WRCar 10 & 11 - Time difference

[Sulland]

The whole thinking behind the change for next year was: Cost, complexity and speed down.

Lets have a betting contest:

1. How much time difference will there be btw the 2010 WRCar and the 2011 model per km SS in Sweden and in GB - Just to see the development ?

2. What year will the 1.6T WRC be quicker than the 2010 2.0T model ?

[navtheace]

Hi Sulland.

My guesses

1. 2 to 3 seconds a KM slower approx for the first few events.

2. Before 2011 is completed, I think the 1.6 wrc's will be just about getting to the same speed as 2 litre wrc's.

Good topic and lets keep this topic alive so we can check how things are after each event in 2011. Lets hear everyone elses guess :)

[pettersolberg29]

I was thinking nearer 1.5s/km slower in Sweden, and 1s/km slower in GB.
1.6T will be as quick by mid 2012 I think.

[cali]

Hi Sulland.

My guesses

1. 2 to 3 seconds a KM slower approx for the first few events.

2. Before 2011 is completed, I think the 1.6 wrc's will be just about getting to the same speed as 2 litre wrc's.

Good topic and lets keep this topic alive so we can check how things are after each event in 2011. Lets hear everyone elses guess :)

2-3 sec slower means that those cars are as slow as S2000. This is no way possible!
My prediction is 0,5 - 1 sec per km slower. By the end of this season or during 2011 new WRCars are equal with 2.0 Turbo.

[noel157]

2-3 sec slower means that those cars are as slow as S2000. This is no way possible!
My prediction is 0,5 - 1 sec per km slower. By the end of this season or during 2011 new WRCars are equal with 2.0 Turbo.

+1.

[navtheace]

Good point about my 2-3 secs slower, as like pointed out. The S2000 are like that and 1.6T are quicker than S2000.

Another point (3)

3. How much will the 1.6 T wrcars sell for in 2011? compared to what 2 litre WRCars sold for when they were current.

I know not a world rally car. But can we add in discussion of 2011 R4 to 2010 GpN too as point 4

4.. How much quicker per KM will the 2011 R4 rally cars be than 2010 GpN ?

If everyone follows the numbers when answering so we can see a clear layout to follow throughout 2011 in this topic. Nice topic Sulland :)

[mm1]

WRC 1,6t will be 0,5 - 1 sec @ the beginning of the year, @ the end they will be equal.
R4 will be ~ 0,5 sec quicker (without knowing the final tech.regs).

[AMSS]

WRC 1,6t will be 0,5 - 1 sec @ the beginning of the year, @ the end they will be equal.
R4 will be ~ 0,5 sec quicker (without knowing the final tech.regs).

Based on test reports(not 100% reliable but anyway) with comparison between current wrc and 1,6 than on snow and gravel 0,1-0,3s/k FASTER and on tarmac 0,2-0,5s slower.........

[cali]

Based on test reports(not 100% reliable but anyway) with comparison between current wrc and 1,6 than on snow and gravel 0,1-0,3s/k FASTER and on tarmac 0,2-0,5s slower.........

Wowww, I did not want to be too positive about my predictions, but if this is true, then I'm more keen on seeing these little beasts in Sweden.

[JFL]

Henning Solberg told me after his test in the Fiesta WRC(early test) that it was not much different from the 07/08 spec Focus he was driving.. But it was more nervous and fun to drive...

[dimviii]

i expect to be just little tenths slower the new wrc in first half season,and not in all events.Also expect at fast rallies to be equal very early.
Does anybody know if in Sweden we are going to have exactly same ss like previous years to have a good basis for conclusions/comparisons? :rolleyes:

[Rallyper]

Depends on which rally.

In sweden up to 1 sec slower. And Finland also maybe 0,75 sec slower. Because they are very fast rallies and the 1,6T engine don´t have the torque to get same speed at 6th gear.

Then in some slower events maybe midseason equal.

At the end of the year it will be slightly faster..... :cool:

[dimviii]

Depends on which rally.

In sweden up to 1 sec slower. And Finland also maybe 0,75 sec slower. Because they are very fast rallies and the 1,6T engine don´t have the torque to get same speed at 6th gear.

Then in some slower events maybe midseason equal.

At the end of the year it will be slightly faster..... :cool:

I expect quite the opposite.Slow rallies need torque,and fast rallies power.

[morganmilan]

I expect quite the opposite.Slow rallies need torque,and fast rallies power.
IMHO I agree with that: I expect less difference in slow rallyes than in fast ones. Maybe Mirek or OldF give us some interesant conclusions :)

[Rallyper]

IMHO I agree with that: I expect less difference in slow rallyes than in fast ones. Maybe Mirek or OldF give us some interesant conclusions :)

That was what I meant. Bigger diff in Sweden and Finland and less diff in slower rallies. At the end of season maybe 1,6T are even faster.

[dimviii]

That was what I meant. Bigger diff in Sweden and Finland and less diff in slower rallies. At the end of season maybe 1,6T are even faster.
We dont mean the same as you.Quite different at all.

[OldF]

My guess is 0,4-0,8 sec/km (depending on the type of rally) in the beginning. By the end of season half of that. During 2010 2011WRC will catch up with 2010WRC.

Juho Hänninen won N4 in NORF with Skoda both 2009 and 2010. In 2009 he was 10th overall and was 2,48 sec/km slower than the winner. In 2010 he was 9th overall and 1,76 sec/km (0,72 sec/km faster than 2009) slower than the winner. Does this improvement tell something about the improvements of the S2000 cars?

Patrik Flodin with Subaru won the traditional N4 in 2009 (13th overall) and he was 3,48 sec/km (1 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner. In 2010 the winner was Ott Tänak (18th overall, more S2000 in 2010) and he was 2,97 sec/km (1,21 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner.

I expect the gap will be bigger for 2011WRC in rallies where there is more acceleration from low speed (tight corners, junctions and hairpins). These kinds of rallies prefer cars with more torque like the 2010WRC.

[wwbroe]

My guess is 0,4-0,8 sec/km (depending on the type of rally) in the beginning. By the end of season half of that. During 2010 2011WRC will catch up with 2010WRC.

Juho Hänninen won N4 in NORF with Skoda both 2009 and 2010. In 2009 he was 10th overall and was 2,48 sec/km slower than the winner. In 2010 he was 9th overall and 1,76 sec/km (0,72 sec/km faster than 2009) slower than the winner. Does this improvement tell something about the improvements of the S2000 cars?

