[WRC] News & rumours (part III)

[MJW]

You have a point :-) totally opposite to the way cars are going. In a few year 1.6 litre will be considered big engines. I do agree that the current power to grip levels are not ideal for spectacle. Why not go 2wd?

[Mk2 RS2000]

When we look back at the days past was it the cars we remember and salute or was it the drivers. If we look at golf do we follow the make of club used or cap worn or do we follow the golfer, likewise the skier or the brand of skis, the cyclist or the make of bicycle. The point is that we follow the people in the sport rather than the equipment that they use and if we wish to increase the following of the sport then more exposure time needs to be given to the participants rather than their equipment.

[Rally Power]

No need to change the original nature of the sport. But many people want to see, hear and smell something different comparing to their ordinary day.
Why can’t WorldRallyCar be 800-900kg, tube frame, RWD, non-turbo, max 3.0 litre engine with 10000rpm rev limiter and sequential gearbox silhouette car? Could be build by anyone, no mandatory to be an official car manufacturer.

Would you like to watch that kind of WRC cars?

Historically rallying it's more linked with close to production cars than with prototypes like you suggest. With few exceptions, some Gr.4 machines and the Gr. B era, almost every rally car used in WRC were based in large production models. For many fans the last Gr. A generation still represents the best compromise in rally cars technical layout.

Turbo and 4wd were welcomed improvements to the sport. They've allowed a greater adaptation over the different surfaces and climate conditions. Going back to 2wd would be a technical downside and could easily put a pressure on the surface issue, affecting the long established gravel predominance.

I fully agree that we need to get back to the sports nature, but that nature was mainly damaged by mixing up each rally individuality when the 9 to 5 schedule and the clover leaf format were imposed (sorry, I’m repeating myself), so probably it would make sense to apply a more diversified and challenging calendar rather than being permanently questioning rally cars technical definition.

[anstis]

Historically rallying it's more linked with close to production cars than with prototypes like you suggest. With few exceptions, some Gr.4 machines and the Gr. B era, almost every rally car used in WRC were based in large production models. For many fans the last Gr. A generation still represents the best compromise in rally cars technical layout.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the only significant difference between Group A rules and WRC rules (at least initially) the number of cars a manufacturer had to produce in order to be elegible to comptete? I know what you mean though, those Group A cars were choice, but it maybe reflected the technology of the time rather than the rules?

I fully agree that we need to get back to the sports nature, but that nature was mainly damaged by mixing up each rally individuality when the 9 to 5 schedule and the clover leaf format were imposed (sorry, I’m repeating myself), so probably it would make sense to apply a more diversified and challenging calendar rather than being permanently questioning rally cars technical definition

Yep, fully agree with this point. Completly! Can find it hard to get excited about most of the rallies because they almost all run to exactly the same format, in one small corner of the country. Maybe a lot of organisers have their hands tied by only being allowed 2 days for a 2 pass reece (amoung many of other factors too no doubt.)

[sollitt]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the only significant difference between Group A rules and WRC rules (at least initially) the number of cars a manufacturer had to produce in order to be elegible to compete?

Yes & no. Grp A cars were production based cars with a minimum build requirement. Essentially there was a requirement for a road going version of the rally car.
With WRC cars there needed only to be a production car providing the body shell. There was no requirement for this car to be 4WD or have the same engine size ... or in fact any of the componentry.
Whilst the initial thoughts were that removing the need for the production car would lessen costs and entice more manufacturers, the freedom to push boundaries with technological advancements added to the costs and limited the numbers who would compete.

[giù tutto!]

For sure we will follow the golfer, skier, cyclist not the equipment, as long as the difference is made by their skills, not by their wallet. Think about the scenario like this: if only those who can afford would be the golfers, skiers and cyclist, or in soccer world championship the players would be only those who could pay something between 5 to 10 million euros for the place in the national team. How long people would be interested about that?

The idea is to cut the costs. Turbo and 4wd is ideal for the performance, but it’s like a Pandora’s box also. It will always be expensive, if we are thinking about the amount of rallies and km which are driven in the world rally championship. It’s not a rocket science to build fast 4wd turbo car and drive rallycross, hillclimb or small rallies for a hobby.

Lot of average drivers have been champions at the national level only because they have had enough money to buy good 4wd turbo car. In the 2wd field it’s not so easy, no matter how much money you have, cause there are plenty of very skilful drivers.

