Page 49 of 51 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 504
  1. #481
    Armchair General Mirek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Prague / Eastern Bohemia
    Posts
    18,256
    Like
    3,799
    Liked 4,777 Times in 2,048 Posts
    IMO it's more precisely described in homologation regulations.
    Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump

  2. #482
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    24
    Like
    1
    Liked 28 Times in 14 Posts
    Well Nick, if Metal Matrix "Composite" is not a composite material, then what is? For once, the public copy of the regulation shows the same information as the working copy in this case:

    https://www.fia.com/file/61689/downl...token=hVJqMBK-

    The use of composite is allowed for the following parts:
     Timing cover
     Air filter box
     Air ducts for cooling (cockpit and boot (FR) / radiators / intercooler / engine auxiliaries / brakes)
     Homologated exterior bodywork parts (see article 902)
     Windscreen lower trim
     Door trims (FR)
     Dashboard (FR)
     Seats
     Supports and fixings fitted inside the cockpit (except seat brackets) and inside the rear boot
     Protection covers fitted inside cockpit and inside rear boot (FR)
     Foot rest for driver and codriver (FR)
     Console / support for switches…
     Steering wheel
     Heat shields
     Protections of the bodywork parts (side, floor, inner wheel arch)
     Leakproof box for fuel tank (see article 401) (FR)
     Underbody protections (see article 902)
     Mountings for front and rear bumpers
     Headlight units and tail light units
     Additional headlights housings (see article 503)
     Paddles for power assisted gearshift control
     Supports and fixings fitted inside the engine compartment (except engine / transmission supports)
     Discs for differentials
     Baffles fiited inside engine oil sump and transmission housing
     Fuel tank internals
     Engine parts: see HOMOLOGATION REGULATIONS FOR 1.6 TURBO ENGINES
     Electric connecting box
    All composite material parts fitted directly on the engine (parts mentioned in Article 3) and the parts fitted in the cockpit or in the boot mentioned above (FR) must be made from fire‐
    retardant material (seats and driver / codriver equipment / energy‐absorbing material: see FIA standarts). The external face of the part must have a V0 level of acceptance respecting
    the "UL94" US standard (fire‐retardance capability).
    Basically, this list precludes any meaningful use of MMC on these cars.

    Somewhere in this discussion indeed lies the truth about the finish on the part. What can I say, it's painful to see all three cars go out with the same broken part (whatever the circumstances), and it's not the first time they failed this year...

  3. Likes: NickRally (10th October 2017),sonnybobiche (10th October 2017)
  4. #483
    Senior Member racerx1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    338
    Like
    46
    Liked 230 Times in 110 Posts
    Unfortunately a bad design can not be saved by a coating or process at the end of the day. If they had hub failures breaking the connection for the lower wishbone at the ballpoint for many rallies than its time to design a new hub. Or at lease revised the connection of the ball joint to hub. I bet they will do this moving forward.

    On thing I noticed when looking at the pics was the diameter of the l tapered ball joint stud. It was unnecessarily huge in my opinion. Never see Any WRC cars use such a large stud. This could result to huge loads on the hub and also reduce the amount of thickness in that area due to space limitations. On most arms we’ve worked on we would use a 5/8 heim (rose) joint or 14 mm in metric. The Hyundai ball joint stud looks huge. Like 20 mm, but this could be the image being zoomed in. The shear loads on a 14/16 mm heim or rose joint is more than enough for lower control arms used in McPherson suspension. I bet they will also change mountings for the shock body and the shock top mounts as well because the loads are going straight up from the ball joint to the top mounts. I’ve been lucky enough to see Toyota, Ford and Citroen suspension components and in terms of design and tech (not strength) Toyota is above Citroen which is above Ford. Have no clue what Hyundai stuff looks like. They’re actually pretty good at keeping things behind the scenes . Oh and the weight of the Toyota assemblies is incredibly light.
    Last edited by racerx1979; 10th October 2017 at 11:39.

  5. Likes: Munkvy (11th October 2017),OldF (11th October 2017),sonnybobiche (10th October 2017)
  6. #484
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    4
    Like
    0
    Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
    In a wheel arch,some air ducts are closed. And what sensor behind the rear window?
    2z2jseya.p2v.jpg
    tvjz1saq.hqd.jpg
    Last edited by quick; 25th October 2017 at 20:38.

  7. #485
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    117
    Like
    564
    Liked 140 Times in 54 Posts
    I would guess that those are reflectors for the timing beam. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  8. #486
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    460
    Like
    1,908
    Liked 215 Times in 117 Posts
    So, does anybody have any insight as to why the Toyotas struggled so much in low traction?

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  9. #487
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    372
    Like
    77
    Liked 211 Times in 112 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by steve.mandzij View Post
    So, does anybody have any insight as to why the Toyotas struggled so much in low traction?

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    They were claiming that they had a weight disadvantage due to the design of the rear wheel arches. The car was keeping mud there (allegedly 100+ kilos).

  10. Likes: sonnybobiche (29th October 2017)
  11. #488
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    J y v ä s k y l ä
    Posts
    1,992
    Like
    5,630
    Liked 605 Times in 297 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by steve.mandzij View Post
    So, does anybody have any insight as to why the Toyotas struggled so much in low traction?

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    Biggest problem was that they did all testing in dry weather, it was +20 temperature when Lappi tested.
    Rear of car is/was too heavy (because of up to 120kg of mud) and front of car was way too light, so no grip in front and car was not turning.
    "quattro best 4wd rallycar ever"

  12. Likes: steve.mandzij (30th October 2017),TWRC (30th October 2017)
  13. #489
    Armchair General Mirek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Prague / Eastern Bohemia
    Posts
    18,256
    Like
    3,799
    Liked 4,777 Times in 2,048 Posts
    More weight on the rear is bad for nearly everything but not for the traction, quite the opposite.

    What Pantealex wrote seems to be plausible explanation to me.
    Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump

  14. Likes: dimviii (30th October 2017),EstWRC (31st October 2017),pantealex (30th October 2017)
  15. #490
    Senior Member racerx1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    338
    Like
    46
    Liked 230 Times in 110 Posts
    Diff and suspension settings are also key. Also I'm not sure of the speeds at Wales, but aero would not play a huge role if it's mainly tight and slow.

    Toyota will be changing their aero for 2018. I hear it is even more futuristic looking than the current car.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •