cars in 2011

[Finni2]

Is there any confirmed information about 2011 cars? I have not find anything just rumours that certain teams are developing their own 1600 cars. Isn't this little absurd that at this place of time we still don't know what is the car model for next year's championship!? What's really going on?

In my view it's more than clear that at that point they should get more manufacturers at any cost. It cannot be the way that there is Ford and Citroen and few substanrard team (like Suzuki few years ago). I heard a rumour that Jean Todt has given Ford and Citroen permission to go for 1600 if they can get two other manufacturers to come in. I don't know what's wrong with ISC and Ford-Citroen. Simon Long has openly said that it's best to have only few manufacturers. In reality this is the very factor that keeps rallying in minor position.

Wolkswagen spends 80 million euros to Paris-Dakar in one year. If rallying would be major show like in old days (a lot of tv-coverage in main stations, fascinating competition, longer rallies with cheaper tickets and night stages) there is no slightest doubt that wrc would bring stronger promotion to the brand compared to Parid-Dakar. The problem now is that the show and publicity value of rallying is far from what it could be. I don't think that lack of manufacturers is really due to too high costs per se. Formula 1 is good example that the worth of show is much more important than the costs.

[DonJippo]

Is there any confirmed information about 2011 cars? I have not find anything just rumours that certain teams are developing their own 1600 cars. Isn't this little absurd that at this place of time we still don't know what is the car model for next year's championship!? What's really going on?

FIA's WMSC confirmed in early March that cars will be based on S2000 regulations with 1.6T engine http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_110310.aspx

Issue has been discussed several times on this forum since then so a simple usage of search function would have given you the answer.

[Mirek]

Confirmed cars in development are

Citroën DS3 WRC
Ford Fiesta WRC
Mini Countryman WRC
Škoda Fabia WRC

Confirmed makers joining WRC as works teams are only Ford, Citröen and Mini.

[Finni2]

OK, I was getting impression that those decisions were rather provisional and not definitely decided.

[Langdale Forest]

]Confirmed cars in development are

Citroën DS3 WRC
Ford Fiesta WRC
Mini Countryman WRC
Škoda Fabia WRC

Confirmed makers joining WRC as works teams are only Ford, Citröen and Mini.

Mini will probably be an epic failure by entering with a pointles 'crossover' car and they will probably pull out after just one year, rather like...... Suzuki. Although it is always good to have another team in the WRC.

I am not a pessimist but I can quite easily beilive that this will happen.

[DonJippo]

Mini will probably be an epic failure by entering with a pointles 'crossover' car and they will probably pull out after just one year, rather like...... Suzuki.

Care to explain in more details why this crossover car is pointless, what are the reasons for it to be an epic failure?

[Langdale Forest]

Care to explain in more details why this crossover car is pointless, what are the reasons for it to be an epic failure?

I said it will probably be an epic failure, probabibility is different than certain.

Crossover car too high, less aerodynamic, they should have just used the normal Mini.

[DonJippo]

I said it will probably be an epic failure, probabibility is different than certain.

Crossover car too high, less aerodynamic, they should have just used the normal Mini.

So how high is this crossover? How much higher it is than normal Mini?

[Daniel]

Donjippo, young people ache to write things off as epic failures so take no notice. If prodrive does a good job then the Mini has as good chance of success as any other new team.

[Langdale Forest]

So how high is this crossover? How much higher it is than normal Mini?

All I know is what N.O.T said a few weeks ago, even if his posts are not correct, there's no dening that they are entertaining. :)


i don;t really know that.....what i do know is, that i am not trying to sound pesimistic.

to launch a crossover car for rally purposes i think its a bit stupid....how are they going to have a low centre of gravity with this thing?

[JFL]

Did the SX4 actually look like a crossover when it entered WRC, did it? I dont think the center of gravity will be the problem....

[Langdale Forest]

Did the SX4 actually look like a crossover when it entered WRC, did it? I dont think the center of gravity will be the problem....

