The P word strikes again

[Mixer]

OMG the comments on Fb about the second round of testing are a dumpster fire and prove that the Ford fans can't be happy either way.

Last year they fluffed the test and played catch up all year. Cue whinging.

Clearly this year they are keen to avoid a recurrence and have a lot of new data, so they are going back for a second test, which is surely the right thing to do. The sport desperately needs to not repeat what happened last year, but it is apparently a conspiracy and all Roland's fault....

[mayhem]

I stopped reading after 'Fb'. It's a cesspit for anything other than voices in echo chambers.

[V8 Fireworks]

TCR uses a wind tunnel for aerodynamuc testing, and that's for over a dozen different models.

"The homologation process [of the MG6 TCR] included engine tests on the dynamometer bench at ORAL Engineering and aerodynamics tests in the Pininfarina wind tunnel"
https://www.tcr-series.com/news/item...on-formalities


Why Supercars are unable to do it for just two models defies belief!

[V8 Fireworks]

Motorsport.com can reveal a key outcome from the re-homologation is that the Mustang's prominent rear wing has been moved 90 millimetres forward and lowered by 50 mm.

The positioning of the rear wing on the Holden Commodore will remain unchanged.

Both cars will be limited to the same rear wing angles, with a 13-degree maximum and a seven-degree minimum.

The Gurney flaps will be identical across the two cars, measuring 13 mm on the wing plane and the 10 mm on the boot.

The front diffusers will be significantly shallower on both cars as well, while the Holden will be able to run a longer undertray.

Another change at the front is centred on the Mustang's front bar, which will have a rounder profile on the outside of the brake cooling ducts.

https://au.motorsport.com/v8supercar...674598/?nrt=18

How curious. One hopes the VCAT testing has been done correctly, and Mustang runners will not be at an unjust disadvantage...

[Spec83]

I can’t see how a car that dominated the last 1/3 of the season can remain relatively untouched and achieve 12% reduction in downforce by a wing angle limitation.

Death by 1000 cuts for Supercars


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Spec83

I can’t see how a car that dominated the last 1/3 of the season can remain relatively untouched and achieve 12% reduction in downforce by a wing angle limitation.

Death by 1000 cuts for Supercars


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's supercars for you, why would any other manufacturers join this circus when they keep peddling out this nonsense.

[Umai Naa]

I don't see the big deal.

The category independently of the homologation teams, are doing their own thing with the aero this time around, to achieve parity. Not just for Triple Eight, and DJRTP, but for all the teams. Even the ones down the back going broke.

[Forda]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

https://au.motorsport.com/v8supercar...674598/?nrt=18

How curious. One hopes the VCAT testing has been done correctly, and Mustang runners will not be at an unjust disadvantage...

After last year's botched and at times underhanded efforts, it's difficult to suddenly have any confidence in the whole process.

Originally Posted by Spec83

I can’t see how a car that dominated the last 1/3 of the season can remain relatively untouched and achieve 12% reduction in downforce by a wing angle limitation.

Death by 1000 cuts for Supercars

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It certainly doesn't look promising, insofar as being capable of achieving "parity".

Originally Posted by bluesport

That's supercars for you, why would any other manufacturers join this circus when they keep peddling out this nonsense.

You'd surely think there'd be alarm bells going off somewhere within Supercars, given no new manufacturers have signed up for the series in the last 7 years.

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

I don't see the big deal.

The category independently of the homologation teams, are doing their own thing with the aero this time around, to achieve parity. Not just for Triple Eight, and DJRTP, but for all the teams. Even the ones down the back going broke.

So equity rather than equality?

Good luck with that...

[Casper]

It is interesting that the process used has repeatedly required fine tuning during the season, so it repeatedly gets it wrong and it is still used, is that like banging your head against a brick wall and you can't understand why you get a headache?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Casper

It is interesting that the process used has repeatedly required fine tuning during the season, so it repeatedly gets it wrong and it is still used, is that like banging your head against a brick wall and you can't understand why you get a headache?

Happened "repeatedly" in 2019 but not a great deal before that. Process has been significantly updated and improved with new methods introduced for this round of testing.

[Forda]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Happened "repeatedly" in 2019 but not a great deal before that. Process has been significantly updated and improved with new methods introduced for this round of testing.

