Ford's straight line speed

[janneppi]

The current forum mantra seems to be that the Ford engine isn't up to Citroens engine and that causes the difference in straights.

However, in todays interview Mikko said that the problem is more about aerodynamics than power, the Ford is too much of a big blob against the slippery C4.

How much truth is there, or are Ford drivers not allowed to badmouth the engine? :)

[Roy]

In WRC program on Eurosport have sometime 'virtual spectator'. It is a computer model we can see how fast they drive with a car. Is there something to see on straight line speed?

Or is it the corners they loose? Then is it aerodynimics.

[L5->R5/CR]

The ford's are loosing time in the straights.

That doesn't mean that it isn't the aerodynamics, but it seems consensus that Citroen has a 15bhp advantage. Put the 15bhp, with a slightly blunt aero package from Ford (the C4 isn't exactly sleek or low profile) and you will have straight line losses and potential gains in the straights...

Seems that the C4 is just a little bit faster than the Focus WRC06, hopefully the improvements for Finland will help or Seb might just finally get his victory there...

[Zico]

I find that hard to believe... I reckon its probably more to do with the citroens higher Torque.

Anyone have any official/unofficial power/torque figures for both cars at hand?

[imull]

not so as these cars produce very little downforce in comparison to a circuit car or tarmac spec... By increasing the downforce and therefore turning ability you also increase the drag coefficient making it slower down the straight.

Most aero work on a wrc car is to do with cooling and stability rather than ultimate aerodynamic grip. This is because the car is rarely travelling in the direction it is facing, especially when it would be most beneficial, ie snow/ice and on gravel stages.

The cleek shape of a C4 road has a lower Cd of 0.28 (source carfolio.com 2004 Coupé 2.0i 16v) than the Focus coefficient of 0.32 (source cars.com). Remember that there is very little in the way of bosywork mods on the citroen as it is at maximum width already whereas hte focus has arch extensions and all sorts :D

This will really only affect the car in the higher speed secions though where aerodymics of a car become paramount. Where torque/power are an issue in slow/medious speed corner exits drag is less of a factor so I would suspect that the engine isnt quite the match for the citroen

[Roy]

I find that hard to believe... I reckon its probably more to do with the citroens higher Torque.

Anyone have any official/unofficial power/torque figures for both cars at hand?

C4
http://competition.rm.total.com/cpn/sitenl.nsf/VS_OPM/467D4A0850919207C12572720057F822?OpenDocument

Focus WRC 06
http://www.stobartmotorsport.com/spec_focus_06.asp

[Zico]

C4
http://competition.rm.total.com/cpn/sitenl.nsf/VS_OPM/467D4A0850919207C12572720057F822?OpenDocument

Focus WRC 06
http://www.stobartmotorsport.com/spec_focus_06.asp

Thank you..

To convert Mkg to NM.. 58 (M/kg) x 9.8066 = 568.7828 NM which will be peak torque which is reached at only 2750rpm as opposed to the Focus 06's figures of 550 NM @ 4000rpm. The C4 not only has more torque but its peak is reached 1250 rpm lower.

If these figures provided are anywhere near accurate.. looks like Miko is talking out his Erse.. IMO ;)

I'd be less inclined to pay too much attention to the official bhp figures either as its supposed to be capped at 300, while (to the best of my knowledge) they have a free reign on torque which makes the figures more likely to be accurate. Can someone confirm this?

[jonas_mcrae]

ups sounds like a lot

[Gard]

Thank you..

To convert Mkg to NM.. 58 (M/kg) x 9.8066 = 568.7828 NM which will be peak torque which is reached at only 2750rpm as opposed to the Focus 06's figures of 550 NM @ 4000rpm. The C4 not only has more torque but its peak is reached 1250 rpm lower.

If these figures provided are anywhere near accurate.. looks like Miko is talking out his Erse.. IMO ;)

I'd be less inclined to pay too much attention to the official bhp figures either as its supposed to be capped at 300, while (to the best of my knowledge) they have a free reign on torque which makes the figures more likely to be accurate. Can someone confirm this?

The real figures are probably much higher. More like 350-380bhp/700-800 NM

[Doon]

The real figures are probably much higher. More like 350-380bhp/700-800 NM

I see what your saying but i don't understand why the official figures seem somewhat low. What do the teams have to lose by giving official figures, and if they are supposed to be capped to 300bhp, Citroens 15bhp seems to be a massive performance advantage and would mean they are breaking the rules..... if Ford had a penalty for the rear window being too thin surely Citroen should be strung up for this one? ;)

I just don't get it. I thought the 307 was running at about 360bhp compared to the '04 Focus running at 340bhp! So surely the cars can't have lost power?

[Zico]

I see what your saying but i don't understand why the official figures seem somewhat low. What do the teams have to lose by giving official figures, and if they are supposed to be capped to 300bhp, Citroens 15bhp seems to be a massive performance advantage and would mean they are breaking the rules..... if Ford had a penalty for the rear window being too thin surely Citroen should be strung up for this one? ;)

I just don't get it. I thought the 307 was running at about 360bhp compared to the '04 Focus running at 340bhp! So surely the cars can't have lost power?

Yep.. Official power figures are worth a thread on their own, I think the FIA would find it very difficult to regulate though unless the ECU's were FIA supplied and sealed.... or supplied at a set spec by one manufacturer, with that would come problems for events held at higher/lower altitudes, and temp extremes etc.. Valid point though, why do they seem to be turning a blind eye to outputs yet are prepared to dish out huge punshments for tiny infringements like glass thickness, just doesn't make sense!

I can see why they would lie about the bhp but would they have to lie about the torque figures? Would the teams consider such info so confidential?

[jonkka]

Valid point though, why do they seem to be turning a blind eye to outputs yet are prepared to dish out huge punshments for tiny infringements like glass thickness, just doesn't make sense!

Because the 300bhp was a rule between 1987-1990 with no real way to enforce it. When turbo restrictor was introduced for 1990 season, FIA finally had a measurable and hence, enforceable rule. Even if nominally the cap is at 300bhp today, the way to enforce that rule is make sure that all cars have a restrictor of required size and it is not bypassed (like Lancia was accused of doing but never proven, Toyota did and got caught with and Ford had a system that was later banned).

Turbo restrictor is one of the very best technical rules FIA has come up, it is simple and efficient way to provide an almost level playing field for all teams what comes to engine power.

[COD]

Torque has nothing to with straightline speed, more with exiting corners (and it is important)

What I think Mikko is saying is, that because the Ford has more wings and thus more downforce in high speed corners they loose on straightline speeds.

[Zico]

Thanks Jonkka, makes perfect sense now.. I wasnt aware of the capped bhp rule being replaced by the restrictor, I'd always thought both regulations were applicable together.

Can you tell me more about Fords system?

[Zico]

Torque has nothing to with straightline speed, more with exiting corners (and it is important)

What I think Mikko is saying is, that because the Ford has more wings and thus more downforce in high speed corners they loose on straightline speeds.

Yes and no.. torque is effective against drag and so still applies surely?

[ste898]

The FIA will turn a blind eye to anything Citroen do FACT!!!!!

[L5->R5/CR]

Thanks Jonkka, makes perfect sense now.. I wasnt aware of the capped bhp rule being replaced by the restrictor, I'd always thought both regulations were applicable together.

Can you tell me more about Fords system?


I too would like to hear about the now banned ford system (and maybe a refresher on just how Toyota did it?)

[Zico]

I too would like to hear about the now banned ford system (and maybe a refresher on just how Toyota did it?)


TTE used a variable restrictor. Basically when it was open for inspection it looked exactly like a normal restrictor. But through funky engineering when it was clamped down the middle section extended slightly to allow more airflow around the restrictor, thereby effectively increasing crosssection by about 5mm or so.

http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/images/toy_turbo.jpg

http://www.m1gst.com/vb/showthread.php?t=27456&page=2 from here
a vague description of it (which is on a number of pages, but i can't find the cross-section picture which was good)
The cause of complaint was that Toyota had fitted turbo restrictor's which were modified in three ways:

1) The restrictor was not sealed so it was possible to move it without touching the seals.
2) It was possible for air to enter the engine without passing through the restrictor.
3) The position of the restrictor could be moved so it was further away from the turbine than the 50 mm limit permitted.

