[WRC] Arctic Rally 2021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonkka

For good?

---

no, got out. Lost 10 sec or someting

Nice run by Evans despite the tyres.

it would be interesting to know who using the spares already on this stage and who isnt, makes a difference

I think a few are keeping the new tyres for the last stage.

Kalle doing all he can to keep the pressure on Tanak there.

Interesting also that Rovanpera crossed his tyres.

Mikkelsen very disappointing. His chance to show what he can offer to a WRC team with quality opposition and falling short.

Lappi so far has destroyed Mikkelsen's goal to dominate every rally he enters.

He's not matching Lappi's speed but certainly a lot better as Formeaux, who will drive in WRC in Croatia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onemanband

Mikkelsen very disappointing. His chance to show what he can offer to a WRC team with quality opposition and falling short.

---

On this rally the Polo seems to be superiour, but 1 minute behind Lappi after SS7 is a lot.

Mikkelsen is a good driver in a good car, no doubt in that. But at the moment, Lappi gives some "down to the Earth" perspective for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onemanband

I might not understand you correctly because of a bit of a language barrier but i don't think you are correct here. In the theoretical situation you mentioned where the peak power of the cars is same but some have a more flat powercurve and you dragrace them in perfect situations the car with the smoother curve will win. What it means is that the top speed of all cars is the same providing they are not limited by gearing (or are geared the same).
My logic is that the torque of the engine does not matter. What matters is the torque going to the wheels and that can be changed with gears. The amount of torque needed is limited by the grip of the tires so the cars that have a more acute power curve will be geared shorter so the torque in the wheels will be similar as the cars with a smoother power curve. If you have a better engine torque delivery it gives you much more freedom in the gearing and the ones with worse torque delivery need to optimize more. Where it will matter more is the type of stages where the cars will be near their top speed as neither the Ford or Hyundai have been physically limited by lack of power but rather by the rev limiter. So the lack of engine torque will be a bit less important in the more technical and slower rallies where the drivers will be on wide open throttle for shorter amounts of time.

---

This is a bit difficult because all scenarios are somewhat theoretical both mine and yours.

You are right that the important thing is torque on the wheels but that is why I give the example in speaking about power curve. Because the torque on the wheels x wheel speed is the same thing as the engine power minus mechanical losses, i.e. speaking about power curve simplifies things (when talking torque you anyway get from one power curve to another power curve but in a more complicated way).

You are also right that normally the teams will try to limit what they loose in the power band by using different gearing but they need a ballanced peformance, they need also certain top speed on straights, traction etc. In other words where one team can use shorter gearing to their advantage the other can do as well and keep their advantage (or put the advantage on top speed if needed).

Why it matters more on twisty stages (in my interpretation based also on long time observation) is because no matter how much time you push the throttle you always need to deliver biggest possible energy on the wheels in that period of time, i.e. largest possible graph area under the power curve. In twisty events it is physically impossible to keep the engine RPM tightly around the peak power and therefore car with flatter curve will always have advantage because between two gearshifting it always delivers more energy to the wheels.

The second reason why it matters more in lower speeds is traction because car with flatter curve has smoother delivery of the wheel torque (less raise or drop of torque).

IMHO this was very well illustrated in times when S2000 were the second category. They had very low torque compared to the turbo cars but reasonable power. They were able to keep within 1 s/km on very fast events (Finland for example) but the difference was around double on twistier mountain events (Acropolis for example) and even worse in muddy events (up to tripple sometimes).

