Do the Mustang and Camaro have technical parity?

[V8 Fireworks]

A test Ford Supercars engine map has shown its worth if results from practice at the Ned Whisky Tasmania SuperSprint are anything to go by. Speedcafe understands that three Mustangs used the test map, and that they so happened to be the fastest three Mustangs in Practice 1.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/21...t-in-tasmania/

Furthermore, a circa $40m AVL dynamometer (as also used by the top Formula One teams) may provide clearer answers:

It was long thought that Australia was without an AVL transient dyno. That is, until the [ATCC] industry recently became aware of one housed at Melbourne engineering firm DS International. There is sudden confidence the quipment will be up to the task.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/the-engi...percars-noses/

The AVL dyno will help to evaluate allegations of unequal inertia (and thus unequal engine response and engine braking) between the two engines.

Thoughts?

Even if you did vote unsure, do you suppose the difference is so negligible that Mustang operators could have already won all nine races easily if they had simply executed setup, driving and strategy at a higher level, as due to world class technical parity processes one can be confident the vehicles perform and respond identically or all but identically so as to have negligible difference?

Conversely if Mustangs are much more competitive after formal homologation of this Symmons Plains practice engine map (and fitment of a heavier flywheel to the Chevrolet engines if necessary in response to AVL testing), would it support the notion of a prior disparity or merely be a coincidence?

[Mixer]

Maybe they don't but it's clear at this stage the issue is with Ford's engine drivability and not anything that Supercars have done.

Ryan Walkinshaw has posted that Supercars are providing all possible support and are aware of the issue and that they are working with Ford to fix it as soon as possible. It seems the Ford's power delivery hurts the tyres.

How the Ford teams didn't pick this up through testing is beyond me.

I would ask a fair question - MOStech was meant to be the engine supplier for Ford, and have amazing pedigree with championships for SBR and DJR.

Unfortunately Steve Amos became critically ill last year and had to sell the business to Rob Herrod - no stranger to performance engines but lacking the long history of Supercars involvement.

Is this part of the issue?

Either way - the sooner the better for these issues to be resolved.

Right now Ford teams who don't read the rule book, give away race positions with bad strategy, and Ford drivers who crash too frequently are being given a pass on the parity excuse. Parity is NOT the sole reason for Ford's championship points position. DJR and Tickford this year have both been objectively awful. Grove show flashes of brilliance. WAU has one side of the garage always up there and the other side mostly not. None of these things make for winning races of championships.

[V8 Fireworks]

Ryan Walkinsaw notes potential points of disparity:

Detuned Coyote engine which stutters at certain rev ranges, downshift issues, and torque delivery issues on acceleration which smashes tyre life.

Off the mark? Who knows. Hopefully the AVL dyno will provide clarity.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Ryan Walkinsaw notes potential points of disparity:

Actually if you read these they are not points of disparity.

The engines have parity but the way the Ford delivers the power hurts the tyres which hurt the car's performance.

No longer an engine disparity but a Ford engine issue that needs to be solved before the cars can have true on-track parity.

[V8 Fireworks]

GTRMagic:

From This Clip about the CoolDrive car..

..could you conclude that V8Supercar is fiddling with engine maps on the run…
..and could you further conclude that the change after the first session led to a reduction in speed and therefore competitiveness of the #3 CoolDrive car?

And if so.. when can CoolDrive Racing, for example, expect a cheque from V8Supercars for a lack of competitiveness, and the accompanying lack of teev air time as the car was at the back

It would seem so, the mark of a category that is not very organised!

It seems there are a lot of factors which were beyond the scope of Craig Hasted's dyno to assess, when he was putting the paritised engine maps together.

Can KRE rustle up enough Gen3 Chevrolets to power the whole field and bump off this ineffectiveness means of carrying out reparitising engine performance in public?

I'd rather they didn't. The Coyote sounds a lot better! It has much more of an angry high-pitched sound (4-2-1 headers instead of 4-1?).

A category engine should be a neutral one like a Nissan VK56 or Toyota 2UR.

[Mr X]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Maybe they don't but it's clear at this stage the issue is with Ford's engine drivability....

Based on what? The teams saying there is a problem? Especially a problem of a control component beyond their control?

Teams say lots of things to deflect blame, there have been many catastrophic engine failures with conrods bouncing down the road, only for the team to say it is a gearbox/electrical fault.

I don't know for a fact there is or is not a drivability problem with the Ford.

But I do know for a fact that Mostert was a total of 0.32 second slower over the last 15 laps compared to Brown, and he had to pass 3 cars.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Mr X

I don't know for a fact there is or is not a drivability problem with the Ford.

Ryan Walkinshaw is a no bullshit guy, and I trust implicitly what he says.

I don't doubt there is an issue that is affecting Ford's long runs.

However DJR and Tickford both have major issues that are affecting their results more than whatever difference the engine issue makes.

Grove and WAU can both really turn it on but both drivers are then lone gunners against other teams, and there's no effective contribution from the other side of the garage.