It was discovered that these irregularities were made possible by a flange which had a special hidden bypass device which was held open against a very strong spring. The hose which connected the restrictor to the turbo had a metal casing inside, and attached to this casing were catches which could secretly force open the by-pass flange to the extent of 5 mm.
Max Mosley explained: "When the system was dismantled, the flange would automatically close itself and remove evidence that extra air could have entered engine. This system not only allowed extra air which did not pass through the restrictor to enter the engine, but also the restrictor itself could illegally be moved further from the turbo.
"The hose was fixed to the restrictor by a jubilee clip. A special tool was then applied to open the device and then the device then gripped in the open position by a second clip. Both of these clips had to be undone for a scrutineer to check the restrictor and in the process of opening those clips the device snapped shut.
"Inside it was beautifully made. The springs inside the hose had been polished and machined so not to impede the air which passed through. To force the springs open without the special tool would require substantial force. It is the most sophisticated and ingenious device either I or the FIA's technical experts have seen for a long-time. It was so well made that there was no gap apparent to suggest there was any means of opening it."
The FIA estimates that 25 per cent more air was allowed into the engine than permitted although admits it's difficult to estimate how much more power that would achieve. An expert put it as high as an extra 50 bhp - a considerable advantage when the cars are supposedly limited to 300 BHP.
and
TTE did not claim the device was legal but was represented by lawyers who entered a plea in mitigation. Mosley went on to say that the points Toyota and their drivers, Juha Kankkunen, Didier Auriol and Armin Schwarz had gained in 1995 would simply be taken away but others would not move up to fill the gaps.

The team would also be banned from contesting the 1995 Network Q RAC Rally and the 1996 World Rally Championship. He also stated that the FIA would not allow the team to get around the restrictions by entering under another guise and went on to say that there was however, nothing to suggest that the drivers were aware of anything going on.

According to Toyota the device had been devised at a "certain level" and the management knew nothing about it. The FIA dismissed this claim, saying that as a team they were responsible for all their actions.

He went on to say that there were indications that this type of thing was not happening with in other teams and praised those who were concerned with discovering the irregularity.

[cut the b.s.]

The FIA will turn a blind eye to anything Citroen do FACT!!!!!



Do all cumbrians have their heads as far up their own arses as you do? maybe I have just accidently discovered the reason behind MSports poor showing at WRC level, 1 championship out of 20 or is it 22 now? Did you have a chip on your shoulder about Mitsubishi in the late 90s?

[Zico]

Do all cumbrians have their heads as far up their own arses as you do? maybe I have just accidently discovered the reason behind MSports poor showing at WRC level, 1 championship out of 20 or is it 22 now? Did you have a chip on your shoulder about Mitsubishi in the late 90s?

Yes, quite.. ;)

[Gard]

Torque has nothing to with straightline speed, more with exiting corners (and it is important)

What I think Mikko is saying is, that because the Ford has more wings and thus more downforce in high speed corners they loose on straightline speeds.

A simplified way of seeing this is: Torque is acceleration and BHP is top speed.

[JAM]

Do all cumbrians have their heads as far up their own arses as you do? maybe I have just accidently discovered the reason behind MSports poor showing at WRC level, 1 championship out of 20 or is it 22 now? Did you have a chip on your shoulder about Mitsubishi in the late 90s?

:up:

[jonkka]

Can you tell me more about Fords system?

For a short while, Ford had an ingenious air-reserve in use. Quite simply they stored all air coming through the restrictor, even at time when engine was not using it all like under braking and so on. This meant that after a corner, their engine had more air to use than came through regular air flow from the restrictor. Of course, the reserve was not large and is thought to have helped only very little but FIA banned it nevertheless. I think this was used in 2003-2004 but am not sure.

[Doon]

A simplified way of seeing this is: Torque is acceleration and BHP is top speed.

Note quite! That would mean all turbo diesel cars are much quicker than petrol road cars. They all have bags of torques! ;)

[grugsticles]

This air reserve system on the intake... while I sort of understand the idea behind it, wouldnt it be pointless as it would initally allow extra air to the engine foir a very breif moment, then the engine would be starved of air causing a lack of power?

In my limited knowledge of engine design, I would have thought that a constant pressurised flow of air into the intake would be better?

Comments?

[cut the b.s.]

For a short while, Ford had an ingenious air-reserve in use. Quite simply they stored all air coming through the restrictor, even at time when engine was not using it all like under braking and so on. This meant that after a corner, their engine had more air to use than came through regular air flow from the restrictor. Of course, the reserve was not large and is thought to have helped only very little but FIA banned it nevertheless. I think this was used in 2003-2004 but am not sure.

I think Subaru had a version of this too, Martin Holmes covered it in his yearbook that year, I think it was 03, will check if I get a chance

[Gard]

Note quite! That would mean all turbo diesel cars are much quicker than petrol road cars. They all have bags of torques! ;)

Yupp, they are. Until they need power to push trough air. Look at 60 to 100 or 80 to 120 figures. But it's difficult to compare diesels and petrol because engine characteristics differs so much. A drag with rolling starts between a diesel and a petrol in the same cars, the engine with the most torque will win. Until you reach speed that demands power, then the one with most BHP will take over.

[Finni]

The current forum mantra seems to be that the Ford engine isn't up to Citroens engine and that causes the difference in straights.

However, in todays interview Mikko said that the problem is more about aerodynamics than power, the Ford is too much of a big blob against the slippery C4.

How much truth is there, or are Ford drivers not allowed to badmouth the engine? :)

I would like to know how you get sense from Mikko's words that aerodynamic is more important loss factor than the engine. In my perception the article and referred drivers were primarily concerned about engine situation - not aerodynamic. In finnish Veikkaaja Mikko said that Citroen's engine is more powerfull (the fact especially underlined in high altitude of Mexico and few stages in Argentina).

Veikkaaja mentioned that Grönholm and Solberg have wondered why Citroen's engine is so effective. It was said that also Loeb and Sordo have admitted Citroen's engine edge.

This all information matches perfectly with all simultaneous acceleration views I have seen from virtual spectator.

[janneppi]

Finni, yesterday i saw on tv that Mikko was interviewed during a test session that looked like it was in Finland, that's where he talked about aero being a factor. I don't remember if it was on Yle or MTV3.
That's why i brought it up because it was the first i've heard of it being such an issue.

[Finni]

Finni, yesterday i saw on tv that Mikko was interviewed during a test session that looked like it was in Finland, that's where he talked about aero being a factor. I don't remember if it was on Yle or MTV3.
That's why i brought it up because it was the first i've heard of it being such an issue.

Aa, we have different sources but perhaps same interview. Veikkaaja's article mentioned aero-issues but most driver comments they referred (from Solberg and Grönholm) were concerned only about engine situation.

[Karukera]

It's raining excuses !

When it's not the engine, it's the aerodynamic, what next ? :s tare:

[A.F.F.]

It's raining excuses !

When it's not the engine, it's the aerodynamic, what next ? :s tare:

Too damn thick rear windows.

[Zico]

I wasnt aware the 06 Focus only had a 5 speed box until I read the stats supplied by Focuschampion.. Why dont ford use a 6 speed box?..Isnt the extra cog in the C4 going provide a substancial acceleration improvement also?

A combination of superior power/torque, reduced drag and the extra cog giving it the edge I reckon.

[ste898]

Do all cumbrians have their heads as far up their own arses as you do? maybe I have just accidently discovered the reason behind MSports poor showing at WRC level, 1 championship out of 20 or is it 22 now? Did you have a chip on your shoulder about Mitsubishi in the late 90s?

I take it the b s in your name stands for what you post BULL ****!!!!!

[Zico]

I take it the b s in your name stands for what you post BULL ****!!!!!

The only person talking Bull***t here is you Steve. Your hatred of Citroen and Loeb arises in nearly every post you make. Bad loser?

[ste898]

Yes it sure is and I wont change to please people ......so suck it!!!!!!

I see you are talking Bull as well now Zico!!!

[Zico]

Yes it sure is and I wont change to please people ......so suck it!!!!!!