You are right that normally the team with stronger engine may use advantage of the higher top speed but they also may opt for other options, for example higher downforce, hence why we can not know whose engine is more powerful just by looking on the onboards. We don't know how they ballanced the drag/downforce/power/torque/gearing/traction and how successful they were in their preparations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onemanband

I might not understand you correctly because of a bit of a language barrier but i don't think you are correct here. In the theoretical situation you mentioned where the peak power of the cars is same but some have a more flat powercurve and you dragrace them in perfect situations the car with the smoother curve will win. What it means is that the top speed of all cars is the same providing they are not limited by gearing (or are geared the same).
My logic is that the torque of the engine does not matter. What matters is the torque going to the wheels and that can be changed with gears. The amount of torque needed is limited by the grip of the tires so the cars that have a more acute power curve will be geared shorter so the torque in the wheels will be similar as the cars with a smoother power curve. If you have a better engine torque delivery it gives you much more freedom in the gearing and the ones with worse torque delivery need to optimize more. Where it will matter more is the type of stages where the cars will be near their top speed as neither the Ford or Hyundai have been physically limited by lack of power but rather by the rev limiter. So the lack of engine torque will be a bit less important in the more technical and slower rallies where the drivers will be on wide open throttle for shorter amounts of time.

---

Power is a lazy word probably, easier than to get into all that you guys mentioned. We generally mean power curve probably.

What I understand is Ford is the “slower” engine of the three and they have to compensate with a closer ratio gearbox, hence the slower top speed on some events. Also slower engine means they get to the same top speed but they take longer to do so.

I remember Warmbold talking about how his car was slower than the factory ones, but the main point here is we should use a radar gun on a certain point of the stage to better understand that. If the straight is long enough you will eventually get to the same speed with the same top gear ratio but take longer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

This is a bit difficult because all scenarios are somewhat theoretical both mine and yours.

You are right that the important thing is torque on the wheels but that is why I give the example in speaking about power curve. Because the torque on the wheels x wheel speed is the same thing as the engine power minus mechanical losses, i.e. speaking about power curve simplifies things.

You are also right that normally the teams will try to limit what they loose in the power band by using different gearing but they need a ballanced peformance, they need also certain top speed on straights, traction etc. In other words where one team can use shorter gearing to their advantage the other can do as well and keep their advantage (or put the advantage on top speed if needed).

Why it matters more on twisty stages (in my interpretation based also on long time observation) is because no matter how much time you push the throttle you always need to deliver biggest possible energy on the wheels in that period of time, i.e. largest possible graph area under the power curve. In twisty events it is physically impossible to keep the engine RPM tightly around the peak power and therefore car with flatter curve will always have advantage because between two gearshifting it always delivers more energy to the wheels.

The second reason why it matters more in lower speeds is traction because car with flatter curve has smoother delivery of the wheel torque (less raise or drop of torque).

IMHO this was very well illustrated in times when S2000 were the second category. They had very low torque compared to the turbo cars but reasonable power. They were able to keep within 1 s/km on very fast events (Finland for example) but the difference was around double on twistier mountain events (Acropolis for example) and even worse in muddy events.

You are right that normally the team with stronger engine may use advantage of the higher top speed but they also may opt for other options, for example higher downforce, hence why we can not know whose engine is more powerful just by looking on the onboards. We don't know how they ballanced the drag/downforce/power/torque/gearing/traction and how successful they were in their preparations.

---

Very nice explanation, the advantage of the better engine can be exploited in different ways. Top power would be the only thing to matter if we had cvt gearboxes with optimal gearing in all conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meh

Mikkelsen is a good driver in a good car, no doubt in that. But at the moment, Lappi gives some "down to the Earth" perspective for him.

---

Lappi is driving very well, but to proof something new from his talent, it would be useful for Lappi to repeat similar performance e.g. in Ypres or maybe Croatia or Japan.

miracles do happens - R5 streaming from stage 7 :)

Stream from fixed camera's only, no commentators. I feel like I'm out there spectating :D
Only thing I miss is being able to help the poor Fabia driver to get out of the snow wall...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rally Hokkaido

No splits on WRC+ for this stage. I hope they fix it for the next one.

---

I have splits.
If you look under Live Timing, this has always been problematic. Under Live Maps splits are running instantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dupanton

I understand it more as a problem with the accent of Martijn (as a reminder, he is not native french speaking) that they are trying to reduce with intercom settings. So Thierry can understand the pronounciation of the words better.
It's not really the intercom not working I think.

