Race Results: Mustang vs Camaro

[JohnZiraldo]

I thought it might be convenient to report and discuss Mustang vs. Camaro race results in one thread.

Starting with 2014 we have:

1/24/14 - CTSCC
Mustang 7, 8, 9, 13, 15
Camaro 11, 18, 19

Sponsored

 

[JohnZiraldo]

Looking Back
As viewed by a Mustang fan wanting to see Mustangs beat up Camaros

2013 - CTSCC

1-24 Daytona
Mustang 1,7,10,14,16,20,22,24
Camaro 5,6,17,23

3-1 COTA
Mustang 8,9,14,16,17,32
Camaro 10,15

4-5 Barber
Mustang 9,11,12,13,15,33,36
Camaro 2,5,14 :(

4-19 Road Atlanta
Mustang 6,12,13,15,31
Camaro 1,7,14 :(

6-14 Mid-Ohio
Mustang 5,8,9,14,15,19
Camaro 3,10 :(

6-28 Watkins Glen
Mustang 8,11,30,33,34,35
Camaro 6,10 :(

7-27 Indy
Mustang 2,6,10,11,12,16
Camaro 7,15

8-9 Road America
Mustang 6,11,15,36
Camaro 8,37

8-16 Kansas
Mustang 3,8,10,11
Camaro 1 :(

9-6 Laguna Seca
Mustang 4,5,7,40
Camaro 2,6 :(

9-27 Lime Rock
Mustang 1,6,11,15,16,17
Camaro 2,12

Manufacturers Points
Ford 294 - 4th Place
Chev 312 - 2nd Place :(
What could have been Ford points, but spent on Aston Martin - 294 :(:(:(:(:(

2012 CTSCC

1-26 Daytona
Mustang 1,8,9,10,11,13,18,19,20,30,56,61
Camaro 17,22

3-30 Barber
Mustang 9,13,48,53
Camaro 7,8,10,11,49 :(

4-27 Homestead
Mustang 5,10,11,16,27,38,43
Camaro 9,12,13,14

5-11 Thunderbolt
Mustang 8,10,11,15,35,46
Camaro 3,7,12,14,40 :(

6-8 Mid Ohio
Mustang 1,9,20,32,46
Camaro 2,5,12,40

6-22 Road America
Mustang 2,5,10,13,14,16,37
Camaro 4,6,9,12

6-29 Watkins Glen
Mustang 9,13,16
Camaro 2,4,7,15,32 :(

7-27 Indy
Mustang 11,14,16,19,35,36,41
Camaro 1,2,4,7,8 :(:(:(

9-7 Laguna Seca
Mustang 5,8,9,12,18
Camaro 1,7,38,40 :(

9-28 Lime Rock
Mustang 13,16,17,19,21,22
Camaro 4,14,15,18 :(

Manufacturers Points
Ford 259 - 4th Place
Chev 289 - 3rd Place :(
What could have been Ford points, but spent on Aston Martin - 217 :(:(:(:(:(

 

[JohnZiraldo]

