Technical Regulations 2010 -delayed

[MJW]

Welcome back fellow forumers - shame this was 'down' yesterday when the results of the World Motorsport Council's decisions were made.
FIA have said that the S2000+ as was being pushed by the manufacturers has been declared too expensive and too close to the current WRC cars in the fact that hydrualic gearboxes, paddle shifts etc were hoped to be retained by the teams.
I get a sneaky feeling that (as Max predicted early in 2008) that unless agreement was reached he/theyFIA would impose the S2000 format.
Maybe IRC is being lined up as the natural replacement for WRC in 2010 especially if Eurosport wins the global promoter tender.

[RS]

Maybe IRC is being lined up as the natural replacement for WRC in 2010 especially if Eurosport wins the global promoter tender.

They certainly didn't do themselves any harm with the debut of live stage coverage in Valais, which should be repeated on Monte then all of next year.

[Daniel]

Stick a fork in the WRC. It's done.

[Torsen]

i sware... if there isn't a turbo w/ awd in the reg's i'm done with wrc...

[Livewireshock]

The sticking point is what to leave as a controlled component and what to leave as a development part.

The Australian V8 Touring Cars have an interesting cost saving rule concerning their engines that could help save costs here.

Essentially all engine internals are strictly controlled with all part on a Controlled Parts list checked at scrutineering.

All external parts are placed on a Transparent List and is free to be changed from event to event, however copies of that list must be given to every other team.

Basically then, everyone knows where engine development is going and is all out in the open. No one is spending $$$$$ trying to improve minute improvements to an engine. It has greatly slashed costs.

Maybe a Controlled List, consisting of drivetrain etc. and a Transparent List could be made for some external parts, turbo, flywheel, paddle shifts, used in WRC.

It allows for development of certain items but reigns in excessive spending because it is all open to scrutiny by other teams. No great secrets allowed anymore but if an amazing idea comes to life, it is still able to be implemented.

[Sulland]

Double Post

[Sulland]

Impressive work by the comissions (not)

"The FIA today announced their latest World Motorsport Council decisions, but have again failed to confirm the technical specifications for 2010 onwards. Although the FIA are still pushing for an "S2000+" type formula, they are expressing concern at the costs rising higher due to the protestations of some of the teams who think that the adition of a bolt on turbocharger and aero kit will not be workable. The statement the council and the 2009 WRC calendars follow

"From 2009, the number of mandatory events for a Manufacturer Team has been reduced to eight, reflecting the reduction in the number of calendar events.

The WMSC expressed its concern at the apparent potential increase in the cost of a World Rally car. The WRC Commission will therefore review the current direction of the proposed 2010 technical regulations, in order to ensure that the original decision to use no more than a removable, bolt-on kit to change a Super 2000 or Group N car a World Rally car is maintained."
_________

So FIA, please decide the following;

2010 - 2013 S2000 as the top class
2009 - 2013 Development and implementation of S2000+

Easy and simple, and gives enough time to get it right !!

[AndyRAC]

For once, the F1A see sense.

Bring back Group A regs; base the cars on Production models you buy in the showroom.

[Sulland]

But FIA was able to decide on something:

"Petrochem Carless has won the tender to be the single fuel supplier to the FIA World Rally Championship in 2009, 2010 and 2011" :p

[AndyRAC]

But FIA was able to decide on something:

"Petrochem Carless has won the tender to be the single fuel supplier to the FIA World Rally Championship in 2009, 2010 and 2011" :p


Well that's a huge relief, the future of the WRC is safe then!!

[Sulland]

Here are the products:http://www.petrochemcarless.com/docs/PDFs/PC-hiperflo.pdf

Never heard about this company before...

[COD]

Ditch the aero package is the only smart move to do. Then ban hydraulics and limit suspension travel. That would make the sport more spectacular to watch and safer. Turbos, well I don't miss them if they are gone but not the biggest issue.

Is no one in the FIA and among the teams concerned about the accidents Galli and Duval have had this year that have resulted in serious injuries? The main reason for this is that cornering speed have increased dramatically due to aerodynamics, too good suspensions and differentials. And the higher the cornering speed, the worst accident there is when it happens. Also the tyres could still provide less grip to improve both the safety and provide more sideways action.

