Thierry said he has never been this scared while driving.
Printable View
Thierry said he has never been this scared while driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ictus
Yes it is the same for everyone but even knowing this Neuville was the most critical of the new cars from their announcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
He also admitted the Hyundai was lacking development.
Pirelli tyres are same for everyone and they are moaning...Quote:
Originally Posted by ictus
They look as fast as last year too.... sliding a little more, maybe? which is fun
Compact Dynamics says the teams were happy with their hybrid systems...
https://dirtfish.com/rally/wrc/the-m...-season-fears/
M-Sport's Chris William's on the Puma and Rally1 rules and regs:
https://youtu.be/TIvNwMnybdA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
Great video, finally something about the new cars that actually focuses on technical changes and not just marketing blabber about HYBRID!!!! or sensless claims about a spec chassis or hybrid being old technology like the "journalists" from dirtfish.
Agreed, more information in this interview than everything else I have heard put together.Quote:
Originally Posted by becher
It’s obviously a point of interest amongst the engineers the different approach to the cooling they have each taken.
https://jalopnik.com/its-no-surprise...ugh-1848514507
In this article about motorsport susteinability, this entity compiled more than 100 motorsport championships to evaluate which ones are doing the best job. You can download the document. The funny thing is that FIA ERC is one of the most sustainable series around haha They are doing more than the electric Touring Car and the Moto-E series. The data is from last years so WRC is waaaaay down on their ranking. Nascar is weirdly "cleaner" than I thought. Maybe cuz they dont fly airplanes that much? Anyway, just sharing here that erc was naturally more "green" than wrc but lets see after 2022.
Great interview with M.Wilson and tour of the M-Sport workshop and new Puma:
https://m.facebook.com/RalioS4C/videos/369836701808181
Interesting that he says the new cars are harder to repair and drivers must always stop and change a puncture if otherwise there's a chance of damage to the car.
Also two more Puma sales are to be announced soon.
It is probably too early to conclude, but I did not like how easy the doors came off the Puma in the slide crasch in Monte.
Maybe they need to have a look at the strength of the locks and hinges, to protect the crew better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Expressed that view elsewhere and got accused of being alarmist however I too have concerns about the doors and possible intrusion into the safety cell. Even if the doors were to be fitted with retaining straps they could flail around and cause serious injury on the rebound. With so little of the car being steel it may be a problem. Spaceframes on the race circuit are less of an issue as little in the way of trees or other landscape entering the car if panels fly off.
What is FIA or Compact Dynamiscs saying about the many hickups of their new Hybrid units has given the teams?
Compact Dyamics to investigate the hybrid issue with Tanak's car in Sweden:
https://dirtfish.com/rally/wrc/compa...ybrid-failure/
"It was too early to identify what had gone wrong, with post-failure analysis requiring the unit fitted to Tänak’s car to be returned to Compact Dynamics’ headquarters for further inspection.
“We have to wait for what is the result of the evaluation together with the FIA. We are working hard on that," they told DirtFish.
How many 1000s of kilometer have the Hybrid unit been tested in a rallycar, with top drivers and at top speeds?
"I can only apologize and hope that he will restart well and will gain time again as much as he can.”
Indeed. "Sorry, our experimental box cocked up a bit. Have a nice rally 2 and try to gain some time back."
is the msport so slow because of the more long straight and less battery use in Sweden? or just because the all three drivers not good at driving on snow?
They are sorry for Tanak but that doesnt mean they are taking the blame yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by bandit12
'There could be, let’s say, several different root causes, starting with the reason being in the car or the overall control unit of the car – or the reason is somewhere in the hybrid system.'
Hyundai and Toyota have urged the FIA to update sporting regulations to prevent cars being forced to retire from rallies due to problems with hybrid units.
https://www.motorsport.com/wrc/news/...tions/8570244/
Tänak's case made me think that notional times should be given in case the driver has to stop only because of the hybrid unit. But it's difficult to draw the line, if you drive the car into a tree and get red light because of that, does that allow notional times being used?
That would be the only and fair act at the moment ...Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
The question just arises as to how much to give to Tänak, whose car was stopped between two stages, and the moment when he was fighting for the first place. And how much to give to Evans, whose hybrid unit broke down after his off.
I wonder if Toyota claiming Evans' retirement was down to hybrid reasons, is just in case any retrospective action is taken to redress the absurdly unfair Tanak situation...
Granted, they're not going to amend the results for Sweden, but if any concessions are granted to Ott as a result of what happened to him, perhaps TGR are hoping they can benefit too.
I don't think they should be able to, but still. You can't blame them for trying!
Results cannot be changed afterwards. But notice that Tänak was 1.1s from the lead with intact car when hybrid unit broke. Evans was almost an hour behind with smashed front
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMwG6_fW...jpg&name=large
Some comparisons between the pace of Rally1, Rally2 and Rally3 from Monte and Sweden. There's a slow, medium and fast stage from each rally.