Patrik Flodin with Subaru won the traditional N4 in 2009 (13th overall) and he was 3,48 sec/km (1 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner. In 2010 the winner was Ott Tänak (18th overall, more S2000 in 2010) and he was 2,97 sec/km (1,21 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner.

I expect the gap will be bigger for 2011WRC in rallies where there is more acceleration from low speed (tight corners, junctions and hairpins). These kinds of rallies prefer cars with more torque like the 2010WRC.

Hey OldF, i think you make a very good estimation about next year's WRC speed. I think you mean that by the end of 2011, the new 2011WRC cars will match the 2010 2.0L WRC cars? I also agree with you on matters of slower rally's, where you need more torque to come out of slow corners.

[AMSS]

My guess is 0,4-0,8 sec/km (depending on the type of rally) in the beginning. By the end of season half of that. During 2010 2011WRC will catch up with 2010WRC.

Juho Hänninen won N4 in NORF with Skoda both 2009 and 2010. In 2009 he was 10th overall and was 2,48 sec/km slower than the winner. In 2010 he was 9th overall and 1,76 sec/km (0,72 sec/km faster than 2009) slower than the winner. Does this improvement tell something about the improvements of the S2000 cars?

Patrik Flodin with Subaru won the traditional N4 in 2009 (13th overall) and he was 3,48 sec/km (1 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner. In 2010 the winner was Ott Tänak (18th overall, more S2000 in 2010) and he was 2,97 sec/km (1,21 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner.

I expect the gap will be bigger for 2011WRC in rallies where there is more acceleration from low speed (tight corners, junctions and hairpins). These kinds of rallies prefer cars with more torque like the 2010WRC.

This is exactly the reason at least one of the manufactorers is slower specifically on tarmac, due to the reason that there is so much less torque when starting from serpos(hairpins). On faster smoother sections the higher reving engines actually suit quit good!
The handling improvements due to shorter body and wider wheelbase combined with an almost equal amount of horsepower and lower min.weight leads to the fact that the difference isn`t at all dramatic compared to the current 2,0 WRC at least not in a negative way..

[OldF]

Hey OldF, i think you make a very good estimation about next year's WRC speed. I think you mean that by the end of 2011, the new 2011WRC cars will match the 2010 2.0L WRC cars? I also agree with you on matters of slower rally's, where you need more torque to come out of slow corners.

Hello WWBROE,

Actually I meant 2012. By the end of 2011 I predict the gap will be halve compared to the beginning of 2011.

I just listened to the interview of Juha Kankkunen and he said just the opposite. :confused:

[traxx]

It seems that the DS3 is fast as the C4 in slow gravel

[Hartusvuori]

Juho Hänninen won N4 in NORF with Skoda both 2009 and 2010. In 2009 he was 10th overall and was 2,48 sec/km slower than the winner. In 2010 he was 9th overall and 1,76 sec/km (0,72 sec/km faster than 2009) slower than the winner. Does this improvement tell something about the improvements of the S2000 cars?

And you got to take in consideration that on Rally Finland's final day Hänninen wasn't motivated to push to the maximum and on Day 2 times he was actually some 18 secs slower that Jarkko Nikara (super rally) on Peugeot 207 S2000, who was fastest S2000 driver.

It would be interesting to see some comparative times from M-Sport's Cumbria track that they must have tested with Focus WRC(s) ad nauseum and are now testing Fiesta WRC there. And of course same with DS3 WRC from Citroen's equal testing roads, if there are such.

Should we calculate beforehand the secs per km statistics for next season's rallies and especially for stages that are the same? Is there any other RG1 out than Sweden's? There should be, right?

[janvanvurpa]

My guess is 0,4-0,8 sec/km (depending on the type of rally) in the beginning. By the end of season half of that. During 2010 2011WRC will catch up with 2010WRC.

Juho Hänninen won N4 in NORF with Skoda both 2009 and 2010. In 2009 he was 10th overall and was 2,48 sec/km slower than the winner. In 2010 he was 9th overall and 1,76 sec/km (0,72 sec/km faster than 2009) slower than the winner. Does this improvement tell something about the improvements of the S2000 cars?

Patrik Flodin with Subaru won the traditional N4 in 2009 (13th overall) and he was 3,48 sec/km (1 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner. In 2010 the winner was Ott Tänak (18th overall, more S2000 in 2010) and he was 2,97 sec/km (1,21 sec/km compared to Juho) slower than the winner.

I expect the gap will be bigger for 2011WRC in rallies where there is more acceleration from low speed (tight corners, junctions and hairpins). These kinds of rallies prefer cars with more torque like the 2010WRC.

Have we forgotten that what the engine makes for torque, but then the gearbox and especially the final drive multiplies it. So less toque at the motor, then shorter gear in th axle --if you need "ax".

Top speed then becomes just a question of revs in top...
Hejsan! from John---with 5.45 slutdrev i rally Saab

[OldF]

Have we forgotten that what the engine makes for torque, but then the gearbox and especially the final drive multiplies it. So less toque at the motor, then shorter gear in th axle --if you need "ax".

Top speed then becomes just a question of revs in top...
Hejsan! from John---with 5.45 slutdrev i rally Saab

Yes, this time we did forget it.

That’s one question. Will the 1.6TWRC have the same top speed as 2.0TWRC. If they settle with little less top speed, the result can be different.

[Mirek]

We should also consider different tyres for 2011. The comparison from same stages won't be valid for that.

Anyway it may be interesting to see which sets of gears each car use. There are big differences in S2000 cars (I don't mean top speed but all particular gears). Now the cars will have much shorter power bent, so it will be more important than in old WRC cars.

[Sulland]

Different tyres is a good point, and make the comparison much harder of course.

[Juha_Koo]

We should also consider different tyres for 2011. The comparison from same stages won't be valid for that.

And this brought to my mind that what kind of tyres are we going to see in Sweden. The "new" wide snow tyres or those "old" narrow tyres? Too damn tired to browse the rules. :rolleyes:

[Mirek]

New wide ones but from Michelin...

[N.O.T]

on fast rallies the difference will not be significant...on slower ones its going to be more than 1 sec.km

[TKM]

Unfortunately for Ford and Mini, I think the DS3 will be pretty much on the pace of the current cars from the word go and by the end of the year probably quicker.

The same thing happened when they went from Group B to Group A. With half the power the group A cars were initially a lot slower, but with the advancements in suspension technology and what not, it wasn't long until they were setting times quicker than the old group B cars.

[janvanvurpa]

Unfortunately for Ford and Mini, I think the DS3 will be pretty much on the pace of the current cars from the word go and by the end of the year probably quicker.

