Quote:
Originally Posted by PLuto
You have news(or strong rumours)of a return of Peugeot in WRC ??? :eek:
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLuto
You have news(or strong rumours)of a return of Peugeot in WRC ??? :eek:
r4t?????????? or r5????????????? or 208wrc???????????
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...42264843_n.jpg
R4T no R5 no 208WRC no Photoshop yes ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dimviii
the ratio between wheels vs bodywork is amazing :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pantealex
Still no news?
will we see pics or film on 208 before september?
Any rumors on other brands, Fiat maybe?
I heard the homologation of first R5 cars was postponed to late 2013. Don't know if that is true.
Is that a significant date? I am told ALL WRC events are only being offered a one year deal for the calendar - 2013, could there be a significant re-launch of WRC in time for 2014, with R5T as the top class?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Would be perfect, as long as the ragulations are kept so simple the cars will still be in the 100-150 000€ range. If not this exercise will be a complete waste!Quote:
Originally Posted by MJW
No, I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MJW
It will end up on nearly same prices like with S2000 in my opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
I don't think VW would go for that after all of this development work For the current rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by MJW
Is there a future for R5?
R5 was a good idea to allow amateurs to get new 4wd cars at a reasonable price but with the introduction of S2000 1.6T cars (RCC) in national or regional championships the concept is under threath.
From the past experiences of new categories cost control (remember S2000) the 150m€ price target is difficult to achieve, probably cars would cost near 200m€. At this price and knowing that R5 cars are less competitive than RRC, how many drivers would invest that kind of money with so little changes to win overall?
Probably teams and drivers with budget to run nowadays highly cost S2000NA cars will more easily evolve to RRC cars, so the remaining R5 purpose would be the replacement of N4 cars, but how many manus are interested in developing a 4wd amateurs car? Especially when the development process of a RRC would cost nearly the same?
Toyota has already answer these questions, developing the Yaris under RRC regs. Lets see how many more manus will follow this direction.
R5 came after S2000 1.6T (or RRC) as their replacement not before. What is under threat is RRC not R5. What is highly expensive now is RRC not S2000 2.0NA. Those are not cheap but still are much cheaper than RRC (at least what I know about Fabia, Peugeot and Mini).
Than how did You come to the point that R5 will be slower than RRC? R5 will be at least on par (I bet they will be faster). Simply because they must be fast enough to have sense for manufacturers. There are talks about 3-5 cars already under development (Peugeot 208, Škoda Fabia, Ford Fiesta are sure). These cars are going to play the main role at least in the IRC where they can't loose with old 2.0NA cars. Works teams would not go into a suicidal action resulting they would look like a bunch of clowns beaten by amateurs in old cars.
Let's take it like this. The suspension and drivetrain will be virtually same with current S2000/RRC/WRC cars with the exception of five-speed gearbox. There is not much simpler to invent. What will be very different is the engine. Very expensive DI engine of RRC cars will be replaced by much simpler unit (I expect something like R3T engine). The funny thing is that the expensive engine of RRC cars is rather weak due to the small restrictor and since the R5 are supposed to have 2 mm larger they will be more powerful even with much simpler and cheaper unit.
R5 was intended to replace S2000NA cars at a fraction of their price. The problem is that S2000T (RRC) came in the middle of the process and now R5 costs will rise in order to match RRC speed.
That has nothing to do with “poor man S2000” original concept and it’s a missed opportunity to make national and regional series affordable.
In my opinion the above is the essense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arganil
Thinking twice about this news that MJW came with for 2014, I am starting to get cold feet.
If R5 will take over for WRCars as well, the cost will by default explode. And we will be back to the original issue, cost.
So better to keep the WRCars as is and keep R5 as a cheaper national/regional top class, as well as the new PWRCar.
Totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
WRC in their S2000T form should be ban from FIA regional championships and national sanctioned series. This way R5 could be developed as a contained budget top class, with costs closer to N4/R4.
The sport needs a new national/regional affordable 4wd category. Top level S2000 cars (T and even the latest NA models) are too expensive in todays economical situation. N4/R4 are “close to extinction species” and to found national series on 2wd machinery (like the brits did) doesn’t suit the fans.
