2010 Farewell WRC Cars and Hello S 2000.

[Mirek]

dimviii: Why should be new WRC faster than today's one? There is enough troubles with too high average speed even today (in Finland, Sweden, Ireland etc.). In 2013 tyres and shock absorbers will be also much better than today...

[dimviii]

Mirek wrc at today is not so spectacular ,it is not attracting sponsors,nobody watch it cause you cant watch it,we have a crisis economic,and fia must find a solution with less money.
If they are slower are they going to attract more?
if not why to change? just to create a mess with the already factories in wrc,and forced them to spent some more millions in a new project with the same amount of spectators? why? are you sure that they can-afford?
we are not talking about you and me and some other 1million? crazy people about wrc.We are not enough for beeing invest billions from factories or sponsors.Thats the problem in my way of view.

ps sorry for my poor english.

ps 2 it is very easy to control max-top speed for fia.thats not a problem i think

[Mirek]

Dimvii: Slower doesn't mean less atractive. Don't mess these two words

Gr.A was slower, was less atractive? When You watch a TV coverage from today's WRC tarmac rallys, You fall asleep soon because there is absolutely no action in it. The cars are fast but don't look fast. Having expensive and crazy fast cars which are boring to watch is contraproductive. When You watch tarmac rallys from 1994 for example, You can see the difference. The cars were very spectacular even though they were much slower.

And what's making championship atractive is competition at first. Having more competition need's new begining from time to time because after a decade or so unsucesfull manufacturers are away and none new has a chance against those which are for a decade in the bussines.

Cheaper completely mechanical car with 1.6 turbo may be less powerful than current WRC but it may be more atractive. If the average speed in the stage is 120 or 118 km/h is realy not important for public.

Also from marketing point of view. What is using 2.0 turbo good for Ford or PSA? They don't produce such engine for road cars. 1.6 turbo is different case especialy for the future because of emission standards.

[big_sw2000]

]Dimvii: Slower doesn't mean less atractive. Don't mess these two words

Gr.A was slower, was less atractive? When You watch a TV coverage from today's WRC tarmac rallys, You fall asleep soon because there is absolutely no action in it. The cars are fast but don't look fast. Having expensive and crazy fast cars which are boring to watch is contraproductive. When You watch tarmac rallys from 1994 for example, You can see the difference. The cars were very spectacular even though they were much slower.

And what's making championship atractive is competition at first. Having more competition need's new begining from time to time because after a decade or so unsucesfull manufacturers are away and none new has a chance against those which are for a decade in the bussines.

Cheaper completely mechanical car with 1.6 turbo may be less powerful than current WRC but it may be more atractive. If the average speed in the stage is 120 or 118 km/h is realy not important for public.

Also from marketing point of view. What is using 2.0 turbo good for Ford or PSA? They don't produce such engine for road cars. 1.6 turbo is different case especialy for the future because of emission standards.

Well said.

[janvanvurpa]

]Dimvii: Slower doesn't mean less atractive. Don't mess these two words

Gr.A was slower, was less atractive? When You watch a TV coverage from today's WRC tarmac rallys, You fall asleep soon because there is absolutely no action in it. The cars are fast but don't look fast. Having expensive and crazy fast cars which are boring to watch is contraproductive. When You watch tarmac rallys from 1994 for example, You can see the difference. The cars were very spectacular even though they were much slower.

And what's making championship atractive is competition at first. Having more competition need's new begining from time to time because after a decade or so unsucesfull manufacturers are away and none new has a chance against those which are for a decade in the bussines.

Cheaper completely mechanical car with 1.6 turbo may be less powerful than current WRC but it may be more atractive. If the average speed in the stage is 120 or 118 km/h is realy not important for public.

Also from marketing point of view. What is using 2.0 turbo good for Ford or PSA? They don't produce such engine for road cars. 1.6 turbo is different case especialy for the future because of emission standards.

OK Mirek gets a beer from me!

