The Technical Regulations for 2010 (part 2)

[MJW]

Just read in Autosport magazine that at a series of recent meetings in Paris it was not possible to reach agreement on the details of the technical specification for the new WRCar (Super 2000+) As things stand at present it will be December 2008 before the detail is announced. Sources indicated to Autosport that they feared that if by November's World Council meeting that agreement could not be reached then the FIA could impose the current S2000 rules, therby dismissing S2000+.
Seeing that Peugeot, FIAT, Toyota, Skoda, MG, Proton, Opel all have cars built / designed or seeking homologation for S2000, I wonder if these manufactureres will follow through and go the S2000+ route.
I just think that all this is adding to the confusion and goes totally against the stability that the manufactureres have been asking for. Coupled with the lack of a global promoter for WRC and continuing uncertainty I wonder if by 2010 S2000 and IRC becomes the "new wrc"

[AndyRAC]

If the FIA/World Motorsport Council were doing their job properly they would address this issue as soon as possible. To be blunt the WRC is in a mess, very little promotion, little Manufacturer interest - and what are they doing about it? Exactly, not a lot!!
Both the WTCC & WRC are needing help, yet they sit idly by and take no notice. There is more to Motorsport than F1 - sort it out!!!
You can't blame Manufacturers from not joining when there is no clear leadership, no regs, calendar, etc

Lets have S2000/S2000+ but make it cheap and spectacular, WRCars are fantastic technology but not spectacular, and sound like strangled farts. As for the calendar; 12 rounds, Jan - Dec, 4 'classics' the other 8 rotate, 6 week gap in summer. To be honest I wouldn't think about going to new countries yet - the WRC isn't in a strong enough position to be doing this yet. Don't run before you can walk. Let's have plenty of Manufacturers/Cars/Drivers - then the interest will come if there are plenty of drivers challenging.
As for the Rallies - I think the time for all compact routes is coming to an end. In the main it has had the opposite effect of promoting the sport, an event in a small area is of no use. If countries want a compact route then fine, but countries like Monte, GB should be allowed more spread out routes.

[Sulland]

When would the point of no return, or cut off date be for when the manufacturers need a firm set of regulations to build a car from.

How many more months can FIA use to decide, before 2010 will have to be done with S2000 and not S2000+ ?

[OldF]

Just read in Autosport magazine that at a series of recent meetings in Paris it was not possible to reach agreement on the details of the technical specification for the new WRCar (Super 2000+) As things stand at present it will be December 2008 before the detail is announced. Sources indicated to Autosport that they feared that if by November's World Council meeting that agreement could not be reached then the FIA could impose the current S2000 rules, therby dismissing S2000+.
Seeing that Peugeot, FIAT, Toyota, Skoda, MG, Proton, Opel all have cars built / designed or seeking homologation for S2000, I wonder if these manufactureres will follow through and go the S2000+ route.
I just think that all this is adding to the confusion and goes totally against the stability that the manufactureres have been asking for. Coupled with the lack of a global promoter for WRC and continuing uncertainty I wonder if by 2010 S2000 and IRC becomes the "new wrc"

Was there something what the details are?

[MJW]

Was there something what the details are?
No - just that there could be no agreement on the "kit" and David Lapworth was quoted as saying that the new regs must allow for the WRC cars to remain at a certain level of hi-tech.

[AndyRAC]

No - just that there could be no agreement on the "kit" and David Lapworth was quoted as saying that the new regs must allow for the WRC cars to remain at a certain level of hi-tech.

I despair, they really don't get it do they? Hi-tech is all well and good but expensive. We want cheap, but spectacular loud cars. Simple!!
When will this get through to them?

[Sulland]

I despair, they really don't get it do they? Hi-tech is all well and good but expensive. We want cheap, but spectacular loud cars. Simple!!
When will this get through to them?

YESS, and so cheap and available that any team can buy them and fight for victory !

Today they are to expensive, and sophisticated in their construction, and you need an armada of engineers to make them work for a season !

[Saabaru]

Just read in Autosport magazine that at a series of recent meetings in Paris it was not possible to reach agreement on the details of the technical specification for the new WRCar (Super 2000+) As things stand at present it will be December 2008 before the detail is announced. Sources indicated to Autosport that they feared that if by November's World Council meeting that agreement could not be reached then the FIA could impose the current S2000 rules, therby dismissing S2000+.
Seeing that Peugeot, FIAT, Toyota, Skoda, MG, Proton, Opel all have cars built / designed or seeking homologation for S2000, I wonder if these manufactureres will follow through and go the S2000+ route.
I just think that all this is adding to the confusion and goes totally against the stability that the manufactureres have been asking for. Coupled with the lack of a global promoter for WRC and continuing uncertainty I wonder if by 2010 S2000 and IRC becomes the "new wrc"

You forgot Volvo and Seat.

[52Paddy]

Today they are to expensive, and sophisticated in their construction, and you need an armada of engineers to make them work for a season !

Global promotion may not be to the fore in the WRC. However, what Sulland has posted is a big push factor for manufacturers. Why should they enter a championship which takes so much effort and offers so little?

Promotion has to be improved, costs have to be cut and regulations need to be put in place, and permanently (or at least for a few years, none of this rule-changing BS every season!)

I like what I've heard of S2000, but I need to read more about it. I don't have enough information about the category. Whats more important is that whatever the FIA do decide on, they do it now.

Anyway, I'm only repeating the rant again :dozey:

[gloomyDAY]

Can someone tell me the difference between S2000 and S2000+?

There needs to be something on paper for the teams to follow.
You can't fly blind forever!

[AndyRAC]

Can someone tell me the difference between S2000 and S2000+?

There needs to be something on paper for the teams to follow.
You can't fly blind forever!

While no expert, I think with S2000+ there is the addition of a Turbo and a rear wing which is available as a kit, which can be removed to return the car to S2000. There may be more kit involved, confused with it all now.

[Rally Power]

At the beginning the S2000+ concept looked a wise solution for the WRC future, but the incertitude about technical regulations compromised this formula.

The removable Kit issue and manufactures pressures in order to adopt hi-Tec systems, have turned the initial concept into a nonsense “WRC look-alike formula”, providing no real changes to the exorbitant development und exploration costs, the main reason for the agony of WRC.

At this point I’ve no doubts that promote the actual S2000 category to the main WRC formula is the most realistic way to ensure the competitiveness that WRC desperately needs.

WRC doesn’t need to be a reserved hi-Tec exhibition, therefore the return to a “human scale” format, like today’s S2000, is the right move in order to guarantee the entrance of more manufactures und create new opportunities to private teams.

Empower S2000 now :up:

[RS]

You forgot Volvo and Seat.

No, these are touring cars not rally cars.

[RS]

At the beginning the S2000+ concept looked a wise solution for the WRC future, but the incertitude about technical regulations compromised this formula.

The removable Kit issue and manufactures pressures in order to adopt hi-Tec systems, have turned the initial concept into a nonsense “WRC look-alike formula”, providing no real changes to the exorbitant development und exploration costs, the main reason for the agony of WRC.

At this point I’ve no doubts that promote the actual S2000 category to the main WRC formula is the most realistic way to ensure the competitiveness that WRC desperately needs.

WRC doesn’t need to be a reserved hi-Tec exhibition, therefore the return to a “human scale” format, like today’s S2000, is the right move in order to guarantee the entrance of more manufactures und create new opportunities to private teams.

Empower S2000 now :up:

I would tend to agree with everything you said. There is a much bigger chance that manufacturers such as Peugeot, Skoda and Abarth will join/re-join WRC if they just go the basic S2000 route

[OldF]

I seems that some manufacturers want hi-tech and others not. David Lapworth is probably one of them that want to preserve the 100.000 € gearbox with active centre diff. Maybe Subaru has difficulties to find someone to make a longitudinal S2000 gearbox for about 25.000€.

