S2000+ (r5)

[Abarth]

What has to be strengthened on todays S2000 cars to be able to take on the added power and torque gain from the Low Pressure Turbo ?

[OldF]

I don’t know how much torque the different parts withstand but affected parts are the pistons, cylinder head bolts, connecting rods, crankshaft, gearbox, prop-shaft and drive shafts.

[GigiGalliNo1]

Move to IRC thread please

[Abarth]

Move to IRC thread please

Why, this is the new WRCar. As far as I know IRC will continue with S2000 !

[Daniel]

Move to IRC thread please

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Sulland]

If the tech experts here should guess - how would the BHP/NM figures look on a R5 engine, adding a low pressure turbo to the R4 ?

Just to get used to that R class system !

[Mirek]

I think we need more exact knowledge about the technical solution. At least compression ratio of NA S2000 engine is some 12-13:1 which is way too much for a turbo engine...

[Sulland]

In this weeks Autosport they have a piece on the new regulations.

As it stands now they seem to get closer to todays WRC than originally planned:
- Hydraulic gears still to be allowed (said to have longer life than mechanical)
- 100 kg heavier than today
- Not a bolt on turbo-kit but have to change the whole engine
- Changing from S2000 to S2000+ has to happen i two hours with 8 mechanics (engine in addition they said)
- No carbon, kevlar or ceramic bearings allowed
- Single-supplier turbo and intercooler
- bolt on aero kit

It is probably more, but this is the main issues.

If this is not approved on the meeting of the World Motorsport Council next month the new regs will be pure S2000 or Gr N from 2010. This since the last chance for the teams to come up with changes on the document was last week.


Are these regs ok, or are they getting to near the current ones, and it is no reason for change ?

What if they are not getting to an agreement and the new WRC will be pure S2000 and Gr N - is that ok ?

PS. I just read this so it might be something I missed or did not get right, so pls correct me if there is a need !

[HaCo]

Thank u Sulland for posting this info. It is not clear how much torque these motors will give, but I simply hope things will stay affordable for all teams. I also read something about FIA wanting the rules to be 'useless to go to a motortuner, cause no improvement possible with these sets of rules', anything about that (I hope you understand what I meant)?

[ZKT]

So S2000+ Cars dosnt go to have secuential stick gearbox?
They have allowed pads gears, like the last WRC's? :( :(

[OldF]

Was there something about the kit for N-grp cars?

[Sulland]

So S2000+ Cars dosnt go to have secuential stick gearbox?
They have allowed pads gears, like the last WRC's? :( :(

Yes seems like that is the case. And since the box will be hydraulic, the centre diff will also have to be hydraulic (as today). That also means that the current S2000 regs have to be rewritten to allow hydraulics on these two parts.


Was there something about the kit for N-grp cars?

As I could read it, the new WRC will be purely based on S2000, so Subaru and Mitsubishi (if coming back) will have to build a S2000 car. Same with Ford, Citroen and Suzuki.


The final decisive Council meeting will be on June 24. They need a final decision ASAP to give time to the manufacturers to make and test the new cars before the first WRC round in 2010.

[bf1_IRL]

Was there something about the kit for N-grp cars?

I remember reading something about the new regs and a kit for group N was mentioned but that was as far as it went, I imagine they will be left have a bigger restrictor and mabye some wider arches and differernt rear wings ect.
Not massive changes..

[Sulland]

Was there something about the kit for N-grp cars?

It reads: " With the new car based on S2000, All current teams will have to build new cars from ground up."

So looks like Gr N is completely out of the picture.
____________________________

What worries me more is that it looks like the new regs are closer to todays WRC, and will add hydraulic box and centre diff to S2000 (R4) as well. this will make them more expensive, and less mechanical, and easy to maintain.

They are saying that cost on a new S2000+ will now be 30% less than todays WRC. That is not enough, for a major revamp to make it cheaper and get more manufacturer in to Rally.

They also say that there will be a 3 year homologation periods. (2010-2013, 2013-2016 and so on) this will keep galloping costs, but not sure if the factories will agree.

For me this looks like having too many uncertainties, and a part of me hopes that they will not agree on 24 June, and that S2000/Gr N will be the way ahead - but I know to little to be clear on this as of today.

[Sulland]

This is one of the largest rally forums around. I must say I am a bit amazed that so few has an opinion on the future of the sport we follow so closely.

Why ?

Do you not have an opinion on how you would like the future rally cat at the top level to look like, and why ?

I would not be surprised if the FIA Rally Reps, and others with power in this case, also read here to find out what the public opinion is from people with a lot of interest and knowledge on the subject. If not, at least we had a good discussion !

[Helstar]

There is nothing much to add compared to old similar threads.

