Supercars Gen 3 (2022)

[S griffin]

Yes, there shouldn't be too much difference with the tech compared to last year, so it's a bit of a mystery. However things to do need to be kept a close eye on

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by FIRE

With the technical philosophy of the cars not much changed compared to the past I am surprised by the problems and higher costs than expected.

Well also shortages have seen the price of _everything_ go up since COVID.

Electronic components and some exotic materials have gone up between 40 and 200%.

[V8 Fireworks]

V8 Slueth reports the that difference in COG is 0.4 degrees in tip-over angle, not 0.4mm in COG height as reported erroneously elsewhere.

This compares to 2.1 degrees difference between the Mustang and Altima in 2019, which required the Mustang to add 28kg to the roof.

This would suggest that, using the small angle approximation, around 0.4/2.1*28kg = 5.3kg now needs to be added to the roof of the Camaro to remove this section of the Camaro's undue parity advantage.

References:
https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/supercar...data-revealed/
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/mot...ed-reduce-aero

Edit: The roof height is lower than it was before, so it's probably more like ~7kg to achieve the same effect as before I guess.

Originally Posted by Mixer

Electronic components and some exotic materials have gone up between 40 and 200%.

Hopefully lead is cheap for those Camaro runners!

This statement from V8 Sleuth is unclear:

Aerodynamics and now CoG appear to have been confirmed as fair game

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/supercar...data-revealed/

Fair game for parity adjustments, or fair game to be points of competition?

Making DJR come back and homologate a lighter bodywork package for 2024 seems the far more expensive option than adding lead to the Camaro (and making Herrod homologate a large capacity engine to have any chance to compete against the 5.7L too), but if that's what the rulemakers want "(it's fair game to) build a better car (and engine)"...

Not withstanding the 5.4L Coyote is already detuned by 30hp, and it would easier to just change the engine map than make Herrod build a 5.7L engine!

Anyhow, hopefully both changes -- the 6-7kg lead for the Camaro's roof and the revised engine mapping for the 5.4L Coyote which is already prepared -- are installed at Wanneroo and help to close the parity gap. If there is still a difference in rear aero, perhaps a part-width Gurney could be added to the Mustang's bootlid too, these three changes together should do the trick one hopes.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

V8 Slueth reports the that difference in COG is 0.4 degrees in tip-over angle, not 0.4mm in COG height as reported erroneously elsewhere.

This compares to 2.1 degrees difference between the Mustang and Altima in 2019, which required the Mustang to add 28kg to the roof.

This would suggest that, using the small angle approximation, around 0.4/2.1*28kg = 5.3kg now needs to be added to the roof of the Camaro to remove this section of the Camaro's undue parity advantage.

References:
https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/supercar...data-revealed/
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/mot...ed-reduce-aero

Edit: The roof height is lower than it was before, so it's probably more like ~7kg to achieve the same effect as before I guess.



Hopefully lead is cheap for those Camaro runners!

This statement from V8 Sleuth is unclear:

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/supercar...data-revealed/

Fair game for parity adjustments, or fair game to be points of competition?

Making DJR come back and homologate a lighter bodywork package for 2024 seems the far more expensive option than adding lead to the Camaro (and making Herrod homologate a large capacity engine to have any chance to compete against the 5.7L too), but if that's what the rulemakers want "(it's fair game to) build a better car (and engine)"...

Not withstanding the 5.4L Coyote is already detuned by 30hp, and it would easier to just change the engine map than make Herrod build a 5.7L engine!

Anyhow, hopefully both changes -- the 6-7kg lead for the Camaro's roof and the revised engine mapping for the 5.4L Coyote which is already prepared -- are installed at Wanneroo and help to close the parity gap. If there is still a difference in rear aero, perhaps a part-width Gurney could be added to the Mustang's bootlid too, these three changes together should do the trick one hopes.

I think 5.4 litres is the max that the coyote V8 can be taken to.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I think 5.4 litres is the max that the coyote V8 can be taken to.

Apparently 5.7-5.8L can be done, but it is not ideal as the nominally 5.0L Coyote (a derivative of the 4.6L modular) has a 1 inch lower deck height than the 5.4L version of the modular engine from the BA/BF Falcon.

So if you bring the Coyote right out to the maximum possible bore using replacement iron sleeves (plus a longer stroke) you can get it there, but the rod-to-stroke ratio will be very poor and the pistons will be very close to leaving the bottom of the cylinders.

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

V8 Slueth reports the that difference in COG is 0.4 degrees in tip-over angle, not 0.4mm in COG height as reported erroneously elsewhere.

