Petrol Parity Pantomimes

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Hoping that it proves ultimately incorrect, but noise out of Sandown at the weekend seems to suggest that E70 might be making itself available to at least one manufacturer brand for Bathurst.

I can hear Mr McNamara's politicking machine cranking up from here...

Presuming any of this actually happened

Great news, I hope it happens.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Hoping that it proves ultimately incorrect, but noise out of Sandown at the weekend seems to suggest that E70 might be making itself available to at least one manufacturer brand for Bathurst.

I can hear Mr McNamara's politicking machine cranking up from here...

Presuming any of this actually happened

V8SA would be a special kind of insane to even consider doing that.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by eduardo1

V8SA would be a special kind of insane to even consider doing that.

I wouldn't be too worried, the safety car will sort it out.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Is this the same worlds best practice that saw the E70 experiment?

Does he understand what COTF has done to market relevance Eg. The control V8SC engine - how market revelent would that be?

The assessment of E70 was indeed good practice - data collected and is there for all involved to make a call. Whether they feel it's the right call politically / commercially is another thing entirely.

The idea of a "control" engine that any manufacturer could use was killed off very early in the COTF process.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The assessment of E70 was indeed good practice - data collected and is there for all involved to make a call. Whether they feel it's the right call politically / commercially is another thing entirely.

To me - good practice would be having this locked down away from the competition arena and not using championship point scoring races as glorified test sessions?

Do NRL and AFL experiment with different rules for individual teams/players in races.

When you talk about integrity of the sport - Nissan first win under COTF rules has an asterisk next to it, which again isnt good practice let alone world class practice to which M Skaife is preaching.

Originally Posted by Tourer

The idea of a "control" engine that any manufacturer could use was killed off very early in the COTF process.

Thanks for the update. For some reason I had that in the back of my mind from the Volvo discussions recently.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

To me - good practice would be having this locked down away from the competition arena and not using championship point scoring races as glorified test sessions?

Do NRL and AFL experiment with different rules for individual teams/players in races.

When you talk about integrity of the sport - Nissan first win under COTF rules has an asterisk next to it, which again isnt good practice let alone world class practice to which M Skaife is preaching.

Actually the NRL & AFL have both made rule changes during the season but as they are not a parity structure like V8s, they haven't been restricted to one team or the other.

As has been discussed previously, dyno testing (which was done) & circuit testing (which was done) does not completely replicate actual in race parameters. Made complete sense to me to do the last step in the evaluation process during an actual race and I still think the same. The only other alternative would be to run the E70 at the long distance races on the basis of the non-race testing only. Imagine the outcry if in fact the parity adjustment had gone too far and only showed up in one of THOSE races, when Sheep Stations are well and truly on the line.

I also refer you to F1 testing new control tyres with specific teams at race meetings - sometimes, actual race meeting conditions are the only way to really know where the changes sit.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Imagine the outcry if in fact the parity adjustment had gone too far and only showed up in one of THOSE races, when Sheep Stations are well and truly on the line.

Does a championship round not constitute sheep stations? Did Winton not impact on the championship points and outcomes?

Originally Posted by Tourer

I also refer you to F1 testing new control tyres with specific teams at race meetings - sometimes, actual race meeting conditions are the only way to really know where the changes sit.

I assume this was available to all teams though - everyone on the same playing field?

[Tourer]

There are of course no rounds any more but races DRT - and the one race at Winton in which the E70 was trialled was worth way less points than the enduros. Given that the testing up to that race had indicated a change in economy but not in performance, it was a sensible approach to take.

Of course Pirelli made tyres available to a range of teams but again, F1 is not a parity series and the new tyres were not being introduced to specifically address a parity deficiency - if that HAD been the case, logic would suggest that only the teams needing the adjustment ran with the new tyres as that would have enabled direct comparison to the teams on the older spec tyres.

[mickyv8]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The assessment of E70 was indeed good practice - data collected and is there for all involved to make a call. Whether they feel it's the right call politically / commercially is another thing entirely.

I heard not only were some teams not aware E70 was tested but they were not shown any dyno testing. Have you seen it Tourer? Where is the link for all to see?

I watched segment discussing fuel on the weekend and no new information was made available. Todd Kelly and Mark Skaife said the data shows it was not an advantage, but they showed nothing to substantiate it. Mark Larkham then just drew a line through E70 and said it is not happening any more even though it did what they said. So why no E70? If it meant better economy so no fixed number of stops and no extra refuelling time for the Nissans why is it gone? It can't be just crossed off without explanation.

