Can anyone enlighten me as to how changing the headlights and taillights has changed the Falcon (AU) from the worst race car Ford has ever produced into the greatest (BA).
Wouldn't have anything to do with the aerodynamic package would it? NO!
it must be the engine, suspension, brakes, gearbox etc. But aren't they the same as on the AU? Funny isn't it?
Guess that having now got the falcon front and rear suspension, an engine similar to the Falcon they will have to fiddle with the Aerodynamics of the Commodore to make it competitive again or maybe it is simply a better car.
honestly, there is nothing the same with a road and race car.
The engine is better in the commie now, in line with the falc, the areo packages are the same and the suspension is the same. Now it all comes down to the team, Ford and Holden have NOTHING to do with anything.
I don't know in detail, but I haven't read anything here or anywhere else that outlines any other significant differences. (I had my tongue in my cheek)
The point I am trying to make is that the formula supposedly tries to eliminate every variable except the driver (and maybethe expertise of the team) from the equation. That so obviously wasn't done for the AU and the unequal situation was allowed to continue and so many people interpreted it as signifying an underlying weakness in the AU as a car which is rubbish. The buying public didn't like the shape which is a subjective thing and doesn't reflect on the capabilities of the vehicle either on the road or racetrack.
Although I agree that the cars are spectacular and sometimes the racing is good, overall I personally think it is mickey Mouse racing and prefer a formula which allows other makes and classes in. The Ford Holden rivalry was never diminished when the Skyline was racing and in fact was born when any virtually car was allowed to race.
V8 Supercars will fade in time, change will happen, if it doesn't it will become less and less relavant and end up like NASCAR; maybe a great spectacle but hardly motor vehicle road racing. There will be fans who love it and follow it but as for defining the vehicles we buy I can't see it now never mind as the cars drift further and further away from reality.
I believe the geometry of the BA is very different to the AU
This allows for better suspension set ups. Its the only difference really, but the biggest you can make in terms of making a car faster around a track.
The comment from all of the Ford teams has been that with the AU, they could get a quick set up, but never one that allowed the car to remain quick for an entire race duration. The tyre wear was excessive, and it was very hard to preserve them let alone keep the car at top pace. Hence Ambrose took poll as many times as Skaife, but couldnt keep up a quick pace for as long as the Commodores in race trim.
However with the BA, the comment is that they can build a very quick set up for qualifying, and basically carry that same set up into race trim, so the car remains faster for longer.
Ok you are wrong Great XR8
Basically the difference between the AU and BA is downforce. the AU really struggled in front nd grip in comparison to the Commodore, and while the AU in Qualifiying wasnt far from the Comodore, bue to the lack of front end grip, really chewed out their tyres quickly, thus lap times evpaorated.
The BA had a much improved aero package, with both the Commodore and BA with very similar in downforce figures. With the differnce in downforce, susppension and shock sensors are changed quite a bit to allow for the different handling characteristics of the car.
Its ammazing how that bit of downforce makes such a difference to the handling of the car.
your missing the point, accepting what you say, what has it got to do with Commodore being a better car than Falcon (AU) and why, seeing as parity is supposedly the aim wasn't appropriate modifications allowed to the Falcon to overcome this? It went on for four years!!
Absolutely nothing
Thats why V8 Supercars are irrelevant
Thats why even Procar is irrelevant, as it too allows too many changes and variations.
There is no true "showroom floor" catagory anymore.
However, as long as people keep seeing the name Commodore and Falcon going round in circles, they will believe there is some form of relationship between the race car and the real car. Sad but true. Thats why Ford and Holden pour millions into a race catagory that they cant really have any engineering influence in. Because they know the public are not that savvy, and they will believe anything marketing gurus throw at them.
your missing the point, accepting what you say, what has it got to do with Commodore being a better car than Falcon (AU) and why, seeing as parity is supposedly the aim wasn't appropriate modifications allowed to the Falcon to overcome this? It went on for four years!!
ok sorry for misunderstanding
the one and only reason nothing was done for 4 years was politics
the Holden teams / Company do so much a better job on lobbying .
Their argument was that the AU wasnt a bad racecar, just that the Ford teams had no idea what they were doing. The thing is that AVESCO bought this rubbish, therefore no parity changes.
It's like one off those. - You know that chick in primary that everyone mocked and picked on, you know, the fat one with the glasses and the braces. Well just yesterday you bump into her 10 years later and shes 18, blonde, headlights bigger than the new Primera, thin and now has contacts and has had her braces taken out.
