2 WD future?

[MJW]

In an article in autosport magazine published in UK today, there is speculation that the future for WRC cars could be 2 WD. Max Mosely has said that he expects the following actions to be taken regarding the cars. 1. They should be cheaper, 2. they should be safer, 3. they should be slower, and 4 they should be more spectacular. 2WD seems to tick all these boxes, and Morrie Chandler admitted that 2WD is under consideration. The engines will be 1600 or 1800 cc turbo units. Morrie said if 2WD it should be stipulated that it is rear wheel drive, and that the marketing men in the manufactureres will not like this. On the other hand Richard Taylor from SWRT said that Subaru was a 4WD manufacturer and there would be no room in a 2WD championship for it.
Morrie said FWD cars are not spectacular. Wonder where he got that from?
Could it be a shared platform with WTCC cars, 2 lite N/A and FWD?
March 26th is the date of the meeting. Existing manufacturers option is S2000 plus turbo, as detailed a few weeks ago, whilst FIA are considering a 2WD option.

[ShiftingGears]

If they can lower the grip significantly by going to 2WD then I don't see why there should be a horsepower cut.

[Sami]

I support the idea of 2wd rallying, because of those 4 aspect mentioned previously, but also because 2wd is more demanding and less forgiving for the drivers. I think that with 2wd the differences of talent and skills would be more obvious than in current 4wd format.

I would say that in 4wd format it is more competition of superioir car than superior driver, in 2wd it would be the opposite. (sorry for the intentional exaggeration)

In Finland we have rallying in WRC, in S2000, in group N and in fwd-rwd -class F-Cup. Of those by a comfortable margin the most popular class is 2wd group F, measured by the amount of spectators and competitors.

And the reason is: 2wd spectacularity.

[MikeD]

I prefer 4WD. I think the cars look better in high speed and through corners, than when sliding too much which they would do with 2WD (It just looks too slow).

I am all for the S2000 + turbo option as suggested by the manufacturers.

[Tomi]

Nice idea but I dont think it will happen, the future WRC will be S2000 + turbo, even that 2WD would be more spectacular by far.

[reverb09]

no no no no no no!!! wrc should remain awd! the speeds are so exciting and the cars are amazing! please no 2wd! ugh!

sorry for the outburst. did you see this (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65678 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65678%29?))?

An FIA source told Autosport: "Two-wheel-drive cars with 1600cc or 1800cc turbocharged engines remain an option. Mr Mosley has been very clear on what he wants from the future regulations. He wants the cars to be slower, safer, cheaper, and more spectacular.

"Two-wheel-drive cars would certainly corner slower, so would be safer. It's safe to say two-wheel-drive would tick all the boxes Mr Mosley has asked to be ticked."
slower, safer, cheaper and more spectacular? are you kidding me? safer and cheaper is fine, we all want more manufacturers. but how do slower and more spectacular go together? that is about the stupidest thing...

[Daniel]

I support the idea of 2wd rallying, because of those 4 aspect mentioned previously, but also because 2wd is more demanding and less forgiving for the drivers. I think that with 2wd the differences of talent and skills would be more obvious than in current 4wd format.

I would say that in 4wd format it is more competition of superioir car than superior driver, in 2wd it would be the opposite. (sorry for the intentional exaggeration)

In Finland we have rallying in WRC, in S2000, in group N and in fwd-rwd -class F-Cup. Of those by a comfortable margin the most popular class is 2wd group F, measured by the amount of spectators and competitors.

And the reason is: 2wd spectacularity.

100% agree.

It would also be cool if as MJW suggested there was some sort of common platform between S2000 touring cars and S2000 rally cars. Although Chevrolet's would have to be banned from competing in the WRC :)

[reverb09]

i don't see how you can say it's about better cars and not better drivers right now. the cars will always matter, but they'll matter less with 2wd? maybe a bit, since they are less complex. but all the major manufacturer teams have been doing this long enough, and have enough resources, that it seems like a very lame excuse. it's like blaming a loss in a basketball game on the refs.

maybe i'm in the minority here, but to me wrc *is* awd. i would be very sad to see it go.

[Daniel]

i don't see how you can say it's about better cars and not better drivers right now. the cars will always matter, but they'll matter less with 2wd? maybe a bit, since they are less complex. but all the major manufacturer teams have been doing this long enough, and have enough resources, that it seems like a very lame excuse. it's like blaming a loss in a basketball game on the refs.

maybe i'm in the minority here, but to me wrc *is* awd. i would be very sad to see it go.

You definitely are in a minority ;)

With 4wd there is so much you can do to develop and tune the cars. I mean there are 3 diffs! In a FWD car there's just one. In a 4wd car the work on the drivetrain can make a huge difference in the way the car handles. In FWD it's a bit less of a factor.

[A.F.F.]

Subaru reacted instantly :http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/ralli/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/ralli/2008/03/623231

They threaten to withdraw from WRC if Mosley gets his wish. Subaru says their marketing is based on AWD cars and are not interested to participate at all.

My personal opinion that Mosley can go and try if he can get his head deeper up in Ecclestone's arse and leave WRC alone.

[A.F.F.]

You definitely are in a minority ;)

With 4wd there is so much you can do to develop and tune the cars. I mean there are 3 diffs! In a FWD car there's just one. In a 4wd car the work on the drivetrain can make a huge difference in the way the car handles. In FWD it's a bit less of a factor.

I join the minority gladly. I don't see future with 2WD car unless FIA should create a proper class to them. WRC on highest level should be 4WD and you all know that.

[Daniel]

I join the minority gladly. I don't see future with 2WD car unless FIA should create a proper class to them. WRC on highest level should be 4WD and you all know that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjKKAxAuQ5Q

Watch that and tell me 2wd's are crap :p

P.S Say 2wd's are crap and I slap you upside your head biatch! :cheese:

[urabus-denoS2000]

Just imagine the future WRCars starting on gravel...like S1600.
It would be a joke.S2000+ rules!!!!!!!!
And can anyone explain how would they be more spectacular!!!Im sure sound would be great but thats about it!
And lets not forget that WRC always has 10-12 gravel rallies and 4 tarmac rallies (a big problem I would like to change).
Imagine the SPECTACULAR scene of FWD (RWD is a joke in modern times,no one makes RWD in normal cars today,except BMW who isnt really into rallying ) cars driving in Finland struggling with their front whells!!!

[reverb09]

I join the minority gladly. I don't see future with 2WD car unless FIA should create a proper class to them. WRC on highest level should be 4WD and you all know that.

thank you a.f.f.

i didn't say 2wd cars are crap. that video is awesome. but awd for me is part of the magic of wrc. racing is difficult and expensive. i'm all for making the cars simpler, making it cheaper to compete, and wrc has made significant progress with that in recent years. 2wd just seems like going too far.

[reverb09]

Just imagine the future WRCars starting on gravel...like S1600.
It would be a joke.S2000+ rules!!!!!!!!
And can anyone explain how would they be more spectacular!!!Im sure sound would be great but thats about it!
And lets not forget that WRC always has 10-12 gravel rallies and 4 tarmac rallies (a big problem I would like to change).
Imagine the SPECTACULAR scene of FWD (RWD is a joke in modern times,no one makes RWD in normal cars today,except BMW who isnt really into rallying ) cars driving in Finland struggling with their front whells!!!

haha! thank you! yes, please explain the "spectacular". i don't get it.

[Daniel]

thank you a.f.f.

i didn't say 2wd cars are crap. that video is awesome. but awd for me is part of the magic of wrc. racing is difficult and expensive. i'm all for making the cars simpler, making it cheaper to compete, and wrc has made significant progress with that in recent years. 2wd just seems like going too far.

What about when the top cars were RWD like in the early 80's and the 70's? :uhoh: I don't see how the WRC's become much cheaper over the last few years :)

[urabus-denoS2000]

I think they should keep the S2000+ ,but they could make S2000+FWD (something like the F2 Maxi kit cars) that could ,with a specialist driver on a tarmac rally,attack for podium finish.

[reverb09]

What about when the top cars were RWD like in the early 80's and the 70's? :uhoh: I don't see how the WRC's become much cheaper over the last few years :)

i was only talking about recent years, since wrc has become awd. they have been making efforts to reduce costs, such as mechanical diffs. obviously it got more expensive when the switch was made to awd, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad, does it?

and if they went back to 2wd it would likely be fwd, yes? manufacturers won't want to field special rwd versions of their cars will they?

[Filip]

I think wrc cars should stay awd, but it would be good to make a special class for RWD cars. FWD is good only on tarmac, while on gravel they look crappy to me, RWD is a more attractive but I don't think it would be safer.

[Daniel]

I think wrc cars should stay awd, but it would be good to make a special class for RWD cars. FWD is good only on tarmac, while on gravel they look crappy to me, RWD is a more attractive but I don't think it would be safer.
Perhaps you need to watch some of the 90's BRC videos. Anytime there are top drivers in FWD cars the results are spectacular.

[N.O.T]

any car can be driven spectacularly....the only thing i like about 2wd is that it separates men from boys and dogs....but i don't see it happenng.

[Brother John]

Yes Yes Yes, Back to the roots!
I tell here already two years that WRC cars with 4wd or too fast.
Now you find a hand-full drivers which win always! Rally champion is now only the factory drivers which have a contract. With normal cars we will see other drivers on the podium. Do they have to wait till there happened something like in wales 2006?
If you like speed go to circuit races. :cool: :s mokin:

[OldF]

1. The same work has to done to the bodywork to convert a FWD to RWD as a conversion from FWD to AWD.
2. Then they have to design a gearbox for a transversal engine & RWD.

= I don’t think a RWD would be much cheaper than an AWD.

[Daniel]

1. The same work has to done to the bodywork to convert a FWD to RWD as a conversion from FWD to AWD.
2. Then they have to design a gearbox for a transversal engine & RWD.

= I don’t think a RWD would be much cheaper than an AWD.
It's not being suggested to make it all RWD. Just 2wd.

[AndyRAC]

I'm openminded about this suggestion, but, I personally feel that 4WD has proved it's point. How many C4's, Focii are 4WD? Mitsubishi have a 4WD Lancer, but don't have a WRCar. So it's only Subaru who have a WRCar and a 4WD road car.
If there were loads of Manufacturers queuing up to join the WRC, or had declared an interest in S2000 then maybe, yeah stick with 4WD. However, if 2WD meant lots of new Manufacturers interested then 2WD it is. Anyway, remember the F2 cars - imagine maybe 6, 7, 8 teams with them. I would still prefer 4WD, but looking at the bigger picture, a strong WRC is what I want - if this is with 2WD, then so be it. I mean up until 1980 4WD was banned, and wasn't the WRC great then?

[Zico]

Yes Yes Yes, Back to the roots!
I tell here already two years that WRC cars with 4wd or too fast.
Now you find a hand-full drivers which win always! Rally champion is now only the factory drivers which have a contract. With normal cars we will see other drivers on the podium. Do they have to wait till there happened something like in wales 2006?
If you like speed go to circuit races. :cool: :s mokin:

Totally agree BJ :D The current format has reached its platau in development, its huge expense allows mainly only the drivers with the financial backing to compete. Its strangling the natural talent that we used to see come through when the financial chasm between works teams and privateers was a fraction of what it is now.

Max says a lot of things which dont materialize.... and I doubt this will either but I really hope we do go back to 2wd, preferably rwd only! :D it will level the playing field massively, the financial restraints will be removed and make the top format accesable to thousands.... Bring it on.


But 1.8 Turbos?.... hmm.. na... give us high revving naturally aspirated engines again please.

[Daniel]

Only thing is that NA engines are more expensive for the power they put out in a competition car.

[Nenukknak]

And here we go again. You (you know who you are) really think that changing the cars from 4wd to 2wd will matter with regards to costs and impact of the car.

If you take away 4wd, manufacturers will take some other piece of the car and invest in there.

Take the abandonement of group B, where the focus was largely on power. With the advent of powerrestriction in group A, manufacturers really started to focus on drivetrain and suspension, everything else but poweroutputs.

WRCs have gearboxes which cost I don't know how much, 2wd cars need gearboxes as well. Manufacturers will always make cars expensive if they can or have too to win. That's just a natural cycle within any motorsport.

The less engineers have to tinker with the more development will go into the little details that they do still have to tinker with.

As for the 2wd being more spectacular, I'll take a Pug205 t16, Audi S1, Delta S4, over a Fiat 131 or Ford Escort anyday.

[L5->R5/CR]

If the change to 2wd means beasts like the Lancia 037 then bring it on.

If the change to 2wd means beasts like the F2 Kit cars, then bring it on.

If the change to 2wd means warmed over S1600 cars (as has been described), no thank you.

[Daniel]

I don't necessarily think it's about cost. I think 2wd would make the WRC more exciting. Not talking about rwd but fwd.

[Daniel]

If the change to 2wd means beasts like the Lancia 037 then bring it on.

If the change to 2wd means beasts like the F2 Kit cars, then bring it on.

If the change to 2wd means warmed over S1600 cars (as has been described), no thank you.

