GT Class

[AndyRAC]

at these early days a small suspension travel wasn t so big handicap,cause almost all cars hadnt got todays suspension travel.At these days all cars were 2 wheel drive.Dont confuse these days with days after 40 years.

I'm not confusing anything. GT cars have had no 'rallying' development unlike the current rally cars - so it's not surprising they're not suited to the stages.

[Mirek]

No stock cars (except Impreza STIs and Evos) had any rally development just like GTs. It's the cost of this additional development what makes the real rally cars expensive. GTs which shall be good for anything more than some fun will be also very expensive. Of course You can use relatively cheap GT quite well on dry asphalt but since it's quite useless for gravel, snow or mud it will never become anything significant no matter how You try. For that sole reason of being useful just in particular conditions nobody with serious interest in international rallying will ever use GT for his campaign. It's just like that. You can't convert 911 into a kind of Dakar buggy for few bucks to make it running well on Sardinia.

[RAS007]

you can always teach us a lesson, which regulations they will allow to a 911 for example be competetive at mud/snow/gravel/wet asphalt.
All these circumstances you find at rallies.
When you answer this question you will see who has a clue about rallies or not,and if a GT car has future at rallies.

I'm not sure I could teach you anything; you do seem to be a rather disagreeable fellow. Your opinions are not facts, you know.

[Mirek]

So how do You make a GT competitive on gravel or snow?

[RAS007]

So how do You make a GT competitive on gravel or snow?

I have no idea, and have never stated otherwise. I like to see the GT cars on the stages, and think there is a place for them. I certainly do not agree with some on here who say these cars "have no place" on the stages.

[Mirek]

It's a vicious circle, You know. The basis of all is that GTs are not suitable for anything but particular friendly conditions. No matter which rules You create they will always stay a minority on the side of the main rally course just because of that.

For the very same reason there are no manufacturers interested in GT category. Why shall they be when they know that only a total redesign of the whole car can make it fast on gravel or snow?

The FIA rules are seen here as more important than they are as they neither create nor remove the main issue which I just named. No rules can do that and in the same time keep cost affordable.

Dimviii wrote that maybe in harsh way but he is right and it's not the rules what disqualify GTs from becoming more than a curiosity in the rally world.

[Lundefaret]

It's a vicious circle, You know. The basis of all is that GTs are not suitable for anything but particular friendly conditions. No matter which rules You create they will always stay a minority on the side of the main rally course just because of that.

For the very same reason there are no manufacturers interested in GT category. Why shall they be when they know that only a total redesign of the whole car can make it fast on gravel or snow?

The FIA rules are seen here as more important than they are as they neither create nor remove the main issue which I just named. No rules can do that and in the same time keep cost affordable.

Dimviii wrote that maybe in harsh way but he is right and it's not the rules what disqualify GTs from becoming more than a curiosity in the rally world.

Tuthill GT3 Porsche 911 on gravel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7afNZsAvqI

Its really no prob if the cars are more suited to asphalt, tough relatives "easy" development will make them suitable for more varied surfaces.
But only asphalt is okay, they are still exiting!

[Mirek]

Nice video, I know it but what have You tried to say by that? It's sport, it's about being fast, not about being spectacular, for God's sake. How many teams in the world buy cars for spectacle and not for speed? Less than 5% maybe?

No matter how spectacular the car on the video is, it's still too slow for anything else than some fun and that's what I said - even if You allow more freedom in the rules the car will stay a curiosity (this particular gravel Porsche has different suspension than FIA allows).

[Lundefaret]

Nice video, I know it but what have You tried to say by that? It's sport, it's about being fast, not about being spectacular, for God's sake. How many teams in the world buy cars for spectacle and not for speed? Less than 5% maybe?

No matter how spectacular the car on the video is, it's still too slow for anything else than some fun and that's what I said - even if You allow more freedom in the rules the car will stay a curiosity (this particular gravel Porsche has different suspension than FIA allows).

I think You miss my point a little Mirek, so I will clearify:
- First: A cars speed should be compared vs the cars of the same class. Comparing an R2 to an R5 is just as unfair as comparing a RGT to an R5, even do the RGT can give the R5 a run for the money on some tarmac event - but thats beside the point.
- Second: For a driver - lets say a gentleman driver - an R5 can be to "serious", with tight battles with a lot of Young talents, which can take some of the fun out of the rallying, because You really want to compete with drivers in a similar situation like Your self.
- Thirdly: Tough the R5 cars are exiting because of their performance, the RGT cars can be more exiting in some perspectives to both the spectators and some drivers. Sound, driving experience, cool brands etc.

I think its no coincidence that the historic rally scene is so popular, because its a place where "gentleman drivers" can drive cool cars for fun. Like Porsches.
The historic rally scene have a huge challenge on their hands. Its now homologated 4WD cars that will take the seriousness, speed and cost to a totally new level, with will threaten the sport.

I think RGT could be a great asset to both national and international events, and I also think that if for example Tuthill was allowed to develop a car with out the overly restricted regulation of today, it also could attract others.

For me, A Ferrari, Porsche, Gordon, McLaren, Lotus-battle could be a very cool add on to some events

[RAS007]

I think You miss my point a little Mirek, so I will clearify:
- First: A cars speed should be compared vs the cars of the same class. Comparing an R2 to an R5 is just as unfair as comparing a RGT to an R5, even do the RGT can give the R5 a run for the money on some tarmac event - but thats beside the point.
- Second: For a driver - lets say a gentleman driver - an R5 can be to "serious", with tight battles with a lot of Young talents, which can take some of the fun out of the rallying, because You really want to compete with drivers in a similar situation like Your self.
- Thirdly: Tough the R5 cars are exiting because of their performance, the RGT cars can be more exiting in some perspectives to both the spectators and some drivers. Sound, driving experience, cool brands etc.

I think its no coincidence that the historic rally scene is so popular, because its a place where "gentleman drivers" can drive cool cars for fun. Like Porsches.
The historic rally scene have a huge challenge on their hands. Its now homologated 4WD cars that will take the seriousness, speed and cost to a totally new level, with will threaten the sport.

I think RGT could be a great asset to both national and international events, and I also think that if for example Tuthill was allowed to develop a car with out the overly restricted regulation of today, it also could attract others.

For me, A Ferrari, Porsche, Gordon, McLaren, Lotus-battle could be a very cool add on to some events

Will someone please give this man a cigar?