the Camaro. And you will also need to adjust cams to keep the power delivery similar across the complete rev range.


FACT: If you have excessive part throttle power, you will toast rear tyres, because there is no 'control'.

It's my strong suspicion that, at the moment, the part throttle power curve of the Ford is larger than Camaro.

But teams don't KNOW the truth, because the true test methodology, adjustment, and results of each engine is hidden.

Roland's comments today were an absolute insult to the intelligence of the ENGINEERS who understand the actual problem. Proof that he's either incredibly poorly advised, or just plain politicking his competitive advantage. But what would you expect from a glorified used car salesman?

[V8 Fireworks]

Thanks for the insight Osborne Reynolds!

The air intake scoop on the Mustang also seems to be larger and have less severe bends than the Camaro one, do you think this (while intuitively better) is also counter-productive on circuit?

[Osborne Reynolds]

The video footage from dyno testing shows that the intake from front of car to restrictor was not part of the testing. ie... the 'parity' exists from restrictor downstream. (perhaps these were added later?... im not sure)

If we assume these were not tested, then there is definitely an opportunity for power gain by reducing loss / increasing 'ram air effect', because 1kpa of upstream static pressure will result in 1% power gain across the rev range.

Teams would want to make sure that flow is 'well developed' before the restrictor inlet... so bends that are just upstream of the restrictor are a little concerning. They are quite large in cross sectional area though.. to be honest, it's pretty hard to 'eye-ball'

A simple/typical flow bench test of the restrictor with, and without the upstream parts will give insight. The 'test pressure' (static pressure downstream of restrictor) should be 30" water or thereabouts (25/30/35.... it is not a big deal, but something in this range).

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Osborne Reynolds

In many restricted engine categories, the design approach for a natural aspirated, UPSTREAM throttle, with FIXED restrictor size, and FIXED displacement would be to maximise throttle diameter to reduce loss... until the point where drivability is traded off against absolute power... But this is NOT the approach / rule / methodology being used... and CANNOT be used, because the engines have a different displacement. (note, the configuration is a downstream throttle, which is a little trickier to manage, but the principles are the same)

A correct approach would be to select a restrictor and throttle on the larger displacement engine, to obtain required maximum power (600HP), and a designed part throttle response (note: look at part throttle power curve on other/prior race engines deemed to be 'drivable')... lets select some values to make this easy to digest. Say the Camaro was 'nice' with 53mm restrictor and 75mm throttle. Then you need to find a combination of restrictor and throttle diameter for the smaller displacement Ford engine, to create the 600HP, and match the part throttle power curves of the Camaro.

Lets imagine, for the Ford you create the 600HP with ANY of the following combinations:

53.0mm restrictor / 85mm throttle
53.5mm restrictor / 80mm throttle
54.1mm restrictor / 75mm throttle
54.8mm restrictor / 70mm throttle

You select the correct combination that gives the Ford the same part throttle response of the Camaro. And you will also need to adjust cams to keep the power delivery similar across the complete rev range.


FACT: If you have excessive part throttle power, you will toast rear tyres, because there is no 'control'.

It's my strong suspicion that, at the moment, the part throttle power curve of the Ford is larger than Camaro.

But teams don't KNOW the truth, because the true test methodology, adjustment, and results of each engine is hidden.

Roland's comments today were an absolute insult to the intelligence of the ENGINEERS who understand the actual problem. Proof that he's either incredibly poorly advised, or just plain politicking his competitive advantage. But what would you expect from a glorified used car salesman?

Thanks for that post, it's good to have someone that really knows what they are talking about make a comment.

[Mixer]

Most recently Castrol News podcast had an interesting discussion about partity.

To summarise:

* Parity is the closest is has ever been, from the perspective of making measurable things as close as you can make them
* However while out of the box parity is closer than Gen2, what is missing now is individual teams able to develop parts which make the cars more competitive, which effectively closes up the grid - but at the same time only the good teams can do it, which is why they tend to find their way to the front.

So my question, thinking about that, is that if you have 2 cars which have hard points all in a certain performance "box" as measured.

The closeness of the Gen3 laptimes show that the cars are very equal, remarkably so.

Given the relative on-track performance since Penske left, it's fair to say that DJR are a shadow of their former self, and Ludo seems not to be able to pull any tricks.

If the homologation team can't make the car work on the track as well as the numbers in the box should indicate, is that an issue of technical party or does it cross into sporting parity?

My point being that I think 888 has done a better job of putting a car on the track with a wider setup window than DJR, and this cannot be measured. What is measured, are the laptimes, so this has triggered the parity review and changes made accordingly.

But there are ructions from Ford teams that DJR hasn't done the best job of testing & selecting parts throughout that process. Given their lack of on-track performance I think it's a fair question, and I suspect we will see WAU or Tickford as part of testing other potential changes.

I'm glad Supercars are taking it seriously and trying to address the issues as presented, but Ford teams could also help themselves by being consistent about what their issue is, and also not just throwing away race results nearly every weekend.

It is interesting that some of Ford's own decisions seem to have played into the issues they are suffering from. Short sighted, poorly thought out decisions made a long way from the experience that recommended against those decisions.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Most recently Castrol News podcast had an interesting discussion about partity.

To summarise:

* Parity is the closest is has ever been, from the perspective of making measurable things as close as you can make them
* However while out of the box parity is closer than Gen2, what is missing now is individual teams able to develop parts which make the cars more competitive, which effectively closes up the grid - but at the same time only the good teams can do it, which is why they tend to find their way to the front.

