Gen 3

[AlbertM]

https://speedcafe.com/whincup-not-comfortable-with-supercars-engine-parity-situation/

2024's first parity cry. Whincup wants to do away with the parity trigger. The trigger he held to Supercars head to stop Fords aero change for Bathurst.

Laying the blame with Rob Herrod is straight out of line. Supercars dictate the set up of the engines. Herrod just built them.

Did you expect anything different from him?

I did think he was a little smarter, given what he said last year. But like his former boss, he thinks we forget what was said in the past.

[skaifeman]

Certainly a cheeky comment by JW.

LOL! The shoe changes feet lightening fast.

Ford, it's teams, fans were all labeled whingers. But Whincup is just being cheeky.  Getting a good chuckle seeing all the GM fans on the socials demanding speedy parity changes before the season even started.

Seeing as you've quoted me. Can you please point me to where I ever called Ford fans whingers. I'll help you out - I never did .

At this stage of the season last year, Ford had already received both further engine and aero testing at their request, as well as physical aero and shift cut amendments. Their concerns would be correct.
Whincup makes it sound like they haven't seen any comparison data of the Ford engine, other than the Supercars giving it the green tick. As per Ford last year. So what's changed..?
Don't mistake me pointing out the above as taking sides - I'm merely stating facts.

FWIW - the definition of cheeky - showing a lack of respect or politeness in a way that is amusing or appealing. So lets recap Jamie's comments:
Lack of respect = Yes
Amusing = Yes, I certainly found it amusing, given exactly what you say in post #600.

And to add to his comment on Herrod, Ryan Story has essentially said the same thing reading between the lines (as you have to with him), albeit far more gracious.

You can put the gun down, Albert .

[AlbertM]

I didn't say YOU did.

Nothing amusing or appealing about what JW said. He totally contradicts himself.

"Reading between the lines" is purely subjective.

 

[djr18fan]

https://speedcafe.com/whincup-not-comfortable-with-supercars-engine-parity-situation/

2024's first parity cry. Whincup wants to do away with the parity trigger. The trigger he held to Supercars head to stop Fords aero change for Bathurst.

Laying the blame with Rob Herrod is straight out of line. Supercars dictate the set up of the engines. Herrod just built them.

More on engine parity and who is responsible for engines

https://speedcafe.com/revealed-supercars-parity-contract-with-the-teams/

[stp01]

Jamie has been saying for a while now that technical parity should be used, not on-track results. And he has supported achieving it through testing. I don't see him contradicting that stance in that article.

[AlbertM]

Jamie has been saying for a while now that technical parity should be used, not on-track results. And he has supported achieving it through testing. I don't see him contradicting that stance in that article.

He stood in the way of introducing technical changes after testing. Then complains that the process is taking to long.

[AlbertM]

https://speedcafe.com/whincup-not-comfortable-with-supercars-engine-parity-situation/

2024's first parity cry. Whincup wants to do away with the parity trigger. The trigger he held to Supercars head to stop Fords aero change for Bathurst.

Laying the blame with Rob Herrod is straight out of line. Supercars dictate the set up of the engines. Herrod just built them.

More on engine parity and who is responsible for engines

https://speedcafe.com/revealed-supercars-parity-contract-with-the-teams/

Another contradiction. Homologation teams are responsible for meeting a target. It didn't help when Supercars hid that target. And Supercars ultimately have the final say. So if the Homologation teams present a technical competitive car it is subject to Supercars time delayed performance based trigger.

[stp01]

Jamie has been saying for a while now that technical parity should be used, not on-track results. And he has supported achieving it through testing. I don't see him contradicting that stance in that article.

He stood in the way of introducing technical changes after testing. Then complains that the process is taking to long.

When?

[djr18fan]

https://speedcafe.com/whincup-not-comfortable-with-supercars-engine-parity-situation/

2024's first parity cry. Whincup wants to do away with the parity trigger. The trigger he held to Supercars head to stop Fords aero change for Bathurst.

Laying the blame with Rob Herrod is straight out of line. Supercars dictate the set up of the engines. Herrod just built them.

