Parity Review Has Been Called

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Plenty of good evidence from SMP and The Bend that the Ford's are competitive.

After many changes to correct issues that were present despite the "best parity ever" according to Jamie Whincup...

The spanner in the works was the lack of wind tunnel and AVL dyno data to demonstrate the technical parity.

[dirtymacca]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Supercars promised parity and haven't delivered as yet........technical parity doesn't work.

Seems like the problem is 'driver parity', both marques are fast and have strengths and weaknesses through out the weekend.
So it must be a driver issue....

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

Seems like the problem is 'driver parity', both marques are fast and have strengths and weaknesses through out the weekend.
So it must be a driver issue....

Haw haw haw.......you're a riot.

[bluesport]

Hearing that there is more parity to come.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

Seems like the problem is 'driver parity', both marques are fast and have strengths and weaknesses through out the weekend.
So it must be a driver issue....

Ford teams love to hold up the championship standings and race wins as proof of a lack of parity.

Yet 3 of them recently have fired their primary or secondary driver...

[V8 Fireworks]

More Mustang aerodynamic work:



It looks like Waters is testing smaller rear wing endplates combined with raising the rear wing back to the old position (noting the rear wing is fixed in the first of the five original mounting holes, rather than the three new mounting holes for the lower wing position).

There is some suggestion this is a different rear wing profile. (Possibly the Gen 2 one which DJR wanted to homologate previously in the last round of rear wing changes.)

Indeed, photographs captured by Speedcafe from the day show Cameron Waters’ #6 Tickford Mustang apparently sporting a new rear wing and new endplates, as well as trialling different wing angles.

Anton De Pasquale’s #11 DJR Mustang ran with a modified front bar and, at one point, without side skirts, while a modified splitter was also spotted.

Modified front splitter tested by De Pasquale:

[V8 Fireworks]

According to Speedcafe, Chevrolet's were installed with a 80ms shift cut at Eastern Creek without the knowledge of the Ford teams. The Ford's therefore appeared to have (or did have) a straight-line deficit which was erroneously attributed to drag.

This was corrected back to a 105ms shift cut on the Chevrolets at The Bend, where the two vehicles (thankfully) appeared to be more even both in a straight-line and overall. It seems the 105ms shift cut - decided upon before the season based on rolling road dyno testing - still plays an important role in the paritisation process of the two engines and therefore of the two vehicle styles.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/08/25...-drag-problem/

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

According to Speedcafe, Chevrolet's were installed with a 80ms shift cut at Eastern Creek without the knowledge of the Ford teams. The Ford's therefore appeared to have (or did have) a straight-line deficit which was erroneously attributed to drag.

This was corrected back to a 105ms shift cut on the Chevrolets at The Bend, where the two vehicles (thankfully) appeared to be more even both in a straight-line and overall. It seems the 105ms shift cut - decided upon before the season based on rolling road dyno testing - still plays an important role in the paritisation process of the two engines and therefore of the two vehicle styles.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/08/25...-drag-problem/

Interesting, thanks for that.

[GTRMagic]

How is this something not to come up previously?

What will be the next silly thing to be blamed?
Surely one of the Ford team brainstrust has been looking at every single input to operating their cars from top to toe, and building a checklist of comparison with their Chev compatriots

The Chev lot must be sick of Ford teams throwing darts blindfolded looking for a silver bullet when the fundamentals seem not to have been fully explored

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How is this something not to come up previously?

What will be the next silly thing to be blamed?
Surely one of the Ford team brainstrust has been looking at every single input to operating their cars from top to toe, and building a checklist of comparison with their Chev compatriots

The Chev lot must be sick of Ford teams throwing darts blindfolded looking for a silver bullet when the fundamentals seem not to have been fully explored

Mark Rushbrook has already said that there is no transparency to compare data between makes/teams so it becomes a rolling process of trial and error.

Quite easy to understand actually.

