Printable View
A question for You. Who is going to be written in the history statistics as the winner of 40th Rally Islas Canarias?
A hint. It's not going to be Cruz. Same reason why Kopecký doesn't hold Barum rally record in number of victories as one of them doesn't count because he run in non-FIA field (2004).
And by the way Cruz drove unrestricted 911 under Canarias local rules, not Spanish championship one.
True, but Cruz was the fastest! Or not??Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Even if Ogier would be here with Polo WRC I would congrate to him as he would be the fastest. At least I hope so....
Strange logic. So why not to start a trophy with unrestricted WRC cars alongside some FIA championship and claim an overall victory everywhere despite having completely different rules? Isn't it ridiculous? Anyway the official winner of the rally is Lukyanuk. You can check the event website. It's there black on white.
And by the way Barum Rally 2014 was won by zero car if You go only after the times without respecting rules.
My god, you are so stubborn....It is not a GC rally topic, we are not discussing about Luky's victory. The 911 was the FASTEST and period. Leave for at least on time those stupid rules behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
And if the zero car was the fastest on Barum two years ago(I have no problem with this fact) nowebody can't claim that the stopwatches were against rules.
So why even do rally events? Isn't enough to just drive high speed in open roads? :DQuote:
Leave for at least on time those stupid rules behind.
No? So what is this? It's You who wrote this and claimed that Cruz is the winner of the rally instead of Lukyanuk and started a pointless comparison of cars running in different championships under different rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
I don't understand Your obsession with unrestricted 911 being faster than R5 somewhere. Everybody knows that unrestricted 911 is faster than R5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
Are You for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
Gt’s can have their place in modern rallies. Spanish teams made a fantastic job adapting them to rally roads and proved they’re effective on tarmac. They’re also entertaining to see, amazing to drive and cheap to buy or run (as most of them are pre used racing units).
The real issue it’s on ASN’s rally policy. Should the countries follow FIA strict rules or adopted their own regulations, allowing other cars to be part on their national series?
This stands for Gt’s but also for N+’s, RRC’s, expired homologated WRC’s and even Proto’s.
Is it feasible to get a liberal reg system with an effective BOP matching all those top rally car groups?
Honestly I think it’s, and some ASN’s are trying to do it. The argument that’s unfair to those competitors with more costly cars or that only purpose built rally should run are easily surpass by the advantages of having a greater diversity of rally cars and drivers.
In that sense it’s understandable RFEA (one of the most liberal ASN’s around) attempt to limit the GT’s domination in Spanish rallies, but they went a bit too far. They could have used a larger restrictor and keep 911’s competitive.
By the Canarias experience (in the SS's Ares and Monzon run without problems) it came clear that R5’s will become the undisputed series leaders.
Ucci: Portuguese ASN still didn’t announce ’16 GTR rules and somehow this is a marginal question as our main championship (CNR) is a mix surface series. But autonomic Spanish regional Federations (like the Canarias) will keep allowing unrestricted Gt’s.
The GT-class is something that could give the whole sport a broader appeal, but they need to be let loose from to many restrictions. A Porsche winning a tarmac rally brings back memories from bygone times, and its actually an added marketing value for the other competing brands.
The whole homologated rally world has become very androgyn, its almoast only small cars homologated, and this is cars with no real fan base to begin with.
It would be much better for both Ford and VW if it was the Ford Focus RS going up against the Volkswagen Golf GTI (or R). This is cars that are relevant, and appeals to the sporty clientele. It would be a real battle of the giants.
In both WRC, R5, R3, R2 and R1 its basically the same car being homologated. Rally is not only about the sport and drivers, its also about sight, sound, and brand allegiance. A Porsche fighting a Ford Focus would be good for both, and would bring more spectacle, as it does in Spain etc.
There is positive things happening with the new Abarth, the Toyota GT86 etc, but these are very expensive vs their performance. If you took a Porsche Cup circuit car and "rallynized" it, it would be cheaper.
A GT Class definitely has a place in rallying, one just needs to find out exactly where :)
As I said before. Porsche is an exclusive brand. There is nothing what it can win from a marketing point of view by loosing with Fabia. Even beating Fabia is nothing. That's why Porsche as a brand is not interested and why it won't be interested unless GT cars become leading class and Porsche can fight its real adversaries there such as Lamborgini or Ferarri. In that moment however rallying loses it's long-term commited brands which created the sport and kept it running through the whole history. I don't think that rallying can afford that for sake of experiment with bringing exclusive brands in and I don't think it's right thing to do.