Agreed. I doubt they'd be like S1600 cars cars though.

[ste898]

Well it is a fact now to me that the FIA want to finish WRC because if they bring in this stupid idea them that will be WRC dead totally!!!
Of course there will be people that will support it on here there always is!!

But if they were to make them REAR wheel drive now that would be a different matter.......but the FIA will never do that!!

[Daniel]

Ste. Have you never seen a video of F2 cars? Were you overseas when the F2 championship was running in the UK? So many questions.

[ste898]

Yes Daniel I saw the F2 cars on many rallies here in UK, they sounded good but to be honest they are regional champnioship cars only and certainly not for the top of the sport at WRC level

[Daniel]

Why not? They're every bit as fast on tarmac and not as slow as you'd think on gravel.

[Zico]

And here we go again. You (you know who you are) really think that changing the cars from 4wd to 2wd will matter with regards to costs and impact of the car.

I do agree but I didnt make it clear that I meant by starting at the beginning of the cycle again the cars would imitially be more afordable allowing more financially poor but talented drivers to compete with elite.



As for the 2wd being more spectacular, I'll take a Pug205 t16, Audi S1, Delta S4, over a Fiat 131 or Ford Escort anyday.

Me too.. unfortunately we are never going to see the return of these beasts. :(




For those of you who unwilling to accept the death of the current WRC format... Where can it really go from here? The cars have reached 95% plus of their development potential, with tiny further gains only achieved at extortionate cost.. it simply cant go on. I welcome the rebirth, the start of a new cycle and the positives that come with it... more factory teams encouraged to compete on a fresh basis.. a level playing field and also a new breed of young talented drivers. Has to happen soon imo..

[COD]

no no no no no no!!! wrc should remain awd! the speeds are so exciting and the cars are amazing! please no 2wd! ugh!

sorry for the outburst. did you see this (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65678 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65678%29?))?

An FIA source told Autosport: "Two-wheel-drive cars with 1600cc or 1800cc turbocharged engines remain an option. Mr Mosley has been very clear on what he wants from the future regulations. He wants the cars to be slower, safer, cheaper, and more spectacular.

"Two-wheel-drive cars would certainly corner slower, so would be safer. It's safe to say two-wheel-drive would tick all the boxes Mr Mosley has asked to be ticked."
slower, safer, cheaper and more spectacular? are you kidding me? safer and cheaper is fine, we all want more manufacturers. but how do slower and more spectacular go together? that is about the stupidest thing...

Sorry to say this, but this comment can only come from someone who has only spectated rallying and only for few years. a spectator can not spot the speed difference unless there are 4wd cars to compare it with. If You would have watched rallying in the 80's, you would know how spectacular 2wd can be. ( even 90's with the 2L kit-cars)

[jparker]

What about safety, are 2WD cars safer then AWD?

[Zico]

What about safety, are 2WD cars safer then AWD?

Depends on your definition of safe. Less stable but lower traction means lower overall speeds.

[TKM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjKKAxAuQ5Q

Watch that and tell me 2wd's are crap :p

P.S Say 2wd's are crap and I slap you upside your head biatch! :cheese:

That's crap. Not because it's 2WD, but because it's FWD.

[ST205GT4]

How's the old saying go?

Fast. Cheap. Reliable. Pick 2.

It will not matter what formula is used unless it is a complete control formula. It is the nature of engineers to find areas in a class in which they can pour money to gain advantage over the opposition. So even if a proposed new 2wd class were to start out cheap it wouldn't last.

You'd think people who have been involved in motorsport all of their lives would recognise this.

[jso1985]

It could certainly attract more manufacturers(and losing some too) and it should surely make the sport cheaper.
RWD won't happen, very few manufacturers buold RWD cars nowadays that are good for rallying
FWD should work then, shame that on my impression they are less spectacular than AWD or RWD

[L5->R5/CR]

What is it with the fascination of labeling the WRC as too expensive?

It is racing, it is a world championship, and there are 15 events. What part of that sounds like it shouldn't be expensive?

The problem isn't with the WRC being too expensive (there used to be more teams spending more money happily in the WRC relative to today). The problem is that the WRC isn't a very good investment.

Don't make the sport cheaper, make it more valuable. What is it that makes this notion so difficult to grasp?

Just think about it. Toyota reportedly spends more money in one year of F1, with just a couple more races a year, than all of the WRC teams spend combined plus millions and millions of dollars. Why does Toyota do it? Besides stupid pride, they do it because F1, when done right, represents an incredible investment and return. The WRC doesn't need to be more like F1 except for increasing its return on investment.

Adding 2wd back to the championship might just make it a better investment for more manufacturers but really, lets stop the pretense of the WRC being to expensive and accept that it just isn't worth the investment instead.

[Koz]

In this day and age, arent there more AWD cars out there, available for you and me to buy, compared to RWD?
Citroen, Peugeot, Skoda, Audi, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda, etc etc, how many of them have cars that would benifit from RWD marketing?

Also, they say AWD is more similar to FWD in driving style... So would the current top drivers, due to their driving styles be at the same level as they are now?
Or would this bring out some of the expert RWD no-names out there, and we loose market because no one knows who is racing? On the other hand these "no-names" could be great charasmatic people, which would be great.

Alot of people out there own Mitsubishi's and Subaru, and dare I say Audis because of their AWD combined with their rally history?

And alot of people will say "FWD are for faggots" if they decide to take it that way. As spectacular as they look with top drivers in them, people wont care, as you can see the responses on this forum.
The WRC will loose most of its market long before the anyone seens FWD in the top level.
Although there would be a big market for the manufacturers, if people dont watch, they wont care either.

Everything except the S2000+turbo option seem like double-edged sword.

As for the S2000... Alot has been invested in making and developing them, adding a turbo wont cost too much from there. And it still leaves a great big market out there for the mass, and for the manufacturers. No?


Edit: I forgot about the money aspect, well here's news, the WRC is alot cheaper now than it was 22 years ago. And 22 years ago you had more manufaturers than now. I dont think the RS200, the Quattro, the 037 and the S4s were cheaper to develop than the current WRC cars, were they?
Lack of interest from the masses is the problem it seems, not money.

[Leon]

What is it with the fascination of labeling the WRC as too expensive?

It is racing, it is a world championship, and there are 15 events. What part of that sounds like it shouldn't be expensive?

The problem isn't with the WRC being too expensive (there used to be more teams spending more money happily in the WRC relative to today). The problem is that the WRC isn't a very good investment.

Don't make the sport cheaper, make it more valuable. What is it that makes this notion so difficult to grasp?

Just think about it. Toyota reportedly spends more money in one year of F1, with just a couple more races a year, than all of the WRC teams spend combined plus millions and millions of dollars. Why does Toyota do it? Besides stupid pride, they do it because F1, when done right, represents an incredible investment and return. The WRC doesn't need to be more like F1 except for increasing its return on investment.

Adding 2wd back to the championship might just make it a better investment for more manufacturers but really, lets stop the pretense of the WRC being to expensive and accept that it just isn't worth the investment instead.

That says it all for me. couldn't agree more.

[Daniel]

That's crap. Not because it's 2WD, but because it's FWD.
I'm sorry but you clearly haven't a clue.

[Daniel]

How's the old saying go?

Fast. Cheap. Reliable. Pick 2.

It will not matter what formula is used unless it is a complete control formula. It is the nature of engineers to find areas in a class in which they can pour money to gain advantage over the opposition. So even if a proposed new 2wd class were to start out cheap it wouldn't last.

You'd think people who have been involved in motorsport all of their lives would recognise this.

Yes. BUT and it's a big but. It takes a certain amount of time for a new formula to become too expensive. I mean how many glory years did Group A have before it became too expensive to make the cars and make the homologation models. WRCars made it cheaper for a time but as with all things it became too expensive. Time to move on then. Just like in a few years S2000 will become too expensive. It will be time to move on then. We've long since seen the end where motorsport categories can allow themselves to be static things where the formula never changes. I personally think that S2000 should have been NA engines with a bigger restrictor but perhaps that's just me :) I have always said that the WRC should become F2 related. F2 cars were 960kg! That's 270kg's less than the WRCars and it means that the performance lost from the loss of FWD is somewhat negated by the weight loss.

[TKM]

I'm sorry but you clearly haven't a clue.
And you do???

[Daniel]

And you do???
Well that was the insinuation.

[jonkka]

Of those by a comfortable margin the most popular class is 2wd group F, measured by the amount of spectators and competitors.

And the reason is: 2wd spectacularity.

You claim that price doesn't play a role?

[COD]

What about safety, are 2WD cars safer then AWD?

Lower cornering speeds means less speed on impact = safer

[COD]

What is it with the fascination of labeling the WRC as too expensive?

It is racing, it is a world championship, and there are 15 events. What part of that sounds like it shouldn't be expensive?

The problem isn't with the WRC being too expensive (there used to be more teams spending more money happily in the WRC relative to today). The problem is that the WRC isn't a very good investment.

Don't make the sport cheaper, make it more valuable. What is it that makes this notion so difficult to grasp?

Just think about it. Toyota reportedly spends more money in one year of F1, with just a couple more races a year, than all of the WRC teams spend combined plus millions and millions of dollars. Why does Toyota do it? Besides stupid pride, they do it because F1, when done right, represents an incredible investment and return. The WRC doesn't need to be more like F1 except for increasing its return on investment.

Adding 2wd back to the championship might just make it a better investment for more manufacturers but really, lets stop the pretense of the WRC being to expensive and accept that it just isn't worth the investment instead.


That's the same thing isn't it? I mean, it is too expensive compared to return. Also not only expensive, but the cars are so advanced, that for new manufacturer to develop one is too expensive to make it to top, where you need to be to get return for the investment

[jonkka]

But 1.8 Turbos?.... hmm.. na... give us high revving naturally aspirated engines again please.

Go see F1.

[Daniel]

That's the same thing isn't it? I mean, it is too expensive compared to return. Also not only expensive, but the cars are so advanced, that for new manufacturer to develop one is too expensive to make it to top, where you need to be to get return for the investment

And with the cost of entry so high that means new teams are worried about coming in, spending lots of money and getting nowhere. Things need to get cheaper if only for a few years before the WRC gets more popular and it can justify the expense with being popular.

[MikeD]

What is it with the fascination of labeling the WRC as too expensive?

It is racing, it is a world championship, and there are 15 events. What part of that sounds like it shouldn't be expensive?

The problem isn't with the WRC being too expensive (there used to be more teams spending more money happily in the WRC relative to today). The problem is that the WRC isn't a very good investment.

Don't make the sport cheaper, make it more valuable. What is it that makes this notion so difficult to grasp?

Just think about it. Toyota reportedly spends more money in one year of F1, with just a couple more races a year, than all of the WRC teams spend combined plus millions and millions of dollars. Why does Toyota do it? Besides stupid pride, they do it because F1, when done right, represents an incredible investment and return. The WRC doesn't need to be more like F1 except for increasing its return on investment.


Agree. I have said that so many times in here, that WRC has so much to learn from F1 when it comes to motorsport being a marketing tool. But just using the "F1" word in here makes people go berserk ;)

[Daniel]

Agree. I have said that so many times in here, that WRC has so much to learn from F1 when it comes to motorsport being a marketing tool. But just using the "F1" word in here makes people go berserk ;)

The very problem with the WRC is that they tried to market it like F1 with "live" coverage. The WRC isn't F1 and F1 isn't the WRC. Saying that the WRC should learn from F1 is saying a butcher should talk to someone laying sewage pipes for tips on how to butcher meat. If the WRC tries to make itself more like F1 it'll sink even further down than it is now.

[ste898]

The S2000 Turbo rule was perfect to replace the current 'proper' cars....but as always the FIA have to bals it up by now saying about another formula.......and suprise suprise Mr 'I know nothing' Mosley is involved

[jparker]

Lower cornering speeds means less speed on impact = safer
I don't think the cornering speed is the one that matters when talking sfety. For me safety is better control of the car at very high speed. That's why I don't agree 2wd are safer.

[Daniel]

I don't think the cornering speed is the one that matters when talking sfety. For me safety is better control of the car at very high speed. That's why I don't agree 2wd are safer.
Why do people say that 4wd in a rally car is somehow so much safer? FWD or RWD cars have much more predictable handling than a 4wd car.

Saying that 4wd is safer is a bit simplistic....

[Daniel]

The S2000 Turbo rule was perfect to replace the current 'proper' cars....but as always the FIA have to bals it up by now saying about another formula.......and suprise suprise Mr 'I know nothing' Mosley is involved

Yes and no. There was no actual mention of Max actually directly saying 2wd was what he wanted. It was Morrie Chandler that made the comments :) I would be happy with S2000+ now. But I do think at some stage the WRC is going to have to go 2wd to get back to being as spectacular as it was 10 years ago. It will happen sooner or later.

[Zico]

I don't think the cornering speed is the one that matters when talking sfety. For me safety is better control of the car at very high speed. That's why I don't agree 2wd are safer.