Personally I think that S2000 should be put as the lead car in WRC and that's all.
No turbo, low costs, they are good to watch and hear already (even speed will improve years by years I think).

[bt52b]

Its brillant that all teams will have to first build an S2000, as it should mean the will be a good choice of a cars for Regional c'ships. However the price of a +kit has to be fixed at a reasonable level.

It will be quiet sad if S2000+ ends up costing as much as the current WRC cars.

The other problem is that S2000 cars have too much grip, should be weight penalty for 4wd or some way to eqaulise 2wd v 4wd performance.

[urabus-denoS2000]

I dont like the fact that S2000+ will need a new engine

[matSLO]

I think it is not looking so well as I predict. Firstly I would prefer new highest class (called it R5 or whatever) which would consist from S2000 or more modified 2L turbo cars (a little bit like gr.A, but not on power, more on suspension and perhaps with sequential gearbox could be installed). I know it will higher costs for such cars, so "new" gr. N will be formed with cars much closer to road cars. Limitations for fancy materials and components will stay as they are. Also lower classes should be modified in such matter, that also some older cars (like gr. A clio williams, 306 S16, Astra Gsi...) can still be used (they fit in). I would rather see R1 being full gr. A up to 1400 (cause just gr. N are so slow and boring that none will watch them), R2 like it is now + perhaps 1,4L turbo with strict limitations, R3 same it is + 1,6L turbo with limits.

And about being great that S2000 as base for new WRCar is great for national championships... I must disagree here. No mater how great S2000 are, people will always want to see the best spec cars also on lower levels of rallying so they can at least smell how real WRC looks like. I think it is biggest problem of rallying nowadays-there are actually 2 worlds of it-very closed WRC with no-price ultra high tech WRCars driven only by few fully factory supported teams and rich daddys boys/ultra rich gentleman drivers, and second one for all others with much cheaper cars. I think the difference become much too big and that is killing this sport. FIA`s biggest mistake is that they want to change WRC and not RALLY as sport...the perspective from which they looked at rally is wrong.

[Zico]

Not the massive cost savings Id hoped for and I dont like the idea of turbo's on S2000+. Everything positive Ive read on here about the basic S2000 cars are mainly about how great they sound. If I had the choice Id specify 2.5 or 3 litre NA engines.

Also.. can anyone tell me why hydraulic operated gearboxes are considered to be more reliable then manual? I cant get my head round why that would be true.

[GigiGalliNo1]

thanks daniel

[Zico]

Also.. can anyone tell me why hydraulic operated gearboxes are considered to be more reliable then manual? I cant get my head round why that would be true.

Do Ecu controlled upshift throttle cuts only really work at their optimum with consistant speed/torque gear selection?

[Rally Power]

I'm begining a to be a bit dissapointed with the way S2000+ rules are being developed...

Base the new WRC category in the existing S2000 or N4 it's a wise decision, but the Kit issue puts many douts.

Is it reasonable S2000+ to have a Kit that can be removed (8 hours by 2 mechanics :eek: )??? Why on earth a factory team needs to tuned and detuned the cars they'll use in WRC ??? At the end this only will make S2000 base cars a lot more expensive...

Instead why not bring back the scheme of "evolution units", used at the old days of Gr. B. At that time, and for homologations purposes, there was 200 base units (street cars versions*) and 20 evolution units (competition cars).

At the present situation, it would be possible for a manufacteur to produced 50 units of basics S2000 car (with today specs and to be used at local and regional champs) and then 10 evolution S2000+ units (with the proposed changes in a non kit format and for WRC only).

* only the Metro 6R4 base car was suitable for competition.

[DonJippo]

thanks daniel

:rotflmao: I'm sure he appreciates your kind words.

agree to Rally Power 100% !!!

[DonJippo]

Is it reasonable S2000+ to have a Kit that can be removed (8 hours by 2 mechanics :eek: )??? Why on earth a factory team needs to tuned and detuned the cars they'll use in WRC ??? At the end this only will make S2000 base cars a lot more expensive...

Ability to be detuned increases useability of the car for other events and/or customers than solely only for WRC. Making this kit such that it can be removed within given time limit by two mechanics limits freedom of technical solutions and thus should keep costs down as well. So instead of having two cars a WRC and a regular S2000 one team can have one car and use it as WRC or S2000 which ever is needed.

[OldF]

Is it reasonable S2000+ to have a Kit that can be removed (8 hours by 2 mechanics :eek: )

Two hours and 8 mechanics, not 8 mechanics and 2 hours.

[SubaruNorway]

Two hours and 8 mechanics, not 8 mechanics and 2 hours.