I see you are talking Bull as well now Zico!!!

:D ... No thanks... :D :D :D

Talking Bull?.. you admitted it !?!?!

Btw.. admitting your a bad loser isnt something to be proud of. ;)

[ste898]

Oh no I'm not a bad loser.

I say what I think and thats the FACT!!!!!!

[FrankenSchwinn]

Btw.. admitting your a bad loser isnt something to be proud of. ;)

he's english, who cares? he's got enough trouble in life being english, let's not get the lad -completely- depressed.....

[ste898]

There is some ****e on here tonight!!!!!!!

[Finni]

It's raining excuses !

When it's not the engine, it's the aerodynamic, what next ? :s tare:

Acceleration difference for PSA cars advantage is a fact.

It's confirmed in countless driver comments, in countless simultaneus views watchable from virtual spectator, Solberg's off-rallying acceleration test with Loeb in Germany 2005. Hirvonen is the only one who has put any pressure on aerodymanic.

[grugsticles]

Solberg's off-rallying acceleration test with Loeb in Germany 2005

Do you know of a video of this?
Id be interested in seeing that.

[Zico]

This air reserve system on the intake... while I sort of understand the idea behind it, wouldnt it be pointless as it would initally allow extra air to the engine foir a very breif moment, then the engine would be starved of air causing a lack of power?

In my limited knowledge of engine design, I would have thought that a constant pressurised flow of air into the intake would be better?

Comments?

I may be completely wrong but I'd understood it to be more of an advanced anti-lag system to tbh.. when the driver came of the throttle the stream of pressurised air kept the turbo spinning at a higher speed than the normal anti-lag system allowed improving throttle response and thus aiding drivability.

[Gard]

Do you know of a video of this?
Id be interested in seeing that.

That doesn't exist I think. Unless they had their inboards running. This was a private test done by Petter and Seb. Seb asked Petter for this test, when Citroen pulled out of WRC. That test really shut down any plan for Seb to go to Subaru. Even Petter said he was shocked to se that the difference was that big.

[jparker]

Acceleration difference for PSA cars advantage is a fact.

It's confirmed in countless driver comments, in countless simultaneus views watchable from virtual spectator, Solberg's off-rallying acceleration test with Loeb in Germany 2005. Hirvonen is the only one who has put any pressure on aerodymanic.

hmm, Germany 2005.....
Yes Finni, you made your point and I tend to agree with you, but what Ford and Subaru have done since 2005 to change that? I guess they are just ..... talking, pointlessly.

[cosmicpanda]

In WRC program on Eurosport have sometime 'virtual spectator'. It is a computer model we can see how fast they drive with a car. Is there something to see on straight line speed?

Or is it the corners they loose? Then is it aerodynimics.

Actually, I think that aerodynamics would matter more on the straights because it is then that the car is going fastest. This obviously means that it is pushing through much more air than it would when going more slowly, and this means that more emphasis is placed on aerodynamics.

[Halvis]

That doesn't exist I think. Unless they had their inboards running. This was a private test done by Petter and Seb. Seb asked Petter for this test, when Citroen pulled out of WRC. That test really shut down any plan for Seb to go to Subaru. Even Petter said he was shocked to se that the difference was that big.

If I remember correctly, there were actually not that much difference in the first meters - but very soon, Seb just "disappeared" from the Impreza.

Or do I recall wrong?

[Gard]

If I remember correctly, there were actually not that much difference in the first meters - but very soon, Seb just "disappeared" from the Impreza.

Or do I recall wrong?

Yeah, the first couple of seconds was pretty even, but that could just be that lack of traction evened things out.

[Karukera]

Finni, you base your theory on your own interpretation of virtual images and on rumours. That's very thin against solid facts like results, special stages times and tendency.

First, the staights on virtual images don't say which car is faster.

They are extracts and are simply not long enough to determine which car is faster. At the high level of both cars preparations they would need more than a couple of km of relatively flat terrain run in the exact same cleaning conditions to actually shows which car is faster and that would require to be compared with proper telemetry.


Secondly, Rumours :

1) I have mine too. Pipo isn't exactly into spins, he turned down all rumours and used words such as b.s to people saying the problem is the Ford engine, saying it's top notch material, conception and it's tuned as it should.

2) Wilson Sr isn't into spins as well, when there's a problem he admits there's a problem and fixes it with the team.
Of course he certainly wouldn't say a Citroën is better than his cars. But there are some clear hints in his speeches showing the engine isn't the major factor. Since last year, he used to say that Loeb is the problem, using the word "he", not that "they (Citroën)" or "we" as team have a technical performances problem.

I never heard him saying they needed to work on the engine, never did Wilson Sr mention anything related to the engine which clearly shows there's no problem with the engine.

3) There are no miracles in mechanics and there's no way Citroën could find any so called largely superior performances from the engine or from the COG that wouldn't be known by others.

4) The urban legend about the thing of the wild run against Solberg is largely exagerated, even for a Subaru, by the Solberg fans who are pixxed off with good reasons seeing a first class pilot wasting his time in a despairing car, losing all his opportunities to shine .


Thirdly, Human factor :

Loeb said last year that he completely changed his tactics. But it may haven't been translated nor noticed by some.

1) He learned from Solberg that rather than going for second place there was always room to put some extra pressure on Grönholm, it would eventually pay off.
Loeb learned and acheived that one very well as seen in Japan, Cyprus 06 and this year : Try hard as possible on day one if cleaning for others, start legs 2,3 on a higher pace, close every gap as soon as possible and keep the pressure on and as possible, never let rivals believe they have a chance to come back.

2) Grönholm said he would retire at the end of the year. It is logical to assume that his raw speed is slowly decreasing. It's not a shame for him, it's just human.
On the other hand Loeb is reaching his plain maturity, his performance peak. It will only last if he has a Grönholm-like speed opposition to push him.

I know it's a looong post but i think it's fairly representing a realistic picture of the current situation. :)

[Finni]

blah, blah, Karukera.. You write much outside of whole engine topic. Yet it shows you real concern too well.

I will probably respond you later if I have energy.

[Finni]

They are extracts and are simply not long enough to determine which car is faster. At the high level of both cars preparations they would need more than a couple of km of relatively flat terrain run in the exact same cleaning conditions to actually shows which car is faster and that would require to be compared with proper telemetry.

OK, those simultaneous views are extract and I have seen such view about six time and EVERY single time when there has been normal acceleration situation PSA-cars have been considerably more effective than Ford and Subaru. Whether the driver has been Grönholm (with Peugeot), Duval (with Citroen) or Loeb it has always been the same case. When Grönholm drove Peugeot he was always taking advantage in acceleration (I recall three cases); when he has been in Ford he has always been behind Citroen (I recall two cases).

As to Petter's words (not rumour in my view) it matches perfectly with what I have seen from virtual spectator again and again. In early acceleration (very slow speed) they go off quite similarly but after some point Citroen (or Peugeot) is much more effective in terms of acceleration.

I have heard direct opinion from Märtin, Grönholm, Hirvonen, Solberg and also from Kristian Sohlberg who is commentator in finnish tv. These direct statements are much more weigh than argumentation from Wilson's silence. Hirvonen also said in his recent interview in finnish Veikkaaja that also Loeb and Sordo says that they have engine advantage. When Märtin went to Peugeot he immediately noticed that the engine is much better than in his recent Ford - the fact I knew already from virtual spectator.

[janvanvurpa]

I have heard direct opinion from Märtin, Grönholm, Hirvonen, Solberg and also from Kristian Sohlberg who is commentator in finnish tv. These direct statements are much more weigh than argumentation from Wilson's silence. Hirvonen also said in his recent interview in finnish Veikkaaja that also Loeb and Sordo says that they have engine advantage. When Märtin went to Peugeot he immediately noticed that the engine is much better than in his recent Ford - the fact I knew already from virtual spectator.

Finni, as much as I find most engineers to be slow witted, dull, plodding boring people, some can explain some things pretty clearly and I have several areodynamics engineers amonst the rally guys I know here.
The truth is with a 34mm restrictor, no engine will make much more power than the other.
Also the details of the motors, the valve sizes, bore, stroke, rod center to center lengths, weight of crankshaft etc all all available on the Homologation papers, can't you Finns get a peek at what the details are?
THAT has more chance of explaining IF the difference lies in the motor.