If you are suggesting that 2wd cars crash more often pro rata Im not convinced. Even if it was the case.. I'd much rather have 2 medium speed impacts than 1 high speed impact.

[Lousada]

What's wrong with FWD? Maybe the drivers!
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ND6aoEPLxYU
More Ragnotti and less Rautenbach please!

[L5->R5/CR]

That's the same thing isn't it? I mean, it is too expensive compared to return. Also not only expensive, but the cars are so advanced, that for new manufacturer to develop one is too expensive to make it to top, where you need to be to get return for the investment


Relatively speaking, you are right. IF they make the cars and participation cheaper with no impact to the overall return the investment becomes better.


HOWEVER, there is a distinct difference in how you pursue solutions to the relative disparity. It is a simple equation/ratio type problem. You can work on one side or the other. The problem is that the FIA thinks that they can only control the costs side of the equation not the return on the investment side. This is shortsighted and wrong, but par for the course with the FIA.



And with the cost of entry so high that means new teams are worried about coming in, spending lots of money and getting nowhere. Things need to get cheaper if only for a few years before the WRC gets more popular and it can justify the expense with being popular.


You make this argument like it is unique to the WRC. This is the same situation for every major racing series in the world. There is no guarantee of success (that is part of what makes motorsport valuable to marketing, you actually have to be good to do well). I just don't buy the argument that teams are afraid of not doing well because that is just how it is in motorsport. Teams don't enter because they don't see the return being there, they feel that can enter other sporting options and get the same amount of return for less money.



The very problem with the WRC is that they tried to market it like F1 with "live" coverage. The WRC isn't F1 and F1 isn't the WRC. Saying that the WRC should learn from F1 is saying a butcher should talk to someone laying sewage pipes for tips on how to butcher meat. If the WRC tries to make itself more like F1 it'll sink even further down than it is now.

You misunderstand what I was getting at. The WRC needs to find WRC specific solutions BUT needs to focus on finding a way to have the media and fan commercial content. Trying to do a more live broadcast type of solution to be more like F1 is not what I am talking about.

F1 and NASCAR (NASCAR perhaps even more so) have found ways to present and market themselves in the various different forms of media. The WRC needs to look at what it has to offer, what its core appeal is, and then embrace that and find a way to market that. NASCAR is not so hugely popular because of its fantastic and exciting racing (the racing itself is shadowed by many less popular series) so much as it is widely popular because of the other types of marketing that is done.

People don't watch NASCAR to see all the great battles, they watch NASCAR to see how their favorite driver/team does against his rivals.

The WRC needs to figure out what its core appeal is, what ever that may be, and then embrace that and find a way to promote that. For F1 it is the "technology", for NASCAR it is the personalities, for WRC it needs to be something specific to the WRC.

Make it valuable and the teams will come. Make it cheaper and who knows.

[Lousada]

I agree mostly with your views L5.

Relatively speaking, you are right. IF they make the cars and participation cheaper with no impact to the overall return the investment becomes better.


HOWEVER, there is a distinct difference in how you pursue solutions to the relative disparity. It is a simple equation/ratio type problem. You can work on one side or the other. The problem is that the FIA thinks that they can only control the costs side of the equation not the return on the investment side. This is shortsighted and wrong, but par for the course with the FIA.


The FIA can only do something about the costs side. The return on investment side is ISC's job (or whatever they are called now). It is now up to the FIA alone to do something about the WRC, and they have repeatedly shown that they do not care. They will only listen to (some of) the manufacturers and do not care about the fans. It's up to ISC to care for the fans, because we are their customers. Yet they do not know what they are doing.



You make this argument like it is unique to the WRC. This is the same situation for every major racing series in the world. There is no guarantee of success (that is part of what makes motorsport valuable to marketing, you actually have to be good to do well). I just don't buy the argument that teams are afraid of not doing well because that is just how it is in motorsport. Teams don't enter because they don't see the return being there, they feel that can enter other sporting options and get the same amount of return for less money.

Indeed. Look at F1 which is basicly a 2 horse race every year, yet has 6 manufacturers plus Red Bull.



Make it valuable and the teams will come. Make it cheaper and who knows.
Yep, just making it cheaper will only be a stopgap. In 2015 we will again be arguing about the good ol days of 2010 when we had 6 manufacturers.

[Daniel]

You make this argument like it is unique to the WRC. This is the same situation for every major racing series in the world. There is no guarantee of success (that is part of what makes motorsport valuable to marketing, you actually have to be good to do well). I just don't buy the argument that teams are afraid of not doing well because that is just how it is in motorsport. Teams don't enter because they don't see the return being there, they feel that can enter other sporting options and get the same amount of return for less money.

The WRC needs to figure out what its core appeal is, what ever that may be, and then embrace that and find a way to promote that. For F1 it is the "technology", for NASCAR it is the personalities, for WRC it needs to be something specific to the WRC.

Make it valuable and the teams will come. Make it cheaper and who knows.

I make that specific argument in regards to Audi. Audi pulled out of Group B when Lancia and Peugeot were kicking butt, then they pulled out of group A when their car was too fat and heavy, they pulled out of the BTCC soon after 4wd and therefore their advantage was banned. Audi come into a series to win and if they don't think they can win they leave or never enter at all :)

I agree that the WRC needs to tap into what makes it the WRC in regards to marketing. To me the thing that makes it the WRC is the locations and I think they've gone the wrong way in regards to this. No Safari was a big mistake for the WRC :( Selling out and going to places like Cyprus, Turkey, Jordan and Mexico which don't add much to the WRC in terms of market or scenery have cheapened the WRC in my mind. I'd much rather see a snow rally in North America, a rally somewhere good in SE Asia ( I quite liked Indonesia as it was soooo slippery) and perhaps an event in South Africa if they can find a decent venue. Then they need to look at making rallies tougher. I would firstly look at how much ballast cars are carrying. If say for instance the cars are carrying 100kg's ballast then reduce the min weight of the car by 100 odd kg and then tell the manufacturers they can't use expensive materials like titanium and carbon fibre and they'll have to reduce the weight of suspension components and driveline components and they will therefore be more fragile (and cheaper to manufacture which isn't a bad thing) make remote servicing more common and easier so that if a car breaks a suspension component in stage it can get a to a service easier rather than being DQ'd because of the current rules regarding cars with only 3 wheels on public roads.

F1 has the TV rights money which goes to the teams which means that for someone like Ferrari you can fund your F1 campaign on sponsorship, tv rights and merchandise (don't laugh. Think about how much Ferrari stuff they sell each year). This simply can't happen in the WRC. I agree the ISC do need to pick up their game. That would be part of the solution for sure.

[jparker]

If you are suggesting that 2wd cars crash more often pro rata Im not convinced. Even if it was the case.. I'd much rather have 2 medium speed impacts than 1 high speed impact.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. When we talk about safety, we have to focus only on high speed impacts. Today's standards are good enough to insure driver's safety at low to medium impacts and I don't even count them as safety factor. But what happens if driver makes an error at high speed? What car is more likely to provide better chances for avoiding the accident?

[Daniel]

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. When we talk about safety, we have to focus only on high speed impacts. Today's standards are good enough to insure driver's safety at low to medium impacts and I don't even count them as safety factor. But what happens if driver makes an error at high speed? What car is more likely to provide better chances for avoiding the accident?
Not a 4wd car. A 2wd car provides more predictable response in general.



The road holding characteristics of these cars are a bit more complex. They usually display a combination of both of the above road holding characters and are very far from being neutral. Usually full time 4 wheel drive cars are based on a front or rear wheel drive version of the same model. This fact greatly influences their handling i.e. cars that are based on rear wheel drive models will initially display a more oversteering type of handling whereas cars that are based on front wheel drive models will initially display an understeering type of handling. The above description is just a rule of thumb however and, depending on the engine output, weight and torque distribution, one or the other type of handling may prevail.
Generally this type of vehicle changes its handling characteristics while in a corner. The car has a tendency to understeer when entering the corner and oversteer when exiting. The driver can modulate this characteristic by using the throttle and brake pedals in a way to induce a neutral type of handling. Like in the case of front wheel drive cars the driver has to "brake late" when entering the corner, to operate a weigh transfer, and push the gas pedal while inside the corner in order to allow a "torque transfer" (usually operated by self locking differentials (http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/4wd_turbo_cars.html)) to the rear wheels. The torque transfer is most noticeable in turbocharged vehicles. When the turbocharger reaches its full throttle speed, at around 100,000-150,000 RPM depending on the turbo's type, and the car's engine develops its maximum torque the front wheels are overloaded and will have a tendency to spin due to the excess torque applied to them. The spin is detected by the center differential which will progressively lock and bias engine torque sending the excess torque to the rear wheels thus inducing oversteer.
Most people have the wrong impression that 4WD is only useful on slippery roads and conditions. The best argument against this impression is to drive all three types of vehicle (front or rear wheel drive) on a dry tortuous road. In the first tight corner try extracting the car at the limit of its tires' grip and see what happens. Wheel spin is simply unavoidable.
A front wheel drive car will have its inside wheel spinning and will almost stall in the absence of a self locking differential (http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/4wd_turbo_cars.html). The only choice left to its driver is to lift off.
A rear wheel drive car will also have its inside wheel spinning and will get into oversteer. In the absence of a self locking differential (http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/4wd_turbo_cars.html) the driver, apart from counter-steering, will have to ease on the gas pedal if he is to avoid exiting the road.
A full time 4 wheel drive car can negotiate the same corner with the gas pedal almost floored...
Although full time 4 wheel drive cars are not as much "fun" to drive as are rear wheel drive ones they are so much faster and efficient than the other types that unless one drives them he is unable to imagine the cornering speeds 4wd cars are able to reach safely.
The major drawbacks of 4wd cars when compared with their 2wd counterparts are:

Increased mechanical complexity affecting their price, weight and reliability[/*:m:33culap2]
Higher mechanical losses (friction) due to the number of gears to drive (differentials, axles, driveshafts, ...)[/*:m:33culap2]
In turbocharged versions the famous "turbo lag" effect which forces the driver to anticipate the car's reactions[/*:m:33culap2]
The, sometimes, sudden character of the transition from understeer to oversteer mid-corner[/*:m:33culap2]As you might have guessed these cars are a lot more demanding when driven to the limit. A certain familiarization time is necessary for a novice before he can master and anticipate the car's reactions.
Most examples of full time 4WD turbocharged cars where developed in the sole purpose of competing in the World Rally Championship (http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/wrc_statistics.html).
One can only regret the progressive disappearance of four wheel drive turbocharged models from the manufacturer's' lineups. The days when a car enthusiast could opt for this breed are unfortunately (almost) over.

http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/4wd_turbo_cars1.html

This should give you an idea of why 4wd cars are less predictable than 2wd cars.

Quite funny as it was written a while ago and 4wd seems to be getting more popular these days :)

[L5->R5/CR]

I make that specific argument in regards to Audi. Audi pulled out of Group B when Lancia and Peugeot were kicking butt, then they pulled out of group A when their car was too fat and heavy, they pulled out of the BTCC soon after 4wd and therefore their advantage was banned. Audi come into a series to win and if they don't think they can win they leave or never enter at all :)

When I made my comments I knew you'd bring up Audi....

Audi is Audi, they go into race series with a singular focus, domination. If they can't achieve domination they change their "focus" to something else that requires they participate in a difference series. Once they dominate for a while they leave since Audi is only concerned with inflating their ego.

But think about Toyota or Honda in F1, or Toyota in NASCAR. They out spend almost everybody and have very little to show for it yet they are their to prove the quality of their brand and because they see the value in being there, even if they aren't wildly successful. They haven't pulled out because they can't win (ok they are starting to do very well in NASCAR) because there is enough value in participation not just winning.


F1 has the TV rights money which goes to the teams which means that for someone like Ferrari you can fund your F1 campaign on sponsorship, tv rights and merchandise (don't laugh. Think about how much Ferrari stuff they sell each year). This simply can't happen in the WRC. I agree the ISC do need to pick up their game. That would be part of the solution for sure.


There was an article a couple years ago that pointed out, based on net profits, Ferrari makes more from F1 merchandise than from selling cars. The same article pointed out that Ferrari spends more money on F1 than the total of its road going car sales bring in in overall revenue and that without sponsorship and highly profitable merchandise they would be bankrupt because of F1.

[Zico]

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. When we talk about safety, we have to focus only on high speed impacts. Today's standards are good enough to insure driver's safety at low to medium impacts and I don't even count them as safety factor. But what happens if driver makes an error at high speed? What car is more likely to provide better chances for avoiding the accident?

I think you misunderstand me...

My point and opinion is that because 4wd cars can corner and exit the corner far faster due to their far superior traction... they average higher speeds, when a 4wd pilot makes a mistake at higher speeds despite the general superior stability, the chance of avoiding an accident are at least equal to that of a 2wd car because reaction time becomes increasingly more critical the higher the speed. The higher the speed.. the bigger the impact.. the more G's the car and crew have to deal with... less safe?

I dont think its as simple as that either, its a very complex argument.. I'd love to see who's POV the statistics would support..