Maybe it would be better if IRC cars would be S2000 as they are now and WRC cars would be S2500.

[DonJippo]

At the beginning the S2000+ concept looked a wise solution for the WRC future, but the incertitude about technical regulations compromised this formula.

The removable Kit issue and manufactures pressures in order to adopt hi-Tec systems, have turned the initial concept into a nonsense “WRC look-alike formula”, providing no real changes to the exorbitant development und exploration costs, the main reason for the agony of WRC.

At this point I’ve no doubts that promote the actual S2000 category to the main WRC formula is the most realistic way to ensure the competitiveness that WRC desperately needs.

WRC doesn’t need to be a reserved hi-Tec exhibition, therefore the return to a “human scale” format, like today’s S2000, is the right move in order to guarantee the entrance of more manufactures und create new opportunities to private teams.

Empower S2000 now :up:

S2000 is already now more expensive than what it was supposed to be and how expensive it will be in few years nobody knows...

Thing is without continues control of rules costs will always go sky high and what is really pity FIA and manufactures seems to lack the capability to work together towards better future, too much politics involved, everyone just for their own...

[Sulland]

Got Autosport today. Their insider say that there were several meetings last week in Paris, but they could not get to a conclusion.

He says that the plan was to have an agreed tech regulation to be approved on the November meeting. Now this has to be moved to the December meeting, and if they are not able to get the new WRCar tech reg stamped and approved by the Rally Commission, the World Coucil will most likely go for the S2000 as it stands today as the new WRCar from 1 January 2010.

Autosport also points to Lapworth as one (if not the only one) that express a wish to ensure the new format car maintains certain levels of technology.
____________________________
As a side comment to Lapworth I would like to say that, for subaru S2000 would be a good move back to a technology they can manage, since they have been lost in the tech jungle since 2004. When they tried to put too much F1 thinking into constructing a rally car.

For most people the show and car control made from the drivers, is more important than technology we can not see !
Keep WRCars simple and "Affordable" so more manufacturers and teams would like to, and be able to participate !
If not, WRC will die - and IRC will take over !

FIA also must put into effect and govern a cost limit for the new car class, ala the 168 000€ they first had for S2000, so cost will not get out of control !

[AndyRAC]

Got Autosport today. Their insider say that there were several meetings last week in Paris, but they could not get to a conclusion.

He says that the plan was to have an agreed tech regulation to be approved on the November meeting. Now this has to be moved to the December meeting, and if they are not able to get the new WRCar tech reg stamped and approved by the Rally Commission, the World Coucil will most likely go for the S2000 as it stands today as the new WRCar from 1 January 2010.

Autosport also points to Lapworth as one (if not the only one) that express a wish to ensure the new format car maintains certain levels of technology.
____________________________
As a side comment to Lapworth I would like to say that, for subaru S2000 would be a good move back to a technology they can manage, since they have been lost in the tech jungle since 2004. When they tried to put too much F1 thinking into constructing a rally car.

For most people the show and car control made from the drivers, is more important than technology we can not see !
Keep WRCars simple and "Affordable" so more manufacturers and teams would like to, and be able to participate !
If not, WRC will die - and IRC will take over !

FIA also must put into effect and govern a cost limit for the new car class, ala the 168 000€ they first had for S2000, so cost will not get out of control !

Here, here!! Completely agree, why can't they understand this - there's no point in having 'hi-tech' if only 2/3 teams can afford it - and so we are back to were we are now!! Madness!! Are they all brain dead?

[jonkka]

Here, here!! Completely agree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear_hear

[Mirek]

If it was up to me, I would stay on N/A engines but with some modiffication for WRC. S2000 now have for example:

Diameter of air intake 64 mm with single throttle valve.
Diameter of valves must stay the same as production.
Maximum valve lifting is 12 mm.
Maximum RPM is 8500 min-1.
Maximum volume is 2000 ccm.

I just mention few things which could be easyly changed in order to have more power without big cost. Why not to use bigger intake restrictor, bigger valves and for example 2,2-2,5 litre engines?

[Steve Boyd]

Here, here!! Completely agree, why can't they understand this - there's no point in having 'hi-tech' if only 2/3 teams can afford it - and so we are back to were we are now!! Madness!! Are they all brain dead?
No - they're just taking the view that protects their own interests. If the WRC goes S2000+ with a standardised transmission then Prodrive, for example, will have to fire some of their WRC transmission engineers (or re-deploy them on another project). If the cars are "low tech" then the same will apply to the software guys. If the next generation of WRC cars are much cheaper to build & run then they won't be able to charge Subaru as much to operate their WRC operation. The business will have been downsized by the new regulations.
Personally I'd be happy with S2000, even happier with 2.5 litre RWD, as long as the competition was more even & the results were less predictable.

[I am evil Homer]

No - they're just taking the view that protects their own interests. If the WRC goes S2000+ with a standardised transmission then Prodrive, for example, will have to fire some of their WRC transmission engineers (or re-deploy them on another project). If the cars are "low tech" then the same will apply to the software guys. If the next generation of WRC cars are much cheaper to build & run then they won't be able to charge Subaru as much to operate their WRC operation. The business will have been downsized by the new regulations.
Personally I'd be happy with S2000, even happier with 2.5 litre RWD, as long as the competition was more even & the results were less predictable.

And how many manufacturers make 2.5l RWD cars???

[MJW]

[quote="'Mirek Fric [Cze"]]If it was up to me, I would stay on N/A engines :

And how many manufacturers make 2.5l RWD cars???
QUOTE]

Firstly the motor industry is pushing for lower capacity engines supplemented with a turbo so the concept of 2,5 litre engine is a "large engine in the current oil price situation.
As for the question re rear wheel drive cars I keep asking how many manufactureres make 4WD. Other rhan Subaru all manufacturers are guilty of a degree of hypocracy in promoting 4WD Focus, C4 etc.

[Mirek]

MJW: You are right but It would be just marketing, no real press on fuel consumption or emissions. In racing turbo cars have much bigger fuel consumpion than naturally aspirated ones. In their case there is not low pressure turbo for optimalization of burning proces as in road cars. There is turbo for making as huge air pressure as possible which allowes to burn as much fuel as possible. As far as I know on stage Peugeot 207 S2000 has fuel consumpion about 55 l/100km, for gr. N Lancer it is some 80-90 l/km and for Octavia WRC it was around 110 l/100km, I think.

[Sulland]

]If it was up to me, I would stay on N/A engines :

And how many manufacturers make 2.5l RWD cars???
QUOTE]

Firstly the motor industry is pushing for lower capacity engines supplemented with a turbo so the concept of 2,5 litre engine is a "large engine in the current oil price situation.
As for the question re rear wheel drive cars I keep asking how many manufactureres make 4WD. Other rhan Subaru all manufacturers are guilty of a degree of hypocracy in promoting 4WD Focus, C4 etc.

So maybe a 1,4 ltr with Compressor and turbo ala the VW TSI engine would be an idea !
But a 2 ltr NA is simpler, and simple is good !

[Mirek]

1.4 Tubo would be anything but cheap and simple...

[Daniel]

]1.4 Tubo would be anything but cheap and simple...
Why? Turbo's are a cheap way of getting power from an engine. Tuning an NA engine for the same power and torque is usually more expensive.

[AndyRAC]

From what I'm hearing and reading, S2000 sound as though they're going to be quite expensive as well.
Don't know what eveybody else thinks but although the WRCars are 'Production based' - I'd say they are nearer to 'Prototypes' like F1 cars and MotoGP bikes - and that maybe why they are so expensive. Maybe they need to be more Production based - e;g Group N+, something needs to be done as the S2000/S2000+ isn't going to be the panacea people are hoping for.