As for speed on straight, wind resistance goes up at a cube function and so is exponentially higher as speed go up.

Don't know if the current World Rally Cars are purposely trading downforce for grip against high spped but I rercall from GpB days when they motors had lots of torque to play with, the Pug and Lancia were saying that their wings cost them LOTS of power but generated serious downforce at 100 km/hr.

[jparker]

Finni, as much as I find most engineers to be slow witted, dull, plodding boring people, some can explain some things pretty clearly and I have several areodynamics engineers amonst the rally guys I know here.
The truth is with a 34mm restrictor, no engine will make much more power than the other.
Also the details of the motors, the valve sizes, bore, stroke, rod center to center lengths, weight of crankshaft etc all all available on the Homologation papers, can't you Finns get a peek at what the details are?
THAT has more chance of explaining IF the difference lies in the motor.

As for speed on straight, wind resistance goes up at a cube function and so is exponentially higher as speed go up.

Don't know if the current World Rally Cars are purposely trading downforce for grip against high spped but I rercall from GpB days when they motors had lots of torque to play with, the Pug and Lancia were saying that their wings cost them LOTS of power but generated serious downforce at 100 km/hr.

John, I understand your point but keep in mind that most engineers tend to be sceptic about new revolutionary developments. I remember some 15 years ago many of them didn't believe Renault F1 engine had reached 13000 RPM. Well, they actually did. And what do we currently have in F1? Over 18000 RPM.
Also, I'm not an engineer, but out of pure logic I can't see such dramatic difference on the straights because of aerodynamics alone.

[janvanvurpa]

John, I understand your point but keep in mind that most engineers tend to be sceptic about new revolutionary developments. I remember some 15 years ago many of them didn't believe Renault F1 engine had reached 13000 RPM. Well, they actually did. And what do we currently have in F1? Over 18000 RPM.
Also, I'm not an engineer, but out of pure logic I can't see such dramatic difference on the straights because of aerodynamics alone.

Agree except I would add that most older engineers are skeptical while most GUYS not depending on machines tend to be impresssed by "trick" or "bad" or "New" stuff and particularly shiney things they can point at that are easy to recognise.

And follow with me a bit and see what is limited by the rules and what is left free.
Wheels are not limited in diameter, but they are in width and tire is limiter to max 65cm so no way to have big advantage there.
On gravel, everybody uses 15" which limits brakes to about the same from one to the next.

34mm restrictor means the air into the turbo will chock up as the air goes supersonic and only so many cubic feet or meters of air will make it thru that miserable little hole so ALL engines are pointless to run past maybe 5500.

Bore, stroke and rod length are all over the place between Citra, Ford and Sub-a-rat and the Sub-a-rat motor is the clearly most compromised in terms of being able to make any component changes trying to make more torque---the pistons are already very short from center of pin to the top, and realistically can't go much shorter to accomodate much longer a rod--which would help cause its barely 130.6~~mm long rod now.
But between the Ford and Citroen the motors are close.
Fuel is fixed so one can't run much higher static compression than the other, and as compression is directly related to torque, the spec fuel means there can't be more torque from that way.

The biggest difference that is let open to design difference is body work and homologated add on stuff.
And as I said and is well know wind drag goes up as a "cubed product"
here's an example from a car was once a popular rally car: Opel Kadett E GSI 16v, a clean, slick car. I recall the figure from some German test that said it took only about 7.5ps for that car to cruise on level road at 62mph, or 2500rpm with the gas very light.
To make that same car go to 130mph take all the 150 ps the 16 v motor makes.
So all I'm saying is don't underestimate the potentially significant effect that aerodynamics can have, but who knows really, the answer might be in those homologation papers.

[jparker]

Agree except I would add that most older engineers are skeptical while most GUYS not depending on machines tend to be impresssed by "trick" or "bad" or "New" stuff and particularly shiney things they can point at that are easy to recognise.

And follow with me a bit and see what is limited by the rules and what is left free.
Wheels are not limited in diameter, but they are in width and tire is limiter to max 65cm so no way to have big advantage there.
On gravel, everybody uses 15" which limits brakes to about the same from one to the next.

34mm restrictor means the air into the turbo will chock up as the air goes supersonic and only so many cubic feet or meters of air will make it thru that miserable little hole so ALL engines are pointless to run past maybe 5500.

Bore, stroke and rod length are all over the place between Citra, Ford and Sub-a-rat and the Sub-a-rat motor is the clearly most compromised in terms of being able to make any component changes trying to make more torque---the pistons are already very short from center of pin to the top, and realistically can't go much shorter to accomodate much longer a rod--which would help cause its barely 130.6~~mm long rod now.
But between the Ford and Citroen the motors are close.
Fuel is fixed so one can't run much higher static compression than the other, and as compression is directly related to torque, the spec fuel means there can't be more torque from that way.

The biggest difference that is let open to design difference is body work and homologated add on stuff.
And as I said and is well know wind drag goes up as a "cubed product"
here's an example from a car was once a popular rally car: Opel Kadett E GSI 16v, a clean, slick car. I recall the figure from some German test that said it took only about 7.5ps for that car to cruise on level road at 62mph, or 2500rpm with the gas very light.
To make that same car go to 130mph take all the 150 ps the 16 v motor makes.
So all I'm saying is don't underestimate the potentially significant effect that aerodynamics can have, but who knows really, the answer might be in those homologation papers.

Well, by demonstrating technical knowledge which doesn't explains the facts = not reliable knowledge at all. And yes, you are talking exactly the same way as per my F1 example.
I do not deny the potentially significant effect of aerodynamics, but we don't compare car with no aerodynamics at all with one that has them. We are talking about two well designed rally cars. I don't think I have to be GUY who depends on machinery to understand some very basic stuff.

[L5->R5/CR]

Agree except I would add that most older engineers are skeptical while most GUYS not depending on machines tend to be impresssed by "trick" or "bad" or "New" stuff and particularly shiney things they can point at that are easy to recognise.

And follow with me a bit and see what is limited by the rules and what is left free.
Wheels are not limited in diameter, but they are in width and tire is limiter to max 65cm so no way to have big advantage there.
On gravel, everybody uses 15" which limits brakes to about the same from one to the next.

34mm restrictor means the air into the turbo will chock up as the air goes supersonic and only so many cubic feet or meters of air will make it thru that miserable little hole so ALL engines are pointless to run past maybe 5500.

Bore, stroke and rod length are all over the place between Citra, Ford and Sub-a-rat and the Sub-a-rat motor is the clearly most compromised in terms of being able to make any component changes trying to make more torque---the pistons are already very short from center of pin to the top, and realistically can't go much shorter to accomodate much longer a rod--which would help cause its barely 130.6~~mm long rod now.
But between the Ford and Citroen the motors are close.
Fuel is fixed so one can't run much higher static compression than the other, and as compression is directly related to torque, the spec fuel means there can't be more torque from that way.

The biggest difference that is let open to design difference is body work and homologated add on stuff.
And as I said and is well know wind drag goes up as a "cubed product"
here's an example from a car was once a popular rally car: Opel Kadett E GSI 16v, a clean, slick car. I recall the figure from some German test that said it took only about 7.5ps for that car to cruise on level road at 62mph, or 2500rpm with the gas very light.
To make that same car go to 130mph take all the 150 ps the 16 v motor makes.
So all I'm saying is don't underestimate the potentially significant effect that aerodynamics can have, but who knows really, the answer might be in those homologation papers.



First of all, great post John (why don't you post on other forums with this clarity on a regular basis?)!

Not that I expect we will ever get over our differences but...

With the motors being fundamentally similiar in most of their construction, is it possible that by some form or function that some of the advantages of the C4 could be in power band allocation.