It seems that:
- Rally1 is ~2 s/km faster than Rally2
- Rally2 is ~2 s/km faster than Rally3
Normally not, unless there has been a protest, and the results aren't final. In this case, they are final, so no question of any retrospective change. What I was thinking was, that if there was a chance of some benefit being granted to Tanak / Hyundai in this case of the hybrid unit failing and mandating retirement (for example a free replacement unit, or some other financial or sporting concession), Toyota would claim the same problem, to try to get the same benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
I think it will be interesting to compare times on stages in Croatia regarding WRC17/Rally1 spec cars because most of the stages are same (for sure in case of dry weather during the rally) - first comparable rally in season.
i don't get this idea about hybrid failure reward, it's a part of the cars that can fail, like any other, and doesn't mean much that it isn't produced by the manufacturer, there's a lot of them in every rally car. it's like asking time back for a puncture, any time that a driver says "i didn't touch anything".
i think this discussion is a bit biases toward the new tech...
I don't agree. The teams have been made to use this equipment, there is no choice of supplier, the specification and design is dictated to the teams who effectively have to build their cars around it. Other than the FIA monitoring systems and TV equipment, there's nothing else like this in Rally1 cars - and those aren't performance / reliability critical parts anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
In the case of Tanak, it failed in a situation where it simply should not have done so. It's not like he was going 1000x harder than anyone else, even before the issue began to develop he was only 4.2 seconds up on Lappi. These hybrid units need to be able to deal with the stresses of rally drivers trying to drive fast, otherwise what is the point of them?
If it were the case that teams could either outsource or develop their own e-drive systems, we would not be having this conversation. But the fact is, they don't, and we've already seen one high-profile example of a team and a driver being let down by a part they have no choice but to use. It's fair enough to ask for a less severe consequence than having to retire the car and take 10 minute penalties for each missing stage in this case.
Tyres? Currently some of the transmission parts are shared?Quote:
Originally Posted by ouvreur
I don't think there are any transmission parts that are shared. Ford use Sadev, Hyundai use Ricardo, Toyota use Xtrac.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
Tyres, there is some similarity, but they are obviously far more vulnerable to both bad luck and driver error. They're also much more of a known quantity than hybrid power units. I can't think of many situations where it can be proved beyond doubt that a tyre has failed because of a manufacturing or design fault.
as just said above, tires are the same. fuel is the same. lots of other parts are the same. at this point u should complain for a rollcage damage because the frame is imposed by fia?Quote:
Originally Posted by ouvreur
anyway, there's a limit in everything, and drivers must comply with it. it sounds very like the argument about the rim that "wasn't strong enough" (for the same driver, if i recollect rightly). of course, you can aim for the best, of course, people will work on making things better. but failure happens anyway. and everybody have to comply with the current state of the art. then things can (and clearly have to) improve, but to me, this is a pointless complaint. and it's not like ten car didn't started in 2 races. it was a couple of car after previous crashes/hit.
which as far as today, it's the same for hybrid...Quote:
Originally Posted by ouvreur
It's part of the sport as it is now. Get over it.
Things can fail. If your car fails, you retire. It's like that. Doesn't matter if the part is mandated by FIA or not.
Also, He had a very big impact after a jump. That could have caused the issue. It's difficult to say when it's the fault of the driver/team and when it isn't.
To avoid discussions, they have to keep the rules as it is now. It's maybe harsh, but at least the rules are clear.
If the car and crew can finish the stage with good time and car is working, the impact can't be that big. The magic system must stay ok after bumps and smaller hits.
Doesn't matter that the rules are clear if they are stupid.
It's not normal that you have to stay fingers crossed hoping that green light would stay on.
Puncture - repairable
Bodywork - repairable
Engine issues - repairable
Suspension - repairable
HY system - can't do anything and works whenever it wants.
More punctures than spares = nothing you can do
Alternator broken = hopefully you’re close to service
Also if you have oil pressure warning, it’s likely you just have to stop to prevent further damage
Not true. You can take more spares (if you are risking with only one) or you can make less punctures :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
not true. it's all about how bad is the damage, as for everything. engine failure can stop you right at the end of ss to avoid more damage (it happened a lot of time). bad managed puncture can end your race (happened one month ago). suspension also can end a race on spot, depending on how bad. and the same as the hybrid unit. you can service it or change it in case of small failure ( we had drivers without power in some ss, then repaired).Quote:
Originally Posted by TypeR
you can drive well and finish a stage with good time with a car that has rollbar bent, still this will end your race (and with no rally2).
really i can't find a big difference between hy and other parts, if not a prejudicial aversion vs a new tech.
exactly on point. take care of your machinery.Quote:
Originally Posted by PLuto
And Tanak hasn't been the wisest lately in his choices of spare tyres number...Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
One recurring theme with these discussions is Tanäk. Whenever something "bad" happens to him people are up in arms and want the regulations changed. Being a fan is normal but this seems to go beyond. Failures happen, misfortune is a thing, get over it.