Developement in wrc

[Finni]

It's very interesting question how much wrc-cars have developed in last ten years or five years. The overall question about developement has been raised last days not least due to Petter Solberg's Xsara project. There seems to be very different views present. Some forumers see that wrc is like F1 where developement happens with giant steps. At least one forumer seemed to believe that 2006 Xsara is four minutes slower than current developed cars. Other forumers seems to believe that the developement rate is slow and Xsara might be still pretty competitive.

My own belief is that developement in current wrc is very slow - almost nothing. It has been slow last five years. However there is no undeniable indicators and one has to read quite subtle sings in order to form opinion.

A) When one follows Formula 1 there is often changes that are identifiable with very high probabilities. One can see how cars relative performances concretically changes between the races. In current wrc there is very rarely points where performance-change can be confirmed very clearly. New Ford models 2003 and 2006 are in my view last remarkable changes - if Subarus clear backward steps are not counted.

B) Subaru's fate. It has been emprically confirmed that since 2005 any new Subaru has not been better than previous evolution compared to relative competition. Actually cross-comparison tells that some Subaru-evolutions were clear drawbacks. If Subaru has actually took backward steps how other teams could have done massive developement at the same time?

C) Comments from the drivers. For instance, according to Grönholm, Peugeot 307 didn't get any developements during the time span of one year. At the same time the relative competitivenes seemed to stay same. Last year Grönholm also said that there is no significant difference between Stobart Focus and the current works model (am I right there is difference of one year developement between M1 and M2?).

D) Comments from the engineers. For instance Christian Loriaux has underlined that the changes are extremely little and limited.

E) There don't seem to have happen any changes in terms of pace. The teams have been quite exactly as competitive in relation to each other during few last years. In my view this means that steps have been very little. Maybe the biggest identifiable step could be Ford's step before Greece in 2007. But later Loeb told that they went into wrong direction with set-up in that phase of the season and recovered to NZ when it appeared that they were par with Ford. In early season Ford+Grönholm was maybe 20 sec behind Citroen+Seb and the step before Greece and new homologation (after Greece) maybe gave 20 seconds that was lacking in the early season.

My guess is that Peugeot 206 in 2002 spec wouldn't be no more than between 1-2 minutes off the pace nowadays. And 2006 Xsara is very near to current cars, perhaps 20-50 seconds off the pace. This view is confused because those old cars have been in the hands of non-top drivers and the cars have not always been in the sharpest shape.

Opinions????

[cosmicpanda]

Don't forget tyres - I might be wrong, but I think I calculated last rally NZ that the top cars through one stage were 45 seconds slower than without the control tyre.

[Tomi]

And 2006 Xsara is very near to current cars, perhaps 20-50 seconds off the pace. This view is confused because those old cars have been in the hands of non-top drivers and the cars have not always been in the sharpest shape.

Opinions????

will be interesting to read your arguments where the problem is if the xara is way off pace in norway.

[Finni]

Don't forget tyres - I might be wrong, but I think I calculated last rally NZ that the top cars through one stage were 45 seconds slower than without the control tyre.

Hmm, my purporse is to discuss developement in cars - not wrc overally if tyres are included.

[Finni]

will be interesting to read your arguments where the problem is if the xara is way off pace in norway.

There is three premises:

1. Xsara is not far from current top-cars.
2. Petter is as good as anyone.
3. Xsara is given to Petter in top-form.

I am inclined to believe in every of these premises. Let's see what happens!

[urabus-denoS2000]

In my opinion very little depends on the cars itself,more on the how the car is prepared and maintained.

For example: There were some rumors that the 2008 TRA Felice Re could drive a Citroen C4 next year.In my opinon that car prepared by Vieffe Corse would be of the pace from a top-team Xsara like Solbergs..

I think there are significant steps in performance when a new generation car comes...
For example: I think that the difference between an 06 and an 05 Focus is a lot bigger than between an 04 and an 05 Focus....

[Sulland]

This all depends on in what direction you want WRC to move in.

If you mean that rally is to follow in the footsteps of F1 and get a circus that is 100% commercial, and the fans can not get access to their heroes, they being the drivers, cars or engineers, since the paddock is closed or to expensive to get in to.

The other direction is to make WRC more accessible to both fans, and teams that want to start, and can build a car.

I would love that WRC was kept so simple that MEM could come in as they did under Rally Ireland, with a good driver and have made a basically good car, and have the possibility to win.

In todays WRC that is not possible, since the factory teams have so much better cars than the private teams, and if a driver happened to be lucky in an event, he will be told to back of, due to points !!
This is not how I would like WRC in the future.

There has always been a difference btw rally and racing, where the rally environment is more relaxed, and open, I would like to keep it that way. By mixing in too much money, that will not be possible.

I think ISC need to go over to USA to learn from how NASCAR and Grand-Am are doing business. All european drivers going to the US say one thing - I love the relaxed atmosphere and openness btw all involved - it is only motorsport and it there to entertain the fans !! The thinking behind is that technology is to be kept very simple, so teams can buy a car and be competitive - they attract a lot of sponsors that pay for both cars and salaries for the drivers.

If you want rally to get closer to F1, and get more development that will sky rocket the cost of the cars, and loose the privateers all together, that is ok - but I disagree !

[A.F.F.]

Hmm, my purporse is to discuss developement in cars - not wrc overally if tyres are included.

I think cosmicpanda hit the nail. When Peugeot changed from Michelin to Pirellis, how many battles were lost to Loeb before they even started? Peugeot and Subaru struggled many times because the tyres simply didn't work as well as Citroen's.

[Viking]

Petter asked some top brass Citroen person "what if I am faster than your factory drivers in this old car?"
answer was:……ehhhh… we don’t zink that is gonna heppen

Petters only question mark is the 06 engine on the Xsara, I guess there is also a question if Citroen has given him the best engine mapping available?

[Torsen]

shouldn't we be able to figure this out with a simple apples to apples stage time from a rally in 2003 to a rally in 2008... or have all the stages always changed?

i remember a few stages i think last year where they were 45 seconds faster than a year before or something... but obviously conditions change...

we'd probably have to look at a tarmac surfaced rally since it changes less than gravel/snow obviously.