Uhm might just be me beeing tired but isen't that the same thing :p

[Rally Power]

Ability to be detuned increases useability of the car for other events and/or customers than solely only for WRC. Making this kit such that it can be removed within given time limit by two mechanics limits freedom of technical solutions and thus should keep costs down as well. So instead of having two cars a WRC and a regular S2000 one team can have one car and use it as WRC or S2000 which ever is needed.

Come on Don Jippo, there will be always some national champs using more developed machinery, and for those markets the S2000+ units would be perfect, no need for detuning at all...

The development of a car that suits both regulation (S2000 and S2000+) will make the basic units more expensive because they'll have to support more sophisticated systems (I don’t see why actual S2000 needs hydraulic transmission :rolleyes: ).

This "pre-installation" necessity and the associated costs, will make S2000 cars less atractiv for private teams and probably end the very interesting balance that today can be seen at the IRC or at some local champs, between factory and private teams :mad:

[Mirek]

In my point of wiev hydraulics in gearbox and central differential are useless. They are very expensive and for spectators they bring only negatives :(

[Sulland]

So if they can not agree on 24 June on the revised S2000+ regs, and go for S2000 and GrN (or just S2000) for now, that would not be such a bad thing.

Then revise the S2000+ regs once more, and introduce the new simple bolt on kit for aprox 2012 ?

This will then be a stepped approach instead of a big bang ! Could we live with that ?

[J4MIE]

So if they can not agree on 24 June on the revised S2000+ regs, and go for S2000 and GrN (or just S2000) for now, that would not be such a bad thing.

Then revise the S2000+ regs once more, and introduce the new simple bolt on kit for aprox 2012 ?

This will then be a stepped approach instead of a big bang ! Could we live with that ?

Yes I like that idea :up: To be honest I don't really want to see turbos added as it will detract from the S2000 noise etc I am sure :(

[RS]

]In my point of wiev hydraulics in gearbox and central differential are useless. They are very expensive and for spectators they bring only negatives :(

I agree, they need to go for a more radical change over the current WRCar rules otherwise the S2000+ will be nearly as expensive as now and the cars will still look boring. Also if the step up to an S2000+ is too great then the manufacturers may not come to WRC.

[DonJippo]

Come on Don Jippo, there will be always some national champs using more developed machinery, and for those markets the S2000+ units would be perfect, no need for detuning at all...

I believe rule maker has been more thinking about WRC vs regional championships in which you can't get championship points with WRC. National series are up to national ASN to decide if one can use WRC or not to get championship points. Ofcourse there will be always people with lots of money who are compensating lack of talent with superior equipment in order to win some local village events.

[AndyRAC]

Yes I like that idea :up: To be honest I don't really want to see turbos added as it will detract from the S2000 noise etc I am sure :(

I'd agree. It seems as if the S2000+ Cars are just slightly less WRCars, with all the trick diffs, etc
I thought the aim was to have simple, less expensive cars bringing in more Manufacturers. It looks as though this isn't going to be the case, a missed opportunity possibly. C'mon, the WRC is dieing a horrible death - I despair....

anyway, s2000 is seems to be need more alternatives or there should be an alternative for s2000. need better improvement.

[Sulland]

Been away from the net for a few days.
Is it correct that FIA could not agree on the new WRC rules ?

Is so, do we know why - and when they plan to get the final rules official ?

[Saabaru]

No turbo? Come on guys, talk about boring. Want to reduce the price of a WRC car, then don’t start with something that is already expensive and then try and modify if to be more spectacular. Start with a blank sheet of paper.
What to do: 1. Start by making companies like Ford and Citroen put there money where their mouth is and actually produce a car similar to what they are rallying like Subaru with the STI
2. Use the factory shell. No more cutting the pillars away, moving the power plants around, and modifying suspension connections. Seam welding and using the cage to increase rigidity and that’s all. Any wide body components should be added over the factory shell.
3. Factory 2 liter turbo charged unrestricted power plants with a maximum of 10lbs of boost.
4. Allow sequential transmissions and hydraulic center differentials, but only mechanical front and rear LSD’s modified form production component.
5. Require factory dash/board panels to resemble their factory counter parts.
6. Suspension can totally be rebuilt and widened, but all connections to the frame/sub frame/cross member must be the production pieces and in it’s original location. Additional strengthening can be added but it must be modified from the production components.

I know allot of people will think this is ridiculous and you’ll find a hundred things you think is wrong with it. But if you want to have a Rally car that isn’t boring to watch and is easy on the check book then you have to use and modify what you already have. You can use a totally specialist designed car that just somewhat resembles what’s in the showroom but you’ll just end up where we are today.

[TKM]

Start by making companies like Ford and Citroen put there money where their mouth is and actually produce a car similar to what they are rallying like Subaru with the STI

Exactly, bring back Group A I say.

