Rally1 hybrid cars (2022-)

All I'm saying is, wait and see. Hyundai and Ott are clearly not happy about this, and Toyota have cynically tried to blame Evans' retirement on hybrid problems. There will be some sort of change to the regulations coming...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becher

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.

---

The conversation started as a general discussion about this issue and Tänak was brought by some members here. Funny when always Tänak has these problems then its always his fault but when other drivers have then it’s a general problem.

Just listened to dirtfish podcast with Adamo and he says also something has to be done different in these situations. Says the hybrid system is weak at the moment and it isn’t also the best in marketing view if it’s retired because of it

No car should be retired from the rally due to faulty hybrid systems if everything else is fine.

That Tanak retirement is bad for the sport and makes compact dynamics look amateur. Nobody benefits.

If the system isn't working, that's already a "penalty" of sorts as you don't get the extra boost. And it's even worse if the lights just aren't working. Something has to change.

If the teams developed their own hybrid units, and it fails/ goes red/ doesn't light up at all, that would be different. But Hyundai and Tanak had no control over this retirement.

Does Compact Dynamics (CD) have online connection with the cars during rallies, so they can go in and do management on a unit like Tanak's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EstWRC

The conversation started as a general discussion about this issue and Tänak was brought by some members here. Funny when always Tänak has these problems then its always his fault but when other drivers have then it’s a general problem.

Just listened to dirtfish podcast with Adamo and he says also something has to be done different in these situations. Says the hybrid system is weak at the moment and it isn’t also the best in marketing view if it’s retired because of it

---

You misunderstood, for me it's not about Tänak being responsible for technical failures/retierment or not but rather how people react to general misfortune when Tänak is at the receiving end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by er88

No car should be retired from the rally due to faulty hybrid systems if everything else is fine.

That Tanak retirement is bad for the sport and makes compact dynamics look amateur. Nobody benefits.

If the system isn't working, that's already a "penalty" of sorts as you don't get the extra boost. And it's even worse if the lights just aren't working. Something has to change.

If the teams developed their own hybrid units, and it fails/ goes red/ doesn't light up at all, that would be different. But Hyundai and Tanak had no control over this retirement.

---

point is that's not a faulty unit. it has (or probably was) broken. it can happen and there's the reality. in dreams nothing ever breaks, reality is that sometime happens. again: it's not like ten car were alted on faulty units in 2 race. it's 2 car broken after crashes. of course they can improve reliability on this kind of damage (probably undercar is a bit "soft"), but still this complaint is pointless. it's like when people was blaming pirelli or michelin for punctures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyler

point is that's not a faulty unit. it has (or probably was) broken. it can happen and there's the reality. in dreams nothing ever breaks, reality is that sometime happens. again: it's not like ten car were alted on faulty units in 2 race. it's 2 car broken after crashes. of course they can improve reliability on this kind of damage (probably undercar is a bit "soft"), but still this complaint is pointless. it's like when people was blaming pirelli or michelin for punctures.

---

Why are you so butthurt on this topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandit12

Why are you so butthurt on this topic?

---

not really, just talking.
looks like the real butthurted are somewhere else entirely.

anyway, in general, don't like when storytelling surpasses plain fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by er88

No car should be retired from the rally due to faulty hybrid systems if everything else is fine.

That Tanak retirement is bad for the sport and makes compact dynamics look amateur. Nobody benefits.

If the system isn't working, that's already a "penalty" of sorts as you don't get the extra boost. And it's even worse if the lights just aren't working. Something has to change.

If the teams developed their own hybrid units, and it fails/ goes red/ doesn't light up at all, that would be different. But Hyundai and Tanak had no control over this retirement.

---

Even if the car is otherwise working perfectly, the hybrid means it is still potentially dangerous due to the high-voltage electric current the cars generate.

"A flashing red light accompanied by an alarm, or if no light is visible at all, means fans must keep away.”

Carsize is always a topic on the development table.
Car width is the same for all 1875 mm
Numbers I have found online are;

Brand Wheelbase Length
Toyota 2630 4225
Ford 2600 ? Do anyone know?
Hyundai 2630 4100


So cars are pretty similar, I am guessing due to the common spaceframe.
Difference of 120 mm btw Toyota and Hyundai in length with same wheelbase, is overhang front and rear. Might play a small part on gravel in tight corners.
Or are the cars too similar in the measurements that it will play a role on the different surfaces?

