Ford Forums banner

Do the proposed TEGA rule changes improve the V8 Supercar Series?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • No

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • Will wait and see

    Votes: 10 28.6%

Proposed TEGA rule changes for 2005

3K views 16 replies 14 participants last post by  ianmcginley 
#1 ·
Those who watched RPM yesterday will have heard the brief discussion on the proposed rule changes for 2005.

Without going into massive detail (it's a long document), here are the basics. The primary aim is to contain cost rather than alter the competitive arena.

Aerodynamics

Minimal working aerodynamics solely to achieve parity. The cars are to have the same external appearance.
* Removal of front under tray from 1 January 2005
* Rear wing to be fixed or with minimal adjustment from 1 January 2005

Comment:These are parity changes and are unlikey to have any cost impact. Assuming there are full wind tunnel tests to verify parity I can't see any issues with this change.

Brakes

* Control brake rotor from 1 January 2005
* Control brake pad from 1 January 2005
* Restricted list of specified calipers available for use in 2005
* Control brake caliper from 1 January 2006

Comment:While it's a bit hard to see how this has any massive impact on cost given that they are going to be expensive anyway and the teams that don't presently use the control set up will be buying new ones, it is probably not a bad idea.


Data logging / telemetry

* Live car to pit telemetry is to be banned from 1 January 2005
* Control dash unit from 1 January 2005
* Reduction in the duplication of data collected from 1 January 2005.
* Reduction in the number of channels of data available to teams from 1 January 2005.

Comment:This is another odd one. Certainly a reduction in the quantity of in car telemetry is probably not a bad thing and does reduce the cost of replacment sensors; the bulk of the investment in the technology has already been made and there are undoubtedly some safety concerns because the driver will have to more carefully monitor the instrumentation rather than relying on relayed information.

Transmission / driveline

* Immediate consideration of gearbox specification - sequential/h pattern shift. Any change to be effected 1 January 2005
* Control specification of internal gearbox components from 1 January 2005
* Minimum flywheel weight from 1 January 2005
* Control carbon clutch from 1 January 2005
* Control crown wheel & pinion from 1 January 2005
* Minimum rear axle (drive shaft) weight - solid component from 1 January 2005
* Minimum tail shaft weight and gauge of metal from 1 January 2005. To be a TEGA recommended part.

Comment:This one should help contain costs as (presumably) the control components won't use ultra expensive parts made out of unobtanium. Again, the initial investment for teams not using the chosen control components will be an initial drawback.

Engine

* Engine specification will be adjusted to provide extended life.
* As many engine components as is practical and possible are to have a minimum weight and specification applied to them from 1 January 2005
* As many engine components as is practical and possible will be reviewed and specified as a control component (either by specification or supply) from 1 January 2005
* Maximum valve lift to be stipulated from 1 January 2005
* Specified number and size of piston rings from 1 January 2005
* Restricted list of specified engine peripheral components together with designated position requirements from 1 January 2005.
* Engine peripherals to be control components from 1 January 2007
* Minimum engine block weight for both Ford and Holden to be identical from 1 January 2007

Comment:Again a positive move which should have substantial cost benefits as well as increasing the durability of components. The only drawback to this would be that it removes some of the potential gains in power that teams can introduce through innovation although it should even the performance field between the haves and have-less.

Suspension

* Restricted list of specified shock absorbers available for use from 1 January 2005
* Control sealed shock absorber from 1 January 2006
* Individually team homologated stub axle to be available for use and sample logged with TEGA from 1 January 2005 - control component from 1 January 2006

Comment:Clearly a cost containment item as the range of options (and thus the parts inventory) open to teams at the moment is huge. Assuming the chosen options are available over the counter then the equipment needed to build their own will be redundant for the teams that have it.

Wheels

* Control aluminum alloy wheel from 1 January 2005. All other wheel specifications to remain unchanged. Current stock of wheels to be marked.

Comment:Long overdue

General items / non-performance components

* As many non-performance components as is practical and possible will be control components for any new car that is built from 1 January 2005
* Control fuel tank in all new cars built from 1 January 2005.
* Specified identical location of the fuel tank in all new cars built for application with the introduction of new model cars.
* Control on board jacks in all new cars built from 1 January 2005.
* Control rattle guns and associated equipment from 1 January 2005

Comment:All make reasonable sense - a bit puzzled by the fuel tank location rule as it takes away a major weight distribution tool but the rest seem o.k

This appears to be further progress down the road of the Nascar silhouette formula where the bodyshell, engine, driver and car set-up are all that differentiate the winners from the losers.

Is it a positive move for the series?

The real question (and the one I've added a poll for) is whether the philosophical change in direction is a good thing for the series. To help the debate here are a few pros and cons from my viewpoint.

Pros

1. The reliance on cubic dollars that presently separates the front runners from the rest should be minimised and thus the equality across the field improved.

2. Driver skill becomes a larger factor in the overall equation than it is presently.

3. The overall capital and operational cost of fielding a team should be reduced - although it would be interesting to see the actual number quantified.

Cons

1. There is less room for innovation and gaining a technical advantage which in turn impacts on the need for engineering expertise.

2. It could be argued that teams with big budgets will just find new ways to spend the development dollars they have now that will still lead to disparity between themselves and the lesser budgeted teams.

3. The inherent Ford v Holden rivalry that is the raison d'etre of the series becomes more blurred as the cars move closer and closer to being identical under the bodyshell.

Let the debate begin.

