Parity- Its coming!

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Malfunction Junction

SSBaby,

The fact that Polites was wrong then doesn't make the principle right now.

I know and I agree with you, TOTALLY!

But he did threaten to pull Ford out of the sport unless he got his way...

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Geoff was a great bloke and was making quite a bit of noise in the media about it at the time but that was not the driver for the change - it was empirical analysis and measurement that led to the change. In the same way that Simple Simon was making noise last year, but empirical measurement and analysis showed that he had no case and no change was made.

Correction.

There was indeed widespread change... enter BA racer vs VZ. The start of a totally new era and the first sign of a real execution of the parity formula.

Btw, where are you getting your 'facts' from, Tourer. Some evidence would be good and not just hearsay!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

You sure that was VE or was it VZ? I had no idea that VE was aero tested back to back with BA? Please reinvigorate my failing memory.

What should be done is a back to back test involving VE and FG. Or has this test already been carried out and is my short term memory letting me down again?

Definitely VE - got a lot of coverage at the time as there was a lot of interest in the new look race car. Car used was an HRT car in a special pre launch livery as I recall.

Testing was done last year VE vs FG - again, got a lot of coverage in the motorsport media. Simple Simon has referred to it as part of his view (last year anyway) that the FG and VE are equally matched.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Correction.

There was indeed widespread change... enter BA racer vs VZ. The start of a totally new era and the first sign of a real execution of the parity formula.

Btw, where are you getting your 'facts' from, Tourer. Some evidence would be good and not just hearsay!

SSBaby I was talking about the change made to the Holden undertray as a parity adjustment when AU was running - the BA came later.

I'm getting my facts from being a full time senior employee with one of the teams in the paddock at the time. I was there right in the middle of it - no hearsay to be found here.

We were all involved in the process and were fully briefed - didn't necessarily like it at the time but it is what happened.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Tourer

SSBaby I was talking about the change made to the Holden undertray as a parity adjustment when AU was running - the BA came later.

I'm getting my facts from being a full time senior employee with one of the teams in the paddock at the time. I was there right in the middle of it - no hearsay to be found here.

We were all involved in the process and were fully briefed - didn't necessarily like it at the time but it is what happened.

Yes but you criticised my short term memory yet you completely took my comments out of context! Basically, your memory has failed you. I can accept your apology and move on...

So, I am correct. There were was no aero testing of VE done compared to BF. This is where the issue lies and Holden would have clear grounds for this issue to be assessed through 'Empirical Testing'.

EDIT just read your other post regarding VE vs FG... where is the evidence of the aero tests, PLEASE?

[SSbaby]

Correction on my part (and my apology! ). There were aero tests done as this article indicates. The tests appear to measure downforce as I understand it...

http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/News/Ins...ity+test+.html

But did 'you' also measure drag on both racers as distinct to downforce?

If the aero differences are negligible f-r and 'drag', why are we even talking about parity?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Yes but you criticised my short term memory yet you completely took my comments out of context! Basically, your memory has failed you. I can accept your apology and move on...

So, I am correct. There were was no aero testing of VE done compared to BF. This is where the issue lies and Holden would have clear grounds for this issue to be assessed through 'Empirical Testing'.

EDIT just read your other post regarding VE vs FG... where is the evidence of the aero tests, PLEASE?

Mate, I just googled it - took me all of 30 seconds. Google brought up a "Wheels" article on the VE vs FG testing, an article with Simple Simon saying that he'd seen the VE vs FG aero results and was happy with them etc etc.

Not really all that hard at all.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Mate, I just googled it - took me all of 30 seconds. Google brought up a "Wheels" article on the VE vs FG testing, an article with Simple Simon saying that he'd seen the VE vs FG aero results and was happy with them etc etc.

Not really all that hard at all.

You're correct in regards to VE and FG. I'm sorry!

But was 'drag' measured and if so, how so?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Correction on my part (and my apology! ). There were aero tests done as this article indicates. The tests appear to measure downforce as I understand it...

http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/News/Ins...ity+test+.html

But did 'you' also measure drag on both racers as distinct to downforce?

If the aero differences are negligible f-r and 'drag', why are we even taking about parity?

Sorry - put up my other post before I saw this one.

I didn't measure anything at the tests as I wasn't at them but the process is fully explained to the teams (and I'm pretty sure has been covered in the media before). Both downforce and drag are definitely measured in the tests.

Your last line is my point right from the start - to my mind there is good parity (that is, parity in potential performance) between the two makes - extracting that performance is down to teams / drivers and that is the difference that is currently being seen (in my view at least).