Originally Posted by Tourer

There are of course no rounds any more but races DRT - and the one race at Winton in which the E70 was trialled was worth way less points than the enduros. Given that the testing up to that race had indicated a change in economy but not in performance, it was a sensible approach to take.

What testing indicated a change in economy but not performance? If teams have not seen data how is it sensible? And what if the performance difference was not power but drivability? What if the fuel burnt better and made the car more responsive, isn't that a performance improvement? Get it off the corner that little bit earlier and there is your margin of difference.

And how can anyone support a championship race regardless of how many or few points are on offer being compromised by a trial of different fuel?

To me this all stinks to high heaven. A fuel tested at a championship race. The cars in question jump up in performance in qualifying and gain vital grid spots. They win. Then the fuel is removed and they fall back to their team mates. V8Supercar defends the test but remove the fuel for good. WHAT? Any sensible person has to question this. There is a stink in soccer at the moment............

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by mickyv8

I heard not only were some teams not aware E70 was tested but they were not shown any dyno testing. Have you seen it Tourer? Where is the link for all to see?

I watched segment discussing fuel on the weekend and no new information was made available. Todd Kelly and Mark Skaife said the data shows it was not an advantage, but they showed nothing to substantiate it. Mark Larkham then just drew a line through E70 and said it is not happening any more even though it did what they said. So why no E70? If it meant better economy so no fixed number of stops and no extra refuelling time for the Nissans why is it gone? It can't be just crossed off without explanation.



What testing indicated a change in economy but not performance? If teams have not seen data how is it sensible? And what if the performance difference was not power but drivability? What if the fuel burnt better and made the car more responsive, isn't that a performance improvement? Get it off the corner that little bit earlier and there is your margin of difference.

And how can anyone support a championship race regardless of how many or few points are on offer being compromised by a trial of different fuel?

To me this all stinks to high heaven. A fuel tested at a championship race. The cars in question jump up in performance in qualifying and gain vital grid spots. They win. Then the fuel is removed and they fall back to their team mates. V8Supercar defends the test but remove the fuel for good. WHAT? Any sensible person has to question this. There is a stink in soccer at the moment............

I'm going on Larko's report on the E70 from Winton - he said that the dyno running and testing had shown no performance improvement - "performance" by the way, is not simply power as again, according to Larko and the data that he referred to, the overall performance (that includes a range of factors) of the engine and the car did not change on E70.

I have no idea whether or not all teams have seen all data but the teams collectively and individually agreed to the in race trial of the fuel at Winton. For sure the Commission (with team representatives forming the majority) have seen the data based on Larko's report and subsequent reports. V8SC have shared full data with all teams many times before on evaluation tests like aero for example and it feels more likely that the data from these fuel runs was shared - but I don't KNOW 100% micky.

According to comments made by GTR above, the fuel may not have been removed for good - guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. As for comparing this to soccer's illegal betting scam, throwing games and the arrests coming from it - no comparison at all.

[mickyv8]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I'm going on Larko's report on the E70 from Winton - he said that the dyno running and testing had shown no performance improvement - "performance" by the way, is not simply power as again, according to Larko and the data that he referred to, the overall performance (that includes a range of factors) of the engine and the car did not change on E70.

I have no idea whether or not all teams have seen all data but the teams collectively and individually agreed to the in race trial of the fuel at Winton. For sure the Commission (with team representatives forming the majority) have seen the data based on Larko's report and subsequent reports. V8SC have shared full data with all teams many times before on evaluation tests like aero for example and it feels more likely that the data from these fuel runs was shared - but I don't KNOW 100% micky.

According to comments made by GTR above, the fuel may not have been removed for good - guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. As for comparing this to soccer's illegal betting scam, throwing games and the arrests coming from it - no comparison at all.

I thought so to until I heard whispers and went and watched that Winton video again and all Larko showed one lap of throttle and speed trace from Jamie Moffatt qualifying at Winton - THATS ALL! No dissection of the laps, no comparison with the JD Nissans on e85........

Same this weekend, one quick point at what he showed at Winton and then says "after the investigation no more E70" and draws a red line thru it!!!