I was hoping somebody would talk about the emotional or sensory experience because both inside the car when I've done stages and outside when I might watch what makes for excitement and interest is that the cars FEEL and LOOK and above all ACT BETTER and DIFFERENT from what we are used to in ordinary life.
Todays car appear nearly on rails. MANY (Sainz, Mäkinen, Kankunnen, Mcrae and on and on) top drivers have said words to the effect of ''The cars nearly drive themselves".
But I want to point out that we you say "Todays cars are much faster than in...." that the figures say otherwise.

If you spend some time at the old Rallybase.nl and do some math you might see the difference in average speed on stages for winner only 3 or 4 km/hr faster than say 94-96

Look, all this discussion and I have to say to me the obvious problem with WRC is the "World Rally Car" Rules which has allowed so much design freedom that the cars are as divorced from reality as the GpB cars were: a few styling details and maybe a windscreen and headlight from some road model so you can call it a "Xzara" or a Fuc*us or whatever but thats it.

GpA with the original requirement for 5000 identical models and originally with series production gearbox housing meant things couldn't be prefect because all roads cars have compromises.
And so drivers had to try things to drive around the basic road cars built in compromises, and it was fun to watch.

Under "World Rally Car" rules cars are now--or since what? 1995, last Toyota in WRC--cars can be build fully optimised---and really all the cars are very nearly the same.
And so they work nearly perfectly if a person has some skill.

Of course they are nearly 100% handbuilt so the cost a LARGE fortune to build and another large fortune to run.

And that means that only a narrow select group of people can find the funds---a skill not at all connected with driving skills------to buy a car or a "seat"

And the result is what we see: Loeb then a step down Solberg, Hirvonen, Latvala, Sordo, and then a pile of guys who make us all want to poke screwdrivers in our eyes, then burn the TV.

So whatever the details they decide on, 1,6 unrestricted or whatever, as long as there is a complete divorce from the roadcar base model, the fans will stay away.

[AndyRAC]

OK Mirek gets a beer from me!

I was hoping somebody would talk about the emotional or sensory experience because both inside the car when I've done stages and outside when I might watch what makes for excitement and interest is that the cars FEEL and LOOK and above all ACT BETTER and DIFFERENT from what we are used to in ordinary life.
Todays car appear nearly on rails. MANY (Sainz, Mäkinen, Kankunnen, Mcrae and on and on) top drivers have said words to the effect of ''The cars nearly drive themselves".
But I want to point out that we you say "Todays cars are much faster than in...." that the figures say otherwise.

If you spend some time at the old Rallybase.nl and do some math you might see the difference in average speed on stages for winner only 3 or 4 km/hr faster than say 94-96

Look, all this discussion and I have to say to me the obvious problem with WRC is the "World Rally Car" Rules which has allowed so much design freedom that the cars are as divorced from reality as the GpB cars were: a few styling details and maybe a windscreen and headlight from some road model so you can call it a "Xzara" or a Fuc*us or whatever but thats it.

GpA with the original requirement for 5000 identical models and originally with series production gearbox housing meant things couldn't be prefect because all roads cars have compromises.
And so drivers had to try things to drive around the basic road cars built in compromises, and it was fun to watch.

Under "World Rally Car" rules cars are now--or since what? 1995, last Toyota in WRC--cars can be build fully optimised---and really all the cars are very nearly the same.
And so they work nearly perfectly if a person has some skill.

Of course they are nearly 100% handbuilt so the cost a LARGE fortune to build and another large fortune to run.

And that means that only a narrow select group of people can find the funds---a skill not at all connected with driving skills------to buy a car or a "seat"

And the result is what we see: Loeb then a step down Solberg, Hirvonen, Latvala, Sordo, and then a pile of guys who make us all want to poke screwdrivers in our eyes, then burn the TV.

So whatever the details they decide on, 1,6 unrestricted or whatever, as long as there is a complete divorce from the roadcar base model, the fans will stay away.

Well said that man!!

The quicker people realise that the WRCars are almost the same as the road cars the better. The simpler the better - the the drivers drive - and not all these fancy electronics, etc
I'd actually allow GroupN Sportscars in - i;e 911 GT3, etc

[Mirek]

Agree with N-GT totaly

[wwbroe]

Well said that man!!

