Barum tires...Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
Printable View
Barum tires...Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
no they were fine so far for wrc2017 & Pikes Peak, the last ones I didn't get what they're for....
for a change
But, but... they can. Each of those cars You named can be homologated as WRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by skarderud
Ah, I get it, funny indeed....Quote:
Originally Posted by danon
They can homologate a VW Phaeton too, but they wouldn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
The Audi TT should have a short enough wheelbase to work.
Why wouldn't they homologate that? What's the drawback? It seems inherently aerodynamic (to a layman who doesn't know shit about aerodynamics).
I get that Audi probably won't return while vw is in the championship but it sounds realistic to me.
WRC regs basically mean that most of the field has a wheelbase of 2,480mm and a width of 1,820mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by itix
The TT which sits on the MQB platform; which is also what the Audi A3, VW Golf and Skoda Octavia sit on, has a wheelbase of 2,505mm and a width of 1,832mm.
Audi could very easily homologate the TT if they wanted to but I suspect that an Audi rally car is more likely to be either an A3 or an A1 so that they can exploit the Quattro heritage. Besides which, Audi is already playing in sports cars and the DTM. The group is already doing fine.
Sure, but in '17 they'll be wider so they should be able to fit it to the regs. I get that it is difficult to make that kind of car competitive in rally... or at least that's how it seems to me. I remember reading somewhere that the Celica was very difficult to build to be competitive and that to stay ahead they basically had to resort to the infamous cheat when the restrictors were introduced as they previously had kept ahead via superior engine power. IIRC it had something to do with the rigidity of the body shell or something like that. Correct me if I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I thought they had a TT quattro already? Maybe I am wrong... they would certainly have gained fans and following if they did since it would be something different. I genuinely expected Toyota to run the GT-86 rather than the Yaris upon their return for that very reason!
Guys, don't try to search for more complicated reasons than they actually are. They use Polo because of marketing. All others use B-segment cars and that's why they do so as well.
Yes, that's exactly the point. There is nothing in the regulations which would forbid them from using TT or Veloster or whatever for WRC. It's just their own decision to use Polo or i20.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack4688`
Yes, but isn't it also true that if you're allowed to use a car that is 3900mm long (as per the 2017 regs) and that, for example, you have a B-segment car that is 3950mm long and a C-segment car that is 4250mm long you would use the shorter one for competitive advantage (assuming the marketing bigwigs said either one is as good, you choose)?
I don't know much about the rules in the early 2000s but wasn't the Peugeot 206 seen as having an advantage by being the shortest and therefore more agile? They even had to homologate a 4000mm long version of the road car over the standard 3830mm car. Length has high-speed stability advantages but still Skoda decided to drop the long Octavia for the short Fabia, thought not with much success...
Point being, nowadays you build a WRC car with your smallest regular passenger car available/possible i.e. VW will choose the Polo over the Golf, the Scirocco wouldn't get a second thought and the Up! is ineligible, same goes with Toyota for Yaris, Auris, GT86, Aygo and Hyundai for i20, i30, Veloster, i10.
True but in my opinion Scirocco isn't worse car to make WRC from than Polo (quite the opposite). For that reason I think that it's about marketing there. Same with new 5D i20 versus i20 coupé (this is what I don't understand at all). Golf, Auris were too big for current regulations, not only by dimension but also due to weight. It was much harder to get in the weight limit with 1.6T cars than with 2.0 WRC which had more free regulations. On the other hand I think that cars like Up! are too small for proper weight distribution and fitting everything in (including the crew).
Space framed cars were used in Group B to great effect, so it has a history in rallying.Quote:
Originally Posted by itix
The challenge now is that the cars (WRC, R5 etc) are so highly developed that starting from a standard car is a problem, rather than a benefit.
Long gone are the days of Group A where You had "mildly" modified road cars out on the stages.
A space frame/purpose built rally car (top level, nationally and internationally) could, if combined with cost caps on components, reduce overall cost of running a said car over a season. Crash damage can be made much cheaper (bodywork, internal dampers etc), it would be much cheaper to have different body styles (makes/models), or to make specialized veichles like the RS200, 6R4 etc.
But I know as well as anyone that this will not happen very likely :)
One idea is to take a modern World RX car (rallycross), and test it on a rally stage.
