ParityParityParityParity - Page 4

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 01:49 (Ref:1065515)

Breaking News ...

After the Grumpy Old Mans latest "Get Out Of Jail Free" card at Oran Park, it is OFFICIAL - you can run anything on your Hybrid Holden and get away with it.

One maker has a set spec, the other has a chioce of bodies, engines, gearboxes and now, suspension points. Oh, boy - can I have one of those in a Ford colour please?

mmciau · 14 Aug 2004, 02:03 (Ref:1065521)

It's all bets off up to now - I wouldn't want to be caught with anything dodgey NOW

Mike

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 02:05 (Ref:1065522)

Seems you can also alter your CONTROL ECU, thus changing specification to ILLEGAL status and get away with it also. Ask anybody associated with motorsport in any technical way, in any form/level of motorsport, and in any country in the world, the biggest, best, and easiest way to cheat by aiding traction is through the ECU.

I think FORD fans forget that the Holden teams had to change alot in order to meet project blueprint specification. We'll start with engines. The Holden teams had to implement a new engine package, titled the Holden Motorsport Engine. The engine is a different block to the old 18 degree engine. Requiring, new pistions, rods, rockers, lifters, crankshafts you name all had to designed, sourced and put into a new engine from scratch.

The holden teams also had to change to a double wishbone front suspension - the current FORD suspension. Involving designing a completely new front end to their vehicles. Designing new uprights, pick up points etc. Basically all cars were different from the firewall forward.

The holden teams also had to acquire new wheels - the current FORD wheels, with different offsets. Many teams were required to get in excess of 60 new rims and do what with the old ones?

This is way the Holden teams have choices revolving around vehicle specification, because the COSTS to change straight to full VY specification would have bee through the roof.

Back to the actual topic - PARITY.
How can parity be justified? Why should Ambrose be given a faster car because other FORD teams are down the back. Surely if one FORD can be up the front why cant another? Why should Holden drivers, currently running at rear of field consitently, be penalised?

Project blueprint is designed to make the cars even and that is what they are. A FORD won the championship last year, so what more do you want?

mmciau · 14 Aug 2004, 02:10 (Ref:1065525)

Parity, what BS - Holden cars are virtually all "Ford" running gear specification now with Holden silhouette!!!!

Mike

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 02:13 (Ref:1065527)

Exactly Mike, thankyou if only everybody thought the same way as you and opened both eyes.

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 02:20 (Ref:1065530)

Of course, tiko ... and thanks for that totally "unbiased" essay 2 posts back ... do you have to read it with both "red" eyes?

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 02:40 (Ref:1065540)

deeks6, you plainly and simply cannot handle the facts, both with the Ambrose case and parity. Those are the facts. Biased or unbiased the FACTS ARE THE FACTS. I can understand the FACTS, thousands of others, whilst not posting on here, can understand and handle the facts but not you.

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 03:22 (Ref:1065560)

Quote:

Originally posted by tiko

How can parity be justified?

I think you said it all with that that little Freudian gem above...

Yes, the facts are the facts:

1. When was the last time a Ford won Bathurst?
2. How many Fords have won Bathurst since V8SC?
3. How many titles have Ford won since V8SC? Since 1997?
4. Why havent Lowndes, Ingall and Bargwanna been able to repeat the results they had in Holdens?
5. On the other hand, why have Bright and Weel's results improved?
6. Why was the AU forced to remain the same despit PROOF that it was at a disadvantage?
7. You say the VY is a vastly different car but the BA is obviously not...then the BA is just like an AU is it? I rest my case.

First it was the "drivers are better", then it was "more professional" and "more research" etc - they are running out of excuses but the song remains the same.

I think you know what you can do with your one red eyed, biased take on the "facts".

If parity truly existed then there would be vastly different results. You, and every other Holden supporter, know that you have had a huge advantage over the past 8 years or so and it appears as though it will continue.

bartman71 · 14 Aug 2004, 03:25 (Ref:1065561)

holden are the ones that pushed for the changes to the engine and suspension.
i think what everyone is complaining about is the areo parity.
2 diffrent styles of rear wings will always produce diffrent downforce/drag

retro · 14 Aug 2004, 03:29 (Ref:1065565)

click here= not the full story but interesting reading

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 04:25 (Ref:1065632)

Deeks6 you just dont understand it. You cant base parity off race results alone. More often than not Ford drivers and teams have lost races through bad strategy and errors during crucial pitstops (Oran Park 02 - Ambrose) and driver errors (Sandown 03 - Ingall). I know you will find this hard to believe and hard to take it but again its the facts and as learned, understandably you cant handle these. In the past 5 years Ford have had pole on 3 occasions and provisional pole in 2002.

The bottom line is that season 03 was the first year of project blueprint and if you want the race results:
Race results: 22 races - 13 FORD wins, 9 Holden
Championship:
1 FORD

At any stage during last year did the word parity get mentioned? NO
Isn't that quite ironic, now that the Fords are getting beaten the word parity pops up. Whats the matter can't handle losing?
Well get used to it and Get over it.

