Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Australasian Touring Cars.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31 Dec 2019, 02:27 (Ref:3949143)   #31
one five five
Veteran
 
one five five's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,851
one five five should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridone five five should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Hybrids will escalate costs, no one can deny that because an extra power source just got added and how many entrants could afford that cost as well as finding and affording the expertise to maintain the entire power train? it is far more viable to stick with an IC based engine and down the track build a spec roller skate with the drive train installed. Put a body on it and the costs will actually reduce I would think. Doing that will sort out who can drive and who can't because the parity will be built in apart from the fabrication work building the body. It may not be a very appealing thing at the moment but time will wear away the idea that we must have an IC based engine.
Surely the next TV deal would cover the costs required, just as the last TV deal did.

The last thing the category needs is more control parts, let alone an almost complete Hybrid car from the one source
one five five is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Dec 2019, 06:07 (Ref:3949148)   #32
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,345
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by one five five View Post
Surely the next TV deal would cover the costs required, just as the last TV deal did.

The last thing the category needs is more control parts, let alone an almost complete Hybrid car from the one source
The next round of TV deals will cost the networks less as Fox is in deep debt and unlikely to get out of it and some observers are confidently predicting its demise totally. Fox were the ones pushing the record payments for media rights so if they close down or curtail their offerings then sport organisations are not going to get anywhere near the money they did last time. FTA will then be able to offer peanuts or not offer at all if they don't think the sport is worth broadcasting.

The roller skate is a sure way to get parity and it will be full electric not hybrid, they could build one now if they wanted to for an IC motor. Supercars are manic about parity and this will ensure that mania continues and can be better controlled. Personally I can't see Supercars surviving a change to full electric as its fan base will not condone it so the whole thing is moot at best. I hate parity but that is just me and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. For all the control it still does not allow back of the field teams to do anything than run at the back and supposedly parity evens the technical side and makes it possible for every team to have a shot at winning and that concept is a dream at best in any motor sport.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Dec 2019, 11:41 (Ref:3949208)   #33
Johno.UK
Racer
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 303
Johno.UK should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
With parity all the marginal gains that top teams can find become even more important. It's no coincidence that throughout motor racing the top teams invariably win even in one make racing. It's the preparation and personnel that make the difference. Without the parity controls the same teams would be at the front but the teams at the back would be totally destroyed IMO.
Johno.UK is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Dec 2019, 21:45 (Ref:3949303)   #34
Mark Petch
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 966
Mark Petch should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johno.UK View Post
With parity all the marginal gains that top teams can find become even more important. It's no coincidence that throughout motor racing the top teams invariably win even in one make racing. It's the preparation and personnel that make the difference. Without the parity controls the same teams would be at the front but the teams at the back would be totally destroyed IMO.
Johno,

So very true, you are, at least in my opinion, 100% correct.

Parity is a dirty word to many motor racing enthusiasts, however, in my experience, of running [managing] several categories over the last 30 years, including, tightly controlled one make racing, the best Team and driver combination consistently wins.

Based on my 30 plus years of hands on experience, I believe that Australian V8 Supercars have to continue to push for parity, controlled Dampers is but one move in the right direction, but until they introduce a controlled front suspension, then the top teams will be able to better exploit the controlled damper's so called sweet spot this year, and that a given.

Next year, 2021, Supercars will introduce a controlled upright, but will they also mandate controlled pick up points etc? Despite the naysayer's, being vehemently apposed to Supercars control components push under Adrian Burgess, I don't think they are going far enough, at least in terms of lowering cost.

Hopefully, Burgess also moves to mandate a set of controlled springs and anti-roll bars at one and the same time, so that there remains a choice, but a limited one that gives teams some freedoms on set-up.

As I said before, the top Teams/driver combinations will still win, however, cost will be significantly lowered, as will the premium price the top team can on-sell their older chassis for which will have a beneficial downstream effect, in Super 2.

I would also introduce spec Ford and Chev, blue printed, so called "crate engine's" in Super 2, which would significantly lower the cost of competing in the official Feeder Series, and at the same time pave the way for introducing the same controlled engines in the main game.

Well that's my rant for the New Year.

Cheers,

Mark.
Mark Petch is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 00:56 (Ref:3949312)   #35
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,345
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I have to preface what follows with this, I am a motor racing enthusiast, I am not a fan of manufacturer or driver but I love watching racing at any level and watch talented drivers work at their craft. I had a mate when we were racing karts that was one of those people, other competitors used to line up at the fence to watch him race and in one event many years ago where professionals and a few amateurs were put in the same karts some of the professionals asked him to to go into cars because he beat them. In short I have no allegiance to any team or driver.

Parity...it was supposed to level the field and allow less than the very good to actually have a chance of winning of at least mixing in with the rest of the field and everyone knows it does not work as intended no matter what is done. I admire the principal but in over 50 years of racing I have never seen it work as intended and I would love to BTW. I just hate the way it does not work and not the principal itself because it would be awesome to see that kind of racing, let the talent rise etc and the amount of money become less important, the engineering capability of teams funded by money is the hurdle to that dream.