[OldF]

Ditch the aero package is the only smart move to do. Then ban hydraulics and limit suspension travel. That would make the sport more spectacular to watch and safer. Turbos, well I don't miss them if they are gone but not the biggest issue.

Is no one in the FIA and among the teams concerned about the accidents Galli and Duval have had this year that have resulted in serious injuries? The main reason for this is that cornering speed have increased dramatically due to aerodynamics, too good suspensions and differentials. And the higher the cornering speed, the worst accident there is when it happens. Also the tyres could still provide less grip to improve both the safety and provide more sideways action.


Limiting the suspension travelling would be right way to go. Also the anti-roll bars and dampers have a great affect on the drivability.

Anti-roll bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhUE7LIxAso&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xr7ktz1_as&NR=1

Dampers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQcAGLw4SLo&NR=1

The third thing is the aerodynamics as a whole. Juuso Pykälistö told in one interview that the teams spend lot of time (=money) to develop the aerodynamics nowadays.

Personally I like cars with a big rear wing but I think they can be made less aerodynamic by regulations.

[Sulland]

How is this regulated in todays S2000 regulations ?

- Aero
- Suspension + travel

Keep everything simple and spectacular !

[OldF]

How is this regulated in todays S2000 regulations ?

- Aero
- Suspension + travel

Keep everything simple and spectacular !

Download from this http://www.rallystar.co.za/article/articleview/2605/1/1/
web site the ”2004 homologation regulations S2000” (Word document).

7.2 Suspension
At least I couldn’t find any point telling that the suspension travelling is limited.

7.5 Bodywork
- Front aerodynamic device/front bumpers
- Widening of the wings/bumpers
- Rear aerodynamic device

On the last page (page 16) there is a picture of the allowed dimensions for the rear wing.

[Sulland]

Last Autosport reports from the November WMSC meeting. I have put in all pints and mixed them with my own comments.

They were not able to decide the WRC future on this meeting either.

So the meeting in December will be the meeting, it will be decided something once and for all.

Why are they not able to decide - Because of cost.
The previous cost to a WRCar was supposed to be in the area of 300 000€ 18 months ago, it now in the area of 600 000€.

Why has this happened ? Because the current WRC manufacturers pressed through that they needed more engineering freedom than the S2000+ bolt on kit.
with a pricetag of 600k most of the point of changing format is gone, and Max Mosely sent them back to the drawing board, with a 1 month suspense !

Target; Get a WRC with minimum level of technology, and make it affordable in the current world of economic challenges.

S2000 is looking more and more logic to become the new WRCar format, but they are also looking measurers to be done to better match the speed of S2000 and Gr N for both to go forward.
That is a mistake in my book, since they are two very different animals, but lets see wath they can come up with

For the next meeting FIA also would like an answer to how the speed of the current WRCar can be limited for the 2009 season.

Max Mosely are suddenly coming out with a clear agenda for both F1 and WRC to cost cut, and to to that putting in strict limitations in the regulations.

I think that is the correct way to go, but it should have been put in as a outspoken policy, and kept like that for the whole period the Rally Commission has worked this deal, and not given the current manufacturers the pinky finger when they asked for more freedom, they quickly take your whole hand !!!

So the December meeting of the World Motor Sport Council are supposed to give a lot of answers both for the last season of the current WRCar in 09 and especially for the future tech regs to be implemented 2010.

Tips for the outcome are welcome !!

[OldF]

Last Autosport reports from the November WMSC meeting. I have put in all pints and mixed them with my own comments.

They were not able to decide the WRC future on this meeting either.

So the meeting in December will be the meeting, it will be decided something once and for all.

Why are they not able to decide - Because of cost.
The previous cost to a WRCar was supposed to be in the area of 300 000€ 18 months ago, it now in the area of 600 000€.

Why has this happened ? Because the current WRC manufacturers pressed through that they needed more engineering freedom than the S2000+ bolt on kit.
with a pricetag of 600k most of the point of changing format is gone, and Max Mosely sent them back to the drawing board, with a 1 month suspense !

