Supercars Gen 3 (2022)

[Sandgroper]

I think the racing hes been alot more entertaining this year so far

[FIRE]

Good start of the season for Erebus.

[V8 Fireworks]

Croke and Edwards unhappy with parity, implying a two-tiered championship:

Ben Croke:

We had moments of being the best we could be, in terms of the Fords, including the last race where both cars ran strongly.

Tim Edwards:

We did pretty well in the Mustang Cup. But we've got a bit of work to do.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/latest-g...ting-underway/


Percat and Reynolds unhappy with parity:

Nick Percat:

From my seat it feels like third, fourth, fifth, sixth gear on the diff ratio that we have for Albert Park.

I don't know the numbers but it feels like they have quite a bit more torque than us, and a bit more drivability.

Ford has been working really hard in the background to make that better, so I think there are some improvements to come for drivability and mapping, which we couldn't get in the cars for this weekend.

David Reynolds:

In Newcastle we were all talking about the engine performance of those vehicles. I hinted that they started to pull away in fourth, fifth, sixth gear, even if you're only in [those gears] a little bit.

In Newcastle I was trying to pass [James] Golding and [Broc] Feeney and they would pull half a car length. It's not much there, but then when you go to a big track it looks so much worse.

There are obviously issues there, which I hope the category will sort out.

This weekend the podium was stacked with Camaros. Not one Ford has crossed the line first yet. That's what you have to think about.

But these aren't fights I can fight, I'm just a driver who sees what he sees and comments on it. We relay that and [Supercars] can take it on board or not.

https://www.motorsport.com/v8superca...park/10451981/

Meanwhile, Will Davison expects parity adjustments:

There’s a lot of very fast Camaros at the moment – it’s very difficult to race them at the moment for us – but I’m sure there’ll be a few changes there to help us out.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/04/04...arity-changes/

Are the Mustang and Camaro already 100% equal and 100% interchangeable and the Mustang runners are merely making unfounded & outrageous excuses for their poor performance? Or are the vehicles not 100% equivalent?

[S griffin]

Sounds like it hasn't worked as it should of have, maybe was a little unnecessary? I can understand the drivers' concern, especially the ones who have been round a long time. There might need to be a rethink. You do wonder if there is much the teams can do with their cars

[V8 Fireworks]

888 boss Jamie Whincup refutes parity concerns and claims equivalence of the vehicles:

Jamie Whincup:

The parity has never been better. The stuff we did at VCAT and even the on-track stuff has been extremely good.

Whincup claims Mustang runners are doing a subpar job with their equal vehicle:

So don't get carried away with one team isn't going as well as another team, that's completely irrelevant information, it should be disregarded.

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/whincups...parity-claims/

Is Whincup speaking honestly or from a position of bias? It is curious that Whincup has formed such a radically different view during the VCAT process and other parity processes, than Ford Performance boss Mark Rushbrook, Ford Australia personnel, Ford team personnel and Mustang drivers.

Whincup's view - arguably - does not seem consistent with the lack of stability and lack of straight line performance of Mustangs seen on circuit, especially during race runs. If Whincup is correct these problems can be corrected entirely with car setup and are unrelated to different aerodynamics or different engines.

[bluesport]

Maybe they should sleeve the chev engines down to 5.4 litres capacity.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Maybe they should sleeve the chev engines down to 5.4 litres capacity.

Excellent idea!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Is Whincup speaking honestly or from a position of bias? It is curious that Whincup has formed such a radically different view during the VCAT process and other parity processes, than Ford Performance boss Mark Rushbrook, Ford Australia personnel, Ford team personnel and Mustang drivers.

Every last one of them is likely to be as biased as any other - the GM people have an axe to grind, and the Ford people have an axe to grind - all are highly competitive and driven people & in my opinion, the views that any of them express are all biased when it comes to discussion on parity.

Originally Posted by bluesport

Maybe they should sleeve the chev engines down to 5.4 litres capacity.

I reckon 5 litres would be ideal - & do away with the idea of pushrod vs. overhead cams, have them the same configuration and size - oh, hang on a minute........

[S griffin]

Of course they won't be happy if the rules don't favour them, but they do at least want a fair chance. But it will always favour the other one more. But those are the rules, they knew what they signed up for.

I think the current regs are fine, no need to make every part standard. There should still be a place for technical intrigue

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I reckon 5 litres would be ideal - & do away with the idea of pushrod vs. overhead cams, have them the same configuration and size - oh, hang on a minute........

Absolute parity using VCAT is an unachievable goal, better to get the cars as close as possible and then make small adjustments to weight, rev limits, air intakes etc.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Absolute parity using VCAT is an unachievable goal, better to get the cars as close as possible and then make small adjustments to weight, rev limits, air intakes etc.

You may end up being right - certainly not easy to truly paritize different combinations of engine type / size etc. I know some may point to BOP used in other series but that aims at matching lap times, not achieving parity. As we see in the 12 hour each year, there can be big differences around different parts of the lap.

Although, the VCAT process is meant to include small adjustments to achieve parity - it might all balance up with a bit of fanarkaling - hard for us all outside the tent to know what the differences really are amongst all the partisan voices from the teams.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

hard for us all outside the tent to know what the differences really are amongst all the partisan voices from the teams.

I think it's fair to assume that if the Mustang was equal or had a slight advantage then Mustang runners wouldn't have any concerns about parity -- much like the Camaro runners funnily enough...

