Technical Analysis: WRC Cars 2017

[seb_sh]

I agree, as an analysis it's utter crap, too bad it's presented as such. As a general explanation and introduction to a layman about the new WRC cars it has some merit, as it compares the road car with the rally car. If they had such a thing for all components (suspension, engine, tyres etc.) it would be a nice resource to show casual fans. But as an analysis it's useless because it compares the WRC to a road car (irrelevant) instead of comparing the different approaches and interpretations of a well defined rule set between each other.

Check this out: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2016.html
That's how you do aero analysis.

[Mirek]

It's not crap because it compares with the road car. That would be totally ok if what it states was true. The problem is that it isn't.

[dimviii]

That just reflects the sorry state of journalism these days.

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

I had read this link,when I found it I was eager to read to learn something more,something new.
I didn't learned anything.
Same problem with most journalists.You open a link to learn/know something new and nothing happens.

[N.O.T]

most motorsport journalists want to bother with F1 and what kind of lipstick the ladyboys prefer on race day, where their boyfriends shop and other useless crap. They think that by knowing stupid details they are knowledgeable.

So when they try and bring their homo attitude to a mans sport they mess up big time, of course there are simple town folk and people from small villages that believe them if the article has some nice pictures. but these people usually believe everything, even the news on the TV.

i did not bother with the article the time i saw that has fancy pictures, usually its an indication of crap.

[seb_sh]

It's not crap because it compares with the road car. That would be totally ok if what it states was true. The problem is that it isn't.

Besides that the info is wrong, which i totally agree, it's still useless to compare to the roadcar. The WRC body parts are specially designed and made. Even if take some styling from the road car they should be analysed comparing each other and considering the rules, not "oh from the roadcar they added some bits here and a wing in the back". Of course they have...

[Mirek]

Doing the comparison with the stock car is quite ok from my point of view as the article is meant for the general public and not the race engineers. As such it's also easier job because it requires only basic understanding of the issue (even that is lacking here). For making a real comparison between those new WRC cars one must be a real expert and somebody like that would not write for some online motorsport newspaper but rather sit in an engineering office.

[Fast Eddie WRC]

I know those articles arent super high tech in detail about the aero but I dont see they are so bad.

Can any of you give some examples of what is wrong in those analyses ?

[AndyRAC]

I agree, as an analysis it's utter crap, too bad it's presented as such. As a general explanation and introduction to a layman about the new WRC cars it has some merit, as it compares the road car with the rally car. If they had such a thing for all components (suspension, engine, tyres etc.) it would be a nice resource to show casual fans. But as an analysis it's useless because it compares the WRC to a road car (irrelevant) instead of comparing the different approaches and interpretations of a well defined rule set between each other.

Check this out: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2016.html
That's how you do aero analysis.

I know this won't be a popular view on here, but Sportscar racing has far better journalism and better analysis than rallying. Where is the rallying equivalent of DSC (DailySportscar, for example?

[Mirek]

I know those articles arent super high tech in detail about the aero but I dont see they are so bad.

Can any of you give some examples of what is wrong in those analyses ?

So You don't mind that it's totally misleading because all the stuff inside is wrong? What does it need to contain to be "bad" for You then?

[N.O.T]

you have to first understand that not all people are high revving mirek... some are simple basic constructions without wanting too much detail that causes confusion in their lives.

then you will not ask these questions.