The older group B cars were just less advanced with technology than the WRC cars, they were harder to drive as a result of this of course.
It was like any motorsport, compare now to 20 years ago and I would be pretty much the same....
Printable View
The older group B cars were just less advanced with technology than the WRC cars, they were harder to drive as a result of this of course.
It was like any motorsport, compare now to 20 years ago and I would be pretty much the same....
It might be so that the WRC cars do faster stage times than the group B's did, but it will never have the same character as any Group b.Although the technology in the wrc cars are incredible the spectacle has gone.
The FIA stands before another test again with Super 2000 and what will happen in 2010 we will have to see.Would S2000 live up to expectations.We dont know....
By the way, I'm new from sunny RSA. :)
Modern rally cars are far faster than group B. After a few years of Group A the cars were already setting faster stage times than the Group B cars did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
So, if you want a modern rally car that moves like the Group B cars did, you'd have to increase the power to grip ratio by cutting the grip. A lot. Otherwise the cornering (read impact) speeds would be ten times more likely to kill the drivers.
But no rally car since Group B sounds as beastly as the Audi S1 Quattro.
Nice first post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggeriffic
I guess most people in this forum (age 35 and up) know exactly what you mean. The roar, the burst of power, the wide slick tires, and fierce fights ......... all memories now. I bet that if somebody puts today's top WRC drivers in Group B cars, they all going to be "Rautenbached©A.F.F".
Meeve, you're new to the forum and that's great. We need more people with fresh ideas and comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
But a word of advice. Don't believe everything you read here.
There are people on this forum who would blame the FIA for their dinner being cold.
There are conspiracy theories trotted out here that the CIA would be proud of, let alone the FIA.
They seem to have overlooked the meetings that the drivers themselves called to discuss their concerns. The fact that Audi, and maybe one or two others, had withdrawn before the sport's announcement.
Safety was the catalyst for change and no, you will not see anything like Group B again - sadly.
Or maybe we will.Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
http://www.rallysportmag.com.au/home...=2353&Itemid=2
Where does Andrew get all his money from?!!!
^ well actaully in some wrc rally some privateer owners bring out the group b car to compete, such as germany, but not often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jparker
There's a thing Daniel could learn from you jparker ;) :p :
We have discussed this myth many times, and it is of course just a myth!Quote:
Originally Posted by WRCfan
Pole position for the 1986 Portugal GP was set by Ayrton Senna at 1.16.67 with an average speed of 204.24 km/h. The Estoril track has three straights were the F1 cars (also in 1986) reached speed up to and above 300 km/h. Henri Toivonens Lancia Delta S4 possibly had a top speed of 220 km/h. It was of course impossible for the rally car to do average speeds araound that track in the region of 200 km/h.
The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.
Well, to my knowledge, the S4 weighed under a 1000 kg's and had around 500 bhp. Hannu Mikkola himself states that the S1 was only around 4 seconds slower than a F1 car, but on a gravel track with the same lenght as where F1's where driving. In this case, I wouldn't say it's totally bogus...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskald
And possibly father Christmas really exists...Quote:
Originally Posted by Josti
The physical laws simply wouldn`t allow it to happen, Josti. If you put the F1 car on a gravel track however, it could possibly be true. But when did you last time see F1 cars racing on gravel...?!
Group B rally cars went on to race in rallycross after being banned from rallying. I was a regular at ERC rallycross events in those days, and still today remembers it as extremely spectacular. With lower weight than the rally cars and up to 700 hp. in rallycross trim, these cars were real beasts! Much as I would have liked it to be true, its impossible to believe that they were anywhere near F1 cars in performance on a 4.7 km tarmac racing circuit. Simply because they weren`t!
Electronics,my friend,electronics...Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
If you compare an N4(production class) with 280 BHP and an WRC with 300 BHP that doesnt seem as a big advantage.But still an N4 costs 150.000 euros and a WRC costs 700.000 euros.
