ParityParityParityParity - Page 15

lcfp2297 · 13 Oct 2004, 22:47 (Ref:1123804)

Quote:

Originally posted by Peregrine
Bathurst is the fastest circuit hence aerodynamics are most critical at this track. Ford does not have the equivalent rear end downforce and hence rear end grip at high speed to match the Holdens. In order to "balance" the car and not chew out the rear tyres Ford has to reduce grip in the front end to "effectively" create more grip in the rear. By doing so the front tyres now slide more across the surface of the track than they ideally should and overheat/delaminate. This is the reason that Ford cannot compete at Bathurst where the cars must negotiate high speed high load corners for long periods as their front tyres are shot well before the Holdens.

Go ahead Sidchrome and start carrying on about the lack of facts, but anyone who understands the basic dynamics of car set up will understand what I mean.

But blueprint was signed off (by Ford) as front and rear downforce being approximately equal between the two makes:confused: (I know it wasn't the most accurate test...but...)

So where does this "less downforce in the rear" line keep coming from???

mmciau · 13 Oct 2004, 23:02 (Ref:1123818)

icfp2297,
I recall this line of argument about front and rear downforce - i think they struck a compromise and it lead to the rear wing being closer to the boot line on the BA whereas the rear wing on the Holden extended further rearward out from the boot.

If you look at the leading edge of the front spoiler it is longer (extended) on a BA than a Holden.

Mike

malarky · 13 Oct 2004, 23:12 (Ref:1123824)

Or is it simply Ford fans upset that Holden won six in a row?

They have a Ford leading the championship, on the back of Ford being the current touring car champions. A Ford has won two of the three endurance races this year, and filled six of the seven top places at Bathurst, yet now we have pages of stats and argument that the Falcon should get concessions?

When Ambrose wins I read dozens of gloating posts by Ford fans telling everyone how fabulous he is and how he was untouchable.

Well I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. If a well set up BA can win, then it's up to other Ford teams to lift their game. Just like when HRT were winning, it was up to other Holden teams to lift.

Whilst there were failures and or bad luck for GRM, PWR, CPR and HRT on Holden's side at Bathurst. There was also a range of failures and or bad luck, almost as prolific on the Ford side.

Bowe's car was suffering tyre delamination (possibly a fault of the Dunlop tyre and not Ford's front end downforce) and Lowndes thing was smoking like a granny in an RSL pokey lounge. You could argue that both these cars were in trouble and their dramas had little to do with parity issues.

Once more (just like the top Holden teams this year), Ford had a run of bad luck, bad driving and poor reliability.

And Mike, the reason the BA's nose looks like a boogie board was to even up the front end downforce. Both manufactures and the TEGA board (made up of Holden and Ford team representatives) all signed off on the aero kits. Since then a BA has won the championship and currently leads this years title chase.

A Holden's won one endurance race this season and now we have screams for parity adjustments to the Ford.

Um

lcfp2297 · 14 Oct 2004, 04:03 (Ref:1123904)

Mike, yes they extended the nose to increase the BA's front downforce to match the VY...and clipped the rear wing of the BA to bring the downforce down to that of the VY...they made the changes to the BA because the VY had a much more balanced downforce ratio front to rear...

They did it this way to take into account the different lift and downforce charateristics of the base body shapes...so the end result was approximately equal downforce at the front of each make and also at the rear...

Peregrine · 14 Oct 2004, 06:57 (Ref:1123954)

Thanks Icfp2297 you have made my point perfectly !! Ford presented an aero package for homologation/parity testing that left them with a balance they were obviously comfortable with for the BA, but yet again the powers that be made Ford alter their package so as to bring it back to the same level as the Holden. Same thing happened with the original AU aero package..... why is that Ford always has to compromise it's aero package in the name of "parity" given that it has spent many hours and $'s developing it in the first place whilst the Holden gets to retain the package it is comfortable with ? The series is, and always has been biased toward Holden, but that is what makes a Ford victory so sweet !!!

deeks6 · 14 Oct 2004, 11:25 (Ref:1124175)

Quote:

Originally posted by Peregrine
Thanks Icfp2297 you have made my point perfectly !! Ford presented an aero package for homologation/parity testing that left them with a balance they were obviously comfortable with for the BA, but yet again the powers that be made Ford alter their package so as to bring it back to the same level as the Holden. Same thing happened with the original AU aero package..... why is that Ford always has to compromise it's aero package in the name of "parity" given that it has spent many hours and $'s developing it in the first place whilst the Holden gets to retain the package it is comfortable with ? The series is, and always has been biased toward Holden, but that is what makes a Ford victory so sweet !!!

