parity

rocket · 10 Jan 2003, 05:19 (Ref:469168)

for those that are interested there is a good story in the latest australian muscle car magazine about opperation blueprint
speaking of parity in this weeks auto action theres a story stating that ford have had to lower the height of their rear wing by 60mm, presumably to reduce the downforce. considering holden were the ones that couldnt match the specified target for the downforce it seems that ford are getting fu***d over allready, i certainly hope this isnt a sign of things to come if holden cant get their act together this year

10 Jan 2003, 05:25 (Ref:469173)

Gees the Ford supporters are already spreading doom and gloom . . . and there are a lot of them on TT . . . . . seems they only grab one side of every story!!!!

Mark Webber · 10 Jan 2003, 06:11 (Ref:469183)

I haven't even seen a VY pic yet
I feel that rear downforce is important but Ford need front more than anything

Rhys_00 · 10 Jan 2003, 06:45 (Ref:469196)

I hate this parity argument thats everywhere, and I know I might be a bit ignorant in my belief, but as far as I'm concerned, the cars shouldn't be the same. I think (and I know some will disagree) there should be clearcut rules for for both Holden and Ford to follow, and what they do within those rules is their own business.

If Holden, for one reason or another (the word of the week is aero) makes a better car, or runs a better team (HRT) they should win. It is a deserved return for the investment, foresight and effort.

If Ford, or a particular Ford team, are losing, they should be able to look at it as a whole and see whats wrong, and then correct it for themselves, not cry to the parity police (as is the system now) for more downforce at the front.

Build a better car next time around. Am i alone in this belief? I hope it all made sense...

I wasn't alive back then, but wasn't this how it all worked back in the days of Torana etc.? I know it is totally different (comparing apples and oranges..), but back then, if Holden or Ford made a **** car, did they cry for help, or did they go and come back with a better car?

jetsetter · 10 Jan 2003, 09:57 (Ref:469314)

If Ford want to be competitive they've got to get things sorted administration wise. Most of their teams are in a mess due to poor managerial skills & all they want to do is whinge about parity & if you look at last season there was only one Holden team well out in front (TWR) & then it was reasonably even, maybe other teams should try to follow TWR's lead & maybe they would then have a chance at winning the title.

V8 Fan · 10 Jan 2003, 10:56 (Ref:469338)

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhys_00
I hate this parity argument thats everywhere, and I know I might be a bit ignorant in my belief, but as far as I'm concerned, the cars shouldn't be the same. I think (and I know some will disagree) there should be clearcut rules for for both Holden and Ford to follow, and what they do within those rules is their own business.

If Holden, for one reason or another (the word of the week is aero) makes a better car, or runs a better team (HRT) they should win. It is a deserved return for the investment, foresight and effort.

If Ford, or a particular Ford team, are losing, they should be able to look at it as a whole and see whats wrong, and then correct it for themselves, not cry to the parity police (as is the system now) for more downforce at the front.

Build a better car next time around. Am i alone in this belief? I hope it all made sense...

I wasn't alive back then, but wasn't this how it all worked back in the days of Torana etc.? I know it is totally different (comparing apples and oranges..), but back then, if Holden or Ford made a **** car, did they cry for help, or did they go and come back with a better car?

If you think that V8 Supercars has anything to do with Holden OR Ford building a better car to win-you should be in a different Forum

Rhys_00 · 10 Jan 2003, 11:07 (Ref:469344)

I don't fully understand your comment. I know it has nothing to do with that currently. I think that it SHOULD have something to do with that.

Rhys_00 · 10 Jan 2003, 11:10 (Ref:469349)

What I described in my above post is what i think the v8 supercar series SHOULD be. I understand that as things are now, track result doesnt reflect the quality of the road car.