The same thing happened when they went from Group B to Group A. With half the power the group A cars were initially a lot slower, but with the advancements in suspension technology and what not, it wasn't long until they were setting times quicker than the old group B cars.

I manufacture rally suspension. I learned in moto-cross up to international level for a couple of seasons.---quite suspension dependant, right?

The GpB cars had excellent suspension, the GpA cars had better bodyshell/cage structures, better diffs and diff control, and better brakes...
Perhaps it was the what not, but it wasn't "better suspension technology"
Even today internally the stuff is virtually the same as before with mainly the size and especially the travel way more, who can say how much but that's only possible due to the freedom to mod the wheelarches under World Rally Car sub-set of GpA rules...

[janvanvurpa]

Yes, this time we did forget it.

That’s one question. Will the 1.6TWRC have the same top speed as 2.0TWRC. If they settle with little less top speed, the result can be different.

Well top speed is almost always depending on max revs...and I will bet everybody will use same final drive so question becomes how much will little 1,6 rev.
Now the new restrictor is what? Whatever it is, a 1,6 isn't going to be hurt as much as a bigger motor sucking thru 34mm, which means maybe they can make some power when they rev and very probably they will rev higher...

But who can say?

[AMSS]

I manufacture rally suspension. I learned in moto-cross up to international level for a couple of seasons.---quite suspension dependant, right?

The GpB cars had excellent suspension, the GpA cars had better bodyshell/cage structures, better diffs and diff control, and better brakes...
Perhaps it was the what not, but it wasn't "better suspension technology"
Even today internally the stuff is virtually the same as before with mainly the size and especially the travel way more, who can say how much but that's only possible due to the freedom to mod the wheelarches under World Rally Car sub-set of GpA rules...

On this I beg to differ.
When looking at old group B videos and the small memories I have from that time, it`s clearly visible how poor the suspension actually was. Just look how they handled when landing from a jump or in rough conditions. I mean they were literally all over the place and could not go nearly as fast over jumps and rough sections as today. Not even speaking of the corner speeds.
It is true that the basic suspension idea is the same, but than again so is the basic idea for a car ever since it was invented and I`d say we made some progress since the T-Ford right?
Since group B there is up to 4-way adjustable dampers today as well as a lot of options such as hydraulic bump stop as well on bump as rebound, CCV(corner control valves)RCV(Rebound control valves) BCV(body control valves)etc. Also the materials in the dampers have improved a lot leading to less friction in the damper.
This was also what Juha Kankkunen said were the main progressess since group.B suspension and transmission!

But back to the topic, it is indeed very interesting to hear the differences when the factories did back to back testing between 2,0 and 1,6 WRC. i haven`t heard but from one of them but imagine it`s the same for both( who have the opportunity to do it)

[Iskald]

Had a chat with Mats Østberg about this topic, and as he has actually driven cars with both types of engine it was quite interesting to hear his opinion. Mads reckoned a time difference of 0,5 to 1 second/km from the start of the 2011 season. In some rallies later in the season the 1,6T will be closer than that, but it will take a couple of season before the new cars matches the old ones on all surfaces. The engine caracteritics are quite different, according to Mads. While the 2.0T has plenty of power (torque) from as low as 3000 rpms, the 1,6T will need more revs. A usable revband will be 5000-8000, i.e. not as wide as the current engines but with a 1000 revs extra on top.
Mads also told that he had a chat with Seb. Ogier in Wales, and Ogier had told him that on some test stages the DS3 had already matched the times of the C4.

[urabus-denoS2000]

I just listened to the interview of Juha Kankkunen and he said just the opposite. :confused:




Juha isn't an engineer , he's a farmer :)

[Rallyper]

Juha isn't an engineer , he's a farmer :)

As well as he can feel the difference between Valtra and John Deere I´m very sure he knows and feels the difference between rallycars from the past and todays WRC cars. :p

And I agree with him 100% as read above.

What says a car with less power and torque will have same top speed on 6th gear? For me the differerence i obvious. And therefore there will be bigger difference in fast rallies. :s mokin:

[wrcnut]

I think there's too many factors to really put a figure on how fast the cars are gonna be. A lot of things on/around the new cars has changed.
For example the way they have to change gears. Its not all paddle shift anymore therefore more time spent driving the car with one hand while the other changes gears. In turn this could lead to more mistakes and slower times. Are we gonna see more Colin McRae style driving because of this??? I for one sure hope so cause its getting a little boring....
Tyres are another factor.
As for them getting quicker? Of course they will. We've gotta remember the drivers have to get use to these cars so its pretty obvious the cars(and divers)will get quicker.

Bring on 2011! Can't wait!

[Juha_Koo]

The GpB cars had excellent suspension

WTF I am reading?!? :eek:

Group B cars had terrible suspension. So did the majority of Gr. A cars too.

Ask any top driver, the thing that has changed the most in the last 20 years is the suspension. I had a chat with Juha Kankkunen in Mikko's Finnish tests this year and he praised the modern suspension, saying that it's totally incredible compared to early WRCs and especially Gr.B cars. He told that in the 80s with the GrB cars every jump and corner over jump was risky business because the car's suspension was so unpredictable.

[janvanvurpa]

WTF I am reading?!? :eek:

Group B cars had terrible suspension. So did the majority of Gr. A cars too.

Ask any top driver, the thing that has changed the most in the last 20 years is the suspension. I had a chat with Juha Kankkunen in Mikko's Finnish tests this year and he praised the modern suspension, saying that it's totally incredible compared to early WRCs and especially Gr.B cars. He told that in the 80s with the GrB cars every jump and corner over jump was risky business because the car's suspension was so unpredictable.


Boys, I was around before then and BUILDING SUSPENION, REBUILDING SHOCKS, I was around then, and now I am currently (I should be downstairs assembling and preparing for shipping some rally struts instead of peckin on computer) building rally suspension for: 2 Sierras, 1 BMW (the guy was inspired to build it from watching Group F videos, so it's you Finns fault---or my fault for introducing F-cup to America), a Subaru Impreza, a Nissan, 3 Volvos.
What I am saying is INTERNALLY the pistons and valving if you were to see it is virtually identical except for: SIZE and TRAVEL.
Hydraulic bump has been on every motorcycle fork since the early 1970s, and external adjusters are nice but they are for fine tuning.
The major changes in cars from GpB to GpA to now is far far better, stiffer bodyshells (the torsional stiffness of a bodyshell+cage is more than the 2 things separately ) and that huge increase in bodyshell stiffness means drivers and engineers can make more precise decisions on spring and damper rates--of course that's nicer.
But the massive change is the World rally Car rules which allows changes to the wheelarches and strut towers front and rear to accommodate hugely increased amounts of wheel travel---something we spent 7-8 years getting right from 1973 on in moto-cross bikes ( I started disassembling and modifying Bilstein units in 1975 so it's been a long time looking inside of dampers and suspension---and I have to wonder if a single person here has ever disassembled a single shock to make their comments about what is so different...just wondering).