STRANGE!!!! Then I sit and think about who Larko works for.......its V8S!!!!! Think about it. The story had Larko and his white board, Todd Kelly, Ross Stone and Mark Scaife all pushing there view yet only Simon Mc Namara on the other. No questions of Scaife, no look at data, just them saying its no different but then saying its finished without explanation.

You say you think the teams have seen the data but if the teams havent seen it how come??? And the commission, you say for sure based on Larko's report.....if that's all they saw its a worry. One lap of data? No way!

You think this is nothing like the soccer???? What if they know there is a difference and it is proved there is???? Look at the times from Winton. 0.15s would take a driver from 15 to pole!!!!! Not looking for much, on the gas just that little bit earlier a couple times and there you have it!!! It's a scandal in the making.

[GTRMagic]

It could all be settled on one afternoon on a dyno somewhere in SEQ... one engine, a proper engine mapping person & process, E85 and E70 fuels, same conditions for both

Develop a new fuel map for each fuel to optimise the MoTeC..

Produce a power & torque data sheet for each fuel solution

If they overlay 100% perfectly, the world will shut up.

When they dont (as is likely), E70 will quickly fall off the table.

[Tourer]

Micky - seems to me like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. You're right, Larko only showed data from two laps to compare - as an example. He did not show the data from the dyno results, he did not show the data from the testing done, he did not show al the data from all the laps of all the cars running E70 at Winton in comparison to the other cars in the race.

All that data I've mentioned above exists though and the people who have it have been assessing it according to various statements made since Winton. In other words, the commission aren't looking at one lap of data, they have it all. V8s have always downloaded full data traces from every car for every session at all race meetings and still do so - they have it all.

In all honesty I think that you're seeing too many possible conspiracies here. You're right about the closeness of the field at Winton - the Norton Nissans weren't the only cars that went from hero to zero or vice versa across the weekend - and the other cars with wildly varying performance relative to the field were on the same fuel all weekend.

For the sake of argument though, let's say you're right and there turned out to be a performance (rather than just economy) benefit of E70 that showed up under race conditions. The only way to truly judge that is under actual race conditions so the trial had to be run that way. It's really no different to parity changes such as front tray trims that have been brought in in previous years - the changes are made but the data is assessed under race conditions to be sure that the change has resulted in the desired outcome - if it doesn't, the change can be reviewed.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

It could all be settled on one afternoon on a dyno somewhere in SEQ... one engine, a proper engine mapping person & process, E85 and E70 fuels, same conditions for both

Develop a new fuel map for each fuel to optimise the MoTeC..

Produce a power & torque data sheet for each fuel solution

If they overlay 100% perfectly, the world will shut up.

When they dont (as is likely), E70 will quickly fall off the table.

Most of that was done by Mr Hasted as part of V8's process GTR - I don't know if new maps were done but the dyno comparisons certainly were. Out of those dyno runs and the on track testing done, the decision was taken to go the final step of an in race trial.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Most of that was done by Mr Hasted as part of V8's process GTR - I don't know if new maps were done but the dyno comparisons certainly were. Out of those dyno runs and the on track testing done, the decision was taken to go the final step of an in race trial.

If it had been taken to KRE or SBRE or InnoV8 or WP arguably the process would have had more credibility...

Especially when the testing could have been done blind...

[GTRMagic]

Erebus Keeps Working On Engine Performance

How is it that the Erebutians havent run out of ideas but the Nismoians have?

Interesting to read that engine development effectively stopped when the E70 'solution' was mooted.... is that the Nismo position too? Or is their budget tapped out?

How fast can you afford to go?

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Tourer

There are of course no rounds any more but races DRT

While true I am not sure how this makes to much difference to post??

Originally Posted by Tourer

- and the one race at Winton in which the E70 was trialled was worth way less points than the enduros. Given that the testing up to that race had indicated a change in economy but not in performance, it was a sensible approach to take.

But it was still worth points that will impact on the championship outcome will it not?

Considering the outcome of the trial, the outcry from teams, stakeholders questioning the integrity of the sport I am not sure how you can continue to suggest its either good or sensible practice?

Originally Posted by Tourer

Of course Pirelli made tyres available to a range of teams but again, F1 is not a parity series and the new tyres were not being introduced to specifically address a parity deficiency - if that HAD been the case, logic would suggest that only the teams needing the adjustment ran with the new tyres as that would have enabled direct comparison to the teams on the older spec tyres.

