Lousada: Oh, sorry, I made myself confused with other Swedish driver on Skoda - Lars Larsson I think (I don't know rallycross drivers very well).
Printable View
Lousada: Oh, sorry, I made myself confused with other Swedish driver on Skoda - Lars Larsson I think (I don't know rallycross drivers very well).
Very good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rover V8
I don't follow F1 much nor know much about the facts but I've understood that Toyota has had one of the biggest budgets every year. Frankly it shouldn't need that one guy in the office to realize how much they have spent to gain so little. It's obvious for all of us. :mark:
I'm pretty sure their success in WRC did way better to their status than crawling in F1 with ****ty car and ****ty drivers. :down:
How does the WRC make itself more promotable? It's already bent over backwards for TV, and look, it's now a pale shadow of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rover V8
But I agree, more Manufacturers aren't going to join if the current levels of promotion are still in place, no matter what cars or how cheap they are. Put yourself in the place of a Manufacturer, what are you going to get out of the WRC? The TV and media coverage is terrible, and the TV coverage shown is awful, why honestly would you join?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
The sport has become a shadow of itself by becoming easier for TV, as a result, the TV is boring.
I would PAY to get 1.5-2 hours of real quality footage of exciting rallying (including long in car, virtual spectator, and heli footage) on Sunday night after each rally. Similarly, I would PAY to watch footage from rallies that were spectactular, like Sweden, Finland, the real Australia, and of course, the Safari.
Rally isn't a sport that lends itself to nightly recaps (at least not in a cost effective manner). Accept that, do small web casts each night (that are sponsored to help pay for them) on WRC.com that are free, and put together genuine quality footage and just show it all at once at the end of the rally. A true fan will know the results before TV could ever be broadcast (unless it were live) so we don't need to constantly be bombarded with stage time results, we want to see the action!
Yeah, but for you, Americans, for example, it's rather hard to follow the WRC without TV, as most rounds are in Europe, far from USA...TV can't be that bad and can be helpful if you can't go to assist the rallies by yourself :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom206wrc
We've managed with Sunday night broadcasts, internet downloads, forums/news sites, so on and so forth for many years.
I've downloaded and burned to DVD every rally of the 2007 season, however, I have watched only 4 of them (Sweden, Norway, Finland and New Zealand). I haven't watched the others, not because I wouldn't love to still watch the action, but because the TV programs are so mediocore that unless the rally is over the top the TV show is underwhelming.
If the TV shows were better, I as a rally fan, would watch them, irregardless of a pre-existing level of knowledge of the results. Currently we have to make an effort to seek out coverage, but the coverage is not worth seeking out (although, that doesn't stop me). I think it is clear that if the coverage was better there would be more interest.
For cripes sake, isn't the WRC moving to pay TV in a lot of Europe right now. That is not the sign of a healthy series of events or shows. The current coverage is focused on reporting the event, this isn't working, if the focused changed from reporting the event to sharing the excitement I think viewership would go up....
Edit to add:
I also watched most of Germany on my laptop before I burned it to DVD while in my rental car waiting for stages to start at a US rally, so technically, I watched 5 rallies I suppose.
In all honesty, those decisions are made - as always in corporate world - by uninformed senior executives based on recommendations prepared by almost equally uninformed sycophants. Besides being the official Dilbert-view, I think this is also major part of the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
In addition, internal company politics play major part, just see at PSA how Frequelin's persistence paid out by not only allowing Citroen to get Xsara T4 to run at all but to continue at WRC even after Peugeot left.
But back to media coverage. Since decisions are made by those who don't care about the WRC as a sport but as a means to an end (read: marketing) and since all decisions where understanding of the content is lacking are made using metrics. The only metric available is viewings in hours and eyeballs and if you look at the official WRC Factbook (prepared by ISC, the 2006 version is here: http://www.walesrallygb.com/document..._Fact_Book.pdf), you'll note that quality of the coverage isn't mentioned.