Target; Get a WRC with minimum level of technology, and make it affordable in the current world of economic challenges.

S2000 is looking more and more logic to become the new WRCar format, but they are also looking measurers to be done to better match the speed of S2000 and Gr N for both to go forward.
That is a mistake in my book, since they are two very different animals, but lets see wath they can come up with

For the next meeting FIA also would like an answer to how the speed of the current WRCar can be limited for the 2009 season.

Max Mosely are suddenly coming out with a clear agenda for both F1 and WRC to cost cut, and to to that putting in strict limitations in the regulations.

I think that is the correct way to go, but it should have been put in as a outspoken policy, and kept like that for the whole period the Rally Commission has worked this deal, and not given the current manufacturers the pinky finger when they asked for more freedom, they quickly take your whole hand !!!

So the December meeting of the World Motor Sport Council are supposed to give a lot of answers both for the last season of the current WRCar in 09 and especially for the future tech regs to be implemented 2010.

Tips for the outcome are welcome !!

I would bet on a “bolt on kit”.

I think the biggest pressure for more engineering freedom comes from teams like Prodrive and M-Sport because it’s their business. You get more money with a for example 20% profit from a 50 milj. € budget than a 20 milj. € budget.

The other thing that the manufacturers are afraid of if the cars are to cheap is that privateers and private teams would “mess up” the championship.

If it’s true what David Lapworth told in gpweek issue no 21 (http://mag.gpweek.com/?iid=6962, page 35) that FIA is accepting the idea that engines should have a 35 mm restrictor and a 2 bar boost limit, means for a S2000 car that the gearbox also have to be replaced with a stronger one. With 2 bar boost and a 35 mm restrictor the engine would produce about 600 Nm torque, maybe even more.

If you open the link below you can see that the Sadev gearbox (SUVT9014) used in S2000 cars is designed for “only” 410 Nm. I’m quite sure this is the gearbox used because of the weight, 62 kg which is the min. weight for a gear box in the S2000 homologation regulations, and the differential SP04 that has an overload clutch (almost at the bottom of the page) and should be used with the SUVT9014 gearbox.

http://www.hansen-motorsport.se/kenneth_sadev_transmission.asp#4%20Wheel%20Drive%2 0Gearboxes

[RS]

I would bet on a “bolt on kit”.

I think the biggest pressure for more engineering freedom comes from teams like Prodrive and M-Sport because it’s their business. You get more money with a for example 20% profit from a 50 milj. € budget than a 20 milj. € budget.

The other thing that the manufacturers are afraid of if the cars are to cheap is that privateers and private teams would “mess up” the championship.



That's very interesting. I had wondered why Malcolm Wilson has been defending the current rules. That's the problem when you involve private tuners and not a proper works effort I suppose.

So the teams are actively wanting to drive up the prices of the cars? Maybe they are not looking at the bigger picture. If the car is cheaper, they would sell more so maybe make the same $$$ anyway. And if the price goes up too high then the manufacturers may quit altogether.

I was reading today that the S2000 transmission by x-trac has been designed to cope with the power of the S2000+category.

[Livewireshock]

Teams like Prodrive and M-Sport do more than host race programs for their respective manufacturers. They wish to to be integral parts of the automotive R&D scene as well. Developing new technologies that can be licensed off to car makers and proving items that the car makers provide themselves. This is separate from the race program in many ways but the rally teams remain as the flagship in this continual R&D process.

This is where they can charge alot more money for their services. Yes the cars may cost a hell of alot more but the R&D benefits to the team are virtually priceless. Look at constant flow of technology for gearboxes, suspension and more flowing inthe the latest range of Subaru's.

If you make the championship so everyone has the same controlled components, then they can not charge Ford and Subaru for the R&D work that they do. There is no income available from this avenue with a bolt on kit.

Plus, every manufacturer wants their cars to win. It would be an embarrassment if the 'works' team is constantly beaten by privateer teams who have engineered the cars themselves.

There would be less of a market for older spec cars too from the major teams. Who would buy last years model car if you can engineer your own latest spec car at a reasonable price?

