Parity

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The same team ran a pair of COTF chassis last year, did they not?

Yes, but so did everyone else........and GRM had to deal with a new engine and aero package this year, no other team had to do that.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Volvo had a 12 month headstart on the chassis development.

Despite the perception, the chassis are not all the same. Only the cabin area is identical on all cars. The bar work rearward of the 'parcel shelf' is free, provided the axle is located in a specific place in space, as well as suspension pickup points.

The same ahead of the firewall except that there is some freedom with the suspension pickup points.

Did you notice that GRM didn't simply re-skin their Commodores?

I think Volvo engine could be an advantage, assuming they are going to be doing more development work within the framework of the rules.

From a distance, the Volvo seems to have a very small frontal area compared to the other cars, an important consideration in aerodynamics.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Why slow the Volvo's down? They're making the racing interesting and they haven't won anything anyway.

Because they going to be quicker than the Holdens and Fords come Bathurst time most likely.

Why should Volvo have an advantage when everyone else has had to earn their way to the top?

Why not give Nissan and Erebus a mild parity adjustment (again for Nissan) so that they are racing at the front? They have earned their stripes, unlike Volvo.

Now that would make the racing interesting...and fair.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Because they going to be quicker than the Holdens and Fords come Bathurst time most likely.

Why should Volvo have an advantage when everyone else has had to earn their way to the top?

Why not give Nissan and Erebus a mild parity adjustment (again for Nissan) so that they are racing at the front? They have earned their stripes, unlike Volvo.

Now that would make the racing interesting...and fair.

Why not wait until they are consistant winners before doing anything?.........T8 were winning most of the time and nothing was applied to them.

[Umai Naa]

Because you can't apply parity to a team, only the model.

I wonder if Nissan on behalf of the Kelly's, has applied to the board to use a flat plane crank?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Because you can't apply parity to a team, only the model.

I wonder if Nissan on behalf of the Kelly's, has applied to the board to use a flat plane crank?

Then apply it to holden.

[one five five]

You can't penalise all Holden teams on the back of one team doing the dominating.

The formula is designed (in theory anyway) to make the cars even, not the teams (you shouldn't penalise someone doing a job better than the rest)

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by one five five

(you shouldn't penalise someone doing a job better than the rest)

They are to GRM/Volvo.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by one five five

You can't penalise all Holden teams on the back of one team doing the dominating.

What? Commodore teams 888, HRT, BJR, TEKNO and GRM have all had multiple wins since the beginning of New Generation last year.

Analyse that further and you can see that be even the low funded private Holden teams have had more wins than the factory funded Nissan, Volvo (and Erebus) teams put together!

But of course, I keep forgetting that Holden is born to rule, so the status quo can't be allowed to change...

[Buckshot]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

But of course, I keep forgetting that Holden is born to rule...

Just because Holden do a better job than Ford on and off the track doesn't mean there's some grand conspiracy. I am so sick of Ford fans saying this.

If you want to be angry and point fingers at anyone point them at Ford for doing a half assed job.

[Chris - Melb]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

Just because Holden do a better job than Ford on and off the track doesn't mean there's some grand conspiracy. I am so sick of Ford fans saying this.

If you want to be angry and point fingers at anyone point them at Ford for doing a half assed job.

I didn't even mention Ford in that post. Anyway, given the circumstances, why aren't the Holdens doing even better?

I reckon Ford Performance Racing is doing an exceptional job with Ford money, thank you very much.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by bluesport

They are to GRM/Volvo.

GRM are the only one's racing the Swedish Valiants

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by one five five

GRM are the only one's racing the Swedish Valiants

I noticed that........one is at the front of the field and the other is at the back, neither have won anything and yet they are trying to slow them down.

[david5]

Originally Posted by Chris - Melb

Because they going to be quicker than the Holdens and Fords come Bathurst time most likely.

Why should Volvo have an advantage when everyone else has had to earn their way to the top?

Why not give Nissan and Erebus a mild parity adjustment (again for Nissan) so that they are racing at the front? They have earned their stripes, unlike Volvo.

Now that would make the racing interesting...and fair.

This is an interesting post. Volvo/GRM have taken advantage of their knowledge and the circumstances to hit the ground running. You say they should be penalised for doing the job they set out to achieve within the framework of the rules at the time of them joining. Just because the other new manufacturers have taken longer is just how it is. Great message to anyone else who wants to join, do a good job and we'll penalise you before you've actually won anything.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by david5

This is an interesting post. Volvo/GRM have taken advantage of their knowledge and the circumstances to hit the ground running. You say they should be penalised for doing the job they set out to achieve within the framework of the rules at the time of them joining. Just because the other new manufacturers have taken longer is just how it is. Great message to anyone else who wants to join, do a good job and we'll penalise you before you've actually won anything.

+1

[Umai Naa]

It was widely known that GRM were manufacturer shopping for some time in the lead up to the COTF change over. That extra 12 months getting the chassis sorted was a good move.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

It was widely known that GRM were manufacturer shopping for some time in the lead up to the COTF change over. That extra 12 months getting the chassis sorted was a good move.

Arguably SBR were in the same situation, remember the Hyundai speculation... however with the loss of funding from Ford, that operation could not continue to run 3 Ford COTFs on the level of commercial sponsorship they had secured.

GRM had run for a number of years without funding from Holden, there was support in the WP engine deal GRM had to pay for, and panels and technical support, but just short of financial investment in the team by the red lion...

[fredd1]

Originally Posted by eduardo1

They all drop 120 litres of fuel across pit stops.





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.

Interesting way of looking at it....

Shouldn't the disadvantaged teams address the problems directly rather then running to the PTB?

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by fredd1

Interesting way of looking at it....

Shouldn't the disadvantaged teams address the problems directly rather then running to the PTB?

Agreed - however I mis-spoke. It should have been if one 'make' has an advantage.

As someone else pointed out, it's a 'technical' parity system, not a 'performance' parity.

So if the specifications of a particular vehicle provide an advantage in a certain area, then that is equalised across the makes.

[Marcos WTF]

I don't need the need for the 'parity police' to change anything in the cars.
We've had a mix of cars on the podium. If Nissan is behind this, they need to lift their game- not nobble the others.

The only place we we need some parity adjustments is the blind Freddy who's so damn inconsistant with driver penalties.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Marcos WTF

The only place we we need some parity adjustments is the blind Freddy who's so damn inconsistant with driver penalties.

hopefully that adjustment has happened

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Marcos WTF

I don't need the need for the 'parity police' to change anything in the cars.
We've had a mix of cars on the podium. If Nissan is behind this, they need to lift their game- not nobble the others.

I agree........if a team has a quad-cam engine with more power, then good luck to them, let them race it........it's up to Ford and holden teams to work harder and smarter to catch up.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I agree........if a team has a quad-cam engine with more power, then good luck to them, let them race it........it's up to Ford and holden teams to work harder and smarter to catch up.

im sorry that is ridiculous. That is not the system v8 supercars operates under and never will. We operate under a system of parity.

If we did then we would not have a system of equal fuel stops to allow for the extra fuel burn of the quad cam engine

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by peckstar

im sorry that is ridiculous. That is not the system v8 supercars operates under and never will. We operate under a system of parity.

If we did then we would not have a system of equal fuel stops to allow for the extra fuel burn of the quad cam engine

Those with dinosaur push-rod engines need to stop whinging and to work harder, smarter or update their engines to the new spec that is allowed.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Those with dinosaur push-rod engines need to stop whinging and to work harder, smarter or update their engines to the new spec that is allowed.

Are you thinking when you write

its the quad cams that were having the fuel economy issues. Clearly modern is not better if that is the case