Is Parity Needed?

[pete55]

I have been talking to a current V8 Supercar driver and he says that Parity is not really needed in V8 Supercars. What is really needed is for the cars to be a lot cheaper to build and to run. Now this team is a bottom half of the field runner most of the time, and it was pointed out to me that it would probably be more interesting if Parity was not there and it was also pointed out that the bottom half of the field would receive as much publicity as they do now (bugger all) or maybe more. There would be more passing that's for sure and good drivers would always shine, especially in cars that were not quite the best in the field and running in the best conditions. He also said that the cars are probably too technical for Australia, considering population and the financial factors in the country.

[twig]

How can a car be too technical for a country? It isn't as though we are buying those cars - or having to really understand them for the sport to work. So i wouldn't think that the technology would have anything to do with financial factors in the population.

Although i do agree with the parity and making the cars cheaper bit. I remember Skaife mentioned something on V8 Superstars about making some things homogenised - such as the wheels....an expensive thing to make/buy - but en masse, it would be cheap, and wouldn't affect the racing.

Parity is somewhat overdone these days - with project blueprint, the chassis being the same for each respective manufacturer, the engines not overly variable and the control tyres - it's no wonder the cars are so close.
We have a lot of passing at the moment - but think of how removing the control tyre and going with different tyre manufacturers would give views a similar race to when the BOC cars came through.

[Lowndesfan6]

That's just it twig, the Chassis aren't all the same. Beehag, Dencar, SBR, 888, TPR, GRM, FPR etc.
This is why the series is so dominated by certain teams. The HRT/HSV/PWR and won't be long tasman all use Dencar chassis and it's proven to be very dominant.
The only dominant Fords are SBR. Remember how fast Lowndes was in 2001 with the ex-SBR car.
To bring it back to an even field, I think, one Chassis maker should build both Holden and Ford, deliver the chassis to the respective teams and then the only thing the teams have to do is install the parts.
I also think that along with the control tyre, there should be only a certain amount of springs, shocks etc to limit dominance of certain teams.
Then we'll see the best drivers at the front.

[Mattracer]

True, but when the BOC cars were coming through, the cars being passed were unable to resist or defend their positions by any logical basis so it was a bit one-sided. The issue was to see just how far up the field the two cars could get while their opponents pulled over for them. If it was for points, then maybe it would have been different, but then again, with so few points between positions, and conservatism the rule of the day, nothing would be risked?

[A9X05]

I can see it now, in the future We can or will have a one make series,the only difference being that we just have a different badge to change the brand of the car ! Everything then WILL be the same, TC's Aussie NASCAR it shall be known as! After all they are starting to look like the good ol boys' cars Its all becoming all too false and fabricated!

If we want to see these drivers at their best put them in stock standard sedans of each brand and have a series like that? Call it the Trans Tasman Race of Champions!

If its too hot, get out of the kitchen.

[mixxer]

Too technical is rediculous, sounds like another Aussie knock
I thought I read the P word was gone forever with project blueprint.

[pete55]

This person was talking about things like the data acquisition, brakes, wheels, build cost of the shells and many other things and the fact that we are a small country and maybe the economy (meaning sponsorship and disposal incomes etc) will be able to sustain a category that is so expensive to run. Take the NZ tourers, they don't have anywhere near the technology V8 Supercars run yet they look nearly the same, sound nearly the same and put on racing just as good. He also stated that he thought that quite a few current teams may not be around in the not too distant future if costs aren't contained. Some of these teams require drivers that bring a budget and that budget is getting harder all the time to obtain.
I wish i had of been able to do this talk as an interview, it was very interesting the views that this person had.

[Grimace]

Parity is absolutely mandatory- with Skaife saying they have gained 10ks on the straight - it may come to the Falcons very much sooner- if Adelaide is a yardstick to HRTs speed increase - its a PARITY FORMULA and dont forget it !!

[MRJUCY]

If it was a production car series i'd say no it's up to the manufacturers but in a formula where the cars are so far removed from standard you can't go fixing it so one side is faster then the other & prevent the other from catching up. The cars don't need to be the same but they need an equal chance of winning.

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Parity is absolutely mandatory- with Skaife saying they have gained 10ks on the straight - it may come to the Falcons very much sooner- if Adelaide is a yardstick to HRTs speed increase - its a PARITY FORMULA and dont forget it !!

And because Triple8 have gained 10ks on the short straight at willowbank with SBR engines it must mean the holdens need a hand.

[Grimace]

Originally Posted by sizzle

And because Triple8 have gained 10ks on the short straight at willowbank with SBR engines it must mean the holdens need a hand.

doh! Marcos couldnt really catch Skaife let alone Lowndes 888 catch Skaife

look at Todds speed before he trashed the new HRT car-impressive

[Dazz]

Who wants to come straight out and say that HRT engines are more powerefull than SBR engines?

