What about group "B" ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo

Hey making a bit more noise won't kill off the pandas or whales. Bring it on.

---

Here, here!! Most of the current WRCars sound like strangled farts!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosmicpanda

But then again, who says that cars must be 4wd? Clarkson, May and Hammond drove across Africa in 2wd cars, not to mention the incidental fact that rallying got by quite nicely without 4wd for a time before Audi brought it in. Certainly the RWD cars I've seen on the stages have been spectacular.

---

:up: I agree forget 4WD and bring back 2WD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jparker

Nice first post :)
I guess most people in this forum (age 35 and up) know exactly what you mean. The roar, the burst of power, the wide slick tires, and fierce fights ......... all memories now. I bet that if somebody puts today's top WRC drivers in Group B cars, they all going to be "Rautenbached©A.F.F".

---

I wonder why some people think current WRC drivers are useless morons...
Did something changed in the human DNA code? making people born after 1970 are slower and more prone to crash when driving?

As posted by other members, surely they're not even half as spectacular as group B was but WRC cars are probably faster...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Bettega and Surer slammed sideways in a solid object. This kills drivers to this day. It is also the reason why Bettega's co-driver was uninjured. Vatanen was wounded because his seat(belts) failed. He had them modified. Again his co-driver was uninjured.
You can't just blame these incidents on Group B. Yes, by today's standards these cars were absolutely crazy. Actually they weren't safe for the standards in those days either. If the FIA had mandated better safety, especially with regards to fireprotection. And had they employed better regulations to rallies regarding spectator control and pressure on the drivers. Then Group B could have continued on.

---

I think this is probably a fair assessment. After all, when they compete on the same stages and a comparison can be made, today's WRC cars are faster than Group B cars. The danger is still there, but the means of protection are better. With hindsight, the way the FIA and various rally organisers ignored the major spectator problems that afflicted numerous events was nothing short of negligent, and that didn't stop when Group B was banned. After all, several people were injured in Corsica in 1987 when a Peugeot 205 GTi went off the road at a hairpin. It didn't take a Group B car or anything approaching it to cause injury then, and, obviously, there have been deaths since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

The scrapping of Group B was more politics then concern for human lives. Not only Ecclesstone, but also people in Rally itself. Like some teams that were more than happy to start on a clean sheet again, or some other teams that had crap Group B cars and found a nice PR-exit.

---

Of course, Audi completely over-reacted. Yes, they weren't doing as well as they would have liked in 1986, but their complete withdrawal as a works team (not just from the WRC, but also the British Open series) did common sense no favours.

That said, as I have stated many times on here, I didn't feel that Group A was a bad replacement in 1987 — far from it. In fact, the WRC witnessed some splendid events that year, and the British Open Championship was on top form. When rallying videos, I continue to find the Group B cars far more entertaining than any of today's WRCs, but they were by no means a panacea. Anyone who saw Jean Ragnotti in a Renault 11 Turbo in 1987 will vouch for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FAL

It was the construction of the cars that was dangerous in some cases, including the widespread use of titanium in structures, that all too tragically burnt fiercely.

---

The volatile 'rocket fuel' that some were using was another contributory factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000

The Peugeot 205 T16 E2 was the ultimate group B car.
It was small and powerfull.

---

It was also quick out of the box in 1984, because, as I recall (though it is late at night), Peugeot brought out the road-going T16 at the same time as it introduced the standard 205 range. This gave it enough time to build the cars required for homologation and get the rally version testing well before its debut in Corsica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000

The Audi Quattro was never really a dominator at the peak of the group B era.There was always someone better and faster.It was very powerfull (some say that the Quattro S1 at its peak had 600 BHP!!!) but very unreliable.

---

I have long felt that the Quattro's legendary status is down in very large part to its having been a pioneer of 4wd, rather than its particular ability as a rally car. Of course, I don't forget the superb performances that some great drivers put on in the car either, but it was often found wanting. They never made any of the variants reliable, the long-wheelbase version started out as being awfully heavy and was always pretty dreadful on tarmac, the first Sport Quattro was a dog to handle and the E2 broke easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000

The Lancia Delta S4 was a very advanced car.A little bit to complicated for that time.The interesting fact about the Delta is that it had a turbocharger and a supercharger.The supercharger was used to reduce turbo-lag.After the revs would build up till a certain point,the car would change to a turbocharger.A genious idea,but ahead of its time.At the practise of the 1986 Spanish F1 Grand Prix at the Estoril track , Toivonen ,in his Lancia ,scored a time that ,if he would enter ,would put him in 6th place!!!That shows how the group B cars had similar performances as the F1 cars.

---

Still should have won the 1986 world title, though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000

The Ford RS200 came too late,but many say that it would become a dominator.It was a fast car,but it came a few months before the group B would be banned.