It isn't a common spaceframe. While the regulations about rollcage / chassis construction are quite prescriptive, each team has designed, and either manufactures or outsources, its own chassis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sulland

Carsize is always a topic on the development table.
Car width is the same for all 1875 mm
Numbers I have found online are;

Brand Wheelbase Length
Toyota 2630 4225
Ford 2600 ? Do anyone know?
Hyundai 2630 4100


So cars are pretty similar, I am guessing due to the common spaceframe.
Difference of 120 mm btw Toyota and Hyundai in length with same wheelbase, is overhang front and rear. Might play a small part on gravel in tight corners.
Or are the cars too similar in the measurements that it will play a role on the different surfaces?

---

They are so similar in size because it is the sweetspot in regards of what is possible. I'd guess you couldn't really go any smaller due to packaging constraints and would potentially end up with a too short wheelbase if you'd were to go any smaller. Equally you wouldn't want a bigger car for obvious reasons, but you want to maximise the wheelbase (think a wheel in each corner). If we look back through the years we can see that manufacturers tried to go for a car that is round about four meters long whenever the regulations allowed.

Also as allready mentioned it is not a spec chassis, we are thankfully still talking about three different cars, not three different silhouettes.

Looks like a Dakar car from this shot

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e9b7e1adfc.jpg

The real pity is that spaceframe chassis was really only brought in so new manufacturers could enter and re-size their relevant car model to fit.

And after doing so, there's been no new manufacturers come in anyway....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

The real pity is that spaceframe chassis was really only brought in so new manufacturers could enter and re-size their relevant car model to fit.

And after doing so, there's been no new manufacturers come in anyway....

---

What says that it was the reason for spaceframe chassis?

Also, what says some manufacturers want to first see how this concept works before they put in dozens of millions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnttiL

What says that it was the reason for spaceframe chassis?

Also, what says some manufacturers want to first see how this concept works before they put in dozens of millions?

---

It was certainly one of the reasons I would guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnttiL

What says that it was the reason for spaceframe chassis?

---

'Scaling' is allowed and this couldn't be done if using a manufacturers production car bodyshell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

'Scaling' is allowed and this couldn't be done if using a manufacturers production car bodyshell.

---

There's more to it, making the cars lighter and better fitted for the hybrid unit, and also allowing the common safety cell to be used, increasing the safety of the cars.

The current three year regulation cycle cannot attract new manufacturers right now, no one will join in just for two years, unless FIA extends the current regulations somehow (maybe with everyone's own hybrid unit or something). Another thing is that these space frames could also be used for electric rally cars, if that's what the main class is in 2025, but too early to make guesses.

And finally we must remember that keeping the current manufacturers was every bit as important as getting new ones.

Wiki
"Tubular space frame structures are permitted allowing for scaling of production models."

Yes. It is now allowed to do scaling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

Wiki
"Tubular space frame structures are permitted allowing for scaling of production models."

---

It was one of the reasons, sure. But it's wasn't "really only brought in so new manufacturers could enter and re-size their relevant car model to fit" - the primary objective was to make the cars safer, both for the occupants, and the hybrid system. Chopping up standard road car chassis to turn them into rally cars will never be as safe or purposeful, as building a spaceframe from scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ouvreur

It was one of the reasons, sure. But it's wasn't "really only brought in so new manufacturers could enter and re-size their relevant car model to fit" - the primary objective was to make the cars safer, both for the occupants, and the hybrid system. Chopping up standard road car chassis to turn them into rally cars will never be as safe or purposeful, as building a spaceframe from scratch.

---

Strictly speaking that is not true, you can make a modified production shell so strong that the driver dies of deceleration (which actually happend in circuit racing), so there isn't really a limit to make a production based car save enough other than the laws of physics. It is however much cheaper to design a space frame from the ground up than to chop up a roadcar shell and modify it in such an extensive way like a WRCar.

Using a traditional road car chassis is still actually permitted under the Rally1 Regs. The tubular spaceframe was initially brought in when they wanted additional manufacturers to join who maybe didnt have a road car of the right size.

The existing teams then also used them for the hybrid packaging and safety advantages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

Using a traditional road car chassis is still actually permitted under the Rally1 Regs. The tubular spaceframe was initially brought in when they wanted additional manufacturers to join who maybe didnt have a road car of the right size.

The existing teams then also used them for the hybrid packaging and safety advantages.

---

Last time I heard about that was at the FIA meeting in 2019 when they first announced these rules. It was never mentioned since then and I doubt it is still regulations, but someone might be able shed some light on this topic.

https://scontent.fbru4-1.fna.fbcdn.n...SA&oe=62337104

Not sure if it's something new, haven't noticed it on any photos from Monte Carlo. There are two valves on the rim. From what I heard the 2nd valve could be for pulling out regular air when filling up the tyre with nitrogen. Anyone on here who can confirm what they use it for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommeke_B

https://scontent.fbru4-1.fna.fbcdn.n...SA&oe=62337104

Not sure if it's something new, haven't noticed it on any photos from Monte Carlo. There are two valves on the rim. From what I heard the 2nd valve could be for pulling out regular air when filling up the tyre with nitrogen. Anyone on here who can confirm what they use it for?