WRC cars are a lot faster than the group B cars.They ARE A LOT FASTER IN CORNERS.
At the 1993 Spanish (not sure) rally,Juha Kankkunen in a group a Toyota Celica ST185 made faster times on stages that were driven in the same lenght and conditions during the group B era.So group a cars were faster than group B cars.You can imagine how faster the WRC cars are.
I think that the group B should never happen again.
FULL ACK, Iskald! Ever so funny, that lotsa young people, too young to have seen the GpB beasts in live action, know great rumors, hearsay and grapevine stories about them. Some Rallycross cars proved to out-accellerate F1 cars from standstill to 120 or even 140km/h without any problems. And they were much more powerfull than their WRC counterparts as well as prepared especially for sprints rather than long special stages. But even the most powerfull RX GpB car I remember, Martin Schanche’s Ford RS200 E2 with its oversized 2.3l mill (about 650 'driveable' bhp), IMO would have never been able to set times to qualify for a F1 GP. BTW, all bhp figures for RX GpB cars above 600–650bhp I would call dyno-power and 'non-driveable'. And do not forget the fact that RX machinery has to use those very limited 250mm wheels/tyres since the 1977 ERC already…
I think that a very important reason for todays WRC speed is that the tyre tehnology has improved extremely.Everyone of the 300 horses is put on the stage and used properly.Imagine how it was to drive 450 bhp lightweight cars on primitive tyres
I also find this story hard to believe, but its the 85 Portugal times that you should be looking too, in 86 the event was on 21 Sep, and Henri was already taken from us, certainly how I have heard the story comparisons were to the previous years Gp, cant find much info on but seems Senna on pole again but his time was 1:21.007Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskald
Time might be right but did Henri drive the full lap...that's an intresting question ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskald
Meeve: Don't believe that WRCs have 300 Hp. Plenty years a go they counted with 34 mm restrictor as a limitation of power. But the development goes on and as for today WRC have some 350 Hp but about 700-750 Nm of torque. The exact numbers are usualy secret...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
You're absolutely right sollitt except that you interpret these meetings wrong. The drivers met indeed, indeed they met at Toivonen's funeral, their main concern was spectator safety and indeed passive car-safety. If indeed banning group B would address these subjects then they thought it not wise to fight to fight the FIA to ban group B. They felt however, that banning group B would not alter any of the subjects and were therefore not in favour of banning group B.
Even the manufacturers met several times in the BPICA (delegates of manufacturers board for FIA), and discussing several different options besides a complete ban.
Restrictions on fuel, even the use of turbochargers, the use of Evo-models, the use of extensive aerodynamics, etc. The manufacturers really tried hard to save group B in any way, but the FIA simply refused and never did anything for spectator safety. The only rallys that addressed spectator safety on their own accord were the 1000 lakes and San Remo, without any guidelines being put forward by the FIA.
As for Audi, they quit because the FISA refuced to do something about spectator safety, even explicitly stating so towards Balestre. The FIA refused to come up with any guidelines for rally-organizers to increase spectator-safety, and that was enough for Audi to draw their conclusions. The fact that they weren't up the pace anymore compared to Peugeot and Lancia might also have something to do with that, but that has always been denied.)
And then there is the matter of group S, this was a proposal initially put forward by the FIA itself, and everyone agreed, because most engineers and manufacturers could see that the race for power-outputs was a non-ending battle to little avail. It would have been the perfect solution, but it too got banned.
Politics killed group B, and the safetyconcern was the tool they used to kill it, but not the reason.
"[…] It would have been the perfect solution, but it too got banned."
Group S was not banned but aborted. ;)
So now the WRC are as fast as the group B car. But there is not as much accident. Now that we have the technologies, and the knowledge, to go fast without killing ourself, why are the restriction so severe about WRC car? They are occasional accident but mostly it's not because of the car, is it? Why do the FIA don't rearange the restriction for group B?