---

Yes, and in that time Ford had no reason to cure its faults. Still, it was a British championship winner, albeit without winning a rally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000

The MG 6R4 was an interesting car.It had extremely fast gear changes,which often was not a good thing.It was a normally aspirated car with around 450-500 BHP,so it would reach extremely high gear ratios extremely fast.It was very hard car to drive.It didnt make any great results.

---

Don't forget that the 6R4 could have won on its WRC debut! Again, it was hamstrung by there being no incentive to develop it, and I think that Austin Rover's driver line-up for 1986 wasn't the best with which to mount a serious challenge, had the car not kept failing. Tony Pond was a truly great driver, but his preferences for certain events and dislike of others rather held him back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jso1985

I wonder why some people think current WRC drivers are useless morons...
Did something changed in the human DNA code? making people born after 1970 are slower and more prone to crash when driving?

As posted by other members, surely they're not even half as spectacular as group B was but WRC cars are probably faster...

---

The amount of physical effort, skills, and technical knowledge required to drive Group B car is nowhere near compared to nowadays rally cars, but that's not the point. Humans tend to adapt, so there is no doubt that today's drivers will get use to Group B cars if they have to, but the learning curve may be similar to Rautenbach's one, that's what I meant, but I may be wrong.
Do you think I'll be in this forum if I think WRC drivers are morons? I don't get it?!?!?!
What I hate is the cars they drive, especially the joystick gear shifters and fancy gearboxes. I hate to see drivers looking like sleeping queens in the car, moving just their fingers and toes, and occasionally hands :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The volatile 'rocket fuel' that some were using was another contributory factor.

---

Actually that volatile "rocket fuel" you mention, was in fact less volatile than normal pumpgas. They added stuff to it, (don't know the name right now, will have to look it up) to raise the burning point, so it would ignite at higher temperatures. Another point to add to this is that this stuff will dissolve almost anything and it's fumes are very toxic.

The problem was that the fueltanks and fuellines were not safe as they are now, add to that the close proximity to the drivers and the extremely heated exhaust and turbocharger, and well, sadly we all know what happened.

Another interesting fact on the Santos accident; Santos was having gearbox trouble and therefore his RS200 was tuned down to about 350BHP, or at least that's what's been said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jparker

The amount of physical effort, skills, and technical knowledge required to drive Group B car is nowhere near compared to nowadays rally cars, but that's not the point. Humans tend to adapt, so there is no doubt that today's drivers will get use to Group B cars if they have to, but the learning curve may be similar to Rautenbach's one, that's what I meant, but I may be wrong.
Do you think I'll be in this forum if I think WRC drivers are morons? I don't get it?!?!?!
What I hate is the cars they drive, especially the joystick gear shifters and fancy gearboxes. I hate to see drivers looking like sleeping queens in the car, moving just their fingers and toes, and occasionally hands :)

---

Drivers will adapt. Walter Rohrl didn't have a clue how to drive the Audi when he first entered it, he couldn't get it to steer, he was just incapable of driving 4wd, then he sat with Stig in the car to see how he did it, and how he used left-foot braking. After that he practiced all night, untill he finally got it most of the times, a few days later he won the Monte. But then again Rohrl wasn't just any driver, but the top WRC-drivers can drive anything fast, and learn fast how to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonkka

Would you mind explaining why you'd want Group B or it's derivative back?

[...]

If you're after the technical freedoms that Gr B offered, the World Rally Car formula has much of the ideas incorporated in it but within safe envelope offered by the 34mm restrictor.

If you want spectacular driving, the safe way to provide that is to reduce grip, not increase power.

Or are you after something else?

---

What I'm looking for is not these things you mentioned above. What I want, or what I DON'T want, is the rally to become like the F1 is right now. In F1 the cars are more important then the drivers. My worst nightmare is that. What I want is a group which it's more about the driver's skill. Of course car will matter, it always do and it's o.k. too because it's part of the race and I don't wanna lose that. Now rally car have sequential gearbox and they barely move their fingers like jparker said before. Imagine a group where your car have to be manual... Just making this rule would tell apart good and realy good driver. It's not about moving your fingers anymore. You probly all no what I'm talking about. If it keep going this way rally car will be automatic within a couple of years...

300 Hp max? Why? I think drivers know the risk of rallying. Cars like the one doing the Pike Peaks run have like 1000 hp. Of course you will tell me it's not the same thing. I know. Still that a group were 500Hp would be max is possible is it not? We all agreed the technologi is now at a higher level then it was back in group B. Restriction about the "automatisation" and "easy driving" of the car should be placed I think. A group were the driver's make the main difference that's what I want. Do you agree with me such a group would be interesting?