Gen 3

[stevo qld]

I cannot agree more that I am sick of all the parity talk.

It seems to me that 888 Engineering, with GM assistance built a car with a well credentialed engine, built by a racing engine specialist and it works.

Ford was very slow to see deficiencies in their product.

Having identified that the Mustang had performance issues, they should have used their many resources and used the Camaro performance as a baseline and improved the Mustang. It is easy to blame Supercars management instead of taking responsibly for one's own product input.

This is largely what was done to the body at Windshear.

Rob Herod builds excellent engines, but perhaps lacks the racing performance know-how which Ford could have provided.

If WAU hadn't had a pit stuff up, then I have no doubt that Mostert would have led the race and won on Sunday.

Similarly, Waters did not perform on either day and was a back marker already when he had the wheel mishap.

After all, Tickford's number 2 driver got a top 4 finish. Two Mustangs and two Camaros in the top 4.

Personally, I have been distressed that the Mustang was not up to scratch.

Also, there is no parity with drivers and there are only a handful that consistently place in the top five.

One example is Erebus that performed extremely well with A class drivers, yet have only B class drivers this year.

[fordman]

I cannot agree more that I am sick of all the parity talk.

It seems to me that 888 Engineering, with GM assistance built a car with a well credentialed engine, built by a racing engine specialist and it works.

Ford was very slow to see deficiencies in their product.

Having identified that the Mustang had performance issues, they should have used their many resources and used the Camaro performance as a baseline and improved the Mustang. It is easy to blame Supercars management instead of taking responsibly for one's own product input.

This is largely what was done to the body at Windshear.

Rob Herod builds excellent engines, but perhaps lacks the racing performance know-how which Ford could have provided.

If WAU hadn't had a pit stuff up, then I have no doubt that Mostert would have led the race and won on Sunday.

Similarly, Waters did not perform on either day and was a back marker already when he had the wheel mishap.

After all, Tickford's number 2 driver got a top 4 finish. Two Mustangs and two Camaros in the top 4.

Personally, I have been distressed that the Mustang was not up to scratch.

Also, there is no parity with drivers and there are only a handful that consistently place in the top five.

One example is Erebus that performed extremely well with A class drivers, yet have only B class drivers this year.

Agree getting tired of it as well but its getting closer.

however could have FORD done what they have done this year last year???

WAU pit stop didn't cost them time they completed the tyre change under cover of the fuel, the back up tyre had 6 laps on it, they lost because Brown had 2 sec less fuel to put in, Chaz buggered up the chase on his in lap and chewed up his 2 sec gap.

Just 12 months ago Skaife was calling from on high we had Parity yet 2023 showed otherwise, same noise again just one race in.

A engine tweak and they are there I believe.

[Trevor]

Skaife is a ****wit and needs to be taken out of the commentary, he is too close to the internal workings of Supercars

[AlbertM]

Having identified that the Mustang had performance issues, they should have used their many resources and used the Camaro performance as a baseline and improved the Mustang. It is easy to blame Supercars management instead of taking responsibly for one's own product input.

You continue to leave out a very important part. Supercars withheld Camaros data from DJR until August 2023. Hard to match a target, when the target is hidden. Since the sharing of data, we've seen the cars closer to reach parity.

Rob Herod builds excellent engines, but perhaps lacks the racing performance know-how which Ford could have provided.

I've read, Herrod had several Mostech personnel from the DJRTP days.

[Troy01505]

What a load of crap.

Ford lack top speed yet Richie hit 280 at the speed trap.

Maybe Chaz should not have set his car up to dominate sector 2. He would could have won a race.

[AlbertM]

What a load of crap.

Ford lack top speed yet Richie hit 280 at the speed trap.

Maybe Chaz should not have set his car up to dominate sector 2. He would could have won a race.

Maybe Richie had his car set up for speed on the straights. He would could have won the race.

[skaifeman]

So has there been any further light shed on the Ford donk?
Have they finally lined up their injectors to point the right way?

[AlbertM]

So has there been any further light shed on the Ford donk?
Have they finally lined up their injectors to point the right way?