So, for all intentions and purposes, WRC is getting better 'cause it's being broadcasted to a wider audience? Unfortunately, no, and that is why I do hope for the change for better.
I can't comment on budgets in that silly sport and I'd rather not know anything about it but there is one thing I've heard and readily accept. Participation in F1 is image marketing, merely being there is beneficial as it gets your name mentioned (much the same as for example being a title sponsor in olympics). It doesn't really matter whether you're successful or not as you get a lot of exposure by hiring drivers that are being interviewed often, even their personal lives detailed in women's magazines.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.F.F.
On the other hand, WRC is promotion of a single product of a company, not as much the company itself. That is the problem of all silhouette classes, corporate presence identifies itself very strongly around the car that is being raced and not the make of it. In the other words, WRC sells Focus, Impreza and C4, not Ford, Subaru or Citroen.
And guess which of these gets the big bucks, the image marketing or the product marketing? Does a "brand" ring a bell?
How much of that iconic status was tarnished by the turbo scandal? Admittedly, it's over ten years since but so are their glory years of WRC too. And even if John Doe never heard of it and most fans have already forgotten, the Japan and top brass of motorsport community has not. I think it was a small miracle they did return with Corolla WRC in 1997.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.F.F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
I think a return to WRC was nessary to show they could compete in a 'straight' car, to have walked away in 95 would have ruined much of what they had achieved in rallying in the previous few years
Yes a brand rings a bell. Maybe I'm an exceptional person but Toyota's crawling year after year doesn't really brighten their image in my eyes. Their budget is something the reporters always remember to tell. So, put an Avarage Joe in the pit-line and he'll know who's hot and who's not. Of course I can be totally wrong. Maybe it's Panasonic which pay 90% of their multi-million budget and 90% of the F1 fans just keep on saluting Toyota of the job well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
I don't think that status was any more ruined by a turbo-scandal than what happened at RAC -98 to Carlos Sainz. What they did with Corolla was however amazing and IMO they should put scandals behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
But if it's the same pride what keeps them remembering that incident that keeps them in F1, then I don't know what to say anymore :mark:
Stop the press !!!
According to MTV3, Toyota F1 team has two years time to succeed. This is what their team manager Tadashi Yamashima has told. http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/f1/uutise...2007/12/595701
So, apparently there is a bottom in their bucket too. Jolly good, come back WRc when you've done not succeeding ;)
When we talk about media coverage, besides day reviews which are actually quite good (we have to consider that cause of the nature of nowadays rallies, with few exceptions there is not much action in last 2 days). For me one thing that really shows that world of rallying lost their compass are so called TV stages, or spectator stages being run on stupid stadiums...that are really boring, shows nothing what rally is about, and even in cases when they can make better stages (this years Ireland) they insist on stupid head to head battle. The only real SS that were fun for watch were this years rally Norway TV stage and last year Cyprus TV stage, although it was dangerous for spectators because organizers put them on wrong places. On that part of media promotion I thing rally made big step backwards, I really miss old TV stages from 80s and 90s, like MC86 SS1 TV stage, many RAC rally TV stages, or even in Finland when they made in 99 fantastic Ruuhimakki SS TV stage not to mention Harju SS on streets of Jyvaskyla...and similar stages...I hope you understand what I mean.
And apart of all said to now about new rally classes, they are only one aspect that need to be changed...there are perhaps even more vital elements needed to be reconsidered...like length of SS, night rallying, repeating of stages!!! (honestly I would rather banned repeating the stages, especially nowadays with so limited number of different SS being driven), servicing the cars, tyre rules,...
