The future of PWRC

[OldF]

What role does PWRC play in seasons 2010 and 2011 when the world championship uses S2000 cars? Should there be a separate class for N4 and S2000? IMO yes.

[Helstar]

There is not even a present... and you ask for the future ? :)

[GigiGalliNo1]

The Subaru's and Evo's look so slow in Cyprus.....

*Yawn....*

Bring on S2000! :D

[BDunnell]

It creates no spectacle, nor any interest amongst spectators, enthusiasts and the media. What's the point, other than for the competitors?

[Mirek]

I would cancel both JWRC and PWRC and again set just overall and 2WD championship.

[urabus-denoS2000]

]I would cancel both JWRC and PWRC and again set just overall and 2WD championship.

:up:

[LeonBrooke]

]I would cancel both JWRC and PWRC and again set just overall and 2WD championship.
2WD championship for S1600, N3, R3 and R2, fought over all rounds with best 8 scores counting?

That would be awesome

[HaCo]

Yep, and without subscription for a pilot: so the local driver gets some attention as well...

[AndyRAC]

]I would cancel both JWRC and PWRC and again set just overall and 2WD championship.

Yeah. However, if they are going to have a PWRC - make the cars proper Production cars, not the current ruse we have. They should be cars driven out of a showroom and fitted with a cage and safety equipment.

[OldF]

2WD championship for S1600, N3, R3 and R2, fought over all rounds with best 8 scores counting?

That would be awesome

I agree with N3, R2 and R3. S1600 is too expensive.

[OldF]

Yeah. However, if they are going to have a PWRC - make the cars proper Production cars, not the current ruse we have. They should be cars driven out of a showroom and fitted with a cage and safety equipment.

I would say that group R1 is a showroom car with safety equipments.

In Finland we have a class called V1600 (V = vakio = stock) which are pretty much stockcars.

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.v1600.com%2F7&sl=fi&tl=en&history_state0=

Fun weight is just a car minimipainona. = In rallies it’s the minimum weight of the car without drivers.
Suihkutussuuttumia = Fuel injectors
The engine and gearbox korikiinnikkeiden…. = The engine and gearbox mountings….
Vaihteensiirtovivuston =
vääntöjousten = torsional springs (I think)
vakaajasiivekkeen = rear spoiler
Basket augmentees and turvakaarien meets the requirements of the group rules. = The reinforcements of the body shell and the roll/safety cage shall conform to the N group regulations.


BTW, N3, R1, R2 and R3 could have an common championship or cup.

[Daniel]

Yeah. However, if they are going to have a PWRC - make the cars proper Production cars, not the current ruse we have. They should be cars driven out of a showroom and fitted with a cage and safety equipment.



It creates no spectacle, nor any interest amongst spectators, enthusiasts and the media. What's the point, other than for the competitors?


There is not even a present... and you ask for the future ? :)

Why say anything more when these people have already summed up what I've thought about the PWRC for a long long time.

[LeonBrooke]

BTW, N3, R1, R2 and R3 could have an common championship or cup.

Are R1 cars as fast as R2, R3 and N3? I thought they were in a lower performance category...

[RS]

]I would cancel both JWRC and PWRC and again set just overall and 2WD championship.

I agree. pWRC and especially jWRC are so poorly supported anyway it makes sense to put them all in one budget category.

[OldF]

Are R1 cars as fast as R2, R3 and N3? I thought they were in a lower performance category...

There are actually seven different R groups. All the different groups have different performance (or at least almost) and IMO it’s not possible to have a championship for all the different groups but a common championship for all R groups could be possible. The drivers could score points per group and depending how many attendees there are in each group would determine how many points they score.

R1A up to 1400 cm3, R1B over 1400 cm3 and up to 1600 cm3, R2B over 1400 cm3 and up to 1600 cm3, R2C over 1600 cm3 and up to 2000 cm3, R3C over 1600 cm3 and up to 2000 cm3, R3T (petrol turbo) up to 1600 cm3 and R3D (diesel turbo) up to 2000 cm3.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/InternationalSportingCodeA.aspx

“Article 260 (2009) Specific Regulations for Cars in Groups R - published on 17.03.2009”
“Article 260D (2009) Specific Regulations for R3D and R3T Cars - published on 15.11.2008”

The most powerful is probably the R3T (28 mm restrictor) with 270 hp according to this discussion.
http://peugeot.rallye-info.com/forum.asp?sid=4&boardid=5&action=thread&threadid=6893&page=2 or the R3D (35 mm restrictor, hp?).