Here You have huge power, "simple" construction, and it would be easy to limit damper travel and aerodynamics.
How would that look on a special stage?
The "changes" that will come in 2017 will make the cars look and go a little more like the original WRC cars, except that their decing/layout will be much more similar than the original WRC cars.
The most cost innefective class now i believe is the R3T-class. A Citroen DS3 R3T costs uppwards of 90.000 Eur, is not much faster than an R2, looks boring, and sounds boring. And all tough it is marvelous to drive (I have had the pleassure of testing one), compare that to a Rallycross Lites car, wich is in the same price range, but with 4WD, a mid mounted engine, and 300 HP.(This is not Citroens fault, its just the regulations.)
The 206 I know something about since it is my favorite WRC car ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack4688`
They wanted to return to rallying but had no suitable car over 4 meters that wasn't due to end production (306 wasn't going to be produced anymore) which was the regs for the world rally at the time. They therefor built the 3800 something millimeter 206 in an extra long extended homologation special that was 4000 and a few mm long.
This gave the Peugeot the shortest wheelbase of all cars which made it agile but nervous. It was also said to be pain in the ass to build for Peugeot sport because they could not fit the engine well (among other things) so they had to run the output to the center diff through a bevel gear.
The short wheel base made it a killer on Tarmac but difficult on rough rallies like acropolis which is why it only won once.
As far as I have understood they ran an engine from a 406 and it went out of homologation in 2004. That coupled with other issues which I don't remember (and pressure from the top) meant that they switched to the butt ugly and horribly failed 307 cc and ultimately ended their participation in rally (I am with Grönholm that they should have stayed with the 206).
I even bought a 206 as soon as I got my licence due to that rally car. Currently on my second one now.
I get that it would be cheaper but I am really not a fan of the idea. I don't like the RX cars and I was a fan of the diversity of Group B, but not the space frames or midmounted engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
To build or buy a customer car as a space frame is slightly more difficult. Smaller teams that run Msports etc would be more dependent on the jig of the mother company in case they crash rather than just straighten the body shell again.
... And it really would distance it from the lower categories. You'd always have amateurs show up in their lower class actual cars that aren't a plastic toy and I don't know about you, but I would feel that those were real cars rather than the space fram thing series it was supporting.
Theoretically, you could take the makings of a wrc or R5 car and stuff or full of showroom interior and you'd have one hell of a shopping car.
In the space fram car, the ikea chairs wouldn't fit for all the scaffolding and the milk would just fall through and never be reachable again.
I feel so much more connected with a car that is actually a body shell than some disused scaffolding...
I agree that your ideas make sense to the wallet and the brain, but it does not to my rally heart.
From what I understand, the ST185 and ST205 Celica GT-Fours were horrible cars for rally work because they were so low slung. I've driven a GT-86 once and it was a very low to the ground car (and a boneshaker). I would hate to be the engineers to work out a different set of geometry needed to raise the ground clearance on the GT-86.Quote:
Originally Posted by itix
PS: The GT-86 doesn't really deserve that title at all. The Current Corolla is E150 and the GT-86 is not a Corolla. The XP150 Yaris is closer in spirit to AE86 than the Toyobaru is, no matter how good it is.
307 wasn't that bad car like it is remembered. One of the reasons why it failed was switch to Pirelli which had big problems in those times. Remember that 307 WRC became highly successful in the hands if privateers in 2006 and 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by itix
Peugeot 307 WRC had very powerful engine. More powerful than Xsara for example (but Xsara was better to setup)
Also, given the situation with the drivetrain/gearbox misery, it was almost an overachiever. I think too that if they stayed with Michelin for 2005, they might have been even closer to Citroën than they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
At least it has shown PSA that using a gearbox with low number of gears isn't a good idea even if more gears are theoretically redundant. I guess it was one of the reasons why Citroën stayed with 6-speed gearbox even with C4.
They should easily have been able to stuff said engine in the 206 the magicians from pipo moteurs should have been able to sort that out, no issues there... If they had stayed with the 206 and the 5 speed they would have had more manufacturers titles.
"I am fed up with this car"
-Grönholm about the 307
Anyway, we are hiking pretty far off topic now hahahaha.
Does anybody think it is likely that Peugeot will return to WRC if PSA mates Citroën give up?
They should (in my hopeful mind) be able to take over since they are the same house and all.