[AndyRAC]

Exactly, bring back Group A I say.

While I can see your point - the Manufacturers don't want to. It means producing 'homolgation specials' which cost too much to produce. Hell, Ford are bringing out a new RS- but which is 2.5L Turbo FWD!!! Doh..!!

[Mirek]

TKM: That would be great it is impossible in the moment. Manufacturers don't have car models to bouilt gr.A from (except Mitsubishi and Subaru).

[Saabaru]

While I can see your point - the Manufacturers don't want to. It means producing 'homolgation specials' which cost too much to produce. Hell, Ford are bringing out a new RS- but which is 2.5L Turbo FWD!!! Doh..!!

It wouldn't cost to much, Subaru and Mitsubishi do it and make good money at it. As for the new Focus RS, I won't believe it untill it actually hits the market.

[Rally Power]

We can detect two main technical tendencies in the WRC history: "hitech vs ultrahitech".

The initial Gr 2/4 cars and later Gr.A cars, are examples of good, reliable, balanced rally technology, providing affordable machinery either to factory and private teams. Their "road based" tech is appealing but, in some ways, a bit insipid...

At the other hand, old time Gr. B cars and nowadays WRC cars are much more complex and exclusive, making the sport very expensive, even to some manufacteurs. The appeal from this hitec machinery cames from their amazing "mediatic" potencial.

In 2005 FIA invented a new category that merges both tendecies in a great rally format: S2000. This cars have a contained but all purposed designed technology that made them perfect for rallying, even as a WRC top formula (their splendid "mediatic" flair reminds old days Escorts, Asconas or Fiats, that were used in a magic way at all rally levels - from clubman to WRC!!!).

But politics (and surely corporate interests) consider S2000 not good enought according to WRC technical standarts, so they're trying to invent a upgrading formula that will make S2000+ as costly as 3 years WRC cars, with the inconvinient of making S2000 base cars a lot expensive, in order to preinstall their hitec gadgets... :mad:

[Sulland]

But has it leaked out what exactly they could not agree on ?

Is it the final details - if yes; what details ?
If it is the whole formula set up - what do the different parties want ?

When is the next meeting, and is it expected to have a set of regulations for classes R1 to R5 for the manufacturers to start working from ?

We need something soon !

[Torsen]

gosh... i can't believe some of you actually think the future direction rally should go is away from turbo's? are you kidding me? If i wanna hear something whine i'll put my chain saw to my ear... otherwise the WRC cars are amazing beasts and should be left alone... :-(

[wwbroe]

gosh... i can't believe some of you actually think the future direction rally should go is away from turbo's? are you kidding me? If i wanna hear something whine i'll put my chain saw to my ear... otherwise the WRC cars are amazing beasts and should be left alone... :-(

They are not really beasts and far from interesting to watch, as they ride like a train on rails, don't make any noise and are boring to watch. :D

[SubaruNorway]

It's only the Focus thats boring really, all the other WRC cars aren't so bad, the S12 Impreza is a beast =D

[HaCo]

I would also prefer one with a turbo, but more with sounds from around 1996 with the escort cosworth, toyota gt-4,... :)

[wwbroe]

I would also prefer one with a turbo, but more with sounds from around 1996 with the escort cosworth, toyota gt-4,... :)

Yes, that were the real beasts, they went fast, spectacular and had a great sound. For me you can add also the Subaru Gr.A, wich had the most beautifull sound and was very spectacular to watch. :eek:

[jparker]

I think the hitech era in rally has to end and eventually it will. Hitech companies made FIA reach, but destroyed the sport. Now FIA are trying to salvage as much as possible and make everyone happy. It's not going to work.
I'm for S2000 cars as they are now, or maybe bigger engine.
IMHO, rallying has to be more affordable, so we can have great competition. Powerful and atractive cars to watch is not good thing.

[AndyRAC]

I think the hitech era in rally has to end and eventually it will. Hitech companies made FIA reach, but destroyed the sport. Now FIA are trying to salvage as much as possible and make everyone happy. It's not going to work.
I'm for S2000 cars as they are now, or maybe bigger engine.
IMHO, rallying has to be more affordable, so we can have great competition. Powerful and atractive cars to watch is not good thing.

While the hi-tech cars are fantastic pieces of technology - they are in the main boring to watch because they are too good! Not only that - they are just too expensive!
I just hope the FIA and Manufacturers realise that the way to help the WRC get back to a healthy state is to have simple, cheap cars that Manufacturers and Privateers can use, and don't cost loads of money to run. If this is possible there is a chance new Manufacturers may be interested in joining.