This compares to 2.1 degrees difference between the Mustang and Altima in 2019, which required the Mustang to add 28kg to the roof.

This would suggest that, using the small angle approximation, around 0.4/2.1*28kg = 5.3kg now needs to be added to the roof of the Camaro to remove this section of the Camaro's undue parity advantage.

The reports don't state that 0.4 degrees between models, but between the fleet. For all we know, that could see a Mustang built vehicle at either end of the scale, or one Camaro builder far in front of the pack. We don't have the full picture.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If there is still a difference in rear aero, perhaps a part-width Gurney could be added to the Mustang's bootlid too, these three changes together should do the trick one hopes.

A Gurney flap would be a terrible thing for Supercars to do. A key part of Gen 3 has been the reduction in aero and aero wash. The Gurney flap would cause aero wash and impact the quality of racing.

But given Ford agreed with the aero parity and are not complaining about aero, no change is likely needed.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by banksie

The reports don't state that 0.4 degrees between models, but between the fleet. For all we know, that could see a Mustang built vehicle at either end of the scale, or one Camaro builder far in front of the pack. We don't have the full picture.

Yep, we don't have the full picture, just some "whisper" or leaked info that is very non-specific. The technical working group does have the full picture and is meeting today - we'll find out from that if there are going to be any CoG adjustments.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Apparently 5.7-5.8L can be done, but it is not ideal as the nominally 5.0L Coyote (a derivative of the 4.6L modular) has a 1 inch lower deck height than the 5.4L version of the modular engine from the BA/BF Falcon.

So if you bring the Coyote right out to the maximum possible bore using replacement iron sleeves (plus a longer stroke) you can get it there, but the rod-to-stroke ratio will be very poor and the pistons will be very close to leaving the bottom of the cylinders.

OK thanks for that info, it's a shame that supercars didn't mandate a specific engine capacity in the first instance.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by banksie

But given Ford agreed with the aero parity and are not complaining about aero, no change is likely needed.

Perhaps, but it does little to explain why Mustangs are still sliding around more at the rear (as seen in testing) even after more front aero was added to the Camaro (as seen at the race meetings)!

Recall that the Ford Performance approval was based on straight-line VCAT testing, and behaviour in yaw, as determined from the infamous micro sectors, may tell a different story...

[S griffin]

Yes, it would make a lot of sense if the Mustangs aren't handling well. Seems they are struggling with the aero, whereas the Camaros have got their sums right. Certainly seems that way

Ford seem to have been left behind and might struggle to get back

[Tourer]

Camaros adding some ballast, starting with Wanneroo, to even up the CoG.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Perhaps, but it does little to explain why Mustangs are still sliding around more at the rear (as seen in testing) even after more front aero was added to the Camaro (as seen at the race meetings)

Given the positioning of the ballast on the Camaros, any difference at the rear could be fully or partially related to CoG - we may or may not see some detail difference over in the West.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Ford seem to have been left behind and might struggle to get back

Isn't the onus on the ATCC to fix that, given it is meant to be a technical parity category and the ATCC have supplied the control front splitter, control rear wing and (presumably) specified their location too from their own ATCC CFD consultant?

I don't believe Ford Performance had the opportunity to design and/or position the splitter, wing and body package in the United States to achieve the aerodynamic performance they wanted.

[bathurst77]

The thing that makes me wonder is all last year (and 2020) Supercars (and Larkham) continually crowed about how hard they worked and how important it was to have engine, suspension and aero parity. It was a major part of the case for change to G3.

Then with covid they were gifted an extra 12 months to test simulate tweak and perfect it.

THen come race 1 round 1 it quickly became apparent that they had failed at one of their primary objectives and claims. (and as is historically apt, it favoured gm[h])

I cant work out how any multi million dollar professional organisation with some of the best engineers aerodynamicists other experts and some of the best equipment in the world can stuff it up so badly.. even after a 12 month "bonus"._

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

THen come race 1 round 1 it quickly became apparent that they had failed at one of their primary objectives and claims. (and as is historically apt, it favoured gm[h])

The real failures are:

1. Tickford drivers crashing and getting penalties, and Tickford team manager continually using dud strategies
2. DJR drivers fast one weekend and gone fishing the next. DJR also terrible strategy, and absolute put stop clangers week after week.
3. Grove young and still inconsistent, seems to be 2 Dave Reynolds and you don't know which one you get.
4. WAU seem to have the best Mustang package, or at least Chaz does - their second driver is seemingly still hanging out with his BJR mates.

