S2000 & Group N, The future of rallying?

[SubaruNorway]

According to swedish media FIA has anounced on friday that S2000 and group N will take over from 2011, what tuning measures that will be aplied on the S2000 will be concluded on the next meeting in march, it's not expected to include using a turbocharger :(

http://www.bilsportborsen.se/news.php?id=1586

Christian Loriaux sertanly don't think so do you?
http://www.crash.net/radioplayer/radioplayer.asp?radioURL=4043.wma

Suzuki must be pretty mad wasting all that money on a car worthless in a few years.

[Helstar]

Suzuki ? Come on, 2008-2009-2010 ... 3 (!) complete years and you say they are wasting something :)

Anyway S2000 seems good, nice sound, and probably nice speed in a couple of years ...

[Mirek]

SUBARUNORWAY1: How much trustable is that server?

[SubaruNorway]

Suzuki ? Come on, 2008-2009-2010 ... 3 (!) complete years and you say they are wasting something :)

Anyway S2000 seems good, nice sound, and probably nice speed in a couple of years ...

Well it depends on how good they use those three years, S2000 was a dead end from the start, were did the cheap car go?

[SubaruNorway]

]SUBARUNORWAY1: How much trustable is that server?

The source is Martin Holmes so i don't think it gets more trustable than that, but can't find it anywere else though.

[PLuto]

According to swedish media FIA has anounced on friday that S2000 and group N will take over from 2011, what tuning measures that will be aplied on the S2000 will be concluded on the next meeting in march, it's not expected to include using a turbocharger :(



This isnt new. FIA is talking about this date last two years...

[Helstar]

Well it depends on how good they use those three years, S2000 was a dead end from the start, were did the cheap car go?
At least they are cheaper than WRC don't you think ;) ? Plus many other manu could enter WRC because they won't be so behind like now (look at Suzuki...). Opposite, they are probably ahead ! Think about FIAT, Peugeot, VW-Skoda, MG, etc.

[SubaruNorway]

This isnt new. FIA is talking about this date last two years...

No but it's confirmed

[SubaruNorway]

At least they are cheaper than WRC don't you think ;) ? Plus many other manu could enter WRC because they won't be so behind like now (look at Suzuki...). Opposite, they are probably ahead ! Think about FIAT, Peugeot, VW-Skoda, MG, etc.

Some great cars there, ya right :dozey:

[L5->R5/CR]

I'll bet the FIA changes their minds 4 or 5 more times....

[BDunnell]

S2000 I can understand. It offers a chance to get back to something approaching basic Group A regs, thus allowing a wide variety of cars to be competitive. But Group N? Who on earth thinks that Group N cars make exciting, or even mildly interesting, viewing?

[Helstar]

Some great cars there, ya right :dozey:
Punto S2000 rules (I love that sound too !) :p
Also the Pug S2000 is a great car, funny to watch already now. Think about next years... when the speed bar will be raised.

It would be bad if Ford Citroen Subaru Suzuki won't develop a S2000 and quit. Then the change is not good. But all of these 4 plus the new manus, more cars, better :p
Gr. N sucks I must agree.

[Tom206wrc]

Suzuki ? Come on, 2008-2009-2010 ... 3 (!) complete years and you say they are wasting something :)

Anyway S2000 seems good, nice sound, and probably nice speed in a couple of years ...




And that allows FIAT to enter WRC world without developping a current spec. WRC car !! :p :

[Wim_Impreza]

S2000 sucks really hard...

[Corny]

S2000 sucks really hard...

Been to Condroz 06 and 07? 2007 was far better!

[HaCo]

I love S2000, just hope they find a way to give a bit more torque, cause that would make them even better!

@Corny: been to both, have to say: both were good. But 2006 was a dream which is almost impossible to remake in Belgium...

[Finni]

So we have few years time to experience the majestity and brutal performance of wrc-cars. I suspect that I will not go to spectate for group N likes cars.

[HaCo]

Makes me think of '87... From Gr B to Gr A. Well, it wasn't that bad!

[Tomi]

Makes me think of '87... From Gr B to Gr A. Well, it wasn't that bad!
Really, I would say it was quite bad, took long time for me to get used to group A, but the good thing now is that the teams has time to adapt.

[MJW]

Why cant we have 2.5L N/A engines and 4 WD (like Andy Burton's home built Peugeot in UK) for those that dont know this car look hear http://www.peugeot-cosworth.co.uk/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkasV_YVvTQ

[Sulland]

Why cant we have 2.5L N/A engines and 4 WD (like Andy Burton's home built Peugeot in UK) for those that dont know this car look hear http://www.peugeot-cosworth.co.uk/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkasV_YVvTQ

Same concept as Colin McRae's project as well !

Not a bad idea the old champ had ??

[HaCo]

The cars of Trophee Andros sound cool too! :D

[Sulland]

Makes me think of '87... From Gr B to Gr A. Well, it wasn't that bad!


My point exactly, and if it changed for 09, we would have forgotten WRC by 2010 !

But the 168 000 € limit should be for a complete car for both gravel and asfalt, and not just one.

[SubaruNorway]

Makes me think of '87... From Gr B to Gr A. Well, it wasn't that bad!