Looking Further Back

2011 - CTSCC

1-27 Daytona
Mustang 2,12,17,18,38
Camaro 7,10,14,20

3-4 Homestead
Mustang 2,6,18
Camaro 9,11,45

4-8 Barber
Mustang 1,3,14,36
Camaro 5,10,17,32

5-13 Virginia
Mustang 1,13,14,15,18
Camaro 7,9,12,17,49

5-28 Lime Rock
Mustang 3,5,7
Camaro 4,8,12,13,14

6-3 Watkins Glen
Mustang 1,4,7,12,14,40,45
Camaro 2,5,6,8

6-24 Road America
Mustang 2,9,11,12
Camaro 1,4,14,35 :(

7-9 Laguna Seca
Mustang 15,17
Camaro 1,4,6,8,12 :(:(:(

7-23 Thunderbolt
Mustang 1,3,11,31
Camaro 8,38

9-16 Mid-Ohio
Mustang 2,8,9,10,11,14,17,20,39,49,51
Camaro 7,16,43,47

Manufacturers Points
Ford 314 - 2nd Place
Chev 273 - 3rd Place


2010 - CTSCC

1-28 Daytona
Mustang 4,7,9,16,17,20
Camaro 5,8,10

3-6 Homestead
Mustang 1,4,6,10,11,12,13,18,19,21,25
Camaro 23,24

4-10 Barber
Mustang 1,2,7,8,15,17,20,44
Camaro 10,14

4-24 Virginia
Mustang 5,7,9,13,14,15,18,20,33
Camaro 2,17 :(

5-29 Lime Rock
Mustang 2,4,11,13,15,18
Camaro 7,8

6-5 Watkins Glen
Mustang 5,7,8,11,13,16
Camaro 4,19,20,32,50 :(

6-19 Mid-Ohio
Mustang 4,6,8,10,11,15,43
Camaro 35,36

7-17 Thunderbolt
Mustang 1,11,12,13,27,31
Camaro 6,24

8-14 Trois-Rivieres
Mustang 2,7,13,14
Camaro 3,15

9-11 Miller
Mustang 2,4,8,12,14,29,34,35
Camaro 9,10,15,30

Manufacturers Points
Ford 303 - 2nd Place
Chev 230 - 4th Place


2009 - CTSCC
1st Year for Camaro (at VIR)

1-22 Daytona
Mustang 2,3,5,9,10,14,16,28,36

3-13 Homestead
Mustang 3,4,7,8,10,11,12,14,16,17

5-1 Thunderbolt
Mustang 5,8,9,12,20

5-15 Laguna Seca
Mustang 1,4,5,22

5-22 Lime Rock
Mustang 5,6,8,9,11,14

6-5 Watkins Glen
Mustang 6,7,8,9,34

6-19 Mid Ohio
Mustang 1,2,6,12,13,15

7-17 Barber
Mustang 1,2,3,8,14,17,18

8-14 Trois-Rivieres
Mustang 2,3,4,8,9,10

9-18 Miller
Mustang 1,4,5,12,26

10-2 Virginia
Mustang 1,6,9,11,12,16,18
Camaro 43

Manufacturers Points
Ford 346 - 1st Place
Chev 8

2008 - CTSCC
Manufacturers Points
Ford 313 - 1st Place

2007 - CTSCC
Manufacturers Points
Ford 360 - 2nd Place

2006 - CTSCC
Manufacturers Points
Ford 278 - 3rd Place

2005 - CTSCC
Manufacturers Points
Ford 357 - 1st Place

2004 - CTSCC
Manufacturers Points
Ford 223 - 3rd Place

 

[Grimace427]

Hey John, maybe you can keep a tally of which car was ahead most often.

 

[noldevin]

While fun, take all this with half a grain of salt. Either side could do poorly because of a bad batch of drivers

 

[FATTBoss]

Don't forget that after Daytona last year the Mustang was hit with more restrictions that weren't lifted until it was too late to matter for the season championship. Also this year the focus from Multimatic will be on development of the new car, and running the current platform will mostly be data gathering.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

What's with Camaro and Laguna-Seca

2011
Mustang 15,17
Camaro 1,4,6,8,12 :(:(:(

2012
Mustang 5,8,9,12,18
Camaro 1,7,38,40 :(

2013
Mustang 4,5,7,40
Camaro 2,6 :(

 

[JohnZiraldo]

Hey John, maybe you can keep a tally of which car was ahead most often.

Way to much effort.
Just show me the trophies!

 

[JohnZiraldo]

While fun, take all this with half a grain of salt. Either side could do poorly because of a bad batch of drivers

Don't forget that after Daytona last year the Mustang was hit with more restrictions that weren't lifted until it was too late to matter for the season championship. Also this year the focus from Multimatic will be on development of the new car, and running the current platform will mostly be data gathering.

All that gets lost in the fog of battle.
From a bragging rights perspective, the picture that emerges from the fog for me looks something like this.

Ford got rolling with FR500Cs in 2004 (again with Multimatic development support) with three 1st place and one 2nd place manufacturers points finishes between 2004 and 2009.
Camaro entered CTSCC at the end of 2009.
Mustang continued to dominate Camaro for two more seasons.
Camaro caught up in 2012 and dominated Mustang for two years while Multimatic was working with Aston Martin and acquiring 511 points that could have gone to Ford. Ford only lost by a total of 48 points to Chev and 94 points to the 1st place finishers over those two Aston Martin-years.

Kind of reminds me of '92 when Perot and Bush split the 57% of conservative votes and let Clinton walk up the middle with 43% liberal votes.

It's time to put an end to this trend whether it is through better drivers, more focused teams, fairer restrictions, or a newer chassis. I prefer all of the above, but hopefully getting Multimatic's focus, drivers, and points back will be enough until the S550 arrives in August.

If that's not enough, then maybe Stevenson Motorsports could waste their points on Aston Martin for two seasons.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

.. this year the focus from Multimatic will be on development of the new car, and running the current platform will mostly be data gathering.

My reading of the tea leaves suggests that the partnership of Multimatic and Miller Racing will be much more about winning races than data gathering. They are certainly off to a good start finishing 1st and 3rd among the Mustangs at Daytona.