[S griffin]

It's clear Mustang haven't done enough work over the winter, so maybe they should look at that. Not Camaro's fault they made the car faster

[mite5255]

How do you have parity between the different skills of drivers

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's clear Mustang haven't done enough work over the winter, so maybe they should look at that. Not Camaro's fault they made the car faster

It seems disingenuous to blame Ford Performance for things outside of their control such as:

• Permitting the Chevrolet to have a larger capacity engine.
• Detuning of the engine map for parity purposes, which was done by Craig Hasted and not by engine builder Herrod Performance Engines or Ford Performance in the United States. This has presumably introduced the poor drivability and poor part throttle response, if unintentionally on the part of Hasted.
• Setting the position of the control splitter and control rear wing relative to the Mustang's body, which was presumably done by the ATCC's preferred English CFD consultant. The rear wing was then supposedly lowered for the S650 Mustang Gen 3 compared to the S550 Mustang Gen 3, despite the two Mustangs having the same roof profile - a change that Ford Performance would be unlikely to seek of their own initiative.

Note too that Ford Performance did seek to address these parity concerns both privately over the winter and summer - to little avail - and then were compelled to raise them publicly at the Ford Red Bull Powertrains launch.


I would more than welcome a more conventional competition with set parameters:
- 5000cc based on production block, max 8500rpm -- everything else free.
- Legality boxes where you can put whatever aero devices of your own choosing, with a limit of the number of aerofoil profiles and chord length.
Similar to Super Touring, I think that would work quite well and that Ford Performance's design and engineering capabilities would be quite the asset to producing a tidy contender.


Indeed, cynics might claim that the Gen 3 design process (with positions of *control* splitters and *control* wings being set by a third party, their Mustang engine being mapped in Australia by a third party etc) seems like a stitch-up to prevent Ford Performance in the United States from designing the best entry possible... Entirely to the contrary of the premise that it is Ford Performance's fault for "building a slower car".

[chavez]

Originally Posted by mite5255

How do you have parity between the different skills of drivers

Parity measures vehicle performance under test conditions and is not based on race results, where driver influence makes a difference - according to Supercars......

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's clear Mustang haven't done enough work over the winter, so maybe they should look at that. Not Camaro's fault they made the car faster

I don't know how the ford teams are supposed to make the car go faster in 4th, 5th and 6th gear given that engine parity is out their control?

[S griffin]

Maybe they can find a way to set up their car better. Of course the parity limits things, but then there have always been ways to get around it as best as possible

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Maybe they can find a way to set up their car better. Of course the parity limits things, but then there have always been ways to get around it as best as possible

"Maybe"? That seems little consolation for Ford Performance being unable to fairly fight for the championships and Bathurst, due to incorrectly balanced designs decided on outside of their control...

It would seem far more reasonable to say "OK you have to hit X kg drag and Y kg downforce at 200 km/hr in a straight-line, and you have to hit this mean horsepower average between X and 7500rpm using some kind of V8 NA engine", those are the restrictions, go at it Ford Performance (& 888 acting for the disinterested Chevrolet Racing) and design the best car and engine possible.

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

design the best car and engine possible.

Supercars has nothing to do with designing the best car or engine possible. It is about reaching parity.

Is there parity currently? I'm not sure.

DJR were terrible at Newcastle, could have had a couple of fair results at the AGP but for incidents. Tickford have been very inconsistent, likewise for a Grove. They haven't shown their best form yet, regardless of parity.

Similar to last year, the order hasn't changed much. Erebus are better, Tickford slightly worse. Mostert is still fast (Percat can't match him).

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by banksie

Supercars has nothing to do with designing the best car or engine possible. It is about reaching parity.

I suppose but then why are Mustang runners being blamed?!

Ford Performance voiced concerns clearly and loudly that parity was wrong and needed to be urgently addressed, yet it is supposedly Ford Performance's and Mustang's fault!

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's clear Mustang haven't done enough work over the winter, so maybe they should look at that. Not Camaro's fault they made the car faster

Chaz Mostert:

My car just really lacks the early throttle pick-up and that’s where I hurt the tyre a lot.

It seems very disingenuous to blame Ford Performance for doing a bad job, when they have not been permitted to do the best job possible and design the best possible package of aerodynamics and engine (including mapping) in the United States.

Originally Posted by banksie

Is there parity currently? I'm not sure.

Would there be urgent action if the Camaro had zero on-track race wins, was visibly sliding around more and losing time on straights, and it was unclear if the Camaro had a disadvantage?

[V8 Fireworks]

ATCC teams unhappy with Gen 3 costs


Tim Edwards:

We do need to pull costs out of it. We wanted it to be 30 percent cheaper to build and 30 percent cheaper to run, and it’s probably 30-plus, 30-plus [ie respective increases], so that’s not what we set out to achieve.

Edwards claims a 30% increase in capital cost and a 30% increase in running costs, with claims of each vehicle costing $1m: nearly three times the $350,000 target price of a complete car with engine.

Presumably things will be done to beef up components that are now frequently requiring repair like steering racks, splitters, side skirts, headlights, chassis, etc?

[S griffin]

Nice to hear from him, he makes some good points there. It needs to be sustainable and the money coming in has to be put to good use. It's never cheap to run the cars, but the budgets need to be kept under control

I agree they should make the parts more sustainable so they don't need constant repairing and replacing

[Average Punter]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

ATCC teams unhappy with Gen 3 costs

Edwards claims a 30% increase in capital cost and a 30% increase in running costs, with claims of each vehicle costing $1m: nearly three times the $350,000 target price of a complete car with engine.

But isn't that everything in 2023?

Tried building a house lately? Or buying steel? Or fruit and veges?

30% increase is not that surprising really....

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Average Punter

30% increase is not that surprising really....

30% more than the old car, not 30% more than the target of costing 50% less than the old car.

Rather 180% more than the target cost.

A complete TCR race car still retails for $235,000 AUD after all.