Parity Review Has Been Called

[Kingair]

Speedcafe reporting that there will a parity review.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Kingair

Speedcafe reporting that there will a parity review.

By who? Clearly the current group are not competent doing this

[Compromised]

Was this triggered by results rather than data? Because that makes no sense in the spirit of the series, especially when it gives incentive to sandbag...

[Mixer]

As long as the review takes into account:

Tickford has 2 fast drivers who crash all the time (preferably into other Mustangs)
Tickford can't put together a race strategy or read the rule book.
Tickford also apparently can't tighten clamps on a fuel line either

DJR are... Back where DJR were before Penske

WAU has only 1 driver

Grove has only 1/2 a driver

GM teams have used more test days than Ford have.

I have no issue with a parity review as per the rules, but there is a huge fact that Ford teams have not performed as well as GM teams, and that has noting to do with parity. Even if the cars right now had perfect parity, all of the above is still true, and they'd still be behind the teams who have made less mistakes.

[GreenMachine]

Parity includes drivers? Sounds fun ...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Parity includes drivers? Sounds fun ...

When the parity trigger includes laptimes I guess it has to.

Is it fastest laps? Averages?

Parity is an equal TECHNICAL chance of winning for each brand.

Whether your team on any given day is good enough to win is a whole other thing.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Mixer

As long as the review takes into account:

Tickford has 2 fast drivers who crash all the time (preferably into other Mustangs)
Tickford can't put together a race strategy or read the rule book.
Tickford also apparently can't tighten clamps on a fuel line either

DJR are... Back where DJR were before Penske

WAU has only 1 driver

Grove has only 1/2 a driver

GM teams have used more test days than Ford have.

I have no issue with a parity review as per the rules, but there is a huge fact that Ford teams have not performed as well as GM teams, and that has noting to do with parity. Even if the cars right now had perfect parity, all of the above is still true, and they'd still be behind the teams who have made less mistakes.

Parity reviews have been called before with arguably similar circumstances.

1993 springs to mind.

[Mixer]

The thing that I am puzzled about is that whatever Ford has asked for, I guess now 3 different times, they have gotten. Each time it was meant to be the silver bullet. Including an engine map that netted them a pole before Tickford's car self-immolated.

I'm also of the belief that the Ford engine issue isn't put to bed yet, due to torque sensors and transient dyno coming.

So why is it that we need a separate review?

It would be nice if a single one of the Ford teams had actually put up what you'd call a winning performance, but I don't think one can lay that claim.

[Just Do It!]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The thing that I am puzzled about is that whatever Ford has asked for, I guess now 3 different times, they have gotten. Each time it was meant to be the silver bullet. Including an engine map that netted them a pole before Tickford's car self-immolated.

I'm also of the belief that the Ford engine issue isn't put to bed yet, due to torque sensors and transient dyno coming.

So why is it that we need a separate review?

It would be nice if a single one of the Ford teams had actually put up what you'd call a winning performance, but I don't think one can lay that claim.

An air rifle fires a different bullet compared to an anti-aircraft gun

[GTRMagic]

Ford presented the chassis and engine they wanted to showcase in the category.
If they have done a job not as good as the Chev homologation organisation we are playing catch up for bad design.

[Mixer]

I just can't get how such serious engine problems got past them during all the testing. That's doing my head in.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Ford presented the chassis and engine they wanted to showcase in the category.
If they have done a job not as good as the Chev homologation organisation we are playing catch up for bad design.

Possibly, but this type of issue dates back to the very early days when the EB Falcon was clearly superior to the VP.

Holden were allowed to effectively catch-up for their bad design. It is what a parity formula allows.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The thing that I am puzzled about is that whatever Ford has asked for, I guess now 3 different times, they have gotten. Each time it was meant to be the silver bullet. Including an engine map that netted them a pole before Tickford's car self-immolated.

I'm also of the belief that the Ford engine issue isn't put to bed yet, due to torque sensors and transient dyno coming.

So why is it that we need a separate review?

It would be nice if a single one of the Ford teams had actually put up what you'd call a winning performance, but I don't think one can lay that claim.

Supercars need to stop with the bullshit and put an air restrictor on the Camaro, if the mustang is then too fast then put a bigger restrictor and so on until parity is achieved.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Supercars need to stop with the bullshit and put an air restrictor on the Camaro, if the mustang is then too fast then put a bigger restrictor and so on until parity is achieved.

No, Ford needs to get better at the bullshit.

They are now bleating about aero after getting their new engine map that got them an immediate pole in a very very tight field.

