Parity

[GtiMagic]

Anyone see the interview in auto action last week? Big story on parity. I'm sure there were a few along pit lane that weren't happy with his responses, but it was a no b-s statement from V8 supercars that they're satisfied with how things are on the subject.

I am sold on the answers White gave. There always seems to be a good mix of manufacturers and the times in qualifying are always tight. Their ability to race one another seems good to. I wonder if FPR will continue to complain about parity now having won at Winton and Pukekohe and leading the series. The center of gravity discussion will be the next hot topic no doubt.

[davester]

Pukekoe should be a timely warning for V8 Supercars to leave things unchanged at this time until solid evidence exists to enforce a change.

Even the proposed CoG changes should be placed on hold until dominant cause/effect evidence exists. The pursuit of removing a marques supposed point of advantage should be relentlessly applied to other marques own points of advantage...this however can only result in one outcome being complete uniformity which no one wants.

Parity must be judged on the "sum of parts" method, rather than single element diagnosis, and right now the sum of parts evidence points to a remarkably level playing field.

Hmm, until NZ, we haven't even heard a whisper about trying to slow down the dominant Holdens, yet the instant their dominance is challenged, the parity police arrive sirens blaring.

Right now, every manufacturer is competitive.
The fact that Volvo/GRM nailed it first time out is actually a refreshing change to the Erebus and Nissan efforts which got off to false starts.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by davester

Pukekoe should be a timely warning for V8 Supercars to leave things unchanged at this time until solid evidence exists to enforce a change.

Even the proposed CoG changes should be placed on hold until dominant cause/effect evidence exists. The pursuit of removing a marques supposed point of advantage should be relentlessly applied to other marques own points of advantage...this however can only result in one outcome being complete uniformity which no one wants.

Parity must be judged on the "sum of parts" method, rather than single element diagnosis, and right now the sum of parts evidence points to a remarkably level playing field.

Hmm, until NZ, we haven't even heard a whisper about trying to slow down the dominant Holdens, yet the instant their dominance is challenged, the parity police arrive sirens blaring.

Right now, every manufacturer is competitive.
The fact that Volvo/GRM nailed it first time out is actually a refreshing change to the Erebus and Nissan efforts which got off to false starts.

Well said........absolutely agree with you.

[Biggy G]

The next sessions at Barbagello will be interesting, with the CoG changes made that look like they will primarily affect the Volvo.

What I don't get with these changes is that Volvo isn't dominating, they're on the same level as the other top teams, why do changes need to be made? They're not blitzing anyone. If they have an advantage over others in one area, they must be lacking in another to still be at the same competitive level, so know their supposed advantage is taken away, the others now go back ahead?

[bluesport]

It took longer to refuel the Volvo in NZ, they must have heavier fuel consumpyion........Frosty jumped Scott because of it.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by bluesport

It took longer to refuel the Volvo in NZ, they must have heavier fuel consumpyion........Frosty jumped Scott because of it.

They all drop 120 litres of fuel across pit stops. But they can choose how much to put in each time (60/60; 80/40 etc).

Frosty had a shorter fill in that stop and a longer one in his other stop, that's why he jumped Scott.

Consumption doesn't have that much of an effect in these races, other than their starting fuel level.

As for not touching anything, I disagree. If it's clear there's an area where one team has an advantage then it should be addressed.

Not saying this is the case, but maybe that advantage is covering up the fact they're not doing as good a job elsewhere, so is providing an advantage.

[Umai Naa]

If FPR wanted all the changes they were whinging about in the recent past, their motorsport manager should be campaigning as much as Mr MacNamara does.

[Buckshot]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

If FPR wanted all the changes they were whinging about in the recent past, their motorsport manager should be campaigning as much as Mr MacNamara does.

Exactly, people that whinge about what Holden and MacNamara allegedly get up to behind the scenes annoy me. They should be having a go at Ford for not doing as good a job in this case off the track.

[Umai Naa]

It worked for Nissan, too.

They threw a tantrum and got their aero re-homologated in the off-season.

FPR were complaining about the weight of their boday panels versus everybody elses last year, so V8SC bumped the minimum weight up across the board. Roll the clock forward nearly 12 months, and they were still complaining. Sorry, but you had the chance to submit an application to re-homologate, and you didn't.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

Exactly, people that whinge about what Holden and MacNamara allegedly get up to behind the scenes annoy me. They should be having a go at Ford for not doing as good a job in this case off the track.

It would be a complete wast of time having a go at anyone from Ford Aust, they're more worried about where they'll find a job after 2016.

[Umai Naa]

Yeah, that.

I can't imaging developing parts and submitting them for homologation comes cheap.

[H C Motorsport]

Just putting it out there...............

Does anyone else find it funny that when the "P" world starts coming out the dominate RBRA cars that we seen at the start of the season, start to for a number of reasons seem to be slower, out of the spot light, just hanging in and around the top 10. T

They are still getting points and are still in the hunt for the championship, But the have managed to remove themselves from people pointing the finger at the speed, dominance and qualifying pace.

I wonder if they management team behind RBRA have thought it might be best to slow themselves down a little to avoid being told they need to change this or that with their cars for parity.

