Parity Review Has Been Called

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Supercars and the teams need to decide if they want to survive or nor, if all teams end up running camaros then it is doubtful.

Yep, the best interests of the sport need to come first.

More from V8 Sleuth on the parity crisis meeting:

Supercars and its board are facing immense pressure from both directions.

Ford is adamant a change is necessary to ensure a level playing field at the biggest race of the year, while General Motors and its homolgoation team Triple Eight is pushing back given the parity review process has not been triggered (since just before Townsville).

The bitter off-track war will come to a head little more than 24 hours before opening practice, with many conversions hovering around the blockbuster meeting and few certain on which way it will go — not to mention the backlash that might follow from whichever party doesn't get its way.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/stage-se...arity-meeting/

Does the ATCC really want to lose Ford Performance and preside over a Camaro Cup? Do the ATCC teams collectively really want to lose Ford Performance's support and IP approval?

Surely the best interests of the sport must come first!

Hopefully teams like BJR and MSR will vote rationally when presented with the data showing how the changes are needed to combat technical disparity in time for the 2023 Bathurst 1000km race.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

When 888 did a poor job of homologation in 2019, why were their errors fixed for them?

The different levels of urgency are very bizarre to see, as much as fans hope organisers are unbiased.

I agree that Ford Performance should have spent more time and resources on the Gen 3 homologation in the US and not left it up to DJR. As we saw, Ford Performance in the US did a great job in 2019 and it was unwise for Ford Performance to leave it up to DJR in 2023 and assume ATCC organisers would determine technical parity appropriately.

Regardless, it has reached a crisis point where Ford Performance's ongoing intellectual property approval for 2025 onwards is severely under question, with trackside advertising and support vehicles already withdrawn for 2024.

It would be in the best interests of the sport to diffuse the crisis!

The ZB came online in 2018. Complaints were made that year to have bodywork changes made to the other brands. So not a bad job by 888, as you said. You were one complaining loudly at the time.

2019 a Mustang came online that the other brands could not compete with in it's original form. You were pleased with that. You were also against any changes being made to the cars in that season.

Ford Performance did a great job in 2019, in your opinion. What is different now? Oh of cause, The badge.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Yep, the best interests of the sport need to come first.

More from V8 Sleuth on the parity crisis meeting:

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/stage-se...arity-meeting/

Does the ATCC really want to lose Ford Performance and preside over a Camaro Cup? Do the ATCC teams collectively really want to lose Ford Performance's support and IP approval?

Surely the best interests of the sport must come first!

Hopefully teams like BJR and MSR will vote rationally when presented with the data showing how the changes are needed to combat technical disparity in time for the 2023 Bathurst 1000km race.

Where was all this concern in 2019? Explain??? Don't forget the history is sill there.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Ares

Where was all this concern in 2019? Explain??? Don't forget the history is sill there.

If the view is now from GTRMagic that Ford Performance should come back and homologate a better car for 2024 season. I would be happy for that to be the precedent, that Holden Motorsport were told to come back and homologate a better car for the 2020 season during 2019 (and thus Ford Performance should do the same for 2024), but the precedent was shown to be otherwise during the 2019 season.

That way the rules would be established and clear. You design the best car you can, it is not going to be cut during the season and the competitor is not going to get concessions during the season . It would be all about coming back and building a better car for the next season and next round of homologation. That would be clear and fine.

Instead the precedent was shown to be contrary to that, hence my current calls for urgent in-season changes as were applied during 2019.

Originally Posted by Ares

The ZB came online in 2018. ... 2019 a Mustang came online that the other brands could not compete with in it's original form.

Exactly. The ZB was designed to outperform the Falcon and Altima, while the Mustang was designed to outperform the ZB and Altima. (So a failure of 888 Race Engineering to bring an improved, updated car to 2019 homologation, while the amount the Kelly Racing Altima was behind even before their 2019 homologation package was even worse!)

[Just as the VE was designed to outperform the BA/BF for that matter, and the VF designed to outperform the FG. It honestly seems like the BA v VY/VZ, VE v FG and VF v FGX were the only times during Group 3A where at least two of the vehicles were very even -- noting that changes in the EB through EL versus VP through VS days were even more frequent, including in-season!]

Meanwhile, both Gen 3 cars were brand new so Ford Performance did not have a reference to design the Mustang to outperform the Camaro and instead, erroneously, put their faith in ATCC processes being able to paritise the vehicles properly. Yet now they are blamed for Chevrolet Racing designing a vehicle that outperforms the Ford Performance vehicle?!