So with your above post, can we assume that the F1 scenario is not a valid or comparable example?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

If it had been taken to KRE or SBRE or InnoV8 or WP arguably the process would have had more credibility...

Especially when the testing could have been done blind...

Sorry, don't agree - Mr Hasted is the assigned V8 engine assessor, has the data from all the engines that he's run in that capacity and is the neutral expert. Any of the others you mentioned could easily be accused of bias plus by using Mr Hasted, the same workshop / dyno is used consistently.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

But it was still worth points that will impact on the championship outcome will it not?

Very true - the two points I've made don't change though - the final step in the trial process needed the E70 to be run in race conditions & it was better to do that at a low point scoring race to minimise any champ impact rather than in a high point scoring and high profile race such as Sandown or Bathurst.

The parity process over the years has consistently made changes when needed and assessed them under race conditions. Rather than a firmed up change, this was a one race trial, the final part of a professional evaluation and agreed to by all teams prior. The fact that some don't like the outcome doesn't mean that the pre-agreed process was wrong.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Considering the outcome of the trial, the outcry from teams, stakeholders questioning the integrity of the sport I am not sure how you can continue to suggest its either good or sensible practice?

Of course it was sensible practice, agreed to in advance by the teams. They weren't happy with the outcome and it appears that the different fuel idea has been shelved - not all trials produce the desired outcome and in this instance, the final step of the process raised enough questions to not go ahead. Professional evaluation, a multi-step trial and post trial dissection of data and a decision - all measured, thought out steps to fully test the validity of the E70 idea.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

So with your above post, can we assume that the F1 scenario is not a valid or comparable example?

Of course it's not comparable - but then neither were the references to NRL, AFL that you made & I was just putting that in context for you.

[rik]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How is it that the Erebutians havent run out of ideas but the Nismoians have?

Erebus/AMG started their process a lot later than Nissan, so that makes sense time wise.

Interesting to read that engine development effectively stopped when the E70 'solution' was mooted.... is that the Nismo position too? Or is their budget tapped out?

I think you need to re-read the article. Erebus agreed to "freeze" the engine spec for the enduros only. They didn't agree to stop development.

Perhaps it is budget related issues for the Kellys.

This whole situation really makes me think that Volvo are going to be in big trouble in the engine department next year. Could be quite embarrassing for V8s and the company.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Sorry, don't agree - Mr Hasted is the assigned V8 engine assessor, has the data from all the engines that he's run in that capacity and is the neutral expert. Any of the others you mentioned could easily be accused of bias plus by using Mr Hasted, the same workshop / dyno is used consistently.

They could equally use a Dynopack at a race circuit, arguably we will see any incremental changes as easily, and could do it in one of the pit garages. It is the incremental change at issue here, not outright power.

The issue with not using a current supplier to the V8Supercar field is a lack of recent knowledge of developing an E85 compliant V8Supercar engine...

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by rik

I think you need to re-read the article. Erebus agreed to "freeze" the engine spec for the enduros only. They didn't agree to stop development.

Development stopped on an evolution to be used for Sandown/Bathurst/Gold Coast... that's the point..

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Of course it was sensible practice, agreed to in advance by the teams. They weren't happy with the outcome and it appears that the different fuel idea has been shelved - not all trials produce the desired outcome and in this instance, the final step of the process raised enough questions to not go ahead. Professional evaluation, a multi-step trial and post trial dissection of data and a decision - all measured, thought out steps to fully test the validity of the E70 idea.

However according to Mickyv8 the teams didnt all know or agree to this?

Originally Posted by Tourer

Of course it's not comparable - but then neither were the references to NRL, AFL that you made & I was just putting that in context for you.

Both arent comparable as they as not trialling experimental activities with only a select teams during competition. The Pirelli example is different as its not opening itself up to favouring one team over another as in the V8SC case - thats why its not comparable.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

However according to Mickyv8 the teams didnt all know or agree to this?

I don't think that micky actually said that - he did raise that question though. All I can go on is Larko (and other releases at the time) saying that all teams had signed off on the process.

[GTRMagic]

Brings me back to my question, how was the fuel change handled in the rules if not through the category technical rules, or through an amendment to the supp regs



You might imagine if E70 arrives at Bathurst, a Holden team or 10 will lodge a protest...