[MikeD]

There was an article a couple years ago that pointed out, based on net profits, Ferrari makes more from F1 merchandise than from selling cars. The same article pointed out that Ferrari spends more money on F1 than the total of its road going car sales bring in in overall revenue and that without sponsorship and highly profitable merchandise they would be bankrupt because of F1.

Just some added info: Ferrari's Marlboro sponsorship is worth the same of all sponsors on the 5 smallest teams in F1, which tell how important history and acheived results are for that team and their fans. Many other manufacturers could learn from what Ferrari has done and maybe that is what Toyota, Honda and BMW is hoping for over time.

Personally I hope that brands like Alfa Romeo and/or Audi would join WRC because they the names that would create an extra interest from different motorsport fans. It's just not the same when Suzuki arrives (even though they are more than welcome)

[jparker]

I think you misunderstand me...

My point and opinion is that because 4wd cars can corner and exit the corner far faster due to their far superior traction... they average higher speeds, when a 4wd pilot makes a mistake at higher speeds despite the general superior stability, the chance of avoiding an accident are at least equal to that of a 2wd car because reaction time becomes increasingly more critical the higher the speed. The higher the speed.. the bigger the impact.. the more G's the car and crew have to deal with... less safe?

I dont think its as simple as that either, its a very complex argument.. I'd love to see who's POV the statistics would support..

OK, but lets assume for second that both 2WD and AWD are capable of reaching the same max speed. Once driver lost control of a car, then only the passive safety counts. But what about from "avoiding the accident" point of view?

[Daniel]

OK, but lets assume for second that both 2WD and AWD are capable of reaching the same max speed. Once driver lost control of a car, then only the passive safety counts. But what about from "avoiding the accident" point of view?

Can someone please explain that 4wd handling isn't as simple and consistent as 2wd handling? I suspect someone has clicked the ignore on me ;)

[Daniel]

When I made my comments I knew you'd bring up Audi....

Audi is Audi, they go into race series with a singular focus, domination. If they can't achieve domination they change their "focus" to something else that requires they participate in a difference series. Once they dominate for a while they leave since Audi is only concerned with inflating their ego.

But think about Toyota or Honda in F1, or Toyota in NASCAR. They out spend almost everybody and have very little to show for it yet they are their to prove the quality of their brand and because they see the value in being there, even if they aren't wildly successful. They haven't pulled out because they can't win (ok they are starting to do very well in NASCAR) because there is enough value in participation not just winning.

There was an article a couple years ago that pointed out, based on net profits, Ferrari makes more from F1 merchandise than from selling cars. The same article pointed out that Ferrari spends more money on F1 than the total of its road going car sales bring in in overall revenue and that without sponsorship and highly profitable merchandise they would be bankrupt because of F1.

Yup. Exactly my point. But the WRC doesn't have the luxury of being as merchandise friendly and also doesn't rake in the sponsorship or TV money of F1. Perhaps it could if it was better marketed but the product just isn't right at the moment. The WRC needs to reinvent itself and make itself something closer to what it was that got people crazy about it in the 90's.

[Zico]

OK, but lets assume for second that both 2WD and AWD are capable of reaching the same max speed. Once driver lost control of a car, then only the passive safety counts. But what about from "avoiding the accident" point of view?

Ok.. generally more stable, due to AWD.. and I dare say, less likely to spin ie.. if clipping a bank.. Its only a small part of the equation which the other factors outweigh though.

[AndyRAC]

Good thread, some very good points raised; agree with some, others disagree, but can see were people are coming from. Just a few points from myself.
Manufacturers are in Motorsport to sell more cars. FACT!!! Remember the old adage, 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday'. In this day and age, they're not charities, so they want to spend as little as possible to get the maximum return. This hasn't always been the case - some would spend huge amounts.
What are they going to get out of it in terms of returns? Exposure, media, TV, Radio, papers - just look at this week. All the coverage in the papers, radio ,TV about the F1 season, loads of coverage for the Manufacturers and sponsors. Plus all the guaranteed coverage throughout the season.
Now compare with WRC, it's night and day, in fact you can't even compare the coverage - there's been more F1 coverage this year than WRC, and we haven't even had the first GP.
The WRC has to be attractive to Manufacturers if they are thinking of joining, and value for money. I would say it isn't, how long can the current formulae carry on?
The only way new Manufacturers are likely to join is if the rules/regs are simpler and easier to build/develop a new car, plus being cheaper, and more value for money. If the cars on the stages resemble the road cars this is a bonus. I would prefer 4WD, but a strong WRC is what I want, if this is 2WD, so be it.

[Nenukknak]

Not a 4wd car. A 2wd car provides more predictable response in general.



http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/4wd_turbo_cars1.html

This should give you an idea of why 4wd cars are less predictable than 2wd cars.

Quite funny as it was written a while ago and 4wd seems to be getting more popular these days :)


If this is your argument to say that 2wd cars are safer than 4wd cars, especially with regards to WRC, than your arguments are getting pretty lame.

Another point with regards to this whole return on investment subject. IMHO (and I have said this many times before) there is only one way to create a healthy WRC and that is to make each individual rally count. Make a rally an event, like it was in the olden days. Each rally with its own specialities. That's the biggest mistake that was made with WRC, uniformity. Bring back real rallies, adventures, then you will get back interest from both audience and manufacturers.

Nobody cares about some guys driving up and down a stage through the forest a couple of times in a car with (supposedly) 300bhp, big deal.
But when that forest is somewhere in Finland, then it becomes interesting, and especially when these guys even do that at night, even more interesting.
Nobody cares about some guys driving up and down a stage through rocky gravel. Except when they have to do it in scorching heat and for many miles through the country, like the Acropolis.
Well you get my point. Rallies such as the Monte and Corsica, rallies that meant something, and now they could drive anywhere because the roads they use are so little, it doesn't matter where they drive.
Also if WRC doesn't have a return on investment then don't force it to have, look at the original strength of rallying and base it on those points. Then WRC will be popular and interesting again.

[ste898]

Yes and no. There was no actual mention of Max actually directly saying 2wd was what he wanted. .

Yes Daniel he did say in Autosport here in UK and to me he should keep his nose out......
Also you are right about WRC should not model itself on F1

[Daniel]

well on the autosport site it mentions nothing of it.

[Daniel]

If this is your argument to say that 2wd cars are safer than 4wd cars, especially with regards to WRC, than your arguments are getting pretty lame.

Well sorry for providing some backup for my opinion :)

If you want to think that the handling of a car with 3 differentials is just as easy as a car with one then good luck to you :up: :laugh:

[RallyCat909]

I say this all the time. Just an opinion to be sure. :)



I love rallying all over the planet. But case in point - I go to local SCCA AutoCrosses here in memphis and all the old guys still talk about the old MK2 Escorts and Fiats (RWD) Munari, Mikkola, Vatanen....now most of these guys are rusty old country boys with good upbringing, college, and good jobs. Just a generation away from trailer park and poverty. But the very fact that these guys know of these relatively obscure drivers and cars (to americans anyway) says something for RWD action.

I have been saying this for years, why not have a class for RWD cars. This might bring BMW, Porsche, Aston Martin, and the occasional Ferarri back to the stages. (Lifting the mandate that manufacturers contest the entire damned calendar might not hurt either.)

AWD has proved its point, its faster, but at the end of the day its a circus, and a good circus has memorable attractions.

RallyCat909

[TKM]

Well that was the insinuation.

I'm sorry I forgot you were such an expert on all things rally. Remind me, when was the last time you drove a rally car in competition again?

[cosmicpanda]

I wonder if they could leave the PWRC as is (maybe reduce restrictor size), which would keep Subaru happy and leave a 4WD class in rally. The JWRC could remain as well so that there is an FWD class, and perhaps the WRC could be replaced by a RWD class.

In most cases, the reduction in speed wouldn't be noticed by spectators - when I went to a national championship rally without WRCs, the group N cars still seemed spectacular enough.

[Rally Power]

Sorry about my poor english, but even if I cannot express correctly I've feel the need to participate in this forum to say this:
1. Even with billions and billions of dollars involved, F1 cannot attract more than 5 manufacteurs (4 if toyota lives by the end of the year) :eek:
2. The proposed WRC S2000+ formula would easily involved 6 to 8 brands to the sport, creating a new media exposure :cool:
3. It´s easy to understand that a strong WRC is a menace to the all mighty God of F1, Mr. Ecllestone (and therefore his partner Mosley) :mad:
4. Mr. Mosley's tip about returning WRC to 2wd Machines is nothing less than a manouver to distract manufacteurs of their aim to increase WRC interest :rolleyes:
5. Fortunely, there are more and more free promoteurs that doesn't feed FIA's needs and desires (SRW with IRC, ASO with Dakar Series, ACO with Le Mans Series, etc), so I sincerely expect that, with or without FIA's support, S2000+ come a reality and improve WRC status, as we all, certanly, wish ;)

[Nenukknak]

Well sorry for providing some backup for my opinion :)

If you want to think that the handling of a car with 3 differentials is just as easy as a car with one then good luck to you :up: :laugh:

Easy does not equal safe. But I know you like to think you know it all, so i'll leave it at that. Agree to disagree.

[Zico]

Well sorry for providing some backup for my opinion :)

If you want to think that the handling of a car with 3 differentials is just as easy as a car with one then good luck to you :up: :laugh:

The modern active centre diff cars are far more drivable and stable though Daniel, thats a very old article.. As I mentioned earlier, I believe its more to do with the higher overall speeds that makes them less safe.

[Daniel]

The modern active centre diff cars are far more drivable and stable though Daniel, thats a very old article.. As I mentioned earlier, I believe its more to do with the higher overall speeds that makes them less safe.
Funny there was me thinking we were going to fully mechanical diffs soon ;)

[Daniel]

I'm sorry I forgot you were such an expert on all things rally. Remind me, when was the last time you drove a rally car in competition again?

Remind me what that has to do with rally cars being sideways and spectacular? So if I had the money to run a rallycar then I would then know that 2wd cars are boring to watch even though I've seen more than enough of them to know they're good to watch. Go to the pitstop website and order yourserlf some late 90's BRC season reviews and come back when you have a clue :)

[Daniel]

Easy does not equal safe. But I know you like to think you know it all, so i'll leave it at that. Agree to disagree.
But consistent handling does :) But lets agree to disagree :up:

[Zico]

Funny there was me thinking we were going to fully mechanical diffs soon ;)

Yep, fair comment.. :)

[jso1985]

Sorry about my poor english, but even if I cannot express correctly I've feel the need to participate in this forum to say this:
1. Even with billions and billions of dollars involved, F1 cannot attract more than 5 manufacteurs (4 if toyota lives by the end of the year) :eek:
2. The proposed WRC S2000+ formula would easily involved 6 to 8 brands to the sport, creating a new media exposure :cool:
3. It´s easy to understand that a strong WRC is a menace to the all mighty God of F1, Mr. Ecllestone (and therefore his partner Mosley) :mad:


but you(on an indirect way) and other have already posted that more manufacturers doesn't necesarily means the sport being more popular or viceversa being more popular doesn't mean getting more manufacturers.

F1 only has 5, NASCAR has 4, so basically WRC has "enough" manufacturers to be popular, so there's something else going wrong...

[TKM]

Remind me what that has to do with rally cars being sideways and spectacular? So if I had the money to run a rallycar then I would then know that 2wd cars are boring to watch even though I've seen more than enough of them to know they're good to watch. Go to the pitstop website and order yourserlf some late 90's BRC season reviews and come back when you have a clue :)

Wow, you've watched some rallies and you're an expert. I've been involved in the sport (as a competitor) before there was any such thing as AWD. My personal opinion is that on gravel (the proper rally surface) FWD vehicles are boring as bat ****. I'd rather RWD and AWD over FWD any day.

[Daniel]

Wow, you've watched some rallies and you're an expert. I've been involved in the sport (as a competitor) before there was any such thing as AWD. My personal opinion is that on gravel (the proper rally surface) FWD vehicles are boring as bat ****. I'd rather RWD and AWD over FWD any day.

Did you go onto the pitstop website and order those BRC reviews? I thought not! You live in your dreamworld where FWD cars are boring and thousands of people who have driven proper FWD car like a 205 GTi or a 106 Rallye will disagree with you. Anyone who's had any sort of interest in rallying outside their own country might know that a properly set up FWD car with a proper driver in it can be fast and spectacular on any surface. Anyone who's followed the BRC at all in the last 15 years will tell you the F2 days were much more spectacular than the group N days. But you know.... whatever! You've competed in a few rallies so you must know best!

You're just one of the bunch that has the typical "Gravel sucks" mentality. Your loss really.... Funny that those cars "sucked" but were able to beat WRCars in the stagetimes quite regularly till the FIA gave them extra weight. I like gravel as much as anyone but the whole thing with rallying is that the cars run on all sorts of surfaces and tarmac is one of them.

P.S Resorting to insults doesn't make you cool.