I don't know, but the SX4 and the identical Fiat Sedeci are referred to as 'crossovers'.

[JFL]

Almost nothing on a Wrc car is the same as a roadgoing car, so it's no reason to compare.. If so, Subaru or Mitsubishi would easily win the WRC, many times in a row.. ;)

[bluuford]

I don't know, but the SX4 and the identical Fiat Sedeci are referred to as 'crossovers'.

Have you seen Citroen DS3 road car?. It looks very similar height as Mini crossover.
Don´t play any cars down before building. I can say that for sure, Hummer is not very good base to build S1600T WRC :-) But I dont dare to say it about Mini.

[Langdale Forest]

Have you seen Citroen DS3 road car?. It looks very similar height as Mini crossover.


But a Citroen DS3 is not a crossover car, so there is no criticism over it's predicted performance.

[JFL]

The WRC-edition will not be a crossover.. ;) Crossover=Normal car with higher rideheight, due to different suspension, and ****, and maybe som small bodywork change..
Non of the things underneath the bodywork, will be used in a wrc car..

[mm1]

A Mini crossover is just a marketing trick, it`s a pitty you can`t recognise it your self. It`s actualy a hatcback, just like Ds3 or Fiesta - it`s called a crossover because that`s what sell cars right now, just look which car are high in demand right now (Qashqai, Rav4, Outlander, etc.). There`s as much crossover in it, as a sports coupe in a 2dr Defender.

[serial jeff]

All I know is what N.O.T said a few weeks ago

this is the only true statement you've made in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with the Countryman, and it's not going to be a failure just because it's been called a 'crossover'. To me it seems like a better choice than the regular Mini, but either could be made into a good rally car.

If you're going to comment on shoddy aerodynamics, provide sources. I don't mean to sound insulting but I seriously doubt you have even a slight grasp of automobile aerodynamics because it's a very complicated subject.

Last I checked the regular Mini had a drag coefficient of about 0.33, which is average, and I doubt the Countryman's body is significantly different.

[Rallyper]

But a Citroen DS3 is not a crossover car, so there is no criticism over it's predicted performance.

The DS3 could very easily be bulit as a crossover model if Citroen wants to do that.

Just put bigger wheels and higher suspension and you´ve got the change. ;)

[Mirek]

Last I checked the regular Mini had a drag coefficient of about 0.33, which is average, and I doubt the Countryman's body is significantly different.

It may be even better since countryman is longer and that counts. Short hatchback is in fact very bad kind of body in terms of aerodynamics.

On the other hand we shouldn't forget front area as the aerodynamics depends on multiplication of drag coefficient and front area. So in the end let's say that if countryman have 0,01 better drag coefficient, it may have some 3% bigger front area and still same aerodynamics.

But in the end such math is a bit pointless since they will destroy drag coefficient anyway by using spoilers and big rear wing. And I also think that "outside" aerodynamics are not that important in rallying because of significantly lower speeds than on circuits. In my opinion the most important aerodynamics in WRC car is inside - air fluid through engine compartment and cooling of brakes, differentials etc.

Logically "normal" Mini looks like better choice than Countryman but since it's very small car there might be problem with good balance. You simply may have problem to fit everything inside in correct order. What I want to say is that with bigger car You can achieve better center of gravity, better weight balance etc. Of course it's always a question of "how much bigger" is better and vice versa.

[Daniel]

this is the only true statement you've made in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with the Countryman, and it's not going to be a failure just because it's been called a 'crossover'. To me it seems like a better choice than the regular Mini, but either could be made into a good rally car.

If you're going to comment on shoddy aerodynamics, provide sources. I don't mean to sound insulting but I seriously doubt you have even a slight grasp of automobile aerodynamics because it's a very complicated subject.