DJR themselves have even basically come out admitting their issues are much bigger than just parity.

[bluesport]

Ryan has a shot at Roland.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/walkinsh...n-parity-feud/

[Mixer]

He says Roland is demonstrably and quantifiably wrong

Then doesn't demonstrate or quantify why.

[Sandgroper]

Depends on which side of the fence you are on I guess.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Depends on which side of the fence you are on I guess.

I'm not on either side but if someone is demonstrably and quantifiably wrong, the next thing I expect to hear is it demonstrated and quantified how they are wrong...

Ryan and Roland are both credible people.

[V8 Fireworks]

Torque sensors to be introduced on all vehicles to allow for real-time measurement on circuit:

The torque sensors will be fitted to the rear axle, to provide a ‘real-world’ measure of torque output at the rear axle, and hence of engine/powertrain performance.

Sounds like a good move!

In any case the supposed issues of the Coyote are thought to be due to the way it has been detuned by 30hp peak (and elsewhere in the rpm range) down to match the less capable LS engine, thereby introducing unforeseen drivability issues in the process.

Why not run the Coyote unrestricted and allow KRE to do some development to find the missing 30hp (and the rest throughout the rev range) on the LS unit? LS enthusiasts keep saying how 2-valve engines are just plain better after all...

It is said that the 630hp tune of the 5.4L Coyote in MARC car service does not increase the rebuild intervals in any way and has no effect on durability, so there is no downside to upping the output from 600hp to 630hp.

[bluesport]

Supercars doubling down on new engine parity measures

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/26...rity-measures/

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by Mixer

I'm not on either side but if someone is demonstrably and quantifiably wrong, the next thing I expect to hear is it demonstrated and quantified how they are wrong...

Ryan and Roland are both credible people.

Absolutely, but theres always going to be a he said she said comparison when theres blue and and red.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Absolutely, but theres always going to be a he said she said comparison when theres blue and and red.

Blue and yellow? I'm still unsure why more efforts weren't put in to get some turbos out there -- be it Nissan Z, Toyota Supra, BMW M4 or whichever.

Granted the ATCC's technical parity measures seem barely up to the task of balancing two vehicles, let alone four or five.

Still... a more varied grid would have provided for a much better beginning to the next chapter of ATCC racing.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Blue and yellow? I'm still unsure why more efforts weren't put in to get some turbos out there -- be it Nissan Z, Toyota Supra, BMW M4 or whichever.

Granted the ATCC's technical parity measures seem barely up to the task of balancing two vehicles, let alone four or five.

Still... a more varied grid would have provided for a much better beginning to the next chapter of ATCC racing.

Ahh why I knew Nissan, Toyota and BMW will pop up in this discussion... Well, would like to see them too but it didn't happen and probably never will...

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Blue and yellow? I'm still unsure why more efforts weren't put in to get some turbos out there -- be it Nissan Z, Toyota Supra, BMW M4 or whichever.

Granted the ATCC's technical parity measures seem barely up to the task of balancing two vehicles, let alone four or five.

Still... a more varied grid would have provided for a much better beginning to the next chapter of ATCC racing.

I like your concept. More the merrier but we have sort of fenced ourselves off sadly with regards to other brands.

[bluesport]

More from speedcafe.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/30...-for-a-reason/

[V8 Fireworks]

Ford involvement in the Australian Touring Car Championship contingent on the opportunity to win:

What I will say is that, anywhere we race, we race for the same reasons, and that is to win races and championships that matter.

We need to have that opportunity to win because it’s important to our brand. If we’re not able to win – if we don’t have the opportunity to win – it has the risk of tarnishing our brand.

We need to be in a racing series where there’s an opportunity for innovation and tech transfer, we need to race where we have the opportunity to market our product appropriately – tied back to winning, of course – and to provide employee pride and satisfaction.

So, as we very regularly review – inside our company, with the leaders of our company, to the very top – we are assessing all of the series for all of those important pillars for us.

Where we meet those pillars, we will continue and we will be very strong in our presence.

If we’re not meeting some of those pillars, then that’s a consideration for us as we look at our future racing motorsport cycle plan.

- Mark Rushbrook

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/30...tunity-to-win/

Strong statements from Rushbrook.

Rushbrook notes the importance of transient dyno testing and welcomes the torque sensors:

As for us, every engine that we develop in every series, we run on a transient dyno; usually both a transient engine dyno and also a transient driveline dyno, which includes the full engine, full driveline out to the wheel hubs.

So, I think it should be an indication that if automakers that are involved in motorsports on a global basis are using transient dynos to develop the engines, we’re using them for a reason, because there’s a lot of valuable information that you get on the transient dyno that you don’t otherwise.

So, yes, we ran on a transient dyno, but that doesn’t do anything to help parity within the series if the two engines, or as installed in the driveline system, if they’re not run on the same dyno in a comparative way.

We’ve been a proponent of a transient dyno for a very, very long time, as well as torque sensors, so it’s good to see movement towards those and that is what will ultimately help guide the series to true technical parity.