So no need for a parity review that I can see - but a number of teams (both red and blue) that would normally be expected to be right up there haven't been there consistently this year and clearly those teams have work to do.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Sorry - put up my other post before I saw this one.

I didn't measure anything at the tests as I wasn't at them but the process is fully explained to the teams (and I'm pretty sure has been covered in the media before). Both downforce and drag are definitely measured in the tests.

Your last line is my point right from the start - to my mind there is good parity (that is, parity in potential performance) between the two makes - extracting that performance is down to teams / drivers and that is the difference that is currently being seen (in my view at least).

So no need for a parity review that I can see - but a number of teams (both red and blue) that would normally be expected to be right up there haven't been there consistently this year and clearly those teams have work to do.

Yes! Agree with you there.

If the cars are technically equal, then it must be said that the Holden teams have some serious work to do to catch up. No amount of whinging should undo that!

I'm curious to know why the Holden teams believed they were disadvantaged by 0.1s per minute lap, last year. What possible evidence could they draw from their data to come up with those figures?

PS: The Wheels article also states there have been a series of 6 aero tests conducted thus far (and Tourer, you are correct again, the VE and BF were in fact aero tested! - Doh! )

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

I'm curious to know why the Holden teams believed they were disadvantaged by 0.1s per minute lap, last year. What possible evidence could they draw from their data to come up with those figures?

All cool SSB,

I'm not fulltime with a team anymore so this is definitely hearsay but I was told last year that Simple Simon's "evidence" was based on very limited data - don't know whether that meant qualifying or fastest lap only from a race or what.

In any case, it didn't really look across the whole field enough. Could even have been skewing the "evidence" to suit an argument (possibly, allegedly etc).

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

So, I am correct. There were was no aero testing of VE done compared to BF. This is where the issue lies and Holden would have clear grounds for this issue to be assessed through 'Empirical Testing'.

Not quite, the following article refers to VE vs BF aero testing...
http://www.v8x.com.au/cms/A_108532/article.html

FG vs VE testing
[url]http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/News/Inside+a+V8+Supercar+aero+parity+test+.html[/url

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by johnh875

Not quite, the following article refers to VE vs BF aero testing...
http://www.v8x.com.au/cms/A_108532/article.html

FG vs VE testing
[url]http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/News/Inside+a+V8+Supercar+aero+parity+test+.html[/url

Thanks for the link!

I always (incorrectly) believed that the VE racer was just a cosmetic changeover from VZ, without having undergone any aero validation.

Further, I had little idea that 6 aero tests have been conducted, some on previously tested models. That would be a reasonably conclusive testing strategy, one would think?

Still, you have to wonder why the 888 cars are so much better than the rest of the field as no team has dominated the field (reference, sheer pace) as much as they have since the culmination of Project Blueprint!

[rustyinsthoz]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Thanks for the link!


Still, you have to wonder why the 888 cars are so much better than the rest of the field as no team has dominated the field (reference, sheer pace) as much as they have since the culmination of Project Blueprint!

Money, technology, manpower.

[billy bigtime]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Thanks for the link!

I always (incorrectly) believed that the VE racer was just a cosmetic changeover from VZ, without having undergone any aero validation.

Further, I had little idea that 6 aero tests have been conducted, some on previously tested models. That would be a reasonably conclusive testing strategy, one would think?

Still, you have to wonder why the 888 cars are so much better than the rest of the field as no team has dominated the field (reference, sheer pace) as much as they have since the culmination of Project Blueprint!

888 are simply doing a better job! As one Holden has been used say "the Ford teams have to work harder". Just replace Ford with Holden(or TaTa shortly) and there you have youe answer.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by rustyinsthoz

Money, technology, manpower.

None of the above matters if the car isn't better in one or more areas.

The 888 cars must be better mousetraps but how so? That's the question! Once the other teams find out about their 'developments', we're back at square one.

Having said that, the 888 cars are extremely well driven and as far as race tactics and pitstop efficiency goes... they are clearly better than the rest!

Lift your game HRT and other Holden runners!

[Forda]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

None of the above matters if the car isn't better in one or more areas.

The 888 cars must be better mousetraps but how so? That's the question! Once the other teams find out about their 'developments', we're back at square one.

Having said that, the 888 cars are extremely well driven and as far as race tactics and pitstop efficiency goes... they are clearly better than the rest!

Lift your game HRT and other Holden runners!

Perhaps it's because they (888) use their road-going derivative's rear doors?

[peckstar]

they dont though

[Forda]

Originally Posted by peckstar

they dont though

Huh?

[peckstar]

m pretty sure they have different rear doors