Anyway, the engine specs are as close to identical as possible, so how well a particular team gets that spec to work has nothing to do with parity.

I personally think that the equality between the Falcon and Commodore is as close as it's ever been, and can see no need for this topic to even exist at this point in time.

But I guess you will never stop the arguement put forward that "if my team wins then there is parity, and if my team loses then there isn't".

[Harves]

Pete, does this driver honestly think if there was no parity he would rocket to the front of the grid? I don't think so, the big teams with the dollars will always be up the front, motorsport has always been that way, just ask Minardi.

[pete55]

Harves, that is not what he was saying. He was saying that if the cars were cheaper to build and maintain etc and the specifications were lower, then the racing would be better. Then all this stuff about parity may not be needed, well certainly not to the extent it is now.

[vatuloa]

Holden seem to hold back until Bathurst lets see if it is the same this year

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by pete55

Harves, that is not what he was saying. He was saying that if the cars were cheaper to build and maintain etc and the specifications were lower, then the racing would be better. Then all this stuff about parity may not be needed, well certainly not to the extent it is now.

Pete, my little flame comment earlier highlights why the parity issue always arises. It only takes a couple of teams to have an engine not quite as good as everyone else and the old it must be the fault of the car comes out.
Triple 8 were one of the teams that were not up to the task last year that were being used by ford supporters for the purpose of arguing parity. They now have SBR engines and have gained 10k per hour on the straight at willowbank.
Holden supporters always cried foul because it was only HRT that could challenge for a win and so they reckoned they needed help. At the end of the day unless have both cars identical in every respect you will never achieve parity. Even then the chassis engineer/engine builder with the biggest budget will find something that no one else has and away you go again.

[pete55]

The suggestion was that with control items or control spec items this would be one of the main ways to reduce costs. Tyres, Gearboxes, Suspension design, Diffs etc are already controlled. Aerodynamics are supposed to be controlled. Brakes, Brake Pads, Wheels, Shockies, Dashes, Tail Shafts, Pit Equipement and some other areas are supposedly next on the list. Engine Longetivity is also on the agenda. Myself i think the control parts idea is the best way to reduce costs and if you reduce costs i think the racing will be better. I also don't think the cars need to be as powerful as they are now.

[Dazz]

I do think the cars need to be at least as powerful as they are.

However you can do it cheaper with longer engine life if you simply increase the capacity.

I'm sure you could use a 6.0 litre version of the current engine, but restrict engine rpm to 7,000 or even 6,500rpm, so your peak power is similar but at less rpm.

Everything would look the same under the bonnet, the performance would be similar, engine life would increase due to lower rpm and the cars lose none of their over powered under tyred nature.

If you remove power, you then give the cars a better grip to power ratio making them easier to drive. Part of the skill is getting all that power down exiting the corners without burning up the rear tyres.

If race 2 at the Grand Prix meeting showed us anything, it's that the skillfull drivers really shine with reduced grip, as Ambrose and Skaife demonstrated on wet tyres on a drying track.

[Harves]

Good point Dazz, there's a lot of this you can do to keep costs down, however when the cars are as close as they right now we get the the track problems, GP, PI and The Mountain all good tracks when the racing is close, maybe throw in Oran Park. Our good tracks are being gobbled up.

Off the point yes but it's a huge problem, soon all our tracks will have Metricons sitting on them.

[lcfp2297]

Pete, I understand where the drivers are coming from, but without a budget cap, and some way of policing that, the money saved on "common" items will be spent on developing everything else...

Even Firth used to spend hours (time is money) going through parts bins looking for the standard items that were more perfect than others...

If HRT has $1bill to spend, they will spend it...and if its not on parts, then it will be on simulation etc etc

[pete55]

What good would shockie or whatever simulation be if they were control items with controlled settings. All they have to do is get the supplier to provide at random parts and seal or mark those items.

[Harves]

It seems like he(The Driver) wants to go down the silhouette form, where everything underneath is the same, I think this has failed on a few occasions. Having said that, at Symonds last year, 25 cars were within a second, in a field of 34 that's bloody good parity which ever way you look at it!

[Gaz170]

I think the cars need to be slowed down a bit. Maybe reduce the RPM's allowed on the engines.

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by Grimace

doh! Marcos couldnt really catch Skaife let alone Lowndes 888 catch Skaife

look at Todds speed before he trashed the new HRT car-impressive

[QUOTE=Grimace]Hey Grim.......On the previous post you made comment
"who caress its NOT the championship-means stuff all"

This was relative to the threat about Marcos not being able to catch MS. This thread you posted in was regarding the use or outsmarting of SBR in relation of using OLD RUBBER ! Maybe thats why MA could not catch MS.

No parity needed once MA gets on Fresh rubber as per HRT...correct?