Is there a parity problem?

[Crash Test]

Seems to be all the rage at the moment!

Do you think there is a drama?

-Holden have won the last 7 rounds straight
-TWR are dominant
-TWR use Holdens
-It is a parity class at the front of the field, not positions 5-36
-Paity is not fair to all- when Ford had their wings clipped in the past, all the teams except DJR and GSR were put even further out of the competition. Ditto in 1996 WRT HRT and Perkins.
-The precedents have been set in the past, whereby one or two teams from a make had a percieved advantage, and their make were penalised/the other make were given a concession.
-TWR have an undeniable advatage

Now chat away- what do you think? Is there a problem? What should/won't be done?

[Diabando]

I know I dont post alot in here...but I have just been waiting for a thread like this!!

No - I personally do not think there is a parity problem.

It is not that Holden are winning everything - they are not! I am a Perkins Team fan..do you think I am happy??

HRT are winning everything, and if they were excluded (I am not syaing they should be), then I think we can see that the field is relatively even. If HRT were not there, then we would have seen Ambrose win more, along with maybe Lowndes, and even a couple of other Holdens!!

The problem is, everyone should not be looking to catch up with HRT, they should be looking to be two steps AHEAD of them....THAT is the problem - for both Ford and Holden.

No there is no parity issue here. Take the TWR cars out and SBR would be winning. Isn't is interesting that Crash Test has forgotten that the last two parity issues (raised rear wing, and Holden front splitter) were given to the Ford teams.

[mac]

Yeah, if you took out HRT it would be pretty close. There is a parity problem in terms of $$$ spent, and the ridiculous notion that you can have a 5 car team. They must limit teams to 2 cars.

[Bomn]

Or limit testing to two cars not five.

[Crash Test]

"Take the TWR cars out and SBR would be winning. Isn't is interesting that Crash Test has forgotten that the last two parity issues (raised rear wing, and Holden front splitter) were given to the Ford teams."
- So to resolve the parity issue we take all the TWR cars out? I could list all the changes ever, but it would just prove that the precedents set when there was petty differences between the cars (ie. not winning 7 rounds straight) for there to be parity adjustments.

[RaceTime]

Put it this way Crash - unless HRT/TWR are stopped from winning, the popularity fof the series is going to take a nose dive very soon. Even TC has finally admitted that.

Once that starts - well we've all seen what happens to a series once it starts to die - ST's anyone??

[Crash Test]

Group A anyone?

Hrmmm, Skaife seems to be in the right place at the wrong time when it comes to killing categories

Going back to Group A or ST would be like remarrying your first wife!!!!!

I don't know what is wrong with you guys. Touring car racing in Australia is more popular now than it has ever been with more teams capable of winning than anytime in the past (just look at any qualifying sheet) and all you want to do is knock it.

Perhaps the other Ford teams should pull out their collective digits and make up the leeway. As Fred Gibson once said "If HRT were running Fords we would not see which way they went!"

[PEPSI]

Why not allow the number of test days to be directly in proportion to the championship ladder, ie. 21st = 21 test days. While some will say that it will increase costs for the poorer teams, it will be up to them to decide whether to use the days or not. It would give the lesser teams an opportunity to improve ensuring even closer grids. Recent changes to the program reducing practice sessions to 2 x 20 minutes has only made it tougher for the Fords and everyone else to catch TWR.

[RaceTime]

White Knight - look beyond the time sheets.

First - no one said anything about going back to Group A or ST's - the relationship between Skaife dominating Group A was made - nothing more.

Sure there are any number of teams, based on times, that are capable of winning - now look at the reality.

Unless they make a mistake, whoerver is on the front row wins.

Why?

Because with all this so-called 'parity' and equal aerodynamics, no one can safely overtake anyone else - look what happens when they usually try.

How many more races are we going to see MAJOR accidents happen on the first lap BECAUSE they are so even and the drivers know that unless they gain ground during that first lap, they will not improve.

Sure, cars that start from the back manage to move up what looks, on paper, like good ground from say 30th to 12th or 13th - but what happens once they catch the cars that are equal to them? It is like hitting a brick wall - no more positions gained, no more overtaking.