Amen

... and on the eighth day God created the Holden ... and long may it reign!

And it will

Aarrgh8 · 14 Oct 2004, 22:15 (Ref:1124805)

Don't stop now, Deeks. Only a couple of posts before you reach your half century in this thread. You could grab a quick single by running that one about Holden supporters being stuck records again.

Aarrgh8 · 14 Oct 2004, 22:17 (Ref:1124808)

On second thoughts...

deeks6 · 14 Oct 2004, 22:31 (Ref:1124813)

Quote:

Originally posted by Aarrgh8
Don't stop now, Deeks. Only a couple of posts before you reach your half century in this thread. You could grab a quick single by running that one about Holden supporters being stuck records again.

Sums up the difference, really. I produce something measurable ... you count posts. Thats the sort of super high-tech contribution you Holdens fans continue to offer ...
Don't spill your beads or you'll have to take more medicine.

malarky · 15 Oct 2004, 01:48 (Ref:1124878)

Quote:

Originally posted by Peregrine
Thanks Icfp2297 you have made my point perfectly !! Ford presented an aero package for homologation/parity testing that left them with a balance they were obviously comfortable with for the BA, but yet again the powers that be made Ford alter their package so as to bring it back to the same level as the Holden. Same thing happened with the original AU aero package..... why is that Ford always has to compromise it's aero package in the name of "parity" given that it has spent many hours and $'s developing it in the first place whilst the Holden gets to retain the package it is comfortable with ? The series is, and always has been biased toward Holden, but that is what makes a Ford victory so sweet !!!

I keep reading these posts about Ford being made to change the original AU homologated kits and that’s essentially true. However, the reason that they were made to change had nothing to do with bringing them back to Holden or yet more conspiracy theories. Greg Harbutt the then Ford Motosport boss had a kit designed and built that simply did not comply with the rules at the time. There were (and are) strict guidelines as to the dimensions, placement and design of the aero add ons and Ford (or more accurately Harbutt) chose to ignore those rules and spent hundreds of thousands having a kit designed, fitted to a Falcon and flown to the US to be tested in a Ford truck wind tunnel.

Now the kit may or may not have been better than what the AU eventually ended up with, but it was not within the rules, which is why TEGA made Ford change it.

I repeat, it had nothing to do with conspiracy or making life harder for Ford. They simply chose not to follow the rules. Now whether that was intentional or simply a mistake is up to the individual to judge for themselves.

However, Mr Harbutt was soon despatched to another division and replaced by Steve Kruk.

But please, no more conspiracy theories or Ford getting the short end of the stick.

They only had themselves to blame in this case.

hrug:

Joe5619 · 15 Oct 2004, 04:02 (Ref:1124902)

Quote:

Originally posted by malarky
I keep reading these posts about Ford being made to change the original AU homologated kits and that’s essentially true. However, the reason that they were made to change had nothing to do with bringing them back to Holden or yet more conspiracy theories. Greg Harbutt the then Ford Motosport boss had a kit designed and built that simply did not comply with the rules at the time. There were (and are) strict guidelines as to the dimensions, placement and design of the aero add ons and Ford (or more accurately Harbutt) chose to ignore those rules and spent hundreds of thousands having a kit designed, fitted to a Falcon and flown to the US to be tested in a Ford truck wind tunnel.

Now the kit may or may not have been better than what the AU eventually ended up with, but it was not within the rules, which is why TEGA made Ford change it.