Arguably the greatest room for difference is in the aerodynamics as you pointed out. The virtual spectator stuff would support a potentially higher level of downforce for the Fords in the form of increased cornering speed from the increased grip. But given that the aerodynamic drag is an exponential function the anecdotal evidence would seems to indicate that the Fords have a significant disadvantage at lower speeds in terms of accelerating and can achieve similiar top speeds. If high amounts of drag with fixed power were combined for poor acceleration wouldn't that indicate a high amount of resistance that would seem logical to presume that would diminish top speed since there isn't more power available to counteract this increased drag? Also, should the Ford initially accelerate better from increased grip?

It seems that it is the accelerating capacity of the C4 that is at an advantage and that top speeds are similiar. Using aerodynamics to explain it with considerations for the fixed power output seems a limited explanation in my mind (obviously I am saying this with my technical limitations in mind and expect some degree of ridicule from you but...).

Isn't is more than likely simply a better combination of packaging by Citroen in terms of acceleration that includes gearing, powerband, and aero. Or is that simply a gross oversimiplication?

[Finni]

If it's so clear that there is no meaninfull engine differencies as Janvanurpa says I wonder why drivers are so utterly ignorable about it. See my references in last post.

It's said that Subaru's engine is inherently less effective because it's boxer engine.

I would also wonder why Märtin gave impression that Peugeot's engine was remarkably stronger than his previous Ford's engine.

[janvanvurpa]

If it's so clear that there is no meaninfull engine differencies as Janvanurpa says I wonder why drivers are so utterly ignorable about it. See my references in last post.

It's said that Subaru's engine is inherently less effective because it's boxer engine.

I would also wonder why Märtin gave impression that Peugeot's engine was remarkably stronger than his previous Ford's engine.

Finni, you're reading what I said wrong. I'm not stating there's no significant differences, I'm asking a question at the end of a "foundation", i it's a sorta "if this ........... then HOW can outputs be significantly different?"

If we believe the drivers, and no reason to doubt them, then we have a result which is Citroen is faster.
If we think of it as a math problem we have result on one side of the = and on the other we have some fixed terms (like the amount of air a 34mm restrictor will allow thru, and the compression ratio a motor can tolerate if it must use a specific fuel, the rate of opening a camshaft can do reliably) and some variables.

What I'm asking is which of the variables can give a dramatically better result on the = side?


I suggested that some of the answer might be in the Homologation form where details of EVERYTHING internal must be published.
And I suggested that some of you Finns ought to be able to find copies of the Homologation forms since there are so many Finns in the WRC, somebody has to know somebody.

I would like to have a hint myself, because i have to have the same 34mm restrictor as they have.

I build engines for rally by the way. Ford YB Cosworth and couple or 3 Mitsubishi and a couple of Subaru one of which won our Regional Rally Championship, and many years building Saab engines, some of which have won National Championship in our version of your GroupF.
That's why I'm curious as to details of why one motor is stronger, not the simple fact that it is.

[janvanvurpa]

First of all, great post John (why don't you post on other forums with this clarity on a regular basis?)!


Isn't is more than likely simply a better combination of packaging by Citroen in terms of acceleration that includes gearing, powerband, and aero. Or is that simply a gross oversimiplication?


I always write clearly.
I think you forget than in any dialog there are at least to places where misunderstanding can occur.
It's just as likely that the source of misunderstanding lies with the recipient who doesn't understand the concepts, or see parody and satire at work and therefore is confused, doesn't understand, and might just think the speaker is talking nonsense.

We ALL speak various languages and dialects, I don't write to SS.com or even RallyAnarchy.com as I would to say for example, another professional engine builder in Sweden for example, at least if I wanted to be understood clearly.

Re this thread, don't you think that Ford has a selection of gears and final; drives and ramp angles on the diffs?
They all do.

Again, one area fixed is the areodynamic package.
NOT SAYING it's the decisive thing, but its the one thing whichg has an exponential effect as speed rises, and it's at the 70-150 km/hr where most the work is done and the higher end where power is needed.

[jparker]

Well, after so much "I'm the engineer, so I know best, and the others are talking nonsense" I still don't understand why Citroen accelerates so much faster then Ford and has that dramatic burst of power on straits. If it is aerodynamics, then we should see speed gains at the end of straights, not immediately after exiting turns.
Question like "if it's the engine, where it gets that extra power from?" could be answered by very few people working for Citroen, but my guess is that they are not willing to do so.

[Gard]

No wonder why teams have problem finding good engineers if all are so narrow minded. It's many factors from getting energi out of the fuel to the tranny. You haven't even mentioned one of the big problem areas for a turbo/ALS engine... heat

[janvanvurpa]

Well, after so much "I'm the engineer, so I know best, and the others are talking nonsense" I still don't understand why Citroen accelerates so much faster then Ford and has that dramatic burst of power on straits.

Who's saying "I'm an engineer" much less "I know best"??

And I didn't say or imply that anybody else was talking nonsense---so don't twist words or put words in my mouth, OK?

I posed questions, that's what the "?" sign indicates.

I have no idea what you, or Finni does for a living but I work building rally motors, gearboxes, suspension etc all day and have for a long time, and I have to sometimes work within rules---that's why I'm trying to lay out what's mandated, and what is free----and then pose a question.


But I build stuff and manufacture parts, and I'm no engineer, indeed I find 99% of engineers extremely annoying to be around cause they're off in fantasy land saying crap like "Ideally....." and "Theoretically........" when simple answers will do. So don't call me an "engineer", I'll take it as a personal attack and report you to the Moderators. (You can call me a bas***d, and i won't take as much offense)

This is primarily a Fan-forum and from many MANY postings here its clear many people really have no idea of what the rules allow and dis-allow so I thought it made some sense to state them, or some of them, otherwise all the talk is just idle speculation, or chat which is fine I guess, but you probably won't figure out much just chatting.



If it is aerodynamics, then we should see speed gains at the end of straights, not immediately after exiting turns.
Question like "if it's the engine, where it gets that extra power from?" could be answered by very few people working for Citroen, but my guess is that they are not willing to do so.

Good guess. But as I said, a bit of time looking thru their Homologation papers might say a bit, every part has to be listed, and have dimensions and photos
and a lot can be learned doing comparisons from one car's spec to the other.
Too bad Homologation papers are so expensive to get copies of.


By the way I think you misunderstood what I said about your comment "most engineers are trained to be skeptics..."
I was agreeing but saying that especially young engineers, like many younger guys, are fascinated by fancy, shiney, or "trick" things, they geeks or "tech-nerds" and often in the course of their own discovery of things, which when they discover it they often think its a new concept, they often think this thing or that is the secret of happiness.
That's why I said "some older engineers", and by implication, guys who depend on machines, they usually are not fascinated by new, shiny faddish things and want to stick with solid proven parts, specs, and processes.
And they get very specific where they want their knowledge to come from.

We've seen several once successful teams sink when they have brought n "talent" from circuit racing for example.

[janvanvurpa]

No wonder why teams have problem finding good engineers if all are so narrow minded. It's many factors from getting energi out of the fuel to the tranny. You haven't even mentioned one of the big problem areas for a turbo/ALS engine... heat

I thought the subject was "Fords Straight line speed or HOW (not is) is the Citroen faster"

Maybe you could tell us how the problem of heat relates to straight line speed, and why Ford is slower.

(och hoppas det är inte nån Norsk-historia om du vet vad jag menar)

(Och kanske förklara hur det är småsynt att försöka fråga detaljerad frågor i stället för rent småpratt?)

[jparker]

........So don't call me an "engineer", I'll take it as a personal attack and report you to the Moderators. (You can call me a bas***d, and i won't take as much offense)


Sorry John, didn't know that. No intentional personal attack, just misunderstanding.

[Zico]

Interesting posts Janvanvurpa though I feel us going round in circles.

What I would like to know is... How much of an adavantage would the C4's extra gear be? To me it means improved acceleration at the expense of some drivability which might just happen to suit or explain Loebs style?

[grugsticles]

Is the Ford still using a 5 speed gearbox?

If that could that not be the source of the problem?

Ie. if you have 5 gears to cover the range of speeds you intend to travel at then you would need to use a greater RPM range too.
Fords gearing could be that tier acceleration is fine up to say 150km/h (or whatever) and then the influience of the 34mm intake restrictor comes into play as the engine is required to use higher RPM and as such needs more air which it cant get so the top end horse power suffers.