---

thats right. Many japanese racing wheels for circuit racing have 2 valves.

Pressure sensor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by br21

Pressure sensor

---

some rims havethe second hole for sensor,but when the one hole is for sensor is not at this part of the rim,but near the centre of the rim(easier to dismandle a tyre without broking the sensor)

https://www.m3post.com/forums/attach...1&d=1347102879

Rallye Hannut, with Jourdan Serderidis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ouvreur

Rallye Hannut, with Jourdan Serderidis.

---

Yes, there's lots of videos including the Puma if you search on YouTube for Rallye de Hannut 2022.

Soooooo, many weeks after Rally Sweden and there's still no info from Compact Dynamics about the reasons for Tanak's hybrid system fault. Not good.

Do you know for sure that there isn't? Maybe it's just it hasn't been shared publicly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flat_right

Do you know for sure that there isn't? Maybe it's just it hasn't been shared publicly.

---

Maybe, but the information is pretty crucial for everyone involved and even for the credibility of the WRC at the top Rally1 level.

If the cause is known why isn't being released to the teams and if it has been why wouldnt they share it by now with Croatia coming up ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

Maybe, but the information is pretty crucial for everyone involved and even for the credibility of the WRC at the top Rally1 level.

If the cause is known why isn't being released to the teams and if it has been why wouldnt they share it by now with Croatia coming up ?

---

Too bad publicity for Compact Dynamics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

Maybe, but the information is pretty crucial for everyone involved and even for the credibility of the WRC at the top Rally1 level.

If the cause is known why isn't being released to the teams and if it has been why wouldnt they share it by now with Croatia coming up ?

---

I'm willing to bet teams have the reasons, but it's not in anybody's interests to share publicly such detail - especially from CD, no company puts out press saying 'look how we failed'. Also, what more can we public do with such technical information about specialised propriety equipment?

to me they should communicate more/better to keep fans up to date with their technology and how it goes, as they are the ,,rookies'' in WRC since this season and there are few people who really like that new concept (hybrid parts of the car).

that one press release after Tanak's error was pretty poor and seemed like an answer form a guy, who was new to rallying (especially the time loss part)

Put something out thru WRC or DFish, that we found the problem and are on the way fixing it, making sure such thing won't happen in the future. Would give some positive image to that hybrid thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

I'm willing to bet teams have the reasons, but it's not in anybody's interests to share publicly such detail - especially from CD, no company puts out press saying 'look how we failed'. Also, what more can we public do with such technical information about specialised propriety equipment?

---

The reasons need to be made public so that the fans can understand and the sport can be seen as fair with the new (2 min) penalty award.

Otherwise the WRC will be open to ridicule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TypeR

to me they should communicate more/better to keep fans up to date with their technology and how it goes, as they are the ,,rookies'' in WRC since this season and there are few people who really like that new concept (hybrid parts of the car).

that one press release after Tanak's error was pretty poor and seemed like an answer form a guy, who was new to rallying (especially the time loss part)

Put something out thru WRC or DFish, that we found the problem and are on the way fixing it, making sure such thing won't happen in the future. Would give some positive image to that hybrid thing.

---

Disagree, that'll only remind average Joes who've forgotten that it failed in the past. Better than that is to have a clean Croatia, Portugal... as expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

The reasons need to be made public so that the fans can understand and the sport can be seen as fair with the new (2 min) penalty award.

Otherwise the WRC will be open to ridicule.

---

Near end of the season maybe, two rounds into a 3 season cycle is too early for anyone to say the kit slurs the championship when pre-season was full of teething-problem chat. I'm not sure what you would be expecting to hear but usually when it's a gearbox or engine problem we all accept it at that. Finding out precisely what happened to Tanak's unit won't make any more sense of the two or ten minute penalty decision. That surrounds balancing safety requirements.

Could always try asking them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC

Maybe, but the information is pretty crucial for everyone involved and even for the credibility of the WRC at the top Rally1 level.

If the cause is known why isn't being released to the teams and if it has been why wouldnt they share it by now with Croatia coming up ?

---

it's known since the rally. heavy landing after a jump. the manus have "won" a pr challenge (2 min penalty), and don't need a statement that says "reason was bad car management". .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

Could always try asking them?

---

I've reminded the journalists at Dirtfish who raised the fact that there's been no info in a podcast a few weeks ago.