[Mirek]

Daniel: Because common 1.4 litre engine is undersized for some big power and torque. It would be very unreliable in my opinion. That would mean nercessary use of expensive materials.

[Daniel]

]Daniel: Because common 1.4 litre engine is undersized for some big power and torque. It would be very unreliable in my opinion. That would mean nercessary use of expensive materials.
Back in the turbo F1 days they were getting stupid amounts oh HP and torque out of engines around that size. I'm sure a third or a quarter of that wouldn't be too hard to get out of a 1.4 and keep it reliable.

[Mirek]

Don't compare F1 engine with standard road block. Most of 1.4 engines are basic cheap ones for most car makers :)

[grugsticles]

From what I'm hearing and reading, S2000 sound as though they're going to be quite expensive as well.
Don't know what eveybody else thinks but although the WRCars are 'Production based' - I'd say they are nearer to 'Prototypes' like F1 cars and MotoGP bikes - and that maybe why they are so expensive. Maybe they need to be more Production based - e;g Group N+, something needs to be done as the S2000/S2000+ isn't going to be the panacea people are hoping for.
I agree with the idea that the cars are too far away from being production based.

In the early 90's when Group A was still relativly new as being the top level rally car format, it seemed to me that there was a LOT more interest in the cars and the sport than in the modern day. Id say that was because the cars were actual road cars with modifications.

IMO the S2000+ format should go ahead, but with an emphasis on maintaining the external body shape and size rather than using exuberant winds and body kits. This would also reduce downforce meaning the cars would behave more unpredictably and, in essence, visually pleasing to the spectators.

[OldF]

It’s true there aren’t many 2,5l RWD cars and not even many 2,5l FWD cars. To make a 2,5l engine is not so big problem because many manufacturers have a model with a 2,8l – 3,2l engine that can be downsized to a 2,5l engine.

For example 2,5l – 3,2l FWD/RWD/4WD road car => 2,5l 4WD WRC car.

[BDunnell]

As for the question re rear wheel drive cars I keep asking how many manufactureres make 4WD. Other rhan Subaru all manufacturers are guilty of a degree of hypocracy in promoting 4WD Focus, C4 etc.

It's an interesting point. Personally, I think rear-drive is dead as far as the WRC is concerned precisely because of the lack of RWD road cars in the relevant size bracket, but 4WD seems to be a different matter.

[BDunnell]

I agree with the idea that the cars are too far away from being production based.

In the early 90's when Group A was still relativly new as being the top level rally car format, it seemed to me that there was a LOT more interest in the cars and the sport than in the modern day. Id say that was because the cars were actual road cars with modifications.

And there was still a separate Group N category, so there was enough of a distinction between Groups A and N. This was true as far back as 1987, too, so the two could still co-exist.

[AndyRAC]

And there was still a separate Group N category, so there was enough of a distinction between Groups A and N. This was true as far back as 1987, too, so the two could still co-exist.

Agree, Group N would be virtually standard , whereas Group A/WRC would be modified but not hugely, but enough to make them loud, and exciting and look the same as the Road car - which is important.

[Rally Power]

No - they're just taking the view that protects their own interests. If the WRC goes S2000+ with a standardised transmission then Prodrive, for example, will have to fire some of their WRC transmission engineers (or re-deploy them on another project). If the cars are "low tech" then the same will apply to the software guys. If the next generation of WRC cars are much cheaper to build & run then they won't be able to charge Subaru as much to operate their WRC operation. The business will have been downsized by the new regulations(...)

Steve is totally right. By “following the money” everyone could understand who really profits with the Hi-Tec applied on WRC cars…

This Hi-Tec environment is the main reason for the lack of manufactures at the WRC, not only by the costs involved but also because of the hi-degree of technical expertise needed to be competitive (just look at Suzukis case).

With much more contained und balanced technology, S2000 is the perfect formula to attract manufactures to the WRC, even those with a range of products less suitable for the sport.

Ok, they’re a bit short on power, but old days RS1800 or 131 Abarth’s were even less powerful und everybody enjoyed run and see them.

For those who (wrongly) thinks S2000 are boring ;) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi_ObtOd40

[Saabaru]

For those who (wrongly) thinks S2000 are boring
S2000 = :mad: S2000+ = :D

[Daniel]

]Don't compare F1 engine with standard road block. Most of 1.4 engines are basic cheap ones for most car makers :)

*sigh*

The units that were the bases for the PSA 2l turbo's were not fancy engines. No fancier than a 1.4 that they might offer.

[gloomyDAY]

For those who (wrongly) thinks S2000 are boring ;) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi_ObtOd40Not boring, but excruciating to watch. Especially when the car snailed out of the corners. :o

[gloomyDAY]

What if the FIA allowed manufacturers' to have either FWD, RWD, or 4WD cars? That would add a lot of variety to the sport! I'm not sure it would be safe to see a RWD car on the snow banks of Sweden, but it would be fun to watch.

Again, can someone explain the difference between S2000 and S2000+?

[Saabaru]

S2000+ is what is being fought over right now. It should include a turbo, new rear wing, and hydraulic shift transmission. Those are the big changes they want anyway...

[Sulland]

S2000+ is what is being fought over right now. It should include a turbo, new rear wing, and hydraulic shift transmission. Those are the big changes they want anyway...

And I guess the stumbling block is how much each manufacturer will be able to make themselves, and how much they have to buy ready made.

Cost cost cost ! Keep it simple and cheap !

[Saabaru]

Yeah but ready made is never cheap, it creates a monopoly and the manufacture can charge whatever they want.

[OldF]

These are suppose to be the worlds most prestigious rally cars and cutting them down to S2000 would be a shame. I would be happy with S2000+ or even a Group N+. If you took a PWRC car and put the WRC wing, simpler hydraulic gear box, better brakes and a 40mm restrictor on it I would be ecstatic.

I think (or at least FIA thinks) a 40 mm restrictor is little too big. Rally cross cars with a 45 mm restrictor can produce about 550 hp. True a 40 mm restrictor can pass air to produce about 435 hp (402 / 452 = 0,79 * 550 = 434 hp). It’s possible to get almost 370 hp just by mapping and over 400 hp with mapping and upgraded exhaust pipe.

Original site in Finnish:
http://www.turbotec.com/etusivu/mitsubishi/index.html

Stage 1 = 243 kW = 330 hp
Stage 2 = 270 kW = 367 hp
Stage 3 = 300 kW = 408 hp

Translated site:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.turbotec.com%2Fetusiv u%2Fmitsubishi%2Findex.html&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8&sl=fi&tl=en

Tehonlisäys = more power
Testiautomme = our test car
Turbosarja = turbo kit
Hukkaportti = waste gate
Erikoisteräksestä = special steel
Viritysputkistoa = tuning pipe
Korvausputken = replacement pipe

FIA want also to lower the power of the new generation WRC cars to somewhere between the power of the present WRC cars and N4 cars. I would guess the new power figures could be around 330 hp.

IMO if the manufacturers cannot achieve agreement about the new WRC cars, FIA should continue as they’ve planned.

A S2000 with a turbo and intercooler would also be heavier than a S2000 which min. weight on gravel is 1200 kg. Let assume that the min. weight for a S2000+ would be 1250 kg and produce 330 hp, the weight/power ratio would be 3,79 kg/hp. Depending of how light a N4+ can be made without using any expensive light materials, the power should be adjusted to get the same weight/power ratio. A N4 weights about 1350 kg and if a N4+ has a min. weight of 1350 kg, it should produce 1350 / 3,79 = 356 hp. A 1300 kg N4+ should produce 1300 / 3,79 = 343 hp.