And for the last, about rally being broadcasted in different countries meant that it is becoming more popular...honestly when you look at old rally reviews with all that huge crowd standing even on the road, with nowadays almost no spectators stages... I really don`t believe everything FIA said. Even in my country when we have this year first year of WRC coverages (in our national language), I didn`t watch them because they were boring and so badly made (they only made slovenian translation of english version, which was also heard in back...so stupid, and person who translated it have no idea what he is translating, so there were lots of stupid translations). It really turn me off watching it rather than made me spent an hour of my day watching interesting racing...And on internet there are quite lot of websites that offers much better and exciting (although being amateur) WRC clips...sadly that rallying can`t benefit from them cause perhaps rallying could be better promoted by them...
It is just my point of view...
That timeframe pretty well matches FIA's timeframe on the new WRC format as well.......Quote:
Originally Posted by A.F.F.
It also matches the timeframe on the new definite Le Mans regulations. Although they could probably do both with the money they are now spending on F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Not only yours, for much it is mine as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by matSLO
That was what I thought also when I read about it. Toyota's return to WRC would be very welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
It certainly would be, and while it may be wrong to wish mis-fortune on hard working people, lets hope the next 2 years aren't successful for Toyota. Maybe they'll realise their mistake, and return to their natural home - WRC!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MJW
Looks nice for me! :up:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...f/news_m10.jpg
Brother John: This only repainted blue car concept from Geneve. None of us probably (maybe someone from Skoda motorsport is here too) knows how Fabia S2000 looks in real.
As the S2000 is nowadays (2 litre normal aspirated engine) I don’t think it’s the solution. To get to the minimum weight, 1150 kg for gravel, the car can’t be big. The Pug 207 is about 4-meter car and has a weight of 1170 kg. The S2000 regulations say that the minimum length of a car is 3,90 m. For example Citroen doesn’t have a suitable car for this minimum length, the C2 is to short (3,66 m) and the C4 is too big to get down to the minimum with of 1150 kg. Toyota has the same problem although it’s smaller than the C4. The only solution IMO is a 2 litre turbo or a 2,5 litre N/A engine or maybe even a 3 l N/A engine with a restrictor to keep the power not getting to high but with a lot of torque. I would prefer N/A engines because of the sound. I think it’s quite easy to get from a 2,5 l N/A engines about 350 hp, which would be quite close to the power from a WRC car.
Ford Europe’s chief executive John Fleming said last summer in an interview when he was visiting at NORF that:
“Rallying supports well Ford’s sales and marketing. Rallying suites better the building of Ford’s image than F1.”
“When Ford decided to enter WRC a big weight was giving to that, that many of Ford’s customers like rally.”
Here are at least two reasons for why Ford is in WRC. So it isn’t always the money that counts. IMO the manufacturers make choices between different marketing channels and rally is one of them. One common factor is the visibility and the manufacturers ponder if the WRC gives enough visibility vs. required money and that’s why the car shouldn’t be too expensive to keep the overall costs down to attract more manufacturers. I think the sponsors are also important in rallying because they invite their customer to the events and then it would be good if they see spectacular cars (noisy, sliding).
Perfect. Infact my brother has just bought a Focus. Awesome car too, nothing compared to the FIAT Punto he got previously ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by OldF
We are going to see Montecarlo with that car :p
Torque is something that is essential in a rally car.
Why not base the new ladder of rally cars on the technology that more than 50 % of us are using in our private car - Diesel.
It has tremendous torque at very low revs, easy to tune (Change the chip) ;) and would make a sensible way ahead. Would it not ???
The germans have a Diesel Cup:http://www.hjs-drm.de/home.php
and maybe other countries as well.
Fiat has made a Punto R3D: as this one:http://www.autoaktuell.at/rallyeteam/ (Click Grande Punto button in the top left corner for the tech details)
Is Diesel one of the options on the way ahead, or at least as one of the new classes ?
Diesel? No...
First of all. Tuned diesel is very very non-ecologic and if FIA wants some bio fuel etc. in the future (simply some "green" technologies) it means no way (standard diesel is too, the only good think is low fuel consumption -> low CO2 emissions, but all the realy dangerous emissions are tragic).
Diesel cars have no sound at all.
