Yes please, but its probably more real that Saab built a new wrcar:)Quote:
Originally Posted by danon
Printable View
Yes please, but its probably more real that Saab built a new wrcar:)Quote:
Originally Posted by danon
useless imaginary photoshops... all of them.
Perfect car for Nikolay ZlatkovQuote:
Originally Posted by danon
are you producing all these useless photoshops of garbage or you are searching for them on the interwebs and posting them ?
The thought of one of these hitting the stages gives me goosebumps! The old group B Audi Quattro is as popular in the minds of people today as it ever was!
Cool "fan concepts", eh?
I saw someone complaining that the 2017 new car will have to much grip and people want less grip to see the cars going sideways.... but... the cars will be faster, thats awesome. ANd c'moon.. Theres no such thing as "no sideways" in Rally... they will always have dirt on their wheels to make them go sideways!
We need a Chevrolet Cruze Coupe... with mad photoshop skillz.Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
http://i.imgur.com/z03TiMR.jpg
Cool should always be a consideration because deep down, everyone is still 10 years old and wants posters on their wall.
Attachment 740
Using PAINT, not Photoshop (heheh)... But I'd like to see more aero pieces for more downforce and less drag
IDK how to post them BIG... just click on it
Can You tell me how can You increase downforce and decrease drag in the same time? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by giu canbera
I know it's never going to happen, but that is bloomin' stunning!Quote:
Originally Posted by danon
Use a vacuum, like in the Chaparral 2J. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
http://www.sportscars.tv/Newfiles/2J%20Chaparral.html
There is a spaceframe Cruze in NZ - made as an endurance circuit racer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mitch...=page_internal
Hehe, 1:0 for You :pQuote:
Originally Posted by lewalcindor
Cost: How can a whole tube cars be expensive when all the parts are cheap?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Strength: A rallycar is a "tube ting" already, in that it has almost all its strength from the roll cage. Easily spotted in a crash, when only the roll cage is left. And judging from how they survive the huge crashes, NASCARs are quit strong.
Cost of repair: A rallycar (R2/R3/R5/WRC) is way to expensive to repair after a crash. This is because the roll cage is an integral part of the body, making the repairs very advanced compared to just taking the body off, putting the cage in a jig, and changing what is bent.
Compared to top level racing in Europe, NASCAR-type cars are incredibly cheap, and an extremely good value for money. That is why this type of American circle track racing is a much better business case than all of European motorsport. The return on investment for the sponsors are much greater. Why? The cars are MUCH cheaper. The cars are MUCH cheaper to run. Television broadcasting of the races are on another level. There are a lot more races.
Compare the prices of a new, or slightly used NASCAR-type car to European top level racing: LMP1, WRC, F1, or even WTCC. The European engineer driven motorsport is hugely expensive, and totally reliant on manufacturers to cover the bills. The sponsor money required to run even the lower feeder classes is enormous, and thats why we see so few really talented drivers coming up trough the ranks, even in WRC to challenge Ogier.
In the USA a huge number of drivers and teams get paid to come and race. Tell that to a European rally- or race car driver, and he won't belive You.
If we should build more excitement in the WRC it doesn't help with a car that is a few millimeters wider. A WRC-car should be so "cheap" to build and run that it would be such a good return on investment for the sponsors that it would be unwise to stay away.
Does it need to be a space frame chassis?
- It would be easier if every manufacturer had to start from one specified chassis, with a limited amount of modification.
- But it could also be done by making the R5-cars the WRC starting point, and have more powerful engines.
Should there also be other cost caps? Yes!
- All major components should have a cost cap, and also be made available for sale.
- Schock absorbers, gear boxes, diffs etc.
- Engines should also have a cost cap, and should also be able to buy for private teams.
- If there are discovered any changes between "factory" parts and the parts offered for sale, it should be heavily fined.
- The engine should be of a smarter/cheaper format to reach the performance goal. If You want to have 400hp and 800Nm, there is a lot of cheaper (and better sounding) ways to achieve that, than start from a 1,6 liter turbo engine with a restrictor.
Safety:
- The aerodynamics and damper travel should be limited for safety reasons, with the added benefit of the cars becoming more spectacular to watch.
This way we would have a lot more cars, and the teams would need to get their hans on real talent (not pay drivers), which again would lead to stronger competition, which in turn would lead to a much greater spectacle being a lot more interesting for TV, which then again would result in better sqedualing and more air time and higher payments from the TV-channels for the broadcasting rights. This would turn a negative spiral to a positive spiral. Which we need!
