Ford accelerates Fiesta RS WRC development as engine rules are finalised... http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=32235
Printable View
Ford accelerates Fiesta RS WRC development as engine rules are finalised... http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=32235
Year-long engine for World Rally Cars? http://www.maxrally.com/news/entry/y...ld_rally_cars/
Mr Chandler should step down..
How about year-long tires? Year-long mudflaps?
Why not go the whole hog and just have one event to cut costs?
One a year? Bugger right off with that idea :eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat
The WRC car for us: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/au...43b3af6b7324aa
Or a startpoint fo a R3T car maybe !
http://doxcar.com/wrc-wrc-plans-sing...ne-per-season/Quote:
Originally Posted by Allyc85
...said Christian Loriaux.Quote:
Ford’s technical director Christian Loriaux admitted it would be possible to run one engine per year, but he added that the development costs were currently prohibitive.
“Everything is possible with an engine,” said Loriaux. “The engine in your road car will last 200,000 miles, so, yes, we can make a competition engine that will last a season. But the costs will be very high.
“What we will have to do is make an engine that lasts 8,000 competitive kilometres and then goes bang at 8,005 kilometres. The way to do this is to test a car under those conditions, but what happens when our test engine blows up at 5,000 kilometres? We have to start again. And, when we have done 8,000 kilometres, we have to validate those figures by doing it again - and then for a third time.
“Suddenly, we have had to test for more than 24,000 kilometers on asphalt, gravel and snow. That would cost a lot of money.”
The most stupid idea is that the new WRC caes are going to have the driver aids again ie paddle shift etc......
Which idiot gave the idea for this?
I actually bought Autosport this week to read this story, and while I'm not Morrie Chandler's biggest fan, I understand his frustration. It seems as though the 'new' WRCars will be almost as expensive as the current ones. Absolute madness. Get rid of electronics and all money costing equipment. Can't we have cheap, spectacular cars, that will attract new Manufacturers?Quote:
Originally Posted by ste898
And why still 4WD? 2WD with more power than grip, is what is needed.
AndyRAC basically, I agree with all that you say. Secondly, there are some issues as well... http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/racin...ally-cars.aspx
According to Mr C the FIA rubber stamped the paddle shifts etc! Nice work from Mr Todt. All those years at Ferrari have obviously affected his idea of cost cutting. What we need now is Sarsons not 15 year aged Modena Balsamic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ste898
I agree that cheaper WRC cars are important, but 2wd is a terrible idea. World rally cars are supposed to be about going fast, not sliding around and setting slower times than PWRC cars. If you just want to see that stuff, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs-jAImScms .Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
I'd rather they cut costs by making the world rally cars a little closer to the production versions that they come from. Currently Ford and Citroen just build race cars to look like a production vehicle. There is basically nothing left of the C4 or Focus in those cars, so it's a bit ridiculous that they beat subaru and mitsubishi, who at least sold road-going rally cars.
Simple, either ban 4WD - or make the 4WD PWRC cars slower. In fact, just get rid of the PWRC - it's a worthless Championship!Quote:
Originally Posted by serial jeff
The majority of road cars are 2WD - the majority of motorsport is RWD, so why stick with 4WD? It's proved it's point.
That will be good in tarmac rally, not on gravel.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Which is why we have been discussing the diminishing spectacle for the last few years...Quote:
Originally Posted by serial jeff
Gif all the drivers a serial car and we will see who is the best driver! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by serial jeff
Maybe the WRC class would be cheaper and better with the current s2000 cars. ;)
Why not just make break the championship into 3 classes.
FWD/RWD and 4WD.
Minimal changes to each from the road car.
Big ass exhaust for plenty of noise.
Based strictly on production models.
In rwd, you could have porsche GT3's up against BMW M3's.
FWD could encompass anything from turbo minis to focus rs's.
In 4wd, you could have imprezas up against audi r8's.
Put a bit of variety back into it, and reduce the costs.
Building special purpose built rally cars like wrc's and s2000's has killed the variety and the show, and a 300k s2000/wrc car is just a dumb idea.