The old GpB cars were flexible chassis/bodyshells most, just look at the cages they all used: Aluminum Matter cages bolted in in a few places.
The may have been OK for occupant protection in rollover but contributed virtually nothing to shell rigidity.
The suspension I build, which is targeted at the Club level competitor in North America is essentially identical to early to mid 90s works suspension.


The current stuff--and yes I saw what Juha said, of course I was watching and cheering Juha in Finland and was curious if he would comment----differs mainly in SIZE with the actual suspension insert being now 50mm, 55 or 60mm and suspesnion TRAVEL which, I can't say a real number but is clearly 350mm or more shaft travel.
This compares to early 90s units which 200/210mm front and maybe a bit more in the back and 40mm or 41mm inserts.
Adjusters, bump stops, linear roller bearings are all nice--reduced stiction is pleasant, but those are service related things not functionality differences.
The main function differences are incredibly stiffer bodyshells, huge increases in unit strength from the bigger size, and WAY longer travel which means the guys can ram into biigger things on the one hand but above all keep the wheels on the ground for acceleration and much more importantly for braking.

Now to keep it kind of related to this discussion, the suspension on 2010 cars and 2011 cars won't be changing in any significant ways so that shouldn't be a factor one way or the other so the big question remains "How will 1600 turbo motor with 33mm restrictor act---and what measures will it take to compensate for loss of engine oooooomph?"

Again coming from fairly high level moto-cross, we have always seen that while 500 class bikes were fast, plenty of time we see guys just as fast on 250cc bikes and even 125cc riders could match lap times of the 250cc and 500 class guys...

Chassi and suspension and brakes in all classes was same or equivalent, they just did it differently...

The things it seems nobody is discussing is the change to physically smaller cars----but then everybody will be in similar size cars so....

[AMSS]

Boys, I was around before then and BUILDING SUSPENION, REBUILDING SHOCKS, I was around then, and now I am currently (I should be downstairs assembling and preparing for shipping some rally struts instead of peckin on computer) building rally suspension for: 2 Sierras, 1 BMW (the guy was inspired to build it from watching Group F videos, so it's you Finns fault---or my fault for introducing F-cup to America), a Subaru Impreza, a Nissan, 3 Volvos.
What I am saying is INTERNALLY the pistons and valving if you were to see it is virtually identical except for: SIZE and TRAVEL.
Hydraulic bump has been on every motorcycle fork since the early 1970s, and external adjusters are nice but they are for fine tuning.
The major changes in cars from GpB to GpA to now is far far better, stiffer bodyshells (the torsional stiffness of a bodyshell+cage is more than the 2 things separately ) and that huge increase in bodyshell stiffness means drivers and engineers can make more precise decisions on spring and damper rates--of course that's nicer.
But the massive change is the World rally Car rules which allows changes to the wheelarches and strut towers front and rear to accommodate hugely increased amounts of wheel travel---something we spent 7-8 years getting right from 1973 on in moto-cross bikes ( I started disassembling and modifying Bilstein units in 1975 so it's been a long time looking inside of dampers and suspension---and I have to wonder if a single person here has ever disassembled a single shock to make their comments about what is so different...just wondering).


The old GpB cars were flexible chassis/bodyshells most, just look at the cages they all used: Aluminum Matter cages bolted in in a few places.
The may have been OK for occupant protection in rollover but contributed virtually nothing to shell rigidity.
The suspension I build, which is targeted at the Club level competitor in North America is essentially identical to early to mid 90s works suspension.


The current stuff--and yes I saw what Juha said, of course I was watching and cheering Juha in Finland and was curious if he would comment----differs mainly in SIZE with the actual suspension insert being now 50mm, 55 or 60mm and suspesnion TRAVEL which, I can't say a real number but is clearly 350mm or more shaft travel.
This compares to early 90s units which 200/210mm front and maybe a bit more in the back and 40mm or 41mm inserts.
Adjusters, bump stops, linear roller bearings are all nice--reduced stiction is pleasant, but those are service related things not functionality differences.
The main function differences are incredibly stiffer bodyshells, huge increases in unit strength from the bigger size, and WAY longer travel which means the guys can ram into biigger things on the one hand but above all keep the wheels on the ground for acceleration and much more importantly for braking.

Now to keep it kind of related to this discussion, the suspension on 2010 cars and 2011 cars won't be changing in any significant ways so that shouldn't be a factor one way or the other so the big question remains "How will 1600 turbo motor with 33mm restrictor act---and what measures will it take to compensate for loss of engine oooooomph?"

Again coming from fairly high level moto-cross, we have always seen that while 500 class bikes were fast, plenty of time we see guys just as fast on 250cc bikes and even 125cc riders could match lap times of the 250cc and 500 class guys...

Chassi and suspension and brakes in all classes was same or equivalent, they just did it differently...

The things it seems nobody is discussing is the change to physically smaller cars----but then everybody will be in similar size cars so....

Well I need to give some facts than.
Ford Focus WRC has 280mm shaft travel in the rear(option for +40mm for rought gravel for example Greece) and 320mm shaft travel in front. Yes the diameter of the slide strut is big (57mm or 60mm) but the piston size is more or less standard 46mm on all dampers at least what I know.
And yes adjustments are fine tuning but if we compare the shimm stacks on current dampers they nowadays use from 30-50 or more different shims per side(rb and bump) whereas Öhlins still in the late 90s and early 2000 used around 15 per size. And a HUGE improvement comes from the material used making the shims which enables their big flexibility without breaking. This (shim setup)would have been impossible even 10years ago with the materials for the shims than.
Also thermostatic controls etc. are used(nothing revolutionary new either)

So I still would definately say that one of the biggest improvements in speed from group.B comes from the suspension

I have also worked quit alot with dampers and seen what has been going on over the last 20years.
And this was my last reply regarding the dampers!