[OldF]

In gpweek http://mag.gpweek.com/?i=03-Jun-2008 (issue 13, page 16) David Lapworth is mentioning boost limit and a restrictor as a way to balance torque and horsepower. This could be the best solution for both S2000+ and N+. A boost limiter would mean lower torque compared to the WRC cars but higher revs. With the restrictor the peak power could be cut. Then I think we could have cars again that sounds like the cars around mid 90th.

[Saabaru]

gosh... i can't believe some of you actually think the future direction rally should go is away from turbo's? are you kidding me? If i wanna hear something whine i'll put my chain saw to my ear... otherwise the WRC cars are amazing beasts and should be left alone... :-(

I agree but something needs to be done to lower the price so more manufacturers will be more inclined to participate on the sport. If people want to see non turbo cars all they have to do is watch the IRC. WRC is the premier form of rally and turbo's are the best way to get more power from smaller lighter engines and thats the way it should stay.


They are not really beasts and far from interesting to watch, as they ride like a train on rails, don't make any noise and are boring to watch. :D

Personal opinion that not everyone shares. Want to make them beasts, get rid of the 300bhp rule. And why dose so many people think they are boring? They are faster than ever before, is it because they are not sliding around every curve sideways? Because if it is that's what you call drifting and they have those competitions as well, but it isn't rally.


It's only the Focus thats boring really, all the other WRC cars aren't so bad, the S12 Impreza is a beast =D

Not the Focus, Citroen is what's boring.


I'm for S2000 cars as they are now, or maybe bigger engine.

So you want to make them even more boring to watch; take away the torque of a turbo then add a heaver motor..... :confused: :dozey:


In gpweek http://mag.gpweek.com/?i=03-Jun-2008 (issue 13, page 16) David Lapworth is mentioning boost limit and a restrictor as a way to balance torque and horsepower.

Again, if you think they are boring today let them do something like this and see how bad it gets. :rolleyes:

[Mirek]

The most important reason why gr.A cars were more spectacular than WRC (except sound of course) was very poor shock absorbers compared to new cars. The cars were very rough, unsteady. I would at least ban hydraulic shifting and central differential.

OldF: Boost limiter would be maybe good idea as if we count Focus has about 800 Nm, it must have maximum power somewhere around 3000-4500 rpm which puts all sound away...

[RS]

Not the Focus, Citroen is what's boring.


The Citroen is my favoruite current WRCar. It's the only one that looks like it has some energy and agression to it.

Suzuki probably comes second best, but only because the Focus is terrible (like a motorised jelly) and the new Subaru doesn't look too promising from the asphalt testing videos I have seen.

[Saabaru]

The Citroen is my favoruite current WRCar. It's the only one that looks like it has some energy and agression to it.

Duval is the only driver I have ever enjoyed watching behind the wheel of a Cetroen. Ford has been boring over the past few years but I think they have gotten better with the two drivers they have now.

[OldF]

]The most important reason why gr.A cars were more spectacular than WRC (except sound of course) was very poor shock absorbers compared to new cars. The cars were very rough, unsteady. I would at least ban hydraulic shifting and central differential.

OldF: Boost limiter would be maybe good idea as if we count Focus has about 800 Nm, it must have maximum power somewhere around 3000-4500 rpm which puts all sound away...

This was my point. Having less boost they are forced to gain the power with revs. Lets imagine the rev limiter is at 8000 rpm, I think the torque peak would be somewhere betweeen 5000-6000 rpm and the power peak somewhere between 6000-8000 rpm. The air restrictor would cut the highest power on higher revs but the power curve would be more flat.
Some suspension restrictions like shorter movement of the wheel (I don't know the right expression in english but I think you know what I mean) should also be made to get back more spectacular driving.

[OldF]

If the tech experts here should guess - how would the BHP/NM figures look on a R5 engine, adding a low pressure turbo to the R4 ?

Just to get used to that R class system !

A difficult question but turning it around and setting some targets we could maybe have some answers.

I found this http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/tech_center/turbo_tech103.html interesting website explaining the compressor map of a turbo and two equations for calculations. Note also Turbo Tech101 and Turbo Tech102. When I also found what I believe is the compressor map of the Mitsubishi Evo9 http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Mitsu_turbo_td05hr-16g6-cfm.jpg I decided to do some calculations. The next step was to try out the equations with real values.

The first one was a dyno graph of a grpN Mitsubishi Evo9 http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Mitsu_Evo9_grpN_Dyno.jpg and the second was a tuned road car http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/MitsubishiEvo9Stage1_2.jpg (I used the stage1 curves that are in the middle / web site of the company http://www.turbotec.com/etusivu/mitsubishi/index.html).