The two options would be:

S2000 based WRC: S2000 + turbo with boost limit and restrictor to produce about 330 hp + WRC rear wing.

N4 based WRC: N4 + boost limit and restrictor to produce 356 hp / 343 hp + S2000 suspension and brakes + S2000 body modification + WRC rear wing.

For the N4+ there could be two options for the gearbox.
1. Using the group N4 gearbox with active central diff and H-pattern.
2. Use a similar sequential gearbox as S2000 with mechanical LSD.

It seems that some manufacturers wants continue the old way but here are some interesting figures from SWRT’s web site (not very cheap parts):

Maximum boost - The Impreza's turbocharger
http://www.swrt.com/news/latest_news.html?id=1508

The Impreza WRC2007’s drivetrain in numbers
http://www.swrt.com/news/latest_news.html?id=1459

[Rally Power]

[quote="OldF"]

Great comment OldF, yours S2000+ suggestion it’s excellent and should be take on, but at this point it seems the choice is between actual S2000 or a “WRC disguised S2000+ formula” like some manufacturers wants.

Let’s hope it’ll be possible to get a balanced solution in order to make WRC cars more economical and accessible.

Beside this matter another problem about S2000+ is the proposed kit format.

I still cannot realize the interest of tuning and detuning rally cars if, from the start, they’re considered for different levels of rallying.

Could anyone understand that between courses (in 2 hours and with 8 mechanics!!!) Mclaren or Ferrari had to detuned their F1 cars in order to be used by GP2 teams ?????

Really, this kit issue is totally nonsense and besides its unpractical character there’s also the risk of affecting actual S2000 regulations.

In order to accommodate the S2000+ Kit elements, S2000 cars needed to be redesigned, generating new costs for this very balanced and competitive formula.

A distinct homologation process would be much more reasonable, with S2000+ being separated evolution units from previously existing S2000 cars (a bit like old days Gr. B).

With this method, manufacturers would construct a number of S2000 units according to today’s rules (for example 50, easily sold to regional and national costumers), plus a minimum of 10 S2000+ units to be used at WRC level, incorporating evolution components (even if far from today’s hi-Tec paraphernalia).

PS: with so many changes to N4 like you suggest, wouldn’t be easier to ban N4 and let S2000 be the only base for S2000+ ?

[AndyRAC]

I thought the thinking was a new formula so that we have more Manufacturers - not going to happen if the regs stay 'hi-tech'. The current Manufacturers will have to bite the bullet and accept a 'lower-tech' series, if the WRC is to prosper. That is how I see it - the sport is at a crossroads - which way are they going to go?
I've read of VW's

[AndyRAC]

I thought the thinking was a new formula so that we have more Manufacturers - not going to happen if the regs stay 'hi-tech'. The current Manufacturers will have to bite the bullet and accept a 'lower-tech' series, if the WRC is to prosper. That is how I see it - the sport is at a crossroads - which way are they going to go?
I've read of VW's interest with the Scirocco - let's hope so. I thought one of the ideas behind having Rally Deutschland was to encourage one of the big German makes into the sport - well it hasn't happened yet.

[rdr]

The two options would be:
S2000 based WRC: S2000 + turbo with boost limit and restrictor to produce about 330 hp

N4 based WRC: N4 + boost limit and restrictor to produce 356 hp / 343 hp

To get those figure inlet restrictor would be ~ 33 mm, boost limit (only) ~1,6-1,7 bar and but still get over +600 Nm torque.

[OldF]

To get those figure inlet restrictor would be ~ 33 mm, boost limit (only) ~1,6-1,7 bar and but still get over +600 Nm torque.

I had in mind an even lower boost limit. If you look at the chart in the link below you can see that the torque peak is 370 Nm @ 5500 rpm and power peak is 378 hp @ 8000 rpm (the red lines). With a suitable restrictor (that could be ~ 33 mm), the torque starts to decline right after the torque peak and the power is limited to 330 hp @ 7200 rpm. The boost I used in the calculations was 1,05 bar.

S2000+ power and torque chart:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_Power_Torque.jpg

My point with this lower boost limit is that, with a lower boost they have to use higher revs to achieve the power limit 330 hp or whatever it will be. I rather listen to car that is driven with revs between 6000 – 8000 rpm than some 4000 – 6000 rpm as the present WRC cars not to talk about the group N cars. The torque would not be so high but compared to a S2000 (250 Nm) the S2000+ would have about 120 Nm (48 %) more torque.

IMO there should also be a min. weight for the engine otherwise they put much effort on getting the engine lighter and putting ballasts at the rear (as Christian Loriaux said in interview at Crash net http://www.crash.net/motorsport/radio_archive/13/content.html / WRC » Loriaux talks to Rallycourse & Crash.Net Radio)

Similar boost result I also got when I used your figures. 370 Nm / 600 Nm * 1,7 bar = 1,05 bar.
370 Nm / 600 Nm * 1,6 bar = 0,99 bar.

What the boost and diameter of the restrictor would be in practice, I think the engineers of FIA could figure out, as they successfully did with the 34 mm restrictor for the grp A and WRC cars to limit the power to 300 hp. ;)

The equations I used I found on this web site: http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/tech_center/turbo_tech103.html

[OldF]

PS: with so many changes to N4 like you suggest, wouldn’t be easier to ban N4 and let S2000 be the only base for S2000+ ?

Yes, that could one solution but Subaru and Mitsubishi has cars, which bodyshell is already made for 4WD and they’ve the turbo, so there would be less work compared to the work to build a S2000+. My thought was to get them as equal as possibly by driveability and performance.

[Sulland]

If they go for S2000+ it think they will be almost as expensive as WRC is today, and you will not get speeds down, and to get a formula where the driver is counting for more of the total result, since the car is harder to drive to keep the speed up.

My conclusion: Go for S2000 and get a real world championship where more than the few factory drivers can fight for victory !

[DonJippo]

Go for S2000 and get a real world championship where more than the few factory drivers can fight for victory !

What makes you think that with S2000 we would get better participation by manufactures than what we have now if nothing else changes? Don't think it's only a question about what kind of car is used?

[Daniel]

What makes you think that with S2000 we would get better participation by manufactures than what we have now if nothing else changes? Don't think it's only a question about what kind of car is used?

:up:

Same crap different technical regs. S1600 was supposed to be cheap and look where it's ended up. The same has already happened with S2000 and the same will happen with S2000+.

[Saabaru]

My conclusion: Go for S2000 and get a real world championship where more than the few factory drivers can fight for victory !
The only problem with that is the S2000 has no torque and is mind numbingly boring to watch (which just might be what the FIA wants). Group N+, 40mm restrictor, better brakes, WRC wing, and hydraulic gear box. Sweet... ;) If the speeds didn't come down it would be because of pure talent.

[Mirek]

What makes you think that with S2000 we would get better participation by manufactures than what we have now if nothing else changes? Don't think it's only a question about what kind of car is used?

It basicly doesn't matter what the new formula looks like. What is nercessary in any case is some kind of new begining. In current situation Ford and Citroën are way further than anyone else and is practicaly impossible for any new manufacturer to catch them in some acceptable time. The only chance is to start with something new and different and to hope that for some time (let's say a decade) more manufacturers stay in the top league.

Saabaru: I agree that WRC should be stronger than S2000 (Why must N/A S2000 have restrictor?). That's ok but I realy don't consider S2000 to be boring! Maybe because I saw them many times by my sight and not only on TV and also because rallying is not only slow hairpins where there Al Quassimi is more spectacular than Loeb but also fast sections where rallys are being won and where S2000 are anything but boring.

By the way 40 mm restrictor is something what never becomes reality as it would lead to some 450-500 Hp (rallycross cars have 45 mm and cca 550-600 Hp with much simpler technology). Such power it is realy too much for rallying.