Group B in rallying was not banned at the end of 1986. It carried on for several years. What was banned was the over 2000cc class of GpB that contained all the so-called "super cars".
The original regulations for GpB were exactly the same as for GpA except for allowing dry sumping and having a 200 minimum production not 5000. Evolution was not in the original regulations.
Virtually anything on 4 wheels that could not obtain homologation in GpN or GpA was homologated into GpB to allow entry lists to be kept high enough to allow events to run in the early days of the new Appendix J GpN/A/B. GpB cars included several previous Gp1 cars that, because they were not fitted with fuel injection as standard and had relied on "optional" carburetters to be competitive, could not achieve the new GpA homologation and were thus only homolgated in GpB after the end of 1981. Only a tiny percentage of GpB cars were what is now recalled as GpB ie. so-called "supercars".
As to what was the best/would have been the fastest/"best" GpB car, it is impossible to say. It was a moving target like all such formulae. The Audi, Peugeot and Lancia were more or less at the end of their development in 1986. The 6R4 could never have been fully competitive without homologating another 200 cars, this time with twin turbos. The RS200 was early in its potential development and would probably have become the leader, before being overtaken by a new car from one of the other manufacturers.
GpB was never originally intended to be a rally catgory, only a racing category. The new Appendix J for 1982 (GpN and A) was introduced to ban the many, largely British Gp1/2/4 "homologation specials". Without an extension of Gp2 and Gp4 for 2 years and GpB, there would not have been enough entries on International rallies in 1982 and 1983.
It was the construction of the cars that was dangerous in some cases, including the widespread use of titanium in structures, that all too tragically burnt fiercely.
For history, GpB was NOT just a few "supercars".
Words of wisdom, Sollitt!Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Drivers had a meeting long before Henri was killed, in fact Henri was one of the drivers who presented what had been decided in the discussions. Namely, this meeting took place 5th of March 1986, just hours after Santos' Ford RS200 had ploughed into group of spectators with fatal results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nenukknak
The meeting minutes show that indeed their primary concern was the spectator safety and that type of the car (ie RS200 being a Group B car) was not a factor in the accident.
"3: The accident on Stage 1 was caused by the driver having to try to avoid spectators that were in the road. It was not due to the type of car or the speed of it."
Which is exactly what happens in tyranny. When big boss makes a decision, he cannot reverse it without losing a face and that never happens, hence big boss' decisions are always final. Even if I applauded Sollitt above, I am not kidding myself with delusions about Balestre's judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nenukknak
Group B ban was a kneejerk reaction to tragedy at Corsica, decision was made hastily in matter of days as FISA had to make a show of their decisiveness. At that time nobody yet knew why Toivonen had his accident (in fact, it's not known for sure even today), which made FISA's speedy decisions that much more absurd. In fact, amongst those decisions the Gr B ban was only one. Besides that, stage maximum distances were limited to a maximum of 30 km per stage (for the first time in history), further evolutions were banned (which made RS200 incompetitive with a single stroke), skirts and similar aerodynamic aids were banned and cars were required to carry automatic fire extinguishers.
Would you mind explaining why you'd want Group B or it's derivative back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeve
From safety point of view, current cars are too fast, especially on tarmac. With current narrow tyres and overweight cars, drivers are exactly on the limit and there is no margin for error. This was proven in 2000 and 2001 when Colin crashed in Corsica (nearly a fatal), Tommi as well in Corsica (could have been a lot worse), Delecour's huge accident in Australia had makings of a disaster as well. Then there is the Martin's unfortunate accident in 2005. Yes, cars are safer but how bad these accidents would have been with more powerful vehicles?
If you're after the technical freedoms that Gr B offered, the World Rally Car formula has much of the ideas incorporated in it but within safe envelope offered by the 34mm restrictor.
If you want spectacular driving, the safe way to provide that is to reduce grip, not increase power.