[TKM]

I have DVD's (and videos) from championships from all over the world, from the 70's thru to present day. I driven various rally cars in numerous events (not just a few) for over 20 years. On gravel, FWD simply don't compare to AWD and they are unexciting compared to RWD. However, it's a well know fact that a well set up modern day FWD vehicle will be as quick if not quicker than an equivalent RWD vehicle on gravel, but they will not be anywhere as exciting to watch.

There is no doubting a FWD's vehicle ability on tarmac, but that's not real rallying.

I have never said at any stage that FWD vehicles are slow or uncompetitive, I have simply said that I find them boring to watch. As a result you chose to flame me because I don't agree with you. This I have noticed appears to be something you do quite often on this forum to many of it's posters. you are quite simply a TOOL!!

[Daniel]

Saying that fwd cars are boring and tarmac rallying is not real rallying is just your opinion. Doesn't make it fact! Many others will disagree with you anyway. Personally i prefer gravel myself but think that tarmac certainly has it's place given that it's what most of us drive on each day. I may have heated discussions but I do try to provide some backup to my story other than just some flimsy opinions. I like all spectacular rally cars. Be in a mk2 Escort or Peugeot 306. Resulting to childish insults still doesn't make you cool.

[TKM]

Saying that fwd cars are boring and tarmac rallying is not real rallying is just your opinion.
Exactly, and because it is different to you're opinion, you choose to be rude and insulting.



Resulting to childish insults still doesn't make you cool.
But flaming people and being rude and insulting does?

[bluuford]

Nice dialog.. maybe you should open new thread named "TKM v/s Daniel" :-P
To give some variety for the current topic:
1. RWD is not very good for marketing reasons (there are not many manufacturers selling RWD cars) and might be quite dangerous. During the 80s the speed because of "not so advanced" different car components (Suspension, differentials, tires, brakes etc.) was not that high like it might be nowadays. If you make a mistake with RWD car then it is much harder to correct your mistaka than with 4WD.
2. I am agree with TKM. I have seen many and many rallies with different level but sorry. If the highest class is FWD then I feel sorry for the sport. It is almost fun on the tarmac but most of the championship is still on the loose stuff.
3. AWD - Most of the bigger manufacturers have 4WD models. It is exiting to spectate. I believe that we should think how to improve the current formula before we decide to go back to the past.
How to do it?
a) expensive materials should be banned on the commonly switched parts (bodywork)
b) to limit the time for developing the mechanical diffs for all different kind of conditions. Maybe electronically controlled control diffs by FIA?
c) to make the tires even more cheaper and maybe produce cheaper tires for non-priority drivers (with less traction giving more sideways moments for spectators).
d) bring back three car teams - more exposure, more cars, more competition and therefore more media interest with minimal costs.
e) To create some kind of quality certificate for the roads used for the SS-es (we don't need too many "car destroyers").
4) 3WD - just came in my mind. Drivers should choose before each day which drive shaft they are going to take off :-P Then we have solution that takes account the votes from 4WD, FWD and AWD supporters :-)

[AndyRAC]

Nice dialog.. maybe you should open new thread named "TKM v/s Daniel" :-P
To give some variety for the current topic:
1. RWD is not very good for marketing reasons (there are not many manufacturers selling RWD cars) and might be quite dangerous. During the 80s the speed because of "not so advanced" different car components (Suspension, differentials, tires, brakes etc.) was not that high like it might be nowadays. If you make a mistake with RWD car then it is much harder to correct your mistaka than with 4WD.
2. I am agree with TKM. I have seen many and many rallies with different level but sorry. If the highest class is FWD then I feel sorry for the sport. It is almost fun on the tarmac but most of the championship is still on the loose stuff.
3. AWD - Most of the bigger manufacturers have 4WD models. It is exiting to spectate. I believe that we should think how to improve the current formula before we decide to go back to the past.
How to do it?
a) expensive materials should be banned on the commonly switched parts (bodywork)
b) to limit the time for developing the mechanical diffs for all different kind of conditions. Maybe electronically controlled control diffs by FIA?
c) to make the tires even more cheaper and maybe produce cheaper tires for non-priority drivers (with less traction giving more sideways moments for spectators).
d) bring back three car teams - more exposure, more cars, more competition and therefore more media interest with minimal costs.
e) To create some kind of quality certificate for the roads used for the SS-es (we don't need too many "car destroyers").
4) 3WD - just came in my mind. Drivers should choose before each day which drive shaft they are going to take off :-P Then we have solution that takes account the votes from 4WD, FWD and AWD supporters :-)


Blimey, it's getting heated in here, anyway a few thoughts: can't agree that Tarmac Rallying isn't proper, that's how Rallying started, and we alll drive on Tarmac- however the current cars are too good, and Tarmac rallies at the moment are normally boring. However, I agree with Daniel, the F2 Cars of 96-2000 were fantastic- they looked good, sounded good, and were driven properly - on both Gravel and Tarmac - the Renault Maxi Megane was awesome.(Laukkanen, Rowe, Head).
Some of the other points raised, I'm not sure about the 'Big' Manufacturers with 4WD; Ford, Citroen don't - the others that do aren't interested in WRC. As for 3 car teams, - Yes, why not, but it's probably too expensive to run, if the cars were cheap then yes.
The Rallies must be changed so each Rally is distinctive from one another - at the moment they're all the same. Have some over 2 days, some 3, some 4-5 days - variation.

[jparker]

Why not have both of them, AWD and 2WD classes? Then the car makers can choose what they want.
I like both of them.

[bowler]

Why not have both of them, AWD and 2WD classes? Then the car makers can choose what they want.
I like both of them.

We have both now, but only the winner matters in marketing terms, and AWD is faster than 2WD, and therefore wins.

Given a choice the manufacturers will choose AWD, and 2WD becomes an under developed 2nd cousin.

[OldF]

If I remember right FIA planned once before FWD (2WD) being the main category. I had a quick look true my old magazines but I didn’t find when this was. Does anyone remember?

[BDunnell]

100% agree.

It would also be cool if as MJW suggested there was some sort of common platform between S2000 touring cars and S2000 rally cars. Although Chevrolet's would have to be banned from competing in the WRC :)

I'm with you on that. Thanks to Ford and BMW, there were plenty of good customer cars around for Group A touring car and rally championships in the late 1980s, and it helped ensure strong entries and fairly level playing fields.

[BDunnell]

Wow, you've watched some rallies and you're an expert. I've been involved in the sport (as a competitor) before there was any such thing as AWD. My personal opinion is that on gravel (the proper rally surface) FWD vehicles are boring as bat ****. I'd rather RWD and AWD over FWD any day.

I say this time and time again and must sound like a cracked record, but have you ever watched Jean Ragnotti in his Renault 11 Turbo on the 1987 Portuguese Rally? He (and his team-mate Francois Chatriot, and Kenneth Eriksson in the Golf GTi as well, in fact) was tremendously spectacular on both tarmac and gravel. So was Louise Aitken-Walker in her Peugeot 205GTi on the 1987 RAC. And, later, Stig Blomqvist was fantastic to watch on the BRC gravel rallies in his S1600 Skoda Felicia. So, FWD can be spectacular on gravel.

What would be best of all would be a formula allowing a mixture of configurations to be competitive. This has been possible before and ought to be possible again.

[Nenukknak]

Of course FWD can be spectacular, but it very often isn't. And in my opinion a top championship such as WRC should have top cars, cars that we all dream about driving, or even sit in the passengerseat of. For me personally can't see that happen with FWD.

[BDunnell]

Of course FWD can be spectacular, but it very often isn't. And in my opinion a top championship such as WRC should have top cars, cars that we all dream about driving, or even sit in the passengerseat of. For me personally can't see that happen with FWD.

Even if the level of competition that results from that formula is so low that the championship becomes dull?

Personally, I don't agree with this thing about 'top cars' or however one wants to put it, because everyone's idea of a 'top car' is different, and generally in motorsport allowing designers and engineers an absolutely free rein harms the competition, which is the important thing. I just don't see motorsport as an exercise in pushing technological boundaries, although this can be impressive. For me, it's the entertainment produced by the competition that's all-important.

[L5->R5/CR]

Here is part of my problem with changing the formula to exclusively 2wd.

Any serious fan will know the same car would be faster in most events with awd.

At some point the WRC needs to be the pinnacle of rallying. If the technology is limited to exclude such a basic competitive technology as AWD then what point does the WRC serve if there are other championships that allow it?

It would be akin to making F1 a super kart series instead of the technical wonders that F1 cars are. There has to be a series of formulas with there being a clear top formula. Making the WRC RWD or FWD will not make the WRC the pinnacle of rallying. There is a difference between sport and entertainment and that has to be managed as well.


With all of that said I think it would be interesting if there was to be a new formula created for 2wd vehicles that would have similar performance thresholds. If there was a switch to S2000+ and the WRCars become a bit slower and less expensive why not being back something like the kit car class with enough build potential that cars would regularly challenge for overall victory in the right hands irregardless of surface?

AWD is too potent of a technology to strip from the WRC and still have the WRC be the WRC.

[Daniel]

Even if the level of competition that results from that formula is so low that the championship becomes dull?

Personally, I don't agree with this thing about 'top cars' or however one wants to put it, because everyone's idea of a 'top car' is different, and generally in motorsport allowing designers and engineers an absolutely free rein harms the competition, which is the important thing. I just don't see motorsport as an exercise in pushing technological boundaries, although this can be impressive. For me, it's the entertainment produced by the competition that's all-important.
You've hit the nail on the head.

[BDunnell]

Here is part of my problem with changing the formula to exclusively 2wd.

Any serious fan will know the same car would be faster in most events with awd.

At some point the WRC needs to be the pinnacle of rallying. If the technology is limited to exclude such a basic competitive technology as AWD then what point does the WRC serve if there are other championships that allow it?

It would be akin to making F1 a super kart series instead of the technical wonders that F1 cars are. There has to be a series of formulas with there being a clear top formula. Making the WRC RWD or FWD will not make the WRC the pinnacle of rallying. There is a difference between sport and entertainment and that has to be managed as well.


With all of that said I think it would be interesting if there was to be a new formula created for 2wd vehicles that would have similar performance thresholds. If there was a switch to S2000+ and the WRCars become a bit slower and less expensive why not being back something like the kit car class with enough build potential that cars would regularly challenge for overall victory in the right hands irregardless of surface?

AWD is too potent of a technology to strip from the WRC and still have the WRC be the WRC.

This is all why the basic Group A rules were so good, because they permitted exactly this situation. The trouble was the development of the 4wd cars that followed and rendered 2wd cars uncompetitive.

By the way, would those saying that the WRC should be the pinnacle of rallying say that the Ford Escorts of the 1970s represented the pinnacle of cars at the time?

[BDunnell]

For me, it's the entertainment produced by the competition that's all-important.

I ought to add something to this, namely that I'm not in favour of any gimmicks like weight penalties, etc.

[Nenukknak]

Even if the level of competition that results from that formula is so low that the championship becomes dull?

Personally, I don't agree with this thing about 'top cars' or however one wants to put it, because everyone's idea of a 'top car' is different, and generally in motorsport allowing designers and engineers an absolutely free rein harms the competition, which is the important thing. I just don't see motorsport as an exercise in pushing technological boundaries, although this can be impressive. For me, it's the entertainment produced by the competition that's all-important.

I agree, with the last part, the cars don't need to push technological boundaries. A group B car is ancient, but the power compared with the traction but the bad handling, now that's entertainment. The cars need to have something that makes you say, holy sh!t. In my opinion that is what any WC is about. And this doesn't mean that I don't enjoy FWD rallying or any other racing/rally division that has less performance. But a WRC is something else, that needs to be the best of the best. The best drivers and cars that make you say.........well you get my point. Performance is important, and all the other technological stuff isn't. 4wd and much power equals performance always, FWD and less power does sometimes.

But I see your point, another case of agree to disagree :)

[BDunnell]

But a WRC is something else, that needs to be the best of the best.

I get what you're saying, but what is your definition of 'the best of the best'? For some, this will include amazing technological advancements that glue a car to the road and allow it to corner at ridiculous speeds in even the most extreme conditions. Others have a totally different view of this. This is why I don't subscribe to the 'pinnacle' argument. Formula 1 cars are surely nearer that pinnacle with traction control, yet this is generally recognised to have spoiled the sport.

[Daniel]

I'm with you on that. Thanks to Ford and BMW, there were plenty of good customer cars around for Group A touring car and rally championships in the late 1980s, and it helped ensure strong entries and fairly level playing fields.

Yup :) More chance for promotion of the cars in two different sports without the cost of developing two totally different cars.


I say this time and time again and must sound like a cracked record, but have you ever watched Jean Ragnotti in his Renault 11 Turbo on the 1987 Portuguese Rally? He (and his team-mate Francois Chatriot, and Kenneth Eriksson in the Golf GTi as well, in fact) was tremendously spectacular on both tarmac and gravel. So was Louise Aitken-Walker in her Peugeot 205GTi on the 1987 RAC. And, later, Stig Blomqvist was fantastic to watch on the BRC gravel rallies in his S1600 Skoda Felicia. So, FWD can be spectacular on gravel.

