holden front end and motor

[bartman71]

wondering if anyone could help me settle an arguement at work in regards holden front end and motor

as i recall holden wanted the double wish bone front end because the thought ford had an unfair advantage. i recall Larry Perkins saying this some time ago

the same thing with the motor i think they were saying the old chevs heads don't flow as well as the fords therefore less power.

as i have a few one eyed holden fans at work they won't beleive anything i say in regards to this issue. they think these things were done to slow holden down to the ford level.

anyone that could help i would much appreciate it.

[Big Trev]

It's true, most Holden Teams were chasing the Wishbone front end as it gives much better and more adjustment points than the McPherson Strut.

I am not sure of the reason behind the move to the Ford type layout for engines.

[Onlooker]

It was done to remove any arguement,the cars havent gone any slower just they are the same now.The tyres are the things that are slowing the cars now,what a set of 96 spec Brigestones on these cars and they would be a bit quicker,both of them.The Chev had to be updated as the Holden guys reckoned that it was no good when compared to the Ford version and the front end ,well if you are going to have a race car why put a McPhearson strut in it???It was probally one of the last principles of the road car left and it was a good oppurtunity to make them even ,so everyone has a chance to win

look at these times for the past 6 years to see how they stack up,now i know that the racing is getting faster and better all the time but infact the cars are at the same speed,just bunched up more.
Sandown race track Qualifying times
98 11.9 H
intoduction of control Bridgestone tyres
99 10.9 H
00 12.5 H
01 11.6 H
Dunlops
02 11.0 F
03 11.0 F
Not really compelling evidence that the cars needed to slow down infact the time was the same

Hope this helps
You can come up with any number of combinations,permutations and what ever depending on the situation but i chose sandown as it has a traceable history the other tracks don't have

[pete55]

The Dunlop tyre chosen was chosen for durability supposedly. They weren't looking for outright pace.

[GTRMagic]

Are we taking bets as to whether Dunlop will be re-tendering for the control tyre when the arrangement comes up for review in May?

Noise around and about suggests the sponsorship has met only some of the marketing objectives determined as key success criteria by the brand, with additional incremental sales one of the key items not fulfilled by the arrangement.

While the tyre cost pretty much covers itself, all the support track signage, on-teev advertising, and committed support to AVESCO is all funded thru SPT's marketing budget... and is said to be a significant sum of money!

[Adam Laws]

You are on the money bartman..

Wishbone front end is better from a set up perspective.

The engine was all about getting away from siamesed exhaust ports on the old chev, and providing the opportunity for similar hp outputs...

[Ozfords]

Dunlop was selected because Ford was having legal issues with Firestone, which is part of the Bridgestone empire. I can easily say Bridgestone will be back after the Firestone debacle has settled down.

Fords devestating year that was 2002 can entirely be put down to the Dunlop tyre. The Bridgestone was favoured by Ford teams.


Ozfords

[Average Punter]

Originally posted by Ozfords
Fords devestating year that was 2002 can entirely be put down to the Dunlop tyre

Try telling that to DJR who had been running Dunlops since Murray Walker was a boy and still had a cow of a year...

[lcfp2297]

Originally posted by Ozfords
Fords devestating year that was 2002 can entirely be put down to the Dunlop tyre. The Bridgestone was favoured by Ford teams.

puhlease!

So what is YOUR excuse for FORD during the BRIDGESTONE control tyre years?

[Ozfords]

Its not such a insane notion, the rounder edge of the Bridgestone favoured the Ford more than the squarer edge of the Dunlop.

Even though DJR ran Dunlop, the compound has since changed. Its got a higher durability than the Bridgestone it replaced and the Dunlop that was run before the Control Tyre rule was put in place.

If you think its such a crazy notion why on Earth was 2002 such a backward year for Ford compared to 2001?

I read it in magazines I heard it on tele and other forums, I'm not saying that we have to crucify the designer of the Dunlop tyre because it attributed to Fords demise in 2002! Its a hurdle Ford have to jump and which they brought upon themselves thanks to the Firestone fiasco.

Now with the BA it seems the Falcon can handle the Dunlop tyre.


Ozfords

[lcfp2297]

I find it a peculiar statement as I remember at the time they tested several different compounds on a Falcon and Commodore, side by side and came up with the compound that gave the most similar result to the Bridgestone control tyre...but with the added benefit of better wear characteristics. To then blame the tyre choice on a poor performance for the year...

Pre 1998 a team could run a different compound on each corner of the car, qualifying, race etc so the permutations and combinations of compounds were limited only by the number of different compounds the tyre supplier brought to the track. This makes comparison of DJR on control Dunlops (where the compound is the same on each corner and from qualifying to racing) to pre 98 unfair...

[Ozfords]

If a front wing contributed to the AU's woes, who's to say that a different shaped tyre doesn't either. Even you should remember the 4 rounds that Ford won in 2001 and the speed of the Ozemail Falcon at Bathurst.

To go from 4 round wins of 2001 to 2002 where it took Ford till the 9th round to win anything and then they did not look like they would threaten anyone at Bathurst to winning the final round of the year at Sandown. It was a shocking year.

Is there something else that happend in 2002 that would upset the AU Falcon that much?


Ozfords

[lcfp2297]

Not saying that it wasn't a contributor...but when you sign off on a new product that you have assessed back-to-back with the old product...

• Looking back over that year,
  Skaife won 7/13 rounds,
  HRT (Bright)9/13 (IN fact HRT won the first 8 rounds of the year),
  Murphy in NZ (HRT/KRT 10/13...they were running under the same franchise that year),
  Lowndes (Ford) and Bargwanna (Holden) equal points in Round 11 (Round win given to Bargs on count-back), and
  one each to Besnard/Wills (Qld 500) and Ambrose...

I think its a little unfair to blame the tyres against a well oiled machine that the HRT/KRT juggernaught was that year...Drivers from HRT and KRT took out 4 of the top 5 positions in the championship in 2002...