GAME OVER

pigsy · 14 Aug 2004, 04:43 (Ref:1065669)

Oran Park Qualifying - 2 Fords in the top 10 - SBR cars only. We have parity (not).

sizzle · 14 Aug 2004, 04:59 (Ref:1065677)

Quote:

Originally posted by pigsy
Oran Park Qualifying - 2 Fords in the top 10 - SBR cars only. We have parity (not).

If the TWO SBR cars are in the top ten (MA second quickest) then I would have thought you should be asking the other blue teams why they aren't, not whinging. I think you need to make a new record this one has been done to death.

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 05:06 (Ref:1065686)

Quote:

Originally posted by tiko
Back to the actual topic - PARITY.
How can parity be justified? Why should Ambrose be given a faster car because other FORD teams are down the back. Surely if one FORD can be up the front why cant another? Why should Holden drivers, currently running at rear of field consitently, be penalised?

Of course, I'm just a simple Ford follower with no idea about the "facts" but I think the argument used to go - "why should we penalise the other Holdens just because HRT are doing a better job?"

ATCC results:

1996 - HRT
1997 - Seton (Ford) obvious blip
1998 - HRT
1999 - HRT
2000 - HRT
2001 - HRT
2003 - HRT
2004 - SBR (time to throw another scrap to them)

Pick the common denominator...I suppose HRT MUST have had TC, eh, tiko?

I guess the argument "why should we penalise other Fords just because SBR are doing a good job?" won't wash because of their dominance over a period of time (1 year)????

Wanna go further?

1996 - HRT 1,4 in ATCC Other Holdens: 5,6,7,9 (6/10)
1997 - HRT 4,6 Other Holden 3,5,9,10 (6/10)
1998 - HRT 1,3 Other Holden 2,4,7 (5/10)
1999 - HRT 1,3 Other Holden 2,5,6,7,9 (7/10)
2000 - HRT 1,3 Other Holden 2,6,7,8,9 (7/10)
2001 - HRT 1,3 Other Holden 2,4,6,10 (6/10)
2002 - HRT 1,4 Other Holden 2,5,6,9,10 (7/10)
2003 - HRT 3,9 Other Holden 2,4,6,8 (6/10)

And Holden won Bathurst in every year except 97.

So, of a possible 80 top 10 positions in the ATCC, Holden have filled 50 of them. They have filled the top 3 positions a staggering 4 out of the 8 years, the Top 4 TWICE. Of more concern may be the fact that of the possible 48 Top 6 positions in the ATCC, Holden have filled a whopping 35 of them (or 73%)...yipes, that's equal...

And, as 2004 pans out, and the Holden teams get their extra HP on line with Aurora engines, it seems nothing changes much...

2004 ATCC current standings:

Holden 1,2,3,6,7,8

It would appear that the rightful order has been resumed and all is well at the Evil Empire...I seem to recall some tricks with radiator positioning at the Project Blueprint tests but that is washed into the background.
Until they take a Holden and a Ford straight from an ATCC round and stick them in a wind tunnel, there will be no true indication.

Drivers? Well CL, RI and JB were regular winners and always competitive in Holdens - now subsitute JB in a Holden. Longhurst was one of the drivers considered "no good" in a Ford but I recall he drove a HRT car and, all of a sudden wins Bathurst. Too many other examples of this "red herring"...

Yes, the FACTS certainly support you, tiko, parity is not an issue at all, everything is wonderful in the world of V8SC - that is, as long as you like one brand.

Conrod Kieron · 14 Aug 2004, 05:21 (Ref:1065692)

Quote:

Originally posted by tiko
Deeks6 you just dont understand it. You cant base parity off race results alone. More often than not Ford drivers and teams have lost races through bad strategy and errors during crucial pitstops (Oran Park 02 - Ambrose) and driver errors (Sandown 03 - Ingall). I know you will find this hard to believe and hard to take it but again its the facts and as learned, understandably you cant handle these. In the past 5 years Ford have had pole on 3 occasions and provisional pole in 2002.

The bottom line is that season 03 was the first year of project blueprint and if you want the race results:
Race results: 22 races - 13 FORD wins, 9 Holden
Championship:
1 FORD

At any stage during last year did the word parity get mentioned? NO
Isn't that quite ironic, now that the Fords are getting beaten the word parity pops up. Whats the matter can't handle losing?
Well get used to it and Get over it.

GAME OVER

Parity was last checked at the Winton round.

Its based on a formula of fastest laps for the top 3 or so cars from each brand. Prior to the introduction of this (circa this time 2 years ago when the aerodynamics of the AU were proven to be below that of the Holden on the front end) it was race wins iirc, yet still no parity was given.

According to Brad Jones last night on Panelbeaters, the decision for a parity adjustment was extremely close.

