ParityParityParityParity - Page 2

Onlooker · 28 Jul 2004, 06:44 (Ref:1049487)

Not sure the EH was a race car was it.

pete55 · 28 Jul 2004, 07:16 (Ref:1049498)

The Ron Harrop driven EH wasn't a bad race car.

Wayne Mahnken had a reasonable EH also.

mixxer · 28 Jul 2004, 07:18 (Ref:1049500)

PK 751 wasnt to shabby either

mmciau · 28 Jul 2004, 08:11 (Ref:1049536)

Mixxer,

Ah the old S4 with sintered linings in Drum Brakes!!!

Mike

Conrod Kieron · 28 Jul 2004, 09:10 (Ref:1049571)

Regardless of whos got the best engineers etc the parity formula these teams run under is based on results over something like 3 rounds and the top x amount of cars times from both brands averaged and this figure compared, GTR may remember the exact figures?

Someone else here had a good point - getting the mix of budget/engineering/drivers right.

DJR we hear have the money but its drivers and possibly engineering arn't right.

FPR - have the $$ and drivers but the engineering (Prodrive) are badly letting the team down.

888 - have $$/engineering, can't quite decide on the drivers?

BJR - no big $$'s but good driver and engineering.

LMS - same as BJR but engineering/drivers possibly not as good.

WPS - new boys, probably only good on $$'s currently.

Supercheap - short on $$'s, engineering appears to be hot and cold as does the driver.

If the above assumptions are close to the mark, then its fairly easy to see what needs to be done regarding drivers. Engineering wise, get *anyone* but Prodrive to build engines at the moment

Having said that, I still have this thought in the back of my mind that the Falcons are just a little harder to set up than the Commodores but it can be done.

Grimace · 28 Jul 2004, 11:02 (Ref:1049706)

Quote:

Originally posted by 1200Datto27
Yes,

But which version of the Holden are they going to put in the tunnel?

Falcon should have a couple of versions of their engines to use (like Commodores 18degree and HMS) ..hmmmm
why just one -

Holden has had two for a couple of years

...iTs a bloody joke -fair dinkum its a a farcical situation!!!whats the use of Blueprint?????????????????

Wheels · 28 Jul 2004, 14:45 (Ref:1049915)

Quote:

Originally posted by White Knight
From a neutral party, the blue eyes should look at the lip on their front spoilers, far longer than the red corner, and isn't that Falcon rear wing larger and further back than on the Commodore? If one Ford team have the machinery that can win races (up to last weekend the championship leaders - hello!!!) than why can't the others?

And this size translates to what? Give us a figure or perhaps a fact instead of a shape/position. Your final point was good, but the lead up???? Shocking.:confused:

Boss330 · 28 Jul 2004, 20:45 (Ref:1050289)

Quote:

Originally posted by DKGandBH
So the FXs, EHs, Monaros and XU/1s never won anything... ?
David

of course they did, but the balance was alot closer in those days, if you look at the results from 1993 until present day it doesnt look like a 2 make series. No other tin top series in the world has such a unbalanced result table & most have more than 2 makes involved.
Like I said ... it's the world according to me....take it or leave it, I dont care!!!!

mixxer · 29 Jul 2004, 03:47 (Ref:1050494)

Quote:

Originally posted by mmciau
Mixxer,

Ah the old S4 with sintered linings in Drum Brakes!!!

Mike

and a couple of quarts of fish oil in the tank for that realistic racecar smell

racer69 · 29 Jul 2004, 05:16 (Ref:1050515)

Quote:

Originally posted by Boss330
of course they did, but the balance was alot closer in those days, if you look at the results from 1993 until present day it doesnt look like a 2 make series. No other tin top series in the world has such a unbalanced result table & most have more than 2 makes involved.
Like I said ... it's the world according to me....take it or leave it, I dont care!!!!

The less competitors (or in this case, manufacturers) involved, the more likely it is to see manufacturer domination, just by the weight of numbers.

For instance, if there were 10 manufacturers competing, would Holden still hold the same precentage advantage as they do now?

Peregrine · 29 Jul 2004, 06:54 (Ref:1050553)

Whilst ever AVESCO govern the series, yes Holden will continue to enjoy an advantage.

retro · 29 Jul 2004, 07:11 (Ref:1050566)

No parity adjustment now until after Bathurst according to TEGA.