I am going to assume that the Multimatic Racing Team under Sean Mason will be concentrating on the development of the S550 for August, while the Miller/Multimatic team keeps winning races in the 302Rs. It looks like there are no Aston Martins left at Multimatic, so that should free up lots of development resources.

On Feb 9 I will be doing some data gathering of my own in the Multimatic Booth at the Canadian Motorsports Expo.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

As a subscriber to Multimatic Motorsports, I received this great email news article re their outing at Daytona.

Multimatic Mustangs Back with a Strong Performance at​

​

The World Centre of Racing​

​

DAYTONA BEACH, Florida (January 24th, 2014) - Multimatic Motorsports returned to the Ford fold with a better than anticipated performance as both the #15 and #158 Boss 302Rs finished in the top 10 of the BMW Performance 200. The event marked the first race of the 2014 Continental Tire SportsCar Challenge (CTSC) and the first in the team's partnership with Miller Racing, which has been forged to return Mustang to its former glory in this highly competitive racing series.​

Practice saw the Multimatic Mustangs top five in every session despite the team having not run the cars for over two years and the lap times being well over a second faster than 2013. The team very quickly found a fast set-up for the infield but unfortunately the Balance of Performance (BoP) restrictor and ballast weight dictated by the series did not allow the Mustangs to match the top-end speed of the competition on the flat-out banking and straights of the oval. It was only the superior handling and braking performance of the Multimatic entries that kept them in the hunt.​

​

Qualifying was a somewhat bizarre affair as a red flag stopped the session after just a few minutes with only three cars setting times. Proceedings then restarted with only three and a half minutes remaining, just enough time for one flying lap. Once again, Multimatic's star qualifier Jade Buford proved that he has no equal when the pressure is on, and with everybody else still bringing their tires up to temp he put the #15 Boss 302R on pole, with a little help from a well considered draft out of the bus-stop. It was Buford's second consecutive Daytona CTSC pole and his seventh pole in the last 12 races, made even more impressive by the fact that he did it in the five year old, school-bus yellow Mustang campaigned by Multimatic back in 2010/11. The #158 unfortunately failed to qualify due to a power train issue and was forced to start at the back of field in P29.

In typical CTSC fashion, the race was a crash-fest and a number of long yellows dramatically slowed the race pace and made pit strategy difficult. There were so many incidents that the 2014 Daytona event set a new record for the least laps completed at 54, with over half of those being under caution!! Despite being hobbled by the BoP restrictor, causing a severe power deficit to the BMWs and Porsches, both the #15 and #158 took turns leading the race and both cars remained continuously in contention for the lead. Before the final caution, which undermined the team's fuel strategy, Scott Maxwell in the #15 and Billy Johnson in the #158 were on a strong charge towards the front. At the checkered flag, the top six cars were all BMWs, all of which had run lap times almost two seconds faster than in 2013, with the #15 finishing P7 and the #158 P9.​

​

Highlights of the weekend were as follows:

• Hard work and tenacity in the two weeks between the "Roar" and the Daytona race ensured the
  Multimatic Mustangs would be up to speed. Practice saw both cars consistently setting top ten times despite a BoP disadvantage on the oval. The drivers and engineers quickly found a rhythm with one another and in Larry Holt's words, "It felt like everybody had been together for years rather than days."​
• A red flag made qualifying a one lap shoot-out, which Jade Buford won with a lap time of 1:55.824, earning his 7th CTSC pole position and breaking the GS lap record which he set in 2013.

Multimatic Motorsports Team Principal, Larry Holt, commented: "I was encouraged by how fast the guys got back on top of the Mustangs. We have had very little time with them since making the decision to return to Ford and proper preparation only occurred since the "Roar", but we qualified and ran well although ultimately didn't have the speed to win the race. The pace in Continental has really picked-up with the top race lap being over two seconds faster than last year, which is odd because there have been no significant rules changes in that time. Apparently we need to be taking another look at our approach to technical development, which is opportune as we are now building two new Boss 302Rs for the remainder of the season as the cars that we ran were both borrowed and a little long in the tooth. The tie-up with Miller Racing has turned out to be excellent and we have big plans for the future."​

​

 

[JohnZiraldo]

...unfortunately the Balance of Performance (BoP) restrictor and ballast weight dictated by the series did not allow the Mustangs to match the top-end speed of the competition on the flat-out banking and straights of the oval...​

​

I found some interesting info on BoP restrictors on Autosport .