Could it be as simple as that?

Or could it even be that Citroen have done a Toyota and come up with some form of intake bypass or something?

[Gard]

I thought the subject was "Fords Straight line speed or HOW (not is) is the Citroen faster"

Maybe you could tell us how the problem of heat relates to straight line speed, and why Ford is slower.

(och hoppas det är inte nån Norsk-historia om du vet vad jag menar)

(Och kanske förklara hur det är småsynt att försöka fråga detaljerad frågor i stället för rent småpratt?)

My post wasn't only a answer to your posting, but a general annoyance over that (to) many engineers doesn't manage to think enough "out of the box".

Your post was rather blatant and only focused on the limitations and wasn't dealing with all the factors that actually can make a difference. Heat was only one of the factors that came to mind. And surely handling of heat will affect most sides of getting more power out of an engine. Restricted or not.

Often when dealing with engineers or (other) teoretically educated persons. You get the feeling that the world only exists of things they already know. Luckily there is a lot of exceptions or we wouldn't have development at all.

So the answer to why Ford is slower is... they just have more narrow minded engineers than Citroen ;)

[Finni]

Timo Rautiainen wrote before rally of Sardinia:

"You know what? I am also worried about their performance. We are trying our maximum to find out those crucial fine tunings mainly in the differentials setup. We know that Citroen exits the corners more straigth and accelerates faster on loose surface."

It's interesting to see in Finland how it turns out. Timo's comment was said before Greece and Sardinia and it might be that Ford has done tiny steps with corner exiting. But it's likewise possible that Greece and Sardinia were good for Ford because engine power is less crucial in these rallies. Finland will show much.

[White Sauron]

Timo Rautiainen wrote before rally of Sardinia:

"You know what? I am also worried about their performance. We are trying our maximum to find out those crucial fine tunings mainly in the differentials setup. We know that Citroen exits the corners more straigth and accelerates faster on loose surface."

It's interesting to see in Finland how it turns out. Timo's comment was said before Greece and Sardinia and it might be that Ford has done tiny steps with corner exiting. But it's likewise possible that Greece and Sardinia were good for Ford because engine power is less crucial in these rallies. Finland will show much.

The new Evo of the Focus will have an upgraded engine.

[Finni]

Interesting comment from Wilson about new evo 2:

"I know Sebastien is looking forward to the Tarmac rallies, but we've got an evolution coming and it might not be plain sailing for him," Wilson explained. "I don't want to divulge details about the new car, Sébastien would get so depressed."

[White Sauron]

Interesting comment from Wilson about new evo 2:

"I know Sebastien is looking forward to the Tarmac rallies, but we've got an evolution coming and it might not be plain sailing for him," Wilson explained. "I don't want to divulge details about the new car, Sébastien would get so depressed."

Marcus to finnish channel after the rally:

"Loeb hasn't taken Rally Finland' victory to his name yet. And I promise he won't take it, at least as long as I am driving"

he also told that new Evo won't make a revolution in speed, but will help to lead till the end of the season.

[Priorat]

. But it's likewise possible that Greece and Sardinia were good for Ford because engine power is less crucial in these rallies. Finland will show much.

Sardinia was good for Ford because the faster Citroën went off the road

[jparker]

The new Evo of the Focus will have an upgraded engine.

I don't know your source of information, but I wouldn't pay much attention to it. In general good teams don't talk, they just do. For the last 2 years Peter is trying to convince us that Subaru is getting better, but no results yet. I'm not saying it's not true, in fact it's logical for Ford to improve its engine, but before we see it it's better to keep quite.

[jparker]

Marcus to finnish channel after the rally:

"Loeb hasn't taken Rally Finland' victory to his name yet. And I promise he won't take it, at least as long as I am driving"

he also told that new Evo won't make a revolution in speed, but will help to lead till the end of the season.

What's the big deal if Loeb wins Finland, is that going to change anything? I don't get it. This statement is not cool, but I guess Marcus just wants to please its compatriots back home. He very well knows that Seb is capable of winning in Finland, in fact he was very close last year. And what "as long as I am driving" means? Just rally Finland, or in general? If first one, yes that make sence, because how do you stop Loeb if you retire in the first SS? If second, well that's a chilidish statemnt.

[bowler]

What's the big deal if Loeb wins Finland, is that going to change anything? I don't get it. This statement is not cool, but I guess Marcus just wants to please its compatriots back home. He very well knows that Seb is capable of winning in Finland, in fact he was very close last year. And what "as long as I am driving" means? Just rally Finland, or in general? If first one, yes that make sence, because how do you stop Loeb if you retire in the first SS? If second, well that's a chilidish statemnt.

rally finland has long been the domain of the scandinavians, and finns in particular. They don't want anyone else to win it as a matter of pride.

You would understand if you were a finn.

Only Sainz and Auriol have won from the "Outside" (Martin is close enough to be a scandinavian)

1951 Karlsson Arvo - Mattila Vilho, Austin Atlantic
1952 Elo Eino - Nuortila Kai, Peugeot 203
1953 Hietanen Vilho - Hixén Olof, Allard
1954 Kalpala Osmo - Kalpala Eino, Dyna Panhard
1955 Elo Eino - Nuortila Kai, Peugeot 403
1956 Kalpala Osmo - Kalpala Eino, DKW Donau
1957 Carlsson Erik - Pavoni Mario, Saab 93
1958 Kalpala Osmo - Kalpala Eino, Alfa Romeo
1959 Callbo Gunnar - Nurmimaa Väinö, Volvo PV 544
1960 Bremer Carl-Otto - Lampi Juhani, Saab 96
1961 Aaltonen Rauno - Nurmimaa Väinö, Mercedes-Benz
1962 Toivonen Pauli - Kallio Jaakko, Citroën DS 19
1963 Lampinen Simo - Ahava Jyrki, Saab 96 Sport
1964 Lampinen Simo - Ahava Jyrki, Saab 96 Sport
1965 Mäkinen Timo - Keskitalo Pekka, BMC Cooper S
1966 Mäkinen Timo - Keskitalo Pekka, Morris Cooper
1967 Mäkinen Timo - Keskitalo Pekka, BMC Cooper S
1968 Mikkola Hannu - Järvi Anssi, Ford Escort TC
1969 Mikkola Hannu - Järvi Anssi, Ford Escort TC
1970 Mikkola Hannu - Palm Gunnar, Ford Escort TC
1971 Blomqvist Stig - Hertz Arne, Saab 96 V4
1972 Lampinen Simo - Sohlberg Klaus, Saab 96 V4
1973 Mäkinen Timo - Liddon Henry, Ford Escort RS
1974 Mikkola Hannu - Davenport John, Ford Escort RS
1975 Mikkola Hannu - Aho Atso, Toyota Levin
1976 Alén Markku - Kivimäki Ilkka, Fiat 131 Mirafiori
1977 Hämäläinen Kyösti - Tiukkanen Martti, Ford Escort RS
1978 Alén Markku - Kivimäki Ilkka, Fiat 131 Abarth
1979 Alén Markku KivimäkI Ilkka, Fiat 131 Mirafiori
1980 Alén Markku - Kivimäki Ilkka, Fiat 131 Mirafiori
1981 Vatanen Ari - Richards David, Ford Escort RS
1982 Mikkola Hannu - Hertz Arne, Audi Quattro
1983 Mikkola Hannu - Hertz Arne, Audi Quattro
1984 Vatanen Ari - Harryman Terry, Peugeot 205
1985 Salonen Timo - Harjanne Seppo, Peugeot 205 Turbo
1986 Salonen Timo - Harjanne Seppo, Peugeot 205 Turbo
1987 Alén Markku - Kivimäki Ilkka, Lancia Delta
1988 Alén Markku - Kivimäki Ilkka, Lancia Delta
1989 Ericsson Mikael - Billstam Claes, Mitsubishi Galant
1990 Sainz Carlos - Moya Luis, Toyota Celica
1991 Kankkunen Juha - Piironen Juha, Lancia Delta HF Integrale
1992 Auriol Didier - Occelli Bernard, Lancia Delta HF Integrale
1993 Kankkunen Juha - Giraudet Denis, Toyota Celica Turbo 4WD
1994 Mäkinen Tommi - Harjanne Seppo, Ford Escort RS Cosworth
1995 Mäkinen Tommi - Harjanne Seppo, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
1996 Mäkinen Tommi - Harjanne Seppo, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
1997 Mäkinen Tommi - Harjanne Seppo, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
1998 Mäkinen Tommi - Mannisenmäki Risto, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
1999 Kankkunen Juha - Repo Juha, Subaru Impreza WRC 99
2000 Grönholm Marcus - Rautiainen Timo, Peugeot 206 WRC
2001 Grönholm Marcus - Rautiainen Timo, Peugeot 206 WRC
2002 Grönholm Marcus - Rautiainen Timo, Peugeot 206 WRC
2003 Märtin Markko - Park Michael, Ford Focus WRC 03
2004 Grönholm Marcus - Rautiainen Timo, Peugeot 307 WRC
2005 Grönholm Marcus - Rautiainen Timo, Peugeot 307 WRC
2006 Grönholm Marcus - Rautiainen Timo, Ford Focus RS WRC 06

[janneppi]

rally finland has long been the domain of the scandinavians, and finns in particular. They don't want anyone else to win it as a matter of pride.

