Supercars Gen 3 (2022)

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

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. .

What multiple mid-season adjustments did the AU Falcon receive?!

AFAIK, it received the Commodore splitter midway through 2000 and finally the extended front splitter to bring parity with the VX, VY & BA in 2003 when that change was too late to be relevant.

So only two changes, unless I'm mistaken with the parity with the VT/VX Commodore only being fixed properly some four seasons after the AU Falcon's introduction...?

AU Falcon extended front splitter to match VX Commodore, as introduced in 2003:


Whether Ford runners did not realise parity was still wrong in 2001-2002 due to inferior CFD computing power and methods back then and hence Ford runners did not call for it, who knows, but in any case it was the ATCC's responsibility to fix it yet it wasn't fixed until 2003.

That they just grafted the Commodore splitter on to the Falcon in 2000 -- despite the vehicles being different shapes -- and thought "well that seems better, so that's good enough" seems indicative of the crude methods at the time. Obviously in hindsight they should have additionally extended the splitter by the 100mm (like 2003) on this rehomolgated Falcon splitter in 2000, in which case perhaps many more AU Falcon race victories could have been had?

You can appreciate why Ford enthusiasts are anxious to avoid a repeat of the depressing AU Falcon era -- where Falcons rarely won anything -- and it turned out that it was due to a parity disadvantage all along, with the same teams and drivers suddenly winning regularly once the BA Falcon (and, irrelevantly, the amended AU Falcon) came along with parity.

As we recall, it was possible for a Marcos Ambrose AU Falcon with the short front splitter to win a race, but he had to drive and defend so hard to do so that it was ridiculous. Suddenly, with the BA Falcon with parity it was possible for Marcos Ambrose's BA Falcon to win races easily. We trust the same will not happen with S650 Mustang Gen 3 drivers needing to drive ridiculously hard to have any chance of winning...

The 4 year delay in correcting the AU Falcon's parity is a disgrace that cannot be repeated!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mixer

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

Funny how the AU Falcon's drivers and teams were erroneously blamed for being inept and killing their tyres, rather than the AU Falcon itself's incorrect parity in short front splitter form being blamed -- sound familiar?

[Ares]

You are bringing up something from twenty plus years ago. I can also remember the T8 BA era. Fast forward to 2019 which saw probably the largest parity gaps we have seen in modern times. At that time a few on here thought this was the best thing ever, may it continue seems to be the attitude of the day. Events from the past should guide not define the present.

Rearranging the deck chairs and shifting the goalposts should not be needed if one speaks from a balanced perspective.

I don't think Ford gets to tell Supercars where the rear wing is to go, and the position of the rear wing on the previous Mustang is irrelevant to the parity adjustments between the two current cars.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

What multiple mid-season adjustments did the AU Falcon receive?!

AFAIK, it received the Commodore splitter midway through 2000 and finally the extended front splitter to bring parity with the VX, VY & BA in 2003 when that change was too late to be relevant.

That they just grafted the Commodore splitter on to the Falcon in 2000 -- despite the vehicles being different shapes -- and thought "well that seems better, so that's good enough" seems indicative of the crude methods at the time.

All a very long time ago and no bearing on today, other than it disproves your erroneous suggesting that "a precedent was set" in 2019 for mid-season changes, like it had never happened before.

BTW, the Commodore received at least two different reductions in splitter size to even up the parity prior to the AU getting the extended lip to match the BA.

Also, your suggesting that the Commodore splitter on the Falcon was grafted as "better" is also wrong - Ford turned up as late as possible with a "super duper" front spitter, completely outside the rules and outside the existing process, but the Ford racing manager at the time (Greg Harbutt I think) left it really, really late to get info to the teams and to TEGA / Cams / Avesco, in the expectation that they'd have to let them run on the Falcons or risk the cars not being on track. He didn't count on those organisations, or the Ford teams for that matter, being capable of coming up with a quick solution and that's how the Commodore splitter ended up on the bottom of the Falcon front bar.