No, the R5 came in time when the RRC already existed. Anyway RRC are not generally faster than 2.0NA S2000 (in some cases RRC is faster, in other S2000 is faster). There is therefore nothing new in the need for R5 to be competitive against the S2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arganil
As I said there isn't much to invent in suspension and drivetrain schema already used now. What can be easily replaced by much cheaper equivalent is the RRC engine and that's really easy. Just a play with restrictor size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJW
Is this info from a trustworthy source MJW, or just rumours?
WRC 1.6T rules were only introduced in 2011. They were intended to attract new manu(facturer)s to wrc and technical stability is essential to bring and keep manus involved.
VW commitment is for at least 3 years and Toyota has a history of long term involvement, so there's a fair chance that WRC 1.6T will stand in top for a long time (2.0TWRC were there for 14 years).
The delay from FIA decision over R5 it's maybe linked with lack of interest from manus. If R5 cars are now intended to match RRC pace they'll not be cheap. With the same speed and almost the same price of RRC, why bother to create this new category?
And there's also the bigger picture: with FIA really committed to wrc, as it now seems, will there be another chance for other international series to threat the world rally championship prominence, as IRC did a few years ago?
Perhaps not. FIA will probably try to centre manus interest over actual wrc cars (WRC and RRC derivates), avoiding to create a new "manus friedly" 2nd level type of cars, equivalent to the successful S2000NA concept.
No, in 2011 we had first season with ready cars but the rules were known long before.Quote:
Originally Posted by arganil
There is no lack of interest. At least three cars are sure in development now (rumors about five). I also don't know about delays from FIA side (maybe they are) but about delays from side of manufacturers. The price sure won't be same as in RRC case. Maybe it will be same or close to current S2000 but sure not to RRC. Running cost of Mini RRC is at least double compared to Peugeot or Fabia S2000!Quote:
Originally Posted by arganil
IRC is going to merge with ERC and therefore become an FIA championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by arganil
I think R5 would and should be between current S2000 and R4 in both aspects of power and maintenance cost. RRC remains for rich tourists only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arganil
Are you sure? Double is 100% more!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Judging on Basso's results your statement is totaly wrong.....Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
In a Micky Mouse type terrain and course, with a lot of stops and starts, the turbo with its torque will help the RRCs. But in a more flowing type of course, the S2000 have been quicker so far.
You know how it's called to take two samples of dozens and make a statement based on those two?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
Sometimes what we heard it isn't necessarily true...Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
From public released data (like the MSport site) an RRC car price is 25% higher than a full options S2000 car.
Maintenance and parts costs are very similar on components like transmission, suspension, brakes, steering and bodyshell. Only engine rebuild costs are considerable higher on RRC versions, because of the different engine specs (T+Di).
Even so, there's no way that the running budget of an RRC could be over 100% more than an S2000. It's probably under 50% more.
Check it out:
S2000 Sales Document
RRC Sales Document
The expensive problem in rally is not the part prices, but the manu's will to earnmaximum amount of money. It's only the manu's that can build and construkt a car, and they know the x-button on the calculator....
when you have to buy a car, and all the parts from 1 guy, and he is gready like h..l, there we have the biggest problem in sport. It should been posible to smaller teams to build a car with homologated parts ( 2-3 different options on front/rearaxle, gearbox, centetdiff, dampers and so on), in whatever chassis. Then more involvment from different manu's will follow, when you don't need 200 million euro's to start a campaign.
Of course the testing and development costs, but this should be the recipe for a cheaper pwrc/swrcish/national class. R4t/R5.
That's theory. Ask teams running those cars how much is their average cost per kilometer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arganil
Snijers :laugh:
Pech :laugh:
maybe you would also like to add Tlustak and Al- Kuwari :laugh:
Is there any news of an R4 version of the Megane RS N4 from Renault Sport?
Currently R4 rules allow only 4WD cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by prpr
R4T what is discussed in this thread is now newly called R5 and is entirely different class.
Maybe 'coz they are hobby drivers and they dont know how to set and drive these cars and theres nobody in their teams to help them. Anyway, 1,6t is only 1 year old, s2000 has been developed for about 10, even if we agree they are quite equal at the moment, after 2-3 years there will be a stunning difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
You are weird.