[bluesport]

Parity changes are working apparently.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/edwards-...rt-for-randle/

[V8 Fireworks]

Ford Australia unhappy:

We don’t believe there’s technical parity. The frustration continues. Nothing’s changed from that perspective.

- Andrew Birkic, Ford Australia CEO
https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/09/19...arity-turmoil/

Whincup calls demands for further changes "outrageous":

I think we all need to forget about. The talk of doing aero updates for the next round is just outrageous.

- Jame Whincup, 888 Race Engineering Team Principal
https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/whincup-...parity-change/

It seems that the areas of concerns of Ford runners are front aero, the weight of the bodywork package (more Mustangs said to be overweight than Camaros due to a heavier panel package causing more rotational moment of inertia, presumably with more fibreglass/kevlar and less thin carbon-fibre panels than the more expensive Camaro panel package) and engine power & straight-line speed.

Tander unhappy with straight-line speed:

The Camaros just pull away on the straights.

- Garth Tander, Grove Racing driver

The revised front bumper tested at The Bend is a candidate for homologation, as are lighter doors (although Camaro would be given a reduction in parcel shelf ballast to compensate, so this is seen as a waste of time).

Unclear if any changes will be made on the engine mapping front, such as breaking the mean accumulated power numbers to ensure Mustangs have a chance of Bathurst victory. The revised front bumper may reduce drag perhaps.

Ford Australia confirm sponsorship support of Ford teams only (no trackside or support vehicles) through 2024, however withdrawal of IP from the series from 2025 remains likely if parity is not sorted throughout the 2024 ATCC.

It is curious that Whincup does not care about Mustangs having a fair chance of winning the Bathurst 1000...

Hopefully microsectors from Sandown will have given clues on areas that need to be addressed to ensure technical parity between the vehicles is achieved for Bathurst.

[Mixer]

6 Mustangs in the shootout at Sandown.
3 finished in the top 10 after a freak accident took out the fastest 2.
Grove's second car was very fast and showed no sign of the tyre issues all the other Ford drivers complain of - maybe someone forgot to tell Kevin Estre that you're meant to burn the tyres and just complain about parity?

Tickford co-drivers ruined all their car's races other than the #6 which was taken out by a flying wheel from the Tander car.

WAU cars both had dramas unrelated to parity.

Ford now campaigning for another aero change now that we have tracks with long straights instead of fast corners.

[bluesport]

The new front bumper should be tried at Bathurst and if the mustang proves to be too fast in qualifying then lengthen the shift cut to bring it back a bit.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

The new front bumper should be tried at Bathurst and if the mustang proves to be too fast in qualifying then lengthen the shift cut to bring it back a bit.

No - we should not just be trying random things and changing cars in the middle of a race meeting.

The threshold for parity review was met and Ford got the aero adjustments it wanted.

Sandown results had nothing to do with parity and Ford can't ask for another adjustment just because a different type of track is here now....

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Mixer

No - we should not just be trying random things and changing cars in the middle of a race meeting.

Absolutely agree!
Can we find anyone amongst the Ford folks that could confirm with evidence the source of the inferior execution of the Mustang compared to the Camaro?

Playing with front bumpers will probably make for another blind alley… making cars pointy and cooking rears faster.. again/still

[Mixer]

The truth is this

How many championships has DJR (no Penske) won in the last 10 years - 0
How many championships has WAU won in the last 10 years - 0
How many championships has Grove/Kelly Racing won in the last 10 years - 0
Tickford have won 1 but only just, their only good driver now is too error prone.

Grove of all the Ford teams look the most promising except their lead driver this year is basically a pay driver. Next year they could be strong.

Tickford will next year likely have their lead driver who isn't good enough and a pay driver.

WAU will again have the brilliant Chaz fighting a lone battle with a rank, rash and crash prone rookie for a teammate.

DJR's driver lineup lacks ambition and the team lacks leadership and innovation - they are heading back to mid-pack where they were before.