[Mirek]

:up:

Same crap different technical regs. S1600 was supposed to be cheap and look where it's ended up. The same has already happened with S2000 and the same will happen with S2000+.

S2000 is not cheap but also not too expensive as You say. Just watch how much is them after some 2 years of real existence. Alltogether there is about 150 S2000 cars in the world today. Also if S1600 was just expensive crap, would only Renault itself sold more than 100 Clios S1600? What killed S1600 was change of gr.N rulles which made them faster (18" wheels, uniballs, big brakes, special lightened bodyshell). I agree that such new gr.N gives more value for money but is it still gr.N? I don't think so.

PS Don't forget that most European championships which are also the biggest rally market are held on tarmac and S1600 were much faster than gr.N few years a go.

[Saabaru]

Peugeot has said that S2000 wasn't the cheap ticket that it's maid up to be, they have said that they've spent more money being competitive in the IRC than was ever anticipated.

[RS]

No rally formula supported by top manufacturers is going to be cheap. If we put them on golf buggies or lawn mowers they would spend the money on the best drivers instead.

The real key is getting better value, it doesn't matter if you are spending $30m or $60m if nobody is watching!

[AndyRAC]

No rally formula supported by top manufacturers is going to be cheap. If we put them on golf buggies or lawn mowers they would spend the money on the best drivers instead.

The real key is getting better value, it doesn't matter if you are spending $30m or $60m if nobody is watching!

While true, it might help if all the modern technology was banned, i;e paddle gear shifts, trick diffs, etc - meaning there is less technology to waste money on. I'd have the cars as basic as possible - there is a chance more Manufacturers will come on board - that's what we all want. Or do we want the latest techno cars with 2/3 Manufacturers??

[DonJippo]

While talking about costs I wonder if WRC factory teams budgets all together are as much as smallest team budget in F1...

[HaCo]

While talking about costs I wonder if WRC factory teams budgets all together are as much as smallest team budget in F1...

What about tv-coverage and media attention?

[M5]

All experience in all classes in motorsport is that if you are doing a change to cut either cost or performance, you need to do a real deep cut otherwise the R&D will take back the cut in a year or two, and you are back to start.

The only thing you have achieved is a lot of unstability and fuss for all involved.

So either do enough or not at all !!!

[AndyRAC]

Maybe we're all wasting our time discussing this - the Manufacturers have probably decided there are other more relevant Motorsports to enter than World Rallying!!
Touring cars, Le Mans, etc

[MJW]

Maybe we're all wasting our time discussing this - the Manufacturers have probably decided there are other more relevant Motorsports to enter than World Rallying!!
Touring cars, Le Mans, etc
Interesting comment - recently someone from Seat Sport said that as far as they were concerned circuit racing was where its at. This came from the same people who ran the Cordoba WRC for Gwyndaf. Taking corporate hospitality to a rally where "the car being sponsored by the guests was seen for a few seconds" wheras in a circuit (so long as it doesnt retire) it comes round and round every minute or so, coupled with the fact that people can be wined and dined when the racing is on, and get introduced to the drivers and photo opportunities is a better marketing prospect. So much for the "service park experience" then. Rallying also cant be packaged for TV like racing.

[AndyRAC]

Regarding the TV coverage - it was actually better 10+ years ago. So whats gone wrong? I thought that these 'clover-leaf' Rallies were to enable better coverage - well it hasn't happened, has it? Though it might help if the Rallies were a bit more interesting - they're all the same. Let's have some variety.

[MJW]

True - tv coverage was better 10 years ago, as was WRC rallying itself. Radical overhaul is required, cheap cars, more widespread routes, a bit of darkness, even mixed surface rallies. Look at Network Q 10 years ago, there were 2 notable names running in the 30's on the entry list, both in Toyota Celica 205's - Markko Martin & Petter Solberg, now we have a "gentlemen driver championship" and rally round the hotel as Per Eklund called modern wrc.

[OldF]

The only problem with that is the S2000 has no torque and is mind numbingly boring to watch (which just might be what the FIA wants). Group N+, 40mm restrictor, better brakes, WRC wing, and hydraulic gear box. Sweet... ;) If the speeds didn't come down it would be because of pure talent.

As Mirek said, S2000s’ are not boring to watch. I watched the coverage from Madeira and they did so Niiiiiice sliding true the wide hairpins.

Nonetheless IMO a WRC car should be little more than a S2000 to be distinct from “regular” cars.

A 40 mm restrictor is too big. I noticed that my earlier post was not correct (402 / 452 = 0,79 * 550 = 434 hp, should be 40*40 / 45*45 = 0,79 * 550 = 434 hp).

S2000 gear box => A hydraulic gearbox = about 25.000 € => 100.000 €, not good.

[RS]

As Mirek said, S2000s’ are not boring to watch. I watched the coverage from Madeira and they did so Niiiiiice sliding true the wide hairpins.


Yes they did, Basso in particular was driving beautifully there. Very fast and pinpoint accurate through the hairpins.

Torque is not everything, Grp N Mitsus probably have double the torque of an S2000 car but are very boring to watch everywhere.

[OldF]

Haven’t been reading the Gpweek for a while and found this:

http://mag.gpweek.com/?iid=6962, Subaru steps it up. page 35 (the article begins on page 32)

It seems that the tech rules are nearly settled. 35 mm restrictor with a boost limit of 2 bars.

I’m just wondering how the torque can be “slightly less” if the boost drops from 4 bar (http://www.swrt.com/news/latest_news.html?id=1508 ) to 2 bar. At least the revs will be higher to get the same level of power than current WRC cars.

[Saabaru]

As bad as I don't want to see this happen it should make the Boxer more competitive.

Haven’t been reading the Gpweek for a while and found this:

http://mag.gpweek.com/?iid=6962, Subaru steps it up. page 35 (the article begins on page 32)

It seems that the tech rules are nearly settled. 35 mm restrictor with a boost limit of 2 bars.

I’m just wondering how the torque can be “slightly less” if the boost drops from 4 bar (http://www.swrt.com/news/latest_news.html?id=1508 ) to 2 bar. At least the revs will be higher to get the same level of power than current WRC cars.

[jonkka]

I wonder how do they mean to police that 2 bar limit? By installing a control by-pass valve to restrictor?

[RS]

For those that say an S2000 can't slide, try the Skoda at the beginning of this clip:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x3b6Bm7J2dk

[OldF]

I wonder how do they mean to police that 2 bar limit? By installing a control by-pass valve to restrictor?

I think in the same way they control the rev limit.

Article 254A. Specific regulations for super 2000 - rallies.

5.1 Engine (page 3)

Only homologated ECUs, sensors, actuators and data acquisition systems may be used.

The ECU must be fitted with an engine rev limiter, maximum engine revs being limited to 8500 rpm.

=> The ECU must be fitted with a boost limiter, maximum boost being limited to 2 bar.

[A.F.F.]

For those that say an S2000 can't slide, try the Skoda at the beginning of this clip:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x3b6Bm7J2dk

That doesn't count. That was a zero car ;)

[Saabaru]

For those that say an S2000 can't slide, try the Skoda at the beginning of this clip:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x3b6Bm7J2dk
I fell asleep, what was I suppose to be watching? :dozey:

[Helstar]

They're good to watch (and listen), come on ... S2000 rocks

Gr.N are boring :p (not in Italy anyway, in the CIR drivers make them rock too lol).

[RS]

I fell asleep, what was I suppose to be watching? :dozey:

Yeah, very funny. Are you blind or something? I will watch Corsica this evening and I'll be surprised if I see anything like Kopecky's hairpin there.

[Sulland]

Tirabassi is losing less to the front in a equal WRC car than in an IRC car.