Get back to production like machine to keep the costs and the fans interest in the game. Allow big boost and big exhaust for lots of power and noise.
It's not hard to make a road car spectacular.
That video doing the rounds of delacour in the gt3 shows how spectacular such a formula would be.
You'd have a rally spec 911 gt3 for about half the price of a WRC car - I know which one would be more spectacular.
Video - Ford Fiesta RS WRC development http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpjNQk8mxc4
Anybody know any specific technical regulations for next years engine. Meaning size of restrictor possible boost limits etc.?
Should be 33 mm restrictor, 2 bars maximum
Really. Those engines will than be even more boring than the ones they run on currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
I read that according to Christian Loriaux if they would be allowed a 35mm restrictor than the power and torque would be at the same level as now.
with 33mm and 2 bars they will be outrun by the Gr.N cars on gravel as well as probably the S2000 cars (at least on tarmac), let`s hope they will be allowed at least the 35mm restrictor and no boost limit.
If I understood well:
- Current S2000 will be finished (no more 2l without turbo)
- New S2000 will be with 1.6l turbo, and will be new WRC
- What about homologation? You still need to run in WRC to get a WRC homologated? So no new S2000 from smaller teams who are not interested in WRC?
- How much difference between real WRC and regional WRC?
No way. Gr.N have also 33 mm, less boost, 150-200 kg more, much less possible changes (cams and valves for example), bigger volume won't be enough. They also have no sequential gearbox, much worse suepension, brakes, weight distribution, polar moments of innertia... New WRC will be both more powerfull and faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by FVS
HaCo: They still didn't decide wheather You have to register for WRC to homologate new WRC car/upgrade for S2000 car. It seems that it won't be mandatory.
Let's hope so, IMHO that kills the sport in general (and I'm not talking about WRC, but rallysport).Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
Don't think the FIA even know such things............yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by FVS
agreed entirely. I don't understand what ford and citroen think they're proving by winning rallies with a car they don't even sell... maybe they hope consumers associate the performance of their million dollar world rally cars with the production versions. It'd be great to see near production cars being used and maybe get some 911s etc in tarmac rallies.Quote:
Originally Posted by cannyboy
If you could purchase a wrx or evo and convert it for a total of less than $80,000 we'd see a lot more entries.
What's wrong with paddle shift? It'd be a step backwards using manual shift/clutch. How many cars these days have DSG gearboxes and paddle shift? There's loads of them, including Skodas!Quote:
Originally Posted by ste898
If the technology is there then why shouldn't it be used? The cars are still spectacular with the diffs they use at the moment, they're just expensive.
What comes to the actual suspension meaning the damper than there is actually no difference at all except that for instance ball bearings are still allowed in group N, only the travel and geometry is of course much better in the S2000/WRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
I know that Gr.N has a 33mm restrictor and that the engine volume doesn`t matter that much( Ford actually planned to use a 1,8l engine even in the current WRC due to weight saving and without loosing power) But when you have 2l versus 1,6 than there is a difference specially if they limit the boost. Gr.N actually have a lot higher boost pressure than you might think (one reason why they blew the turbos on the evo 10 in the beginning so much before new homologation came)
Also I don`t know what the minimum weight is for future WRC but if it is about the same that it is now than it definately will decrease the gap between WRC and Gr.N.
That`s why I asked if anyone knows the rules I thought it would be based on S2000( 11,5mm maximum lift for valve max rpm 8500 max compression ratios etc) that combined with 2bars and a 33mm restrictor is just idiotic in my opinion.
But than again that`s just me......
It's not possible to combine rules for naturally aspirated engine and rules for turbo engine. Don't worry about that, they are not that dumb. When talking about base in S2000 rules it doesn't mean anything about engine but about the rest of the car. Rules for engine itself are completelly new. Malcolm Wilson and Olivier Quessnel both confirmed some time a go that they know what is inside the regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by FVS
About the weight... new WRC will have limit 1200 kg most likely. Impreza N16 weights some 1360 kg, Evo X over 1400 kg. They are also much bigger and therefore much less nimble in twisty roads. Brakes and shock absorbers are sooner overheated in heavy car. You have to use harder tyres etc. I wouldn't underestimate also the suspension design. Much bigger suspension travel is huge advantage (also between older and newer S2000 cars or older and newer WRC cars).
