CoG Parity...

[Ospi]

Well this is the same mod that dictate aero parity by throwing it down a runway so...

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Ospi

Well this is the same mod that dictate aero parity by throwing it down a runway so...

seems legit hahahahaha

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Ospi

Well this is the same mod that dictate aero parity by throwing it down a runway so...

And your superior method is?

[Compromised]

Could be wrong but I don't think Ospi is getting paid to keep parity between different body shapes.

Either way, this isn't F1. It's in the series best interest to keep a things as even as possible.

Can't wait for the turbos vs V8 thread...

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

And your superior method is?

Hiring a full scale wind tunnel?

[spook]

Correct me if I am wrong, but back when I first read Carroll Smith's bibles, he setout a process where you could calculate the centre of mass using nothing more than a set of scales and an inclinometer.

It was important to know where the COM was, because you need to know if it is above or below the line connecting the roll centres of the front and rear suspension.

But maybe I don't remember so well ?.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by spook

Correct me if I am wrong, but back when I first read Carroll Smith's bibles, he setout a process where you could calculate the centre of mass using nothing more than a set of scales and an inclinometer.

It was important to know where the COM was, because you need to know if it is above or below the line connecting the roll centres of the front and rear suspension.

But maybe I don't remember so well ?.

[Sandgroper]

When the 23 from 26 positions are seperated less than .8 of a second in qualifying, your dreaming thinking its parity.

As per usual be it Holden or Ford or Nissan, the same drivers will always be at the pointy end and the same drivers will be at the tail end no matter what car.

Theres no parity to speak of just driver excellence.

my 2 bobs worth

[Silver GT]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

When the 23 from 26 positions are seperated less than .8 of a second in qualifying, your dreaming thinking its parity.

As per usual be it Holden or Ford or Nissan, the same drivers will always be at the pointy end and the same drivers will be at the tail end no matter what car.

Theres no parity to speak of just driver excellence.

my 2 bobs worth

This was the first round in a brand new car.....do you really think they got it to optimal already?

I think not....they are still learning and will just get better. The Fords and the Nissans are nearly fully sorted and not a lot they can do unless they play the weight distribution game to.

What I really dont like is the perceived sneakiness from the sports governing body. The parity issues along with the straightout allowance of breaking track limits by certain teams smacks of impartiality.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Silver GT

This was the first round in a brand new car.....do you really think they got it to optimal already?

I think not....they are still learning and will just get better. The Fords and the Nissans are nearly fully sorted and not a lot they can do unless they play the weight distribution game to.

What I really dont like is the perceived sneakiness from the sports governing body. The parity issues along with the straightout allowance of breaking track limits by certain teams smacks of impartiality.

Its not a brand new car though, Its a brand new outer shell, same motor, same chassis.

Im sure there are gains still, but it wont be dramatic, maybe where they place the lead

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Silver GT

What I really dont like is the perceived sneakiness from the sports governing body. The parity issues along with the straightout allowance of breaking track limits by certain teams smacks of impartiality.

Basically ALL drivers in the shootout broke track limits.

Originally Posted by peckstar

Its not a brand new car though, Its a brand new outer shell, same motor, same chassis.

This. New aero.

[Ospi]

There's quite a lot involved with understanding aero, how the package reacts to different rake, ride heights, yaw and roll and then how the mechanical setup can be adjusted in accordance to those new characteristics. Of all the changes that can be made to a car its one of the most significant. Their pace early is ominous.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Ospi

There's quite a lot involved with understanding aero, how the package reacts to different rake, ride heights, yaw and roll and then how the mechanical setup can be adjusted in accordance to those new characteristics. Of all the changes that can be made to a car its one of the most significant. Their pace early is ominous.

888s cars have always hit the track running.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Im sure there are gains still, but it wont be dramatic, maybe where they place the lead

The rules stipulate exactly where lead can be placed and how it is located there. Teams have no freedom to place ballast in other locations.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The rules stipulate exactly where lead can be placed and how it is located there. Teams have no freedom to place ballast in other locations.

