[VASC19R3R4R5R6]Beaurepaires 400, 14-17Mar

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Not sure if serious or trolling...

It clearly was not missed, that is exactly the configuration the Supercars Mustang was first presented in and it was exactly the configuration in which the Mustang complied with the required drag and downforce at 200 kmph on the air-field test.

There is absolutely no parity issue whatsoever. To suggest otherwise is utterly absurd.

The point I, and many others are raising is that the silhouette of the road car has been significantly manipulated.

If they had to go to such lengths, then perhaps the Mondeo should've been the car they went with.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

There is absolutely no parity issue whatsoever. To suggest otherwise is utterly absurd.

You quite literally cannot make such a broad, definitive statement like that and expect anybody else to treat you as if you have a shred of credibility.

I can guarantee you, if the shoe was on the other foot last year, and the 2 Red Bull guys, along with Tim Blanchard and Golding had locked out the front 4 spots, by .7 of a second, that Ryan Story quite literally would have **** the bed, and questions would fairly be asked.

When the ZB was being decried as unfair, such a short time ago, Red Bull were winning but not by a large margin, and all the other ZBs were nowhere.

Now it is clear as day the Mustang is substantially faster than the other cars, and DJRTP particularly are clearly trying to stage-manage it. I'm a bit surprised the guys up the front didn't sandbag a bit themselves, given the margin they've shown.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

When the ZB was being decried as unfair, such a short time ago, Red Bull were winning but not by a large margin, and all the other ZBs were nowhere.

That was an objective, measurable centre-of-gravity advantage as the ZB Commodore had composite panels when the other models did not -- it was quoted that the Commodore bodywork package weighed some 16-20 kg less than the Falcon or Altima bodywork packages. A huge difference in motorsport terms.

This was very quickly rectified by the Falcon and Altima being fitted with similarly composite panels ASAP at the next round, which reduced (but not eliminated) the difference in bodywork package weight, which was fair and reasonable.

Originally Posted by Mixer

Now it is clear as day the Mustang is substantially faster than the other cars,

This statement seems severely biased and hardly credible!

You will note there was less than a 1 tenth of a second difference between McLaughlin and Whincup in qualifying. That hardly suggests a substantial difference!

[Mixer]

"it was quoted"

"sources say"

The composite panels did absolutely nothing.

PRA continued to be a basket case for the year, as did Fabian Coulthard. No Nissans went anywhere either.

The cream rose to the top with Scotty Mac, and that was that.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The point I, and many others are raising is that the silhouette of the road car has been significantly manipulated.

This is true. However, it is also within the rules and signed off on. Whether devious or not, Ford Performance can and have claimed the changes were "necessary" to modify not only the roof but the front overhang to fit the control chassis. The front axle is in a very different place on the Supercar than on a real Mustang, so the changes to front end are justified as modifications to meet the needed dimensions. Of course it's a little bit of fib, but it's entirely within the rules, right, so I presume you have no issue with this?

If they had to go to such lengths, then perhaps the Mondeo should've been the car they went with.

I agree that the Mondeo is more appropriate as COTF is only designed for four doors. However, Ford Performance had and have no interest in promoting the Ford Mondeo, and would not have become involved based on racing the Mondeo... So that option (as a Ford Performance option) was impossible.

However, IMO Supercars should have paid for homologation of Mondeo on behalf of the Ford teams, given that Ford Australia and Ford Performance would not do so, and that the Ford teams needed an updated model.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

You will note there was less than a 1 tenth of a second difference between McLaughlin and Whincup in qualifying. That hardly suggests a substantial difference!

Scotty Mac: "Driver needs a big tune-up after that second lap,” he quipped.
“I just made a mistake. It wasn’t my best lap by any means. I had a really good first sector and half a good second sector. I was lucky to hold on in that sector."

Just like Adelaide, the Stangs have enough speed for the driver to make an error and still hold position.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The composite panels did absolutely nothing.

Utter, unfounded conjecture that is not backed by engineering principles.

Saving 7kg from fitting a Commodore-matching composite roof, a part that is very placed very high in the car, is a quantifiable, objective difference that WILL have improved performance.

Originally Posted by Mixer

Just like Adelaide, the Stangs have enough speed for the driver to make an error and still hold position.

Yet more unfounded conjecture...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Yet more unfounded conjecture...

ORLY?

Mostert stuffed it up the escape road twice in R1 in Adelade, only losing 1 spot to another Mustang.

In the quali you're referencing, Scotty Mac made an error dropping a few tenths, and still kept ahead of an improving Whincup.

They have speed to burn.

[xrystl]

Originally Posted by bluesport

The distance from the top of the front wheel arch to the top of the guard looks higher on the stang, hence the nose drops more.

To me the bonnet profile on the Altima and the Mustang look identical and the ZB is the odd one out , the roof profile on the Altima looks lower and smoother than the Mustang , perhaps all lined up together in profile would be a better indicator.

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

The key is the drag only has to match at 200 kmhr on the airfield test. The drag of the Mustang matches the Commodore and Altima at 200 kmhr, and that is ALL that the parity rules require.

Ford Performance are free to optimise the drag (and downforce) at all other speeds, they have done so, and that is entirely legitimate within the rules.

Smart to only test drag and not downforce. Saves a lot of time and money and it's not like it leads to any issues or anything...

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

The key is the drag only has to match at 200 kmhr on the airfield test. The drag of the Mustang matches the Commodore and Altima at 200 kmhr, and that is ALL that the parity rules require.

Ford Performance are free to optimise the drag (and downforce) at all other speeds, they have done so, and that is entirely legitimate within the rules.

Originally Posted by Compromised

Smart to only test drag and not downforce. Saves a lot of time and money and it's not like it leads to any issues or anything...

