Parity Review Has Been Called

[dirtymacca]

Originally Posted by bluesport

One step closer.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/ford-o...-v8-supercars/

Sabre rattleing... as they have done before! Ford need to bring back Roger Penske, he knew how to manipulate the system.

[Mixer]

Ford claim that their complaints of a lack of parity have "fallen on deaf ears"

Is that why they've had 4 changes already this year, literally EVERY thing they have actually asked for?

This is DJR, Ford Motorsport & Herrod ducking and weaving responsibility for the whole mess.

One wonders, why are the Mustangs so overweight that they have had to build special lightweight panels to get the car to minimum weight so teams can ballast to improve handling? Why did building these have to fall to Tickford?

Why, nearly at the end of the season, do Mustangs still not have their final dashboards in them, as the Camaros have had since round 1?

The answer to both of course is DJR.

[Compromised]

That's exactly why teams competing in the championship CAN'T be involved in the homologation process.

You've got T8 developing one of the cars, a team with over a decade of sustained success and by far the class of the field.

Then you've got DJR developing the other car. Let's just say a top ten is a good weekend for them at the moment.

Who in their right mind ever believed the two cars would end up equal?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Compromised

That's exactly why teams competing in the championship CAN'T be involved in the homologation process.

You've got T8 developing one of the cars, a team with over a decade of sustained success and by far the class of the field.

Then you've got DJR developing the other car. Let's just say a top ten is a good weekend for them at the moment.

Who in their right mind ever believed the two cars would end up equal?

It's a fair point. Friend who is on a Ford team told me that it would have been better to have 888 do BOTH cars and that there are a lot of people on other Ford teams very, very unhappy with DJR, although they are not saying so publicly.

Anyway, the Ford teams now know what they have to work with for Bathurst, with the one change being the lighter doors. They were looking OK at Sandown and might be able to get something good happening at the mountain, particularly as it seems they believe that they lack downforce and a "gun" setup at the mountain has often been a low-drag, low-downforce car.

[bluesport]

Disparity.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/10/05...ves-disparity/

[Adam43]

[mod]Some of the bickering posts have been removed.

It needs to stop or there will be some enforced breaks from 10-10ths.[/mod]

[Captain]

Originally Posted by Adam43

[mod]Some of the bickering posts have been removed.

It needs to stop or there will be some enforced breaks from 10-10ths.[/mod]

Thank you, I think some where forgetting to attack the post not the poster.

Now onto the topic, if the method to trigger an automatic parity review posted on Speedcafe is correct then it is possible we won't see another automatic trigger. If it's based on the fatest 25% of laps then tyre wear issues might not have an effect. If the data does show a disparity (and I haven't seen Supercars deny this) then there needs to be another way to trigger an adjustment, without having 75% of teams agree.

[Mixer]

There is lies, damn lies and statistics

Is there any surprise that data that was viewed as equal is suddenly not equal when Ford believes there is disparity and paid someone to find the disparity they already believes exist?

There is a reason proper statistical studies are blinded so funder bias doesn't influence the outcome. The problem is you take any given set of data and if you keep manipulating it you can find what you are looking for.

This is also why statistical methodology is decided before you have the data. And stopping when you find what you were expecting also isn't valid science.

[Captain]

Originally Posted by Mixer

There is lies, damn lies and statistics

Is there any surprise that data that was viewed as equal is suddenly not equal when Ford believes there is disparity and paid someone to find the disparity they already believes exist?

I've not seen where Supercars or their CFD partner have disputed that a disparity exists. Before the season began concerns were raised about aero balance and engine response. If you have other information please post it.

[Mixer]

Right now it is Ford's claim and they turned up with it at Bathurst with parts made, trying to force the issue.

The parity trigger and response is in the rules, as is the process that was followed.

Is it Supercars job to disprove Ford's claim?

Maybe the parity trigger is met at Bathurst, but when positive progress was made at The Bend and Sandown result nets no meaningful discussion of parity, what Ford has some is politically motivated and deserved not to be rewarded.

[Captain]

As I said twice previously, the Ford statement has not been disputed by Supercars. It isn’t a matter of trying to prove or disprove data, it hasn’t been disputed. As I said previously, the parity triggers are not guaranteed to pick up speed differences caused by tyre degradation. There needs to be another way to trigger the review process. If you have evidence to the contrary of anything I’ve said please post it.

[Mixer]

Tyre degradation affects both makes so it's irrelevant.

The claim you are making about the data is not a proven fact, I don't need to disprove it.

[GTRMagic]

I reckon the less sympathetic drivers will have their soft tyres cooked probably less than 10 laps into their stints....