You would understand if you were a finn.

Only Sainz and Auriol have won from the "Outside" (Martin is close enough to be a scandinavian)



Finns aren't Scandinavians, neither are Estonians. ;)

[bowler]

I understand that, but the definition was widened after some swedes and an estonian won. Prior to that it was a Finn only event.

[Finni]

Sardinia was good for Ford because the faster Citroën went off the road

Marcus had similar pace-level with Seb apart from stages where he had problems.

[FrankenSchwinn]

What's the big deal if Loeb wins Finland, is that going to change anything? I don't get it. This statement is not cool, but I guess Marcus just wants to please its compatriots back home. He very well knows that Seb is capable of winning in Finland, in fact he was very close last year. And what "as long as I am driving" means? Just rally Finland, or in general? If first one, yes that make sence, because how do you stop Loeb if you retire in the first SS? If second, well that's a chilidish statemnt.

you're joking right?

[jparker]

No, I'm not joking. If both Seb and Marcus have clear run in Finland (assuming Ford keeps the same speed), Marcus can't do much about stoping Loeb. As Finni said Finland is not Sardegna or Greece.

[Zico]

No, I'm not joking. If both Seb and Marcus have clear run in Finland (assuming Ford keeps the same speed), Marcus can't do much about stoping Loeb. As Finni said Finland is not Sardegna or Greece.


Providing he doesnt encounter any mechanical problems I expect Marcus to dominate and believe he will win. Re- your comment on non-scandinavians winning and "childish statement" from Marcus.. Im truely bamboozled! You should look at the rallies history, Its a pride thing.

I dont understand your way of thinking or what you are trying to say..

[White Sauron]

Yes... I don't understand jparker neither...

Well, the reason I translated this Marcus' comment was to show how he's now determined to win the title. And he knows the victory in Finland will mean much not only in terms of points but also from psychological side... he wants make Loeb down... He now knows (after Sardinia) which result it can give!

[jparker]

Providing he doesnt encounter any mechanical problems I expect Marcus to dominate and believe he will win. Re- your comment on non-scandinavians winning and "childish statement" from Marcus.. Im truely bamboozled! You should look at the rallies history, Its a pride thing.

I dont understand your way of thinking or what you are trying to say..

:) Yes but there is nothing like "encounter any mechanical problems" in his statement. That's what I don't like about his words. Anyway, that's not much of importance. Loeb has faster car, Marcus is best in Finland and that makes them even. So enything is possible and I can't rush and say Marcus is favorite to win.

[jparker]

Yes... I don't understand jparker neither...

Well, the reason I translated this Marcus' comment was to show how he's now determined to win the title. And he knows the victory in Finland will mean much not only in terms of points but also from psychological side... he wants make Loeb down... He now knows (after Sardinia) which result it can give!

I guess that's the case, psychological warfare. But if he's so confident, why does he need it? Anyway, we'll see.

[Zico]

I just think he must be very confident on how both he and the Focus evolution are going to perform in Finland... nothing wrong with that.

[A.F.F.]

No, I'm not joking. If both Seb and Marcus have clear run in Finland (assuming Ford keeps the same speed), Marcus can't do much about stoping Loeb. As Finni said Finland is not Sardegna or Greece.


:laugh:

[jparker]

:laugh:

What's so funny about it? I don't get it?
Do I need to post the times (before the rock on the road) from last year?
Well, Seb wasn't dominating, but he was very close.

[A.F.F.]

You don't need to post the times as I was there last year. mentioning that, I guess you need to be there too to understand what it's so funny about your comment.

Like all rallyes in the calendar, Finland is a special one. Pure speed just won't be enough. Sebastien may be faster than Marcus but in the end it doesn't mean a jack because the experience is what counts in Finland. Sebastien will continually loose those valuable tenth of seconds simply because he won't be able to push the last of it because he has to count on notes only.

But, in Finland, tenth of a second is a light year. That's what funny too.

[jparker]

OK, fare enough. Not that my post was otherwise (I mentioned experience of Marcus vs. better car), but if you think experience is more important, then fine, we will see.

[White Sauron]

Why Citroen is the better car?Well, looking at the championship stadings, Ford is better. And by the way, it's only 06 version, but for Finland there comes Evo2 ;) Which promises to be even quicer, more stable and reliable.

[jparker]

Why Citroen is the better car?Well, looking at the championship stadings, Ford is better. And by the way, it's only 06 version, but for Finland there comes Evo2 ;) Which promises to be even quicer, more stable and reliable.

You didn't read all my posts. My prediction was based on the assumption that in Finland Ford will keep its current speed. I'm very sceptical about the new Evo2, but if they do improve the car (especially engine power) then yes, Marcus will be the favorite to win.
Why is Citroen better then Ford? I guess you haven't noticed the name of this thread.

[White Sauron]

Why is Citroen better then Ford? I guess you haven't noticed the name of this thread.


it's rallying, not circuit- or drag-racing. Rally isn't made only of straights.

[Zico]

You didn't read all my posts. My prediction was based on the assumption that in Finland Ford will keep its current speed. I'm very sceptical about the new Evo2, but if they do improve the car (especially engine power) then yes, Marcus will be the favorite to win.
Why is Citroen better then Ford? I guess you haven't noticed the name of this thread.

The 07 is obviously gonna be better/quicker than the 06, otherwise why bother?

You shouldn't make predictions based on asumptions because it then has little/no value nor any point. The Citroen WAS better on SOME rallies than the Ford, specifically in events where the straightline speed advantage could feature more, this evolution should even things out somewhat. I expect Seb still to be dominant on tarmac though.

[jparker]

The 07 is obviously gonna be better/quicker than the 06, otherwise why bother?

You shouldn't make predictions based on asumptions because it then has little/no value nor any point. The Citroen WAS better on SOME rallies than the Ford, specifically in events where the straightline speed advantage could feature more, this evolution should even things out somewhat. I expect Seb still to be dominant on tarmac though.

Well, I think there is value to do this assumptions. Why? Sorry that I have to repeat myself, but the notorious Loeb/Solberg drag test dates back 3 years ago, so it's not something new. So, if Ford hasn't been able to improve since then, what makes you think the new Evo2 will? Did the new Subaru evolution change anything? Not much.

[Finni]

Well, I think there is value to do this assumptions. Why? Sorry that I have to repeat myself, but the notorious Loeb/Solberg drag test dates back 3 years ago, so it's not something new. So, if Ford hasn't been able to improve since then, what makes you think the new Evo2 will? Did the new Subaru evolution change anything? Not much.

It might be that Argentina and Mexico highlited the engine difference more than anything due to high altitudes. I still agree with you as to rally of Finland. It will not be as easy to Grönholm as Greece, I suspect. It will be fierce battle. It depends how good the Ford's evolution is. Wilson's comments could hint that it's really good, but we have to see.

[Priorat]

When Seb has spoken about the C4 and the main differences to the Xsara he always talk about better stability and more conffidence at high speeds. Is like Citroën developed the C4 with the win in Finland in the back of his mind. For sure NORF is the one they want to win.