That Tirabassi's gap is less in WRC just tells me that the WRC cars are easier to drive. I think you need more drivers skill to nurse a engine/torque-weaker IRC car than to do gas/brake exercise in a WRC car.

This is of course oversimplified, but I still think it require more understanding and skills from a driver to go fast in an IRC car, and that is what we should be looking for when making a new format.

[RS]

Yeah, very funny. Are you blind or something? I will watch Corsica this evening and I'll be surprised if I see anything like Kopecky's hairpin there.

Sorry, I take it all back. It was great TV when Latvala spectacularly checked into the time control 9 minutes late and then stopped on the stage to let Mikko past.

[Daniel]

Sorry, I take it all back. It was great TV when Latvala spectacularly checked into the time control 9 minutes late and then stopped on the stage to let Mikko past.
:rotflmao: You should take up comedy :up:

[RS]

Tirabassi is losing less to the front in a equal WRC car than in an IRC car.

That Tirabassi's gap is less in WRC just tells me that the WRC cars are easier to drive. I think you need more drivers skill to nurse a engine/torque-weaker IRC car than to do gas/brake exercise in a WRC car.

This is of course oversimplified, but I still think it require more understanding and skills from a driver to go fast in an IRC car, and that is what we should be looking for when making a new format.

Even from the onboards, it all looks very sedate on a WRC car. I think you really need to be on maximum attack in an S2000. I think it is a good thing if you can't rely on a huge amount of torque to pull you out of trouble.

[cosmicpanda]

Maybe we're all wasting our time discussing this

You think? The FIA doesn't care what we think, and shouldn't anyway, as we never come to consensus.

[MJW]

Is there a World Motor Sports Council and /or rallies commission meeting soon?
We are almost a month into 2009, and nothing definate on "the kit" to make S2000 to the plus status.

[Sulland]

As far as I know there is a Technical working group, where the manufacturers are a part of. They can not agree as far as I know.

Do anyone have more insight to the work and members of this work, and when and if they have a suspense date to meet ?

[MikeD]

Is there a World Motor Sports Council and /or rallies commission meeting soon?
We are almost a month into 2009, and nothing definate on "the kit" to make S2000 to the plus status.

Yes, there will be a meeting in the last week of January and many issues should be decided at that meeting.

Also the issue of 2010 where both S2000+ and WRC are allowed, and if both will be allowed to score Manu points.

If VW and Proton are to enter the WRC in 2010 then hopefully all key decissions are clear after that meeting, otherwise ..... :(

[MJW]

Thanks MikeD, hopefully common sense will prevail re WRC cars not scoring points.
Sooner the better we move to the new era, if agreement can be reached maybe Citroen and Ford will introduce a S2K+ car for next year and we can start with a clean sheet. WRC and wrc cars were good to a point, eventually they have outlived their benefit.
2009 seems a holding year, my only interest is how Atko and Ogier will perform in a C4. I will be tuning into IRC more often in 09, and would even be tempted with attending a round, San Remo being the most tempting.

[RS]

Sooner the better we move to the new era, if agreement can be reached maybe Citroen and Ford will introduce a S2K+ car for next year and we can start with a clean sheet.

Malcolm Wilson has said they intend to continue with the Focus WRC next year.

[OldF]

In one Gpweek I read that the S2000+ would have a 2 bar boost and a 35 mm restrictor, and by David Lapworth: “This looks like a good compromise, providing cars with a good level of performance, about the same level of power as the current World Rally Cars, but with slightly less (but still a reasonable level of) torque”.

Also Sebastian Loeb said in an interview that the S2000+ would have almost 100 hp more than a S2000. If almost is 90 hp and a S2000 average power is 275 hp, the S2000+ would have 365 hp.

I made some Excel calculations with the formulas I found at this web site http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/tech_center/turbo_tech103.html and then I calibrated my settings with this dyno graph http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Mitsu_Evo9_grpN_Dyno.jpg

Here are the results I got when using the same settings as with the Mitsu Evo 9.

2,0 bar boost: 607 Nm @ 3300 rpm / 365 hp @ 4500 rpm
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_20_bar_boost-1.jpg

1,5 bar boost: 506 Nm @ 3300 rpm / 365 hp @ 5500 rpm
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_15bar_boost.jpg

1,0 bar boost: 405 Nm @ 4500 rpm / 365 hp @ 7200 rpm
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/S2000_10_bar_boost.jpg

Guess which one I would prefer. It would be the one with 1 bar boost.

The first reason is, although a S2000 would be built with parts that can cope with about 150 Nm higher torque than needed, I believe in a manufacturing logistic view it could be a good solution. It would simplify the manufacturing of parts. Instead of two different sets there would be only one set of prop and drive shafts, gearboxes, engine parts etc.

The second reason is the sound from an engine with higher revs like the S2000. In the case of a 2 bar boost, 90% of the power would be between 3900-5600 rpm. With 1,5 bar boost the range would be 4800-6300 rpm. With 1 bar boost the range would be 6000-7900 rpm.

In these calculations the torque decreases, when the power limit is reached, with the same percentage rate as with a N-group car with a 32 mm restrictor, which is not true, but I hadn’t nothing else to use. These are only theoretical calculations but IMO you can at least compare different options.

In an interview Anton Alen also said that below 7000 rpm there’s not much power in the engine (I think this was the previous version of the engine), so the rev range is quite narrow for a S2000 engine.

I bought a book written by A. Graham Bell, “Forced induction performance tuning” and in the chapter “Building a rugged engine” he says: “While the heat and pressure levels in the cylinder is not significantly higher, they do stay closer to peak number for many more degrees of crankshaft movement. That is how more power is produced – not by moving the peak higher, but by sustaining cylinder pressure at a level closer to the peak for much longer. Therefore, parts such as the cylinder head, the valves, the head gasket, the pistons and rings and upper cylinder area will be subjected to a greater heat load as there will be less time available in which to shed combustion heat.”

So it’s not a momentary peak pressure on the engine parts that’s the problem, it’s more about to get the heat out of the cylinder and there the piston and the piston rings have a significant function. He suggests that with a turbo engine forged pistons are better but I think forged pistons are used in tuned engine like an engine of a S2000 anyway. What is left is the compression ratio, which can be handled with a thicker cylinder head gasket.

For example the Lancia Delta S4 “official” rally specs where 441 Nm (325 lb/ft) @ 5000 rpm and 450 hp @ 8000 rpm with a boost of (only) 1,79 bar (25,9 psi) (source: A. Graham Bell, “Forced induction performance tuning”). The B-group cars was driven with high revs and they had a lot of power and that’s why they where so spectacular. The only problem with them was that they had too much power compared to the drivability of the suspension.

[bt52b]

^Mega post OldF. So handy to have an EVO 9 to play with ;)

It ain't over yet!!!!!!!!!! WMSC in March to ratify the the rules yet again!!! It could be just S2000, no kit!!!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73055

[MJW]

Yes - a few interesting thoghts from Max Mosely in autosport magazine today.
1. He is keen on the S2000 idea, not S2K+ and refered to the fact that Subaru and Suzuki have now left the sport, that the decision in december to go S2K+ maybe should be re-considered and simple S2000 the formula. (I got the impression Prodrive wanted more technology, but thats my interpretation)
2. Max was dismayed at the cancellation of WRGB stages because of ice, comments about Loeb refusing to drive the stages in that conditions. and Rally drivers should drive on snow / ice.
3. He had a major dig at "engineers" and their obsession with technology and capacity to spend huge sums of money.
4. Made comments about 1 set of tyres having to last a rally.
5. Wants a low cost "feeder class" similar to the F2 racing car, single make car to get more into wrc.
6 Amazing praise for IRC, and the person behind that, refered to him as the Bernie of rallying.
7 Rotation stays - no special events.
8 winter series to happen. Max thinks rallying is better in bad weather, more difficult and more spectatcular, he thinks the rain is good for asphalt and gravel, also likes snow and ice for rallying.
Also thinks that rallying doesnt work on television - in his opinion rallying is an "internet sport"

[AndyRAC]

^Mega post OldF. So handy to have an EVO 9 to play with ;)

It ain't over yet!!!!!!!!!! WMSC in March to ratify the the rules yet again!!! It could be just S2000, no kit!!!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73055

Having actually bought Autosport this week, the interview with Mosley is actually quite interesting. Some of the things he says do make sense, particularly the extra kit for S2000+ - In that it is just an added expense. I'd be quite happy with S2000 if there are 4,5,6 Manufacturers plus Privateers. However, I don't agree with the Winter calendar or Rotation.