The whole rally world has been standing for decades on brands like Ford, Citroën, Peugeot or Škoda. In my opinion it's correct to keep them in as they proved to be commited for decades.
We shall not be too idealistic. There is no point for brands like Porsche to come to fight cheap common brands. Since that GTs can stay only a curiousity for privateers or the whole rally world must be completely rebuilt and GTs established as the top class. As I said earlier that's not a viable option for me.
We shall also take into account that there different classes of car manufacturers with different customers and competitors. That's why exclusive brands compete with each other in GT circuit series, Le Mans or F1 and not in a popular "cheap" sport called rally.
And current 911 is too big for rallying in my opinion..
How did it win the Spanish championship then? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold Triyudho Wardono
By the way, speaking of big things, have you ever seen Rover Vitesse? :)
http://allracingcars.com/gallery/rov...ally-car-6.jpg
How many times must the same thing be discussed in this thread????
Look! Something happened that made GTs relevant.
Yeah! Now Porsche can compete against Ford Fiestas!
No. Porsche will never be interested in doing that.
And repeat.
Don't forget the Audi 200:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarek Z
http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...06/743_001.jpg
Yeah, podium was not bad result for this tricky, slippery and twisty rally, but lets not forget who was driving:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack4688`
And first Safari win for 4WD..Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
You've made a solid summary. Fact is that Porsche AG has no interest in rallying what so ever and period. I don't like this decision but that's the way it is. The earth is still rotating around......And if I understand this than also the so called ''GT haters'' could live with the fact that sometimes (in ideal conditions) the S2000/R5 drivers could be beaten by GT cars (until now just P911 succeeded this). And not being immediately offended and repeat again and again the only 911 advantage (100 HP more); on the other hand they always forget over all disadvantages with which 911 drivers must cope on every meter of SS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Porsche 911 will always be in rally sport a matter for privateers. And if the driver of P911 beats the hell out of the R5 driver, they should be congratulated to (sometimes I have the feeling as the driver is a ''0'' fact when we discuss over GT cars..), even if the car is without restrictor. It is a pure spectacle. The defeated R5 driver is still going to be an offical winner, true....
No, it's not the only advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
R5 have 235/40 R18.Quote:
The tyre sizes on the new 911 GT3 RS are nothing short of impressive: 265/35 ZR 20 on 9.5 J x 20 at the front, 325/30 ZR 21 on 12.5 J x 21 at the rear.
and 4WD !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
That's not really an advantage on dry abrasive asphalt such as that on Canarias, quite the oposite. Rear engined RWD with 325 mm tyres has no problem with traction in such conditions. Purely mechanical 4WD system without central differential brings a lot of natural understeering and eats power. It's of course something different on rallies like Barum.
Think about why there are nearly no 4WD cars on circuits and those which are there only use very sophisticated torque vectoring systems and not some stupid mechanical diffs without central differential as Audi Quattro from 1982.
When I watch some onboards I would say they have some on corner exits. For a while, then the driver compensates and unleashes the power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
That doesn't mean there is any problem. Do You really believe that on dry asphalt You need 4WD to cope with 400 Hp?
One thing what you forget: when the 911 starts to slide, you have a very tricky situation. Where is all the weight? Behind the rear wheels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
And if this happenes at the speed above 100 km/h, you need space to save the situation. In such kind of moment the 4WD computer rally designed cars are easier to save. Amen!
Driven a lot of 911s have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
Well, if 4wds have 375hp I'm sure the will cope better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
That's quite a bold statement. As I said 4WD doesn't automatically mean better. 4WD especially very simple one (better to say primitive) which we know from current R5/WRC cars brings a lot of disadvantages for use on dry asphalt with a high level of grip - namely a lot more understeering, higher power loss in the drivetrain and much worse turning radius without handbrake. Please also don't ignore the wide tyres Porsche has. It's huge difference if You have 235 or 325 mm tyre on asphalt.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
Rallycars are 4WD not because of dry asphalt but because of loose and dirty surface. If the championship was all held on dry asphalt only, there would be winning 2WD machines such as F2 cars once were.
