Printable View
Hi, I'm new here and I have a lot of questions. First, I heard about a group B in rally that were like supercar. Can anyone tell me more about this? Why was it stopped? What was the drivers and cars that did the best performance back then? Will it ever have suche a group again? I'd like to know all what you guys have to say.
Thanks, Vincent
Because, despite them being spectacular, they were dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
They were dangerous? I heard about accident yes... but isint it a bit normal after all this is a race no? Rallying is dangerous.. Was there anything espacialy dangerous with group B?Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Speeds and the sheer performance of the cars. The cars appeared hard to handle at times.
They were banned because they were killing drivers, Toivonen's death was the straw that broke the camel's back...
All racing has risks, but you try to make the risks manageable (sp). Thus in today's WRC I think they have done that quite well compared to the focus on safety of the group B era. Not just with car's but all round safety too.
Rallying isn´t that dangerous, and the development in this area since the 80ies has gone very far. High risk is a very bad promotor for the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRCfan
Agreed WRCfan, safety has improved by leaps and bounds since the 80s.But thinking about it now, Group B was dangerous....fun to watch and listen to ...but very dangerous nontheless.
There are many video documentary on the subject. It was dangerous one because the FIA did not pay enough attention to the sport, the regulation were loose and the cars were developing so fast. If FIA had restrain to car performance it may be a different story. It got to almost 600bhp at one point and accel as fast as F1 on gravel. Since the car were so spectacular and the roar of the engine, it draws a lot of spectators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
Regardless of that the WRC car today even though is limited to 300hp, they accel as fast and go much faster than group B car, with better handling and the active differentials. But there is better marshalling and event organizing which is the main safety key. Otherwize the WRC cars today is really much faster than Group B imo, maybe not acceleration but overall.
Much harder to handle compared to today. Good example is Portugal 1985 and 1986, where they were driving in the middle of a river of people, and being used to it, just accelling through them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
Just read a book By Kleiin
"Gruppe B - Aufstieg und Fall der Rallye-Monster "
That has a exellent story from that time
About the cars technology and POLITICS
Don't worry it's bilangual german/english
On what scale re. risk and danger do you place rallying, Magnus? World-wide statistics actually tell that rallying is one of the most dangerous sports, killing a number of competitors and spectators every year. The last couple of years hasn`t been that "bad", but 2005 was a nasty year with something like 13-14 deaths. There are not many other competitive sports - if any - with such bad statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus
It would be interesting to look at all the statistics and see where rallying is placed.
(J4MIE)
I was watching an MSA video last night and motorsport as a whole isn't even in the top four most dangerous sports. Bear in mind that on a half marathon in England the other year 4 people died, that doesn't happen in rallying but you don't hear people crying on about the dangers of running. It's just not fair.
For the record check out Group B on Youtube to see how dangerous it was. The cars were nuts compared to the well designed WRC cars of today
And the absolute pinnacle of the madness was driving those monsters on full tilt between a human wall - as seen in Portugal and San Remo. It's a small wonder how drivers were able to do that, in-car footage defies belief.
Hi Vincent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
Take a look at the below to get a true idea on what was going on..
The powerful sound track on the video gives the feeling what it was like.....
As said above, a major factor was the amount of people on the stages standing on outside of bends etc etc... and the power of the Group B cars...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJGPda5uGE
Also..
This below clip shows you the types of speed and spectator issues.... there are a few famous clips in there, which are famous for the WRONG reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJGPda5uGE
and below....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44iib...eature=related
Hopefully these videos will answer a few questions for you.