Last I checked the regular Mini had a drag coefficient of about 0.33, which is average, and I doubt the Countryman's body is significantly different.
Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

[HaCo]

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

Are you sure? If you look at the article of your link, the area is divided away :)

[Daniel]

Yes I am sure ;)

[HaCo]

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

I'm not sure, but the formula shown in your article divided the area away. And I guess for different cars the same reference is used, or the coefficient doesn't say anything.

[HaCo]

Yes I am sure ;)

Sorry, deleted my previous post :) Added another one tough ;)

[HaCo]

Funny, this other page on wikipedia compares only based on cD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient

[Mirek]

I'm not sure, but the formula shown in your article divided the area away. And I guess for different cars the same reference is used, or the coefficient doesn't say anything.

No, front area has same importance as drag coefficient. If You want to make serious comparison You need to compare Cd*A not only Cd and not only A.

The page You posted has comparison of CdA also, just scroll down. That's the only one which is practically useful for performance. Cd itself may be useful for some noise analysis.

[HaCo]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Mirek and Daniel. :)

[Daniel]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Mirek and Daniel. :)
Not a problem :) I'm just glad I learnt something from my time at university doing aviation! It wasn't all wasted at least.

[serial jeff]

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

Yes, but my point was that you can't sit a Mini and a DS3 side by side, look at them, and pronounce that the Mini is less aerodynamic- which is essentially what he was doing.

[Daniel]

Yes, but my point was that you can't sit a Mini and a DS3 side by side, look at them, and pronounce that the Mini is less aerodynamic- which is essentially what he was doing.
Yes, BUT you can't simply wheel out the cD and say that it's as good or better. Taller cars ARE less aerodynamic.

[Langdale Forest]

Taller cars ARE less aerodynamic.

Everyone knows that, even me! ;)

[serial jeff]

Yes, BUT you can't simply wheel out the cD and say that it's as good or better. Taller cars ARE less aerodynamic.

I'm not saying the Countryman body is as good or better... I'm saying it's impossible to determine that without rigorous testing. A value of Cd*A can give a somewhat reasonable estimate of drag, but doesn't give any information about how much downforce is being produced. Raising the car may create more drag but it may also give the driver a better view of the road.

Basically I'm trying to say that there are too many factors to consider in a rally car to just look at the car and pronounce it a failure. You can't judge a book by its cover, or so to speak.

[JFL]

The cD on the WRC car will be totally different from the roadcar, so the is no reason to talk about that.. ;) hehe..

[Viking]

The Countryman has longer wheelbase (2,595 mm), it's also wider (1,789 mm) and has got a floorpan designet for 4wd. I think it will be a better base than the normal Mini.

[Motorsportfun]

]Confirmed cars in development are

Citroën DS3 WRC
Ford Fiesta WRC
Mini Countryman WRC
Škoda Fabia WRC

Confirmed makers joining WRC as works teams are only Ford, Citröen and Mini.

Skoda? Who will join with it? VW Group?

[Mirek]

Nobody said they would join WRC.

[Langdale Forest]

]Nobody said they would join WRC.

There were rumours that they would though.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136162

[vino_93]

]Nobody said they would join WRC.

so what whith Fabia ? Who are working on this car ?

[Mirek]

New 1.6T WRC cars will be allowed in every FIA championship. I understand that in the moment main reason for development of that car is big future market.

I'm also almost sure that the car will be ready only in the second half of the season.

[HaCo]

Mirek, do you know if there will be a different body kit for WRC? (I hope not!)

[Mirek]

It too soon for that I think ;)

[vino_93]

]New 1.6T WRC cars will be allowed in every FIA championship. I understand that in the moment main reason for development of that car is big future market.

I'm also almost sure that the car will be ready only in the second half of the season.

The initiative is by Skoda Motorsport or a private team ?

But this is good :D

[Mirek]

Škoda Motorsport

[vino_93]

ok, thx :)

[Rally Power]

In today’s Portuguese Autosport magazine, Malcolm Wilson says that 1.6tWRC regulations are already known by manufacturers, but there are still some doubts about the use of direct injection fuel systems.

