Parity- Its coming!

[hgmonaro]

Originally Posted by porsche91722

100% agree, I don't know why the parity thing even gets dragged up again.

who drags it up all the time?

[rustyinsthoz]

Originally Posted by hgmonaro

who drags it up all the time?

Its dragged up anytime one make is winning all the races.

[David Brand]

Originally Posted by peckstar

thats bull champcar man

and its this simple GT left mark skaife for dead last year, same cars only difference was the driver.

Jenson button on the other hand was an also ran, suddenly he is leading the championship

You just contradicted yourself...

Jenson suddenly moving from one end of the field to the other was obviously the effect of a change of car, not driver...

In most categories it's regarded as 40% chassis 30% engine 30% driver, in F1 it would more likely be 5-10% driver.


As for the parity argument, I wouldn't doubt 888 have more going on than a flexi splitter. They seem to have very very good straightline speed...

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by David Brand

As for the parity argument, I wouldn't doubt 888 have more going on than a flexi splitter. They seem to have very very good straightline speed...

Flexi splitter ? It was the splitter mounts that were flexible not the splitter itself...... I think you need to pay a little more attention to the facts as it makes your feeble accusations look like total dribble.....

[Go Harder.]

Originally Posted by David Brand

As for the parity argument, I wouldn't doubt 888 have more going on than a flexi splitter. They seem to have very very good straightline speed...

Indeed. This was something myself and a few mates picked up on during the winton event. 888 have incredible straight line speed, while at the same time their cars are seen as being more fuel efficient than most others (if not all). Might be something the struggling teams need to take note of although I think there is more to it than just the engine department. Come on Holden, the 6-Nil scoreline is costing me a lot of beer!

[Axeman444]

The 888-ers have also been notoriously good on their tyres for longer, and it seems their chassis are doing simliar things for DJR, WSR and Inta now

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by David Brand

As for the parity argument, I wouldn't doubt 888 have more going on than a flexi splitter. They seem to have very very good straightline speed...

David, i am reading this post and to me it suggests thay triple 8 have a flexible splitter.

I umderstand that you are trying to say tht the reason triple 8 are doing so well is becasue of other things. But it does create confusion.

[David Brand]

Originally Posted by peckstar

David, i am reading this post and to me it suggests thay triple 8 have a flexible splitter.

I umderstand that you are trying to say tht the reason triple 8 are doing so well is becasue of other things. But it does create confusion.

kow about being a little less harsh on posters and maybe taking the opportunity to clarify

To clarify...well the mounting is only to allow the splitter to have flex when it collides with something, so my statement wasn't really that wrong. In the context of what I was trying to say that technicality was fairly irrelevant.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Go Harder.

Indeed. This was something myself and a few mates picked up on during the winton event. 888 have incredible straight line speed,

Maybe their straight line speed comes from better "power down" out of the corners and better "turn in" when entering a corner, giving them a speed advantge on the straights. And that would give the drivers more confidence to push a little harder.

[SSbaby]

When Holden were penalised, it was HRT dominating while the other Holden campaigners were just making up the numbers.

888 are now dominating. Ford teams appear to be more competitive than their Holden counterparts. Although I think that Ford teams appear to have their cars better sorted, the grounds for parity would discount that notion.

As my first statement implies, Ford should be penalised... if history is any guide.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

When Holden were penalised, it was HRT dominating while the other Holden campaigners were just making up the numbers.

888 are now dominating. Ford teams appear to be more competitive than their Holden counterparts. Although I think that Ford teams appear to have their cars better sorted, the grounds for parity would discount that notion.

As my first statement implies, Ford should be penalised... if history is any guide.

I can't actually remember holden ever being penalised......I can remember them getting more power with the Aurora engine and I can remember them getting better, more advanced double wishbone front suspension......please outline the parity issues where they suffered......and I am not trying to be sarcastic.

[peckstar]

bluesport after the BA was introduced and about 3 drivers were running the AU (but not the top teams) there was an adjustment to help the AU out. im sure thats what SS baby is referring to, cause otehrwise there is nothing

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by peckstar

bluesport after the BA was introduced and about 3 drivers were running the AU (but not the top teams) there was an adjustment to help the AU out. im sure thats what SS baby is referring to, cause otehrwise there is nothing

Thanks for that peckstar, but I don't think SSbaby was referring to that and I honestly can't think of when holden was ever penalised.

[peckstar]

i tend to agree with you

[PhaseIII]

That's right, in the above scenario IIRC didn't the AUs have their splitter undertray shortened?

[Tourer]

Guys,

The Holden undertrays were shortened when the AU was the Ford weapon.

I can't remember if it was VT or VY but the change was brought in for Darwin, so teams were trimming the 100mm off all around the paddock.

It was the first time when a time measurement of the majority of the field was used to make a parity decision - leading to the system that was later locked in.

Basically take the 20 best laps of each the 10 fastest cars of each manufacturer at each race - average these out for a "Ford" lap and a "Holden" lap. Do this over several race meetings and there you have it.

This showed up a need to even up the cars and as the Ford undertray couldn't be lengthened, the Holden undertray was shortened.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Guys,

The Holden undertrays were shortened when the AU was the Ford weapon.

I can't remember if it was VT or VY but the change was brought in for Darwin, so teams were trimming the 100mm off all around the paddock.