[dimviii]

Boys, I was around before then and BUILDING SUSPENION, REBUILDING SHOCKS, I was around then, and now I am currently (I should be downstairs assembling and preparing for shipping some rally struts instead of peckin on computer) building rally suspension for: 2 Sierras, 1 BMW (the guy was inspired to build it from watching Group F videos, so it's you Finns fault---or my fault for introducing F-cup to America), a Subaru Impreza, a Nissan, 3 Volvos.
What I am saying is INTERNALLY the pistons and valving if you were to see it is virtually identical except for: SIZE and TRAVEL.
Hydraulic bump has been on every motorcycle fork since the early 1970s, and external adjusters are nice but they are for fine tuning.
The major changes in cars from GpB to GpA to now is far far better, stiffer bodyshells (the torsional stiffness of a bodyshell+cage is more than the 2 things separately ) and that huge increase in bodyshell stiffness means drivers and engineers can make more precise decisions on spring and damper rates--of course that's nicer.
But the massive change is the World rally Car rules which allows changes to the wheelarches and strut towers front and rear to accommodate hugely increased amounts of wheel travel---something we spent 7-8 years getting right from 1973 on in moto-cross bikes ( I started disassembling and modifying Bilstein units in 1975 so it's been a long time looking inside of dampers and suspension---and I have to wonder if a single person here has ever disassembled a single shock to make their comments about what is so different...just wondering).


The old GpB cars were flexible chassis/bodyshells most, just look at the cages they all used: Aluminum Matter cages bolted in in a few places.
The may have been OK for occupant protection in rollover but contributed virtually nothing to shell rigidity.
The suspension I build, which is targeted at the Club level competitor in North America is essentially identical to early to mid 90s works suspension.


The current stuff--and yes I saw what Juha said, of course I was watching and cheering Juha in Finland and was curious if he would comment----differs mainly in SIZE with the actual suspension insert being now 50mm, 55 or 60mm and suspesnion TRAVEL which, I can't say a real number but is clearly 350mm or more shaft travel.
This compares to early 90s units which 200/210mm front and maybe a bit more in the back and 40mm or 41mm inserts.
Adjusters, bump stops, linear roller bearings are all nice--reduced stiction is pleasant, but those are service related things not functionality differences.
The main function differences are incredibly stiffer bodyshells, huge increases in unit strength from the bigger size, and WAY longer travel which means the guys can ram into biigger things on the one hand but above all keep the wheels on the ground for acceleration and much more importantly for braking.

Now to keep it kind of related to this discussion, the suspension on 2010 cars and 2011 cars won't be changing in any significant ways so that shouldn't be a factor one way or the other so the big question remains "How will 1600 turbo motor with 33mm restrictor act---and what measures will it take to compensate for loss of engine oooooomph?"

Again coming from fairly high level moto-cross, we have always seen that while 500 class bikes were fast, plenty of time we see guys just as fast on 250cc bikes and even 125cc riders could match lap times of the 250cc and 500 class guys...

Chassi and suspension and brakes in all classes was same or equivalent, they just did it differently...

The things it seems nobody is discussing is the change to physically smaller cars----but then everybody will be in similar size cars so....

Ι think that you missed the point.
If you compare a lancia delta 4wd grA with c4 wrc both of them have 4cyl engines a turbocharger , 4wdrive. Cause of them ''similarities'' you can t say that there is ''no improvement'' or if you like ''not a big improvement''
Same with suspensions,all have shims/valves as they had also before 30 years.Also 4wd turbochargers and 4cyl engines exist for thousand years,but there is no comparison between them even from year to year due to evolution.

[janvanvurpa]

Ι think that you missed the point.
If you compare a lancia delta 4wd grA with c4 wrc both of them have 4cyl engines a turbocharger , 4wdrive. Cause of them ''similarities'' you can t say that there is ''no improvement'' or if you like ''not a big improvement''
Same with suspensions,all have shims/valves as they had also before 30 years.Also 4wd turbochargers and 4cyl engines exist for thousand years,but there is no comparison between them even from year to year due to evolution.

Respectably I do not think I miss the point.
I build these things, and have for a long time, also engines from 1970 to current, there are very small incremental differences but there are also major BIG differences.
I think most fans, who as I suggested may have never built a single shock or even seen inside on, or never built a single engine , tend strongly to exagerate tiny incremental subtleties and give them far more weight than is the case in real world..
I see it constantly in my business on the engine side where guys will find what I call a "truism" ---some obscure fact that is true---but not understand the significance----or more typically the insignificance of what they have decided is a "new" thing---which is 99% only "new" to them...

The devil is always in the details and of course none here has answers to every detail, so we are left at LOOKING at what we can see--and occasionally read.

I find looking for similarities and dis-similarities, the good old "compare and contrast" most useful for finding the significant differences.
That has worked for motors, turbos, suspensions, brakes and shell prep.

Rather than us arguing, which is pointless, maybe somebody coul;d say , for example---what is the detail differences from one year to the next that results in the supposed "Big Differences"?

I've seen more 'evolutionary change" since teams got the longer travel suspension worked out (which was only possible to do under the World rally Car rules allowing complete re-working of the "wheel-housings" and strut towers fron and rear---which was NOT allowed under ordinary GpA rules), and the sequential gearchanges reliable.

[Rallyper]

OK boys, stop fuzzing.

Let´s put it this way.

The old GrB car had far worse handling than todays WRC-cars. Nothing less nothing more. No matter why that was.

Agreed? :cool:

[dimviii]

Respectably I do not think I miss the point.
I build these things, and have for a long time, also engines from 1970 to current, there are very small incremental differences but there are also major BIG differences.
I think most fans, who as I suggested may have never built a single shock or even seen inside on, or never built a single engine , tend strongly to exagerate tiny incremental subtleties and give them far more weight than is the case in real world..
I see it constantly in my business on the engine side where guys will find what I call a "truism" ---some obscure fact that is true---but not understand the significance----or more typically the insignificance of what they have decided is a "new" thing---which is 99% only "new" to them...

The devil is always in the details and of course none here has answers to every detail, so we are left at LOOKING at what we can see--and occasionally read.

I find looking for similarities and dis-similarities, the good old "compare and contrast" most useful for finding the significant differences.
That has worked for motors, turbos, suspensions, brakes and shell prep.

Rather than us arguing, which is pointless, maybe somebody coul;d say , for example---what is the detail differences from one year to the next that results in the supposed "Big Differences"?

I've seen more 'evolutionary change" since teams got the longer travel suspension worked out (which was only possible to do under the World rally Car rules allowing complete re-working of the "wheel-housings" and strut towers fron and rear---which was NOT allowed under ordinary GpA rules), and the sequential gearchanges reliable.

seems that we say the same think with different way.