I repeat, it had nothing to do with conspiracy or making life harder for Ford. They simply chose not to follow the rules. Now whether that was intentional or simply a mistake is up to the individual to judge for themselves.

However, Mr Harbutt was soon despatched to another division and replaced by Steve Kruk.

But please, no more conspiracy theories or Ford getting the short end of the stick.

They only had themselves to blame in this case.
hrug:

!!WRONG!!

The ONLY reason Ford was not allowed to use it's own designed aero on the 'AU' was because Holden had a whinge that it was not allowed to when it introduced the VT.. The Ford 'AU' used the 'EL' aero.. And the only reason Holden couldn't update on the VT was because they introduced it mid year...

malarky · 15 Oct 2004, 04:54 (Ref:1124916)

Joe,

You need to go back and check your facts.

Ford reverted to a modified EL kit for the AU because the aero kit they originally developed for the new Falcon was simply ILLEGAL.

So they had little time (or money) to design another kit, so instead opted for a revised EL version.

Holden didn't 'whinge' about the VT kit. Holden and Ford via TEGA had agreed that future kits would retain the basic design parameters of the VS and EL kits.

HRT on behalf of all Holden teams made drawings and engineering detail of the VT kit available to TEGA during the VT racecar's development. Ford chose NOT to do the same for the AU. Instead Ford chose to covertly design a kit without consultation or guidance from TEGA. The subsequent design was outside the parameters and was rejected by TEGA.

Those are the facts.

A quick check through some old AA back issues will confirm this sequence of events.

Joe5619 · 15 Oct 2004, 05:22 (Ref:1124925)

What are you talking about.. There was no design involved in the VT & AU kits.... They where the pervious model kits fitted onto the new model.... And the original rule was Holden had to use the same aero kit on the VT because they chooce to introduce the VT mid year... Ford introduced the AU in between session & should have been allowed to update the aero... Holden whinage when Ford wanted to design a new aero kit for the AU... And then the rule come about that Ford had to use the EL kit on the AU same as Holden did… Difference Holden introduced it’s model mid year (Which was a bent of the rule!!) & Ford did so at the end of the year.. Holden won that round!!! Lucky for Holden the old kit worked well on the new model… Unlucky for Ford it did not!!

Peregrine · 15 Oct 2004, 05:26 (Ref:1124927)

Do you have a link to these facts ?? Didn't think so as they are a figment of your imagination.... Now back to the BA and your vivid imagination, why did Ford have to scrap the BA's wizzbang rear wing and get a John Deere bucket attached to the front ?

malarky · 15 Oct 2004, 05:32 (Ref:1124932)

I can read and what I posted was an accurate depiction of the events that took place.

Ford only have themselves to blame for the debacle that was the AU aero kit. It wasn't a conspiracy, just poor planning on Ford's part.

Simple really?

Peregrine · 15 Oct 2004, 05:44 (Ref:1124937)

...and your expert opinion on the BA alterations is ?

deeks6 · 15 Oct 2004, 06:01 (Ref:1124942)

Quote:

Originally posted by malarky
I can read and what I posted was an accurate depiction of the events that took place.

Ford only have themselves to blame for the debacle that was the AU aero kit. It wasn't a conspiracy, just poor planning on Ford's part.

Simple really?

It is simple ... Holden win the politics and ensure that parity does not exist ... time after time.

Even when it was proven that the AU was badly disadvantaged, a certain ex-DJR man (I think his name is Cattach had a deciding vote to even things up and chose not to because it may have been perceived as "bias" because of his links to Ford ... go figure!

You can't win even if you can.

rustyinsthoz · 15 Oct 2004, 09:23 (Ref:1125043)

Deeks6 verson of parity is that Ford are only allowed to have the fastest car and only Ford is allowed to win .

Aarrgh8 · 16 Oct 2004, 05:48 (Ref:1125736)

About ten of his posts (and a few thousand words) ago, Deeks said this:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by deeks6
[B]This will be my last word on the subject because history tells me you are smashing your head against a brick wall when it comes to this subject.