[bt52b]

Also thinks that rallying doesnt work on television - in his opinion rallying is an "internet sport"

Mute point. TV and parts of the internet will come together, when IPTV comes along in a few years.

[Sulland]

Good news, lets stick with S2000.

IPTV technology is already here, you can stream anything.
Did mr Mosely look at the Monte Coverage ? Fine tune that a bit and it will be very exiting, but I will agree that internet, with radio and split times are very exiting !

S2000 is the way ahead !

[Rally Power]

Bottom line…Mosley has no respect for the rally world :mad:

Last year he felt WRC should return to 2wd cars, later to N4 and plain S2000, then S2000+, now S2000 again…

Definitely, this is not the way things should be done!!!

When manufacturers realise they have to make an ultimatum in order to FIA decide the 2010 regs ?!?

PS: Can anyone please explain who votes for this matter at the WMSC ?

[Brother John]

It ain't over yet!!!!!!!!!! WMSC in March to ratify the the rules yet again!!! It could be just S2000, no kit!!!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73055

For the future of rallysport and the money it will be the best. :s mokin:

[bt52b]

For the future of rallysport and the money it will be the best. :s mokin:

Would also like to see every manufacturer forced to homologate a cheap RWD gearbox for every S2000 :D Maybe we should do a worldwide online petition?

[OldF]

^Mega post OldF. So handy to have an EVO 9 to play with ;)

A long post yes. The core was still, if the next generation WRC cars were S2000+, which option would you prefer. All three options have same power = 365 hp.

a) 2,0 bar boost: 607 Nm @ 3300 rpm, 90% of power between 3900-5600 rpm
b) 1,5 bar boost: 506 Nm @ 3300 rpm, 90% of power between 4800-6300 rpm
c) 1,0 bar boost: 405 Nm @ 4500 rpm, 90% of power between 6000-7900 rpm

IMO option c) would be the best because they have to use high revs and would sound nice.

BTW, I don’t have an Evo 9 to play with, only the dyno graph I scanned from a magazine. Quite big difference. ;)

And the back to the Ireland thread.

[RS]

IMO option c) would be the best because they have to use high revs and would sound nice.

And would be less hard on the transmissions.

[OldF]

It ain't over yet!!!!!!!!!! WMSC in March to ratify the the rules yet again!!! It could be just S2000, no kit!!!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73055

"There was a major discussion in the World Council about whether the kit for the Super 2000 car should be available or whether everybody should just run in a straight Super 2000 formula without the kit. The majority felt the kit should be available.”

This is the way to go. The majority wants something and FIA decides the opposite.

[Daniel]

"There was a major discussion in the World Council about whether the kit for the Super 2000 car should be available or whether everybody should just run in a straight Super 2000 formula without the kit. The majority felt the kit should be available.”

This is the way to go. The majority wants something and FIA decides the opposite.
For once I think the FIA is right

[MJW]

"There was a major discussion in the World Council about whether the kit for the Super 2000 car should be available or whether everybody should just run in a straight Super 2000 formula without the kit. The majority felt the kit should be available.”

This is the way to go. The majority wants something and FIA decides the opposite.
The way that I picked up the hints dropped by Max Mosely was the majority included Subaru. I thinl its well known that David Lapworth favours the high tech solution route.

[AndyRAC]

The way that I picked up the hints dropped by Max Mosely was the majority included Subaru. I thinl its well known that David Lapworth favours the high tech solution route.

Yes, I remember reading that in Autosport - and not believing what I was reading. Utter madness!!! Leave F1 to the hi-tech stuff - give us normally aspirated engines, simple transmission, etc
Maybe it's good Subaru have gone - the way I read the Mosley article - S2000 is the future - without the added cost of the kit.

Rally Ireland - 36 starters!!!

[OldF]

I don’t mean that the new WRC should be any high tech cars but something little extra they should have. What pi** me off is the way FIA do things.

I agree with that probably Subaru was the only one that wanted to continue with the high tech cars.

[mjh]

I don’t mean that the new WRC should be any high tech cars but something little extra they should have. What pi** me off is the way FIA do things.

I agree with that probably Subaru was the only one that wanted to continue with the high tech cars.

I'm not sure one manufacturer constitutes a majority :rolleyes:

[sollitt]

This is the way to go. The majority wants something and FIA decides the opposite.

This is 'crying wolf' stuff. The article quotes Mosley saying that the decision could be revisited. Nowhere does it, or he, say that the decision has or will be overturned.
It's quite responsible for administrators to keep an open mind and be prepared to alter course when situations require it.

[OldF]

I'm not sure one manufacturer constitutes a majority :rolleyes:



This is 'crying wolf' stuff. The article quotes Mosley saying that the decision could be revisited. Nowhere does it, or he, say that the decision has or will be overturned.
It's quite responsible for administrators to keep an open mind and be prepared to alter course when situations require it.

There are 26 members in both World Council and World Motor Sport Council so Subaru / Prodrive have 3,8% of the membership. Mosley didn’t say how big the majority was and who was in the majority. It would be interesting to know who’s in favour and who’s against the S2000+.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/statutes/Pages/Article13.aspx

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/statutes/Pages/Article13.aspx

I agree with that the management should alter the course when necessary but FIA is not a company. If it will be the S2000 I think it would at least winnowing (the drivers).

[Mirek]

For me it's not that important if cars have 50 Hp more or less and if they have electronics or not. For me the most important in any case is who drives the cars. Not many years before Jean Ragnotti made insane things in Clio Williams every one loves watching. It wasn't hi-tech and it wasn't powerfull, it even wasn't neither AWD nor RWD. What made it spectacular were driving skills. And driving skills are what is missing in WRC (of course except the top drivers who are real aces).

Let's have the same top class for national champs, ERC, WRC again. Only that can bring back the depth of the field. How the machinery look like is minor problem for me in the moment.

[Rally Power]

Following OldF tip:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/about-fia/Pages/WorldMotorSportCouncil.aspx

"The WMSC is made up of the FIA President, the Deputy President for Sport, the seven Vice-Presidents and 17 Members who, with the exception of the FIA President, must represent a National Sporting Authority with at least one event entered on the International Sporting Calendar. Of those, 21 Members, with the exception of the President, the Deputy President and the three Members by right, are of different nationalities.

The Members by right are the President of the International Karting Commission (CIK), the President of the Promotional Entity for the Formula One Championship and the President of the FIA Manufacturers' Commission*.

*This seat may be chaired by either the Chairman of the Manufacturers’ commission or by the representative of Ferrari SpA."

To know the members name:

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/press_releases/the_fia/2005/october/281005-01.html

In conclusion: rally future is decided by a lot of people, many of them without WRC experience and others with interests in F1... :mad:

[grugsticles]

There is one major thing that most people seem to have overlooked in regard to the propsed regulations. That is the ability to attract high quality entrants - works and privateers.