cheers
Rick
Group B would've lived on at least a few more years if Portugal had competent spectator enforcement, and if Toivonens Lancia had been protected by a skidplate maybe he probably would've survived. And if Toivonen had not been suffering a fever during the time around the '86 Tour de Corse maybe the crash would never have happened. In retrospect, those unfortunate and probably preventable events coupled with driver concerns from people like Toivonen put the writing on the wall for Group B.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
I think you are simplyfying and speculating here. The accident in Portugal 1986 with Santos (Ford RS200) ploughing into and killing several spectators and a couple of months later Henri Toivonen/Sergio Cresto`s fatal accident in Corsica, were true enough two of the main arguments against Group B. But there were other grave accidents as well. Attilio Bettega had a fatal crash in Corsica 1985, in a RWD Lancia 037, but this was also a Group B car. Marc Surer was severely injured and his codriver killed in a Ford RS200 and Ari Vatanen nearly died crashing his Peugeot 205T16 in Argentina 1986.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Talking to former rally drivers from this period today I think you will find that many of them found the Group B cars extremely fascinating, but also probably were scared ****less of these monsterous machines while driving them. Group B actually had the writing on the wall nearly before the cars started rallying.
I think the reasons they stopped it were 70% politics from F1As dogs and 30% because of the cars themselves.
Thanks to you all for answering my questions. But I still have a few more.. What was the best car then? Most of you talked about Peugot and Ford RS200 is that it? I heard about some car consrtructor like Audi won a "double" what is that? Why was Lancia not trustiong 4WD when audi proved it was the best? thanks
Yes, and if I remember correctly, Pentti once said that Bernie Ecclestone (and maybe some other F1 equivelants) played a role in FIA's decision of banning Group B. Rally was really grabbing hold on F1 in populairity those days.Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
Anyway, Great cars, probably too dangerous, but things around the cars weren't organized at it's best either. But the sound is just adorable...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qefKc...eature=related
I believe Audi were the most succesful as they were at the forefront of the Group B era. Lancia eventually moved to 4wd with the Delta S4 (the car that Toivonen was driving when he died) Ford and MG arrived on the scene a lot later and I don't think either had enough time to make real headlines so it's the Quattro and 205T16 that are best known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
I'd just like to add that my knowledge of Group B results are sketchy so others are likely to provide more reliable comment.
Audi Quattro was first 4WD but it had also many issues, unreliable engine in the first variants and in all variants a lot of understeering because of longitudinal engine infront of front axle. They used small wheelbase and long car - big polar moments of innertia, especialy front as I mentioned before. The first versions also had wrong engine volume which made it too heavy (multiplied by turbo coefficient they were only few ccm above an engine limit for lighter car). Audi was all the time a classic conception car with engine in the front. In the very end they used semi-automatic Porsche gearbox with double clutch and sequential shifting, something like DSG nowadays. In 1986 they tested mid-engine prototype even in our county - Czechoslowakia - that days behind an iron curtain, very close to Zlin in guarded testing area. There are some photos of the prototype from that secret test.
Oposite to that Peugeot 205 T16 and later Lancia Delta S4, Ford RS200 or MG Metro 6R4 were built as racing monsters just from scratch. They used mid-engine concept with fuel tanks under crew seats which gave them ideal weight distribution and minimum polar moments of innertia. But using turbochargers, exhaust and engine so close to plastic fuel tanks was dangerous. From that point of view Metro was less dangerous since it had naturaly aspirated engine.
It is hard to say which car was the best. From RWD it was clearly Lancia 037 but from 4WD my vote goes to Peugeot 205 T16. Lancia Delta S4 was more sophisticated but very hard to drive.
The same thing happened allegedly a few years ago- when WRC was doing similar to the Schumi F1 borefest. Remember most of the teams had at least 3 cars, some more. And there were 6/7 teams - that's a lot of works drivers. Look what happened- stupid FIA rules; the limit to 2 drivers, then teams walked away. Now look were we are???Quote:
Originally Posted by Josti
The same thing happened around that time to Group C which was Endurance racing and Group A which was Touring Cars. Those were also on the rise and fell even deeper then Rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josti
Bettega and Surer slammed sideways in a solid object. This kills drivers to this day. It is also the reason why Bettega's co-driver was uninjured. Vatanen was wounded because his seat(belts) failed. He had them modified. Again his co-driver was uninjured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskald
You can't just blame these incidents on Group B. Yes, by today's standards these cars were absolutely crazy. Actually they weren't safe for the standards in those days either. If the FIA had mandated better safety, especially with regards to fireprotection. And had they employed better regulations to rallies regarding spectator control and pressure on the drivers. Then Group B could have continued on.