---

I think it has something to do with the switch from using Stilo helmets and intercom, to using Bell helmets and intercom. Stilo has been in the intercom game for many years, while Bell has only recennty started to do their own intercom series. There is not much adjustment that can be done on the intercom system that would help pronounciation problems, but sound quality problems could certainly add to the problem of pronounciation.

Let's see who managed the tires the best in this last stage of the day.

Ostberg is tv natural

Reportedly the stage is in better condition for second run than the previous ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

This is a bit difficult because all scenarios are somewhat theoretical both mine and yours.

You are right that the important thing is torque on the wheels but that is why I give the example in speaking about power curve. Because the torque on the wheels x wheel speed is the same thing as the engine power minus mechanical losses, i.e. speaking about power curve simplifies things (when talking torque you anyway get from one power curve to another power curve but in a more complicated way).

You are also right that normally the teams will try to limit what they loose in the power band by using different gearing but they need a ballanced peformance, they need also certain top speed on straights, traction etc. In other words where one team can use shorter gearing to their advantage the other can do as well and keep their advantage (or put the advantage on top speed if needed).

Why it matters more on twisty stages (in my interpretation based also on long time observation) is because no matter how much time you push the throttle you always need to deliver biggest possible energy on the wheels in that period of time, i.e. largest possible graph area under the power curve. In twisty events it is physically impossible to keep the engine RPM tightly around the peak power and therefore car with flatter curve will always have advantage because between two gearshifting it always delivers more energy to the wheels.

The second reason why it matters more in lower speeds is traction because car with flatter curve has smoother delivery of the wheel torque (less raise or drop of torque).

IMHO this was very well illustrated in times when S2000 were the second category. They had very low torque compared to the turbo cars but reasonable power. They were able to keep within 1 s/km on very fast events (Finland for example) but the difference was around double on twistier mountain events (Acropolis for example) and even worse in muddy events (up to tripple sometimes).

You are right that normally the team with stronger engine may use advantage of the higher top speed but they also may opt for other options, for example higher downforce, hence why we can not know whose engine is more powerful just by looking on the onboards. We don't know how they ballanced the drag/downforce/power/torque/gearing/traction and how successful they were in their preparations.

---

There is no scenario where an engine with a flatter curve will not be better. But I still believe that with more optimized gearing in the more technical sections the driver can make a big part of the deficit up with his driving, setup, accurate gear changes etc. But if it is a fast rally where the drivers will be in top gear nearing the limiter for long amounts of time then there is absolutely nothing the driver can do.

For your S2000 point i think the best season to look at would be 2012 with Ogier in the Škoda Fabia. I had a quick look at EWRC-Results. His average speed was 1,9 lower in Greece and 1.73 in Finland than the leader. Not a massive difference. And the loss is not only from the lack of engine power for the S2000. As a counterpoint I would point to the ERC or national level in the S2000 or early R5 era where the N group cars could hang on with the much more nimble opponents on fast rallies like Estonia thanks to their superior top speed.

Solberg not moving on maps..?

Ogier off

And that's it for Ogier...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TypeR

Solberg not moving on maps..?

---

the live maps is crazy atm

Oliver loosing a lot also

Of all people. Biiiig mistake Seb.

thats like 500m before the finish?

JUST before finish..

Crazy for Seb especially, crashing at the yellow board. Oliver said it was tricky corner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EstWRC

thats like 500m before the finish?

---

yeah or even less. Just before yellow board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wwbroe

Oliver loosing a lot also

---

He lost his glasses before the stage.

?? What happened there?

wow Neuville going for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masa90

?? What happened there?

---

Ogier went off in the last corner of the stage.

No I meant how did Oliver reportadly love his glasses? Sounds really weird?

Last corner of the last stage of the day... Wow.
He has only power stage points to gamble for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itix

Last corner of the last stage of the day... Wow.
He has only power stage points to gamble for now.

---

2nd on the road lol