Why need to hanging on the idea to base to the production cars? Would it be enough if the car look like a production car by the cover like they have already been for many years. With the strict rules like in NASCAR the cost could be easier to control. As long as we want to keep the highest technology in this sport, it will always be to highest price also.

Summa summarum:
With the cheaper but spectacular equipment it would be possible to bring back the charismatic and skilful drivers, who are the heart and the soul of the product.

[Mirek]

Yes & no. Grp A cars were production based cars with a minimum build requirement. Essentially there was a requirement for a road going version of the rally car.
With WRC cars there needed only to be a production car providing the body shell. There was no requirement for this car to be 4WD or have the same engine size ... or in fact any of the componentry.
Whilst the initial thoughts were that removing the need for the production car would lessen costs and entice more manufacturers, the freedom to push boundaries with technological advancements added to the costs and limited the numbers who would compete.

You are wrong with Your assumptions or better to say You concentrate only on price for end-customers - teams. Bringing gr.A back would be much more expensive for car manufacturers than to continue current WRC concept hence I'm sure manufacturers would not be interested at all. One single WRC car is more expensive than one gr.A car was. That's for sure. But You don't see the multiply higher expenses behind production of road-going rally cars. There is also the fact they don't suit modern standards of ecology and fuel efficiency (these law-based requirements exist and there is no use in pretending they are not).

[AdvEvo]

You are wrong with Your assumptions or better to say You concentrate only on price for end-customers - teams. Bringing gr.A back would be much more expensive for car manufacturers than to continue current WRC concept hence I'm sure manufacturers would not be interested at all. One single WRC car is more expensive than one gr.A car was. That's for sure. But You don't see the multiply higher expenses behind production of road-going rally cars. There is also the fact they don't suit modern standards of ecology and fuel efficiency (these law-based requirements exist and there is no use in pretending they are not).

Exactly and thats why autosport is going to DIE! most spectaters/poeple don t want small engine s or electic race/rally cars. Why do you think rallycross is popular. It bangs and spit flames and light up all 4 wheels with 600 hp. Downgrading and fuel saving programs makes all motorsports more worse everytime.

I understand that group a cars is more expensive for manufactures but if spectators are not interested in wrc rally buggy s with small engines how much value does wrc have for them anyway if you look at the numbers. Factory rally teams are there to sell more cars. If it brings nothing they are gone from the sport!

Historic rallying/racing is gaining more and more interest why? Because you can drive with real engines. Cars are a joy to drive and go sideways everywhere. Engines rev high and the running cost are much lower than wrc and r5 cars. And you have more choice in different brands.

[Mirek]

Exactly and thats why autosport is going to DIE! most spectaters/poeple don t want small engine s or electic race/rally cars. Why do you think rallycross is popular. It bangs and spit flames and light up all 4 wheels with 600 hp. Downgrading and fuel saving programs makes all motorsport more worse everytime.

I agree with You.

I understand that group a cars is more expensive for manufactures but if spectators are not interested in wrc rally buggy s with small engines how much value does wrc have for them anyway if you look at the numbers. Factory rally teams are there to sell more cars. If it brings nothing there gone from the sport!

You don't need road-going rallycars to have 600Hp beasts. You can use existing regulations and put there 600 Hp engine. It can be done without rising cost. The only point against that is safety. Rally is not rallycross. I'm afraid nobody will ever agree on regulations with so powerful cars.

[TheFlyingTuga]

The only point against that is safety. Rally is not rallycross. I'm afraid nobody will ever agree on regulations with so powerful cars.

My 2 cents on the matter, is that is what's wrong right now. I'm kind of a young male, and started to watch rallying in the 90's. But still, for me rallying is about defying the laws of commom sense. There's something special in seeing a little car like a 205 or a Metro blasting through a forest powered by a supercar power. Driver's back then where seen more like driving gods, right know they're just guys that drive really weel, because the risk factor to a non sport guy it's almost non (I know it's still a lot). If we analyze other sports, the MotoGP still on top of the list for many people that aren't fans, per se, of motorsport, just because bikes carry more risks than cars. And even if I not a bike fan, I've got to admite, there's something special about seeing a guy going nuts at 300km/h in Manx TT for example.

Group B was something special, but the cars we're tottally unsafe. But, to be fair, in this time in history they can comeback beeing safe. Construction materials have been improved, and engineerings have more knowledge of how to make more resistant cars... the only problem will be some cost rising :S