What about group "B" ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josti

Well, to my knowledge, the S4 weighed under a 1000 kg's and had around 500 bhp. Hannu Mikkola himself states that the S1 was only around 4 seconds slower than a F1 car, but on a gravel track with the same lenght as where F1's where driving. In this case, I wouldn't say it's totally bogus...

---

And possibly father Christmas really exists...
The physical laws simply wouldn`t allow it to happen, Josti. If you put the F1 car on a gravel track however, it could possibly be true. But when did you last time see F1 cars racing on gravel...?!

Group B rally cars went on to race in rallycross after being banned from rallying. I was a regular at ERC rallycross events in those days, and still today remembers it as extremely spectacular. With lower weight than the rally cars and up to 700 hp. in rallycross trim, these cars were real beasts! Much as I would have liked it to be true, its impossible to believe that they were anywhere near F1 cars in performance on a 4.7 km tarmac racing circuit. Simply because they weren`t!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meeve

Thanks you all for answering me. I hope one day FIA will consider a new group "B", with of course a better gestion then they were back then. Today, can the WRC car compare to the famous group B car in term of performance? Because of the new technologies, it might be possible. If I remember it is now 300Hp maximum right? What is the difference between old group B and WRC car except for the engine limitation? Can you guys please help me with that?

---

Electronics,my friend,electronics...
If you compare an N4(production class) with 280 BHP and an WRC with 300 BHP that doesnt seem as a big advantage.But still an N4 costs 150.000 euros and a WRC costs 700.000 euros.
WRC cars are a lot faster than the group B cars.They ARE A LOT FASTER IN CORNERS.
At the 1993 Spanish (not sure) rally,Juha Kankkunen in a group a Toyota Celica ST185 made faster times on stages that were driven in the same lenght and conditions during the group B era.So group a cars were faster than group B cars.You can imagine how faster the WRC cars are.
I think that the group B should never happen again.

FULL ACK, Iskald! Ever so funny, that lotsa young people, too young to have seen the GpB beasts in live action, know great rumors, hearsay and grapevine stories about them. Some Rallycross cars proved to out-accellerate F1 cars from standstill to 120 or even 140km/h without any problems. And they were much more powerfull than their WRC counterparts as well as prepared especially for sprints rather than long special stages. But even the most powerfull RX GpB car I remember, Martin Schanche’s Ford RS200 E2 with its oversized 2.3l mill (about 650 'driveable' bhp), IMO would have never been able to set times to qualify for a F1 GP. BTW, all bhp figures for RX GpB cars above 600–650bhp I would call dyno-power and 'non-driveable'. And do not forget the fact that RX machinery has to use those very limited 250mm wheels/tyres since the 1977 ERC already…

I think that a very important reason for todays WRC speed is that the tyre tehnology has improved extremely.Everyone of the 300 horses is put on the stage and used properly.Imagine how it was to drive 450 bhp lightweight cars on primitive tyres

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iskald

We have discussed this myth many times, and it is of course just a myth!
Pole position for the 1986 Portugal GP was set by Ayrton Senna at 1.16.67 with an average speed of 204.24 km/h. The Estoril track has three straights were the F1 cars (also in 1986) reached speed up to and above 300 km/h. Henri Toivonens Lancia Delta S4 possibly had a top speed of 220 km/h. It was of course impossible for the rally car to do average speeds araound that track in the region of 200 km/h.

The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.

---

I also find this story hard to believe, but its the 85 Portugal times that you should be looking too, in 86 the event was on 21 Sep, and Henri was already taken from us, certainly how I have heard the story comparisons were to the previous years Gp, cant find much info on but seems Senna on pole again but his time was 1:21.007

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iskald

We have discussed this myth many times, and it is of course just a myth!
Pole position for the 1986 Portugal GP was set by Ayrton Senna at 1.16.67 with an average speed of 204.24 km/h. The Estoril track has three straights were the F1 cars (also in 1986) reached speed up to and above 300 km/h. Henri Toivonens Lancia Delta S4 possibly had a top speed of 220 km/h. It was of course impossible for the rally car to do average speeds araound that track in the region of 200 km/h.

The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.

---

Time might be right but did Henri drive the full lap...that's an intresting question ;)

Meeve: Don't believe that WRCs have 300 Hp. Plenty years a go they counted with 34 mm restrictor as a limitation of power. But the development goes on and as for today WRC have some 350 Hp but about 700-750 Nm of torque. The exact numbers are usualy secret...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sollitt

Meeve, you're new to the forum and that's great. We need more people with fresh ideas and comments.
But a word of advice. Don't believe everything you read here.
There are people on this forum who would blame the FIA for their dinner being cold.
There are conspiracy theories trotted out here that the CIA would be proud of, let alone the FIA.

They seem to have overlooked the meetings that the drivers themselves called to discuss their concerns. The fact that Audi, and maybe one or two others, had withdrawn before the sport's announcement.
Safety was the catalyst for change and no, you will not see anything like Group B again - sadly.

---

You're absolutely right sollitt except that you interpret these meetings wrong. The drivers met indeed, indeed they met at Toivonen's funeral, their main concern was spectator safety and indeed passive car-safety. If indeed banning group B would address these subjects then they thought it not wise to fight to fight the FIA to ban group B. They felt however, that banning group B would not alter any of the subjects and were therefore not in favour of banning group B.

Even the manufacturers met several times in the BPICA (delegates of manufacturers board for FIA), and discussing several different options besides a complete ban.

Restrictions on fuel, even the use of turbochargers, the use of Evo-models, the use of extensive aerodynamics, etc. The manufacturers really tried hard to save group B in any way, but the FIA simply refused and never did anything for spectator safety. The only rallys that addressed spectator safety on their own accord were the 1000 lakes and San Remo, without any guidelines being put forward by the FIA.

As for Audi, they quit because the FISA refuced to do something about spectator safety, even explicitly stating so towards Balestre. The FIA refused to come up with any guidelines for rally-organizers to increase spectator-safety, and that was enough for Audi to draw their conclusions. The fact that they weren't up the pace anymore compared to Peugeot and Lancia might also have something to do with that, but that has always been denied.)

And then there is the matter of group S, this was a proposal initially put forward by the FIA itself, and everyone agreed, because most engineers and manufacturers could see that the race for power-outputs was a non-ending battle to little avail. It would have been the perfect solution, but it too got banned.

Politics killed group B, and the safetyconcern was the tool they used to kill it, but not the reason.

"[…] It would have been the perfect solution, but it too got banned."

Group S was not banned but aborted. ;)

So now the WRC are as fast as the group B car. But there is not as much accident. Now that we have the technologies, and the knowledge, to go fast without killing ourself, why are the restriction so severe about WRC car? They are occasional accident but mostly it's not because of the car, is it? Why do the FIA don't rearange the restriction for group B?