More on engine parity and who is responsible for engines

https://speedcafe.com/revealed-supercars-parity-contract-with-the-teams/

Another contradiction. Homologation teams are responsible for meeting a target. It didn't help when Supercars hid that target. And Supercars ultimately have the final say. So if the Homologation teams present a technical competitive car it is subject to Supercars time delayed performance based trigger.

https://speedcafe.com/whincup-not-comfortable-with-supercars-engine-parity-situation/

2024's first parity cry. Whincup wants to do away with the parity trigger. The trigger he held to Supercars head to stop Fords aero change for Bathurst.

Laying the blame with Rob Herrod is straight out of line. Supercars dictate the set up of the engines. Herrod just built them.

More on engine parity and who is responsible for engines

https://speedcafe.com/revealed-supercars-parity-contract-with-the-teams/

Another contradiction. Homologation teams are responsible for meeting a target. It didn't help when Supercars hid that target. And Supercars ultimately have the final say. So if the Homologation teams present a technical competitive car it is subject to Supercars time delayed performance based trigger.

Technical parity is decided on by testing.
A lack of parity has, in the past,  been determined by a performance based trigger. Performance can be affected by team or driver capability hence the need for a number of races to be held before accepting that there MIGHT not be technical parity.
Homologation teams can then submit cars for testing. Changes are accepted immediately if testing shows Technical parity.
Unless cars & engines are tested continuously, performance has to be used to determine if there is a need to look at Technical parity again.
Once Technical parity is achieved no further testing or changes should ever be required. The problem has been that the testing methods, previously thought to be adequate based on past performance parity, have not been adequate.  In particular the use of a maximum cumulative engine output appears not to have suited engines that are no longer both push rod OHV designs. New testing methods have been applied.
Use of the best possible testing methods is all we can ask for.

[stevo qld]

https://speedcafe.com/the-speed-trap-does-not-lie-mostert/

At the risk of spoilers, how does one find out the speed trap results?

[AlbertM]

It's shown on the NATSOFT live timing during the race. It doesn't look like the numbers are published after the race.

Good to read, from Mostert anyway, that aero has been improved.

Little disheartening that the timing of the engine testing program is still undefined. Supercars went all out for the wind tunnel. I hope they aren't trying to cheap out by trying to solve the engine disparity without dyno testing. 

[Bloopy]

They showed the speed figures for the Sunday top 10 shootout and pointed out Mostert's setup was much more suited to sector 2. De Pasquale almost matched the Red Bulls for top speed in the session but clearly his setup didn't yield a great time overall.

[muz]

I think it is universally unquestioned though that one way or another engine data needs to be looked at, and looked at the right way.

Surely none of us want there to be any sort of disadvantage now, we want to see the best win.

[skaifeman]

It was pretty clear Chaz had the high aero setup by the monster numbers he was pulling across the top - it was enthralling to watch.
Not an uncommon approach, we've seen Penske and Scotty Mac use it a few times in the past. Larko's segment pretty well detailed this and was well done.

I watched Natsoft for a while and below is a clipping, speed shown second column from the end.


Firstly it's worth mentioning that the speed trap isn't where terminal speed is being achieved, so it's likely that 1-2km/h could be 3-4-5km/h at the kink.
It's pretty clear the draft helps, anyone at around 280 was more times than not behind someone.
We could do a mean/median/mode to break it down (for that particular lap), but a rough eye would suggest that the Camaro is just that bee's dick 1,
maybe 2km/h quicker to this point.

It's pretty close. And looking better almost immediately: https://speedcafe.com/further-ford-engine-details-come-to-light/
Supercars timeline of the transient dyno can't come soon enough.

To re-iterate my first sentence, it's clear that Chaz is the outlier here - and was so consistently throughout the race.

[AlbertM]

https://speedcafe.com/whincup-sick-of-parity-talk/

Perhaps if his side didn't pretend that there wasn't a problem and actively pursued parity last year. Supercars wouldn't be still chasing parity this year.

He said the cars couldn't look any more even. With Supercars hammering home that Supercars is technical and not performance based. Whincup is just whinging and fears a level playing field.