00 XR8 · 29 Jul 2004, 07:41 (Ref:1050582)

Cheers for that info retro.

Does anyone know if they still use that fastest 10 time from the fastest 10 drivers for each make system anymore? If I knew exactly what the system was and had the lap charts, I would seriously calculate the results in Excel. Anyone?

retro · 29 Jul 2004, 07:44 (Ref:1050584)

All they said was it's a complicated formula and the Fords are .004 outside the *time* for a parity adjustment.(I think I have that right)

Gaz170 · 29 Jul 2004, 07:44 (Ref:1050585)

I am honestly surprised that Ford hasn't told AVESCO to even things up - or they walk.

I would.

johnh875 · 29 Jul 2004, 08:57 (Ref:1050628)

I still remember the year they chopped the Falcon undertray just before Bathurst - handed the win to Holden on a plate! (You'd think I would also remember which year it was too, eh? Oh well...)

Onlooker · 29 Jul 2004, 09:12 (Ref:1050640)

Quote:

Originally posted by pete55
The Ron Harrop driven EH wasn't a bad race car. Wayne Mahnken had a reasonable EH also.

They looked like sports sedans from the pictures I saw of them,what year did they race them,early 70's. I don't recall them being a Touring car as such or beating the likes of Moffat,Jane,etc.

mixxer · 29 Jul 2004, 10:13 (Ref:1050707)

didnt Harrops EH run a repco brabham

Bigguy · 29 Jul 2004, 12:56 (Ref:1050848)

Quote:

Originally posted by Onlooker
They looked like sports sedans from the pictures I saw of them,what year did they race them,early 70's. I don't recall them being a Touring car as such or beating the likes of Moffat,Jane,etc.

You young whippersnappers obviously have not heard of Brian Muir or Norm Beechey. These guys drove EH S4s (triple Webers on 179 sixes, three gears on the tree, sintered linings on DRUM brakes!) At the time, Bob Jane (and others) drove a Jag 3.8, and the battles were absolutely awesome.

These cars built the foundation for Aussie touring car racing.

Its worth delving back into the archives, as the racing was truly brilliant...

Grimace · 29 Jul 2004, 13:56 (Ref:1050900)

Quote:

Originally posted by retro
No parity adjustment now until after Bathurst according to TEGA.

OF COURSE N O T !!!!

It may affect Holdens 1,2,3,4,5, finish for Bathurst and we wouldnt want equality would we

Grimace · 29 Jul 2004, 14:01 (Ref:1050904)

Quote:

Originally posted by retro
All they said was it's a complicated formula and the Fords are .004 outside the *time* for a parity adjustment.(I think I have that right)

Have you got a link for that .004 comment

lcfp2297 · 29 Jul 2004, 23:01 (Ref:1051416)

You guys just don't understand the word parity...it does not actually mean a 50:50 race win...race results are meaningless...it means a 50:50 potential to win races...

Anything can influence a race win (spins, lengthy pit stops etc...)

Both Holden and Ford representatives have signed off on the formula that measures potential...lets see some more of the Ford teams use that potential to win races (or even get into the top 10!)

At the moment you could give some of the ford teams a car that could do 10% quicker lap times and they'd still find some way to lose!

Bigguy · 30 Jul 2004, 00:49 (Ref:1051461)

Yeah, just like JB did to Ambrose at Winton...

Dazz · 30 Jul 2004, 00:57 (Ref:1051466)

If true parity as some people understand it was achieved, then all drivers would tie at the end of the year on equal points

retro · 30 Jul 2004, 03:10 (Ref:1051536)

Quote:

Originally posted by Grimace
Have you got a link for that .004 comment

No link so I am quoting.............

*The parity situation is a complicated and scientiffic formula taken over an average of 3 rounds where the top 10 Fords and Holdens are monitored over 20 lap blocks.
The current gap between Ford and Holden determined by the parity police is .0044 sec just underneath the trigger point for adjustment. Parity will not come under review again until after Bathurst which follows the Oran Park and Sandown meetings.* Gordon Lomas 29/7/04 Couriermail.