All completely irrelevant to the current situation of course.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Also, your suggesting that the Commodore splitter on the Falcon was grafted as "better" is also wrong - Ford turned up as late as possible with a "super duper" front spitter, completely outside the rules and outside the existing process, but the Ford racing manager at the time (Greg Harbutt I think) left it really, really late to get info to the teams and to TEGA / Cams / Avesco, in the expectation that they'd have to let them run on the Falcons or risk the cars not being on track. He didn't count on those organisations, or the Ford teams for that matter, being capable of coming up with a quick solution and that's how the Commodore splitter ended up on the bottom of the Falcon front bar.

This sounds like anti-Ford Racing (now Ford Performance) bias! A statement made not in the best interests of Ford Racing/Ford Performance.

In any case, you didn't say how the "super duper" splitter performed in the VCAT test? Surely it wasn't outside the dimensional rules, that would seem a dumb oversight. So if it hit the correct numbers, why shouldn't it have been allowed to race?!

It seems Larkham doesn't recall the Harbutt splitter (or it was edited out of the interview), but he did mention bonnet vents being effective which were not were permitted as example of undue anti-Ford Racing bias and an unwillingness to fix the AU Falcon's parity.

It's good to hear that the VT/VX front splitter received cuts though, thanks for the info. Obviously not enough if the AU still needed an extension in 2003!

Originally Posted by Tourer

All completely irrelevant to the current situation of course.

Is it not ridiculous that Ford Performance have to lobby for parity and a fair chance in a series where they are the only manufacturer competing?

Why was the Mustang not the benchmark vehicle and the Camaro gradually brought up to match? It seems Chevrolet Racing have undue influence despite not competing in the series (and being a vehicle that is not even on sale in Australia and soon due for end of production).

It would have been more sensible to make Nissan Nismo and the Z the second car IMO, as it is for sale as a Mustang competitor in the Australian automotive market. Forget "technical parity" as it is dumb and hard to verify (especially when refusing to use methods like a wind tunnel that can test yaw), particularly with a V8 Mustang against a V6 twin-turbo Z, and just go for balance-of-performance.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

All a very long time ago and no bearing on today, other than it disproves your erroneous suggesting that "a precedent was set" in 2019 for mid-season changes, like it had never happened before.

It seems the original plan of Group 3A was to allow annual homologations only:

Although the immediate source of the problem is known, fixing it is not so easy as the earliest new parts can be introduced is January 1 next year.

In any case, it is very different situation now when entrants are not even allowed to develop their own aero kits or engines to the best of the abilities.

It's curious how some factions advocated for caution (as below) while others like Peter Brock called for urgent actions after four rounds! I guess fans and entrants will re-evaluate how Gen 3 is going after four rounds too, with a similar contrast between those advocating for caution and those advocating for action like Ford Mustang drivers, engine builder (who submitted that new engine map) and teams.

Any difference between the cars is subtle.

- John Lindell, General Motors Holden

[banksie]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Is it not ridiculous that Ford Performance have to lobby for parity and a fair chance in a series where they are the only manufacturer competing?

Why was the Mustang not the benchmark vehicle and the Camaro gradually brought up to match? It seems Chevrolet Racing have undue influence despite not competing in the series (and being a vehicle that is not even on sale in Australia and soon due for end of production).

It would have been more sensible to make Nissan Nismo and the Z the second car IMO, as it is for sale as a Mustang competitor in the Australian automotive market. Forget "technical parity" as it is dumb and hard to verify (especially when refusing to use methods like a wind tunnel that can test yaw), particularly with a V8 Mustang against a V6 twin-turbo Z, and just go for balance-of-performance.

You continue to not understand the technical aims of the category. There is no benchmark vehicle. Downforce numbers and engine power were decided, then the cars and engines were designed to meet these, not the other way around.

The category has been built on parity for the last 30 years. It is not "dumb", it has been highly successful.

GM wanted to remain involved, invest in developing an engine and vehicle. GM may not be investing as much as Ford, but they remain engaged with the category.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

According to Geoff Taunton from MARC cars

Geoff is quoting $275k for a future car that doesn't exist yet, which will fit current AU Sports Sedan regs, BUT the car everyone is seeing costs more than double that and is unregulated - it can run in NZ Sports Sedans but not here.

The quote for the $275k car is Porsche Carrera Cup speed for less maintenance cost.

I'm curious about how actively he is saying it's a Mercedes or AMG, given they haven't given any approval for it. You'd be much safer saying "German inspired" or something.