If you were a driver or team manager where would you go - WRC or IRC?

As it stands now the IRC has my favouring vote becasue the cars are even, relativly low cost, they resemble the actual road cars quite closely and they are visually and audibly attractive to the average joe spectator.
The average joe doesnt care about the technical side of things. They do pay recogition to the volume of the cars, driver effort and commitment and that the racing is close.
That there is the sole reason that the IRC is so attractive to manufacturers, sponsors, the media and most importantly, the spectators.


If the WRC wants to compete with the IRC formula then they need to come up with a sufficiant reason for teams, along with their sponsors and suporters, why any formular other than S2000 should even been entertained. The added financial expenditure for the proposed S2000+ kit just doesnt justify why anyone would consider entering the WRC over the IRC.

Id like to also make mention in reguard to the 'sidways' aspect. Atm, the way I see it, the cars in the IRC arnt really pushing at full pace. With more involvement from other teams/manufactores/sponship comses added pressure. This added pressure encourages the driver to push to the limit and beyond which is where the tendancy to get a car sideways come from.
For example, Skoda had a good showing in Monte this year being fast straight out of the blocks. Abarth and Peugeothttp://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB :o fficial&hs=Llw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=peugeot&spell=1 now have to push that bit harder to stay competative so you just watch the drivers styles increase in flare.


Thats how I see it anyway.

[Rally Power]

If the WRC wants to compete with the IRC formula then they need to come up with a sufficiant reason for teams, along with their sponsors and suporters, why any formular other than S2000 should even been entertained. The added financial expenditure for the proposed S2000+ kit just doesnt justify why anyone would consider entering the WRC over the IRC.


You're right and maybe that's what justifies the coincidence of Mr. Mosley words and the annoucement of the ISC deal...

One thing is sure, many changes will hapen after the 2009 Monte Carlo Rally :s mokin:

[Sulland]

Following OldF tip:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/about-fia/Pages/WorldMotorSportCouncil.aspx

"The WMSC is made up of the FIA President, the Deputy President for Sport, the seven Vice-Presidents and 17 Members who, with the exception of the FIA President, must represent a National Sporting Authority with at least one event entered on the International Sporting Calendar. Of those, 21 Members, with the exception of the President, the Deputy President and the three Members by right, are of different nationalities.

The Members by right are the President of the International Karting Commission (CIK), the President of the Promotional Entity for the Formula One Championship and the President of the FIA Manufacturers' Commission*.

*This seat may be chaired by either the Chairman of the Manufacturers’ commission or by the representative of Ferrari SpA."

To know the members name:

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/press_releases/the_fia/2005/october/281005-01.html

In conclusion: rally future is decided by a lot of people, many of them without WRC experience and others with interests in F1... :mad:

And how many of these have we heard of before, and how many know a lot about Rally.

A lot of motorsport-heavy countries represented on this list :laugh: no wonder a lot of splendid decisions are being made !!!

[MJW]

An article in Autosport magazine 5th Feb 2009 states that "the technical changes planned for 2010 are unlikely to happen before 2011" It states that if the option of making WRC S2000 (in 2010)not S2K+ would eliminate Citroen and Ford, and they have been loyal manufacturers in the wrc, as they will not have suitable S2000 cars. Also if S2K+ was decided on it allows too little time for (any)manufacturer to have ready for 2010. Quite where this leaves Prodrive, who have been quoted as trying to land a new manufacturer for 2010, FIAT who said they would more than likely move up to wrc in 2010, plus all the drivers scrambling for paid drives in the hope that Proton, FIAT etc would enter wrc in 2010 I dont know. 2010 looks likely for a repeat of 2 manufacturers and bring money drivers. I guess the only saving grace would be if the 2010 season would be a "short one" with the winter 2010/11 season starting in August, that might give the newcomers hope. Other than that a lot can happen before 2011 and maybe no manufacturer will be interested or they and the rest of the rally world would have gone S2000 / IRC

[AndyRAC]

I really despair - while I acknowledge that Manufacturers are vitally important - Who are running this sport? It seems as though it's being run for the benefit of Ford & Citroen. Make it S2000 - there a more Manufacturers with S2000's that can step in if Ford/Citroen can't/don't want to.
Are they still going to run this stupid 'Winter' calendar?

Advantage IRC......

[MJW]

I do get the feeling that the WRC exists to top up the Wilson family bank account. Quite what Citroen get out of their participation is baffling, they are the best team there, their car is the best there and its all a great secret success with no "fast C4 to sell" no adverts in papers or tv etc.

[AndyRAC]

I do get the feeling that the WRC exists to top up the Wilson family bank account. Quite what Citroen get out of their participation is baffling, they are the best team there, their car is the best there and its all a great secret success with no "fast C4 to sell" no adverts in papers or tv etc.

That's what I can't understand - what do Citroen get out of it? There's no cross-over into their road cars, Ford have the ST/RS cars. I haven't seen any adverts for Citroen's WRC success on TV/Billboards, etc
I seem to remember that Citroen UK weren't keen to use Motorsport to sell their cars. Strange......

[Mirek]

Citroen uses WRC title in advertisment in Czech republic, in TV as well.

[Torsen]

more side ways action can be completed by getting rid of the rear wing... it'll also save money...

[cosmicpanda]

While I see the attraction of making the WRC use S2000 - I don't think it is a good idea. We'll see the same cost spiral as we have before.

For S2000, I suggest that there be a price cap, and at the end of a season, the cars must be sold for this amount of money.

That way, all the money can be spent on the bolt-on kit for WRC, leaving a cheap base formula for up-and-coming drivers etc.

[Daniel]

For S2000, I suggest that there be a price cap, and at the end of a season, the cars must be sold for this amount of money.


Companies like Citroen will be happy to make a loss on each car though :)

[jonkka]

... and its all a great secret success with no "fast C4 to sell" no adverts in papers or tv etc.

You think WRC is useful to sell performance cars only? Who buys performance cars anyway? I am a WRC fan - yet drive a Volvo S80.

[anthonyvop]

You think WRC is useful to sell performance cars only? Who buys performance cars anyway? I am a WRC fan - yet drive a Volvo S80.
It is all about branding. Getting people to think about performance and quality in their vehicles.

Why is Renault in F1? Makes then look good if they beat Ferrari and Mercedes.

[cosmicpanda]

Companies like Citroen will be happy to make a loss on each car though :)

I suppose so. But even then, it would mean more privateers, which is a good thing.

[Brother John]

F.I.A. must make it simply simple! :p
1-Group N. real standart cars.2WD, including all the R class cars.
2-S2000. like it is at the moment! Private Championship! PWRC.....
3-T2000. WRC cars. Turbo charged with less high Tech. then the current wrc cars. :s mokin:

[J.Lindstroem]

F.I.A. must make it simply simple! :p
1-Group N. real standart cars.2WD, including all the R class cars.
2-S2000. like it is at the moment! Private Championship! PWRC.....
3-T2000. WRC cars. Turbo charged with less high Tech. then the current wrc cars. :s mokin:

This is the best option!

[MJW]

but Citroen say that their new car C3 S2000+ will not compete until 2011, next year its C4 WRC car.

[Brother John]

but Citroen say that their new car C3 S2000+ will not compete until 2011, next year its C4 WRC car.

Then they have enough time to build the T2000wrc. :D
I don´t like the name S2000 +, it´s stupid with just an extra + behind the name S2000. :p :

[modri dirkac]

but Citroen say that their new car C3 S2000+ will not compete until 2011, next year its C4 WRC car.

Citroen DS3 S2000+, if ... ;)

[Sulland]

Will FIA after the March meeting also announce a two step plan, on how WRCars will be after 2013, or will they only announce S2000, and not say anything on a future plan ?