You're right that new cars will be slower than current WRC but I don't see much wrong with that. The gap will be smaller on very fast roads and bigger on twisty ones like with curent S2000 but more.
I can't imagine how this would go if they fitted in a really big turbo....That would be just pure speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Wo...ionship_seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Francis44
restrictors are very necessary... just have to find a good balance between impressive performance and safety. Plus, part of being a good driver is managing to make do with a little less power than you'd like.
I'd like to point out another thing which is racing fuel. I don't see much sense in using expensive high performance fuel and in the same time restrictors for making output lower. Why not to use bigger restrictor and standard fuel which is 5x cheaper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Andy, Im with you on this point. Perhaps you are with me, in a manner of speaking. I posted this about 5 years ago to deaf ears, but I still think it is a viable solution to the problem that the WRC is facing:
Can I get a witness? :)Quote:
14th May 07, 20:28
Not to get off topic, but I have been saying for some years now that 4wd has made its point. It has also effectively made the visual aspect for spectators on stage and televison alike antiseptic particularly on tarmac events. Im sure that we can all agree that its faster in most respect as a rallycar performs.
Why not go back to RWD? The need for horsepower would be no more than 350-400 on gravel events, and tarmac would have the crowd pleasing drifts back in full effect. Most rally drivers agree that RWD cars are more fun for all involved anyway. So a limit on engines would be moot point. Perhaps the old marques like BMW, Porsche, and even Mercedes might return to top level rallying. We might even see the occasional Ferrari on tarmac events again. Not to mention lifting the mandate on manufacturers commiting to a full season.
I dunno, maybe I have been watching to many old rally 70s and 80s rally videos.
In general, it is very expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by 306 Cosworth
Depends on what type they should use.. If they all can use the same its going to be cheap..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUbi1epN0-c
Can be used with paddles or stick..
http://www.mastershift.com/
2500,-€ for this one.. ;)
I'm sure you can get some better....
That wouldn’t be so cheap either. Converting a FWD car to a RWD car the same job has to be done to the bodyshell as know done with the S2000 cars. Further it also need a new gearbox, rear diff etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
It would be like a S2000 without the front drive shafts.
To still continue with some issues about the new WRC cars.
The costs:
IMO if a S2000 today costs about 250000 – 300000 euros, taking out the NA2000 engine and putting in a 1.6T engine would not add the cost so much.
The S2000 cars has a sequential gearbox anyway (with no active centre differential) so adding a paddle shift to the gearbox won’t add so much cost (as JFL earlier mentioned).
Restrictor size and boost level:
IMO the restrictor size and boost level should be choose so that the best power would be somewhere between 7000 – 8000 rpm. Then we could have cars with the same sound as the B-group cars had or the A-group cars had somewhere between 1990-1995.
Remembering that the torque come from how much fuel/air mixture can get in to a cylinder per every intake stroke, higher boost level gives more torque (and of course more power) at lower rpm’s but the restrictor will at some point limit the airflow and with a high boost, the limit is reached at lower rpm.
Comparing a 1.6 engine to a 2.0 engine with the same boost level, a 2.0 engine can “inhale” about 25% (2.0/1.6 = 1,25) more air/fuel mixture per every intake stroke and therefore have about 25% higher torque compared to a 1.6 engine at the same rpm.
That would be excellent if it came true as one of the biggest problems IMO with the current WRCars is that they change gear at such low revs it sounds like they are driving to Tesco, and of course the drivers don't have to keep the car 'on the boil' either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldF
But back to the cost issue; if it is not the engine and not the paddle shift on the current cars making them so expensive, then what is it? A current WRCar costs somewhere between 2 and 3 times an S2000 I think?