It was the first time when a time measurement of the majority of the field was used to make a parity decision - leading to the system that was later locked in.

Basically take the 20 best laps of each the 10 fastest cars of each manufacturer at each race - average these out for a "Ford" lap and a "Holden" lap. Do this over several race meetings and there you have it.

This showed up a need to even up the cars and as the Ford undertray couldn't be lengthened, the Holden undertray was shortened.

OK, thanks Tourer. Did the shortened undertray have the desired effect?

[Tourer]

Not really but it did narrow the gap.

Was one of those strange situations where the AUs would be off the pace at two tracks then on the pace at one and so it went.

I think at the end of the day the AU was just very very hard work and the ability to compete properly only started to happen for the Ford teams with the BA. It was still very close between the two makes but the BA was just a bit more useable.

If you look at it back in the early days of the BA, it was Ambrose/SBR that had the car sorted - with a number of Holdens following in his wake before another Ford was sighted but over time they got a handle on it.

To me its pretty even right now. I don't see a big speed advantage either way. Parity is about getting performance as close to each other as possible and to me a number of the red cars have shown pace this year but have not converted into wins and that has been the difference (mind you, only three rounds and an NC meeting into the season & 3 have been street tracks which tend to be more about commitment and less about outright speed).

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I can't actually remember holden ever being penalised......I can remember them getting more power with the Aurora engine and I can remember them getting better, more advanced double wishbone front suspension......please outline the parity issues where they suffered......and I am not trying to be sarcastic.

What's that midnight oil song again? "Short memories... must have a short memory..."

The VE chassis was morphed into the VT chassis (shorter wheelbase, narrower track etc...) even though there were no aero tests conducted to balance out any potential discrepancies between the BA and VE racers, one way or the other. HRT claimed the VE has more aero drag than the VT, but this was never verified by independent tests. Clearly the VE racer is the least successful of the Holden racers since the advent of V8SC.

Are you sure the Aurora (HMS) engine's got more power than the Ford's? You cannot prove that even if you had a tin foil hat on. And forget the double-wishbone front end, the Holden's actually didn't get any technical advantage once they reverted to the supposedly superior front end, despite the whinging.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Tourer

To me its pretty even right now. I don't see a big speed advantage either way. Parity is about getting performance as close to each other as possible and to me a number of the red cars have shown pace this year but have not converted into wins and that has been the difference (mind you, only three rounds and an NC meeting into the season & 3 have been street tracks which tend to be more about commitment and less about outright speed).

Yes but remember Ford's then CEO, Geoff Polities, was the main driver behind the parity push. To him, parity was about maintaining a 50:50 win-loss ratio between respective makes, irrespective of the performances of individual teams. This implies that Holden should be winning more races even if they have a few runners who are dragging the chain.

[David Brand]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Yes but remember Ford's then CEO, Geoff Polities, was the main driver behind the parity push. To him, parity was about maintaining a 50:50 win-loss ratio between respective makes, irrespective of the performances of individual teams. This implies that Holden should be winning more races even if they have a few runners who are dragging the chain.

Well I didn't really think about that before. It's not good value for a manufacturer to be pouring money into the sport only for their 4-wheeled advertisements not crossing the finish line first in 9 consecutive races.

To be honest the Holden teams/drivers have been shooting themselves in the feet. But I just wonder if it's because they have to push so much harder to maintain the same lap speed as the Fords, introducing errors. I guess it's still too early to tell, but Holden & Holden fans are going to get frustrated if the trend continues.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

What's that midnight oil song again? "Short memories... must have a short memory..."

The VE chassis was morphed into the VT chassis (shorter wheelbase, narrower track etc...) even though there were no aero tests conducted to balance out any potential discrepancies between the BA and VE racers, one way or the other. HRT claimed the VE has more aero drag than the VT, but this was never verified by independent tests. Clearly the VE racer is the least successful of the Holden racers since the advent of V8SC.

The independent aero tests between the BA and VE were undertaken largely at Woomera by TEGA and were heavily publicised at the time with photographs in the media, press releases, statements from the teams and manufacturers and I think even an TV story or two.

What's that about a short memory?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Yes but remember Ford's then CEO, Geoff Polities, was the main driver behind the parity push. To him, parity was about maintaining a 50:50 win-loss ratio between respective makes, irrespective of the performances of individual teams. This implies that Holden should be winning more races even if they have a few runners who are dragging the chain.

Geoff was a great bloke and was making quite a bit of noise in the media about it at the time but that was not the driver for the change - it was empirical analysis and measurement that led to the change. In the same way that Simple Simon was making noise last year, but empirical measurement and analysis showed that he had no case and no change was made.

[Malfunction Junction]

SSBaby,

The fact that Polites was wrong then doesn't make the principle right now.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The independent aero tests between the BA and VE were undertaken largely at Woomera by TEGA and were heavily publicised at the time with photographs in the media, press releases, statements from the teams and manufacturers and I think even an TV story or two.

What's that about a short memory?

You sure that was VE or was it VZ? I had no idea that VE was aero tested back to back with BA? Please reinvigorate my failing memory.

What should be done is a back to back test involving VE and FG. Or has this test already been carried out and is my short term memory letting me down again?