@Lundefaret, great theory! But as long as all decisions are being pushed by the manufacturers, things are not going to change in that direction...
I know.....Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
From NASCAR: An impressive 130 of all Fortune 500 companies are NASCAR sponsors.
From NASCAR/Margolis: At Hendrick Motorsports, which employs 500 people, sponsors are estimated to cover 65 to 70 percent of all infrastructure costs. The rest is paid for by race winnings and other endorsement deals.
Some NASCAR 2015 stats.
There are 18 official teams.
70 drivers have entered one or more of the 21 races so far.
11 racers have netted a victory.
23 drivers has been Top 5.
45 different drivers have been Top 10.
Lets make a dream WRC scenario:
10 "official" teams.
4 cars pr team. (Total of 40 "official" WRC cars)
2 "main drivers" pr team.
The 2 other cars available for specialist drivers (Tarmac/Gravel/Snow)
10 "private" teams with 1-4 cars pr team. (total of 10-40 "private" WRC cars)
Cost of WRC car: Cost capped to 200.000 Eur.
Safety:
- Strong spaceframe.
- Limited aerodynamics.
- Limited damper travel.
- Sentral seating.
- If needed for safety: RWD.
Engine/performance:
Cost capped engine: 30.000 Eur.
Min 5 rallies pr engine.
500 hp
600 Nm
1000 kg
(Or just use World Rallycross Cars)
The space frame rallycross lites made in Turkey at still expensive.
https://youtu.be/mjU__B6Oaes (Nascar robot welding tube car).
Maybe the Australian 'answer' of UTVs in rallies for less expensive 'current' vehicles. Certainly engine capacity is similar e.g Brendan Reeves R2 Fiesta ecoboost vs a Polaris RZR turbo
This will never pass (that cheap) 'cos guys like Wilson (and Richards in the past) must make some money...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
Haha, well, I don't think the boxy rear end of Chaparral reduced much drag to be honest. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
A boxy rear end (clean cuts) is actually a quite good way to not get more drag than necessary. The worst is having a "tail" that is has more than about 12 degrees slant, that will cause stalling and generate lift.Quote:
Originally Posted by lewalcindor
The Charparall is also pushing air in to the wake of the car, from the underside, wich also has a positive effect on the drag.
The "worst" thing with the Chaparral is its big frontal area.
The Lites are a very god point, tough I dont agree that they are expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeakiwi
The Lites are made quite cheap in Turkey, and sold with a very good profit.
A similar solution could have worked very well in rallying.
The last price for a Lite I heard was 185.000 Dollar, which is about 170.000 Eur (remember, a very good profit).
Thats the same price as a NASCAR, and an R5 rallycar.
And the Lites are comparably very easy and cheap to run. And it could be made even easier and cheaper.
And it would be easy to scale them up, making a WRC-car.
- The good thing with a Lite is very cheap/easy to change broken body parts.
- Internal chock absorbers, so if You take of a corner You only brake cheap metal stuff, not expensive suspension parts.
- Standardized production, making the cars cheaper to produce.
- A space frame construction making it easier to change out bruken parts, and cheaper and easier to change a whole chassis if needed.
----
UTVs are perfect for rallying (I have a Polaris RZR 800 XP4 my self), and the new RZR Turbo with 144 hp is much faster than an R2 rallycar.
They can also run on much poorer roads, making it much easier to find roads to rally on.
And they could make rallying quite watchable. I have been a driving instructor for Polaris at the Norwegian launch of the RZR1000 (not turbo), and ran on a big motocross track, jumping extremely high and far, with no problems regarding the suspension - and we were running a standard set up.
I have had my RZR for two years, and it has been extremely cheap to run (fuel, oil, oil filter). Nothing has broken (it has even rolled a couple of times), until I tore off one of the rear wheels last time I was out (I live on a forestry farm with A LOT of good rally roads for the RZR), and even that is costing pennies to repair compared to a "normal" rally car.
So a UTV based rally series would be very good :)
The main problem is the manufacturers. They dont want any other to build cars, so they can do whatever they want and suits them.
Maybe to ban manufacturers, and easier/cheaper buildt cars is the only way to get a decent championship again?
The car concept for 2017 is ok for me except the increase in aero downforce. More power and aggressiveness is what I welcome. The sound is quite OK but what I like to see is the aggressiveness of cars out of a corner like in the days of group B cars.