According to him, direct injection should raise 40% the cost of a 1.6tWRC from actual S2000 cars.

Regarding the lack of competitiveness of traditional N4 cars, the FIA abolition of further S2000 homologations from 2011 and this prohibitive 1.6tWRC costs, I wonder what cars will be available to national championships, beside second hand 2.0tWRC’s?

Wouldn’t be wiser to allow S2000 new homologations or, at least, to reject direct injection in 1.6t future WRC’s?

[ProRally]

Injection at 200bar into the engine during rally is a bit over the top. They go on gravel events, jumps, water splashes etc. Risk is to high versus power gain and costs.

[Tomi]

Regarding the lack of competitiveness of traditional N4 cars

Dont worry new rules that make GrN more competitive are coming.

[Mirek]

I don't think that 200 bar of injection pressure is some issue. It's relatively normal value compared with direct injection systems in road cars. Common VW FSI engines operate up to 150 bar. It's not possible to compare with indirect injection pressures as it works different way.

[AndyRAC]

Dont worry new rules that make GrN more competitive are coming.

Is that a good thing though? That surely means more expense?
Personally, a GpN car should be showroom spec with the addition of safety equipment - a cheap way into the sport. They are pretty expensive at the moment.

[dimviii]

Dont worry new rules that make GrN more competitive are coming.

spill the beans Tomi :D

[Mirek]

Is that a good thing though? That surely means more expense?
Personally, a GpN car should be showroom spec with the addition of safety equipment - a cheap way into the sport. They are pretty expensive at the moment.

+1, Making Gr.N, S2000 and WRC more equal is neither logical nor good for anything. Why do we have three classes for them than?

[AndyRAC]

]+1, Making Gr.N, S2000 and WRC more equal is neither logical nor good for anything. Why do we have three classes for them than?

I've never understood trying to make S2000 and GpN equal. S2000's are proper competition cars, designed for Motorsport. GpN are modified cars used in Motorsport. Compare GpN now and 10-15 years ago.....

[Tomi]

]+1, Making Gr.N, S2000 and WRC more equal is neither logical nor good for anything. Why do we have three classes for them than?

It's good for those drivers who want a cheaper alternative, if a driver can drive 2-3 rallies for the same cost he drives 1 with a S2000, whats bad?

[Mirek]

It's good for those drivers who want a cheaper alternative, if a driver can drive 2-3 rallies for the same cost he drives 1 with a S2000, whats bad?

Running cost of Gr.N car rose enormously in last few years with new rules comming. My point is that running costs of WRC, S2000 and N4 are getting closer and closer to each other while they all grow up. In the moment there is no real gr.N 4WD. The gap between N3 and N4 classes is huge now and that doesn't make the step up any easier. I really don't think that it's good way. In my opinion S2000 cars should have been separated from Gr.N cars since the very beginning and Gr.N cars shouldn't have become almost Gr.A. The only way to drive cheap Gr.N car now is to use downgraded one but that eliminates You from higher competition right from start.

[rv65]

Thats the problem with GrpN. Someone who wants to build up experience, can't win in GrpN, because someone with money is able to buy a better car. The groupN cars are quite expensive. A nicely equipped Tommi Makinen Impreza is around 137,000 EUR and I think that is the discounted price. He starts at around 88,000 EUR but that is just a basic groupN. This car has cusco diffs, lightened components, spec2 engine, etc. I agree, GroupN should be like R4 or something like that where you take a production STi or EVO and add the rally specific stuff to it, but not completely modify it into a group A like kit car. I consider GrpN as a kit car class, due to the amount of mods that they do to the cars.

[HaCo]

The only reason to bring them in the same class is because there are not enough manu's in the different classes: Gr N 2, WRC 2. Only S2000 is a succes and it seems that that class will be destroyed by the 1.6T WRC concept.

Gr N should be Gr N again, so showroom car with few updates.