[Captain]

Mixer, the parity discussion has always been about aero balance not being the same between the makes which leads to greater degradation of tyres. This is now the fourth time I’ve said that the Ford statement detailing a disparity hasn’t been disputed by Supercars, from what I’ve seen, and I’ve asked you or others to share any information you have to the contrary.

I haven’t asked you or anyone to prove or disprove anything. I believe the parity process is lacking and I’ve stated why. It seems to me your responses are not addressing what I’ve said and you’re only putting forward the same opinion that you’ve previously stated many times in this thread. This is supposed to be a discussion, by saying the same thing over and over without actually answering or putting forward new information or at least trying to clarify a point only makes it an argument. Unless you’re going to actually add something new please don’t respond to me again, I’m happy to discuss this with you or others with different opinions but continuing to repeat myself is tiresome to not only me but others as well.

[High_OCTANE_HSV]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I reckon the less sympathetic drivers will have their soft tyres cooked probably less than 10 laps into their stints....

It's a good point, seen plenty of tyre degredation so far. It makes you wonder how Estre did so well to look after his tyres at Sandown. I wonder if he has a slightly different driving technique that is easier on the tyres.

[Mixer]

Making up special rules to support your argument is called Special Pleading.

I don't recall anybody having any issue with parity trigger rules before The Bend, or for that matter in 2019.

Thw parity trigger rules have been unchanged for more than 20 years, and if Ford has disproportionately high tyre wear compared to Chev, this will show up in the lap times and trigger a review.

[Captain]

Originally Posted by High_OCTANE_HSV

It's a good point, seen plenty of tyre degredation so far. It makes you wonder how Estre did so well to look after his tyres at Sandown. I wonder if he has a slightly different driving technique that is easier on the tyres.

It’s a shame the other Penrite car was damaged early, it would have made for an interesting comparison of tyre degradation, how much was down to driving style or setup and what they could learn and carry forward.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Captain

This is now the fourth time I’ve said that the Ford statement detailing a disparity hasn’t been disputed by Supercars, from what I’ve seen, and I’ve asked you or others to share any information you have to the contrary.

I don't quite understand why Supercars need to dispute what Ford are saying. the Chev homologation team was saying recently that they have the data and it proves there's no disparity, Ford is now saying that it has the data and it proves there is a disparity.

Sounds like the usual bickering to me and I don't see why Supercars needs to take a position on it. Seems to me that taking a position could only inflame one "side" or the other. Might be smarter to get with running the race meeting and maybe have more to say next week or something like that.

[High_OCTANE_HSV]

Originally Posted by Captain

It’s a shame the other Penrite car was damaged early, it would have made for an interesting comparison of tyre degradation, how much was down to driving style or setup and what they could learn and carry forward.

Agreed. It would have been great to see the pace of those two cars and see how well they lasted on a set of tyres. He seems to be showing a lot of speed so far this weekend too.

Will be good to see how well that car does on Sunday, they'd be a real shot at a podium this year if they can stay out of trouble.

[Captain]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I don't quite understand why Supercars need to dispute what Ford are saying. the Chev homologation team was saying recently that they have the data and it proves there's no disparity, Ford is now saying that it has the data and it proves there is a disparity.

Sounds like the usual bickering to me and I don't see why Supercars needs to take a position on it. Seems to me that taking a position could only inflame one "side" or the other. Might be smarter to get with running the race meeting and maybe have more to say next week or something like that.

Ford have stated that the data they were eventually given showed that there was a disparity, Supercars don’t have to dispute this but if the information isn’t correct why haven’t they said as much?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Captain

Ford have stated that the data they were eventually given showed that there was a disparity, Supercars don’t have to dispute this but if the information isn’t correct why haven’t they said as much?

Could be that they don’t want to suggest that Ford is misinterpreting, or something along those lines - to prevent a public slanging match.

[Captain]

I think that is unlikely, remember the statement said;

“Following ongoing analysis, Supercars, in conjunction with its independent CFD partner, D2H Group, have acknowledged that there continues to be a disparity between the Gen3 Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro,"

If that statement is wrong or misleading then I want to know, Supercars response has not refuted in any way Fords statement. If Ford are misinterpreting tell us, if Ford are misleading us then I really want to know.

[Mixer]

The statement is from the Ford teams, not Supercars. If you read it out of context, it sounds like a Supercars statement but it is not.

[Sandgroper]

Parity Shmarity.

Fords have performed well all day.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Parity Shmarity.

Fords have performed well all day.

Wait until raceday.
.