It's big difference in comparison with exactly one year old testing videos of Polo WRC before Germany 2012.
Printable View
It's big difference in comparison with exactly one year old testing videos of Polo WRC before Germany 2012.
When watching the videos from VW on Brauneberg, you realize how fast things change... I was there in 2007, when Duval was testing the Xsara (who had a suspicious C4-sound) from Kronos. The difference between my experience then and the video now is so big, hard to describe. To my feeling the biggest difference is the exit from low speed corners. :) Would be so nice if someone goes to some testing sites that are used year after year, and compare some things like cornering speed, with a speedgun. :p
I still don't get it.....do the new, 1.6 l engines accelerate faster?? Because the torque is still lower compare to old 2.0 liter engines....don't jugde on the sound, as the new cars are louder.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
The speedgun would be a perfect solution, indeed.....
With sound off it still looks faster... :) I believe that up to 4th gear the new 1.6-generation accelerates faster. In Belgium we compared Snijers-MiniWRC01A to Tsjoen-C4WRC08, and up to 4th gear was quite equal. Only when the speed got higher, the 2L WRC was faster. And that is a car that loses probably 0,3-0,5s/km to the other current top-WRC cars. About why the acceleration up to some speed is equal/better compared to the "old" cars, I think we have to search the answer in the gear ratio, transmission etc. But I'm sure there are some people who can give a better explanation than I can. :)
As stated in a different thread, engine torque does not mean much when it comes to performance comparison. What matters is HP & RPM and the gearbox ratios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ucci
1.6L engine have similar power curve as their 2.0L ancestors (only with higher RPMs, probably compensated by a shorter gearbox), so it is safe to assume that their performance are similar. On the other hand, much improvement has been done on suspension, tyres and general handling of the cars (I guess switching to smaller hatchs plays some role in that), hence higher speeds :)
Totally agree. Probably I could add the shorter wheel base as an advantage to the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by miniwintz
I don't agree. The power curve of new cars must be very different. For example I believe that the one of Focus 08 was almost flat between 3000 and 7000 rpm which is half of the rpm range. No way current cars would have same power in 4000 rpm range. I guess the comparable peak area must be now shorten to something like 2000 rpm which is a quarter of the entire engine range. Torque matters much more on twisty roads than in acceleration on straight where it is rather easy to shift ideally. What actually helps new cars in acceleration is the absence of central differential. I believe it could take around 5% percent of power for it's own loses (the same diff would probably take more Hp with new cars than with the old because of higher operating rpm).
Anyway I personally don't find acceleration of new car somewhat special and definitely not better than of the old cars, even with recent shorter gearing.
Engines must be evolved all that time I believeQuote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
No, that's impossible. New engines have 20% less capacity, half turbo pressure and smaller restrictor. That itself means their characteristics must look completely different than those of the old engines. Direct injection is of course good but can't completely change the engine characteristics.
VOLKSWAGEN WRC: All the videos of Volkswagen Motorsport's recent pre-Rallye Deutschland tests with Sębastien Ogier, Jari-Matti Latvala and Andreas Mikkelsen can be found here - in one convenient place: Volkswagen testing for Rallye Deutschland 2013 - ThingLink
Yes, you're probably right about the engine, and I couldn't find any detailed characteristics of the 1.6l WRC engines. But I still think the drivetrain is much better in corner handling and probably makes the whole difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
The only I could find is these specifications (DS3's look much less powerful here than Polo, Polo peak torque looks impressive):
Citroën DS3 WRC - Citroën WRC
Volkswagen Motorsport -*Technical Specifications - Polo R WRC
http://www.crash.net/world+rally/fea...fications.html
425 NM of torque at 5000 RPM means that the Polo has ~300 HP at 80% of the max power revs, meaning that there is 20% of the engine range where power is near maximal.
For comparison, Focus WRC's engine was rated for max power (300 bhp) between 4000 - 6500 rpm so yes the range is wider, but Polo's engine has 5% more peak power :D
But still, those figures are not very meaningful without the associated curves.
I think Polo's 1.6L engine is really close in terms of performance to what was done in the 2.0L era, Citroen and Ford might be a little bit behind (on paper...), but that's just speculation.
According to these papers, Loeb must be really good driver :D
Guys, don't believe these press numbers. They have nothing to do with reality and Your assumptions will only go wrong way if You judge anything from them. Or do You believe Focus WRC had 20-30 Hp less than ten years older Corolla or Octavia? ;) The torque figures are even more out of reality.
What is the real hp of 2,0L and 1,6L wrc engines? Somewhere between 330 and 390hp I guess...
The restrictor limits the maximum theoretical output of WRC cars engines.
With the 34mm restrictor of 2.0L engines, theoretical limit was around 330 hp IIRC, a bit less with the new 33mm one, but engine efficiency is also increased with the newer engines so it might be similar all in all.