Not one of these Ford teams has maximised any weekend yet - all have thrown away podiums with errors.

So nobody can judge parity based on round results - nobody. There is science going on that we follow that science to establish technical parity.

This gives each manufacturer an equal chance to win providing they put their best foot forward in engineering, strategy and driving.

Ford teams so far this year at best are 2/3 and Red Bull seem to have 2 cars up the front with no errors - with Erebus there or thereabouts too.

You just cannot paritise for drivers who are past their best, and teams who can't get it together on raceday.

Tickford has been like this for quite some time, and DJR has been on the slide since Penske left and Dr Story got ill.

WAU look easily like top dog for Ford with the least errors but only one car is showing what it can do.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

The new MARC car is $600k, btw.

According to Geoff Taunton from MARC cars:

It has Supercar pace, budgeted at half the price to buy and run.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/04/21...-race/?image=7

[bludvl_x19]

.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

There is science going on that we follow that science to establish technical parity.

...

You just cannot paritise for drivers who are past their best, and teams who can't get it together on raceday.

This comment will age badly if the science shows the 5.4L Coyote is indeed disadvantaged in 4th-6th gears as the drivers said!

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

This comment will age badly if the science shows the 5.4L Coyote is indeed disadvantaged in 4th-6th gears as the drivers said!

Yeah, Mixer conveniently ignored the power disadvantage in the high gears.

[Ares]

I can remember a few years back, one or two on here stating that there should be no changes made to the new Mustang until the end of the season. Amazing how the same people can be so quick to call for changes this time around.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Ares

I can remember a few years back, one or two on here stating that there should be no changes made to the new Mustang until the end of the season. Amazing how the same people can be so quick to call for changes this time around.

That was correct as per the rules at the time. Design the best aerokit you can as you long as you hit the required downforce and drag at 200 km/hr in a straight line, and you (or your competitor) can come back and homologate another aerokit 12 months later for the next VCAT test if you wish, for the start of the next season.

The precedent has now, however, been set for changes with great urgency -- many of which without VCAT tests -- due to the very urgent action seen in the 2019 season.

It would have been most logical for the Mustang -- that hit the required drag and downforce numbers to the letter of the rules, which required straight-line values only -- to stay as is, and for another ZB Commodore and L33 Altima aero kit to have been homologated for the 2020 season.

With the front splitter and rear wing now being control components (so not things up to competitors to design any more), it is not even clear if Ford Performance were entitled to set their position or rather if their position was set by the ATCC's CFD consultant. Supposedly the rear wing being lowered for the S650 Mustang compared to the S550, even though the vehicles have the same roof profile.

[bluesport]

Request for new mustang engine map.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/04/21...rt-park-fires/

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That was correct as per the rules at the time. Design the best aerokit you can as you long as you hit the required downforce and drag at 200 km/hr in a straight line, and you (or your competitor) can come back and homologate another aerokit 12 months later for the next VCAT test if you wish, for the start of the next season.

The precedent has now, however, been set for changes with great urgency -- many of which without VCAT tests -- due to the very urgent action seen in the 2019 season.

2019 wasn't the first time aero changes had been made mid-season. The category has always been open and willing to make changes to achieve parity.

Those numbers that the Mustang achieved in 2019 couldn't be replicated without the drivers doing funny business to achieve them. You can't seriously claim they were fair and a true representation.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by banksie

2019 wasn't the first time aero changes had been made mid-season. The category has always been open and willing to make changes to achieve parity.

Those numbers that the Mustang achieved in 2019 couldn't be replicated without the drivers doing funny business to achieve them. You can't seriously claim they were fair and a true representation.

Correct. Probably some of the same games they played in the testing this time around, and got caught out playing. Like games that have been played in the sport many times around the world over the years. like heavier than normal oil in the diff and Gbox, tight wheel bearings with high viscosity grease... And more ingenious ideas to slightly tilt the playing field. When they found they stuffed up, we want the testing done again. Crazy story? or right on the money?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

The precedent has now, however, been set for changes with great urgency -- many of which without VCAT tests -- due to the very urgent action seen in the 2019 season.

Sorry but no - you're incorrect. The "precedent" was set a long time ago (I'm talking decades) and parity adjustments when needed were carried out then during the season (sometimes multiple times) and can still be done now.

The fact that one hadn't been needed for a while was probably more about the models and body shapes having been settled for a while but once the need was established again, parity changes were made. The ability to do so though, as well as the expectation that it'll be done when needed, was in place WAY before 2019.

[bluesport]

Ford awaiting answer to engine request.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/ford-awa...ngine-request/