The scrapping of Group B was more politics then concern for human lives. Not only Ecclesstone, but also people in Rally itself. Like some teams that were more than happy to start on a clean sheet again, or some other teams that had crap Group B cars and found a nice PR-exit.
Think about this then:
If group B was really banned because of safety reasons, why let them finish the year? That's like saying we're stopping to race these cars because they kill, but we will let them kill untill the end of the year, but then it really has to stop.
Another thing has F1 ever been banned. F1 is too dangerous, from now on, F2 will be the pinnacle of open-wheel racing. Banning group B in fact is the same.
Another main reason: Balestre, I too just read the book rise and fall of group B, and this man has made some strange decisions and abused his position to fight out a lot of personal fights.
The FIA banned the cars, but did nothing towards spectator safety, nor car safety. In fact Balestre tried to punish in some way the teams for not obliging their drivers to drive after the Santos accident, also because of the organizers was a wingman from Balestre.
In some way the banning of group B was the ultimate payback from Balestre to the manufacturers. But it remains strange why FIA was so adement to ban group B and not search for other solutions.
Group B could have continued to exist, a lot of options were available, engine restriction, rules for crowd control, and other passive safety devices on the cars themselves.
Yet they chose to ignore all and ban it, and also group S. Which in some way is comparable to the current WRC cars.
Good points, I agree... Could it also be that the FIA also percieved the incredible popularity of Grp B to be a threat to F1 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nenukknak
I think in the past there were many strange example of the doing of FIA and even favoritism toward a manufacturer (alleged), but they more more sensible now.
The Audi were the first to enter the wrc with 4WD, and everyone were skeptical of it's success, since it was complicated and heavy. They really came in and dominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
I think most people think the Peugeot is the best because it was lighter, control much better, there were less wheel spin, and performed much better on tarmac.
It wasn't until Lancia came out with the S4 that they become more successful, it has both turbocharging and supercharging for different acceleration. But it was said to have very strange handling, and Toivonen was said to be the only one who was able to extracted the most out of it. I think it was a disaster in term of benefit for Lancia because the class was banned and the death of Toivenen. I think this maybe the fastest Group B if drivable.
The Ford RS200 was a really good car, a bit heavy, but very durable and good to drive. Probably better for endurance events. It has a short life before the class was banned.
I really like to watch them all in action, but especially the Audi Quattro S1, I think that is the most noticable Group B car, Walter Röhrl was the only one to win on this car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
That probably has a lot to do with it. Rather ironic that group B became the standard for the WRC, largely because of the FISA/FOCA wars in F1 in that time. When FISA had their concord agreement, and rallying became too popular, a reason was needed to pull the plug.
And also group S, with which's requirement even more manufacturers would have probably entered the arena, i.e. making rallying even more popular and drawing away attention from F1.
While you could hide behind safety reasons for banning group B, banning group S doesn't make sense from any point of view, except that it was too popular.
Again they could have done lots more, and spectator safety has remained an issue long after group B. But they chose to kill it, you do the math. F1 and all sorts of political stuff killed off group B.
Meeve,welcome to our community!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
I hope you will have a good time!!!
So,now to group B cars.The Peugeot 205 T16 E2 was the ultimate group B car.
It was small and powerfull.The Audi Quattro was never really a dominator at the peak of the group B era.There was always someone better and faster.It was very powerfull (some say that the Quattro S1 at its peak had 600 BHP!!!) but very unreliable.
The Lancia Delta S4 was a very advanced car.A little bit to complicated for that time.The interesting fact about the Delta is that it had a turbocharger and a supercharger.The supercharger was used to reduce turbo-lag.After the revs would build up till a certain point,the car would change to a turbocharger.A genious idea,but ahead of its time.At the practise of the 1986 Spanish F1 Grand Prix at the Estoril track , Toivonen ,in his Lancia ,scored a time that ,if he would enter ,would put him in 6th place!!!That shows how the group B cars had similar performances as the F1 cars.