If a "roller skate" was used with a specified body it would go a long way to solving the issue IMHO and would take away a lot of engineering need and funding from the teams and this is what separates the men from the boys in the end and why teams are not equal. Teams with less funds could buy a used chassis ans still be up there in performance, the motor and drive line would be part of the chassis as supplied. My view is if you want parity then do it properly other wise get out of the way and let the teams develop and engineer the cars within outline regulations which includes unlimited motor and chassis development and see who can build the fastest car and not necessarily with the fastest driver though both tend to gravitate to each other.

At the moment as with most parity racing this is not the case, there is an incremental engineering war going on that is hugely expensive and putting a new front end in the cars won't change or solve the problem of equalising the performance of cars across the grid, in fact the change initially will cost a lot of money for next year.

If we are going to have parity let's do it properly from the chassis up and fiddle around at the edges. I can hear the cries of NO from here and very few of those will come from anyone who has actually been a competitor.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 02:11 (Ref:3949317)   #36
Mixer
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Surry Hills, NSW
Posts: 5,621
Mixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridMixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridMixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridMixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
As much as a,m crate motor is a noble idea for Super2 the vested interests of on selling old kit down to Super2 teams will, stop common sense from prevailing.

We know crate motors would give us the same competition at lower cost but I feel like Super2 was primarily always about creating a market for old cars and less about developing driving and engineering talent.

Hell a guy I used to spanner for bought a car and after he realised how much he needed to support it sold it on again rather quickly.

I think a crate engine and some limits on data acquisition would help Super2, but you still need to be able to train people to the point where they can hit the main game running.
Mixer is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 02:46 (Ref:3949320)   #37
one five five
Veteran
 
one five five's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,851
one five five should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridone five five should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I have to preface what follows with this, I am a motor racing enthusiast, I am not a fan of manufacturer or driver but I love watching racing at any level and watch talented drivers work at their craft. I had a mate when we were racing karts that was one of those people, other competitors used to line up at the fence to watch him race and in one event many years ago where professionals and a few amateurs were put in the same karts some of the professionals asked him to to go into cars because he beat them. In short I have no allegiance to any team or driver.

Parity...it was supposed to level the field and allow less than the very good to actually have a chance of winning of at least mixing in with the rest of the field and everyone knows it does not work as intended no matter what is done. I admire the principal but in over 50 years of racing I have never seen it work as intended and I would love to BTW. I just hate the way it does not work and not the principal itself because it would be awesome to see that kind of racing, let the talent rise etc and the amount of money become less important, the engineering capability of teams funded by money is the hurdle to that dream.

If a "roller skate" was used with a specified body it would go a long way to solving the issue IMHO and would take away a lot of engineering need and funding from the teams and this is what separates the men from the boys in the end and why teams are not equal. Teams with less funds could buy a used chassis ans still be up there in performance, the motor and drive line would be part of the chassis as supplied. My view is if you want parity then do it properly other wise get out of the way and let the teams develop and engineer the cars within outline regulations which includes unlimited motor and chassis development and see who can build the fastest car and not necessarily with the fastest driver though both tend to gravitate to each other.

At the moment as with most parity racing this is not the case, there is an incremental engineering war going on that is hugely expensive and putting a new front end in the cars won't change or solve the problem of equalising the performance of cars across the grid, in fact the change initially will cost a lot of money for next year.

If we are going to have parity let's do it properly from the chassis up and fiddle around at the edges. I can hear the cries of NO from here and very few of those will come from anyone who has actually been a competitor.
Except that motor racing has never, ever, been about just the driver.
Building and engineering good cars has always been as important as finding who the best driver is. The sport has never been called ‘driver racing’ after all

It’s only in the last 15-20 years ‘parity’ or ‘control components’ have taken over the motor racing world to a prolific state, a little longer in Australia. This push has always been about containing costs though, not about making the rules ‘pure’ to find who the best driver is.

One could argue part of being the best driver is manoeuvring yourself into the best car
one five five is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 10:01 (Ref:3949366)   #38
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,345
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
If it is an engineering/car thing then why worry about parity. I agree with you by the way but by levelling the playing field costs are supposed to be curtailed and every team is in with a chance....yeah right. They get 3 out of 10 for that.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 10:08 (Ref:3949368)   #39
Mixer
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Surry Hills, NSW
Posts: 5,621
Mixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridMixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridMixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridMixer should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
If it is an engineering/car thing then why worry about parity. I agree with you by the way but by levelling the playing field costs are supposed to be curtailed and every team is in with a chance....yeah right. They get 3 out of 10 for that.
If you want a class where every team has an approximately equal chance then there is TCR.

