Technical Analysis: WRC Cars 2017

[J_n_z]

Fiesta diffuser seems least developed to me. In comparison to Yaris or C3 it looks like being added on an already finished car...
I doubt in big effect of underbody aerodynamic on rough surfaces (that are more likely to damage it), since it needs flat surface to work together, and it works at speed, that is lower on rough roads... Even on fast gravel, I doubt in big diffusor efficiency, because body roll destroys "sealing" on the side of the floor...

I think that rear wing is still the thing aerodynamicwise.

[EstWRC]

Tech analysis: Dissecting the new breed of WRC car, Part 1

http://www.motorsport.com/wrc/news/t...part-1-861818/

[br21]

thanx for the link, unfortunately most of the things written there are total bullshit

[Fast Eddie WRC]

thanx for the link, unfortunately most of the things written there are total bullshit

No need to be so dismissive and patronising, tell us the things you think are wrong.

[Mirek]

Everything is wrong in the article. It's no technical analysis at all and it's a shame that it's called like that.

[br21]

No need to be so dismissive and patronising, tell us the things you think are wrong.

Like Mirek already wrote... almost all. Starting from current wrc power (R5 cars have over 300hp currently) and total mistaken aero explanation, taking into consideration brake cooling ducts as some aero things, etc, etc.

[Mirek]

One particularly funny thing is fabricating of some aerodynamic function of jack fixture tubes

[EstWRC]

Part 2 of bullshit http://www.motorsport.com/wrc/news/t...part-2-861828/

[Fast Eddie WRC]

@RallyingUK thinks its excellent.

WRC IN 2017: Part Two of some excellent technical analysis of the 2017 WRC cars by @SomersF1 for @Motorsport https://t.co/XaTrPNtpBW

[Mirek]

That just reflects the sorry state of journalism these days.

And the saddest thing is that somebody believes in such analysis...