What would be best of all would be a formula allowing a mixture of configurations to be competitive. This has been possible before and ought to be possible again.

I think the issue is that in Australia you don't tend to get many European FWD rally cars so in Australia the fast and well driven cars are generally 4wd or the obligatory Mk2 Escorts and most of the FWD cars are cheap Japanese things which don't handle as well as the European cars therefore Australians tend to associate FWD rally cars with casual rally drivers who tend to understeer their way through rallies and are boring to look at :)

[BDunnell]

I think the issue is that in Australia you don't tend to get many European FWD rally cars so in Australia the fast and well driven cars are generally 4wd or the obligatory Mk2 Escorts and most of the FWD cars are cheap Japanese things which don't handle as well as the European cars therefore Australians tend to associate FWD rally cars with casual rally drivers who tend to understeer their way through rallies and are boring to look at :)

I hadn't considered that point before.

[AndyRAC]

I've mentioned before, why not have an equivalency formula, e;g 4WD 1.6 T, 2WD 2L, something like that. So 4WD not as much power but traction, whereas the 2WD has loads of power but less traction. I do remember Portugal 1987 - why can't that happen again? To see a variety of cars and transmission/drive would be interesting.

[Daniel]

I hadn't considered that point before.
I hadn't really up until then. I did wonder why the French never really seem to go on about RWD cars. Obviously because the last 20 years or so has been spent perfecting the handling of FWD rally cars and watching FWD masters like Ragnotti, Bugalski, Panizzi, Delecour and Loeb drive their FWD beasts.

[BDunnell]

I've mentioned before, why not have an equivalency formula, e;g 4WD 1.6 T, 2WD 2L, something like that. So 4WD not as much power but traction, whereas the 2WD has loads of poer but less traction.

Interesting one. I'm not sure whether an equivalency formula would fall into my list of 'gimmicks', as I hated the attempts in British Touring Car racing to render BTC-spec and S2000 cars 'equal' when Seat joined the series, but your suggestion is rather different because it's essentially fair and simple.

It seems, with the more sensible attempts to make F1 more interesting and now the talk of 2wd cars forming the basis of the main WRC formula, that more people in high places are now recognising that some restrictions need to be placed on technological development across different forms of motorsport. Maybe the pace of development and the retention of entertainment value can't be expected to coincide.

[BDunnell]

I hadn't really up until then. I did wonder why the French never really seem to go on about RWD cars. Obviously because the last 20 years or so has been spent perfecting the handling of FWD rally cars and watching FWD masters like Ragnotti, Bugalski, Panizzi, Delecour and Loeb drive their FWD beasts.

Doesn't this have quite a lot to do with the models offered by manufacturers and what they choose to rally at the time of homologation, as well?

[Daniel]

I've mentioned before, why not have an equivalency formula, e;g 4WD 1.6 T, 2WD 2L, something like that. So 4WD not as much power but traction, whereas the 2WD has loads of power but less traction. I do remember Portugal 1987 - why can't that happen again? To see a variety of cars and transmission/drive would be interesting.
Problem was when we had that you had guys like McRae (RIP) complaining about how the FWD cars had an advantage on tarmac and teams like Subaru made waves about "lesser" teams spending less but having an advantage so the FWD cars got ballasted (twice I think) out of contention for outright rally victories. Sad really. It was the kit car days which REALLY got me interested in rallying again :)

[Daniel]

Doesn't this have quite a lot to do with the models offered by manufacturers and what they choose to rally at the time of homologation, as well?

Yes. What I was trying to say though was that rallying in different places can be very different. You'll never see Volvo's, Starlet's, M3's and so on in rallies in Australia but in Finland they're common in Group F.

[BDunnell]

Problem was when we had that you had guys like McRae (RIP) complaining about how the FWD cars had an advantage on tarmac and teams like Subaru made waves about "lesser" teams spending less but having an advantage so the FWD cars got ballasted (twice I think) out of contention for outright rally victories. Sad really. It was the kit car days which REALLY got me interested in rallying again :)

That really irritated me back then. Similarly, it was always fascinating when local knowledge would give a driver an advantage on one event and would be in with a chance of beating the regulars. It struck me when McRae, Subaru and others were complaining that these were the first steps on the part of some involved in the WRC towards creating some sort of awful 'homogenised' championship, and I think this has been proved right.

[Daniel]

I get what you're saying, but what is your definition of 'the best of the best'? For some, this will include amazing technological advancements that glue a car to the road and allow it to corner at ridiculous speeds in even the most extreme conditions. Others have a totally different view of this. This is why I don't subscribe to the 'pinnacle' argument. Formula 1 cars are surely nearer that pinnacle with traction control, yet this is generally recognised to have spoiled the sport.

I've never understood the whole idea that rallying must represent the pinnacle of technology and so on. Was it not so long ago that people stated that tehchnology such as semi-auto boxes, active diffs and so on was ruining the sport? Now suddenly we need this technology because without it the WRC will be boring :confused:

Ideally we'd go back to having Escorts on 70's spec tyres as Escorts even today are not as sideways as they once were. Now that's down to suspension and tyres. The FIA needs to look at ways of limiting the performance of cars in regards to suspension and tyres. Because you can lessen the amount of power the cars have to play with but if they still have excesses of grip above that needed to reign in the power they've got you'll just end up with cars driving around as if they're on rails (relatively speaking)

:idea:
Perhaps a set of control dampers and a limited selection of springs could do the job.

That would have the side effect of limiting the amount of testing teams will need to do due to the fact they won't be able to fine tune things as much and there's a limited range of suspension components to go testing with as well.

[AndyRAC]

Problem was when we had that you had guys like McRae (RIP) complaining about how the FWD cars had an advantage on tarmac and teams like Subaru made waves about "lesser" teams spending less but having an advantage so the FWD cars got ballasted (twice I think) out of contention for outright rally victories. Sad really. It was the kit car days which REALLY got me interested in rallying again :)

Yeah, I remember that, though it wasn't just him who complained, though there was an interview with Max on the 98 Tour de Corse, and he thought it was good that the FWD cars could take on and beat the WRCars. As long as they enter half the events, and not just Tarmac, I'd be all for it.
Imagine the start of a Rally and the possibilities, yes a 4WD car is likely to win on Gravel, but a well driven 2WD car could get into the top 6-8, ...


....I'll stop dreaming. None of this will happen - Subaru will threaten to pull out, so the rules will not be changed.

[BDunnell]

I've never understood the whole idea that rallying must represent the pinnacle of technology and so on. Was it not so long ago that people stated that tehchnology such as semi-auto boxes, active diffs and so on was ruining the sport? Now suddenly we need this technology because without it the WRC will be boring :confused:

I couldn't agree more with your confusion.



Ideally we'd go back to having Escorts on 70's spec tyres as Escorts even today are not as sideways as they once were. Now that's down to suspension and tyres.

What a good point. In just the same way, the lap times set at the Goodwood Revival by various types of car are now quicker than the times set by the same types of car round an identical circuit in period. There are various factors behind this, of course — not just tyres but also fuel and increased expertise.

[BDunnell]

Yeah, I remember that, though it wasn't just him who complained, though there was an interview with Max on the 98 Tour de Corse, and he thought it was good that the FWD cars could take on and beat the WRCars.

Repeat that now in print and he'd probably deny he never said anything of the sort, call you a halfwit and threaten to sue, or something similarly befitting the President of the FIA.

[Daniel]

Yeah, I remember that, though it wasn't just him who complained, though there was an interview with Max on the 98 Tour de Corse, and he thought it was good that the FWD cars could take on and beat the WRCars. As long as they enter half the events, and not just Tarmac, I'd be all for it.
Imagine the start of a Rally and the possibilities, yes a 4WD car is likely to win on Gravel, but a well driven 2WD car could get into the top 6-8,

What a great idea F2 was. It was the perfect gateway for manufacturers to get into the WRC and get good outright results without the outlay of a whole season in an expensive WRCar. Hyundai, Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen and Seat all started in F2 and went on to build WRCars. But then the Group A/WRC mob had their say and F2 was canned. Bunch of selfish idiots.

[BDunnell]

What a great idea F2 was. It was the perfect gateway for manufacturers to get into the WRC and get good outright results without the outlay of a whole season in an expensive WRCar. Hyundai, Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen and Seat all started in F2 and went on to build WRCars. But then the Group A/WRC mob had their say and F2 was canned. Bunch of selfish idiots.

And it was brilliant for the British championship too — a second 'golden age' for the series. A perfect example of how the right formula can work for the WRC and domestic championships.

[AndyRAC]

What a great idea F2 was. It was the perfect gateway for manufacturers to get into the WRC and get good outright results without the outlay of a whole season in an expensive WRCar. Hyundai, Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen and Seat all started in F2 and went on to build WRCars. But then the Group A/WRC mob had their say and F2 was canned. Bunch of selfish idiots.

Totally agree, fantastic looking, sounding cars, and with proper drivers they were great to watch. Selfish mob indeed, I mean look at the state of the WRC now, it's really helped hasn't it, not having these upstarts? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Daniel]

And it was brilliant for the British championship too — a second 'golden age' for the series. A perfect example of how the right formula can work for the WRC and domestic championships.
Preaching to the converted here! One could argue that canning F2 has a lot to do with the lack of British drivers in the WRC these days. Back in ye olde F2 days there was a lot of competition in the BRC and the standard of teams and drivers was high. The BRC went with WRCars which was never going to work with the expense involved and then moved to Group N which is never going to work because it was boring and by the time it was adopted even it was too expensive plus it's frigging boring considering the amount of grip the cars have for the power they have.

[AndyRAC]

And it was brilliant for the British championship too — a second 'golden age' for the series. A perfect example of how the right formula can work for the WRC and domestic championships.

The people who think FWD is boring should see DVD's of these years, put it this way a hard driven FWD car is better than a Group N car, and even a ordinary driven 4WD WRCar.
You're right, it is the perfect way how a formula can work. But it ain't gonna happen. Sadly..

[BDunnell]

One could argue that canning F2 has a lot to do with the lack of British drivers in the WRC these days. Back in ye olde F2 days there was a lot of competition in the BRC and the standard of teams and drivers was high.

Although quite a few (very) good F2 drivers from other countries, like Jarmo Kytolehto and Tapio Laukkanen, never got a decent WRC chance or didn't show well.

[Daniel]

Totally agree, fantastic looking, sounding cars, and with proper drivers they were great to watch. Selfish mob indeed, I mean look at the state of the WRC now, it's really helped hasn't it, not having these upstarts?

Yup :) I remember seeing a Seat Ibiza Kit Car going head to head against a Renault Megane Maxi at the super special in Australia. They weren't quite up there with the WRCars but they were still very spectacular!

Here's a picture of me laying my eyes on a 306 Maxi for the first time :) What a car. Pity about the weather though.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dangerous2.JPG

[BDunnell]

The 'holy sh1t' factor involved in watching rally cars has been mentioned here. I can honestly say that little in rallying has made me go 'holy sh1t' since watching the F2 kit cars on the Manx Rally in about 1999. Those cars were frighteningly skittish on the bumps, looked scarily fast on the Manx lanes and clearly demanded a lot of skill to drive well.

[L5->R5/CR]

I've never understood the whole idea that rallying must represent the pinnacle of technology and so on. Was it not so long ago that people stated that tehchnology such as semi-auto boxes, active diffs and so on was ruining the sport? Now suddenly we need this technology because without it the WRC will be boring :confused:



Not that these comments were directed towards my comments but a point of clarification.

I am not saying that the WRC need to be the pinnacle of technology. I do however think that the formula for WRCars needs to be the top formula for rally cars. This doesn't mean exotic technologies and parts but to me it does mean all of the basic competitive rallying technologies (limited slip differentials, turbo systems with sophisticated EFI and anti-lag, re-inforced and custom built gear boxes, and yes, AWD should be included).

To me outlawing AWD from the premier formula would be like making N4 the premier formula. I am however all about some truly "sick" 2wd rallying being possible in the WRC.

[Daniel]

Not that these comments were directed towards my comments but a point of clarification.

I am not saying that the WRC need to be the pinnacle of technology. I do however think that the formula for WRCars needs to be the top formula for rally cars. This doesn't mean exotic technologies and parts but to me it does mean all of the basic competitive rallying technologies (limited slip differentials, turbo systems with sophisticated EFI and anti-lag, re-inforced and custom built gear boxes, and yes, AWD should be included).

To me outlawing AWD from the premier formula would be like making N4 the premier formula. I am however all about some truly "sick" 2wd rallying being possible in the WRC.
Thing is if done right I'm sure a well thought out FWD car could be just as fast and miles more spectacular than group n cars. Group N cars are just boring. It's the age old problem of too much grip and not enough power. I remember in '97 Martin Rowe and Kenneth Eriksson put their F2 cars within about 10 seconds of beating the top group N car on the event on what is one of the most slippery events in the calendar.