Love what you write here about Patrick Snijers in your post , tommeke_B. http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/icons/icon14.png ;)
Yes someone here must surely learn his lesson before he call someone a "hobby-driver who doesn't know what he's doing" instead of always to write nonsensical short post here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
Hobby driver is the one that doesnt drive for at least semi-factory preparator team. He may have spent all his life in his family garage with EX-employees and showed good results in local events but he can never understand, set and drive this car at full performance, like Sordo with Drive-pro or Basso in Mille with 3 M-sport engineers.
Provisional group5 regulations has been published 20.7.2012.
http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public...5.06.2012).pdf
I started to wonder if the rear suspension is going to be original (front and rear axle suspension). I couldn’t find any mention of modification of the rear ala S2000 & WRC. If the car has a torsion beam rear suspension, is there room for the prop shaft? Some modification must probably also be made to the body shell to make room for the rear diff.
Summary of homologations allowed as VR5 homologations:
Min weight 1200 kg
Engine:
Engine & gearbox mountings
Turbocharger
Turbo speed sensor
The maximum boost pressure will be 2,5 bar * *subject to additional tests
Supercharging air exchanger: Original or homologated in VR5
Maximum ratio: 10,5:1
Pistons
Connecting rods
Crankshaft
Engine flywheel
Cylinder head
ECU
Data recording system
The cam lift must be homologated in VR5, max 11 mm
Tappets / Rocker arms
Intake manifold
Intake valves
The throttle unit
Exhaust valves
Exhaust manifold
Exhaust system: The cut out in the rear bumper must be homologated in VR5.
Balancing shafts
Maximum engine revs being limited to 7500 rpm
The water pump
The radiator
The oil sump
The oil pump
FUEL CIRCUIT:
The fuel tank
The location of the fuel tank
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT:
The battery must be situated behind the driver or codriver seats (the new location of the battery must be homologated in VR5)
The alternator / starter
The starter motor is free and his position must be homologated in VR5
Diurnal lights (daytime lights) may be replaced with the substitute part homologated in VR5
TRANSMISSION:
Clutch mechanism
Clutch control
The gearbox
The gearbox control (sequential linkage)
Gearbox lubrication device and oil cooling system
Final drive
Mechanical type limited slip differential
Transverse and longitudinal transmission shafts
FRONT AND REAR AXLES-SUSPENSIONS:
All the suspension parts
a) Linkages
b) Reinforcement bars may be fitted on the suspension mounting points to the bodyshell or
chassis of the same axle, on each side of the car’s longitudinal axis
b) The reinforcement of anchorage points with additional material is authorised
Upper suspension points
The anti-roll bars, together with their anchorage points
Only shock absorbers and McPherson strut assembly homologated in the VR5 Variant may be used.
RUNNING GEAR:
Only the brake discs, callipers, handbrake and pedals homologated in the VR5 variant may be used
Master cylinders
If the anti-lock braking system (ABS) is disconnected or removed, the use of one or more
mechanical rear braking distributor(s) homologated by the manufacturer in the VR5 Variant is authorised.
Steering mechanism (housing and rack
Steering rods
Steering column
BODYWORK – BODYSHELL:
Additional openings on the engine bonnet must be homologated
The maximum width of the VR5 car is 1820 mm.
Seats:
- The harness fixings must be those homologated in VO/VR5 by the FIA
- Seat support and anchorages
The dashboard hump(s) may be modified but the modification must be homologated in VR5
The air conditioning compressor may be removed. The modification must be homologated in
VR5.
The safety foam and door panels homologated in VR5 must be used.
Sunroof / Roof hatch: original or homologated in VR5.
Windscreen: only series windscreens and windscreens homologated in VO/VR5 may be used
In my opinion there will be similar suspension layout like in the S2000 with 4x McPherson no matter what is on stock car.
To the tech specialists here: Does the R5 regs look ok, or are there things you would like changed - and if so why?
I don't feel like an specialist but I would hardly call it regulations. It's more a draft which doesn't say much.
And only five months to the beginning of 2013.
imho it seems to be very expensive.