The question is how to curb the development with out stamping it out all together. How much engineering freedom can be allowed?

[koko0703]

It's just really hard to find the right balance between cost and technology. Too much technology will limit the participation of the smaller budgeted teams, but too much restriction on technology will lead the loss of interest from manufacturers. Standard components are good up to certain point, but beyond that, there is absolutely no point of participation in any kind of motorsports.

[AndyRAC]

While the teams understandably want to protest their interests - maybe they should think about the 'good of the sport'. Where is the good in having only 2-3 teams with high-tech equipment. I'd much rather there be 4-7 teams with lower, simple tech cars. Think of the big picture.

[c4]

Autosport article from last week
http://rallybuzz.stagetimes.com/world-rally-car-future-wmsc-dec/

[Daniel]

Teams like Prodrive and M-Sport do more than host race programs for their respective manufacturers. They wish to to be integral parts of the automotive R&D scene as well. Developing new technologies that can be licensed off to car makers and proving items that the car makers provide themselves. This is separate from the race program in many ways but the rally teams remain as the flagship in this continual R&D process.

This is where they can charge alot more money for their services. Yes the cars may cost a hell of alot more but the R&D benefits to the team are virtually priceless. Look at constant flow of technology for gearboxes, suspension and more flowing inthe the latest range of Subaru's.

If you make the championship so everyone has the same controlled components, then they can not charge Ford and Subaru for the R&D work that they do. There is no income available from this avenue with a bolt on kit.

Plus, every manufacturer wants their cars to win. It would be an embarrassment if the 'works' team is constantly beaten by privateer teams who have engineered the cars themselves.

There would be less of a market for older spec cars too from the major teams. Who would buy last years model car if you can engineer your own latest spec car at a reasonable price?

The question is how to curb the development with out stamping it out all together. How much engineering freedom can be allowed?

With all due respect I think that's largely a load of rubbish. The teams with the most money will almost always win when you average things out. They will test more, have the better drivers and the best strategists and so on. They just won't win as much as they're used to.

The one thing you're right on it businesses wanting to protect their business interests. Prodrive and M-Sport won't be able to charge nearly as much for their services if we go down a more low tech avenue.

[Livewireshock]

With all due respect I think that's largely a load of rubbish. The teams with the most money will almost always win when you average things out. They will test more, have the better drivers and the best strategists and so on. They just won't win as much as they're used to.

The one thing you're right on it businesses wanting to protect their business interests. Prodrive and M-Sport won't be able to charge nearly as much for their services if we go down a more low tech avenue.

My point was solely about teams protecting their business interests. Naturally the cream always floats to the top when the biggest teams spend the most money. But there is still a threat that an 'affordable' car backed by well financed privateers could topple them from time to time. Something that is near impossible to do with current expensive WRC cars well out of reach.

If the new S2000+ cars are capable of being engineered from the ground up by individual teams and not by the factory backed teams alone, there is a chance that the smaller team could find an engineer tweak that produces a great car, while the factory team brings out a lemon. It may be for only a short while before the factory team changes it around, but the embarrassment has already been caused.

[OldF]

By grugsticles in the thread “News & rumours”

On one hand it would be sad to seen Seb move on (although im sure he would suceed in other areas) but on the other hand wouldnt mind too much.

If the FIA's propsed implemenmtation of S2000/Group N as the primary category then I agree that the cars arnt visually appealing but if the current regs were relaxed a bit, say perhaps S2500/Group N with larger restictor as well as a manditory 40/60 front/rear tourque split centre differential then the cars could be sideways more often and have sufficiant power to please most.

To me spectacular driving come from having the car sideways under power, sliding the car around corners, using scandinavians flicks to get around hair pins and generally putting the car to the limit of sideways grip.

Recently been driving my Subaru Liberty/Legacy RS Turbo with a Version 2 STi DCCD close ratio gear box. I havent installed the electronic side of this rendereing a 35/65 torque split.
To the non Subaru inclined that wont mean a great deal but the point im trying to make is that its a blast to drive - especially on gravel. It get sideways quite easily, but most importantly its VERY controlable yet I dont have a great deal of power at the wheels.