Or are you after something else?
Sadly Grp B will never return, but as Jonkka suggests lowering the tyre grip to Grp B era levels and also completely removing the current decibel limit may well be all that is required to bring back the spectacle we all love and miss..
FIA can't over rule trafic laws in any country...sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
Not quite so... Current WRC regulations do have this:Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJippo
14.4 Noise level in the special stages
For safety reasons, on special stages only, the possibility of bypassing the exhaust silencer is recommended, provided that the exit of the exhaust gases is in conformity with Appendix J and, for cars fitted with a catalytic converter, that the gases themselves pass through this catalytic converter.
In all cases, at any time on the road sections, the noise level must be in conformity with Appendix J.
On stages, cars can make more noise. On road sections they can't and that's the difficult part but provided it can be technically done, it's legal. You're correct that local laws may prevent this but sporting events can get waivers (usually).
And the Appendix J says:Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
that being my point.Quote:
3.6 Exhaust system and silencer
Even when the specific provisions for a group allow the replacement of the original silencer, the cars competing in an open-road event shall always be equipped with an exhaust silencer complying with the traffic regulations of the country(ies) through which the event is run.
Only in case local traffic regulation allows the noise level to be higher than 103dB FIA has regulation for it as 3.6 in Appendix J continues:
I sure would like to have a bit more noise on stages but as we are living in such environmental sensitive world I doubt if we can get it...Quote:
For all cars used in Rallies and unless the limits imposed by the local authorities are lower, the noise level on the open road must not exceed 103 dB(A) for an engine rotation speed of 3500 rpm for petrol engines and 2500 rpm for diesel engines.
Hey making a bit more noise won't kill off the pandas or whales. Bring it on.
They could make a safe, possibly cheaper and similar spectacle to group B by reducing the engine size, increasing anti-lag and/or allowing multiple turbochargers, keeping the sole tyre supplier (so that there is no incentive to make really grippy tyres), and reducing the efficiency of suspension, brakes and differentials. IMO, of course.
But then again, who says that cars must be 4wd? Clarkson, May and Hammond drove across Africa in 2wd cars, not to mention the incidental fact that rallying got by quite nicely without 4wd for a time before Audi brought it in. Certainly the RWD cars I've seen on the stages have been spectacular.
Here, here!! Most of the current WRCars sound like strangled farts!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo
:up: I agree forget 4WD and bring back 2WDQuote:
Originally Posted by cosmicpanda
I wonder why some people think current WRC drivers are useless morons...Quote:
Originally Posted by jparker
Did something changed in the human DNA code? making people born after 1970 are slower and more prone to crash when driving?
As posted by other members, surely they're not even half as spectacular as group B was but WRC cars are probably faster...
I think this is probably a fair assessment. After all, when they compete on the same stages and a comparison can be made, today's WRC cars are faster than Group B cars. The danger is still there, but the means of protection are better. With hindsight, the way the FIA and various rally organisers ignored the major spectator problems that afflicted numerous events was nothing short of negligent, and that didn't stop when Group B was banned. After all, several people were injured in Corsica in 1987 when a Peugeot 205 GTi went off the road at a hairpin. It didn't take a Group B car or anything approaching it to cause injury then, and, obviously, there have been deaths since.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
Of course, Audi completely over-reacted. Yes, they weren't doing as well as they would have liked in 1986, but their complete withdrawal as a works team (not just from the WRC, but also the British Open series) did common sense no favours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
That said, as I have stated many times on here, I didn't feel that Group A was a bad replacement in 1987 — far from it. In fact, the WRC witnessed some splendid events that year, and the British Open Championship was on top form. When rallying videos, I continue to find the Group B cars far more entertaining than any of today's WRCs, but they were by no means a panacea. Anyone who saw Jean Ragnotti in a Renault 11 Turbo in 1987 will vouch for that.