Bit of an oversight, ay? Shows Supercars was full of "blip" when they said both engines were matched when the Ford donk wasn't anywhere near the AEP limit. Rolly polly also came out and said the Ford had better fuel efficiency.

[djr18fan]

So has there been any further light shed on the Ford donk?
Have they finally lined up their injectors to point the right way?

Bit of an oversight, ay? Shows Supercars was full of "blip" when they said both engines were matched when the Ford donk wasn't anywhere near the AEP limit. Rolly polly also came out and said the Ford had better fuel efficiency.

DJR confirmed the Ford engine always met the AEP limit. Changes made over the summer have required air restricter alterations to ensure the changes did not cause the engine to exceed the AEP limit. 
https://www.v8sleuth.com.au/how-djr-rescued-fords-supercars-engine/

[AlbertM]

Cool story.

[skaifeman]

So has there been any further light shed on the Ford donk?
Have they finally lined up their injectors to point the right way?

Bit of an oversight, ay? Shows Supercars was full of "blip" when they said both engines were matched when the Ford donk wasn't anywhere near the AEP limit. Rolly polly also came out and said the Ford had better fuel efficiency.

Big time oversight by Herrod. Embarrassing to be honest.

Even building our own stuff, there's a locating slot in the injector to meet and mate with the fuel rail to ensure that it's angled and facing the chamber. We check that whenever we open it up, although in this case very hard to get wrong.
Obviously the Coyote uses a 4 valve head, therefore dual spray and even more important to have them indexed correctly. They're using an aftermarket setup that clearly doesn't have these indexing slots. But god oh why is someone just slapping them in there whatever which way?
Washing the bore is not good, it'll remove the oil film that the rings slide on and seal to and with the fuel also not directly hitting the hot piston it won't atomise as effectively.

It's clear the comments from Story, Whincup and Walkinshaw (via Instagram) point to the fact (ala DJR's V8 Sleuth article) that the direction and management of the Coyote engine was far from great. They were essentially maximising an underperforming engine to sit within the AEP window.
Even going back to Waters fire at Darwin, that 90deg connection for the fuel setup that was blamed looked very backyard engineering. A little like when you're trackside and have to ask a few others for parts and make it work to just finish the day.
Surprised some aren't asking more questions about the quality of the winning tenderer that I'm sure has been charging a pretty penny. I know plenty have questioned underperforming parts previously.

I now understand Supercars new regulation, they can't be blamed for the incorrect installation or build quality of the engines, they can only measure their performance. Although I stand by that the tools of measurement need to be improved.
There's a reason that everyone has been hush hush about it, compared to last year when all fingers were clearly pointed at Supercars.

[AlbertM]

Supercars control what can and can't be done to the engines, they control the testing. Supercars placed a 28 day delay in changes to the ESD. Supercars can't be responsible for a homologation team turning in a substandard product. But they are responsible for working with the homologation teams to reach technical parity. That part they failed to do until late last year. The fuel rail position should have been picked up by Supercars testing when comparing efficiencies of the engines. Instead they just tinkered with shift cut timing. If the homologation teams are free to make changes and still stay with in the technical regulations they yes, the blame totally falls at the feet of of the homologation teams for turn in a substandard package. But that not how it works. Supercar dictate what is allowed and when.

Taking the new regulation from the confidential teams charter is damage control.

 

[djr18fan]

Another cool story. This time from Ford Performance boss Mark Rushbrook, 12 months ago.
"So while there is equivalence certainly on the dyno, that manifests itself differently in the car, so some adjustments have been made in the calibrations that are in the cars to account for that and we'll see how it works this weekend.
"But I think everyone is going into it with the right mindset that we'll see how it works this weekend and certainly if further adjustments need to be made, then they can be. There is a process for that which will be driven through data, and is transparent and collaborative."

Changes to engine mapping were made several times during last year. 

Homologation teams are responsible for working with supercars to reach technical parity. The Homologation team, it's engine builder, and Ford Performance should have been aware of the injector position over a year ago. Perhaps they were aware and concluded that it made no difference to engine parity given that maximum AEP had been achieved. After all, changes to injector positioning resulted in the engine having to be detuned.