[janvanvurpa]

OK boys, stop fuzzing.

Let´s put it this way.

The old GrB car had far worse handling than todays WRC-cars. Nothing less nothing more. No matter why that was.

Agreed? :cool:

det ha du rätt i, ingen twist.

For us who are still crazy enough to try and do rally---and see the amazing technology type cars become like F1 NASA-mobils, the question remains, really, ''what can we try and steal for ideas to make our products and our gamla rishögar go better?''

Can't just 'rycka på axlarna' and surrender, eller hur?

thatäs why we study everything from Escort MkII up to these new little 2011 cars and try and 'precisera' that which give back the most.....That's what I tell boys to think of. I say ''worry about the dollar spent to laugh return curves, its way more important than bhp and n-m curve'' ;)

[Sulland]

Just see how much the top drivers are enjoying driving an Escort Mk II !

The point is that again FIA (and Ford and Citroen) have come up with a car that is too advanced and that during the first season, without very much development - the new cars will be as fast as the old one, and not that much cheaper to buy and run for privateers !

The new car should have gone further, and maybe have a 1,2 or 1,4 liter engine with turbo, and or compressor since that is what the factories around the world will produce for us to use on the road.

[OldF]

Just see how much the top drivers are enjoying driving an Escort Mk II !

The point is that again FIA (and Ford and Citroen) have come up with a car that is too advanced and that during the first season, without very much development - the new cars will be as fast as the old one, and not that much cheaper to buy and run for privateers !

The new car should have gone further, and maybe have a 1,2 or 1,4 liter engine with turbo, and or compressor since that is what the factories around the world will produce for us to use on the road.

The 1.4 option was what I also was thinking about. VW has a 1.4 direct injection engine with both compressor and a turbo. Most of the VW models imported to Finland have a direct injection engine with a turbo or with a compressor and a turbo.

By this I see why VW is interesting in WRC or some other motorsports using direct injection engines.

The new generation WRC cars are, in a technical point of view, much simpler and cheaper cars compared to previous ones but what made them more expensive than necessary was the direct injection engine with the new FIA’s engine rules that allowed a manufacturer build a completely new engine as Citroen did (maybe this was the reason Dani lost his seat, Olivier Quesnel spent most of the budget to develop a completely new engine).

I read somewhere that the engines of Ford and Mini are half stock and half purpose build, so I suppose those aren’t cheap either. But what I’ve read, the new WRC cars should be about 2/3 of the price compared to 2010 WRC and M.Wilson told in a podcast interview that the price of the cars they’ve built recent years costs about 600.000 £ (720.000 €) and 2/3 of that is about 475.000 €.

But still, I think this is the right way to go. The new regulations just came about 2 years to early because the manufacturers today (Ford & Citroen) don’t have so much of these engines. I could be wrong, but WTF, why did Citroen then build a new engine.

[OldF]

As well as he can feel the difference between Valtra and John Deere I´m very sure he knows and feels the difference between rallycars from the past and todays WRC cars. :p

And I agree with him 100% as read above.

What says a car with less power and torque will have same top speed on 6th gear? For me the differerence i obvious. And therefore there will be bigger difference in fast rallies. :s mokin:

You’re both right and wrong.

For a car to go fast out from a slow corner (low revs) it needs torque to get more power. Torque does not depend on revs as power does.

Power is needed all the time and with low revs power can be achieved with more torque and on high revs, with high revs.

By the definition mechanical power is: P = T * angular velocity

P = power, unit=W=Nm/s
T = torque, unit=Nm
Angular velocity = 2*pii*f = 2*pii*rpm/60, unit=1/s

P (W) = T (Nm) * 2 * pii * rpm/60

To convert the result to PS, multiply the result with 0,00136 (1,36/1000).
To convert the result to hp/bhp, multiply the result with 0,00134 (1,34/1000).

As you can see, when the revs are low more torque is needed to have power on lower revs.

A comparison to traditional physics is if you have a force of 1 Newton and push with that force a “thing” one meter forward, you’ve done a work of 1 Nm (1 Nm torque). If that is done in one second you’ve produced one unit of power (1 Nm/s = 1 W). If you do it in two seconds, you’ve produced a power of 0,5 Nm/s (W) but still a 1 Nm of work (torque) has been done. As you can see, the torque is not dependent how fast (revs) a work is done but with the force it has been done.

Finally it depends on the gear & final drive ratios and the force produced on circumference of the wheel or taking into account the wheel diameter, the torque the wheel produce.

[Rallyper]

You’re both right and wrong.

For a car to go fast out from a slow corner (low revs) it needs torque to get more power. Torque does not depend on revs as power does.

Power is needed all the time and with low revs power can be achieved with more torque and on high revs, with high revs.

By the definition mechanical power is: P = T * angular velocity

P = power, unit=W=Nm/s
T = torque, unit=Nm
Angular velocity = 2*pii*f = 2*pii*rpm/60, unit=1/s

P (W) = T (Nm) * 2 * pii * rpm/60

To convert the result to PS, multiply the result with 0,00136 (1,36/1000).
To convert the result to hp/bhp, multiply the result with 0,00134 (1,34/1000).

As you can see, when the revs are low more torque is needed to have power on lower revs.

A comparison to traditional physics is if you have a force of 1 Newton and push with that force a “thing” one meter forward, you’ve done a work of 1 Nm (1 Nm torque). If that is done in one second you’ve produced one unit of power (1 Nm/s = 1 W). If you do it in two seconds, you’ve produced a power of 0,5 Nm/s (W) but still a 1 Nm of work (torque) has been done. As you can see, the torque is not dependent how fast (revs) a work is done but with the force it has been done.

Finally it depends on the gear & final drive ratios and the force produced on circumference of the wheel or taking into account the wheel diameter, the torque the wheel produce.

I know all that theoretical stuff, no problem.

But - comparing two cars is not easy. What I´m trying to say is that 1,6T compared to 2,0T, with same wheels and gearratio should benefit the car with bigger engine driving on a long straight. Because of more power to eliminate speed of wind and resistans in the surface, for instance snow and mud.

That´s why my conclusion that 1,6T will loose more time in fast rallies. maybe kind of stubborn way of putting this but thats my believe. ;)

[OldF]

I know all that theoretical stuff, no problem.

But - comparing two cars is not easy. What I´m trying to say is that 1,6T compared to 2,0T, with same wheels and gearratio should benefit the car with bigger engine driving on a long straight. Because of more power to eliminate speed of wind and resistans in the surface, for instance snow and mud.