You will find that the only thing the BA carried over from AU was doors, and driveline. As stated previously, the AU suffered big downforce problems (at the front) meaning the turn in sucked. Project Blueprint this year resolved all of that, where basically the Ford and Holden product are running identical spec Aero packages as well as front suspension setups (ie Commodore runs a double wishbone front end like the Falcon as opposed to McPherson strut like they used to....and still use on the road cars)
There has never been any argument to the fact that the Ford 302 is capable of making big grunt, most AU guys had HEAPS of power but they couldnt put it to much use. Project Blueprint also allowed the Holden guys to use a new engine, being the Aurora engine, I think its a three valve motor now or some crap (I have read all about it but have totally forgot). This was due to the fact they couldnt make the grunt from the old Chev reliably to match that of the humble 302 Windsor (SVO block of course)
Another Qestion on the same topic:
Does anyone know which of the VYs were VYs and which where "VXIIs", I will need the info for each race.
I am constructing a spreadsheet of race placements for the entire season, and I wanted to produce some stats by model. I believe it is unreasonable to class VY with the old engine as the same as VY with the new engine.
There was only two full spec VY's throughout the whole Holden season.
Grath Tanders VY & Paul Morris's VY.
Both were to full Blueprint standard to the best of my knowledge. Mind you I could be wrong, I just thinks it's so f****d up that there is no time limit for the change over, one year is enough, HRT, KRT, TB and the rest should be forced to run full VY spec cars with the BS new engine they jumped up and down for.
There was only two full spec VY's throughout the whole Holden season.
Grath Tanders VY & Paul Morris's VY.
Both were to full Blueprint standard to the best of my knowledge. Mind you I could be wrong, I just thinks it's so f****d up that there is no time limit for the change over, one year is enough, HRT, KRT, TB and the rest should be forced to run full VY spec cars with the BS new engine they jumped up and down for.
Hmmm may be wrong but I think you will find that both Team Dynmaic cars were also full VY spec all year, as is Stephen Richards Castrol Perkins car (from Hidden Creek on)
I dont know the figures of the top of me head, but i remember reading an article about GRM an how much it was gonna cost to build all new engines for next year and it was something like 2/3's their total budget for the team.
They are going to be running the old engines again next year as well, i dunno wether GT was running a new or old one this year.
i never got a tickle from the AU's only the XR6 and 8's but now we have the BA i dont mind em,they are still part of fords history/past.
and if theres difference between the models its only slightly it aint HUGE..just upgrading and updating the handling etc etc etc thats what you do anyways when making a new model,you try make it better then the last.
I believe the geometry of the BA is very different to the AU
This allows for better suspension set ups. Its the only difference really, but the biggest you can make in terms of making a car faster around a track.
The comment from all of the Ford teams has been that with the AU, they could get a quick set up, but never one that allowed the car to remain quick for an entire race duration. The tyre wear was excessive, and it was very hard to preserve them let alone keep the car at top pace. Hence Ambrose took poll as many times as Skaife, but couldnt keep up a quick pace for as long as the Commodores in race trim.
However with the BA, the comment is that they can build a very quick set up for qualifying, and basically carry that same set up into race trim, so the car remains faster for longer.
I believe before the AU when the EL was doing well, Holden cried for parity and Ford had their undertray/front spoiler cut from 200mm to 100mm and front downforce cut to half of the Commodores. This resulted in the Falcon's being able to cut a few quick laps as good as Holden, but found it hard to keep it going fast. That's why Ambrose was usually running 2nd or 3rd in the race behind Skaife after setting pole.
Now both cars are using common components - same downforce, gearbox, diff, suspension configuration and parity has been restored, Ford have gone back to the front - although I wouldn't say that the top positions are overrun by Fords at this point - SBR has been the dominant team for Ford and the others have had mixed fortunes. You could argue that for Holden runners if you don't have an HRT prepared car (HRT, K-Mart and Team Brock), then your chances of being top 5 are slim.
The AU was never a bad or slow car, it was just harder to get into the 'zone' or find the 'sweet spot'. SBR proved it was quick, but it just lacked consistency. Most probably because it lacked the same front downforce the Commodore had. It had more rear end downforce, and a slight straight line advantage. That made up for it over a single lap, but over a race weekend, when tyres had to be used for more than just one race, it turned out to be a slight disadvantage.
It didn't help either when Ford guys took each other, or themselves out. It probably made HRT look a bit better than it was. Remeber it's only been this year that another Holden team has also been able to run consitently with HRT. GRM have gone backwards at a great rate, Perkins have had on/off meetings, and Team Brock have also had some good and some bad. It's only HRT and KRT that have been able to run close to the front all year. And if it wasn't for Ambrose, Ford may have had another year to forget.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ford Forums
1.4M posts
115.4K members
Since 1999
Ford Forum is a community to discuss all things Ford. Check out our discussions on the Ford Escape, Mustang, Edge, F-150, Raptor, Explorer, Focus, Fusion, Fiesta and more!