Balance of performance
Different cars are balanced by adjusting weight, air restrictor, fuel tank and other performance areas throughout the season. The changes, whether severe or not, can be made at any time for whatever reason the organizer comes up with (performance on track, lack of performance on track, crappy or superior car/drivers/tires, politics, 4th of July celebrations etc). It's not an automatic system like success ballast

Success ballast
Automatic amount of extra weight is added to the cars according to their success in each event. Let's say car wins in Race X and gets automatic 50kg weight penalty for that (the second place would grant 35kg, third place 30kg etc). In the next race, the same car finishes 15th and loses the extra weight or at least some of what it had gained because it finished lower than the last car that gets penalty weight, which is let's say the 10th place finisher. The extra penalty weight amounts stay the same throughout the season and nothing else - in this case here - gets modified in the car performances.


Comment by user 'TC3000'
Success ballast if done on a half sensible basis, and assuming that the tyres can support it safely (in terms of structural integrity not wear), tends to work reasonable well in classes with a more or less equal vehicle platform. For the sake of the example let's say 2 ltr n/a engined FWD 1200kg Touring cars, or 4 ltr n/a RWD 1000kg Touring cars ( BTCC & DTM type cars). In most cases it will ensure that the championship runs to the last round, and that you rarely have the same winner 5 races on the trott. It's "fair(ish)" in a way, as the score is known beforehand, and you can try to design for it (take ballast weight into consideration) and adds a strategical dimension to the championship. You may have to play the long game, and "choose" (try to manage) the events you run with max. , min., &/or medium ballast - this is assuming that your are capable of running at the front on merrit any time. Such a system may produces the "odd" lucky dog win, for a privateer or tier two team, but that's not a bad thing in the greater scheme of things - live and let live.
Over the year, in most cases the best team(s)/driver(s) will still make it out under them. I never saw such a system produce a absolute "left field" champion, coming out of nowhere.

The ballast systems tends to break down, when used to "equalize" too different car platforms/concepts. It was allready a pain during the heydays of Supertouring Cars, trying to get FWD, RWD (BMW, Lexus) and AWD (Audi) cars on an even keel. Some may remember all the stunts, with the "+160kg stickers on the roof and windscreen". And it still didn't work and ended in a political shit fight. Same story later when they tried in the WTCC to get the turbo diesel equal with the n/a petrol cars.
And IMHO it wont work in something like GT trying to get a V10 Viper and a Lotus Elise together in one performance bracket.
It's a simple, fair(ish) system if the cars are not too different to start with, and a good recipie against boredom and series winners in something like Clio or Megane Cup etc. , everyone knows whats going to happen, when he wins, so there is no surprise, and you can take it into consideration, or just go for it and roll the dice and see if it works out.
It's not for the purist - but it's not completely unfair IMHO

BoP, on paper is a great idea, and it's the only workable system when trying to equalize a large varity of cars, like in GT2/3/4 or something like 24hr Nürburgring etc.
It requires, great technical know how, and even higher "ethical" standards, to make it work successfully.
It can work, if done by a competent promoter, and it tend to work better in a amateur type of enviorment.
The downfall, comes more often then not, and it will happen sooner or later, when manufacturers become involved, then the real political power struggle behind closed doors begins, and the sport tends to take a backseat.

Then all the bitching and arguing about wing height this, and ride height that, and restrictor here and extra mass there, takes over and is never ending.
As all this can be done on an "add-hoc" basis, you never really know where you may stand.
It also tends to drive costs up, because the top teams, will try to claw back on the limitations imposed.
All in all in my even if only limited expirience it tends to make the racing highly political, and friends in the right places are maybe more helpful, then competent engineers, teams and drivers.

Edit:
Success ballast tends to work better on lower powered and lighter cars, at least, then you can stay within sensible limits. 60kg more or less in a 1500kg+ 800hp car, don't tend to do much. It's more a app 300hp or less FWD Touring car sort of fix.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

... The changes, whether severe or not, can be made at any time for whatever reason the organizer comes up with... politics, 4th of July celebrations etc...

Do you think maybe BMWs got a BoP advantage for the 'BMW Performance 200' race at Daytona?

Nah! They wouldn't do that.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

Anyone have any questions for Multimatic Motorsports and Scott Maxwell (driver of Mustang #15 at Daytona)? https://www.facebook.com/MultimaticMotorsports I will be at their booth at the Canadian Motorsport Expo Sunday morning (Feb 9).

I have a long list of questions ready but could always use some more.

 

[crazyfastfreddy]

yes you knew this was coming but wanna know more bout this.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/multimatic-going-2015-869.html?t=869

1. are they realy working on it, 2. is it on target for Aug this year? 3. when will we see it?

im sure you have these questions too.

Sponsored