Do you really want parity then?

[Goat Boy]

There are some out there who criticize V8ST for only have one type of engine. So here's a logical set of questions for you:

1. How much resemblance does a V8SC/V8ST/NZV8 TLX have to what you can buy at the shops? A: None at all, other than they look sort of the same.
   
2. Why for so many years were the governing bodies striving to achieve parity? A: Because otherwise you’d have one manufacturer winning everything for extended periods which would annoy a percentage of the fans. Now in SC you just get one team winning everything for extended periods (which also annoys the fans).
   
3. So if parity has been achieved in SC/TLX through engine management, what difference to the results does it make what power plant you are actually running? A: Er, none
   
4. So why not just use one engine type (like they do in DTM albeit built by different people), considering the cars are all the same otherwise? A: Hmmm, can’t really answer that in a logical way
   
5. Do you really want parity then? A: Well, okay maybe not
   
6. Then why not watch the Bathurst 12 hour this weekend? A: Good idea!

[Accident]

Originally Posted by Goat Boy

Then why not watch the Bathurst 12 hour this weekend?

...because it has a minimum lap time, making it neither racing nor interesting.


As for the motor subject, I think it just has to do with our hearts instead of our brains. If we are passionate about a manufacturer we like to feel as though we are cheering on cars with "our" parts in them, not just "our" stickers on them.

It might make more sense from a purely logical standpoint to run a single engine, but I feel it is important for racing to continue to keep people passionate about what is on the track, even if it may be a bit... "false" or something.

[socram]

Oh how I am so glad I grew up in an era where a maximum grid size was only 14 cars for a few years at Mallory Park (later increased to 20), but the racing was always great, as was the variety of cars racing. Happy days, even if occasionally, the up to 1300cc sports GT race was just about all Lotus Elites.

Put me down as one who stays away from identical car racing - in any guise.

Gone are the days when you could admire maestros such as Fangio or Moss, reeling in the opposition by several seconds a lap.

With all drivers lapping within about half a second a lap, it merely means that with all the telemetry available, it is down to the gods or pit stops or strategy who wins. It is no longer so much about technical expertise and true driver talent.

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by socram

With all drivers lapping within about half a second a lap, it merely means that with all the telemetry available, it is down to the gods or pit stops or strategy who wins. It is no longer so much about technical expertise and true driver talent.

But if all the cars are the same spec (like V8ST) and the level of engineering input is equal or near to equal (I'm talking about skill in setting up), doesn't the final distinguishing factor between winning and finishing last come down to "true driver talent"?

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by Lebanza

...because it has a minimum lap time, making it neither racing nor interesting.

Whilst i dont like the idea of this, its only for qually and practice.

In the race they can go as fast as they like.

[Goat Boy]

Whew! Had me worried there!

[Accident]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Whilst i dont like the idea of this, its only for qually and practice.

In the race they can go as fast as they like.

I guess I should have read the rules myself, I saw it discussed elsewhere that it was being run like the Dubai 24 last year, but it looks like the race minimum lap only applies to the Class I cars?

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance, otherwise I probably wouldn't have even tuned in.

[Goat Boy]

Parity is all about who is the best driver coupled with who has the best engineer for the setup. We had it in A1GP and even then one team ran away with it every year.

I do like the ST format as it always provides close racing, which is a spectacle in itself, and they are fast and look good which is always helpful.

But I do love such things as CMC where you can pretty much do what you like within a set of rules, as Socram says watching one car reeling off the others is very exciting, especially with reverse order or delayed grid starts. But that type of racing is for fun only, isn't it, because one car will usually win most races barring mechanical problems.

Formula 1 to my mind should be about who has the very best engine, aero and chassis (as well as driver) and the changes made by the FIA over recent years have done a lot to neuter that, like limiting revs, not allowing any new engines, etc. I don't want F1 to be about fairness to the minnow teams, I want it to be about mind-blowing technology and brilliant designs, and most of all about earth-shatteringly quick lap times.

I think we should go back to the 1997 regulations personally!

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by Lebanza

I guess I should have read the rules myself, I saw it discussed elsewhere that it was being run like the Dubai 24 last year, but it looks like the race minimum lap only applies to the Class I cars?

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance, otherwise I probably wouldn't have even tuned in.

And that is probably done because they are invitational cars, not outright competitiors. I'm not a fan of ballast in any form, but theres not much else we have here to watch...

[Bill Brown]

Originally Posted by Goat Boy

There are some out there who criticize V8ST for only have one type of engine. So here's a logical set of questions for you:

1. How much resemblance does a V8SC/V8ST/NZV8 TLX have to what you can buy at the shops? A: None at all, other than they look sort of the same.
   
2. Why for so many years were the governing bodies striving to achieve parity? A: Because otherwise you’d have one manufacturer winning everything for extended periods which would annoy a percentage of the fans. Now in SC you just get one team winning everything for extended periods (which also annoys the fans).
   
3. So if parity has been achieved in SC/TLX through engine management, what difference to the results does it make what power plant you are actually running? A: Er, none
   
4. So why not just use one engine type (like they do in DTM albeit built by different people), considering the cars are all the same otherwise? A: Hmmm, can’t really answer that in a logical way
   
5. Do you really want parity then? A: Well, okay maybe not
   
6. Then why not watch the Bathurst 12 hour this weekend? A: Good idea!

Could I suggest that even though the cars have parity different engines make torque and horsepower in different ways so possibly there may be more passing?

Also the engines would sound different which is good.

I'm sure there is somebody with the expertise will enlighten me.

[Goat Boy]

Well put my man! This is about parity and whether it's good or not.

My answer to that would be, I think, "sometimes," but it really does depend on what you're trying to achieve.