That´s why my conclusion that 1,6T will loose more time in fast rallies. maybe kind of stubborn way of putting this but thats my believe. ;)

Yes of course the 1.6T will loose against a 2.0T in every conditions if we compare similar engines.

The 1.6T are however direct injection engines and by what I’ve managed to find out, a direct injection engine can produce about 5-10% more torque and 12-15% more power with about same fuel consumption (= same air consumption = same air restrictor size as N4 = 33 mm).

A 1.6T engine’s torque is about 80% compared to 2.0T engine alone by the cylinder capacity but the direct injection engines features can recover some of it.

I don’t know exactly how much power and torque the N4 has today with the 33 mm restrictor but for those who knows it should be an easy task to figure out the torque and power of the 1.6T WRC engines. And not forgetting that the 1.6T WRC engine runs with 2,5 bar boost compared to - well I don’t know, maybe about 2 bar – boost for the N4 engines.

[dimviii]

320-330 bhp 580-620 nm with 33mm restrictor for grN.

direct injection is the reason why i expect to be only tenths slower in first rallies,and very soon equal with 2,0l wrc cars.

[Francis44]

Well I think it will depend on the stages. Those cars are down on power to the 2L but they are much lighter and shorter, in tight corners drivers may be able to launch the car more agressively and with more speed to the corner, so I think in slower rally's they might be up there with the old ones but on faster roads like Finland or New Zealand they might be 1 or more seconds slower per KM.

[OldF]

320-330 bhp 580-620 nm with 33mm restrictor for grN.

direct injection is the reason why i expect to be only tenths slower in first rallies,and very soon equal with 2,0l wrc cars.

I must say that the power of N4 with 33 mm restrictor that you say is a surprise for me. Tommi Mäkinen Racings Subaru has by their information 290 PS and 570 Nm but they’re running the engine in the dyno before installing it to the car.

By some tests of dynos recently and and few years ago in the Finnish magazine “Vauhdin Maailma”, there are quite huge different in the results in different dynos with the same car. That’s why they suggest, if you’re tuning a car, use always the same dyno to see the results.

But whatever, as I’ve understood you build cars and has the best knowledge.

[dimviii]

I must say that the power of N4 with 33 mm restrictor that you say is a surprise for me. Tommi Mäkinen Racings Subaru has by their information 290 PS and 570 Nm but they’re running the engine in the dyno before installing it to the car.

By some tests of dynos recently and and few years ago in the Finnish magazine “Vauhdin Maailma”, there are quite huge different in the results in different dynos with the same car. That’s why they suggest, if you’re tuning a car, use always the same dyno to see the results.

But whatever, as I’ve understood you build cars and has the best knowledge.
These results are well checked in different dynos(maha-mustang-dd) and are average.Subarus are not so powerful as evos.290 ps and 570nm are plenty of evos with 32 restrictor.
Just for the conversation an evo8 in grA trim(just 34 restrictor/cams) is at 345 ps and 650 Nm.

[OldF]

These results are well checked in different dynos(maha-mustang-dd) and are average.Subarus are not so powerful as evos.290 ps and 570nm are plenty of evos with 32 restrictor.
Just for the conversation an evo8 in grA trim(just 34 restrictor/cams) is at 345 ps and 650 Nm.

OK, thanks Dimvii. That it’s I’ve suspected, you have the knowledge.

I’ve also “seen” a group A car (Jussi Välimäki, evo 8) with 350 PS @ 650 Nm (If I remember right) but I don’t know what boost was used.

[OldF]

I forgot to tell that the lack of power about the Subaru is much about the engine because it’s a boxer engine and the position of the turbo isn’t ideal in a boxer engine.

Is this true?

[dimviii]

OK, thanks Dimvii. That it’s I’ve suspected, you have the knowledge.

I’ve also “seen” a group A car (Jussi Välimäki, evo 8) with 350 PS @ 650 Nm (If I remember right) but I don’t know what boost was used.

2,2 overboost 1,8 ct at the grA i mention.

[dimviii]

I forgot to tell that the lack of power about the Subaru is much about the engine because it’s a boxer engine and the position of the turbo isn’t ideal in a boxer engine.

Is this true?

position of turbo is problem for road going scoobys with lag even with small turbos they have from factory.Now if in a road scooby you install the same turbo as in an evo the evo will spool it much faster and will make more horsepower.
In grN this is not a problem(longer exaust manifold because of boxer scheme) due to restrictor and help of antilag,but in high revs they can t breath as evos.Scoobys have torque but not power as evos.

[Rallyper]

Well I think it will depend on the stages. Those cars are down on power to the 2L but they are much lighter and shorter, in tight corners drivers may be able to launch the car more agressively and with more speed to the corner, so I think in slower rally's they might be up there with the old ones but on faster roads like Finland or New Zealand they might be 1 or more seconds slower per KM.

That´s what I´m trying to say. Agree with you. :)

[cali]

Rallying is not all about power :)

[OldF]

This post is just for the reason to have this thread on the first page when comparisons begin.

[Micke_VOC]

I think they gonna be faster this year.. ( and i have heard a rumour from the test that they are that)
The tire can do some to, maybe BF is faster on ice... ?

[OldF]

I compared the times for the whole rally of the winner from Sweden and Mexico from 2010 and 2011 and…

In Sweden the new WRC car was 1,92 s/km SLOWER compared to 2010.
In Mexico the new WRC cars was 0,22 s/km FASTER compared to 2010.

Sweden 2010: Total time 3:09:30.4 / Total km 345,15 / Avarage speed 109,28 km/h
Sweden 2011: Total time 3:23:56.6 / Total km 351,00 / Avarage speed 103,26 km/h

Mexico 2010: Total time 3:42:41.7 / Total km 347,55 / Avarage speed 93,64 km/h
Mexico 2011: Total time 3:52:27.0 / Total km 364,87 / Avarage speed 94,18 km/h *)

*) This differ a little bit what can be found at juwra,com because I reduced the 50 s penalty Loeb got.

[Andre Oliveira]

Portugal, day one: 2011 vs 2010
Felizes, Sébastien Ogier - 13m25,4s Sébastien Loeb - 13m35,6s
Ourique, Jari Matti Latvala 12m45,2s Sébastien Ogier - 13m02,5s

[dimviii]

Portugal, day one: 2011 vs 2010
Felizes, Sébastien Ogier - 13m25,4s Sébastien Loeb - 13m35,6s
Ourique, Jari Matti Latvala 12m45,2s Sébastien Ogier - 13m02,5s

seems that surface is faster this year.Maybe was right that the crew in front haven t got to loose so much like other years,as some drivers quotes.
lets see and today what happens.