Diesel engines are heavy and need massive clamping. That means bad weight distribution on the front and also bad overal weight.
Diesel has massive torque in very low RPM which means very low power. Simply the car may have 600 Nm at 1500 rpm, but that is only 128 Hp, yes it could be more in higher rpm, but not much, even 600 Nm at 3000 is 256 Hp only. And racing diesel won't be able to get to some higher rpm without loosing torque much.
More torque means more tension in any part. You know, You can get only 250 Hp diesel but with gearbox, differentials or driveshafts dimensioned on huge torque which means much havier all parts than for petrol engine with more power.
Torque itself is nothing. The more important is in which rpm You can get it because You need some speed. If You need only to pull something no matter how fast, than it's ok but if You need speed...
I don't understand, the Audi Diesel that has dominated the last 2 Le Mans is very fast as well as reliable. Sorry, I'm not mechanically minded, I know they produce loads of Torque, but this car is fast as well, though it is very quiet, almost a whooshing sound.
You know, they have different rulles for diesel cars than for petrol cars... Basicly You can have 6 liter normaly aspirated or 3,5 liter Turbo petrol engine. But Audi is 5,5 liter bi-turbo diesel. I think that this doesn't need any other explanation.
PS
Le Mans prototypes has its engines close to the centre of gravity that means much less problems with havier engine.
one of the main reasons the WRC coverage has become so poor is it is impossible to create an interesting program when you have only got 2 competitors winning rallies and stages ,with only 1 other who is capable of winning the odd event when the situation allows.
You cannot promote a championship with only 3 competative crews and that is the reason that until
1 costs
and
2 relative % of competativeness between the rich teams and the not so rich teams is narrowed to a point that when you have a hot young driver who is on a mission is able to post some fastest stage times and get in the mix with the top drivers even though he would still stand no chance of winning championships as money always wins championships
This can only be achieved in a more basic and technoligy stripped car such as super 2000
One of the strong rules in super 2000 is that the homoligation is over 4 years and the number of joker upgrades during this time is very limited .this will severly limit the amount of advantage that can be gained by endless testing and development
If the WRC was to adopt the super 2000 concept with the only change being a 2.5 litre engine then you would have a formula to truly bring back the noise,competativity and exitment that has been lost completely over the last few years
Then you will have a story to sell that is interesting and so people will want ot watch and so the trend of diminishing audience and sposor interest will be reversed.
What kind of figures could we expect from a 2.5 ltr NA engine ?
Simply it depends on the rulles. For example engines of S2000 and F2 were both normaly aspirated 2.0 litre but both had big differences in the rulles and nowadays I think about 320 Hp would be possible to achieve in F2 rulles...
That’s true that continuous development of the WRC cars that is IMO the biggest reason for costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by flat out fred
There was a good example on the M-Sports old Web site. The Focus consists of about (I don’t remember the exact figures) 2500 parts of which 400-500 came from the standard car and of those 400-500 parts only 40-50 hadn’t been modified at all. WRC car = hand made car. The S2000 regulations prevent the continuous development of the car very effectively.
Another good example was in the interview of Christian Loriaux at crash net where he told that to decrease the weight 20 kg is not from one part but 100 g from 200 parts!
A WRC team is a quite big company also. By Guy Frequelin Citroen had 250 people working before the “holiday year”. When they joined again at the beginning of 2007 (no more active diffs etc.) they needed “only” 175 people.
My guess is about 340-350 hp. A S2000 Pug has 280 hp = 140 hp / litre * 2,5 = 350 hp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Good post!! I quite agree, Ford are the Manufacturers Champions, but to be brutally honest, they only had 1 team to beat - Citroen( Subaru are a shambles). It's hardly worth advertising the fact that they are the WChampions!Quote:
Originally Posted by flat out fred
[/QUOTE] guess is about 340-350 hp. A S2000 Pug has 280 hp = 140 hp / litre * 2,5 = 350 hp.[/QUOTE]
Since Torque is a big issue in rally, what would the difference in torque be between S2000 and S2500, including torque range ?