The R3Cs have between 230 hp (Renault Clio, http://www.renault-sport.com/en/rallye/clio_r3/clio_r3_maxi.php) and 250 hp (Honda, http://www.jasmotorsport.com/Pdf/188.pdf

Next would be the R2Cs. Citroen C2 R2 Maxi has 190 hp. The min weights for a R1A is 930 kg, for R1B and R2B 1030 kg and for R2C and R3C 1080 kg, R3T 1080 kg and R3D 1150 kg. The R3T has a weight/power ratio of 4 kg/hp, the R3Cs 4,7 kg/hp (Renault) – 4,3 kg/hp (Honda) and the R2B 5,4 kg/hp so the performance is in descending order, R3, R2 and R1.

In fact I don’t know what’s the difference between a R2C and a R3C. They have both same displacement, same min weight and by the specific regulations same tuning regulations.

[LeonBrooke]

There are actually seven different R groups. All the different groups have different performance (or at least almost) and IMO it’s not possible to have a championship for all the different groups but a common championship for all R groups could be possible. The drivers could score points per group and depending how many attendees there are in each group would determine how many points they score.

R1A up to 1400 cm3, R1B over 1400 cm3 and up to 1600 cm3, R2B over 1400 cm3 and up to 1600 cm3, R2C over 1600 cm3 and up to 2000 cm3, R3C over 1600 cm3 and up to 2000 cm3, R3T (petrol turbo) up to 1600 cm3 and R3D (diesel turbo) up to 2000 cm3.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/InternationalSportingCodeA.aspx

“Article 260 (2009) Specific Regulations for Cars in Groups R - published on 17.03.2009”
“Article 260D (2009) Specific Regulations for R3D and R3T Cars - published on 15.11.2008”

The most powerful is probably the R3T (28 mm restrictor) with 270 hp according to this discussion.
http://peugeot.rallye-info.com/forum.asp?sid=4&boardid=5&action=thread&threadid=6893&page=2 or the R3D (35 mm restrictor, hp?).

The R3Cs have between 230 hp (Renault Clio, http://www.renault-sport.com/en/rallye/clio_r3/clio_r3_maxi.php) and 250 hp (Honda, http://www.jasmotorsport.com/Pdf/188.pdf

Next would be the R2Cs. Citroen C2 R2 Maxi has 190 hp. The min weights for a R1A is 930 kg, for R1B and R2B 1030 kg and for R2C and R3C 1080 kg, R3T 1080 kg and R3D 1150 kg. The R3T has a weight/power ratio of 4 kg/hp, the R3Cs 4,7 kg/hp (Renault) – 4,3 kg/hp (Honda) and the R2B 5,4 kg/hp so the performance is in descending order, R3, R2 and R1.

In fact I don’t know what’s the difference between a R2C and a R3C. They have both same displacement, same min weight and by the specific regulations same tuning regulations.

Ah, very interesting, thanks... I've found it very hard to find info about Group R. I think it's a very exciting group :)

[OldF]

After a little late thinking 270 hp from the Peugeot 207 R3T sounds optimistic. A N4 has a 32 mm restrictor and about 280 hp and therefore 270 hp from a 1,6 l turbo engine with a 28 mm restrictor sounds quite optimistic. The power an engine produces is quite linear with the amount of air it get and using this as a base the area of a 28 mm restrictor is about 77% of the area of a 32 mm restrictor (28*28/32*32= 0,765625). 77% of 280 hp is 216 hp so a power range between 200-230 hp sounds IMO more realistic.

[Torsen]

ya just got'a make a group N cars complete with S2000 cars... regs need to be adjusted.. group n have the the ability to kill S2000 cars.... the stupid rules keep the group n's from getting close to winning...

[OldF]

ya just got'a make a group N cars complete with S2000 cars... regs need to be adjusted.. group n have the the ability to kill S2000 cars.... the stupid rules keep the group n's from getting close to winning...

Who do you think would buy a S2000 if you can get a winning car for a half of the price of a S2000? IMO there should be a different class for S2000 and N4 cars. In the new class, N5 or whatever it would be called, the performance of a N4 could be made more competitive by allowing same kind of suspension as the S2000 cars have, a sequential gearbox and little more power to compensate the higher weight. The N4 as it nowadays could still exist for privateers.