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 05:22 (Ref:1065693)

Live in the now. If one FORD can do it then surely others can. Sorry deeks6 your just going to have to live with it whetehr you like it or not. I cant be bothered justifing myself to you because theres just no point, you can handle it. You say TL jumps in a HRT and wow he finally does something, ever thought maybe its a team thing! Doesnt seem to be blowing the world away in A CPM car does he? No. exactly.

So in concluding it all comes down to what different teams do. Obviously SBR are doing things right and DJR arent. Obviously years ago HRT were doing the right things.

GET OVER PARITY. JUST BE GRATIOUS IN DEFEAT AND GET OVER IT.

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 05:29 (Ref:1065696)

Quote:

Originally posted by tiko

Whats the matter can't handle losing?

As a matter of fact, yes - if you can "get over" your condescension for a second and look up the results in my last post, it would be fairly obvious that any one remaining a Ford follower for the past 8 years can handle it. But you just "would'nt get it" if you reckon you have a RIGHT to win...and, with those results, it would be easy to think that way.

Never mind, whatever you say will be supporteed by the authorities as it always has and the natural order gas been restored.

Oh, to save you looking it up:

Noun:condescension
1. The trait of displaying arrogance by patronising those considered inferior
2. A communication that indicates lack of respect by patronising the other

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 06:02 (Ref:1065708)

So why were'nt you complaining parity last year? Just complain as soon as you start losing. Got 3 words for you - G E T O V E R I T

sizzle · 14 Aug 2004, 06:05 (Ref:1065711)

Quote:

Originally posted by tiko
So why were'nt you complaining parity last year? Just complain as soon as you start losing. Got 3 words for you - G E T O V E R I T

Like he said

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 06:16 (Ref:1065720)

Quote:

Originally posted by deeks6
as soon as the Holden teams come to grips with their new suspension and (better) Aurora engines, the natural order of things will be resumed

That would be here ... I have re-quoted it so you can R-E-A-D it.

And, despite that term you are addicted to we (at least I) are "over it" and you Holden fans will sooon be able to rejoice again. It must give you the same sort of joy that a tiger gets from mauling a baby fawn. At least when the Fords win, it is deserved and against "real" competition.

Boss330 · 14 Aug 2004, 06:33 (Ref:1065734)

Quote:

Originally posted by deeks6
That would be here ... I have re-quoted it so you can R-E-A-D it.

And, despite that term you are addicted to we (at least I) are "over it" and you Holden fans will sooon be able to rejoice again. It must give you the same sort of joy that a tiger gets from mauling a baby fawn. At least when the Fords win, it is deserved and against "real" competition.

My friend you are letting the vermin get to you!!!!
It's always been stacked their way since 1972, like the song says, footballs meatpies & holden cars, holden is perceived by the bleating media has australia's own & it's feed to the drones out there.Bit i'll tell you this much....They cant build road cars for ****.

deeks6 · 14 Aug 2004, 06:36 (Ref:1065736)

Quote:

Originally posted by Boss330
My friend you are letting the vermin get to you!!!!
It's always been stacked their way since 1972, like the song says, footballs meatpies & holden cars, holden is perceived by the bleating media has australia's own & it's feed to the drones out there.Bit i'll tell you this much....They cant build road cars for ****.

Yes, the TRUTH is out there ...

tiko · 14 Aug 2004, 06:38 (Ref:1065737)

deeks6, if holden teams can get acquainted with the Ford suspension why cant the Ford team do it? Do they need a hand engineering their cars? Well we should lend DJR or BJR Brightys engineer or Skaife and then we shall see. Well hangone why dont we give them SBR's engineers after there doing the same job on a Falcon, but obviously better!

How do YOU know that the Holden Motorsport Engine (not an Aurora) is better? Have you dyno'ed them both, anlaysing BHP figues. Historically the Ford engine has had more grunt than the Chev.

Anyway this is getting no where because I strongly believe what I and most involved in the sport believe and you believe what you believe, the typical punters view.

bartman71 · 14 Aug 2004, 07:06 (Ref:1065748)

Quote:

Originally posted by tiko

How do YOU know that the Holden Motorsport Engine (not an Aurora) is better? Have you dyno'ed them both, anlaysing BHP figues. Historically the Ford engine has had more grunt than the Chev.

yeah ford can build a good engine. i don't see HOLDEN building any good engines they have to use chev's
fords also build better diffs and suspension it is mainly the aero letting them down.

mmciau · 14 Aug 2004, 07:20 (Ref:1065754)

Holy hell, the amount of dribbling going on at the moment!!

Under the current regime of engine regulations, where are the 5 litre engine blocks for both marques sourced from?
As a global generalisation, there are decidely more production-based (oriented) GM V8 engine blocks used in US and Australian racing than Ford. Have a look at the number of Chevy derived V8s used in speedway.

And the V8s used in the Australian series NOW are no longer a current production engine per se. GM use a 5.7 litre engine and Ford use a 5.4 litre engine.

So the engines the V8 Supercars use is a contrived engine capacity.

Mike