[S griffin]

I think we should continue with the current gen, no reason to make changes now. Yes it's a bit expensive, but I don't think it's too expensive. They don't need to compare the series to the one in NZ.

Of course the Carrera Cup will be cheaper, it's one make. Can't see Merc coming back, they didn't really do much last time they were here and probably aren't interested in this type of series. I think I would be amazed if it did happen

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

This sounds like anti-Ford Racing (now Ford Performance) bias! A statement made not in the best interests of Ford Racing/Ford Performance.

In any case, you didn't say how the "super duper" splitter performed in the VCAT test? Surely it wasn't outside the dimensional rules, that would seem a dumb oversight. So if it hit the correct numbers, why shouldn't it have been allowed to race?!

It seems Larkham doesn't recall the Harbutt splitter (or it was edited out of the interview), but he did mention bonnet vents being effective which were not were permitted as example of undue anti-Ford Racing bias and an unwillingness to fix the AU Falcon's parity.

It's good to hear that the VT/VX front splitter received cuts though, thanks for the info. Obviously not enough if the AU still needed an extension in 2003!

You've posted quite a bit about this so I'll split my replies across the different points you've made - one thing that I will say is that for someone who likes to be very critical of what Supercars is doing, you seem to have very little knowledge of the category and history.

Firstly, nothing biased about what I said at all, merely factual statement of what happened at the time.

Secondly, I think that Larko knew all about the original AU splitter - if memory serves, due to tight timeline the teams ran them at the non-championship AGP support races and I THINK it was Larko who went slightly off track and destroyed the splitter spectacularly. The Ford teams were just as annoyed with the attempted late inclusion as anyone else, as the design exposed it to significant damage too easily.

Thirdly, there was no VCAT testing for that splitter to pass or fail back in those days - that type of testing came later.

Fourthly, parity changes at the time were made under a structure agreed by the teams (50/50 Ford/Holden representation at both Board and Tech Committee level). There needed to be a difference across makes (all cars were included, not just front runners) in races of (I think something like) .3 of a second, for three race meetings in a row for a parity review / change to be made. That only occurred a couple of times and reductions were made to Commodore under trays (as there was no capacity to add to the Falcon under tray).

Fifthly, the initial runway tests were done in 2000 or 2001 (it's a blur, can't recall exactly which year) and whilst the cars were quite close in results, the Holdens had a bit more downforce and also more drag, the Fords less downforce and less drag. So the Fords would do better at tracks with long straights for example, such as Sandown or Bathurst.

Lastly, the extension to the AU splitter was done to match the (slightly increased) downforce of the BA, as the downforce and drag were equalised for the new model cars and there were still a couple of AUs competing, which also needed to match the new requirements.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Is it not ridiculous that Ford Performance have to lobby for parity and a fair chance in a series where they are the only manufacturer competing?

Forget "technical parity" as it is dumb and hard to verify (especially when refusing to use methods like a wind tunnel that can test yaw), particularly with a V8 Mustang against a V6 twin-turbo Z, and just go for balance-of-performance.

Why is it ridiculous for competitors (or the manufacturer behind them) to "lobby" for parity? Both Ford and Chevrolet representatives have been doing that & personally I wouldn't take any statements made by either group as gospel, as they both have vested interests. Happens in many series and is a part of competitive racing across different makes of car (including single seaters).

Technical parity IS hard work but is way better than BoP - you only need to look at the Bathurst 12 hour to see that. The GT3 cars are run under a BoP structure, but the straight line speed of the Mercedes at Bathurst gives them a strong advantage over the (quicker through the corners) Audis & Porsches - so if the same approach applied to Supercars, one make would likely have an edge at Bathurst - the biggest thing all year, & none of the teams would accept that in any way. BoP is fundamentally flawed when a series has one "monster" race that counts more than anywhere else, as BoP allows variations in relative performance from circuit to circuit.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It seems the original plan of Group 3A was to allow annual homologations only:

Homologation is completely different to parity adjustments to any homologated car. For sure that series structure and rules have evolved over the years, with the biggest changes happening after AVESCO was formed and the series administration was professionalised further.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

In any case, it is very different situation now when entrants are not even allowed to develop their own aero kits or engines to the best of the abilities.

