Project Blueprint - How Equal is Equal?

[Dazz]

Just curious to know what people think about the whole Project Blueprint deal, and what they really feel will be equal.

[Dazz]

I am hoping that Blueprint does it's job of evening up the Commodore and Falcon (or at least shutting people up from whinging about it) not becasue I think it will make the racing better but simply because making the cars more even is its intended purpose.

BUT, I do believe that some drivers and teams have a definite advantage in getting their cars on the money for qualifying and therefor have a better chance of winning a race due to starting at the front of the pack.

So I think maybe car perfiormance will be overall closer, but domination by a few teams will still exist.

[Crash Test]

I don't think much will change. Teams which are on the ball will still make the best car, and I think any driver, given that they've got a decent car underneath them can win...

[marcus]

ok , it may make the cars fairly equal but basically the cream will still rise to the top no matter what , its simple economics , how can someone like I dunno say Dugal MCdougal who just doesnt have the funds all of a sudden be made equal to HRT , its just never gonna happen , but I hope at least it makes the ford teams that little bit closer.

time will tell

[Dazz]

Damn, I missed one option, drivers equal, cars/teams unequal!

Can a mod fix the Poll to include this option please!

[Crash Test]

done

[Dazz]

Thanks Crash

[PEPSI]

Our biggest problem is the cost of upgrading to a Blueprint car. We are getting quoted $500k for a new car and that doesn't include all the spare parts and panels we would need to buy due to the incompatibility with our old car or the cost of development to make it go fast :-(

It will have the desired effect from AVESCO's point of view (death to smaller teams such as Paragon etc) so they can accomodate a few more defacto TWR cars

[Dazz]

$500k, that's not chicken feed in anyones language (Ok maybe Schumacher) as a starting point + additional extras to actually be able to race.

It's always tough thought that money is such a determining factor in motor sport. But what is the answer?

The way I see it, even if more could afford to be in the V8's, there is not enough capacity for the tracks to hold them under the current system with pit stops and such.

Do you then split the category into two and have some kind of dual races then a combined top 32 final?

It's a tough situation which those at the top conveniantly ignore most of the time.

[rocket]

no matter how even they are im still sceptical, seeing as the holdens have to change so much (front suspension, head design & intake manifold to match, plus deck height means alot of engine changes) how quickly are they going to get up to speed, if they struggle are we going to see the fords penalised because the holdens havent got up to speed with their developments
i for one will tell them where to stick their BS category if they do in no uncertine terms!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[racer69]

Originally posted by Dazz
Do you then split the category into two and have some kind of dual races then a combined top 32 final?

Here's an idea. Split the Fords and Holdens up. race 1 is for Holden's only, Race 2 is for Fords only, top 16 in each race gets into the final.

That way Ford wins at least one race each meeting, and AVESCO get their 32 car max. fields

Seriously though, i've said it before and i'll say it again, when Project Blueprint is implemented it will no longer be a Touring Car category, it will be a silouette category. Common parts/same stuff except for body stuff is NASCAR, not Touring Cars, and should be left to that. Actually, do you reckon AVESCO/TEGA whoever makes the rules got these 'make the cars as technically same as possilble' idea's from Future Touring, they've had this line of thinking since 2000.

[Mattracer]

The cars will be as equal as two cars of different body design/shape can be, but the human element, that is, what you do with it will still determine the results. The franchise structure is still open for bigger teams to get even bigger and smaller teams (Paragon) to hit the wall. If the BA Ford has a front downforce disadvantage next year they will have to run different suspension set ups to Holden to make it cope and the problems we have now will still exist.

[The Tool Man]

Ive been told by many people inside of AVESCO and TEGA that Project Blue Print will be the answer. But as Mainly A Ford Fan , I say wait and see. I cant anything except a gun and several bullets beating the all conquering TWR Empire.

[StuiE]

Originally posted by racer69
Here's an idea. Split the Fords and Holdens up. race 1 is for Holden's only, Race 2 is for Fords only, top 16 in each race gets into the final.

That way Ford wins at least one race each meeting, and AVESCO get their 32 car max. fields

I like that idea!

[RaceTime]

Originally posted by Mattracer
The cars will be as equal as two cars of different body design/shape can be, but the human element, that is, what you do with it will still determine the results. The franchise structure is still open for bigger teams to get even bigger and smaller teams (Paragon) to hit the wall. If the BA Ford has a front downforce disadvantage next year they will have to run different suspension set ups to Holden to make it cope and the problems we have now will still exist.

What seriously makes you think that next year will be any different to this year - regardless of models?

The last few races has shown that the cars are now so equal the only way to pass is in the pits, nudge nudge - get out of the way, ort mechanical damage.

It is impossible for these cars to race each other and pass each other legitimately.

Sure - there were a few passing moves in New Zealand - the only variable that could affect the cars did - tyres.

[Mattracer]

Nothing seriously makes me think next year will be any different to this year, regardless of models. TWR has the advantage of 5 cars and an engineering brains trust that makes the others slightly weak at the knees. Plus the fact that they have recently confirmed their sponsorship package from Mobil and their driver lineup should remain the same. I'm hoping things are closer but I can't see a huge difference. I hope I AM WRONG... The cars are "equal" now but how many years have the AUs been running and how long ago did Holden wrap up this year's championship? And as for tyres affecting the outcome of the races, they did, but it was the human being applying the brake pedal which flat-spotted them and the exposed tyre stack spike which some drivers ran over. Manufacturing faults didn't cause all those punctures and blow outs, the drivers did.

[Mattracer]

Make that 6 cars, I almost forgot John Faulkner has slipped under the TWR umbrella.