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

When 888 did a poor job of homologation in 2019, why were their errors fixed for them?

The homologation that Ford were not able to replicate without repeating more than questionable tactics??

Yep, 888's fault.


It is a shame its such a mess.

[dirtymacca]

Originally Posted by banksie

The homologation that Ford were not able to replicate without repeating more than questionable tactics??

Yep, 888's fault.


It is a shame its such a mess.

No wonder it drove Adrian Burgess to drink!!!!

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

No wonder it drove Adrian Burgess to drink!!!!

GOLD !!!!

[Ares]

The amount of changes we have already seen this year out strips 2019 by a long shot. 888 rocks up in 2019, a week before Bathurst and says "hey we have some more stuff we want to put on our car this weekend" Now what would your answer have been?

How would 888 homologate a car in 2019, against a car they have not seen or race against?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Meanwhile, both Gen 3 cars were brand new so Ford Performance did not have a reference to design the Mustang to outperform the Camaro and instead, erroneously, put their faith in ATCC processes being able to paritise the vehicles properly. Yet now they are blamed for Chevrolet Racing designing a vehicle that outperforms the Ford Performance vehicle?!

888 had no comparison either.. yet arguably did a better job in building the better mouse trap. Why does everyone seem to be making apologies for ford not having done a good job with its homologation process?

13 sets of kit are apparently sitting on the pad at Bathurst waiting for the GM teams to roll over. No mention of spares, or who paid for the kits. Or if they even work.

Meantime, Bathurst will become an effluent show whether the adjustments happen or not. It will be a droning continuing subject of commentary…

[bluesport]

Put the bits on let's go racing!!!

[GTRMagic]

Cancelled

No numbers no discussion?
What will they do with the seemingly redundant body kits…

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Cancelled

No numbers no discussion?
What will they do with the seemingly redundant body kits…

Put the body parts on and then get disqualified, nothing lost as they won't win anyway.

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

888 had no comparison either.. yet arguably did a better job in building the better mouse trap. Why does everyone seem to be making apologies for ford not having done a good job with its homologation process?

So T8 develop a better car than DJR - expected and not a shock to anyone, but what's that got to do with parity? Is this a prototype series now?

[chavez]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

It will be a droning continuing subject of commentary…

But not for the telecast commentators who will continue to pretend that all is well in the world.

[GTRMagic]

Two Secret Parity Meetings

Madness magnifies…

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Compromised

So T8 develop a better car than DJR - expected and not a shock to anyone, but what's that got to do with parity? Is this a prototype series now?

If you believe the Facebook team fan space, it’s not Ford’s fault the Mustang is uncompetitive, nor is it their teams.. it’s that dangblasted V8Supercar mob who have to tell the Ford teams where they are losing out to the Chevs and make the fixes.

Again, the series has done a dreadful job of communications…

Once they fiddle with the aero, will we see an engine remapping suddenly show up for the Ford on Friday morning, and some shift cut fiddles, a bigger gurney flap, and maybe some of Team Dynamik’s golfball textured paint to slice thru the air better

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

If you believe the Facebook team fan space, it’s not Ford’s fault the Mustang is uncompetitive, nor is it their teams.. it’s that dangblasted V8Supercar mob who have to tell the Ford teams where they are losing out to the Chevs and make the fixes.

Again, the series has done a dreadful job of communications…

Once they fiddle with the aero, will we see an engine remapping suddenly show up for the Ford on Friday morning, and some shift cut fiddles, a bigger gurney flap, and maybe some of Team Dynamik’s golfball textured paint to slice thru the air better

In motorsport if your mousetrap isn't good enough you then have to go away and build a better mousetrap for the next race, but with supercars they seem to expect teams to just go on losing indefinitely until they are ready to let the teams have a chance at winning.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Once they fiddle with the aero, will we see an engine remapping suddenly show up for the Ford on Friday morning, and some shift cut fiddles, a bigger gurney flap, and maybe some of Team Dynamik’s golfball textured paint to slice thru the air better

Ford Performance aren't the ones who decided the Mustang should have a smaller capacity engine than the rival car, and a lower rear wing than the rival car, and no winglets on the ends of the front splitter unlike the rival car etc...

Blaming Ford Performance is just absurd.

Do WAU have the same opportunity to win by running Mustangs as they would running Camaros or not? That is what they were promised in a technical parity series, was it delivered?