[A.F.F.]

When Seb has spoken about the C4 and the main differences to the Xsara he always talk about better stability and more conffidence at high speeds. Is like Citroën developed the C4 with the win in Finland in the back of his mind. For sure NORF is the one they want to win.

Yep, the ultimate humiliation for Ford and Marcus.

[Priorat]

But if he wins could be the graetest win in Finland. (Altough taking the win with the 307 was quite an achievement too)

[White Sauron]

I wonder if Stobart will to get the 07 version in Finland...

[DonJippo]

I wonder if Stobart will to get the 07 version in Finland...

No.

[Dingardo]

What Don said..


M2 teams cannot run the current years model.. so last year when Stobart ran the 06 model in Japan etc they were actually using the specification from Australia 05, while the M1 team were running in the latest specification.

This year however Stobart can use last years spec that the M1 team were running cause it is last years model. So even though the M1 team were still using it, Stobart could also use it.

[Glee]

What are the pros and cons of Stobart running as an M1 team instead of a M2 team?

The Pros of M2 is that you don’t have to contest all rounds and you can change your 1st. driver. Stobart has however a minimum of 2 cars in every race and a fixed driver in all races (Henning Solberg), so in theory Stobart could run as an M1 team.

Does a M1 team have to run the latest spec, or can they run their own homoglation? And are there different entry fees?

[White Sauron]

a fixed driver in all races (Henning Solberg).



As far as I know, their firxed (nominated leader for points) driver is Latvala, as youc an see from his driving number - 9. Henning is driving under number 10 - as a second driver...

[Gard]

As far as I know, their firxed (nominated leader for points) driver is Latvala, as youc an see from his driving number - 9. Henning is driving under number 10 - as a second driver...

Henning got to pick the number, he wanted #10 rather than #9.

[White Sauron]

Henning got to pick the number, he wanted #10 rather than #9.

Wow, didn't know this... Thanks! But strange to hear... I supposed drivers like odd numbers more...

[Fischer]

Wow, didn't know this... Thanks! But strange to hear... I supposed drivers like odd numbers more...

Depends on what you call an 'odd' number.

[Glee]

As far as I know, their firxed (nominated leader for points) driver is Latvala, as youc an see from his driving number - 9. Henning is driving under number 10 - as a second driver...

Whatever.
Does Latvala drive all rounds?

What I was referring to was that they had at least one driver who is driving all rounds.

[White Sauron]

Whatever.
Does Latvala drive all rounds?

What I was referring to was that they had at least one driver who is driving all rounds.

Yes, Latvala drives all rounds

[Roy]

What is this about?

What is Manufacturer Team (MT).*
MT do at least 10 rounds with 2 cars and pay not €225.000 (what a Manufacturer pays) entry fees, but €30.000. A Manufacturer Team cannot enter a WRCar homologated during the year 2007 and cannot use parts homologated after 2 January 2007.

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/529461093__WRC_Constr.pdf
(2.3.1)

Stobart drives more than 10 rallies with 2 cars and pays like a MT. So they are a MT.

I don't know where you heard Solberg has skip #9 and want #10, but you come from Norway and I do a guess....
About the Focus 07. Stobart can't drive the 07, because the homologation is during this year. Last year was Stobart turned to 06. It was possible because the car was homologated before January 2006.

*= M1 doesn't exist this year. Is this year it calls Manufacturer, M2 is this year MT.

[Glee]

Ok. So by paying 225'€ instead of 30'€ Stobart could run like a "Manufacturer" and use the 07 Focus.

The problem then would rather bee that after the homologation of the '07 Focus they could no longer use the '06 Focus?

[Roy]

Ok. So by paying 225'€ instead of 30'€ Stobart could run like a "Manufacturer" and use the 07 Focus.

The problem then would rather bee that after the homologation of the '07 Focus they could no longer use the '06 Focus?

Stobart can't be an manufacturer because Ford is the Manufacturer. A team who is not a factory team is always a MT. (like OMV Peugeot Norway in 2006) After the homologation of 07. Ford(BP) used 07, Stobart and Munchi's used still the 06. Because they can't used the new one.

That is no problem. It is very clear. Manufacturer can used new homologation DURING the year. MT can used old homologation. Only homologation BEFORE the year (2007).

[Glee]

Stobart can't be an manufacturer because Ford is the Manufacturer. [...].

Why can’t Stobart run as Ford Stobart when you got Citroen Total?

When the tree car rule was ended, it was said (don’t remember by who) that if a manufacturer wanted more cars, they could run two teams.
So I think there are no obstructions for Stobart to run as a manufacturer (if the rules hasn’t been changed).

But would there bee any advantage to run as a manufacturer instead of a MT team?

[Roy]

Do we must explain the WRC here?
What is hard to understand what is the difference between BP-Ford and Stobart-Ford? Between Manufacturer and Manufactuer team?

Check: te link above and these http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/rallyregs.html
Read this site: http://www.stobartmotorsport.com/wrc_index.asp about Stobart Ford.
And maybe this helps also (look at the name of the team)
http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/WRC/WRC_Season_Guide/2007.html

Stobart can't be a Manufactuer, because Ford (the factory) support BP-Ford.

[Glee]

[...]
Stobart can't be a Manufactuer, because Ford (the factory) support BP-Ford.

Look at “FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers“ - http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/529461093__WRC_Constr.pdf
Difference inn FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers / Manufacturer Team specific conditions for the participation are as follows:

a) Different time and procedures of application to compete
b) 250.000€ entry fee / 30.000€ entry fee
c) Must / may include the name of the car manufacturer
d) Must use the latest homologation / cannot use this years homologation
e) Fixed car no. 1 driver / can change all drivers
f) Must compete all rallies / must compete a minimum of 10 rallies

I can’t see that there is any limit in the number of teams a car manufacturer can enter.

[Roy]

There is 1 Ford factory team
Manufactuer for factory teams. MT for second or private teams.

Why should Stobart pay more enry fee if they can enter as MT???
That is stupid!

This is my last reply about this.

[Koz]

Why can’t Stobart run as Ford Stobart when you got Citroen Total?

When the tree car rule was ended, it was said (don’t remember by who) that if a manufacturer wanted more cars, they could run two teams.
So I think there are no obstructions for Stobart to run as a manufacturer (if the rules hasn’t been changed).

But would there bee any advantage to run as a manufacturer instead of a MT team?
I think teams may run as many cars as they wish. But only two of the nominated cars may score points.

[Gard]

There is 1 Ford factory team
Manufactuer for factory teams. MT for second or private teams.

Why should Stobart pay more enry fee if they can enter as MT???
That is stupid!

This is my last reply about this.

To get the latest spec cars

[Zico]

Well, there we have it, 1,2,4 for Ford, result reminded me of this old thread.
It looks as tho the 07 evo is the better gravel car judging from the fact that Miko was also able to beat Sebastien. Would that be a fair assumption?

[gloomyDAY]

Well, there we have it, 1,2,4 for Ford, result reminded me of this old thread.
It looks as tho the 07 evo is the better gravel car judging from the fact that Miko was also able to beat Sebastien. Would that be a fair assumption?I would hold off on that opinion until the next few rallies, especially since we are about to enter tarmac events (a.k.a. Loeb's comeback)! I like the way you're thinking but it's a bit premature.

[janneppi]

In Finnish tv yesterday Grönholm actually said that the car now has higher top speeds now due to better aerodynamics. :p :

[Finni]

In Finnish tv yesterday Grönholm actually said that the car now has higher top speeds now due to better aerodynamics. :p :

There is also more torque in the engine. It would be nice to see now how it compares to C4 in virtual spectator. This thread was first and foremost about acceleration not top speed (though those two things correlates in some extent).

[janneppi]

There is also more torque in the engine. It would be nice to see now how it compares to C4 in virtual spectator. This thread was first and foremost about acceleration not top speed (though those two things correlates in some extent).
Well, the thread was first about straight line speed, not acceleration, i should know. ;)

[Finni]

Well, the thread was first about straight line speed, not acceleration, i should know. ;)

OK ;) my comments were first and foremost about accelration. :)