The Ford RS200 came too late,but many say that it would become a dominator.It was a fast car,but it came a few months before the group B would be banned.
The MG 6R4 was an interesting car.It had extremely fast gear changes,which often was not a good thing.It was a normally aspirated car with around 450-500 BHP,so it would reach extremely high gear ratios extremely fast.It was very hard car to drive.It didnt make any great results.
urabus-denoS2000: The story about Toivonen's drive against F1 in qualiffying for Estoril 1986 appears quite often in the internet but the truth is that GP of Estoril took place on 21st September but Henry died on 2nd May...
Wow,didnt know that..
So he never drove any F1 practise.And how did that info end up
I think there's a grain of truth in this story. This could have happened at recce of the '86 Portuguese rally, in which the Estoril track was the Rally HQQuote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
that year (could be near the track too, I'm not sure). But indeed, it's still an unconfirmed story.
Though these words of Hannu Mikkola do make quite a clear comparison of Group B and F1 (at the opening scene of the video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYhiJeRPgdw
I recall right, this is exactly what Pentti has said many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
So it was not all about security reason but not to become more popular then the F1... But about now? That was about 20 years ago. Could it be possible to make a new kind of "group B"? And why do the FIA care so much about not to take over F1 popularity? F1 lost in popularity these days I think.. There is no more race it's all about qualification. If you have good qualification you will end the race in a good position. I heard that now in F1 it's 90% car and 10% driving skill. For the rally group B being banned for the F1 stay popular, is there sport more important then other sport? Why is F1 considered more important then rally by the FIA?
Because it is Bernie's money machine :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
What or who is Bernie? Is the F1 part of the FIA? If the F1 is a money machine, can't the rally become one? If it one day become more popular..Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJippo
^ That is exactly what the F1A wanted to do, making the world rally championship an elite sport, an in way backfired, in my point of view. Although there are more politics to it than the fia. I am not 110% on the exact cost a WRC manu have to pay per car to enter per WRC rally right now, but even that number is huge. The cost droves all the privateers and some manufacturer away. There is less and less about endurance and more about sprinting. Very few manufacturers are left and there are not enough competitions.
I think the golden age for the WRC series has pass for a while, and they are really trying to bring this thing back right now. I don't think rallying can be as popular neither, because of the sport format. It is better and easier for television coverage with circuit racing, where you can follow the car around the track, with rallying, it can be hard to compare all the split time for normal viewers who isn't passonate and they think it's boring with one car by itself anyway. This is one the main problem, the sport has very bad coverage and advertisement. With the rally video games kind of promote the sport a bit for the younger audiances.
It's a controversial subject and we have been discussing it a lot lately in the forum.
Bernie Ecclestone is the ceo of formula one management and administration, for promoting and licensing of commercial rights of the sport.
btw, I'm not sure if you meant to ask the question: "Is the F1 part of the FIA?" in a literal way or in a philosophical way. But literally, basic the FIA is the governing political body that make all the rules and regulations for all the motosports under it's name, and supposingly, a nonprofit organization. Mostly for series "created/own" by the FIA, but they really have a big influences all around.
The story about Toivonen at Estoril is true.
The Rally HQ was held at Estoril and at the time Toivonen did some laps in the Group B car. Hs times were recorded and it was noticed when the GP took place, the times he set while Rally HQ was there would have earned him 6th place on the grid for that year's F1 GP.
He of course wasn't in the rally car at the Grand Prix.
Thanks you all for answering me. I hope one day FIA will consider a new group "B", with of course a better gestion then they were back then. Today, can the WRC car compare to the famous group B car in term of performance? Because of the new technologies, it might be possible. If I remember it is now 300Hp maximum right? What is the difference between old group B and WRC car except for the engine limitation? Can you guys please help me with that?
Though not quite the spectacle its been said that todays WRC cars get better stage times than Group B cars did.