Read on twitter that Ogier felt the Fiesta chassis was too soft. I feel that has always been the case, compared to Polo and DS3.
Printable View
Read on twitter that Ogier felt the Fiesta chassis was too soft. I feel that has always been the case, compared to Polo and DS3.
Interesting with very different philosophies regarding the chassis in the 17 cars.
- Volkswagen and Citroën most similar, with Citroën the most extreme in regards to the ratio between longditudal and transversal body movement (weight transfer.)
- Ford sits more down on all four wheels (like the RX car).
- Hyundai somewhere in between.
- Toyota on gravel not totally unlike Ford in philosophy.
Most downforce-fucussed seems to bee Ford and Toyota
Citroën also working a lot on aerodynamics, but also drag focused (maybe because of frontal area), and not that focused on keeping the underfloor parallel to the ground (at least not on gravel).
Toyota very focussed on low ride hight, but have done some compromises on gravel.
Some clever guys working on these cars :)
Quite interesting that the "drag" behind the car has 3x more resistance than the displacement of the frontareal. So to awoid turbulance and drageffect is more important to go fast than the displacement of the frontarea. How faster you drive, how better it be seen.
Sent fra min XP7700 via Tapatalk
It is actually quite weird to see Ogier driving a Fiesta. It seems very surreal, but I like it.
That is not correct - or a misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by skarderud
Frontal area is the nr1 factor when it comes to aerodynamics, and the most important factor when it comes to drag (or air resistance in if you will.)
Example: A man (person) has about the same drag coefficient as a skyskraper (ex the Empire State Building), but drag is off course completely different because of the enormous difference in frontal area ;)
I think he meant it different way. Large majority of drag is created at the rear of the car (better to say behind the car) not at the front. The car with vertical front face but long flowing rear-end has way less drag than a one with sharp front end but vertical rear (considering same projected normal area).
Pic of the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by GigiGalliNo1
Yes, bad english:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Example, bobsleigh as i know quite much how works, the drag effect behind the sled gives 3x the resistance that what the front do. Thats the reason a big wing, or a "high downforce" front can do more bad than good. Of course, sideways in the forrest is also a factor.
I'm a cabinetmaker and "has been" bobsledder, not wery familiar to technical english, so i have a little problem to write what i have in my head:)
Sent fra min XP7700 via Tapatalk
Sooo slow?!? It understeers like a pig! No way Ogier will sign for that piece of junk!!! What...not a Toyota?!? Ooooooh, it's a Ford...Yeah, it looks really great! Go for it Ogier!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhlord
another one who cant find a difference between yaris, c3 and fiesta 2017.
Actually the high downforce at the front is very very important for any kinf of motorsport (if it's allowed by the rules) because by the front wheels you steer. The tyre grip is somewhat limited and same for all. Adding weight upon the front wheels isn't very good idea because the weight has also a a lot of inertia. So the way to win turning speed and to reduce understeering is to add more downforce. What is very important is that anything at the front adds less drag than similar feature at the rear. Therefore you can win a lot by adding downforce at the front.Quote:
Originally Posted by skarderud
The downside is that those aerodynamic features at the front are somewhat impractical for some rally specifics like driving in deep snow, through water splashes etc.
Yes, of course the downforce in front is important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
What i trying to say is that if a front end that is "wrong" designed, like if it is perfect in a CAD simulator "separeted" from the rest of the car, it can make lots of turbulance(?) that will ruin some of the effect behind the car. It is interesting also how much this work at slow speed, like 100km/h, if its right.
This is much easier to explain in Norwegian! not shure it been totaly understandable this time eighter:)
Sent fra min XP7700 via Tapatalk
Now I understand. Yes, I agree. I know that a tiny student formula car of my Alma Mater generates around 60 kg of downforce at 80 km/h (if I remember right) and that's a thing only a little bit larger than a go kart.
Could someone please recall and remember what some on here thought of the Korean i20 Hyundai, you know that white one many years ago that launched in Korea and they drove it on a test frack just sliding it... did it look like a winning car? It was a joke right?
That was in completely different phase of development. In that time it was made just for show and there was a lot of time to the first start. Now we are in already running homologation process, i.e. everything major has to be sorted out already.Quote:
Originally Posted by GigiGalliNo1
Ogier and Tanak
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...3&l=25bb74f6ec
Citroen C3 R5
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...be7a38a788.jpg
you do realise its a photoshop... right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by GigiGalliNo1
YupQuote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
The front bumper is badly done.
I wonder if they will build one to compete against the Polo R5
Imagine that, more models in the R5 category of the WRC than in the top class!
Its already confirmed they will make one.
and more R2 models than R5...Quote:
Originally Posted by GigiGalliNo1
of course it´s like that, top of the pyramid/triangle is always "sharp"
Teemu / Rallirinki @HartusvuoriWRC ·
Testing for #YarisWRC today in Northern Catalan gravel. @TeemuSuninenRac behind wheel. #WRC2017
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyM2bkPXEAA4o4j.jpg
Suninen tested TMG and TMR Yaris. Someone else?
small clip with Ogier and fiesta
https://twitter.com/racingist/media
TommiQuote:
Originally Posted by Andre Oliveira
The aerodynamicks is getting rediculus. Look at the small appartment the Yaris has in current config. Starting to look like an american short track car
https://shorttracks.us/racing-photos...h-Speedway.jpg
some would like to get rid of all the aero things and have slower and more sliding cars. We are soon back to the Metro 6R4, that I think was the first car buildt around aero and wind tunnel testing.
how much diff is it btw a R5 and WrcCar downforce wise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimviii
Hard to say exactly but definitely huge difference. There are nearly no aerodynamic features allowed on the R5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Looks fastQuote:
Originally Posted by dimviii
I don't know the values, but you can feel big difference in grip on the rear when driving R5 without original rear wing. Also when you install big WRC rear wing then you feel big advantage over typical R5 wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Maybe first car after the mighty Saab 96....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
And which came first: 7R4 or the Audi S2 "Batmobile" with all the foofy stuff which made World Debut at 1985 Oh-limp-wrist (Olympus) Rally
(1985 Olympus was FIA observation year--1906 was real WRC and last WRC for Saab 96 and a few other cars--in Group B)
Hannu Mikkola and Arne Hertz....so was that before 6R4?
Ok just checked 6R4 debut in November 85 at RAC, so Mikkola/Hertz Batmobil was before it in Jun 85 so it was second car.....efter 96:an
Traxx - WR is Free @Traxx_WiF · 14m14 minutes ago
@thierryneuville & @nicolasgilsoul testing the @HMSGOfficial i20 #WRC 2017 on tarmac
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyQg4g3WgAAsBgq.jpg
Note the new front bumper aero haha, was msport or C3 first?Quote:
Originally Posted by dimviii
m-sport was first i think and after it everyone has done it.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyQ-_JUWEAAcxu0.jpg
BILLIOT Jérémie @planetemarcus
#WRC Neuville-Gilsoul in action today in French Tarmac
interesting that they havent that camo livery anymore.