It's curious how some factions advocated for caution (as below) while others like Peter Brock called for urgent actions after four rounds! I guess fans and entrants will re-evaluate how Gen 3 is going after four rounds too, with a similar contrast between those advocating for caution and those advocating for action like Ford Mustang drivers, engine builder (who submitted that new engine map) and teams.

Yes, for sure it's different now - which is a large part of why I said right from the start that it is old history and not the same as what is happening these days.

One thing that hasn't changed (& likely never will) is the different factions with vested interests advocating different approaches, that's simply part of racing. I seem to recall comments made at the start of the season that performance data and parity would be measured across the first three rounds and any further changes considered then. CoG has already been updated, the Fords may or may not have updated engine mapping for Wanneroo but I expect that differences shown up in technical parity measurements are likely to be addressed after Wanneroo, if of course there are differences. Time will tell.

[S griffin]

If the car is eligible, it's up to the team to get it competitive. We have got a good series regs to work from him. It's amazing how the series has evolved over the years

Despite tricky times, we've still had great moments. We shouldn't look too far in the past. Things have moved on. And of course there will always be politics, with teams and manufacturers trying their best to get things to suit them best. It's something we can do without at times. It will be very hard to get the parity right, but at least they have plenty of data to look at. I don't see anything too drastic that needs to be done. Ford need to get their finger out, they can't rely on parity all the time. Holden have stolen a march. It will be hard to beat them

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Why is it ridiculous for competitors (or the manufacturer behind them) to "lobby" for parity? Both Ford and Chevrolet representatives have been doing that

But Chevrolet are a shell brand that don't really exist in Australia, that's the difference this time. So it would be easier to go just go one-make Mustang Cup racing.

"Chevrolet representatives" - the people selling converted Silverados and who are tipping next to zero in sponsorship money into the series AFAIK... do they even care?

Originally Posted by Tourer

Secondly, I think that Larko knew all about the original AU splitter - if memory serves, due to tight timeline the teams ran them at the non-championship AGP support races and I THINK it was Larko who went slightly off track and destroyed the splitter spectacularly. The Ford teams were just as annoyed with the attempted late inclusion as anyone else, as the design exposed it to significant damage too easily.

So you meant the early 1999 AU Falcon splitter that was refused for being too good and Ford made to adapt the EL one, not a replacement one being designed for the change during 2000?

It seems outrageous if Ford designed a great aero kit for the AU Falcon originally and were refused to be able to run it -- what were the VCAT numbers? If it was within the VCAT tolerance, it ought to have raced!

Originally Posted by Tourer

Lastly, the extension to the AU splitter was done to match the (slightly increased) downforce of the BA, as the downforce and drag were equalised for the new model cars and there were still a couple of AUs competing, which also needed to match the new requirements.

Did the VX Commodore require changes to match?

If not that still suggests an unacceptable imbalance between the VX and AU that should have been addressed in an urgent manner! 0.3 seconds seems like miles too large of a difference and a crazy requirement.

Originally Posted by S griffin

Holden have stolen a march.

Chevrolet? In any case the introduction of a new Generation of ATCC touring car would have been the perfect opportunity to go Mustang-only for ease of parity (I see that the substantially similar Brasil V8 Stock Car series has often operated as a Chevrolet only series as other makes like Peugeot came and went) or build cars equally divided between Nissan Z, Toyota Supra etc body styles.

Interestingly, Toyota Gazoo Racing recently joined the Brasil stock car series in 2021! Making it a multi-make series against after it was Chevrolet-only -- without issue -- for a number of seasons.

For interest's sake, this is the Brasil Stock Car chassis which is a little more similar to a MARC car (i.e., with the twin front radiators) than a Gen 3 ATCC car and it has interesting impact structures (open-wheeler like structures front and rear) and particularly interesting foam impact structures for side impacts:


Link: The Corolla and Cruze (Astra sedan) V8 "stock" cars.
(With Frosty going over to race there, should someone bring Barrichello - series champion! - or Massa over to race here in the ATCC enduros? I don't know if the Brasil Stock Cars run a spool diff though.)

Interestingly they ran inline-six category engines until 2002 IIRC, when they moved to the Chevrolet small block V8 category engine.

PS. Does the Chevrolet Omega Brasil Stock Car from the 1990's look a little familiar, thanks to the use of Omega/Carlton door pressings on the Commodore?