Sounds like something Supercars' PR department would say

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Happened "repeatedly" in 2019 but not a great deal before that. Process has been significantly updated and improved with new methods introduced for this round of testing.

Improved for 2020? By whose definition?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Forda

Sounds like something Supercars' PR department would say

They might I guess although no doubt anything they said would be much more "wordy" than my thoughts.

As always, no doubt we'll get a better idea of how they've done once the season kicks off.

[Mixer]

2019: flawed and outdated process allows Penske to ream the championship. People complain when it is actually adjusted back to some form of equality

2020: a much more detailed and careful process is undertaken and errors are picked up. PENSKE IS PART OF THE PROCESS

People complain.

Really what do you want?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Casper

Improved for 2020? By whose definition?

Ah, by the information released in detail about the upgrading and improvement of the process by supercars and commented on by various observers as an improved process.

We'll see this year how well it delivers - jury still out on that.

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by Mixer

2019: flawed and outdated process allows Penske to ream the championship. People complain when it is actually adjusted back to some form of equality

2020: a much more detailed and careful process is undertaken and errors are picked up. PENSKE IS PART OF THE PROCESS

People complain.

Really what do you want?

Yeah, this.

They very quickly realised something had to be done. Numerous stop-gap measures were put in place over 2019, and now this year, they've gone to great length to ensure it won't happen again. Rules, or lackthereof, were exploited, and now the loopholes have closed.

It's just whinging for the sake of whinging.

[Forda]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

It's just whinging for the sake of whinging.

By 888 during 2019?

If so, what you're saying would be somewhat correct.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

2019: flawed and outdated process allows Penske to ream the championship. People complain when it is actually adjusted back to some form of equality

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

They very quickly realised something had to be done.

Are you SURE Scott McLaughlin didn't win regularly simply because he is the best driver in the best team!?

The explanation of McLaughlin being the best driver by some margin is FAR more plausible, especially considering he already won the championship using an FGX that was at a considerable disadvantage to the ZB Commodore going by Supercar's own numbers (with further enhanced ZB now needing a 12% reduction to be brought back to FGX levels).

[JAFA851]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Are you SURE Scott McLaughlin didn't win regularly simply because he is the best driver in the best team!?\

Yes quite sure. Look at all the other Mustang runners, and where they were in Falcons. Once they got the Mustang they all vaulted up the field.

[Forda]

Originally Posted by JAFA851

Yes quite sure. Look at all the other Mustang runners, and where they were in Falcons. Once they got the Mustang they all vaulted up the field.

And what about the Opel to Mustang swapped runners?

Once Holdsworth was free from the going-nowhere Team 18, his potential was realised.
And when Team 18 correspondingly sucked Frosty into it's void, he went from somewhere to nowhere.

The truth is, however, the Mustang was ultimately and unfairly penalised last year, simply due to Scotty's freakish talent.
No other Mustangs were able to really get near him, not even his own teammate in an identical car.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by JAFA851

Yes quite sure. Look at all the other Mustang runners, and where they were in Falcons. Once they got the Mustang they all vaulted up the field.

Other than Coulthard who at times appeared to really hold up the rest of the field....

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Ah, by the information released in detail about the upgrading and improvement of the process by supercars and commented on by various observers as an improved process.

We'll see this year how well it delivers - jury still out on that.

Call me sceptical, running a car down an airstrip does not sound like a very definitive test to me. How can they duplicate conditions closely enough is one of life's little mysteries, even the air temp and barometric pressure would induce bad reporting let alone anything else like tight or loose wheel bearings, rising tyre pressures and even with nitrogen they do vary, how well the car was polished and most probably a hundred other things as well. They should run them off the top of Conrod in neutral and see how far they roll out, far quicker and just as accurate?

[Spec83]

I wonder if these Supercars snoozers know this place exists: https://www.monash.edu/engineering/o...unnel-facility

50 m/s = 180 km/h

VCAT currently defines the figure at 200 km/h I understand, so only a small adjustment needs to be made to equate it to match the tunnel vmax


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spec83]

I wonder if these snoozers know this place with a little 1.4MW fan and a turntable exists:

https://www.monash.edu/engineering/o...unnel-facility

50 m/s = 180 km/h

Understand that VCAT is 350kg @ 200km/h, I am sure the boffins could adjust for the slight discrepancy in vmax


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk