Ford ready to commit to Supercars

FORD Performance boss Mark Rushbrook says we are closer than ever to parity, but more data is needed from controlled scenarios to give it all a tick.

There was plenty of parity talk at Bathurst, but little to do with the aero following the wind tunnel tests last year. The extensive multi-day test at Windshear in Concorde just outside Charlotte in North Carolina gave enough data for all the interested parties to agree on aero parity.

Now Ford Motorsport boss Mark Rushbrook says the equivalent science is needed on the engines with transient dyno testing required to lock away parity under the hood.

“We know that the processes that are here today that weren’t part of Supercars historically leading up to this,” he said.

“We knew that aero wasn’t sufficient, and it’s great that Supercars have embraced that now and gone to Windshear to a control test with a process that’s aligned with both manufacturers, with both the modification teams, and we believe we’ve got a good outcome there.

“We’ve said from day one that AEP using the dyno that’s available here is not sufficient, especially when you get to two different engines, different displacements and different architecture. It may look the same, and AEP may say it’s the same, but it doesn’t mean it is the same and we’re certainly seeing that.

“The ultimate goal is a proper transient dyno, and there is a commitment that testing will happen so we can characterise the two different engines.

“I expect that we will see differences there that we did not see on the dyno here, but then we’ve got to be prepared to make those changes.”

Chas Mostert at Bathurst last month. Image: PETER NORTON / EPIC SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHY

He indicated that if parity is locked away soon, he saw no reason to move away from current rules for many years… until the advent of the Gen4 rules whatever they may be.

“If you look at NASCAR, it’s a set of technical rules you build to, and then you go and race. There’s no engine parity other than the rules say this is the displacement you need to use and some other technical restrictions.

“There is parity by rules, and then you play within those rules, and you can get some different power differences. That’s the nature of NASCAR.

“I think it’s too early to talk about it,” he added on Gen4. “I think GT3 is a fantastic category that is working very well around the world. And it’s great that we can design, build, and develop one car and sell it in all those different markets and all those different series.”

But, he said, GT3 was the not the answer here while leaving the door open for a form of NASCAR.

“If you compare the cost of building a Supercar versus a NASCAR, if you think about how many Gen3 Supercars have been built and how many NASCARs have been built? At any point in time, any car number has seven chassis and there’s 40 cars. That’s 40 times seven, that’s a lot more than here.

“But to me it probably isn’t the right solution for here. If you look at the bodies, these look like a proper race car truly off of the street car. Whereas NASCAR, partly because of what the racing is, with ovals and the speeds that they go, you’ve got to have a common greenhouse to help keep the aero closer. So, would that be right here? Maybe not, maybe you could just use the chassis.

“If we do the proper testing [transient dyno] in the next two months, and if there are no changes and if we’re still racing a Mustang and Chevy still has a Camaro with the same engines, there’s no reason to change anything.”

For more of the latest motorsport news, subscribe to AUTO ACTION magazine.

Latest Podcast: Hats off to you. It’s the Auto Action Rev Limiter

Hooray, F1 is back. Boo, Max Verstappen wins. The Bahrain Grand Prix was a little underwhelming, but at least there was racing… and scandal. There was plenty of scandel, but we don’t do that stuff apparently, so we don’t talk about Red Bull Racing, Christian Horner and Jos Verstappen.