1.6T WRC ok, but also for national championships and certainly not more expensive then the current S2000.

Drop WRC for being way to expensive.

[Tomi]

]Running cost of Gr.N car rose enormously in last few years with new rules comming. My point is that running costs of WRC, S2000 and N4 are getting closer and closer to each other while they all grow up.
According to Mäkinen, he could have entry 2-3 GrN cars in last years NORF to the same price as Kimis S2000, thats less than 1 year ago.
I dont know exactly what the new rules will be, but no major changes that would rise the "money used/km" go sky high, in other words a good alternative for privateers in national and international series, who want to drive more with less money.

[Mirek]

You're still comparing only with the more expensive variant. Let it be where it is and have a look to the opposite side (or just have a look on absolute numbers, not proportional rate to S2000). The difference between N4 and lower classes is bigger and bigger every year. The running cost of N4 car si now some 1/3 higher than 2-3 years a go and in that time it was higher than before 2006 when there were different rules etc.

I don't really care very much how expensive is the top level of rallying but N4 is not top level car. It's only a step on a staircase. And that step is more difficult to cross every year.

[Rally Power]

Maybe it shouldn’t be that expensive to throw away 50kg and to use a 36mm restrictor in actual N4 cars, but main problem about N4 it’s the number of manufacturers involved, specially after the close down of Ralliart, that probably will make Gr.N to look like an Impreza trophy (will there be a Evo 11 suitable for rally use?).

The number of manufacturers involved in S2000 has opened a large door to top national teams in order to get importers and dealers sponsoring, but that door will be fastly closed by the prohibitive costs of 1.6WRC cars, mainly because the direct involvement of factory teams in the new category will make FIA’s efforts to control costs completely helpeless.

The lack of N4 manufacturers and the huge costs of 1.6WRC should make FIA rethink S2000 new homologations ending, letting this well born category to fill the R4 vacant space, essentially directed to regional and national series - living 1.6WRC cars where they belong: the world championship.

[cut the b.s.]

Maybe it shouldn’t be that expensive to throw away 50kg and to use a 36mm restrictor in actual N4 cars, but main problem about N4 it’s the number of manufacturers involved, specially after the close down of Ralliart, that probably will make Gr.N to look like an Impreza trophy (will there be a Evo 11 suitable for rally use?).

The number of manufacturers involved in S2000 has opened a large door to top national teams in order to get importers and dealers sponsoring, but that door will be fastly closed by the prohibitive costs of 1.6WRC cars, mainly because the direct involvement of factory teams in the new category will make FIA’s efforts to control costs completely helpeless.

The lack of N4 manufacturers and the huge costs of 1.6WRC should make FIA rethink S2000 new homologations ending, letting this well born category to fill the R4 vacant space, essentially directed to regional and national series - living 1.6WRC cars where they belong: the world championship.

if Regs allowed N4 to be more competitive I'm sure we would see more evolutions of the Lancer

[OldF]

Regarding the technical regulations for the 1.6T engine, the only I’ve found is a short story in the Finnish motorsport magazine VM where they’re speculates which manufacturers will enter the WRC for sure, which maybe and which wont (VW is said to be interested to act as an engine manufacturer).

The regulations for the engine demands by far use of same and identical moving parts of the engine. For example the camshafts will be homologated for different motorsport categories. The boost will be controlled with three sensors of which two of them will be for FIA. This system has been successfully tested in WTCC with the Seat TDI engine that had a boost limit of 2,7 bar.

In another issue of the same magazine there was a story of the S2000 Fiesta (Janne Tuohino).
Few points from the story.

It can be said that the aerodynamics, weight distribution and suspension geometry is better compared to the Focus WRC.

The suspension is little bit simpler compared to the Focus WRC because FIA don’t allow for example roller bearings. All the four dampers must be the same.