"holy sh1t factor" :laugh: So true

The 306 Maxi was absolutely crazy. They were reputed to have over 300bhp on tap and everyone pretty much agrees that they had at least 280. Just imagine the sound of that thing revving at 11,000 rpm and you'll understand why it was just so spectacular and with no 4wd system to bog it down it got to use all those revs as well.

[AndyRAC]

And don't forget the Citroen Xsara Kit Car, driven by Bugalski and Puras, that was another screamer, revving away like crazy. Awesome cars the F2 Kit cars, once seen live, never forgotten!!

[Daniel]

Although quite a few (very) good F2 drivers from other countries, like Jarmo Kytolehto and Tapio Laukkanen, never got a decent WRC chance or didn't show well.
True. But the level of competition was there and it was worth competing in, in it's own right.

The other thing I liked about F2 was that it gave us some really good road cars too. WRCars are fine to look at but when you can't go into the showroom and buy something with a good amount of go then I fail to see the point. Neither Citroen nor Peugeot ever had a 2wd turbo 307, Xsara. C4 or 206 and I think that somewhat lessens the returns for them. With F2 you had the Ibiza GTi, The 306 S16 and GTi-6, Clio Williams and a few other really cracking cars which you could walk into a showroom and buy for yourself and have yourself a very capable bit of kit.

Of the current breed of WRCars only one manufacturer makes a 4wd turbo version (Subaru), 1 makes turbo FWD version (Ford), 1 makes a lukewarm FWD hatch (Citroen) and the other makes a limpwristed soft-roader (Suzuki) and I think that's just wrong.

Probably the best F2 video I've ever seen :) The ending is just like WOW :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFAfiTe4Gqw&feature=related

[Daniel]

That really irritated me back then. Similarly, it was always fascinating when local knowledge would give a driver an advantage on one event and would be in with a chance of beating the regulars. It struck me when McRae, Subaru and others were complaining that these were the first steps on the part of some involved in the WRC towards creating some sort of awful 'homogenised' championship, and I think this has been proved right.

Well Peugeot and Citroen had the last laugh anyway :)

I think you're right. Soon after technology took over and unless you were in a works car with the latest spec everything you had no chance of fighting for the lead. Perhaps my memory is just bad but the last time I remember a "privateer" challenging for a victory on a rally was Panizzi on the Monte in '99 in an Impreza WRC and this is especially remarkable considering the fact that I think this was the only rally he did in that car. Something we'll never see again unless things change. Bummer.

[AndyRAC]

True. But the level of competition was there and it was worth competing in, in it's own right.

The other thing I liked about F2 was that it gave us some really good road cars too. WRCars are fine to look at but when you can't go into the showroom and buy something with a good amount of go then I fail to see the point. Neither Citroen nor Peugeot ever had a 2wd turbo 307, Xsara. C4 or 206 and I think that somewhat lessens the returns for them. With F2 you had the Ibiza GTi, The 306 S16 and GTi-6, Clio Williams and a few other really cracking cars which you could walk into a showroom and buy for yourself and have yourself a very capable bit of kit.

Of the current breed of WRCars only one manufacturer makes a 4wd turbo version (Subaru), 1 makes turbo FWD version (Ford), 1 makes a lukewarm FWD hatch (Citroen) and the other makes a limpwristed soft-roader (Suzuki) and I think that's just wrong.

Probably the best F2 video I've ever seen :) The ending is just like WOW :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFAfiTe4Gqw&feature=related

Well I still have my Seat Ibiza Cupra Sport GTI, one of the reasons I bought it was I'd seen the Rally car, and went to the Seat showroom, had a look, test drive, liked it, read some reviews, and ordered it. Nearly 10 years later, it still goes.
Now, what can I buy now for about £15,000? Hm, tough choice!! I know that homologation specials weren't cost effective, or so we're told, but at least you could go to a showroom and look at one of these specials, get the brochures, etc. Now, it's nothing, mmmm the Suzuki SX4 Soft roader, er, no thanks!! Time for regulation changes anyone??

[Daniel]

Well I still have my Seat Ibiza Cupra Sport GTI, one of the reasons I bought it was I'd seen the Rally car, and went to the Seat showroom, had a look, test drive, liked it, read some reviews, and ordered it. Nearly 10 years later, it still goes.
Now, what can I buy now for about £15,000? Hm, tough choice!! I know that homologation specials weren't cost effective, or so we're told, but at least you could go to a showroom and look at one of these specials, get the brochures, etc. Now, it's nothing, mmmm the Suzuki SX4 Soft roader, er, no thanks!! Time for regulation changes anyone??
The girlfriend has a Legacy Turbo out the front of the house. I like it for the very same reason you like the Ibiza :)

[COD]

Here is part of my problem with changing the formula to exclusively 2wd.

Any serious fan will know the same car would be faster in most events with awd.

.


Any serious fan would also know now that the cars of today would be faster without turbo air restrictors, SO WHAT?

[L5->R5/CR]

Any serious fan would also know now that the cars of today would be faster without turbo air restrictors, SO WHAT?

They would also be faster with methanol burning v8s, or if there was more freedom in types of fuel that can be run, or if there was no minimum weight. There is nothing to be gained in making these types arguments (and that is a serious flaw in my previous comments that I wish I could restructure so as to better make my point).

There always has to be some sort of regulations that ensure a performance cap and competitive parrody.

[cannyboy]

Why not 4wd with a fixed 20/80 torque split Front/rear) for all the teams.

You get the sideways action, and they would not be rubbish on gravel.

Good compromise solution.

[COD]

They would also be faster with methanol burning v8s, or if there was more freedom in types of fuel that can be run, or if there was no minimum weight. There is nothing to be gained in making these types arguments (and that is a serious flaw in my previous comments that I wish I could restructure so as to better make my point).

There always has to be some sort of regulations that ensure a performance cap and competitive parrody.


And as there would then be no AWD cars to compere to, the show would be as spectactular. So why not 2WD then? The arguments were pretty much destroyed by yourself

[N]

The long term plan should be to keep cars as close to normal production cars that come out of the factory with obvious safety upgrades and some performance upgrades, kindda like R3 class is today.

[OldF]

Now I found what I was looking for when I browsed again true my old rally magazines.

Mr. Max has suggested this once before (2WD cars as the main category in WRC).

In the meeting of the rally committee in April 1994 Max Mosley asked the members to consider big changes in the rules of the world rally championship. One of the changes was to abandon the AWD turbo cars and start at 1998 with 2-litre 2WD NA cars. At that moment FIA had already begun to draw the rules for AWD kit cars with a turbo (WRC). In the general meeting in June FIA decided that the kit car rules applies only for 2WD cars. The other decision FIA made was to decrease the size of the restrictor of group A and N cars. For the group A from 38 mm to 34 mm and for group N from 36 mm to 32 mm. But as early as in the beginning of 1995 FIA (Max) had to confess that most of the manufacturers was not interested in that concept. And what happened after that. WRC started from the beginning of 1997. Subaru made a WRC car from the very beginning but Mitsubishi continued with the group A car.

So I would suggest to Max and FIA to listen at the manufacturers. There’s no WRC without the manufacturers. If I was Max I would ask the manufacturers how much money are they ready to spend and with what kind of car would they like attending the WRC with. As the WRC cars are today they’re too expensive to develop and maintain. Also for a new manufacturer it should also be easier and faster to get to the top level. I think the WRC cars has come to a point where the pareto principle (80-20 rule) is in effect. For the 20% of cost and effort you get 80% of the performance but to get the remainder 20% of the performance needs 80% of costs and effort. But I still prefer an AWD as the main category and I think a cheaper and easier way for the manufacturers can be achieved with cars based on S2000. In general I don’t have anything against 2WD cars. The F2 kit cars where nice looking and had a nice noise.

My list in order of preference would be:
S2500 or S3000
S2000+turbo & N4
2WD



I've mentioned before, why not have an equivalency formula, e;g 4WD 1.6 T, 2WD 2L, something like that. So 4WD not as much power but traction, whereas the 2WD has loads of power but less traction. I do remember Portugal 1987 - why can't that happen again? To see a variety of cars and transmission/drive would be interesting.

I think it’s difficult to make a 2WD and an AWD to have equal performance on all kind of surfaces. A 2WD car with enough power (Honda R3 = 260 hp) will be faster on tarmac than an AWD with moderate power (N4) and on gravel or other slippery surface an AWD will always be faster than a 2WD. But it would of course be nice to see more variety of cars, smaller and bigger ones. I don’t know how this could be done. Perhaps the manufacturers should score points with both AWD and 2WD cars.

[ShiftingGears]

2WD would be a great way to reduce grip. I think instead of having 2WD vs 4WD, I think teams should be given the choice to run either front or rear wheel drive rather than boxing them into a strictly FWD or strictly RWD formula.

[pino]

If the 2WD is the only way to have more Teams/drivers in the Champ...welcome to the 2WD then :D

[AndyRAC]

If the 2WD is the only way to have more Teams/drivers in the Champ...welcome to the 2WD then :D

Yeah, completely agree, if that means a strong WRC, then yes. After all, the majority of road cars are 2WD, can't remember the last time I saw a 4WD C4 or Focus, can anybody else? That way, the Rally car will be much more relevant to the road car.

[I am evil Homer]

Exactly...if it means more manufacturers then bring in 2wd!! I see Subaru are complaining about it, fine, don't compete then. I'd rather lose Subbe and gain VW, Toyota and others if it meant healthy competition and the WRC gaining in popularity.

[Daniel]

Exactly...if it means more manufacturers then bring in 2wd!! I see Subaru are complaining about it, fine, don't compete then. I'd rather lose Subbe and gain VW, Toyota and others if it meant healthy competition and the WRC gaining in popularity.
Thing is a lot of people won't want to see Subaru gone. Me personally I'm not too bothered if they are replaced with a decent team. But a lot of people won't like that at all.

[Nenukknak]

If the 2WD is the only way to have more Teams/drivers in the Champ...welcome to the 2WD then :D

If indeed, but there is lots more that can be done on the standardization part of things. For me S2000 with turbo or S3000 for that matter would work excellent. 4wd seemingly isn't a problem because a lot of manufacturers have already built S2000 cars. Put a turbo on there, and there you go, new WRC class is born. FIA should go along this road. Ask manufacturers if they are interested in that, if they want in, and when they can have a car ready. The manufacturer that has it car ready last, that's the date the new championship should start. You get a large startingfield right from the get-go. And Subaru could still participate.

That was the original intend (I thought) and I don't see any reason to change it.

On FWD cars, the F2 was great, greatlooking cars, great sound. On tarmac they were great (as we see in all those lovely links posted by Daniel), but on gravel (especially slower corners) they are lousy, and certainly not spectacular (IMHO!). And that's why you don't see too much of that in those highlight links. And I doubt if any new FWD class would be as light and as great-sounding, knowing the FIA, they probably wouldn't.

[6thgear]

WTF is going on ? Sometimes I honestly think the first thing to change in WRC would definately be inside FIA and rally comission. Is it really so bloody hard to sit down and set some long-term standards and classes for world rally (in cooperation with manufacturers, teams, sponsors and other specialists)? ATM there seems to be the situation where you change your mind every day about the suit you want while your tailors have allready completed their expensive work (S2000 for example, thank god there is also IRC).
Of course it is hard to find the right balance between "purpose-built-monsters" and "closer-to-the-streetversion" philosophies.
Rallying in the world level is, was and will be very expensive also in the future. In order to reduce costs I really don`t see many other options than :

1) S2000 with TURBO (in case FIA keeps AWD).
2) Certain FIA standardized parts of drivetrain from multiple manufacturers. (Sadev, Xtrac etc. Evolutions allowed in every 2-3 years period. Versions for both engine positions).
3) Bigger restrictor (Cheap power, costs nothing)
4) Regular (98 until BIO) fuel from FIA controlled pump trucks (up to 6 times cheaper, reduces costs a bit, no expensive developments)
5) FIA standardized cheaper (control price maybe) brake packages (standard types and sizes separately for gravel and tarmac, maybe PCD drilled for specially for every client. Developments allowed in certain periods of time).
6) FIA controlled cheaper (no titanium, carbon, kevlar etc.) materials for chassis, drivetrain, body or cockpit.
7) No homologation specials (As it was with Grp A, although these could have a warm welcome by enthusiasts). Maybe certain amount of client -(or rent)cars instead.
8) As many standard bodyparts as possible with FIA controlled "WRC bodypackages" (glassfibre) available by various manufacturers.
9) Keeping sole tyre manufacturer with control prices for everyone.
10) Up to 12 well selected events per year (2-3 on snow & ice, 4 various tarmac events, 5-6 premium gravel events, no carbreakers) that have history and guaranteed audience. With only 12 events (less travel expences) it helps the series to keep going worldwide and visit the regions that are also significant to manufacturers.
*) ...and sure there could be even better propositions by far smarter bunch of specialists than I am but somehow I can`t see that happening. There are new ideas, directions and U-turns daily instead.
WRC is in need for well-balanced, affordable and long-term solutions as soon as possible. Correct me if I`m wrong.