I was thinking the same about Peugeot, but seeing the hash they've made of the R5 car I am not sure this would be a great time to approach the board and tell them you can build a WRC-winner.
Peugeot Sport and Citroën Sport is two separate entities with higher walls between them than You might think.Quote:
Originally Posted by itix
Its VERY unlikely that Peugeot enters WRC anytime soon, this is because of the poor TV/Media coverage, wich yields low ROI.
They are focussed totally on Dakar, with smaller "privateer" efforts like in RX with Hansen, and one-offs like Pikes Peak.
BTW, the 307 WRC was hampered in the beginning also by a very free spirited central active differential, that was as predictable as a North Korean leader.
The engine was great, and the car was developed to be the fastest privateer WRC car.
But staying with the 206 would have been better, no question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodge33cymru
Peugeot Sport and Citroën Racing are more or less one entity. In two months they shall even share same facility in Satory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
That's not true. Matton presented the results of PSA marketing studies to public just weeks a go. He said literally that in the world of car motorsport there is only F1 upon the WRC level of publicity and popularity and that any other forms of motorsport are way behind. He also expressed that they are very unsatisfied with WTCC. He also said that their partners namely Abu Dhabi very much prefer to stay in WRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by dodge33cymru
The question if Peugeot will go to WRC or not is purely about internal politics in PSA and I do expect that Citroën stays there.
Peugeot 207 powered by a Formula Renault V6 engine - Next level WRC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMAR9mBFN4c
Quote:
Originally Posted by danon
woooow!! Damn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5WALqr9KTw
Its not a 207,
No it is a space frame with a WRX fibre glass body I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyoda
Here is another vid about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1blrI7kt6m8
(Thats the one I wanted to share ^)
I have followed that project for a while, it is pretty cool! The dude has dedication in abundance!
Also the title "too fast for the WRC" is hilarious given that he had problems beating S2000-cars in Whangarei.
Sure if you think beating Pontus Tidemand by 37 seconds after the first 2 proper stages is problems then you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by itix
Ah... I must have missed those two stages completely. I followed the times of Tidemand and saw he was behind on the first two and then never saw him again in the top and just assumed he fell in the order. Saw now that he retired on stage 6. My bad! Sorry for that one Alex.
I assume the clutch issue was what kept his time low on SS5.
A perfect modern rallycar:
3,5 V6, 8500 rpm
An interview with Alex Kelsey on his MC2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5WALqr9KTw
It's not perfect. 3.5 V6 is the last thing what marketing people from car makers want. I would even say that ideas like that make their hair stand.
Very much like the Peugeot Cosworth of Andy Burton. It's perfect from a fan point of view, but as you say, the Manufacturers want 'road relevant' technology - so we get 1.6T engines which sound less than great.
Actually he turned the wrong way at a corner and was stopped for a minute before spectators turned him around. For some reason he was unable to select reverse. I was at the end of stage 5 and he was far quicker than any of the other cars at that point.
Actually he was briefly sponsored by Peugeot NZ before he dropped them because they were too much of a hassle. And besides, Alex is the manufacturer not Peugeot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Alex isn't going to change the world of rallying. You missed the point.
I don't think he set out to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
He and pretty much everyone else in the NZ1 class seem to do pretty much what they want. Are there even rules in that class? People seem to enter pretty much everything, Block included. Someone named Emma has built a 4WD Suzuki swift (she's some kind of Suzuki dealer in the NZ it seems) etc etc.
Home built madness seem to be the menu
I was refering to this post: http://www.motorsportforums.com/show...=1#post1061840
It started with words "A perfect modern rallycar"
It's nothing against Alex or anything happening in NZ. It's purely stating the fact that it's not a perfect modern rallycar as such car is nothing manufacturers want to see and as such it's never going to play any significant role in the world of rallying.
it is correct, V6 engines are just not for current b segment cars. C, D segment, but not B. MC2 looks awesome on New Zealand stages, though it is still B segment car (I believe), but the headline seems proper - too fast for WRC. It would be another group B madness for such cars.
Alex made the car because he likes rallying and going fast. He wanted to make something that would get spectators back to the stages and bring back the spirit of group b. In NZ he has definitely achieved that. But you are right about manufacturer interest. This is a one off build and while it would be awesome to see a bunch of these cars in the wrc, it won't happen.