Ummmm - both drag AND downforce have always been measured, assessed and "paritised" in the aero testing done by supercars, going right back to the first time the aero testing process was put in place - sorry but you are both wrong in your assertion of only drag being tested.

[Umai Naa]

They can measure downforce to the extent that they see how much the suspension compresses at speed.

Crude? You bet.

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Ummmm - both drag AND downforce have always been measured, assessed and "paritised" in the aero testing done by supercars, going right back to the first time the aero testing process was put in place - sorry but you are both wrong in your assertion of only drag being tested.

Oh and isn't it just working a treat! Wind tunnel? CFD? Pfft not necessary. You have to wonder why F1 spends so much money on that stuff when all you need is a long strip of tarmac

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Oh and isn't it just working a treat! Wind tunnel? CFD? Pfft not necessary. You have to wonder why F1 spends so much money on that stuff when all you need is a long strip of tarmac

If anybody reckons Ford Racing & Penske didn't CFD that Mustang up the wazoo I've got a bridge to sell ya

The question with wind tunnels and CFD is how to validate.

And F1 teams do that my straight line running, mostly with other sensors attached to the cars.

[bluesport]

The fact still remains that DJR/TP won the 2018 title with a car that was as aerodynamic as a brick (relative to the ZB), so it's obvious that once they had equal aero they would be even harder to beat.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Oh and isn't it just working a treat! Wind tunnel? CFD? Pfft not necessary. You have to wonder why F1 spends so much money on that stuff when all you need is a long strip of tarmac

Yet F1 teams (& others) often find that wind tunnel or CFD doesn't necessarily correlate to the real world - so they go and run on long strips of tarmac to see what the real world brings.

Originally Posted by Mixer

If anybody reckons Ford Racing & Penske didn't CFD that Mustang up the wazoo I've got a bridge to sell ya

The question with wind tunnels and CFD is how to validate.

And F1 teams do that my straight line running, mostly with other sensors attached to the cars.

Yep, nailed it Mixer, that's how it works.

[Driver TBA]

Originally Posted by Mixer

If anybody reckons Ford Racing & Penske didn't CFD that Mustang up the wazoo I've got a bridge to sell ya.

888 gave the ZB CFD treatment too.

https://www.supercars.com/news/champ...artner-for-zb/




Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Compromised]

So we're saying Supercars aero testing is beyond reproach because F1 utilise straight line testing, albeit in conjunction with CFD/wind tunnel/sensors, something Supercars do NOT do during their parity testing? Right...

The Mustang in its current guise would not exist if the aero testing was adequate

[djr81]

Originally Posted by Compromised

So we're saying Supercars aero testing is beyond reproach because F1 utilise straight line testing, albeit in conjunction with CFD/wind tunnel/sensors, something Supercars do NOT do during their parity testing? Right...

The Mustang in its current guise would not exist if the aero testing was adequate

But the ZB would? 888 used the same processes ie CFD as Ford. If Ford have a better outcome by using the same rules where is the problem? To quote someone famous.
“They should get on and build a new car,” Dane told Speedcafe.com.
“They are running a Falcon which has been out of production for well over 18 months so they need to build a new car.
“I hope they do, and they have got the capability to do it, and it would be great to see them do it.”

[Mixer]

AA: "Mustang parity row erupts"

https://autoaction.com.au/2019/03/15...ity-row-erupts

AUTO ACTION has learned that exhaust silencers of all the cars have been weighed ahead of the four-race Melbourne 400 at the Australian Grand Prix, revealing a major disparity between DJRTP and the rest.

Apparently DJRTP's silencers weigh 25kg...

Most other teams have silencers around 4kg.

It's legal, and exactly the kind of creative rule interpretation I suggested a few pages back.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The composite panels did absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Mixer

Apparently DJRTP's silencers weigh 25kg...

Most other teams have silencers around 4kg.

Your opinions on the advantages of lightweight bodywork (and ability to carry ballast) seem to vary drastically depending on who has the lightweight bodywork -- seems to show bias!

With 888 having set the precedent with the ZB Commodore's lightweight bodywork, it is inevitable the Ford teams will have taken the initiative to shave every possible gram out of the Mustang bodywork and this is entirely within the rules as you say.

That's merely a job well done and entirely legal within the regulations, and is definitely NOT a parity issue (Commodore and Altima runners are free to redesign and rehomologate their bodywork again, in line with the new precedent).

I note that Mixer failed to quote this crucial point:

Despite efforts to downplay a potential parity row over the Mustang, dissent is increasing among Holden teams – despite the fact that the ZB ‘let the genii out of the bottle’ in terms of lightweight construction and improved weight distribution, including a lower centre of gravity.

[Muznik]

Ok so I’m a moron & missed recording qualifying today.. however just caught what looks like the last of Chaz’s Pole lap. Last corner he was well outside the track limits ( yellow line).
Yesterday they were pinging people for it?
Can anyone shed any light?

[Mixer]

Keep trolling. Nowhere did I state that I believed this was a significant issue, and I stand by my statement that the composite panels were a smoke screen and had no impact whatsoever on the performance of the teams who complained so bitterly about it.

[V8 Fireworks]

Race 3, Mustang 1st through 5th, wonderful stuff!

DJRTP and Tickford really are the class teams of the field, and doing an incredible job!

Originally Posted by Mixer

Now it is clear as day the Mustang is substantially faster than the other cars,

Originally Posted by Mixer

Nowhere did I state that I believed this was a significant issue

Good to hear! There is definitely no parity issue of significance. It's an issue of underperformance by non-DJRTP/Tickford teams.

[billybanana]

1st five spots in Race 1 for the ponies. The noise is only going to get louder.