[Daniel]

If indeed, but there is lots more that can be done on the standardization part of things. For me S2000 with turbo or S3000 for that matter would work excellent. 4wd seemingly isn't a problem because a lot of manufacturers have already built S2000 cars. Put a turbo on there, and there you go, new WRC class is born. FIA should go along this road. Ask manufacturers if they are interested in that, if they want in, and when they can have a car ready. The manufacturer that has it car ready last, that's the date the new championship should start. You get a large startingfield right from the get-go. And Subaru could still participate.

That was the original intend (I thought) and I don't see any reason to change it.

On FWD cars, the F2 was great, greatlooking cars, great sound. On tarmac they were great (as we see in all those lovely links posted by Daniel), but on gravel (especially slower corners) they are lousy, and certainly not spectacular (IMHO!). And that's why you don't see too much of that in those highlight links. And I doubt if any new FWD class would be as light and as great-sounding, knowing the FIA, they probably wouldn't.

Well I think in the UK they got the handling on gravel down quite well and the cars were pretty good to watch (not as good as RWD cars I'll agree). Unfortunately there don't seem to be very many BRC vids on youtube so it's hard to show.

Like you say though the attraction was in the fact that they were light and sounded great. Which would probably get lost along the way somehow.

I personally don't see the need to go away from S2000 + a turbo at the moment. I mean manufacturers already have S2000 cars running so why not? But in the future if the championship needs to get cheaper 2wd should be considered as there would be a lot less modification requred to the shells.

What I will say is that if the FIA at some stage does go for F2 style cars. Let them be WIDE, let them look scary, let them rev and give them an extra tarmac rally or two to show their stuff on. Ditch boring rallies like Mexico and Turkey and give us a San Remo and a rally like the Manx which BDunnell mentioned and you'll have a truly spectacular championship.

I think S2000 will be like another WRC era. If enough teams join it will be good for a few years but eventually it will probably get too expensive and won't become viable to the fact that in the end the cars will aways have too much traction for the amount of power they're putting down. I mean a lot of companies manage to put down more than 200bhp in FWD cars on the road. I don't see how 280bhp is going to give 4wd trouble even without active diffs :mark:

[BDunnell]

I think S2000 will be like another WRC era. If enough teams join it will be good for a few years but eventually it will probably get too expensive and won't become viable to the fact that in the end the cars will aways have too much traction for the amount of power they're putting down. I mean a lot of companies manage to put down more than 200bhp in FWD cars on the road. I don't see how 280bhp is going to give 4wd trouble even without active diffs :mark:

Generally, as you know, I agree with almost every word you write on this topic, but I'm not sure about the bit above. The reason is that S2000 seems to have been excellent for touring car racing, allowing the purchase by privateer teams of year-old cars that are still competitive, and even new cars by the more professional, better-funded privateer outfits. In Britain, lap times have improved slightly year on year, but not a lot, so no-one is running away from the pack. Crucially, this means that development of cars to a higher level that may harm the overall competitiveness of the championship seems to have been reduced — there seems less scope for this development. I hope the same will be true of S2000 in rallying.

[Daniel]

Generally, as you know, I agree with almost every word you write on this topic, but I'm not sure about the bit above. The reason is that S2000 seems to have been excellent for touring car racing, allowing the purchase by privateer teams of year-old cars that are still competitive, and even new cars by the more professional, better-funded privateer outfits. In Britain, lap times have improved slightly year on year, but not a lot, so no-one is running away from the pack. Crucially, this means that development of cars to a higher level that may harm the overall competitiveness of the championship seems to have been reduced — there seems less scope for this development. I hope the same will be true of S2000 in rallying.
True enough. But I think my point of 280bhp and 4wd still stands though. The cars will have to be exciting and with so much traction and grip with so little power that will be hard.

[L5->R5/CR]

And as there would then be no AWD cars to compere to, the show would be as spectactular. So why not 2WD then? The arguments were pretty much destroyed by yourself



Yeah. I wasn't focused in my own comments and made my own counter argument.

I'll try to present my thoughts with more focus.

I have two basic feelings as to why AWD should not be eliminated for 2wd.

1) Rallying, as a whole, has always been about different formulas functioning on different levels. In every country with a rally program that I have looked at (admittedly this is not a complete sample set) there are different classes both in performance potential and cost. There is a consistent series of formulas for classes that by and large start with small, lightweight, small displacement 2wd cars and progresses on to larger, more powerful, awd cars. The formulas are not universal but the idea of a progression is fairly fundamental.

To this extent we have progressing formulas in the World Rally Championship as well from JWRC, to PWRC/S2000, to WRCars. The progression of technology, performance potential, and yes cost, remains similar. With this basic prevailing trend in mind I find it difficult to embrace the idea of eliminating a technology that has thus far established itself to be crucial to the foundation of the top performance formula. This is not to say that I oppose the inclusion of a complimentary formula to a top tier AWD formula that is based on parody and 2wd.

It would seem odd that the world championship formulas did not in some way resemble the basic structure and hierarchy of national championship formulas.



2) Rally cars and rally technology has always been something that has been something that has evolved over time. It is also something that has needed to be reigned in and re-focused from time to time. The current WRCar regulations have about reached the end of their lives and I think that is becoming clear to most of us.

Still, AWD has become the dominant technology through evolution. Its performance surpassed that of 2wd overall and it wasn't until lighter, higher revving, and perhaps more powerful 2wd cars were re-introduced that 2wd was able to compete; despite the greater performance freedoms the 2wd cars could still only challenge AWD in certain scenarios.

In recent years we have seen electronic differentials outlawed, control tires implemented, and technical components linked in events. All in the name of increasing the spectacle and reducing the costs. The banning of computer controlled front and rear differentials and other suspension components did not usher in a new era in exciting sideways action. The control tire has also failed to this point to achieve this goal. The linking of technical components may end up reducing costs but it may also force teams to do more testing and devote more resources into ensuring longevity of parts instead of saving money. The teams will still find ways to spend money no matter the limitations on where they can sped it.

The driving has become boring because that is the fastest way to drive. If you are sliding you are loosing speed and acceleration. It may not be all that exciting but smooth has always proven to be fast. And there is nothing to suggest that this won't prove to be the case with a 2wd mandate (lets not forget, the more sideways a car is and the more the tires are spinning the harder it will be on the tires, sooner or later drivers will stop being so "spectacular" so they can be faster).

Teams always try to find a way to spend more money, just like drivers always try to find ways to go faster. It is what they do, it is what they should do, if they aren't doing it than they shouldn't be in motorsport.

There are periods of 2wd rallying that have proven to be viscerally stunning just like there are periods of AWD rallying that have been viscerally stunning. On the same note there have been periods of both that have been boring and lackluster to say the least. We have nothing but memories of the good times to inspire the false confidence that the future will be just as good if not better. All wheel drive has earned its place in rallying as a premier technology, to abandon it entirely at the top level would be foolish.

[AndyRAC]

True enough. But I think my point of 280bhp and 4wd still stands though. The cars will have to be exciting and with so much traction and grip with so little power that will be hard.

At the moment the cars put out about 300bhp, and look as if they are on rails. If 4WD is kept, they would have to have a very hard control tyre, and/or probably 400bhp+/ basic 4WD systems. Can't see that happening,..

[BDunnell]

It would seem odd that the world championship formulas did not in some way resemble the basic structure and hierarchy of national championship formulas.

One major problem, though, is that the current WRC formula has been impossible for most national championships to embrace successfully, because of the costs involved. I agree that national series should run the same sort of equipment in different classes as the world championship, as this has many important benefits, but this is only possible if there are competitive cars to buy and good drivers to get behind the wheel. Costs have now shot up to such an extent that this hasn't been the case, leaving many previously superb domestic championships as shadows of their former selves.

[L5->R5/CR]

One major problem, though, is that the current WRC formula has been impossible for most national championships to embrace successfully, because of the costs involved. I agree that national series should run the same sort of equipment in different classes as the world championship, as this has many important benefits, but this is only possible if there are competitive cars to buy and good drivers to get behind the wheel. Costs have now shot up to such an extent that this hasn't been the case, leaving many previously superb domestic championships as shadows of their former selves.

It is definitely time to hit the reset button but 2wd only as the premier formula?

[BDunnell]

It is definitely time to hit the reset button but 2wd only as the premier formula?

I don't think that, because I believe it should be possible to allow a mix of configurations — 2wd (fwd and rwd) and 4wd — to compete.

[urabus-denoS2000]

If you want a mix of configurations (which is great) I would suggest
1)S2000+ turbo as a premier forumula
2)NA FWD S2000 (somethig like F2 Maxis)
3)GT class

[urabus-denoS2000]

For Daniel:
Here is an report (in german) from the 1997 Pirelli rally

http://www.motorsportmad.com/view/3814/1997-pirelli-rally---mark-higgins-crashes-nissan-sunny

[BDunnell]

Great event, but there's a reminder in the commentary of one of the less glorious innovations in British championship history — the events on which the results for each day counted for separate points.

By the way, I think those cars look good on gravel!

[AndyRAC]

Great event, but there's a reminder in the commentary of one of the less glorious innovations in British championship history — the events on which the results for each day counted for separate points.

By the way, I think those cars look good on gravel!

Tell me about it, it could be quite confusing. If I remember, it was possible to have both times added and be fastest over the two days but not win. Each day was a separate Rally, totally stupid idea.
Back on thread, to be honest I don't really care what cars we have, as long as there are lots of teams/drivers- meaning a competitive exciting WRC.
But why base them on Production/Road cars- why not Prototypes, like Moto GP/Formula 1. Imagine cars similar to Andy Burton's Peugeot-Cosworth, or the McRae R4. Yes, okay this won't happen, probably even more expense.

[6thgear]

With S2000 + mods + turbo we could have allready an encouraging number of possible teams/cars :

Pug 207
Abarth Grande Punto
VW Polo
Toyota Corolla / Auris
Skoda Fabia
MG
Suzuki SX4
Dacia Logan (why not)
--------------(was it some Korean manufacturer that had a really good looking car in prep. in UK. Just can`t find the thread anymore)
+ solution for Subaru
+ solution for Mitsubishi

And we could have allready 11 teams (20-30 cars) + privateers.

[urabus-denoS2000]

With S2000 + mods + turbo we could have allready an encouraging number of possible teams/cars :


--------------(was it some Korean manufacturer that had a really good looking car in prep. in UK. Just can`t find the thread anymore)
+ solution for Subaru
+ solution for Mitsubishi

And we could have allready 11 teams (20-30 cars) + privateers.


It was Proton.It Malaysian.
And dont forget.Mitsubishi said that if S2000+ becomes the main formula they will make an Colt S2000.
And Subaru said that they have in plan an Impreza S2000.

[6thgear]

It was Proton.It Malaysian.
And dont forget.Mitsubishi said that if S2000+ becomes the main formula they will make an Colt S2000.
And Subaru said that they have in plan an Impreza S2000.

Yes Proton exactly, thanks !

Also I haven`t noticed this info about Colt & Impreza yet. If this is their true intension then bring it on ! (Especially if the costs are lower than actual WRC, because IMO we need manu teams + privateers who can mess up the pack of cards in every rally).

[urabus-denoS2000]

Impreza is just still a rumor only mentioned once by Subaru.
The Colt S2000 is confirmed by Mitsubishi,but still nothing sure

[DonJippo]

Next WRC is going to be based on S2000 & N-group cars with turbo, no 2WD this time.

[AndyRAC]

Next WRC is going to be based on S2000 & N-group cars with turbo, no 2WD this time.

If that gives us more Manufacturers then I'll be happy. But if it doesn't, and it's just the same Manufacturers then the WRC is in trouble.

[DonJippo]

If that gives us more Manufacturers then I'll be happy. But if it doesn't, and it's just the same Manufacturers then the WRC is in trouble.

There will be more.

[AndyRAC]

There will be more.

I really hope so, and hope that it is some of the 'bigger better known' Manufacturers. No offence but I'm not sure if we want 'Asian budget brands' - i;e Kia, etc

[Rally Power]

With the S2000+ formula in the WRC we can have at least 6 manufacteurs: Citröen, Ford, Subaru, Suzuki, Skoda and Fiat. Peugeot, Toyota and Mitsubishi could easily follow the example. For Proton and MG financing is uncertain, but they already have S2000 bases. There's a brilliant future for S2000+ and in 1/2 years WRC could achieved a never seen competitiveness :cool:
I hope Mr. Mosley doesn't spoil this great expectation :rolleyes:

[OldF]

Next WRC is going to be based on S2000 & N-group cars with turbo, no 2WD this time.


Confirmed.

“The new technical regulations for the future World Rally Car will become effective from 2011. The WRC Car will be based on the current Super 2000 and Group N cars, fitted with a supplementary kit, which includes turbo and rear-wing additions. The kit must be able to be fitted or removed within a defined time limit, to be determined.

The current World Rally Car regulations will be extended to include the 2010 World Rally Championship, subject to technical controls. The new World Rally Car will be permitted to compete from 2009 and score points in the Championship from 2010.”


http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2008/March/260308-01.html