Thoughts?

It would be nice with a torque split 40/60 but I think Subaru is the only one using a planetary central differential. As far as I know it’s the only central differential where a permanent torque split can be made. If the future WRC cars are S2000+ and N4+, for example Mitsubishi has to design a new gearbox with a planetary differential and build 2500 cars for homologation..

[Sulland]

When you have won 5 titles as Loeb has done, i would have had challengens motivating myself, and want to do other things.

F1 must be a perfect challenge for him !

[grugsticles]

It would be nice with a torque split 40/60 but I think Subaru is the only one using a planetary central differential. As far as I know it’s the only central differential where a permanent torque split can be made. If the future WRC cars are S2000+ and N4+, for example Mitsubishi has to design a new gearbox with a planetary differential and build 2500 cars for homologation..

If thats the case then thats fair enough, but Im sure the company that designed and build the S2000 driveline could surely incorperate a perminant predominantly rear biased centre differential. The made the current S2000 design from scratch so why not this relativly minor addition/modification.
That accounts for all manufactures with S2000 cars as far as Im aware
The Group N entries only come from Subaru and Mitsubishi. Nitsubish Evo X's have an active centre differential similar to the Subaru version (be it in different casings and all that) but it can be set at a pre defined torque split.

So unless im missing a fair whack of information (which in hind sight I probalby am) why cant the primary level of competitons be S2000/Group N but with more power. To me it seems the logical way to go.

As for the proposed S2000+ dilema about the addition of a turbo and huge aero kit, I dont think they are really needed as hass been proposed.
As far as aero goes there should be rear spoiler that is a common for all cars and not allowed to be altered. It shouldnt be anything too fancy like the current breed, but should provide enough downforce so that the cars are safe while at speed and in the air. Front bumper should be the same design as the 'sports' version of the road car but with the addition the black splitter (the strip on the bottom of the bumper) that is found on the current WRCars.
Group N cars horsepower can easily be regulated bythe size of the intake restrictor. If the new regulations were to change from a 32mm to say a 34 or even a 36mm, then that would be enough.
S2000 based cars could simply increase their engines capacity. Im sure all teams are capable of making 2.2 - 2.5 litre engines that rev to 10 or 11k RPM.


Those are my thoughts and I deem them to be sensible, cost efficiant and Im more than welcome to discussion.

[grugsticles]

It would be nice with a torque split 40/60 but I think Subaru is the only one using a planetary central differential. As far as I know it’s the only central differential where a permanent torque split can be made. If the future WRC cars are S2000+ and N4+, for example Mitsubishi has to design a new gearbox with a planetary differential and build 2500 cars for homologation..

If thats the case then thats fair enough, but Im sure the company that designed and build the S2000 driveline could surely incorperate a perminant predominantly rear biased centre differential. The made the current S2000 design from scratch so why not this relativly minor addition/modification.
That accounts for all manufactures with S2000 cars as far as Im aware
The Group N entries only come from Subaru and Mitsubishi. Nitsubish Evo X's have an active centre differential similar to the Subaru version (be it in different casings and all that) but it can be set at a pre defined torque split.

So unless im missing a fair whack of information (which in hind sight I probalby am) why cant the primary level of competitons be S2000/Group N but with more power. To me it seems the logical way to go.

As for the proposed S2000+ dilema about the addition of a turbo and huge aero kit, I dont think they are really needed as hass been proposed.
As far as aero goes there should be rear spoiler that is a common for all cars and not allowed to be altered. It shouldnt be anything too fancy like the current breed, but should provide enough downforce so that the cars are safe while at speed and in the air. Front bumper should be the same design as the 'sports' version of the road car but with the addition the black splitter (the strip on the bottom of the bumper) that is found on the current WRCars.
Group N cars horsepower can easily be regulated bythe size of the intake restrictor. If the new regulations were to change from a 32mm to say a 34 or even a 36mm, then that would be enough.
S2000 based cars could simply increase their engines capacity. Im sure all teams are capable of making 2.2 - 2.5 litre engines that rev to 10 or 11k RPM.