The volatile 'rocket fuel' that some were using was another contributory factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by FAL
It was also quick out of the box in 1984, because, as I recall (though it is late at night), Peugeot brought out the road-going T16 at the same time as it introduced the standard 205 range. This gave it enough time to build the cars required for homologation and get the rally version testing well before its debut in Corsica.Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
I have long felt that the Quattro's legendary status is down in very large part to its having been a pioneer of 4wd, rather than its particular ability as a rally car. Of course, I don't forget the superb performances that some great drivers put on in the car either, but it was often found wanting. They never made any of the variants reliable, the long-wheelbase version started out as being awfully heavy and was always pretty dreadful on tarmac, the first Sport Quattro was a dog to handle and the E2 broke easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
Still should have won the 1986 world title, though!Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
Yes, and in that time Ford had no reason to cure its faults. Still, it was a British championship winner, albeit without winning a rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
Don't forget that the 6R4 could have won on its WRC debut! Again, it was hamstrung by there being no incentive to develop it, and I think that Austin Rover's driver line-up for 1986 wasn't the best with which to mount a serious challenge, had the car not kept failing. Tony Pond was a truly great driver, but his preferences for certain events and dislike of others rather held him back.Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
The amount of physical effort, skills, and technical knowledge required to drive Group B car is nowhere near compared to nowadays rally cars, but that's not the point. Humans tend to adapt, so there is no doubt that today's drivers will get use to Group B cars if they have to, but the learning curve may be similar to Rautenbach's one, that's what I meant, but I may be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jso1985
Do you think I'll be in this forum if I think WRC drivers are morons? I don't get it?!?!?!
What I hate is the cars they drive, especially the joystick gear shifters and fancy gearboxes. I hate to see drivers looking like sleeping queens in the car, moving just their fingers and toes, and occasionally hands :)
Actually that volatile "rocket fuel" you mention, was in fact less volatile than normal pumpgas. They added stuff to it, (don't know the name right now, will have to look it up) to raise the burning point, so it would ignite at higher temperatures. Another point to add to this is that this stuff will dissolve almost anything and it's fumes are very toxic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The problem was that the fueltanks and fuellines were not safe as they are now, add to that the close proximity to the drivers and the extremely heated exhaust and turbocharger, and well, sadly we all know what happened.
Another interesting fact on the Santos accident; Santos was having gearbox trouble and therefore his RS200 was tuned down to about 350BHP, or at least that's what's been said.
Drivers will adapt. Walter Rohrl didn't have a clue how to drive the Audi when he first entered it, he couldn't get it to steer, he was just incapable of driving 4wd, then he sat with Stig in the car to see how he did it, and how he used left-foot braking. After that he practiced all night, untill he finally got it most of the times, a few days later he won the Monte. But then again Rohrl wasn't just any driver, but the top WRC-drivers can drive anything fast, and learn fast how to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by jparker
What I'm looking for is not these things you mentioned above. What I want, or what I DON'T want, is the rally to become like the F1 is right now. In F1 the cars are more important then the drivers. My worst nightmare is that. What I want is a group which it's more about the driver's skill. Of course car will matter, it always do and it's o.k. too because it's part of the race and I don't wanna lose that. Now rally car have sequential gearbox and they barely move their fingers like jparker said before. Imagine a group where your car have to be manual... Just making this rule would tell apart good and realy good driver. It's not about moving your fingers anymore. You probly all no what I'm talking about. If it keep going this way rally car will be automatic within a couple of years...Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
300 Hp max? Why? I think drivers know the risk of rallying. Cars like the one doing the Pike Peaks run have like 1000 hp. Of course you will tell me it's not the same thing. I know. Still that a group were 500Hp would be max is possible is it not? We all agreed the technologi is now at a higher level then it was back in group B. Restriction about the "automatisation" and "easy driving" of the car should be placed I think. A group were the driver's make the main difference that's what I want. Do you agree with me such a group would be interesting?