[PEPSI]

Originally posted by Mattracer
Nothing seriously makes me think next year will be any different to this year, regardless of models. TWR has the advantage of 5 cars and an engineering brains trust that makes the others slightly weak at the knees. Plus the fact that they have recently confirmed their sponsorship package from Mobil and their driver lineup should remain the same. I'm hoping things are closer but I can't see a huge difference. I hope I AM WRONG...

Couldn't have put it better myself

[RaceTime]

Mattracer - sorry - don;'t get me wrong - I wasn't suggesting that the tyres were causing a problem - I agree about flat spotting, however, some tracks seem to be more prone to this than others for whatever reason.

Pukekohe seems to have a reputation for being hard on tyres and this, I think, caught a few people out.

The spike - well should be more of it IMHO - makes it interesting.

Maybe AVESCO can have, as well as a Compulsory Pit Stop, a Compulsory Spike Attack - I can just hear Oastler now - 'And the window for this meetings CSA is between laps 5 and 15 - the accompany drive throughs will all be served on lap 27. Oh - and AVESCO have just advised that the race has been shortened to 24 laps because of the loss of some of the spikes they placed around the track last night...'

[DAVID PATERSON]

Will everybody be forced to run according to Project Blueprint form Round 1?

If so, what happens to the old cars, are they now worthless?

If not, how will we get parity between the old cars and the blueprint cars?

[RaceTime]

Drive through penalties - easy...

[elephino]

What they will do to the old cars is firstly remove 15.536% of the rear wing endplate, 12.453% of the front undertray and then blindfold the driver for the first 3 laps. After this, if the old cars are still within 20 seconds of any blueprint car the left front tyre will deflate suddenly, while at the same time the right front suspension will collapse. At this point the blueprint cars will be coming in for their compulsory tyre stop and the non-blueprint cars will need to come in for their compulsory engine change. If this doesn't solve the problem then there is the compulsory Greg Murphy Memorial 5 Minute Penalty taken on the second last lap of the race. Finally there is the 10 lap penalty for having changed an engine during the race.

And if that doesn't work, then the non-blueprint cars deserved to win.

I don't see the point of trying to make the two manufacturers artificially equal. What's the point of having two makes competing if they are just going to be virtually the same?

Ok sure, it may make the series more popular in general and therefore attract more money (is that the point?) but who wants to watch a racing series where the racing is manufactured? Are close races and passing manouveurs so important that the integrity of the racing doesn't matter (i.e. the 'show')? I can't believe they have this compulsary pitstop ****, it's such an obvious and unnecessary gimmick.

[Dazz]

It's no longer about racing, the team who can engineer the best car or the best man winning, it's about, well, actually, does anybody know what it is all about?

I do agree to some extent that Ford have probably gotten a bit of a raw deal in some ways, but in the end most of their undoing has been their own lack of ability to attack the problem.

This might sound rather harsh and opinionated (which I am not usually) but so be it.

If next year the cars are closer in achievable performance, but the HRT/Skaife combination still does a much better job, then tough luck to everyone else.

I'm sick to death of this Ford **** about being able to win 50% of the races. The more they go down the path of a totally controlled formula, the more HRT/Skaife or one team/driver will dominate.

Whether that is really unpopular/bad for the sport I don't know, but I always thought that sport was about the best person winning, not about handicapping and race fixing.

It seems to me that we have all fallen into the trap of becoming negative about everything involved with the V8's lately. "the racing is boring", "we're sick of HRT winning", "Skaife is arrogant", "Ford have been shafted", "bla bla bla".

I loved the Group C era, and remember the racing being great with different manufacturers, which sounds like heaven. But I watched the 1982/83/84 Bathurst races recently, and I have to say I never ever want to see "racing" (and I use the word reluctantly) like that again.

I've seem more profesionalism at a club car meeting (no disrespect intended as I love the clubbies), there was almost no actual door to door racing, the top ten cars are seperated by multiples of laps, and overall, it was probably the most boring racing I have ever seen.

I think it is time we all removed our rose coloured glasses, and accept that the current formula, as far a competitiveness is closer than it has ever been. Cars are seperated by 100th's of a second in qualifying, and usually race relatively closely throughout the race distance.

In the old days lesser teams were lucky to qualify within 5 seconds of the top guys and have almost no hope of ever winning on their own merits. And while it might seem like it is just as hard today, it's not the formulas fault, it is because the bar has been raised so far since those "good old days".

My biggest fear is that we are not even trying to look at the positive aspects of what we have, and if we are not careful, and the idiots running the show (TC in particular) are not careful we are in danger of seeing the whole show go down the tubes, and who knows what it will be replaced with?

The thing that I feel is the biggest shame is that someone like Skaife (who I know is not the most popular person) who has done a brillient job the last few years of using the tools he has to get the job done, is not being given credit he rightly deserves for what he has achieved.

I personally hope that Blueprint works as intended, and the racing becomes even more processional, and we will have the best combination totally dominate in a way we have never seen before, and then all the smarty pants parity guru's will have to stand back and have a good long hard look at themselves and what they have achieved, which will be a big fat nothing. And then we might see some common sense come into the decision making about how we really go about racing.

I've probably made almost no sense and contradicted myself along the way heren so I might just stop now

[Mattracer]

True, Group C at the time was great but compared to now, it's actually fairly similar- one team with the biggest resources win most of the races. This is fact. In Group C it was HDT and now it is HRT. In Group C HDT's closest challengers were Moffat's Mazda and Johnson's Falcon. And the politics in racing in those days were just as rife as they are now. In '81, '82 there were arguments about Brock's cars 'cylinder heads which weren't the same as the other Holdens and concessions given to this car and that car in the lead up to Bathurst. These days there are more teams and cars, the overall professionalism is in a different world, the sport is marketed better and there are only two makes.