[chunterer]

The Chev Omega Brazil stock car looks much more like the DTM car of the same model name and same period, than anything else...

[Sandgroper]

these comments are FAR to deep.
Might have to reduce them to Twitter length

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If not that still suggests an unacceptable imbalance between the VX and AU that should have been addressed in an urgent manner! 0.3 seconds seems like miles too large of a difference and a crazy requirement.

And yet Konica series AU Falcons managed to handily beat "main game" lap times in the years following... Teams spend too much time lobbying and not enough time developing the package they had.

Much like now.

Ford teams need to:
1. Sort out their pit stops
2. Sort out their race strategies
3. Have 2 top drivers in their team with consistency (name one that does now)

Once they have done the above, they can use a weekend's results to argue for parity.

But not one single Ford team has done all the above. DJR and Tickford need to stop throwing away results every weekend.

if DJR don't do something, they may risk ADP leaving. Will Davo probably past his best.

Tickford's best is Cam Waters, but he's not delivered really since 2020. The rest are unpredictable, either slow or damage magnets.
Nick Percat needs to contribute.
Dave Reynolds needs to find consistency, that unfortunately he has rarely ever had.

888 and Erebus pretty much have aced the above points, and maximised the package they have.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by Mixer

And yet Konica series AU Falcons managed to handily beat "main game" lap times in the years following... Teams spend too much time lobbying and not enough time developing the package they had.

Much like now.

Ford teams need to:
1. Sort out their pit stops
2. Sort out their race strategies
3. Have 2 top drivers in their team with consistency (name one that does now)

Once they have done the above, they can use a weekend's results to argue for parity.

But not one single Ford team has done all the above. DJR and Tickford need to stop throwing away results every weekend.

if DJR don't do something, they may risk ADP leaving. Will Davo probably past his best.

Tickford's best is Cam Waters, but he's not delivered really since 2020. The rest are unpredictable, either slow or damage magnets.
Nick Percat needs to contribute.
Dave Reynolds needs to find consistency, that unfortunately he has rarely ever had.

888 and Erebus pretty much have aced the above points, and maximised the package they have.

Balanced and accurate.
After the next two rounds if there still seems to be an issue then it should be looked at and adjusted appropriately at that time. As I said earlier, any adjustment needs to be a car parity adjustment and not a team parity adjustment. At this stage that is not 100% clear!

I do find it odd, after all the parity testing and data collected the Mustang is only now seen to be down on power in forth to sixth gear. Ford was happy to sign off on that, but they were aware of a slight aero discrepancy? Does not add up. In saying that, it's odd there was not a COG test done before season start.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

But Chevrolet are a shell brand that don't really exist in Australia, that's the difference this time. So it would be easier to go just go one-make Mustang Cup racing.

"Chevrolet representatives" - the people selling converted Silverados and who are tipping next to zero in sponsorship money into the series AFAIK... do they even care?

If it was easy, everyone would be doing that - and where's the challenge / enjoyment in that?

"Chevrolet representatives" refers to the teams and comments made by them, in the same way that "Ford representatives" would also refer to the teams and comments made by them, other than one media chat the Ford racing manager had.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

So you meant the early 1999 AU Falcon splitter that was refused for being too good and Ford made to adapt the EL one, not a replacement one being designed for the change during 2000?

It seems outrageous if Ford designed a great aero kit for the AU Falcon originally and were refused to be able to run it -- what were the VCAT numbers? If it was within the VCAT tolerance, it ought to have raced!

Yeah, that's the kiddie (from memory). Not remotely outrageous - it is a parity formula and parity or close to it is what those in the category wanted - plus the "too good" splitter was prone to disintegrating with only a slight off - not that raceable really and not good for team budgets.

As mentioned previously, there was no VCAT testing back then, it only came along later.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Did the VX Commodore require changes to match?

If not that still suggests an unacceptable imbalance between the VX and AU that should have been addressed in an urgent manner! 0.3 seconds seems like miles too large of a difference and a crazy requirement.

Yep, the VX and the BA had equalised & I think slightly increased downforce plus equalised drag - meaning that the BA had some additional downforce, which needed adjustments from previous models. That's what the AUsstill running needed the lip to match the new cars.

The difference for the process might have been .03 - as I said, can't recall what the exact figure was but it was smaller rather than larger.