Anyway, on a side note, Mirek you are absolutely right that those press numbers are most likely full of sh** :D
According to Citroën, max torque on their DS3 engine is 350 NM at 3,250 and max power is 300 hp at 6,000 RPM. That doesn't make sense since 350 NM, even at 6000 RPM, wouldn't be sufficient to produce 300 hp :D And inversely 300 hp at 6000 RPM means 356 NM of torque which is higher than "the maximum torque" of 350 NM announced.
Either one of the figures is false, or both, most likely :D
Btw now that I think about it that also stands for the (unofficial) figures of the Focus' engine specs, 550 NM of torque at 4000 RPM means 330 hp which is higher than the announced max power output of 300 hp... All in all it's hard to judge without real dyno tests, which we will never see I am afraid :(
Octavia WRC in 2002 had 320 Hp and 600 Nm. The best Fabia WRC in 2006 had some 340 Hp at 4500-5500 rpm and 640 Nm at 2500 rpm if I remember. That was with in that time already obsolete 20V engine. In that time Focus WRC had already 750 Nm if my information is correct (with similar peak power but in much larger rpm range). Latest 2.0 cars must have been over 800 Nm in my opinion and the power between 350 and 400 Hp.
I agree with Mirek about the difference of old and new WRC cars torque / power curves.
Race Engine Technology - Dec/Jan 2012 (posted originally by makinen_fan)
At the same time, a mandatory 8500 rpm maximum engine speed has not had any real impact since, because of the effect of the restrictor, the current engine operates primarily within the 5750 - 7250 rpm range.
The high-torque 2.0 litre engine was very close to its maximum power output all the way from 4000 to 7000 rpm. It thus had a spread of useful power twice that of today’s engines. Of course, the previous-generation WRC engine was an “oddball” thanks to the exploitation of extremely high boost.
Arnfield says, “We could make those massive torque numbers with the 2.0 litre engine whereas now, with the limit on manifold pressure, we are more in line with more normal competition engines – our torque curve is a more conventional shape.”
I highly doubt WRC engines could produce 350 or even 400 hp with a 34mm restrictor in the turbocharger. With 33% engine efficiency the theoretical upper limit is 335 hp
WRC engines - Forum - F1technical.netQuote:
Avoiding the details of the calculation and assuming standard pressure and temp with a 34 mm restrictor the max mass flow is about 0.22 kg/s; let’s say A/F = 14 hence 0.22 / 14 = 15.7 10–3 kg/s fuel.
Energy per unit mass of fuel (the heating value) is about 47-48 MJ, and the engine efficiency is usually about 32-33%, hence as first order approximation we can reasonably hope to extract something in the order of 15.7 * 48 * 0.33 = 248 kW, make it 250 kW = 335 hp.
Based on that calculation and given that very likely max power isn’t the main concern in the application, I would say that probably best engines are between 320 and 330 hp.
Now with the 33mm restrictor, it's very likely that the max output is not far away from 300 hp
evo 9 34mm restrictor 360bhp 600nm....
great!
While Mads is still in the air admiring the treetops, the Polos are already in the next corner.
Maybe the Polos are much heavier... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Miika
Does anybody know were is the location of the Ostberg's test?
nice sounding!
Does anybody know wich teams wil be testing for Germany? And where this woud be? We stil have week of vacation to come, soms maybe we can go and check It out.
This is what I found on the German forum. Not sure how reliable it is though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvel
03. Juli VW Veldenz
04. Juli VW Brauneberg
05. Juli VW Brauneberg
26. Juli KNAF Riol
03. Aug. ADAC Opel Cup Drohn
09. Aug. Citroen Trophy Walz Brauneberg
09. Aug. Citroen Veldenz
10. Aug. Citroen Kinheim
12. Aug. Ford M-Sport Riol
13. Aug. Ford M-Sport Ensch
14. Aug. Ford M-Sport Ensch
15. Aug. Ford M-Sport Kinheim
16. Aug. P3 Veldenz
16. Aug. Buckley / Bolland Ensch
17. Aug. Buckley / Bolland Kinheim
18. Aug. Ford M-Sport Riol
You can relie on that info. Haven't seen much false information the last couple years.
2 test sessions on gravel with the i20 in France with Hanninen, Bouffier and Atkinson :
Essais terre pour la Hyundai i20 WRC
Video of the final test day for Citroen Abu Dhabi WRT at Baumholder (Panzerplatte) preparing for WRC Rally Germany with Mikko Hirvonen and Dani Sordo
http://youtu.be/Jnb0kz284K4
Somewhat crazy isn't it? Full testing days for one 41km stage that's run twice. :p
Maybe, but the concrete areas are very abrasive so tyre choice is critical. Also they want a closed road with some distance to see how the brakes and tyres go with some heat in them, not something that's possible in 5 kms of Veldenz vinyard. Finally (and most important) Mikko needs as much rapprochement with asphalt as possible because it seems he forgets every year ;)