Cheers
Russ
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
I'm not liking the idea of a falcodore body, especially since that's pretty much the only thing tying the cars to their roadgoing cousins

I definitely don't like the fact that it's taking out engineering innovation.

Having telemetry is also definitely an upside, and I would think that while helping even things out, it seems a little silly to leave information at the car, and have the driver doing more than driving
 
#3 ·
So basically it wil become a true silohette series. This is good and bad I guess. In the end, I'll wait and see. All I know is that the racing at the moment is not exactly exciting anymore and I have lost interest in it. Of course, with all these changes, all we may potentially have is 30 odd identical cars going around in a circle with almost no chance of passing.
 
#4 ·
Some of the changes I dont see a problem with. I like the idea of cheaper wheels, etc. Although i am not too keen on the control of just about everything, the cars are almost identical now. Ford vs Holden?? Bah more like SBR vs HRT there are no Fords and Holdens, and some of these changes will only make it worse. The major CON I see is I would like to see the continuation of of the H pattern gearbox. Just watching them run through that gearbox from 6th to 2nd is fantastic.
Will it keep costs down? I guess only time will tell. It could backfire on TEGA....
 
#6 ·
I think you'll find the statement "same external appearance" means the cars will look the same as they do know, rather than Fords & Holdens will look the same.

I think there are some good and some bad proposals there. Fundamentally it contains some pretty major measures to reduce development and expensive parts costs, but at the expense that there are far fewer tuning adjustments left. The idea is that the common parts are those that no one cares about, and given the aims of the series - close, hard racing - that is fair enough. It's not about racing improving the breed, otherwise they would not be using 5L engines any more.

The control parts are an opportunity to vastly cut costs at a small price to performance. The best example is the wheels, currently the magnesium wheels cost thousands, the control wheel will be an alloy that will cost hundreds and weigh a couple of kg more. Fundamentally the other changes involve the same principle, although with some, eg brakes, they also reduce the need for testing & development.

One suggestion is that a couple of telemetry channels, eg water temp & oil press, could be kept so that teams can avoid blowing up engines ($$$), but that these be sent along with TV telemetry ie road & engine speed, gear selected and brake application so that there can be no cheating. It could also be used to advantage in commentary, imagine watching Skaife's run at Bathurst with the plastic bags in the grille and knowing what the water temp was up to.

The changes will certainly reduce the costs of entering the series, but also make a lot of the existing teams' skills and equipment redundant. It is interesting that they have not addressed the car construction. The BTCC rules that inspired these changes (~2-3 years ago now, which aimed to cut costs by 60%) specified you had to start with a complete body shell, minus roof panel to ease the installation of a cage. I suppose that if the Nascar route is chosen that is not relevant, but I wonder if we can expect a "control rollcage"?

I think the change is good for the long-term health of the series, as it could be argued that the Australian motorsport scene is not financial enough to support a non-parity based series. However it certainly opens the door for a series that allows more technical innovation.
 
#7 ·
I'm in two minds about the changes. On one hand I wish that we had the best drivers in the country driving production cars or cars at least close to what you can actually buy. The cars would be slower, and there is more chance that one make will dominate the other, but the public (myself included) would feel a relationship to the cars again. The more control parts we have the further we get away from "touring cars".

On the other hand I think that if they've already gone this far they might as well go all the way. Since you can't buy a 6 speed Windsor powered XR8 now, I don't really see how it would be worse with more control parts.
 
#12 ·
With all the changes stating to affect these cars im wondering if it wouldnt be more fun to see them get standard cars put cages in them and make them the same weight and go race :) Would also make manufactures put more reliablilty into the road cars like the old days :AAHHH:
 
#13 ·
Its funny that the proposed changes are for teams to be able to save money...
As Dicky J said wheres the proof in writing, all in point format.
Ingall thinks its a great idea as WE can give it back to the spectators??
I can see in the long run it will cost more money, trying to outdo each other, as everyone has to be onpar with each other , they have to look for gains elsewhere...
V8SC is starting to get too nit picky.. Only time will tell if one of our favourite past time... motorsports is beginning to lose the plot..
 
#15 ·
I would like to throw in the idea that these changes will not be positive due to the effect that it will have on potential & existing sponsors.
Why would a tyre, brake, wheel company etc commit to a long-term, large scale sponsorship when their product is not being used (for better or worse) and they do not get the opportunity supply product, rather than dollars for sponsorship. Are these proposal shooting they companies that are directly responsible for supporting motor racing.
Personally, I think they have gone so far down the parity route they may as well go to a control shell, with standard roll-cage & pick-up points for suspension & engines. Didn't someone say a while ago SBR were building their own shells; is this the reason for their dominant performace, particularly on the Ford siude of the equation?
 
#17 ·
Silver GT said:
Its a Ford Vs Holden series isnt it?

What Fords parts are in The Fords and what GM parts are in the Holden?

The TEGA guys have to get back to basics.....I dont want to see "Generic V8 Supercar" do you?

You mean the upcoming series in 2006 called "V8 Genericar"?

Boring, boring and boring. These changes are mostly okay, but I don't like the idea of standardising components internal to the engine and suspension... they should be real black box stuff (hell SBR won't allow public into the pits with cameras when they have the wheels off or the bonnet up).

V8 Supercars as it is in 2004 is great. Good mix of cars up the top end. However yeah I do agree that the lower teams need a helping hand, perhaps TEGA or AVESCO could fund lower teams or whatever kinda like the AFL does.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top