I do not thing it is as specific as you think

C4.2 Ballast
4.2.1 It is permitted to complete the weight of a Car by one or several units of ballast provided
that each unit:
4.2.1.1 is a strong and unitary block; and
4.2.1.2 is fixed by means of tools; and
4.2.1.3 has the ability to affix scrutineering seals; and
4.2.1.4 must be attached to the Chassis via 8.8 class bolts; and
4.2.1.5 has a minimum diameter of 8mm for each fixing point; and
4.2.1.6 must have at least two (2) fixing points; and
4.2.1.7 must not weigh more than 10 kg; and
4.2.1.8 must be fitted within the Car’s cockpit with the exception that ballast may be
added to removable components that have a specified minimum weight only to
ensure compliance with the minimum weight specified of that component; and
4.2.1.9 is made of a material which has a maximum relative density of twelve (12).

[Tourer]

OK they've relaxed the ballast regs a bit - I stand corrected. That's what happens when you rely on personal experience rather than ready the current rules!

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Tourer

OK they've relaxed the ballast regs a bit - I stand corrected. That's what happens when you rely on personal experience rather than ready the current rules!

I suspect this happened around the time of complaints about Volvo's engine COG

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

I suspect this happened around the time of complaints about Volvo's engine COG

there was seperate section regarding engine C8.7

including

The total minimum engine weight is 200 kg dry

DIVISION “C” – VCS TECHNICAL RULES

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Its not a brand new car though, Its a brand new outer shell, same motor, same chassis.

Im sure there are gains still, but it wont be dramatic, maybe where they place the lead

IF (and that is a big if, see the claim below) the Commodore bodywork weighs 40kg less than the Falcon or Altima bodywork it would be a huge advantage. All that weight moved from the roof, and other extremities of the car, into a low & central location would be far from insignificant.

Supercars really ought to publish these bodywork weights to clear this issue up and remove conjecture.

There is approximately 40kg of weight that the ZB has to play with down low.

Source: http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20...ars/?p=8263635

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

IF (and that is a big if, see the claim below) the Commodore bodywork weighs 40kg less than the Falcon or Altima bodywork it would be a huge advantage. All that weight moved from the roof, and other extremities of the car, into a low & central location would be far from insignificant.

Supercars really ought to publish these bodywork weights to clear this issue up and remove conjecture.


Source: http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20...ars/?p=8263635

I have no way of knowing if 40kg is correct or not, but that is 2.83% of the total minumum weight. Seems high

[Backagain]

4.2.1.8 must be fitted within the Car’s cockpit with the exception that ballast may be
added to removable components that have a specified minimum weight only to
ensure compliance with the minimum weight specified of that component;

Simple solution, specify a minimum weight for the roof (i.e. that of a metal roof) and attach the ballast to the composite roof or roof area.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Backagain

4.2.1.8 must be fitted within the Car’s cockpit with the exception that ballast may be
added to removable components that have a specified minimum weight only to
ensure compliance with the minimum weight specified of that component;

Simple solution, specify a minimum weight for the roof (i.e. that of a metal roof) and attach the ballast to the composite roof or roof area.

would be the cheapest actions and the rules allow supercars to do this at any time

although i would imagine that ballast would need to connect to the cage in someway, as opposed to the roof it self

[Ospi]

I cringe at the thought of lead ballast at head height personally. Easier to enforce rules on materials which can and cannot be used for the roof and bonnet.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Ospi

I cringe at the thought of lead ballast at head height personally. Easier to enforce rules on materials which can and cannot be used for the roof and bonnet.

significant cost to achieve, Im not sure its easier

Plus we already have those rules which are being enforced, but a new car has created an issue

[Ospi]

Originally Posted by peckstar

significant cost to achieve, Im not sure its easier

Plus we already have those rules which are being enforced, but a new car has created an issue

Yes it was a regulatory problem which has gotten us here in the first place. It's actually not that expensive to product those parts in composite anyway and a lot of places in Aus that produce molds and final products. The other teams are going to inevitably have to go there anyway now.