[Zico]

There are many other variables to consider also ie, I believe it was Jari-Matti who said that Fords 2011 car is very slightly quicker to the end of third gear only, after which point the 2010 Focus WRC is quicker but then the Fiesta WRC has 6 gears instead of 5 (Focus).
Power and torque limits/curves etc differences aside, the lively shorter wheelbase should on tight twisty slow rallies also offer some advantages and likewise stability disadvantages on the really fast events. Christian Lorioux also sugested the same, maybe Juha was also thinking more in that context?

[euskalteam]

I compared the times for the whole rally of the winner from Sweden and Mexico from 2010 and 2011 and…

In Sweden the new WRC car was 1,92 s/km SLOWER compared to 2010.
In Mexico the new WRC cars was 0,22 s/km FASTER compared to 2010.

Sweden 2010: Total time 3:09:30.4 / Total km 345,15 / Avarage speed 109,28 km/h
Sweden 2011: Total time 3:23:56.6 / Total km 351,00 / Avarage speed 103,26 km/h

Mexico 2010: Total time 3:42:41.7 / Total km 347,55 / Avarage speed 93,64 km/h
Mexico 2011: Total time 3:52:27.0 / Total km 364,87 / Avarage speed 94,18 km/h *)

*) This differ a little bit what can be found at juwra,com because I reduced the 50 s penalty Loeb got.

I think Sweden 2011 was slower because there was more snow on the road, and the roads were more narrow than in 2010 rallye. (Was snowing a lot the previus days).

[emk]

They had proper snow tires in Sweden 2010 right? Now the wide versions.

[dimviii]

till now we haven t see any disadvantage with new 1,6 wrc cars in terms of speed.In some ss are faster and in some are slower.The point is that new wrc cars are not going to be slow in spectators eyes.and that matters imho.
A small questinmark for me is their asphalt speed. ;)

[cali]

till now we haven t see any disadvantage with new 1,6 wrc cars in terms of speed.In some ss are faster and in some are slower.The point is that new wrc cars are not going to be slow in spectators eyes.and that matters imho.
A small questinmark for me is their asphalt speed. ;)
On asphalt they should be slower - more grip means more power needed to accelerate

[dimviii]

On asphalt they should be slower - more grip means more power needed to accelerate

i d like to wait for conclusions, cause till now they have surprised us a lot!

[Mirek]

On tarmac they may be faster because Pirelli tarmac tyres from last year were really slow.

[cali]

Yes, ofcourse we will actually know when the first tarmac round is over and tires are affecting a lot on these results as well.

BTW comparing Sweden's results 2011 vs 2010 is quite inadequate cause road conditions on friday were really crappy. I was there and it snowed almost 2 days in a row and cars did not have grip at all. Sunday had ideal conditions and cars were clearly faster to the eye.

[Karbonyl]

Wide snow tyres were already in 2010.

[Iskald]

Wide snow tyres were already in 2010.

The wider snow tyres were actually introduced for Rally Norway 2009. The difference from narrow to wide tyres is not big. The wide tyres actually functions very good on hard ice /snow. The narrow ones are better in loose snow, and this year in Sweden it was much more snow and more loose stuff than 2010. Which explains a lot about the speed differences.

[Andre Oliveira]

Ourique 20,27 km
Recorde 2010 : Ogier (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-ogier) (C4 WRC) 13:02.5 (92,013 Km/h)
Recorde 2011 : Latvala (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/latvala) (Fiesta WRC (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/ford-fiesta)) 12:45.2 (-17,3 segundos) (94,093 Km/h)

Felizes 21,31 km
Recorde 2010 : Loeb (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-loeb) (C4 WRC) 13:35.6 (92,692 Km/h)
Recorde 2011 : Ogier (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-ogier)(DS3 WRC) 13:25.4 (-10,2 segundos) (93,866 Km/h)

Almodôvar 26,23 km
Recorde 2010 : Ogier (http://http//www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-ogier) (C4 WRC) 16:38.7 (93,722 Km/h)
Recorde 2011 : Ogier (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-ogier) (DS3 WRC) 15:59.6 (-39,1 segundos) (97,541 Km/h)

Vascão 25,26 km
Recorde 2010 : Loeb (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-loeb) (C4 WRC) 16:29.2 (90,983 Km/h)
Recorde 2011 :Solberg (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/petter-solberg) (DS3 WRC) 16:11.2 (-18,0 segundos) (92,669 Km/h)

Loulé 22,56 km
Recorde 2010 : Loeb (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-loeb) (C4 WRC) 15:22.7 (85,835 Km/h)
Recorde 2011 : Solberg (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/petter-solberg) (DS3 WRC) 15:13.6 (-9,1 segundos) (86,690 Km/h)

Silves 21,39 km
Recorde 2010 : Ogier (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/sebastien-ogier) (C4 WRC) 12:05.5 (104,204 Km/h)
Recorde 2011 : Solberg (http://www.maismotores.net/tag/petter-solberg) (DS3 WRC) 12:12.5 (+7,0 segundos) (103,208 Km/h)


http://www.maismotores.net/2011/03/os-novos-wrc-1-6-turbo-sao-ainda-mais-rapidos-que-os-anteriores-wrc-2-litros/

[AMSS]

The wider snow tyres were actually introduced for Rally Norway 2009. The difference from narrow to wide tyres is not big. The wide tyres actually functions very good on hard ice /snow. The narrow ones are better in loose snow, and this year in Sweden it was much more snow and more loose stuff than 2010. Which explains a lot about the speed differences.

It`s true that the wider snow tires was introduced in 2009, but actually the rule is that the winter tires must fit on the same rims as summer tires, therefore there isn`t actually a rule on how wide the tire should be, but for practical reasons it`s impossible to make a very narrow tire.
But the pirelli 15" WRC winter tire actually had narrower tread width than Michelin which makes it significally faster especially in snow conditions such as this years Sweden.
But as said above they function very good in hard ice/clean snowy roads.

[Sulland]

So if the facts here are correct, the 2011 WRCar is quicker than the 2010 model.

How long before FIA will go in and limit them, due to raw speed??

Again I feel FIA allowed too much in the new breed !

[Barreis]

I'm happy with new cars..

[tfp]

I'm happy with new cars..

Me too. I wonder of the differences in Jordan....?

[rubla]

Does anyone have any new info about this topic?

[N.O.T]

times from tarmac rounds show that the new cars are getting faster and faster but still lack a bit...i think from 2012 the new wrcs are going to be marginally faster.