AU V8 Supercars........

[6T]

Can anyone tell me why the AU was so unsuccessful (relatively speaking) in V8 supercar racing, yet it has blown its Holden counterparts into the weeds for years in the Konica series. Surely this car can't be too bad, nor as bad as the V8 drivers said they were. :

[12]

Simply, I think the AU did not have a good/fair/equal aero kit in the main series. Ford teams were all very unhappy as AVESCO would not allow them to revise the kit. Just before BA came into the series, AVESCO said ok for the revised AU aero kit.. a little too late, and the revised aero kit was used in the Konica series where it kicked major butt.

[svo347]

I didnt think it was a kit problem, more like parts failure in endurance races.

[EvilChief]

i dont belive the aero kit along was problem, the au in itself was one of the most streamline Falcons ever made, the wind resistance was the lowest ever, so no i dont believe that will be the major factor, however i believe a combination of engine problems, communication between teams and within teams, etc played a role in teh downfall of the AU reign.

[JC]

It doesn't matter what everyone believes, the fact is that the aero package was not up to it. IIRC, the undertray that was homologated was 100mm short. By adding the extra to the undertray, it has reduced lift at the front, thereby increasing downforce on the front tyres. The AUs were a big understeerer and hard to power through/out of corners - they were always fast in a straight line. So 012 is right. Aero kit was the limiting factor.

[zetec]

Remember also that AU days were not funded by Ford unlike BA days, so now that Konicas are handed down, they may well also gain from the assistance being given to the higher V8 Supercar teams. That's my random stab in the dark anyway... :dr_Evil:

[jspec_sti]

From what I can remember I believe it was to do with aerodynamics as JC has mentioned. The AU's were quick in a straight line, but were quick to chew tyres because of the aerodynamic package. As for parts failure in enduros - does a Commodore crashing out Tony Longhurst (the infamous "Longhurst Luck") one year (I can't remember which, Bathurst is soo depressing) ring a bell?

[LG]

The Green Eyed Monster was the hottest Supercar. And it did put up a fight, for some races.

[Donut King]

The AU was a hard car to balance, for various reasons they had a downforce deficiency at the front meaning that to balance out the chassis they also had to wind off the downforce at the rear, meaning it was a pretty hard race car on its tyres. The front track was also narrower than the holden equivalent (Holden had their front track widened as they could not fit the massive tyres under the guards with the macpherson strut front suspension - the chassis rails were extensively modified to pull them in as much as possible though) which gave less mechanical grip at the front end. The ford rear suspension had tailing arms set out very wide at either side which allowed for good stability in high speed corners, but it was hard to get the power down on corner exit meaning they were slower off the mark (but usually the power of their engines allowed higher trap speeds at the end of the straights) so with the lack of mechanical grip on turn in, the cars understeered in the corners and mid corner speed was down on the holdens, they couldn't get the power down as efficently and lost ground coming out of the corners. It wasn't just the aero or just the mechanical setup, it was a combination of the two which caused its poor results.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by JCXR8

It doesn't matter what everyone believes, the fact is that the aero package was not up to it. IIRC, the undertray that was homologated was 100mm short. By adding the extra to the undertray, it has reduced lift at the front, thereby increasing downforce on the front tyres. The AUs were a big understeerer and hard to power through/out of corners - they were always fast in a straight line. So 012 is right. Aero kit was the limiting factor.

Yup, this is exactly right. They were shafted, simple as that.

[T3man]

Easy answer - the rules were made by Holden to suit Holden.

But, it was exactly as Donut King has said. It was the mechanical setup AND the aero setup. If Holden wanted something changed to counter any advantage the Ford had mechanically they got it. But when Ford wanted the same downforce at the front as Holden the answer was NO. The Holden had four times, YES FOUR times the downforce at the front axle - how did the Fords even get as close as they did???

PS Plus Skaife had traction control for two years. AVESCO turned a blind eye as it was "too hard to police".

[Perana]

I did have figures of what downforce the AU had compared to VT/VX and it was pitiful how much less the AU had it's amazing the AU was as fast as it was with this plus with all the troubles they had getting power down.

Obviously the teams especially SBR did a great job trying to get around these issues which continues to show now that the BA is kicking *** with a still inferior (although is a lot closer than it was) aero package

Originally Posted by T3man

PS Plus Skaife had traction control for two years. AVESCO turned a blind eye as it was "too hard to police".

I can believe that too... Starting has got a lot harder for Skaife since the control ECU came into existance...

[FTE217]

Yes a very sad time for a very nice car ! No Ford backing and IVESCO in the pocket with the opposition.
The green eyed monster to this day is one of the finest looking race cars I have seen !!!

[12]

I also read in a motorsport magazine about 2 years ago, and on a forum for the V8's (true or not I'm not sure), that when the aero package was under development for the VT and AU, that Holden moved the radiator back a few centimeters during wind tunnel testing. Leaving a gap for the air to escape, thus giving less downforce at the front. This was not picked up by the authorities (TEGA? AVESCO?). Then moved it back to it's rightful spot once kit was signed off. This effectively gave them much higher downforce at the front, and I believe T3man is correct in it being four times as much.

[Perana]

I had heard that too 012...