As mentioned before, in F1 it should never be aimed for.

[socram]

Originally Posted by Goat Boy

But that type of racing is for fun only, isn't it, because one car will usually win most races barring mechanical problems.

Depends on the handicapping system employed. Ours are done deliberately to try and get random winners, otherwise it all becomes chequebook racing - or the guy with the most power wins. That tends to put people off from entering. If a guy can win with a modest Alfa Sud or a mildly modified MGB, then anyone can win, even if they only ever win once.

Yes our races are for fun, but at least we can usually field two decent grids, each with more than 20 starters - sometimes up to 40, and we don't have problems attracting registrations either. Three more in today. One Porsche, one Alfa and one MG. No parity, but good racing with plenty of overtaking and close finishes.

For us it is still a sport, not a $$$ business.

[Goat Boy]

Originally Posted by socram

Depends on the handicapping system employed. Ours are done deliberately to try and get random winners, otherwise it all becomes chequebook racing - or the guy with the most power wins. That tends to put people off from entering. If a guy can win with a modest Alfa Sud or a mildly modified MGB, then anyone can win, even if they only ever win once.

Yes our races are for fun, but at least we can usually field two decent grids, each with more than 20 starters - sometimes up to 40, and we don't have problems attracting registrations either. Three more in today. One Porsche, one Alfa and one MG. No parity, but good racing with plenty of overtaking and close finishes.

For us it is still a sport, not a $$$ business.

Yes and I love that sort of racing too, Alfas are the coolest of course

[ascott]

With a number of touring car series moving to silhouette regulations I've thought a bit about this and have come to the same logical conclusion as the OP. In a silhouette series with engine parity, it makes a lot of practical sense to save cost and complexity and use a spec engine. In theory you can choose the engine most suited for the application, without having that engine compromised by the requirement to run in parity with one of lower output.

I definitely appreciate series that run genuinely different cars, and you are most of the way to loosing that variety once you are running identical chassis. There isn't any significant additional interest for me in different engines constrained to equivalent performance over a spec engine. It's all pretty subjective though and I respect the opinions of those who feel differently

However...as the above probably implies, I've never been either a Holden or Ford fan, but I have much respect for the rivalry as this has provided a foundation for touring car racing in Australia/NZ. It's meant that collapses such as what happened with the BTCC have largely been avoided, certainly in V8SC. If parity has a role to play in this regard then it's a good thing.

[DX20VT]

Originally Posted by Goat Boy

I didn't notice a lack of passing in the ST's last year, in fact at Pukekohe there were some of the most lively encounters I'd seen in a while, far more so than V8SC...

Helped a bit by the artifical passing rule which stops drivers being able to drive any line they want like almost every other class in the world.

real racing shouldn't need extra rules like that.

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by DX20VT

Helped a bit by the artifical passing rule which stops drivers being able to drive any line they want like almost every other class in the world.

real racing shouldn't need extra rules like that.

I wonder how much racing you've done my son!

Look, if you can't carry enough mid-corner speed or cock up your exit badly then you deserve to get passed. Driving all over the circuit like a demented hillbilly on a bootlegging run is not good racing.....full ***ken stop!

[DX20VT]

Originally Posted by on_to_it

I wonder how much racing you've done my son!

Look, if you can't carry enough mid-corner speed or cock up your exit badly then you deserve to get passed. Driving all over the circuit like a demented hillbilly on a bootlegging run is not good racing.....full ***ken stop!

I've done enough,
and the normal rule is you cant change lines twice,
if you move to the inside line you must stay there,

ST rule is you are not alowed to drive on the inside line at all for most of the race.

there is a difference.

[Icarus_nz]

Originally Posted by DX20VT

Helped a bit by the artifical passing rule which stops drivers being able to drive any line they want like almost every other class in the world.

real racing shouldn't need extra rules like that.

Ah yes, the single move...
Where you drift to the center of the track to squeeze the other car then take your move once they commit.
And bank on the fact that most of the time the officials aren't really looking.

For me, the 'racing line' rule is awesome.
As soon as a driver has a move put on them, they begin to plan their comeback. It is 'unders and overs' - not dissimilar to watching a ding-dong drafting battle.

A slower car driving around on the pole line when no contact is tolerated isn't racing.

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by Icarus_nz

A slower car driving around on the pole line when no contact is tolerated isn't racing.

Absolutely correct. And that, DX20VT, is why V8ST have that rule.

[Swedish Brick]

There is a huge difference between close racing, and cars of similar lap times following each other around.
Good racing is swapping places, pulling alongside, ducking under, hounding the rear bumper etc.
Its a pity the latter doesn't apply to all classes claiming to be the best series in the country.

What's the wording of the rule being discussed above?

[Icarus_nz]

Originally Posted by Swedish Brick

What's the wording of the rule being discussed above?

There is no wording. Attend a drivers briefing and Ross Thurston will spell it out.

[Swedish Brick]

If there is no rule written, that will just give the lawyers a job after the racing

[Icarus_nz]

Originally Posted by Swedish Brick

If there is no rule written, that will just give the lawyers a job after the racing

Judge of Fact...
Anyway the penalties for unsportsmanlike behaviour are dished out on track. Pretty hard to 'lawyer' a result as seen on TV

[Swedish Brick]

Is that why there has been no revisions to last years ST results after it was found they were altered by officials illegal decisions?

[NZSTfan]

Good thread GB. I get so sick of hearing about parity between cars that may kinda look road-going ish, but are so far from a road car its not funny.

The other term i am sick of is DNA........does this need to play any role in our sport?

As someone on here has already mentioned, the way forward is silhouette racing and i dont see where DNA fits into that