How about some global regulations with drawings, material definitions and measurements of parts that can be fabricated locally with any need of any homologation, only a passport from the local ASN.
The engine could be an engine big enough without any need of any high tuning. What I’ve read for example the BMW M3 used in Finnish F-Cup aren’t much tuned because about 300 hp is enough in the cup. My personal favourite would be a 2,5 – 3,0 litre V6 engine.
The transmission could be same or similar to what is used with the Maxi Rally cars. Well, the only options probably are Subaru or Mitsubishi or is there any other options?
This kind of formula would of course never get an approval from the manufacturers and never have a global championship but same kind of cars with their drivers could compete with each other and the performance of drivers could be evaluated in different parts of the world compared to the WRC or WRC2 drivers to find some new talents.
Some really good intetrsting talk here and just like in other series, manufacturers ego are "damaging" racing. But theres some people saying that we r close to the day manufacturers will turn to electric engines only and leave racing to garage companies that will be only interested in "build this engine/car under that specification, sell it and have a good day. Next week we see you to buy something to replace broken parts if needed".
useless photoshops for kids...
VW and Ford look great, Citroen is like a smashed frog, Yaris just looks weird....
They all look about 5% different from this year, so nothing to get excited about. I read in this week's Motorsports News that Markku Alen said:
There has been a lot of reference to Group B for some reason from various people and then this statement from Alen. I'm sorry but they will look different when you compare the 2016 cars to the 2017 cars but this isn't major changes we're talking about. All the 2017 cars will look just as similar to each other as the current ones do and sound broadly similar.Quote:
"At the moment you take away the sponsors names from the cars and they all look the same. The new regulation is coming in 2017 and we have all been waiting for 30 years. In Group B we have S4, Audi, RS200, everything looking and sounding different."
I'm sure someone like Jarmo Mahonen (correct me if I'm wrong) said that these regulations will provide much more variation but, again, I don't see it. Unless the FIA haven't told us some pertinent detail in order to shock the fans come 2017 Rallye Monte Carlo they will still be B-Segment cars featuring some bodywork appendages and large diameter wheels.
Don't get me wrong they may be great to watch and the best compromise between keeping costs down, keeping the manufacturers interested and giving something extra to keep the fans interested but I wish they'd stop trying to make out that this is something that it's not.
THIS IS NOT A NEW GROUP B. IT IS WRC 2017
I get that space frame cars would probably be cheaper, but we are forgetting where rallying come from... rallying started with a road car body shell that got faster and faster as people started modifying said shells. Top level rallying will lose all it's contact with its grass roots if we went space frame. The fact that we have top level rallying together with national events where you can see the same body shell compete in two different categories and know that both comes from the same production line means that you still retain some level of connection with the real world. Rally cars have to be road registerable after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
Also I think your magic cure-all cost formula will be ruined by competition pretty soon anyway. Like someone said, it will will probably be more cost efficient with an evolution of the regs rather than a revolution. I am sure the manufacturers would agree with me on that if they would read this.
I could agree in cost cap for components. There you are on to something. More engine power is seriously not a bad thing... I don't know if the aerodynamics are going to make a huge difference, we will see. The parts are so damn flexible anyway that i doubt that they generate much downforce. When I first read the regs and saw the mockup done by wrc promoter, I thought it would look ridiculous but now I am not so sure.
If the cars look anything like the mockups in this thread and around the interwebs they are going to be great! The Polo should start testing in winter so I am sure we will see pictures emerging pretty soon.
I think they reg changes are largely positive although I agree with what others are saying about the active center diff making a reappearance... That I don't believe in. It is going to favor set ups that will have the cars straighter through the corners which is something we want to strive away from (plus the cost issue).
I wish you'll able to say that to the artists..:heh:Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
BTW, why Fiesta has Focus RS face..??
This is true. Group B cars were all so different in design and layout and there were so few rules, only that 200 cars had to be made. Group B is history and its like will not be coming back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack4688`
WRC 2017 will just be another evolutionary change with cars just adapted to some new rules. This is normal and good to look forward to, but not the big deal its being made out.
Actually it is quite useless sinceQuote:
Originally Posted by Arnold Triyudho Wardono
a) it shows just authors imagination and nothing more
b) doesn't even respect the proposed regulations
How about that one... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...21444094_o.jpg
https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net..._7103558_o.jpg
It should been so nice if they could use cars like Audi TT, vw scirocco, hyundai veloster, etc, instead of the shoppingtrolleys.
what is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by danon
lol, these pictures get funnier every time.