Yes, I agree 4wd cars are made for loose surfaces, but they can also have advantages on dry asphalt at the same power, AUDI has proved that in IMSA series in late 80's when they abandoned rally for good. Tyre width makes difference too and current 4wd car differential system is not perfect I know. Even more, rdw cars with rear/center engine mount have some advantage on the grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
But what is strange is that huge power can also cause this lack of traction on corner exits, that's why the driver need to react, while with 4wd he is much more eased with the front wheels biting the asphalt.
So part of my statement is Porsche drivers need to handle more "moments" than 4wd drivers - this huge power slide, respect for that.
In a number of cases its because they got banned for having too much of an advantage over their 2wd opposition ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Yes, I had this privilege....or on circuits as on open roads, highways, even on Nordschleife....as a driver and as a codriver.....from basic 997 & 991 to Turbo & GT3.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
I have never said I don't have respect for them. I said that unrestricted 911 is faster on dry abrasive tarmac than R5. That's fact. The drivers choose it because it's faster not because it's some kind of challenge or some special bravery.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
From an historical perspective I can't agree and have read old magazines which were then current when first Saab and then Audi began using turbochargers---and Saab, where I am friend with and stay on visits with rally engine development guy---admittedly were going to turbochargers to make huge amounts of torque---that the main problem was putting down the massive amounts of torque with just 2 tires of a limited specific size...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
The engine torque in turbo car regardless of surface drove the need for dividing the power up to 4 tires instead of just 2...Old group 4 --which the Saab 99 Turbo and Audi Quattro we homologated in---it had wheel and tire max size limits based on engine size x turbo factor (1.4 in early days if I recall correctly..Later 1,7 times engine cc later)
Who can forget the scenes of Vatanen in his Escort at Ilse of Man going thru a 90 degree corner so hard and leaving 2 very wide black marks all the way thru the corner? It still sends a shiver up the spine to see that..
In those days BDG Escort (2,0 liter) made 262 hp (10,000 rpm) and the first Quattros in Group 4 made 265hp...but the quattro made maybe 3x the torque and was spread over a big broad band.
THAT drove the need for 4wd---even on asphalt IN RALLY 9with the width restrictions and available tires in those days)
Different perspective but that's the talk from when this crazy trend was just beginning..and some of it I got directly from at least one person directly and intimately involved (and frustrated too! Saab was so small and the gearbox they could make was very delicate even for good n.a. power, and there was no "9 minutes gearbox swaps" for a Saab)
While You are right about traction the point about disadvantages of 4WD applied in 80' just like now. The Audis suffered from huge understeer (also due to the stupid engine placement) and could not turn into sharp hairpins without reversing. That's why Lancias 037 were able to keep the pace for a long time. For example in 1983 Lancias 037 were completely dominating force on asphalt events even with 1980' tyres which are nowhere close to recent ones.
If I'm not mistaken Saabs were FWD, weren't they? That's IMO the worst possible configuration for traction. Still ten years later FWD were able to fight WRC cars. But that was in time when everything was already about rules. The 1980' were nicer in the point of view that much more was allowed to be tried out.
Actually You brought a good point with turbos. In my opinion one of the reasons why RWD disappeared from rallying was that turbo engines in 1980' were quite unsuitable for RWD. There were no anti-lags, the engines had a raw power but were hard to control. Gearboxes were slow and a smooth delivery of torque to the rear wheels was something to dream about.
Don't forget that Audi Quattro's main problem in hairpins was a not working handbrake. Or more specifically the handbrake blocking all four wheels because of the absence of a centre diff and any disengagement device. That problem obviously has been solved with current WRC cars, even when they again have no centre diff.
That's only partially true. Yes, they could not do handbrake turns but even without handbrake the turning radius of Lancia 037 is maybe half of Audi Quattro. The reason is that without driveshafts in front You can have a lot wider angle of steering. The handbrake turns are often needed only because of the impossibility to turn without them. Otherwise it's mostly faster to turn without drifting if possible.
No RGT at CoI. 2nd round of RGT Cup
Afaik there is no RGT cup.
There is RGT Cup, confirmed from FIA. But nobody is interested in it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
I wonder why? A nice idea in theory - but there was never the will to fully embrace it. Too many hurdles to overcome....Quote:
Originally Posted by PLuto
The most stupid thing was to split it between WRC and ERC. As a result none of the two promoters had any reason to be interested in it. First they need to make it integral part of ERC if they want to have any success.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Wow! That is a beautiful car on a beautiful photo!