So my question, thinking about that, is that if you have 2 cars which have hard points all in a certain performance "box" as measured.

The closeness of the Gen3 laptimes show that the cars are very equal, remarkably so.

Given the relative on-track performance since Penske left, it's fair to say that DJR are a shadow of their former self, and Ludo seems not to be able to pull any tricks.

If the homologation team can't make the car work on the track as well as the numbers in the box should indicate, is that an issue of technical party or does it cross into sporting parity?

My point being that I think 888 has done a better job of putting a car on the track with a wider setup window than DJR, and this cannot be measured. What is measured, are the laptimes, so this has triggered the parity review and changes made accordingly.

But there are ructions from Ford teams that DJR hasn't done the best job of testing & selecting parts throughout that process. Given their lack of on-track performance I think it's a fair question, and I suspect we will see WAU or Tickford as part of testing other potential changes.

I'm glad Supercars are taking it seriously and trying to address the issues as presented, but Ford teams could also help themselves by being consistent about what their issue is, and also not just throwing away race results nearly every weekend.

It is interesting that some of Ford's own decisions seem to have played into the issues they are suffering from. Short sighted, poorly thought out decisions made a long way from the experience that recommended against those decisions.

Lap times are close in practice and qualifying but not over a race distance.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Lap times are close in practice and qualifying but not over a race distance.

Unfortunately many people are focused on one lap pace and not pace over a race distance.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by chavez

Unfortunately many people are focused on one lap pace and not pace over a race distance.

See I wonder what the difference is?

Bad engineering/setup?
DJR

Driver who torches his tyres early because he's too impetuous?
Cam & Chaz

Terrible strategy
DJR & Tickford

But no let's just assume it's parity. Cam & Chaz got hosed for having bad tyre life last year too.

Incase any of you actually watched the race there were Camaros that had issues with tyre life too.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

But no let's just assume it's parity.

The cars either perform 100% identical in every way or they don't...

Swapping engines between some of the cars (e.g., #97 & #17 at Townsville) to reduce variables would have been a good step, I wonder why it hasn't been taken?

That would help to at least tick off the box "The engines perform exactly the same between #11 & #17, and between #88 & #97, regardless of which one is in the car."

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

The cars either perform 100% identical in every way or they don't...

Swapping engines between some of the cars (e.g., #97 & #17 at Townsville) to reduce variables would have been a good step, I wonder why it hasn't been taken?

That would help to at least tick off the box "The engines perform exactly the same between #11 & #17, and between #88 & #97, regardless of which one is in the car."

Swapping engines between brands is silly, at least in the Championship races. You don't run test programs like that in your Championship. A back to back test could be run on the Monday after the race weekend, using the teams cars and drivers. Swapping the two teams setups between both cars and doing test runs with each driver. The two drivers in both cars. Cars in full test mode, tyre temps and pressures live, shock pots... overlay the data and Dunlop inspect the tyres. Has to be a settled weather day with even track and ambient temps. 25 laps on greens, swap drivers fresh rubber and fuel and send. Cars as they finished final race on the Sunday. Weather permitting.
It won't happen.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

But no let's just assume it's parity. Cam & Chaz got hosed for having bad tyre life last year too.

In regards to Cam rear down downforce was reduced on the Gen 2 mustang in 2019.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

In regards to Cam rear down downforce was reduced on the Gen 2 mustang in 2019.

yeah because the thing could lap the entire field.

After that "reduction" Scott won the championship in 2019, and Scott 1st and Cam Waters second in 2020.

So this argument doesn't wash.

Simple fact is Gen3 car has 60% less downforce than Gen2.

Some drivers have adapted better than others.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

yeah because the thing could lap the entire field.

After that "reduction" Scott won the championship in 2019, and Scott 1st and Cam Waters second in 2020.

So this argument doesn't wash.

Simple fact is Gen3 car has 60% less downforce than Gen2.

Some drivers have adapted better than others.

No, that was because the other teams were doing a bad job on and off the track.

[bluesport]

More testing at Winton.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/07/18...upercars-test/

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Driver who torches his tyres early because he's too impetuous?
Cam & Chaz

Originally Posted by bluesport

Walkinshaw's praise.......

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/walkinsh...rity-struggle/

Which is it? Chaz driving poorly and WAU engineering poorly despite having equal equipment to any Camaro as Whincup claims, or the Mustang package not actually being totally equal to the Camaro in every way as Walkinshaw claims?

The conflicting views are most confusing!

If the former view is true, it follows that WAU would have exactly the same results and poor tyre life if they were in Camaros this season, if the latter is true it does not.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Which is it? Chaz driving poorly and WAU engineering poorly despite having equal equipment to any Camaro as Whincup claims, or the Mustang package not actually being totally equal to the Camaro in every way as Walkinshaw claims?

The conflicting views are most confusing!

If the former view is true, it follows that WAU would have exactly the same results and poor tyre life if they were in Camaros this season, if the latter is true it does not.

Chaz would not have tyre issues if he was driving a camaro.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If the former view is true, it follows that WAU would have exactly the same results and poor tyre life if they were in Camaros this season, if the latter is true it does not.

Hey had equal car to Red Bull last year and also complained about tyre life, in a car that had 60% more downforce.

Originally Posted by bluesport

Chaz would not have tyre issues if he was driving a camaro.

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Hey had equal car to Red Bull last year and also complained about tyre life, in a car that had 60% more downforce.



If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

Chaz didn't have any tyre issues at Bathurst in 2021.