The quicker people realise that the WRCars are almost the same as the road cars the better. The simpler the better - the the drivers drive - and not all these fancy electronics, etc
I'd actually allow GroupN Sportscars in - i;e 911 GT3, etc

Good idea, i am in favour of that.

[OldF]

@oldF
Lets go again!
my evo viii has 372 bhp and 492Nm(1,9 bar overboost/1,6 steady) with a program by a friend for free,and a catless 76mm exaust.Also true launch control(1 bar stationary@6200rpm) and antilag.As you can see i know something about them.
with 3000 euro more i can make it much more faster in a straight even against a wrc car.(just a turbocharger and different program,rods and pistons)
But don t confuse the easy bhp from a road car with the rally cars....totally different costs.
with the next you say i agree,but a 1,6 lit wrc with 340-380 bhp and 400nm(as you mentioned in your post) will be cheaper,but not faster than current wrc cars.Today wrc have almost 700-800 Nm.There is no way comparison for how fast can be in the exit in a corner instead a 400Nm 1,6 wrc.
this is the difficult for fia.cheaper car may attract more factories,but are they going to atract ''customers'' in ss-stadiums due to be slower?
it is not so easy as you can see.

something else i d like to comment about the ''kit'' they want to add to s2000(turbo-air dynamics etc)
when you add a turbo to a s2000 you are going to have too many problems for reliability.It is not some parts that you have to install just.
some examples.....gear-box....there is no way the current s2000 gear boxes to cope with 40-55 kg torque more.The same for differentials.Another problem is when you have a turbocharged car you have much more needs for cooling(the engine-the engine bay etc)S2000 when they were designed they didn t have that in mind.Don t forget also that s2000 are build in smaller segment class than wrc,so it is not so easy to find room for all these spares as in a bigger focus-c4 etc.Of course you have to install a massive water radiator,you have to find a lot of room to install an intercooler,and when you finished with them maybe you are going to have some problems due to small waterpump impeller which was not designed for 500Nm and 350bhp but for 250 Nm and 270 BHP(Ford focus wrc example...)
these are some examples with some difficulties they have to work 100% if they want to install that turbo kit.If you try to work these problems you need money,and the final solution is not sure that is going to be reliable.The reason is that it wasn t designed for that.
An other problem is the extra weight(heavier exaust manifold due to turbocharger,bigger radiators,intercooler,pipes etc)
You can solve that,but needs money cause lighter materials costs.
All this conversation by the way is on the air,cause we dont know exactly the regulations....are they going to have restrictors? Only that is going to cost so much.....

Yes, of course with a 700 – 800 Nm torque the exit from a hairpin would be faster than with 400 Nm but that was not my point. On avarge I would say that it’s not so big difference if a car has 400 or 800 Nm of torque. My point is with less torque they’ve to use more revs to get the same power and that’s IMO one of the “problems” with WRC cars nowadays. As Mirek said, they’re fast but doesn’t look and sound fast and that’s what makes them sound and look and sound so boring. The restrictor – as it’s said – restricts the airflow to the engine so they’ve (the engineers) developed engines, which have almost full power from 3000 rpm and up. So, there’s no point for the drivers to use higher revs if they’ve can get the same power with lower revs = > BORING. Without a restrictor and instead a restricted boost, the cars would for sure sound better.

[dimviii]

agree OldF,but the costs for an unrestricted 1,6 lit is it going to be lower?
are they more fatories come to wrc?
thats the problems of today wrc.
not enough factories,too expensive for them,and finally no spectators=> no sponsors=> no tv interesting=> todays wrc.

@Mirek
even i was keep watching grA days the wrc,but in no way a lancia8v integrale was near a lancia ds4 or a s1 quattro in terms of spectacular.
i was lucky to see these monsters in our Acropolis and the difference was haotic,specially the first 2-3 years.
do you remember the difference in terms of how many spectators were in grB days instead of grA?

the problem is not the 30 years rally fans they have petrol in their blood.
they are not enough for going the sport forward.