The laptimes are so close and the team performances imperfect, I actually can't believe they are complaining about parity when the entire field is covered by such a tiny margin.

[Compromised]

Of course they get poles, they're "yawing" more through the corners, great for qualy.

Over a race distance though, not so great (tire deg) and since points are only giving for race results....

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Of course they get poles, they're "yawing" more through the corners, great for qualy.

Where is any proof of this?

First it was aero: Ford got it adjusted

Then COG: Adjusted

Then Ford were SURE it was drivability and power in 3rd and 4th gear: also addressed

NOW it's yaw

Meanwhile Ford drivers are inconsistent, chuck their cars at the weeds, team prep mistakes that are unforgivable happen, race strategy is objectively rubbish, Ford teams on average have used 1/3 as many test days as GM teams.

All of these things would also explain poor tyre life - and NO Ford team could match SVG's tyre life in the previous gen car. I don't know why it is surprising that a fast, but impetuous and ragged driver like Waters would complain about tyre life... If you go hard at the start, you can torch your tyres. If your chassis setup isn't right, you can torch your tyres. These cars don't have anti-roll bars. We knew this would be better for some than others.

Funny that people accuse 888 of sandbagging but if you were whingeing for a parity change, you would keep your test days up your sleeve and show what you can do after...

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

No, Ford needs to get better at the bullshit.

They are now bleating about aero after getting their new engine map that got them an immediate pole in a very very tight field.

The laptimes are so close and the team performances imperfect, I actually can't believe they are complaining about parity when the entire field is covered by such a tiny margin.

Technical parity is for idealists and it simply doesn't work, supercars needs to take a more practical approach that will deliver results.

[daneferrari]

Originally Posted by Mixer

No, Ford needs to get better at the bullshit.

They are now bleating about aero after getting their new engine map that got them an immediate pole in a very very tight field.

The laptimes are so close and the team performances imperfect, I actually can't believe they are complaining about parity when the entire field is covered by such a tiny margin.

Sometimes it seems like they are just looking for something to complain about.

[daneferrari]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Technical parity is for idealists and it simply doesn't work, supercars needs to take a more practical approach that will deliver results.

If there is technical parity, the competition will only be between the drivers' skills. But racing is also a competition between the cars. In general, no, technical parity is a bad idea. In some ways one car is better, in other ways worse. That's fine. It makes racing more interesting.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Technical parity is for idealists and it simply doesn't work, supercars needs to take a more practical approach that will deliver results.

Except that it has actually worked for decades - and worked really well at that, delivering results that had supercars rated with DTM as the best touring car series in the world for quite a few years. DTM of course using success ballast and the like, supercars using only technical parity.

Don't have my head in the sand though, interested to hear your views on what a more practical approach might be.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Except that it has actually worked for decades - and worked really well at that, delivering results that had supercars rated with DTM as the best touring car series in the world for quite a few years. DTM of course using success ballast and the like, supercars using only technical parity.

Don't have my head in the sand though, interested to hear your views on what a more practical approach might be.

I've never rated the technical parity philosophy and I don't think it ever worked as it was supposed to work, that's why there has been so much complaining from the teams over the years, as I've said previously supercars should instal air restrictors and adjust them accordingly to ensure closer racing.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I've never rated the technical parity philosophy and I don't think it ever worked as it was supposed to work, that's why there has been so much complaining from the teams over the years, as I've said previously supercars should instal air restrictors and adjust them accordingly to ensure closer racing.

Funny 2003-2005, 2008-2010, 2018-2020 I don't recall hearing about any issues with technical parity?

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Except that it has actually worked for decades - and worked really well at that, delivering results that had supercars rated with DTM as the best touring car series in the world for quite a few years. DTM of course using success ballast and the like, supercars using only technical parity.

Absolutely. Even though the Whincup years were pure dominance, I still felt the cars were equal (except maybe the poor Altimas). Supercars did an excellent job for a long time.

The introduction of the Mustang changed that...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Compromised

The introduction of the Mustang changed that...

When a car with $30m worth of development up against one that had $2m worth of development you will have issues.

But anybody who knows Penske... It's not like nobody was warned.

[Sandgroper]

Lets be honest, are we ever going to get it 100% correct?
Theres always going to be winners losers, better crews, drivers etc etc
No matter the vehicle parity some teams do it better.

HOLDEN may have had a great package at the time but rarely sighted BJR or Charlies teams winning.
FORD had a great package for Scotty but no other ford teams to match him.

So its it the driver, the team, the car or a combination.