I don’t know at which boost level the grpN Mitsubishi was run in the dyno but I’ve seen power and torque figures for another grpN Mitsu that had 580 Nm @ 3300 rpm and 292 hp @ 4300 rpm, so I used for this one a boost level of 1,9 bar / 27,6 psi (pressure ratio Pr = 3,2) and for the one in the dyno graph 1,8 bar / 26,1 psi (Pr = 3,1). For the other needed values I used:
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) = 0,5
Air/Fuel Ratio (A/F) = 12
Intake Manifold Temperature, degrees F (Tm) = 100 °F = 37,8 °C

With these values I tried out what volumetric efficiency (VE) is needed to get 580 Nm with full boost (1,9 bar) and I was surprised that the VE was as high as 116%. For the grp N Mitsubishi from the dyno graph the VE had to be 117% to have 566 Nm with 1,8 bar boost. With 1,9 bar boost the 566 Nm was achieved with VE = 113%. I did the same with the tuned road car (stage1 tuning) but know the VE was between 98,5% (4600 rpm) and 75,3% (7000 rpm). It would be nice if someone could explain this.

Here are some graphs for the grp N Mitsubishi’s:

Mitsu Evo9 GrpN 566Nm graph: http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Mitsu_Evo9_GrpN_566Nm.jpg

Mitsu Evo9 GrpN 580Nm graph: http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Mitsu_Evo9_GrpN_580Nm.jpg

Here is how it would look on the compressor map:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Mitsu_Evo9_GrpN_compr_map.jpg

Let’s go to S2000+. Jaques Berger said in GPWEEK (http://mag.gpweek.com/?iid=6650 page 11) that “The final rules will permit cars to have performance at a level between the current WRC cars and the current S2000 cars”. Officially the WRC cars have 300 hp and the S2000 cars have 270-280 hp, so the S2000+ cars power would be about 285-290 hp. But anyway I put the target to 320-330 hp. I used VE = 105% and VE = 116%. Here are the results.

S2000+ VE105 graph:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_VE105.jpg

S2000+ VE116 graph:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_VE116.jpg

Here is how it would look on a compressor map:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_compr_map.jpg

I don’t know how big the restrictor could be but I think a restrictor of 33-34 mm could be a good choice.
Theoretically a grp N car with a 34 mm restrictor could produce about 310-330 hp with a 34 mm restrictor. A 34 mm restrictor can flow about 12,9 % more air, which means about 12,9 % more power. (34*34) / (32*32) = 1,1289 = 12,9 %. By limiting the boost the S2000+ cars could have more revs than the current WRC cars and with a suitable restrictor the power could be set to a reasonable level.

Of course I also had to try out the equations with WRC cars. With the information from another forum members I think the WRC cars can produce at least 750 Nm @ 3000 rpm so I used this as a base. The two curves I used as bases where the 580 Nm @ 3300 rpm grp N Mitsubishi and Jussi Välimäki’s Evo 8 grp A car, 650 Nm @ 3500 rpm / 350 hp @ 4800 rpm (http://www.jussivalimaki.com/). The declining part of the torque curve I calculated with absolute values (grp A Mitsu = 650 @ 3500 -> WRC = 650+100 = 750 Nm @ 3000 rpm / grp A = 646 Nm @ 3600 rpm -> WRC = 646+100 = 746 @ 3100 rpm etc.) and declining by a percentage rate (Grp N = 580 Nm @ 3300 rpm -> WRC = 750 Nm @ 3000 rpm / grp N = 99,3% * 580 = 576 Nm @ 3400 rpm -> WRC = 99,3% * 750 = 745 Nm @ 3100 rpm etc.). Here are the results:

WRC graph:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/WRC_graph.jpg

WRC all graph:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/WRC_all_graph.jpg

WRC compressor map:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/WRC_compr_map.jpg

As you can see I had to squeeze the map to get room for the pressure ratios of a WRC turbo. With a VE = 116 % the required boost would be 2,7 bar / 39,1 psi (Pr = 4,09) and with a VE = 100% the required boost would be 3,3 bar / 47,9 psi (Pr = 4,72). I tried to look for a turbo with a similar compressor map but I couldn’t find a single one from the Garret’s site http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/products/turbochargers.html that would have a pressure ratio between 4,1-4,7 and a flow rate of 475 – 510 CFM. For example this one http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/catelog/Turbochargers/GT55/GT5533_752052-9.htm
haas both the needed pressure ratio and flow rate but not a flow rate at 500 CFM (37 lb / min) at Pr = 4,1-4,7.

Here are few good web sites about turbos and compressor maps for tech freaks like me.

http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/turbo/turbopage.html

http://www.stealth316.com/2-3s-compflowmaps.htm

http://cybrina.mine.nu/MR2_Docs/compressor_flow_maps.htm

http://www.turbofast.com.au/javacalc.html


You know, now I’m hungry and I think I’ll go and put some fire on the grill and barbeque some “makkaraa ja / tai läskiä” (sausage and / or meet with flesh).