That was about as accurate and factual as everything he has said on the subject since.

malarky · 17 Oct 2004, 01:04 (Ref:1126379)

Whilst it's not nice to speak ill of the departed, it is reasonable to say that Greg Harbutt did little to help Ford in their winning ways. He was responsible for the debacle that was the AU body kit and it was out of desperation that Ford moved him on and brought in the late great H Marsden. It is he who got things back on track and Steve Kruk has continued Howard's excellent work. Although giving Lowndes free reign to wonder in the wilderness is hard to understand?

But you can claim conspiracy theories or Holden politicking all you like. The FACT is that TEGA stopped the original AU kit because it did not comply with the rules.

If you want to 'spin' that into a Cattach feeling guilty story, then that's up to you, but it ain't the truth.

Harbutt p()ssed away hundreds of thousands on designing and overseas testing of a kit that (had he and his team read the rules properly) was never going to be passed by TEGA, regardless of who their chairman used to work for.

And as far as the revised front Holden undertray that the AU got, it was TEGA who wanted to standardise the front tray and the Holden design gave the duel benefit of providing a little more front downforce and a more sturdy design.

If Ford had kept that shovel nosed monstrosity that they started with, it would have continued to fall off every time an AU went over anything higher than a pluto pup stick!

If you want to talk history, the FACTS are that Ford were given concessions from day one to get back into racing in the first place.

The original EB had a host of concessions over the VP Commodore and over a number of years, all Holden got, was what Ford had from the beginning. The original EB had no inner guard shot gun panels, wishbone suspension and a full front undertray (which the VP did not have) as well as a better designed engine top end.

The AU is proving time after time that it is capable of winning. Just look at Konica! You’re lucky to see a VT or VX in the top six most of the time.Why does the AU comprehensively smash the Holdens in this series?

Is it magic?

On the track the VT and VX destroyed the AU, yet now, they hardly get a look in.

What’s the reason?

Parity, if anything HOLDEN deserve a concession, not Ford…

I read complaints about Holden running two or three different specification cars at the same time. Again, this is only to bring Holden into line with what Ford already have (and have had all along).

As part of Blueprint, the VY changed to Ford’s front suspension as it was acknowledged by Ford, Holden and TEGA that the Falcon’s design was technically superior. Holden were given concessions to introduce their new engine, but this again only brings Holden level with Ford in terms of engine design, deck height, intake angles and so forth.

The simple answer has always been that Holden in general have had better teams and drivers. Bathurst once again, simply proved that.

When Ford get their act together (as with Ambrose and SBR), the Falcon is clearly capable of winning. It’s just that they are fighting a lone battle (as they have done since the final days of the AU).

I repeat, once more, that it is Holden – NOT Ford that have played catch up in the parity game since day one of V8’s.

bartman71 · 17 Oct 2004, 06:52 (Ref:1126465)

i understand that the AU's in the konica series have a diffrent aero package than in the main game.
i might be wrong tho

malarky · 17 Oct 2004, 08:53 (Ref:1126502)

Yep, they extended the front undertray a little, that's it...

The BA has an even larger front tray than the revised AU. Check one out the next time you're at the track and compare it to the Commodore. You could shelter a small family under the front of a BA if it was raining...

Driver · 17 Oct 2004, 23:10 (Ref:1126944)

I am sorry to get involved in this thread but....

Another reason that AU's go so well in the Konica's is that the Ford teams dumped their AU's as they were **** compared to the main game Commodores and the Holden teams kept and converted the VT/VX into VY. So all of a sudden you have really good AU's (which were still not good enough in the main game) against very tired VT/VX Commodores.

Also, the AU's got the extended front lip on the undertray to help front downforce.

Lastly, some of the Ford teams are supported by the main game teams (DJR,SBR,SER). You only have the HYL being supported by Holden and it seems in name only.

malarky · 17 Oct 2004, 23:43 (Ref:1126957)

And let's not forget BJR, after all young nephew Andy is the Konica series champion....

Driver · 18 Oct 2004, 00:03 (Ref:1126963)

So you understand why the Fords are so competetive in the Konica's