All cars are equal supposedly when BOP is applied.
Organisers can change BOP to give a lesser team an artificial boost.
You can even have success ballast.

However if I was the best driver in the best team and others got a leg up for not being as good, I wouldn't be very happy.
Mixer is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 10:28 (Ref:3949377)   #40
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,928
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixer View Post
However if I was the best driver in the best team and others got a leg up for not being as good, I wouldn't be very happy.

Yet that very thing happened to Scott McLaughlin and DJR Team Penske in 2019, even though technical parity per the letter of the regulations and seasoned VCAT aero test already had been established before the first round in Adelaide.

For some reason, the organisers eventually got so desperate that they added 40 kg extra downforce to the Commodores, after which McLaughlin's best efforts no longer had any chance and the Commodores duly swept up 7 out of 9 victories.
V8 Fireworks is online now  
Quote
Old 1 Jan 2020, 10:37 (Ref:3949379)   #41
Johno.UK
Racer
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 303
Johno.UK should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
It's one of the many things that divide fans. Many I know despise any series that handicaps cars/drivers like TCR, BTCC, WEC etc and others think it's the only way motorsport can exist. You can't please all the people all the time but people are always trying to change their favourite motorsport to suit their whims rather than supporting something which is closer in it's DNA to what they want in the first place.
Johno.UK is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Jan 2020, 18:28 (Ref:3949538)   #42
Mark Petch
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 966
Mark Petch should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johno.UK View Post
It's one of the many things that divide fans. Many I know despise any series that handicaps cars/drivers like TCR, BTCC, WEC etc and others think it's the only way motorsport can exist. You can't please all the people all the time but people are always trying to change their favourite motorsport to suit their whims rather than supporting something which is closer in it's DNA to what they want in the first place.
Johno.

F1 is flat out "cheque book" racing and even the majority of the teams can't sustain the cost's, hence the moves to try to reduce costs by the use of some control parts in the future, amongst a spending cap etc.

Sustainable motor racing has to cap cost, and the only practical way to do that is by the use of controlled components, BTCC was on elf the first Premier Touring Car Series to do that, and by and large that has been successful. Whilst I hate the politic's of success weight, BTCC and WTCC have proven it works in maintaining the punters interest in both Series.
Mark Petch is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Jan 2020, 18:48 (Ref:3949543)   #43
chavez
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Australia
The Basin, Victoria
Posts: 2,385
chavez should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridchavez should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridchavez should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petch View Post
Johno.

F1 is flat out "cheque book" racing and even the majority of the teams can't sustain the cost's, hence the moves to try to reduce costs by the use of some control parts in the future, amongst a spending cap etc.
The F1 cost cap is only window dressing as the cap is set above the existing budgets of the second tier teams and together with the a list of exclusions longer than my arm the top teams will continue to spend significantly more than the second tier teams.

On a positive note it is at least an acknowledgement that the cost for the smaller teams is not sustainable.

It has always appeared that the top teams have rejected cost caps because they always believe that they will be able to secure the funds to maintain an edge over the other teams.

Why would a Mercedes willing give up this advantage? They want to be racing and beating Ferrari, not Racing Point. There is little in it for Mercedes to be brought back to the level of Racing Point or have Racing Point being brought up to their level.

In Supercars a cost cap was proposed and rejected - times were good and the top teams did not want to give up their spending advantage.

However times have clearly changed and maybe some form of cap will be introduced but I remain sceptical.
chavez is online now  
__________________
Real race cars don't have doors.
Quote
Old 4 Feb 2020, 05:08 (Ref:3955590)   #44
Tourer
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Tourer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Australia
Sideways
Posts: 3,062
Tourer has a real shot at the podium!Tourer has a real shot at the podium!Tourer has a real shot at the podium!Tourer has a real shot at the podium!
Looks like no more sedans for Gen3 according to Mr Seamer.
Tourer is offline  
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue
Quote
Old 4 Feb 2020, 08:21 (Ref:3955602)   #45
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,928
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourer View Post
Looks like no more sedans for Gen3 according to Mr Seamer.
Smart!

Sedans are on the nose. It's either hatchback (already covered by TCR), ute (already covered by SuperUtes), two door coupe or SUV that remain popular styles of vehicle.

For whatever reason SUV racing has been ruled out, so that leaves two door coupes as the relevant market segment.

BMW 8 series is coincidentally nearly the same size and shape as a Ford Mustang, likewise Mercedes E class coupe... wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
V8 Fireworks is online now  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2022 DPi regulations NaBUru38 North American Racing 100 7 May 2020 21:56
New F1 Team - Panthers seeking to join grid for 2022 karting Formula One 29 31 Aug 2019 21:57
[WEC] Audi to Return in 2022? rdjones ACO Regulated Series 21 28 Sep 2018 20:23
Gen IV B/Mark IRL Indycar Series 14 22 Jul 2003 04:33


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.