[Abarth]

Has FIA decided on the tech way ahead for WRC yet ?

[Rally Power]

Has FIA decided on the tech way ahead for WRC yet ?

When will they decide :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Saabaru]

When will they decide :confused: :confused: :confused:
Not a second sooner than they are forced to by the manufactures… Give the FIA the boot, we need a new sanctioning committee!!!

[Abarth]

Any bets against that S2000 will be the car also in WRC from 2010 ?

[BDunnell]

I agree but something needs to be done to lower the price so more manufacturers will be more inclined to participate on the sport. If people want to see non turbo cars all they have to do is watch the IRC. WRC is the premier form of rally and turbo's are the best way to get more power from smaller lighter engines and thats the way it should stay.

Why does premier = turbos, then? You may watch rallying because you see it as a technological exercise but thankfully not everyone does. I don't agree that turbos should be banned full stop, because there should be room for a variety of configurations, but neither are they a panacea.



Personal opinion that not everyone shares. Want to make them beasts, get rid of the 300bhp rule. And why dose so many people think they are boring? They are faster than ever before, is it because they are not sliding around every curve sideways? Because if it is that's what you call drifting and they have those competitions as well, but it isn't rally.

Why not make every event a series of drag races, then? That isn't rallying either. Again, you offer no solutions as to how the WRC can become more competitive and attractive again. It becomes a pointless exercise if nobody cares.



Again, if you think they are boring today let them do something like this and see how bad it gets. :rolleyes:

I assume you didn't like F2 cars, then, because they weren't some sort of undefinable 'pinnacle'? In what sense were they less exciting to watch than 4wd GpA cars or WRCs? I think your vision for the sport is a bit soulless and devoid of interest for anyone other than the few people who are concerned about rallying's place in the technological pantheon.

[AndyRAC]

Why are people so hung up about the technological side of the WRC? Yes, all very interesting and fantastic - but it's not solving the problem of the future - if indeed any - of the WRC. I keep banging on about cheap, easily accessible cars for Manufacturers and Privateers to use. In an ideal world there would be say e;g 6/7 Makes all with 2/3 drivers, not including Satellite/Privateers.
As far as I'm concerned, the F2 cars were fantastic - 1996-2000 BRC was something else - the commitment awesome, and the sound.
The regs should allow for diversity - Turbo, N/A, FWD, 4WD, RWD,etc, oh but get rid of paddle-shift gears, electronics, anything that adds uneccessarily to the cost.
Finally, seeing as LeMans Series and F1 have talked about KERS/Biofuel/Hybrids, shouldn't Rallying adopt something similar? Cost permitting?

[BDunnell]

Finally, seeing as LeMans Series and F1 have talked about KERS/Biofuel/Hybrids, shouldn't Rallying adopt something similar? Cost permitting?

Why not? However, I would say that now we know biofuels as they are mainly produced to be wasteful of resources, interest in them as an alternative fuel is likely to wane until they become truly sustainable. The ones based on algae seem like a good option at the moment.

[AndyRAC]

Why not? However, I would say that now we know biofuels as they are mainly produced to be wasteful of resources, interest in them as an alternative fuel is likely to wane until they become truly sustainable. The ones based on algae seem like a good option at the moment.


While I'm no technical/mechanical expert, I'm surprised that there are no Diesel WRCars. Isn't it worth experimenting? Shouldn't the F1A be encouraging this? I'm sure I've read that to produce similar levels of power a large engine would be needed, but I may be wrong.

[BDunnell]

While I'm no technical/mechanical expert, I'm surprised that there are no Diesel WRCars. Isn't it worth experimenting? Shouldn't the F1A be encouraging this? I'm sure I've read that to produce similar levels of power a large engine would be needed, but I may be wrong.

I suppose the problem is maintaining a level playing field. The experience of the WTCC and BTCC with the SEAT TDis demonstrates this. What's required to keep things even and competitive is a fairly restrictive set of technical regs that nonetheless still allow cars of a variety of configurations to take part in a worthwhile manner. Surely this isn't beyond the wit of the powers that be?

[AndyRAC]

I suppose the problem is maintaining a level playing field. The experience of the WTCC and BTCC with the SEAT TDis demonstrates this. What's required to keep things even and competitive is a fairly restrictive set of technical regs that nonetheless still allow cars of a variety of configurations to take part in a worthwhile manner. Surely this isn't beyond the wit of the powers that be?

Well, as the powers that be are the F1A, I would suggest it is beyond their wit...

[Saabaru]

Why does premier = turbos, then? You may watch rallying because you see it as a technological exercise but thankfully not everyone does. I don't agree that turbos should be banned full stop, because there should be room for a variety of configurations, but neither are they a panacea.