Fans are already starting to get jacked off with this happening race after race, round after round.

Hidden Valley may have had a 'reported' overall increase in crowd, but the Sunday - the day it really counts) it was DOWN 25-30%.

[RaceTime]

Pepsi - it isn't going to be too long before there are screams from AVESCO that the 20 minutes sessions are too long and that all practice will now be held on a PlayStation complete with control game and memory cards!

[Dazz]

The trouble is that there are a few different ways of looking at the situation.

HRT were for a long time a bit of a laughing stock. Remember both cars being out of Bathurst after only 30 odd laps. Since then they have gotten their act together, as well as receiving some big dollars, and set themselves up to be almost totally self sufficient. They aquired the knowledge they needed, the drivers they needed, and the backing they needed, and have worked damn hard to get where they are.

You can't blame them for the domination they are enjoying at the moment. And think about it, if any of us went into any form of motor racing, our goal would be to win every race would it not? I know mine would be. If your not in it to win, you won't.

But the flip side of this is that the racing tends to suffer with one team (driver) doing the majority of the winning. Not only is the racing suffering, but the "Entertainment" side of the sport is suffering. But to me this is one of the major drama's when trying to mix two things which are not natural partners, competitive sport and entertainment.

Sport by nature is about competition, with the best on the day doing the winning. Entertainment is largely about not knowing what will happen next, the excitement of seeing something unfold in front of you, the not knwoing what will happen next.

To me, adding the "Entertainment Factor" means taking away from the sporting side. It means doing things which will artificially alter the results to provide the entertainment.

They tried this with the reverse grids and pit stops. Reverse grids do add some uncertainty, but it is slightly too artificial for my liking, and pit stops, well, isn't it funny how the best teams will do the best at these as well and probably have more of an advantage than they already did!

I agree that maybe the lesser teams need more practice days, and that the bigger teams might need to be capped as far as how many cars they can run per practice day, but these are minor items which will probably not really change things too much in the long run.

It is a very complicated area, with no simple answers, but I would hate to see the the Big "E" (entertainment) take over from the true competitive sporting aspect. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a manipulated result, unreflective of anyones true ability. Is that what we want?

[RaceTime]

Dazz, wasn't that double retirement eventually tracked back to a faulty component in their engines? Even DJR has had this happen to them.

Sure HRT are winning - but as I said, look at the grids and then look at the results. Unless someone gets tapped out of the way (and doesn't get penalised for it), messes up themselves or has a mechanical failure, they tend to finish in the same order they gridded up.

That is not sport - that is parading and that is the problem.

HRT have that little extra grunt at present to be at the front of each qualifying session and enough grunt off the start line to ensure they stay there for the rest of the race.

Pit stops are a complete farce because they do not allow the teams to make them when and if they need them. Why shouldn't teams be able topit under a safety car? There is no guarantee there will even BE a safety car - so they could just as easily miss out by waiting for something that doesn't happen.

I have no problem with pit stops IF they weren't made compulsory.

F1 has pit stops because they have to - the rules don't allow F1 cars to carry enough fuel to run a complete race on one tank - so everyone MUST pit for at least refuelling anyway - this means everyone is working to the same level.

Unfortunately V8's don't do it this way - there is no need to stop, the RULES say they have to stop.

[Dazz]

Racetime, yeah that year was a component failure, but my point was up antil about that time HRT really didn't do too much winning.

I totally agree that the racing is very parade like, and I don't really like it either. But how do we increase the overtaking opportunities whist keeping the dreaded parity?

Surely even taking away the downforce won't totally solve the probelm. It will make driving harder, braking distances longer and reduce cornering speeds a little, but if the cars are still equal, and we assume the drivers are all pretty much on par, then surely the results will be basically the same. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against taking away some of the downforce, but I don't think it is the be all and end all of the solution.

To my way of thinking overtaking occurs where different cars have advantages on different parts of the circuit, but that is not parity is it? Remember the Longhurst vs Bowe incident (Winton?) where Longhurst eventually drove right through Bowe because he was sick of being held up in the corners, and blasted away from in the straights, classic racing to my mind, but due to "parity" that type of racing won't happen.