D.R.T. · 10 Jan 2003, 11:58 (Ref:469488)

At the moment it doesn't reflect anythin of their road car equivalents, except maybe the badges

the man · 10 Jan 2003, 13:15 (Ref:470118)

I would have to agree with you D.R.T about the cars and how they only represent the badges nothing else. The ford's rear wing looks like something off a sports sedan and the shell looks nothing like the road running car. Not to sure about the VY because I haven't seen any photo's of it yet

moffman · 10 Jan 2003, 15:14 (Ref:470284)

Geez..... it shytes me to hear people telling Ford to lift their game. I seem to recall when we had a better car, that the rulemakers saw fit to turn them into pieces of **** through parity adjustments. So you will understand, why us Ford blokes get ****ed off with the way things are going now cause it aint apples and apples. As far as Ford sorting things out administration wise, do we need some whining political animals like Perkins and Grech????

alfasud · 11 Jan 2003, 00:06 (Ref:470802)

That's what parity formula is about. The real competition is off the track, lobbying for different things behind the scenes..... to a certain extent, what happens on the track is just a confirmation of who already won.

Of course they other way is to give them both the same bodyshell and wings and then just paint them to look like Holden and Ford. Not sure if that many people could tell from a distance, but my money would still be on HRT to win.

racer69 · 11 Jan 2003, 01:10 (Ref:470847)

I'm with Rhys_00, the sooner we get back to real racing rather than penalising the quick cars, helping the slower one, the better. Either that or to help the downforce arguments ban the wings completely.

Mark Webber · 11 Jan 2003, 06:13 (Ref:470932)

I agree with Rhys_00 & racer .
I feel the car's are going down the wrong path Nascar is fine ( Boring ) on oval but NEWS flash we don't run on ovals !!. the car have no connectin to the road cars try and buy a 5.0lt Ford or Holden .
If the car brake the same ,take off the same ,have the same top speed & handle the same where is the passing ? not the pits if everyone pits on lap 2 the Road train just slow down for 30odd sec's
so all this info where does this leave us Aha
a race to the first corner ( So clowndes can win again)
Race car do need to be different so race can be interesting
if there the same well it speaks for it's self just look at the last couple of years

rocket · 11 Jan 2003, 06:16 (Ref:470933)

Quote:

Originally posted by moffman
Geez..... it shytes me to hear people telling Ford to lift their game. I seem to recall when we had a better car, that the rulemakers saw fit to turn them into pieces of **** through parity adjustments. So you will understand, why us Ford blokes get ****ed off with the way things are going now cause it aint apples and apples. As far as Ford sorting things out administration wise, do we need some whining political animals like Perkins and Grech????

yeah it shytes me to, its amazing how quickly people forget the amount of times ford has been penalised in the current V8 era. i cant understand why ford has to re-do its rear wing when according to the thread 'holden fails aero test' else where in this forum, they were the ones that got it right & holden were off the mark!

i wish i had a record of all the parity adjustments that have been made since this formula started, maybe then people will see how many times ford have been screwed & why us ford supporters are so pis*ed of at the current situation.

the only times that i can remember that holden have been penalised or ford given a so called leg up is in
96 or 97 when holden had a whole 2mm taken off their gurney lip (geez that did SFA)
98 holden had the size of their front undertray reduced, only to get it backbefore bathurst & they still have a big advantage in that area
2000 or 2001 when ford were given the so called 'common' front spoiler/undertray, again something that did SFA

if opperation blueprint is going to make things so 'even' then why does holden still get to use the larger undertray???????????????

William Dale Jr · 11 Jan 2003, 11:37 (Ref:471047)

Let me see if I have this list of events right:

September/October 1992: EB Falcon and VP Commodore are introduced into competition

November 1992: Dispute over homologated aero kits sees EB Falcon have to revert to aero package as-used at 1992 Sandown 500.

May 1993: Holden are allowed to homologate a new aero package after their original aero package left them uncompetitive against the EB Falcons. BMW receives permission to do the same.

January 1994: Ford are allowed to homologate a new aero package to compensate for the May 1993 change which left them uncompetitive against the Commodores.

February 1995: EF Falcon and VR Commodore are introduced into competition.

September 1995: EF Falcon has 200mm trimmed from front undertray. It is also found that all racing Falcons bar one (Garry Willmington's) are using acid-dipped, lightweight panels to get down to minimum weight. CAMS increases minimum weight for both cars by 20kg.

September 1996: Parity Review Committee decides that the EF Falcon needs a performance increase of 0.25 seconds per minute. The PRC offers to return the 200mm trimmed from EF Falcon front undertray the previous year. Teams have already developed suspension packages to the point that the returned 200mm would upset their cars just weeks before Bathurst, so they politely refuse. So instead of adding 200mm to the Ford, the PRC remove 125mm from the front undertray of the VR Commodore.

