Luke West

It came as quite a shock. The handsome and oh-so familiar lines of the road-going Mustang were not immediately apparent when photographs of the prototype Supercars Mustang undergoing testing were rst distributed last month. This was not the racing hero car I was expecting.

In the very least, the shape of Ford’s new challenger, as presented in the rst images, looked awkward. Yet for many, including myself, it was downright ugly. Embarrassing even.

The prototype’s pronounced ‘bubble-top’ glasshouse, droop nose, elongated doors and massive rear-wing endplates were a world away from the low-line look of the road car.

In short, the proportions were all wrong. They result from having to push and pull the iconic shape to t the category’s tubular Gen 2 control chassis. I know many good people have worked hard to bring it to life, but, in my opinion, Mustang is the rst cut-and-shut Supercar design that hasn’t worked. All of the models to have raced in the category’s ‘Car of the Future’ era to date have had their shapes modi ed to some extent, but, to the naked eye, retain the fundamental essence of the original road car’s shape.

Modifying the low-line Mustang shape to t the higher-roof control chassis – particularly the rollover hoop above the driver’s head – means Ford’s ponycar racer breaks new ground. It looks like we are entering an era when touring cars merely contain design elements of their roadgoing brothers.

It’s the Supercars category’s biggest step yet away from its road car roots. I suspect it will be a step too far for many fans.

Now, we are being reassured that the camou aged livery did the prototype no favours. ‘Camo’, after all, is designed to blur lines and disguise actual appearance. When DJR Team Penske’s and Tickford Racing’s cars are seen in their racing liveries, they will look a treat, we are being told.

Frankly, I’m not convinced. Sure, the prototype’s camou age does a good job of masking the shape of the panels, but it doesn’t hide the bigger glasshouse and higher roo ine.

The nished versions in racing warpaint will want to be big improvements visually. But I think it’s already apparent that Supercars’ Gen 2 chassis doesn’t serve the needs of the category into the future. Gen 3 needs to accommodate a wider range of models, including two-door sporty cars.

I’m not pointing the nger of blame at anyone, because when the rules were framed no one could have foreseen that large roadcars would become endangered species globally. But that’s what has transpired and Supercars’ next control chassis and parity rules must accommodate sedans and coupes.

Sure, there will be fans that won’t be bothered by the long, tall Mustang, especially if it wins. But a reshaped Mustang is going to be a deal-breaker for many. For me, when it comes to touring cars, there has to be a link to the road cars.

I have been uncomfortable with the control chassis regulations for some time – particularly the fact production bodyshells are no longer used – but I understand why things have evolved to the current rules. Safety and parity have dictated the direction of the technical regulations and that’s fair enough. But racing noticeably distorted bodyshapes is a step too far away from the category’s roots.

A penny for the thoughts of Ford Australia’s big wigs? Is this what they envisaged when they signed off on the project and distributed concept images at the glitzy launch event early in 2018?

I’m staggered that in an era where corporations like Ford go to extreme lengths to ensure consistency of brand elements – logos, fonts, colours, slogans, designs, etc – that it would allow a trademark of a different kind, Mustang’s distinctive shape, to be bastardised. But then, the Blue Oval’s 2019 NASCAR Mustang looks even less like the production model it’s meant to re ect and promote. Go gure!

Here’s hoping those Ford enthusiasts who were expecting a thoroughbred don’t end up feeling like they got a crossbreed when the Supercars grid up in Adelaide in March.