[/QUOTE] My guess is about 340-350 hp. A S2000 Pug has 280 hp = 140 hp / litre * 2,5 = 350 hp.[/QUOTE]
Since Torque is a big issue in rally, what would the difference in torque be between S2000 and S2500, including torque range ?
Don,t know exact figures but i believe a diamond millington at 2.5 litre is pushing between 220 and 240hp with adequate torqe figures to make it all work and all for a price of circa 20 - 25k.
Andy Burtons Peugeot cosworth is 2.5 nat aspV6,goes like s**t of a shovel and makes the hairs on the back of your neck rise when you hear it coming.It is also twice as impresive to watch compared to any W.R.C.
Any news of the McRae SX4 project, or did that also die along with Colin ?
That one is also using a 2.5 NA is it not ?
i like the s2000,but there are 2 problems
1.VALUE FOR MONEY
A s2000 car costs 168.000 euros minimum,plus spares
A real N4 Evo 9 from a proper team,for example Ralliart Italy, costs around 135.000 euros.paolo andreucci almost won the title with an evo 9
Plus you have to service an s2000 after every 2 rallies,while an Subaru or evo must be serviced twice a year
2.TORQUE because of the lack of turbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
:confused:
The only McRae concept auto project I know is the 4WD for the Rally-Raid...
You're forgetting the R4.
Bur R4 can't be homologated for rally since it has no production base...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
I made some comparison with other NA engines and it seems that at top power there is about 80%-90% of the top torque in use. With an engine producing 350 hp @ 8500 rpm the torque would be 285 Nm (lb-ft = 285 * 0,7376 = 213 lb-ft). If 90% of the torque were in use at top power, the top torque would be 321 Nm. If the percentage is 85% the torque is 340 Nm and with 80% the torque is 361 Nm.
If the engine produce 350 hp @ 8000 rpm the results are:
90% = 341 Nm
85% = 361 Nm
80% = 384 Nm
The torque range I believe depends so much on the engines attributes (camshaft timings etc.) so it’]http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=14836[/URL]
This is still quite far away from the torques of Subaru and Mitsubishis grp N cars torques.
Subaru: 285 hp @ 4400 rpm / 570 Nm @ 3500 rpm
Mitsubishi: 292 hp @ 4300 rpm / 580 Nm @ 3300 rpm
I’d still prefer a NA engine with higher revs and lower torque. And if the cars had a fixed front/rear torque split 40/60 they would act more like a rear wheel drive cars, which would be more spectacular.
The formula I used in my calculations:
P (W) = T (Nm) * 2 * pii * n (1/sec)
P = power
T = torque
2 * pii * n = angular velocity
To make it easier to calculate and use hp and rev/min in the formula I made the following:
1 kW = 1,36 hp
1 rev/min = 1/60 rev/sec
1 W = 0,001 kW
(2 * pii * 1,36 * 0,001) / 60 = 0,001424
Now the formula is P (hp) = T (Nm) * n (rev/min) * 0,0001424
For example the R4 torque at top power is T = P / (n * 0,0001424) = 340 / (7900 * 0,0001424) = 302 Nm and 302 / 332 * 100 = 90,96%.
And the cost of a S2000 is not just the 168.000 €, this is the price of the S20000 kit. The price of a S2000 that is ready to race is much higher (http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...12634-p-3.html)Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
So the inclusive price for a S2000 is about twice than a full spec N group car.
But I think FIA is not talking about that the future WRC cars had to be a group N or a S2000 car but a car BASED ON GROUP N OR S2000. IMO that could mean that the WRC car based on group N would be allowed more advanced suspension, some engine parts replaced (pistons, camshaft). That could get the prices more close to each other. For a S2000 it could mean a turbo or if not a turbo perhaps a mechanical supercharger (roots).