It's neat for Ford teams to bleat about parity to misdirect attention from their performance.

The very simple fact of the matter is the teams up the front have 2 drivers contributing to their setups and points.

888 and Erebus are far stronger in this regard than any Ford team.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

No - we should not just be trying random things and changing cars in the middle of a race meeting.

The threshold for parity review was met and Ford got the aero adjustments it wanted.

Sandown results had nothing to do with parity and Ford can't ask for another adjustment just because a different type of track is here now....

I believe that supercars will authorise the use of the new bumper and it is the right move to make.

[bluesport]

More parity.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/09/21...s-parity-lens/

[Mixer]

Those COG adjustments sound like a good solution to something that isn't a design problem, but Ford keep campaigning for changes, then complaining about the changes they keep making are the reasons they can't get speed out of the car.

I would say it isn't really surprising that DJR is unable to get the minimum weight down to where 888 got the Camaro. One wonders what the world might look like if WAU or even Tickford were chosen.

It also sounds like different Ford teams have a differing opinion of what they need, which doesn't help anybody.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Those COG adjustments sound like a good solution to something that isn't a design problem, but Ford keep campaigning for changes, then complaining about the changes they keep making are the reasons they can't get speed out of the car.

I would say it isn't really surprising that DJR is unable to get the minimum weight down to where 888 got the Camaro. One wonders what the world might look like if WAU or even Tickford were chosen.

It also sounds like different Ford teams have a differing opinion of what they need, which doesn't help anybody.

More parity needed.

[Ares]

If the homologating teams were both focused on building the best two cars they could to the best of their abilities, instead of trying to fudge the testing and data. Supercar could have focused all their attention on the true parity of the cars. Instead of checking everything with a fine comb to find where the information has been manipulated. One team was found out on a couple of occasions, maybe the other team was just better at the game? They got what they wanted, until they realised it wasn't what they wanted.

[V8 Fireworks]

Some good action intending to be taken for the Bathurst 1000km to ensure technical parity (despite an unsporting obstructionist view being taken by Chevrolet Racing!):

...lightweight doors and panels will be introduced to the Mustangs before Bathurst.

The panel changes will allow an extra 5.8kg of ballast to be placed at the lowest point of the Mustang, making it more similar to the Camaro.

Critically, a series of aerodynamic tweaks have been presented for approval.
These tweaks are belived to be more adjustments than wholesale changes, and have been borne out of renewed CFD work after Ford finally got its data-sharing wish.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/pre-bath...ting-sign-off/

Given their data-driven nature, it is imperative these aerodynamic tweaks to further technical parity are approved despite unsporting obstruction from 888 Race Engineering.

An increase of Camaro shift cut to 125ms may also be implemented to improve technical parity of engine performance.

Originally Posted by Mixer

It also sounds like different Ford teams have a differing opinion of what they need, which doesn't help anybody.

If nothing else, the extra 0.02s without power on each Camaro gear change will definitely help towards technical parity of straight line performance (say there's 10 upshifts on a lap, that's 2-tenths of a second without any power down), so the shift cut change should definitely be implemented.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Some good action intending to be taken for the Bathurst 1000km to ensure technical parity (despite an unsporting obstructionist view being taken by Chevrolet Racing!):



The panel changes will allow an extra 5.8kg of ballast to be placed at the lowest point of the Mustang, making it more similar to the Camaro.


https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/pre-bath...ting-sign-off/

Given their data-driven nature, it is imperative these aerodynamic tweaks to further technical parity are approved despite unsporting obstruction from 888 Race Engineering.

An increase of Camaro shift cut to 125ms may also be implemented to improve technical parity of engine performance.



If nothing else, the extra 0.02s without power on each Camaro gear change will definitely help towards technical parity of straight line performance (say there's 10 upshifts on a lap, that's 2-tenths of a second without any power down), so the shift cut change should definitely be implemented.

This is even better news than I expected.

[Sandgroper]

aint this a ship show.

Dragging out forever.