[janvanvurpa]

After a little late thinking 270 hp from the Peugeot 207 R3T sounds optimistic. A N4 has a 32 mm restrictor and about 280 hp and therefore 270 hp from a 1,6 l turbo engine with a 28 mm restrictor sounds quite optimistic. The power an engine produces is quite linear with the amount of air it get and using this as a base the area of a 28 mm restrictor is about 77% of the area of a 32 mm restrictor (28*28/32*32= 0,765625). 77% of 280 hp is 216 hp so a power range between 200-230 hp sounds IMO more realistic.

Hej din gamla Finn, now you add the number 28mm for a förbannade restriktor!
Is that going to be the rule?

If that's so then the fun is over.

The old Mazda 323 made about 240 hp max but in those days it was a 40mm rule and the 1600 seemed not to mind it as much as 2,0 motors.

But remember as always, what gets in thru the restrictor is one thing, what the motor does after (cams, compression ratio) is another and what the gearbox and axle ratios do to multiply torque is yet another.

[OldF]

Hej din gamla Finn, now you add the number 28mm for a förbannade restriktor!
Is that going to be the rule?

If that's so then the fun is over.

The old Mazda 323 made about 240 hp max but in those days it was a 40mm rule and the 1600 seemed not to mind it as much as 2,0 motors.

But remember as always, what gets in thru the restrictor is one thing, what the motor does after (cams, compression ratio) is another and what the gearbox and axle ratios do to multiply torque is yet another.

Hej hej, vurpan. Så säger dom jävla reglerna. Titta själv om du inte tror mig (artikel 304-2, sida 10).

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/AC5311D1EC4418A7C12574FF0052C049/$FILE/260D%20(2009)-15112008.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/AC5311D1EC4418A7C12574FF0052C049/$FILE/260D%20%282009%29-15112008.pdf)

[janvanvurpa]

Hej hej, vurpan. Så säger dom jävla reglerna. Titta själv om du inte tror mig (artikel 304-2, sida 10).

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/AC5311D1EC4418A7C12574FF0052C049/$FILE/260D%20(2009)-15112008.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/AC5311D1EC4418A7C12574FF0052C049/$FILE/260D%20%282009%29-15112008.pdf)

Åååååååååååååååååååååå Paska.

I believe you, man, I don't believe FISArna.
28mm.....

What were they thinking..............oi oi oi oi...
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg

OK that's it, it will cost MORE now.
Those gawddam restrictors are a huge expense. I believe the 34mm restrictor has driven a lot of the bad changes we have seen since the early to mid 90s particularly the insanely expensive sequential paddle shift gearboxes.

John Taylor at Ford Motorsport suggested in the late 90s that the rules should be changed to make the gearbox used be only a series production gearbox from a series of 25,000 min.

He suggested that that way the car factories would be forced to make a production run of good strong gearboxes and they would be forced to get them reliable. And at 25,000 units the cost would be lower enough that eventually even I could afford one.

He also suggested 2,0 non turbos and he said ''to those who say performance would suffer with 2,0 motors and series production gearboxes I suggest they simply look at the many Japanese high performance road motorcycles. They make power similar in output to our engines and their gearboxes last 10s of thousands of miles''

Now that would be interesting because for the first time since the early GpA days the man on the street could get a car very close to what was rallied by works teams--------and when rally was most popular was when things appeared closest.

[AndyRAC]

Åååååååååååååååååååååå Paska.

I believe you, man, I don't believe FISArna.
28mm.....

What were they thinking..............oi oi oi oi...
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg

OK that's it, it will cost MORE now.
Those gawddam restrictors are a huge expense. I believe the 34mm restrictor has driven a lot of the bad changes we have seen since the early to mid 90s particularly the insanely expensive sequential paddle shift gearboxes.

John Taylor at Ford Motorsport suggested in the late 90s that the rules should be changed to make the gearbox used be only a series production gearbox from a series of 25,000 min.

He suggested that that way the car factories would be forced to make a production run of good strong gearboxes and they would be forced to get them reliable. And at 25,000 units the cost would be lower enough that eventually even I could afford one.

He also suggested 2,0 non turbos and he said ''to those who say performance would suffer with 2,0 motors and series production gearboxes I suggest they simply look at the many Japanese high performance road motorcycles. They make power similar in output to our engines and their gearboxes last 10s of thousands of miles''

Now that would be interesting because for the first time since the early GpA days the man on the street could get a car very close to what was rallied by works teams--------and when rally was most popular was when things appeared closest.

Completely agree. I can't understand why the teams/FiA can't se this. The cars Rallied bear no resemblance to what you and I can buy from a showroom.