Those are my thoughts and I deem them to be sensible, cost efficiant and Im more than welcome to discussion.

[OldF]

I was reading today that the S2000 transmission by x-trac has been designed to cope with the power of the S2000+category.

Where did you read that? Magazine or internet? I couldn’t find any technical details of the S2000 gearbox from the X-trac’s web site, only the news from news archive (search for “Xtrac develops new Super 2000 rally gearbox and differential” http://www.xtrac.com/ ).

[OldF]

Nitsubish Evo X's have an active centre differential similar to the Subaru version (be it in different casings and all that) but it can be set at a pre defined torque split.


I don’t think that’s possible. It only locks the front and rear together loosely (tarmac) or harder (snow). The Mitsubishi have an open differential as a centre differential and the normal torque split is 50/50. Torque splits shifts to front or rear depending on which wheels are on a slippery surface.


As far as aero goes there should be rear spoiler that is a common for all cars and not allowed to be altered.

That’s a good idea.


S2000 based cars could simply increase their engines capacity. Im sure all teams are capable of making 2.2 - 2.5 litre engines that rev to 10 or 11k RPM.

A S2500 would be nice but I think 10k-11k revs are little to high. More revs -> more costs.

[BDunnell]

My point was solely about teams protecting their business interests. Naturally the cream always floats to the top when the biggest teams spend the most money. But there is still a threat that an 'affordable' car backed by well financed privateers could topple them from time to time. Something that is near impossible to do with current expensive WRC cars well out of reach.

If the new S2000+ cars are capable of being engineered from the ground up by individual teams and not by the factory backed teams alone, there is a chance that the smaller team could find an engineer tweak that produces a great car, while the factory team brings out a lemon. It may be for only a short while before the factory team changes it around, but the embarrassment has already been caused.

I think this is a good point, but it's no justification for sticking with the current rules.

[BDunnell]

While the teams understandably want to protest their interests - maybe they should think about the 'good of the sport'. Where is the good in having only 2-3 teams with high-tech equipment. I'd much rather there be 4-7 teams with lower, simple tech cars. Think of the big picture.

This is what I cannot understand either. The current situation does no-one any good. Winning the WRC is fairly pointless for any of the manufacturers involved because the championship's profile is so low nowadays that hardly anyone cares. Is anyone new going to enter at the moment? No. Do costs need to be brought down? Yes.

I hate to say it, but I can seriously see rallying going the same way as sportscar racing did a few years ago, with no world championship, no direction and complete and utter fragmentation.

[ShiftingGears]

They need less grip while maintaining the same level of power, or increasing it. That way you get lower cornering speeds and more spectacle.

[Livewireshock]

I think this is a good point, but it's no justification for sticking with the current rules.

I am not trying to justify the current rules with my comments. Just reflecting the teams viewpoint.

[Sulland]

Abarth has come out and said that they are happy with S2000 as the basis for the future WRCar.

http://www.rallye-info.com/article.asp?stid=7520

[RS]

Where did you read that? Magazine or internet? I couldn’t find any technical details of the S2000 gearbox from the X-trac’s web site, only the news from news archive (search for “Xtrac develops new Super 2000 rally gearbox and differential” http://www.xtrac.com/ ).

Sorry for the late reply... It was in Motorsport News in an article about the new Corsa S2000. They made a point that this car is ready to upgrade to 'S2000+' with the Xtrac transmission able to cope with the extra torque.

[cannyboy]

Why not force manufacturers to use a 20/80 front/rear fixed split.

Thus, you get the tail out antics, and the cars are able to acelerate out of corners.

Problem solved.

[HaCo]

And Abarth is preparing there Punto with an X-Trac for next year.

[Allyc85]

Why not force manufacturers to use a 20/80 front/rear fixed split.

Thus, you get the tail out antics, and the cars are able to acelerate out of corners.

Problem solved.

Thats what I was thinking the other day. The only problem is enforcing it I guess?

[MikeD]

Does anybody know the date for this decisive WMSC meeting regarding the technical regulations for 2010? Is it Friday December 12th?

[Sulland]

Breaking news:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72436

[AndyRAC]

If true - good. I think.......