- Mark Rushbrook

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/30...-for-a-reason/

Originally Posted by Matt K

Ahh why I knew Nissan, Toyota and BMW will pop up in this discussion... Well, would like to see them too but it didn't happen and probably never will...

If Ford were to withdraw from the Australian Touring Car Championship and with no other manufacturers (like Nissan, Toyota or BMW), what regulations would the Australian Touring Car Championship likely adopt? A one-make Chevrolet Camaro cup with that being the only vehicle licensed to the category?

There are some rumours that Ford Performance have already decided to cut the ATCC from their activities, and Ford Australia may choose to reallocate their marketing budget to activities with superior ROI than the ATCC...

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

More the merrier but we have sort of fenced ourselves off sadly with regards to other brands.

What a mess! BMW and Nissan were happily involved in the ATCC, yet it all went horribly wrong.

Unless the ROI of ATCC involvement is improved significantly, they may indeed not come back either.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If Ford were to withdraw from the Australian Touring Car Championship and with no other manufacturers (like Nissan, Toyota or BMW), what regulations would the Australian Touring Car Championship likely adopt? A one-make Chevrolet Camaro cup with that being the only vehicle licensed to the category?

Don't know what Supercars do if Ford is to pull out but certainly can't see any manufacturer rushing to help and prevent the category from collapsing. Ford withdrew from Supercars once, perhaps this would be managed this time as well. Would Supercars try and bring other manufacturers? In such a scenario probably yes but Walkinshaw's been trying for a couple of years and nothing's come of it.
So, either Mustangs carry on without Ford's backing or Supercars becomes a Chevrolet Camaro Cup - which would be terrible and unworthy of the Supercars name.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Matt K

a Chevrolet Camaro Cup - which would be terrible and unworthy of the Supercars name.

If it's a competition of teams, why does it matter if some of them are running Falcon hardtops and some of them are running Torana A9Xs (the era Group 3A was supposed to recreate I assume), compared to if all of them are running Falcon hardtops or all Torana A9Xs.

It's still team v team, no?

Especially when now there is negligible difference between the two "different" vehicles and the parts that are different are meant to be made as identical and indistinguishable as possible.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Matt K

Don't know what Supercars do if Ford is to pull out but certainly can't see any manufacturer rushing to help and prevent the category from collapsing. Ford withdrew from Supercars once, perhaps this would be managed this time as well. Would Supercars try and bring other manufacturers? In such a scenario probably yes but Walkinshaw's been trying for a couple of years and nothing's come of it.
So, either Mustangs carry on without Ford's backing or Supercars becomes a Chevrolet Camaro Cup - which would be terrible and unworthy of the Supercars name.

I think "technical parity" is what is stopping the category from going ahead, manufacturers don't like to be dictated to, maybe it would have been simpler to use marc cars with the 5 litre coyote and the 6 litre gen 4, then use air restrictors and the like to achieve parity, supercars seem to be off in some ideological wilderness making something that is simple quite difficult to achieve.

[bluesport]

More from speedcafe.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/31...ars-test-days/

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I think "technical parity" is what is stopping the category from going ahead, manufacturers don't like to be dictated to, maybe it would have been simpler to use marc cars with the 5 litre coyote and the 6 litre gen 4, then use air restrictors and the like to achieve parity, supercars seem to be off in some ideological wilderness making something that is simple quite difficult to achieve.

It seems so!

BOP would also be the best way to balance turbocharged engines and vehicles with shorter wheelbases (like the Z and Supra) and so on.

Should Herrod Performance withdraw the Coyote and present a turbo Barra for homologation as part of a shift of the ATCC towards turbocharged six-cylinder engines perhaps? Presumably the "world class and robust" technical parity processes can handle it even without BOP... A turbo Barra ATCC-style touring car in action, though I'm not convinced the drivability is necessary better than a naturally aspirated V8! [Also: the GM LF3/LF4 V6 twin-turbo ATCC-style touring car in action which seems somewhat more drivable.]

In any case, it will be important to make sure technical parity processes are sufficient to perfectly balance not only naturally aspirated V8s but also turbocharged six-cylinders, if technical parity will continue to be used instead of balance-of-performance.

[Tourer]

Technical Parity has served the category really well for decades and is a key part of the foundations on which it has been built. However we should always be open to new ideas, particularly as there are now different capacity engines in play.

The transient dyno looks like it could be one of those and now that there is one in Australia that the Supercars tech people have confidence in, it may provide the last piece of the puzzle that enables tech parity to work across engine design / size variations. When both Ford & Holden were running 5L, pushrod engines the current system worked well (acknowledge that it wasn't as good for others running multivalve engines).

In a formula with restricted revs, four-valve, DOHC engines don't get to deliver the usual benefits of that design and it seems that we're seeing that at the moment from what is being said by the Ford group. If a transient dyno is able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, then it'll help identify clearly how the different engines match up against each other.

No reason that Tech Parity can't continue in that case - only have to look at the various comments and threads about BoP on 10/10ths to understand that it isn't ideal either - so it may be a case of "the devil you know".