Anyway, back actually on topic - looking forward to this weekend and how the respective Gen 3 models match up in the West.

[V8 Fireworks]

DTM calls for a combined formula with Australia which is eminently sensible, yet one worries if selfish vested interests will preach "not invented here" syndrome, not seeing the wood for the trees and the opportunity to mass produce cars in Australia (like GRM's batch of at least 10 next-generation Peugeot TCRs -- and rival cars have sold as many as 100 units over a full model run!).

Isolated solutions no longer make sense. A manufacturer will not build a car which races only in DTM. If it can race in DTM, IMSA, Super GT and maybe in Australia it is a different challenge for manufacturers. We have a clear signal from the manufacturers - "we will not build a separate car from each championship".

https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/dtm-prom...ude-australia/

This is the perfect opportunity to harmonise regulations and bring Mustang, M4, Z, Supra etc under a common set of DTM+IMSA GT+ATCC rules! Perhaps with no ABS, no traction control, manual sequential shift and less downforce than the GT3 rules -- rather something more like GTE but with less downforce?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Anyway, back actually on topic - looking forward to this weekend and how the respective Gen 3 models match up in the West.

In other Gen 3 news, van Gisbergen is suspicious of the error bars on the COG measurements and considers the change to be about appearances:

It seems weird to change something by a millimetre and a half when the email went out with the results saying the result could have had up to a millimetre worth of error. I really don't get it. But if it silences the party stuff and makes the optics of it better, you understand it.

https://www.motorsport.com/v8superca...hamp/10460591/

Curiously, while Burgess has said the change is worth 0.006s/lap Wanneroo, Whincup has said the change is worth 0.02s/lap at Wanneroo.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Why is it ridiculous for competitors (or the manufacturer behind them) to "lobby" for parity?

Of course it could be that it is in Burgess' interest to play down the change and in Whincup's interest to play up the change, with a lack of sincerity from either side.

Regardless the ATCC organisers themselves are meant to be neutral and should not be engaging in politics or spin IMO. Yet with -- allegedly -- such directives from Skaife and other ATCC administrators and officials as "do not criticise the Gen 3 cars" that is arguably not what has been seen.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

DTM calls for a combined formula with Australia which is eminently sensible, yet one worries if selfish vested interests will preach "not invented here" syndrome, not seeing the wood for the trees and the opportunity to mass produce cars in Australia (like GRM's batch of at least 10 next-generation Peugeot TCRs -- and rival cars have sold as many as 100 units over a full model run!).


https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/dtm-prom...ude-australia/

This is the perfect opportunity to harmonise regulations and bring Mustang, M4, Z, Supra etc under a common set of DTM+IMSA GT+ATCC rules! Perhaps with no ABS, no traction control, manual sequential shift and less downforce than the GT3 rules -- rather something more like GTE but with less downforce?

Great idea to bring DTM downunder.

[banksie]

Originally Posted by Ares

In saying that, it's odd there was not a COG test done before season start.

Simply wasn't time. The teams had to rush to be ready for the all in test and then Newcastle. Couldn't take them all to a facility.

It also worked well taking them in parc ferme conditions post the final AGP race, harder to do any funny business.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

DTM calls for a combined formula with Australia which is eminently sensible, yet one worries if selfish vested interests will preach "not invented here" syndrome, not seeing the wood for the trees and the opportunity to mass produce cars in Australia (like GRM's batch of at least 10 next-generation Peugeot TCRs -- and rival cars have sold as many as 100 units over a full model run!).


https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/dtm-prom...ude-australia/

This is the perfect opportunity to harmonise regulations and bring Mustang, M4, Z, Supra etc under a common set of DTM+IMSA GT+ATCC rules! Perhaps with no ABS, no traction control, manual sequential shift and less downforce than the GT3 rules -- rather something more like GTE but with less downforce?

If such rules would be more like 'GT3+' or something between GTE nad current Supercars (with cars such as Supra, Mustang, M4, etc) and would not be so extremely expensive like the previous Class 1 cars (trying to be formula cars with roof), then I'd be very happy to see such cars in both DTM and Supercars.
Would it be viable in terms of financing, manufacturers involvement etc? Who knows.

[Mixer]

Yeah the class that very recently bankrupted it's holding company wonders why Australia isn't interested...