Why not make every event a series of drag races, then? That isn't rallying either. Again, you offer no solutions as to how the WRC can become more competitive and attractive again. It becomes a pointless exercise if nobody cares.



I assume you didn't like F2 cars, then, because they weren't some sort of undefinable 'pinnacle'? In what sense were they less exciting to watch than 4wd GpA cars or WRCs? I think your vision for the sport is a bit soulless and devoid of interest for anyone other than the few people who are concerned about rallying's place in the technological pantheon.

I got more to the point than you did, care to be a little more specific?

[Sulland]

Is the idea that the only place you can drive a R5 car is in the WRC ?

Regional and national series can only use R4 and below. Reason: Keep cost down.

Is this a way forward ? I know that FIA with current rules have challenges to restrict national authorities to not using WRCcars.
But that aside - is it a good idea ?

[BDunnell]

I got more to the point than you did, care to be a little more specific?

I have made my view clear in many places elsewhere on these forums. A return to basic Group A rules, thus permitting 2wd and 4wd cars to compete against one another and with no compunction to use turbos (or not) is my suggestion.

[BDunnell]

Is the idea that the only place you can drive a R5 car is in the WRC ?

Regional and national series can only use R4 and below. Reason: Keep cost down.

Is this a way forward ? I know that FIA with current rules have challenges to restrict national authorities to not using WRCcars.
But that aside - is it a good idea ?

Definitely not. Strong domestic championships help = a strong WRC, in my view, by allowing more drivers a chance to show their mettle in top-class equipment. This means they should use the same cars. It worked before with the British Open Championship and it would work again, so long as the top cars are affordable enough for use on the domestic championships. Just look at how healthy the British Touring Car Championship has become as a result of running mainly S2000 cars. This could happen in rallying if the formula was right.

[AndyRAC]

Definitely not. Strong domestic championships help = a strong WRC, in my view, by allowing more drivers a chance to show their mettle in top-class equipment. This means they should use the same cars. It worked before with the British Open Championship and it would work again, so long as the top cars are affordable enough for use on the domestic championships. Just look at how healthy the British Touring Car Championship has become as a result of running mainly S2000 cars. This could happen in rallying if the formula was right.

I seem to remember you making this point before, many times over, in fact!! It just seems so simple, you wonder why it isn't implemented. Cheap, simple, affordable cars - surely everyone's a winner - maybe apart from the current Manufacturers. And thats the problem.
I have heard DR arguing that the top cars shouldn't run in domestic championships - as you wouldn't expect to see an F1 car running at a National Rallying Championship - so why see a top WRCar in Clubman/National rounds. Personally, I think DR got the 'if it works in F1, it must work in Rallying' and went overboard with it. Totally different, and never the twain shall meet!!

[Saabaru]

I have made my view clear in many places elsewhere on these forums. A return to basic Group A rules, thus permitting 2wd and 4wd cars to compete against one another and with no compunction to use turbos (or not) is my suggestion.
That would be great! Ford and Citroen would cry like little babys. It would bring back Mitsubishi and Skoda to take there place if they droped out though. No love lost here...

[BDunnell]

I have heard DR arguing that the top cars shouldn't run in domestic championships - as you wouldn't expect to see an F1 car running at a National Rallying Championship - so why see a top WRCar in Clubman/National rounds. Personally, I think DR got the 'if it works in F1, it must work in Rallying' and went overboard with it. Totally different, and never the twain shall meet!!

Exactly. And how did Richards really come to prominence? As Vatanen's co-driver at a time when the pair used to compete in the British series alongside the WRC, in exactly the same equipment. He's biting the hand that once fed him.

[Sulland]

When is the next meeting, and what will be the next deadline to get the 2010 regulations agreed and in place ?

[Sulland]

When is the next meeting, and what will be the next deadline to get the 2010 regulations agreed and in place ?

[OldF]

When is the next meeting, and what will be the next deadline to get the 2010 regulations agreed and in place ?

The next WMSC’s meeting is in the beginning of November, the 5th if I remember it right (I don’t remember where I saw that date).

[Abarth]

And since FIA again pushed this to the right - when is the next meeting ?


Please tip the outcome of the december meeting !

[OldF]

And since FIA again pushed this to the right - when is the next meeting ?


Please tip the outcome of the december meeting !

Have you read the last gpweek. http://mag.gpweek.com/ “FIA threatens sanctions for spending”, page 16.

[Abarth]

Yes I saw that. Lot of interesting initiatives, but still they need to make decisions not just propose. Overrule the manufacturers if needed !!

Driver ranking, hmm cool. Hopefully they also will rank the Co-drivers, that are equally important for the team.