I've been following touring cars for about 20 years now, loved the Group C era, possibly the best as far as variety of cars and winners went (although the politics, whinging, scheming and plotting makes today's parity issue look like kiddies play), enjoyed Group A although the BMW, then Sierra then GT-R domination actually quite boring from a racing point of view, and the first few years of V8 Supercars (hate that name sooooo much) were quite good as far as variety of winners went. But if you look closely, in most cases there has beena stand out team or driver in most of those series. Not quite to the extent we are seeing now with the Skaife situation, but it has occured in the past.

I also agree that the pit stops are a farce, which was kind of my point about the racing being manipulated for show rather than being carried out on a need to basis with proper strategy applied.

And yes it is pretty much whoever qualifies on the fron row will generally win. But if someone like Skaife and Ambrose are consistantly the fastesr qualifiers due to ability, how do you stop that without it being artificial? Reintroduce the Peter Jackson Dash For Cash??????

I don't profess to be a expert at these issues, but I won't simply whinge about the results without questioning the reasons why they occur. Yelling and screaming about it, without putting thought into a sollution is pointless in my opinion.

It's a simplistic view, but without manipulation for the sake of entertainment, how do you stop the best team from consistantly winning? Maybe the time for success panalties is here. But at the end of the day, is the winner the true winner, if the equipment is no longer equal?

[RaceTime]

No - NEVER re-introduce a lottery system for pole - it demeans the whole category (not that that isn't hard at present )

Downforce - yes - reduce downforce but also, as others have suggested, reduce braking capability, reduce tyre width. It is sort of like the wing days of F1 - because of wings and 'suction' the cars could virtually go round a corner flat chat. Break that suction and what happened? Everyone had to back off and some semblence of overtaking happened.

Similarly with V8's - reduce the speed at which corners can be taken and you get at least the opportunity for overtaking - albeit only in corners.

But also reduce the tyre width, increase the cars inability to drive right up behind another without losing downforce, and you get the option for overtaking on straights such as Sandown, Bathurst - hell maybe even Hidden Valley

But whilst the race is on to make them identical except in body, we won't have any reason for anyone to try an innovation, a go fast tweak because everyone will have to have the same components.

Maybe we should really be calling the V8's VASCAR's..

[PEPSI]

RT - Murphy & Kelly would love the concept of Playstation given their sponsorship but imagine the howls from the others? Another parity argument? :-)

[RaceTime]

Yeah I was thinking of that - especially as AVESCO have a deal with Codemasters and HRT have sponsorship from EA (and I believe even THAT is causing some problems in certain areas at present...)

[Dazz]

I prefer VASCAR's to V8 Supercars

I forgot, when I said the Peter Jackson Dash for Cash that tobacco advertising was no longer allowed. Then I thought it could be the Tony Cochrane Dash for Cash, but that has already existed for years, anthough he is the only entrant in that race!

I like the idea of reducing grip, both mechanical and aerodynamic, to allow the cars to race closer, and therefor be able to slipstream and overtake under brakes. But do touring cars really get that much out of a slipstream at most circuits in Oz? I guess that durability and safety do have to come into consideration though.

I'd love to be part of a panel made up of some fans, drivers, engineers and team owners who sat down with an agenda of items to discuss, and try to come up with possible workable sollutions, not just whinge and *****. There has to be answers to some of the problems surely?

[RaceTime]

There's an answer - but it obviously isn't the answer AVESCO want to hear. The answer is called 'racing' - AVESCO read this as 'Money making' - regardless of their statements that their 'surveys' say the fans want this, the fans want that - why is then that all letters to the editors, journo comments, officials comments, fans comments are stating the opposite of what they claim is being asked for?

I realised PJ were not permitted, I just hope they never ever consider drawing positions from an envelope to which the contents could clearly be identified before the draw and, on more than one occasion, I have noticed someone standing behind the envelpes directing their driver which envelope to pick! And not just one team either....

[PEPSI]

Dazz - VASCARS, sounds a lot like vascular, ie. vein. Then again it might be quite fitting for TC and the rest of AVESCO :-)