[navtheace]

Taken from R classes topic:

"The GpN 4WD Turbo rally car category is currently undergoing the process of being renamed as R4 for 2011"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_N

"With the new S2000 rally car category currently under review due to lack of manufacturer interest, R4 which is effectively the new name for GpA (GpN 4WD fitted with a GpA/WRC spec. engine) is being evaluated for rallying in the WRC for 2011."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_A

[Blazquez]

Manufacturers plan for four cars in 2011

Citroen its DS3 WRC

http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac102/Rallylegend/car-wrc-2011.jpg

Fiesta RS WRC

http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac102/Rallylegend/wrc-car-2011.jpg

[HaCo]

Why would it be hard to build a lot of 1.6T cars? If there are only minor changes on the Fiesta S2000, only the motor (and maybe transmission?) should be changed.

Wonder if we will see these new monsters in the Monte and what about MINI, will they ignore the Monte?

Also about Mini, I have understood they want to focus on selling cars, have they discovered IRC market? :D

[vkangas]

Direct translation from Timo Jouhki's column:

"Next year will be competed with 1.6 litre turbo cars that have so called high pressure fuel injection and hydraulic gearbox. This means that car prices are not going to be as low as was presumed. Car prices will be closer to current WRC's than S2000 cars."

[N.O.T]

nice looking cars if those are their final liveries.

Direct translation from Timo Jouhki's column:

"Next year will be competed with 1.6 litre turbo cars that have so called high pressure fuel injection and hydraulic gearbox. This means that car prices are not going to be as low as was presumed. Car prices will be closer to current WRC's than S2000 cars."

I believe that. It is logical that prices will be as high as possible. Info coming from Jouhki should be taken seriously as he has direct access to information sources.

[HaCo]

What is the use of the new rules then?

The new rules help a bit, I think. It needs to go further in my opinion.

I think more parts should be standardized or banned, like I said in one of my previous posts.

I am a firm advocate of "spectacle first" I have to admit.

[Mirek]

I believe that. It is logical that prices will be as high as possible. Info coming from Jouhki should be taken seriously as he has direct access to information sources.

At last WMSC meeting FIA officially rejected all proposals on paddle shifting so I don't expect hydraulic gearboxes after all.

seems like Todt is tough. good.

[vkangas]

]At last WMSC meeting FIA officially rejected all proposals on paddle shifting so I don't expect hydraulic gearboxes after all.

When was that?

[Mirek]

23rd June: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_230610.aspx


Following an invitation to tender to supply paddle shift systems in the 2011 and 2012 FIA World Rally Championships, the FIA received tenders which did not satisfy the criteria. The World Council therefore did not select a single supplier for the 2011 FIA World Rally Championship. The WRC Commission has been mandated to study the possible introduction of a paddle shift system in the future, in line with the evolution of similar road car technology.

[vkangas]

]23rd June: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_230610.aspx

Jouhki's column was written a little earlier than that so he might have not got the latest info. Although I think that does not clearly deny each manufacturer having their own gearbox. Anyways I'll hope you are right (as always :) )

[noel157]

I may have missed something but what is the story with only 4 cars from each team? Logistics, economics, rules or what?

[HaCo]

I may have missed something but what is the story with only 4 cars from each team? Logistics, economics, rules or what?

I think it's about speed of producing, but I think it is nonsense. Maybe the first several rally's, but after that it should go ok. But if costs will be too high it will not matter how fast they can produce.
Big challenge for FIA to revive this championship.

[DonJippo]

I think it's about speed of producing, but I think it is nonsense.

Not knowing this for sure but I assume they will homogolate new cars as late as possible before new season which leaves them little time for preparing news cars for first event. That's why I think they will get only four cars ready for beginning of the year.

[Tomi]

Not knowing this for sure but I assume they will homogolate new cars as late as possible before new season which leaves them little time for preparing news cars for first event. That's why I think they will get only four cars ready for beginning of the year.

Thats bad news for Ketomaa then, hopefully they get more soon.