December 1996: Initial aero packages for both EL Falcon (rear wing) and VS Commodore (front spoiler) are rejected.

March 1997: EL Falcon and VS Commodore are introduced into competition.

June 1998: VT Commodore is introduced into competition.

Late 1998: Initial aero package for AU Falcon is rejected.

March 1999: AU Falcon is introduced into competition.

June 2000: AU Falcon is granted the VT front spoiler and undertray.

March 2001: VX Commodore is introduced into competition.

Mid 2001: Operation Blueprint is devised to create relative equality between VX Commodore and AU Falcon.

Now, some of the dates may be slightly off, and I may have missed/mistaken a few things, plus I've left out all current parity issues, so please feel free to make additions/corrections.

I've also tried to be objective and just list facts whilst leaving out all opinion and perceptions.

Monaro · 11 Jan 2003, 11:47 (Ref:471054)

If anyone saw the rear wing on the BA at Bathurst Ford got off lightly.The BA rear wing is about 30cm wider than the AU and created to much rear down force which made the front too light.At least they wont have to worry about loosing mirrors they will lose the rear spoiler first it sticks out that far

William Dale Jr · 11 Jan 2003, 11:54 (Ref:471059)

Maybe, but we haven't seen the VY package yet...

StuiE · 12 Jan 2003, 10:53 (Ref:471888)

Quote:

Originally posted by Monaro
If anyone saw the rear wing on the BA at Bathurst Ford got off lightly.The BA rear wing is about 30cm wider than the AU and created to much rear down force which made the front too light.At least they wont have to worry about loosing mirrors they will lose the rear spoiler first it sticks out that far

I thought it was pretty wide too, why can't they just take about 10-20cm off the width of the wing? (and it would look better too)

DAVID PATERSON · 12 Jan 2003, 11:11 (Ref:471900)

Thanks WD Jnr for that timeline, it was nice to see someone wade into the debate with a load of facts, instead of opinions and prejudices.

I read the Operation blueprint article in AMC today, it's interesting to note, that the Falcon is little changed, but many, many Falcon features are being grafted onto the Commodore. The experts believe that all of these designs/parts were fundamentally superior on the Ford.

So, if the Ford was an inherently superior design, why does the Commodore do most of the winning? Even blind Freddy can see it's only one team doing all the winning. It's blatantly obvious that TEGA have NOT given Holden any advantage over the last few years, simply one team has done everything beter than the others. Take a good hard look at the HRT and then look at the others. HRT does not have a weakness, every other team has at least one.

Crash Test · 12 Jan 2003, 23:38 (Ref:472531)

Looking at the SBR Ingall showcar down at Byrne Ford the other day, the rear wing does seem unusually large. Perhaps the idea is to give the new model cars an advantage over the older models as an incentive to upgrade ASAP..

13 Jan 2003, 00:04 (Ref:472546)

Pretty sure the EL gained additional height on its rear wing, which carried over to the AU.

StuiE · 13 Jan 2003, 05:39 (Ref:472704)

Quote:

Originally posted by Crash Test
Looking at the SBR Ingall showcar down at Byrne Ford the other day, the rear wing does seem unusually large.

That car didn't have the bonnet bulge, like the T-Car did, does anyone whether the Ford will have it on or not?

V8 Fan · 13 Jan 2003, 05:46 (Ref:472705)

Quote:

Originally posted by gtr69
That car didn't have the bonnet bulge, like the T-Car did, does anyone whether the Ford will have it on or not?

Yes they will. I emailed SBR on that subject and they told me they didn't have a XR8 bonnet at the time of painting Ingall's show car

StuiE · 13 Jan 2003, 06:05 (Ref:472713)

Thanks for that Tricky, good news

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Engine Parity	MarkG	Club Level Single Seaters	107	30 Jul 2005 09:13
Parity....	tiko	Australasian Touring Cars.	8	25 Jul 2005 00:46
Parity in F1?	JohnSSC	Formula One	33	28 Jun 2004 07:42
V8 Supercar Parity	Troy	Touring Car Racing	16	10 May 2000 22:22