Once V8SC make their minds up on what and who needs to make changes to once again bring parity to the flied, I think we will see the RBRA cars start take their position at the front of the field again. They will have avoided any penalty in regards to performance and setup and will go about their business and once again probably dominate the end of the season, ending up with another team championship and highly likely a drivers one as well.

Like I said just my opinion, and good on them if this is the case, they are the masters at their game. But I think what we are seeing at the moment is some false results from my point of view.

[Chris - Melb]

Why should Ford have to fight for an even playing field?

Who in their right mind would think allowing Commodores to run with lighter upper body panels compared with Falcons was fair and equitable?

How on earth was it ever allowed in the first place without extra weight being attached to the aluminium Commodore panels to have centre of gravity parity with Falcon?

I know it's not the only reason for their success, but the fact that Commodore has won probably more than 90% of the races conducted so far amongst ALL makes says something. I know there are more Commodores, but most of them are low-budget teams.

But of course we all know, as long as Holden are doing most of the winning then all is well with the world…

[Buckshot]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Why should Ford have to fight for an even playing field?

Because that's what Holden do, that's what Nissan did over the break. Why invest massive coin into something and then not fight for what's in your best interests and protect that investment ?

But I guess Ford thinks it's easier to whinge than win.

[Umai Naa]

That's how it works in motorsport, where specifications are bound by blanket rules.

In other words, you can't have it unless you give a good reason why you should.

Ford have had two opportunities to re-homologate the FG since the new regs came in, and they sat on their hands. The other 4 manufacturers lobbied for various things, and they got rubber-stamped. ford could've done the same thing, if they actually gave a rats arse.

[Buckshot]

And besides, they beat every Commodore in the championship last year except for 888, a team they let go to Holden.

[Chris - Melb]

Homologation has got nothing to do with it. How can Ford 'homologated' lead weights to attach to Holden panels? It's about having the cars equalised and that's part of the overall rules.

Anyway, now that you guys agree to Holden has an advantage, doesn't this make Ford Performance Racing look like absolute heroes to have beaten Holden so many times with an inferior package and probably inferior funding to boot!

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

Because that's what Holden do, that's what Nissan did over the break. Why invest massive coin into something and then not fight for what's in your best interests and protect that investment ?

But I guess Ford thinks it's easier to whinge than win.

And Nissan didn't whinge to get their concessions?

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by H C Motorsport

Just putting it out there...............

Does anyone else find it funny that when the "P" world starts coming out the dominate RBRA cars that we seen at the start of the season, start to for a number of reasons seem to be slower, out of the spot light, just hanging in and around the top 10....

If I was the dominant force in the category I would be tempted to take a dive and come up with mediocre results until the homologation process is complete, then go and dominate at Bathurst.

It might cost the series win, but Bathurst is the main big prize anyway (in some people's eyes) and the following year's series win would be very looking good.

[Buckshot]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

And Nissan didn't whinge to get their concessions?

No, they did something pro-active, they developed and submitted a new aero package which was tested and approved.

[bluesport]

Just to clarify........have any parity complaints come from Ford Aust, or only from FPR?

And have Ford Aust committed to funding any team beyond 2014?

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

No, they did something pro-active, they developed and submitted a new aero package which was tested and approved.

As I understand it they had to press the point is to get that through.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Just to clarify........have any parity complaints come from Ford Aust, or only from FPR?

And have Ford Aust committed to funding any team beyond 2014?

Would any parity requests come from Erebus or Mercedes-Benz? You don't have to have manufacturer support to play in V8 Supercar.

Were talking about this year, not next.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Would any parity requests come from Erebus or Mercedes-Benz? You don't have to have manufacturer support to play in V8 Supercar.

Were talking about this year, not next.

What I am thinking is that people are blaming Ford Aust for whinging and not being pro-active, but Ford haven't committed beyond this year, so the criticism is unwarranted.........it's not them complaining.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by H C Motorsport

Just putting it out there...............

Does anyone else find it funny that when the "P" world starts coming out the dominate RBRA cars that we seen at the start of the season, start to for a number of reasons seem to be slower, out of the spot light, just hanging in and around the top 10. T

They are still getting points and are still in the hunt for the championship, But the have managed to remove themselves from people pointing the finger at the speed, dominance and qualifying pace.

I wonder if they management team behind RBRA have thought it might be best to slow themselves down a little to avoid being told they need to change this or that with their cars for parity.

Once V8SC make their minds up on what and who needs to make changes to once again bring parity to the flied, I think we will see the RBRA cars start take their position at the front of the field again. They will have avoided any penalty in regards to performance and setup and will go about their business and once again probably dominate the end of the season, ending up with another team championship and highly likely a drivers one as well.

Like I said just my opinion, and good on them if this is the case, they are the masters at their game. But I think what we are seeing at the moment is some false results from my point of view.

I don't think there's anything in it. Winton is usually not a strong track for them - was their worst 2013 round from memory - and it's the home track for their strongest rivals - HRT, FPR & BJR.

In Pukekohe Whincup probably would have won the opening race but for mechanical failure. After that they were off the pace though, but more Lowndes than Whincup.

Bigger test will be at Perth, where they'd be expected to be stronger.