If not, it should be fixed ASAP.

Ford Performance teams might just need to run the parts anyway and get disqualified from every session to bring the issue front and centre such that even Skaife and Crompton can't ignore it on the telecast. They aren't in driver's championship contention anyway so it doesn't matter. Hopefully they can win the Bathurst 1000km and then get disqualified to bring the issue all over the mainstream media.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Ford Performance aren't the ones who decided the Mustang should have a smaller capacity engine than the rival car, and a lower rear wing than the rival car, and no winglets on the ends of the front splitter unlike the rival car etc...

Blaming Ford Performance is just absurd.

Do WAU have the same opportunity to win by running Mustangs as they would running Camaros or not? That is what they were promised in a technical parity series, was it delivered?

If not, it should be fixed ASAP.

Ford Performance teams might just need to run the parts anyway and get disqualified from every session to bring the issue front and centre such that even Skaife and Crompton can't ignore it on the telecast. They aren't in driver's championship contention anyway so it doesn't matter. Hopefully they can win the Bathurst 1000km and then get disqualified to bring the issue all over the mainstream media.

Exactly, if the parts aren't allowed then just put them on anyway and run the race as a 1000km test session.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

They just want to have a chance to win the Bathurst 1000km in ways other than strategic hail Mary in what is meant to be a technical parity formula. It's not an unreasonable request!

I guess someone could just break international motorsport rules to manipulate the result and pay $250k for the cup?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

I guess someone could just break international motorsport rules to manipulate the result and pay $250k for the cup?

Team Penske is one of the finest teams in world motorsport.

For whatever reason, ATCC administrators seem closer to 888 Race Engineering than Team Penske, so Team Penske gave up on the uphill battle. Go figure!

Honda Performance Development are much happier (in fact, completely happy) with their NTT Indycar Series involvement even though Team Penske not only field entries backed by Chevrolet Racing, but Penske Entertainment runs the series. Funny that and how a competent motorsport organisation can do things properly...

Ford Performance and their ATCC involvement? Not so much!

[Senna05]

Long time Holden fan but a realist...

I honestly think there's just been some monumental cock ups from Supercars here - and blame can be apportioned everywhere (DJR, 888, engine builders, testers, test drivers, etc) but the fact is there's something not quite right with the Mustang.

Blame aside - the inconsistency of the Mustang teams and drivers points to chasing a car. The consistency of gun teams Erebus and 888 points to comfort - and the chasing Chev's are still up and down at times, as we've seen for years.

How after 18 months of tests and cross over drives there wasn't someone who popped a hand up to complain about rear end sensitivity on long runs, or a test with acceleration or speed until late in the piece is beyond me.

Heck - using the F1 model (by design or accident), why did we not move on the chassis and downforce this year, and at least keep the engines which were spec, as they did in 2022?

Supercars have changed engine maps and shift cuts mid season based on results - I don't see why they couldn't test the aero package tomorrow and maybe cross a few co-drivers over to validate some live "bum of seat" data. Realistically, that's probably just as scientific as the electronic changes.

If not, I am sure there will be some great GT3 racing somewhere I can log on to watch that will be at least fairer with their BOP and in some series success ballast models...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Senna05

Supercars have changed engine maps and shift cuts mid season based on results - I don't see why they couldn't test the aero package tomorrow and maybe cross a few co-drivers over to validate some live "bum of seat" data. Realistically, that's probably just as scientific as the electronic changes.

Because at The Bend the Fords were very strong, and Sandown they had no shortage of speed, but the leading Ford teams all struck trouble and none of them could show the speed their cars were capable of. This does not create a justification for an out of band parity adjustment.

There's an established rule for triggering a parity review and it hasn't been met.

[GTRMagic]

Make the Chevs worse
Since Ford and its associated techno gumbies in team land cant make their minds up as to what is wrong with the Mustang, add 20kg of ballast to every Chev in the field.

[Senna05]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Because at The Bend the Fords were very strong, and Sandown they had no shortage of speed, but the leading Ford teams all struck trouble and none of them could show the speed their cars were capable of. This does not create a justification for an out of band parity adjustment.

There's an established rule for triggering a parity review and it hasn't been met.

At the bend, they were. This is correct - I don't disagree. At other tracks - not so much.

At Sandown, after some electronic adjustments after the Friday results (shift cuts) they were - for short distances.

If Supercars felt there wasn't a "parity" issue, would they have allowed the electronic adjustment?