PARITY & The Modern Team Owner

[GTRMagic]

It seems the first hit out at Eastern Creek has had a few V8Supercar team owners commenting & grumbling about what they see as a disparity between the technical specification of the equipment they are allowed to run, and the equipment others' were allegedly allowed to run.

Whispers from the powder room suggest that one or both of the new entrants may or may not be running a range of technology applications that are not currently being run on the other manufacturer's powerplants.

These alleged technologies may or may not include flat plane crankshafts, fly by wire throttle systems, inconel exhaust materials, variable valve timing control, electric power steering, electric water pumps, exotic non-ferrous materials & component coatings, amongst other even wilder claims.

To quote our friends at Ferrari.com, "A flat-plane crankshaft is lighter than a 90-degree, or cross-plane crankshaft, and, having a lower rotating mass than the latter, provides sharper response as well as allowing higher maximum revs, useful when seeking higher power outputs. Another advantage of the flat-plane crank is that it allows more efficient exhaust manifold design. More revs, quicker, more power quicker.

A flat plane crankshaft was said to have been dyno tested some years ago by a championship winning blue team once held to have some of the strongest engines in the category, until, from memory, it was knocked on the head by the powers that be in the interests of cost containment.

There is a working group in charge of technical parity equalisation between the 4 brands, known as as the V8Supercar Commission, whose primary focus is on racing rules, regulations and formats.

This Commission, of which Mr Skaife is chair, has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring the 4 engine specifications are within a Balance of Performance, a series of data points relating to power & torque delivery set for each powerplant.

From what the funny papers have suggested, the engine BoP's have not yet been signed off for 2013, that the newcomers were being reviewed this week, prior to Clipsal.

The question is how to achieve engine parity in a multi format environment of 4 valve DOHC & 2 valve OHV applications.

Its hard to draw any conclusions from yesterday's adventures, watching the cars from the back of the support paddock, they were rarely at full tilt... and when they were, it was one lap at a time.. some of the cars had chassis issues that no amount of grunt was going to overcome..

Meantime, the Commission seems to be planning to dyno test every engine in the field prior to Clipsal to reset the indicators on the BoP metrics. Something that it is said will happen a number of times during the year, to maintain the parity objective.

Here's hoping that the transparency regarding technical specifications of all powerplants is made clear and open, or you can kinda see a power war starting... spending money developing new bits for existing powerplants to keep up with the 'haves'...

Presuming any of this actually happened

[Gaz170]

Is it just me or a fact that the Commodores were fastest after the aero changes something to ponder.

[Tourer]

One track, one test day & as GTR pointed out, many cars that still need sorting - too early to be drawing conclusions on aero benefit (or not).

There will be variations track to track etc & no doubt it'll take a bit of balancing out over the early part of the season.

[Umai Naa]

I'm more interested to see how they go when there's something to play for.

Perhaps V8SC could get ArmourAll involved in the test day, to hand over some coin for the fastest car of the day.

[DX20VT]

If they were looking at this weekend's test to see how parity was going,
of course Nissan and Merc would be slow at the test,
you wouldn't go there will a full power tune in the car as all you would get is HP taken off you.
Better to look like you struggle and then dial the power back in at the actual race event.??

[Goat Boy]

Parity be damned, I say! Let the Merc people show they can make a better engine than the Seppos, everyone knows it to be true. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig...

[chavez]

But weren't the Ford and Holden teams given the opportunity to choose another powerplant?

[Umai Naa]

There's been talk since the whole CotF thing kicked off, that Ford have an OHC engine in the works.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

There's been talk since the whole CotF thing kicked off, that Ford have an OHC engine in the works.

Ford could probably develop the Coyote five litre unit.

.........but seriously there should be no engine parity against Merc or Nissan unless they are winning everything. They should look at the overall package not just the engine, if Erebus and KR aren't winning then don't rob them of power and slow them down even more.........this seems like a case of wanting other manufacturers in the category as long as they don't win!

[Goat Boy]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Ford could probably develop the Coyote five litre unit.

.........but seriously there should be no engine parity against Merc or Nissan unless they are winning everything. They should look at the overall package not just the engine, if Erebus and KR aren't winning then don't rob them of power and slow them down even more.........this seems like a case of wanting other manufacturers in the category as long as they don't win!

Yes I agree with that!! That was why they came up with the 5 Litre V8 formula wasn't it, anything as long as it was made in Aussie and was a Falcon or a Commodore... Then you could be sure an Aussie brand would win every time!

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Ford could probably develop the Coyote five litre unit.

.........but seriously there should be no engine parity against Merc or Nissan unless they are winning everything. They should look at the overall package not just the engine, if Erebus and KR aren't winning then don't rob them of power and slow them down even more.........this seems like a case of wanting other manufacturers in the category as long as they don't win!

The question seems to be more of one of equivalent specification and development potential rather than the existing state of tune.

The Ford and Chev engines currently in use have had 20-odd years of development and are arguably closer to their maximum potential than these two newbies... and if the newbies are using technologies not afforded the Ford & Chev brigade, and they are as near as dammit similar in performance to the existing engines, with more development potential to be unlocked, you can kinda see the issue...

Or not..

Presuming any of this actually happened

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

The question seems to be more of one of equivalent specification and development potential rather than the existing state of tune.

The Ford and Chev engines currently in use have had 20-odd years of development and are arguably closer to their maximum potential than these two newbies... and if the newbies are using technologies not afforded the Ford & Chev brigade, and they are as near as dammit similar in performance to the existing engines, with more development potential to be unlocked, you can kinda see the issue...

Or not..

Presuming any of this actually happened

Exactly, you are right, but GTR you have overlooked one small thing........the state of their engines doesn't matter one iota if Nissan and Erebus aren't winning. To be looking at gagging them already before a race wheel has been turned is farcical..........Nissan and Erebus need to fire a warning shot across Skaife's bow if their engines are prematurely tampered with.

[mountainstar]

Surely people saw all this coming many moons ago, that nothing would be the same again.

Parity with all this is not going to be easy to achieve.

[Goat Boy]

Let's do away with parity!! Who needs it? As per my other thread

[Marcos WTF]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Ford could probably develop the Coyote five litre unit.

.........but seriously there should be no engine parity against Merc or Nissan unless they are winning everything. They should look at the overall package not just the engine, if Erebus and KR aren't winning then don't rob them of power and slow them down even more.........this seems like a case of wanting other manufacturers in the category as long as they don't win!

I'd love to see frod bring in the coyote- named after a member of the dog family, how apt.

As long as Holden can run the 6L Gen3. Be careful what you wish for.
Back to parity, it's way to early to tell.

I do wonder how it will be achieved though.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Marcos WTF

I'd love to see frod bring in the coyote- named after a member of the dog family, how apt.

As long as Holden can run the 6L Gen3. Be careful what you wish for.
Back to parity, it's way to early to tell.

I do wonder how it will be achieved though.

5L engine capacity ....head.

[Sultan]

I must admit, with quad cam being allowed I do wonder why ford didn't go with the coyote?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Sultan

I must admit, with quad cam being allowed I do wonder why ford didn't go with the coyote?

Because while everyone else has to spend millions developing an engine within very limited specifications, Ford already has one?

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

These alleged technologies may or may not include flat plane crankshafts, fly by wire throttle systems, inconel exhaust materials, variable valve timing control, electric power steering, electric water pumps, exotic non-ferrous materials & component coatings, amongst other even wilder claims.

Is fly by wire a big deal? For that matter is it supported by the control ECU, assuming that is still applicable? I would have thought that would address issues of variable valve timing too.

If electric accessory drives aren't banned then no issue, the other teams are free to adopt them also. Inconel and other materials surely are either banned or would be affected by minimum component weight specs? Or are there more loopholes in the regs than I imagine?

[Oran Park Forever]

Amazing....even before the first race of the new era & team owners are already on the case about what others have got. I would've thought a few races go by before the 'l want what he/she's got' game began.

But its what happened in Group C & A anyway....its just these team owners (apart from DJ) have never had to deal with 'foreigners' before....clearly they fear what they dont understand (or have!!)

The flat plane crank would certainly explain the glorious exhaust note of the Mercs....for the sake of shear entertainment value l sure hope they're allowed to keep it!!



.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by johnh875

Is fly by wire a big deal? For that matter is it supported by the control ECU, assuming that is still applicable? I would have thought that would address issues of variable valve timing too.

Fly by wire basically means that its almost impossible to police traction control, but I guess with a control ECU it might not be such a problem. I'm just not sure how sophisticated the mapping is allowed, ie look at what Red Bull were doing in F1 with a control ECU.

[Chappelli]

and nobodies talked fuel burn yet...

In theory, freedoms in the rules may decide who wins Bathurst..

[Bell_End]

http://www.nissan.com.au/~/media/Ima...rt%20Specs.jpg

Interesting info graphic from Nissian, crying about being short of HP but happy to claim 668hp for marketing.

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Fly by wire basically means that its almost impossible to police traction control, but I guess with a control ECU it might not be such a problem. I'm just not sure how sophisticated the mapping is allowed, ie look at what Red Bull were doing in F1 with a control ECU.

That is what I was referring to, that the control ECU wouldn't/shouldn't allow for feedback mapping type traction control, so without that maybe the electronic throttle is just a way to eliminate the traditional broken throttle cable retirement - to be replaced by the broken 20 cent part no doubt.