Ok but you can't keep saying that forever, come on the S2000 can't even do a donut on tarmac. The wrc is already underpowered on tarmac.

[Donney]

I think the S2000 is a good idea, which havingsome time to evolve and develop will make for great cars and rallyes. I don't expect it to be the best from the word go, but it appeals to me.

[Langdale Forest]

Instead of having the WRC as S2000/Group N only, the WRC cars should be made more simple, like the original WRC cars by having no paddleshift for example.
That would make it cheaper.

[MJW]

I dont know about posting links here, especially as the publication is a UK newspaper but there is a very interesting "final interview" with Colin McRae in the Christmas Motorsport News. In it Colin gives the lowdown on what he feels about wrc cars - rewarding to drive but boring, how much money making and politics there is now in wrc, how technology is adding to the costs, the same routine for every round. Very interesting read! This is what prompted my post above about 2.5L normally aspirated engines, McRae said costs would be slashed as the engines would be powerfull enough without the need for expensive turbos' intercoolers, water injection sprays, a host of highly qualified laptop engineers to study terrabites of data etc, and mechanical gearboxes. He may have had a vested interest but CMcRae said then we will see who can drive.

[MJW]

Oh and he said they would sound right, McRae also said a JWRC S1600 is more exiciting to watch than a WRC car.

[Brother John]

I dont know about posting links here, especially as the publication is a UK newspaper but there is a very interesting "final interview" with Colin McRae in the Christmas Motorsport News. In it Colin gives the lowdown on what he feels about wrc cars - rewarding to drive but boring, how much money making and politics there is now in wrc, how technology is adding to the costs, the same routine for every round. Very interesting read! This is what prompted my post above about 2.5L normally aspirated engines, McRae said costs would be slashed as the engines would be powerfull enough without the need for expensive turbos' intercoolers, water injection sprays, a host of highly qualified laptop engineers to study terrabites of data etc, and mechanical gearboxes. He may have had a vested interest but CMcRae said then we will see who can drive.

He (Collin) know what he was talking about. :up:
Why do the F.I.A. need so much time to get what rally realy is? At last they see that the WRC Cars are too expensive and too fast! Why they wait soo long?

[SubaruNorway]

Oh and he said they would sound right, McRae also said a JWRC S1600 is more exiciting to watch than a WRC car.

Don't belive you before you post the link

[RS]

S2000 plus turbo would be nice. S2000 cars slide more and look more agile than a WRCar, especially on gravel, and a turbo would give it a bit more kick out of slow tarmac corners.

1.6 turbo maybe the way to go?

As long as they ban the Focus WRCs special suspension. Yawwwwnnnn.

[MJW]

Don't belive you before you post the link
Dont know how to post as it is printed in a newspaper not in electronic media - short of scanning the page and posting I dont know, but I think he meant from a sound perspective. The exact words he used were "When you see a Super1600 car you would believe it was going quicker than the World Rally Car just because it sounds right". about the WRC cars he said "I think the WRC cars are brilliant to drive. They work so well and are so responsive and react to your input so well, but watching them they are boring and they look so slow". He also goes on to say that he was once standing next to Fabrizia Pons on one tarmac stage (of a wrc rally) and he asked her if something has happened as he thought they were driving the stage as a road section!

[Brother John]

S2000 plus turbo would be nice. S2000 cars slide more and look more agile than a WRCar, especially on gravel, and a turbo would give it a bit more kick out of slow tarmac corners.

1.6 turbo maybe the way to go?

As long as they ban the Focus WRCs special suspension. Yawwwwnnnn.

Reed all post, than you see that S2000+Turbo is not posible!!!!! :!:
They have to change almost everything on the current S2000 cars!!!!http://paradise.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/spanner.gif

[SubaruNorway]

The only car that sounds lame these days is the Focus, almost so quite it's dangarous.

But i don't think we are going to see stuff like this by the S2000. Has anyone ever seen a S2000 jump by the way? without the rear wing and dampers there's no way we are going to se 50m jumps anymore.
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/46bbf5dc-fd17-45ba-b9a9-99fa00cfd828.htm

[Brother John]

The only car that sounds lame these days is the Focus, almost so quite it's dangarous.

But i don't think we are going to see stuff like this by the S2000. Has anyone ever seen a S2000 jump by the way?
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/46bbf5dc-fd17-45ba-b9a9-99fa00cfd828.htm
S2000 cars have been made for national championships!!!! Take group N + less technical wrc cars with 2500cc and maybe also still the GT`s!
Driving art is rally, Hi technique is for F1!

[SubaruNorway]

S2000 plus turbo would be nice. S2000 cars slide more and look more agile than a WRCar, especially on gravel, and a turbo would give it a bit more kick out of slow tarmac corners.

1.6 turbo maybe the way to go?

As long as they ban the Focus WRCs special suspension. Yawwwwnnnn.

You can read the whole interview here http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/158292-0/qa_christian_loriaux_ford_-_exclusive.html

"It is good to have change and it is time for a change to try and attract people. Now I think we should make the minimum modifications to World Rally Cars. Some manufacturers' have just committed to making a World Rally Car, like Suzuki, and they are just coming into the sport and now they are being told maybe they are going to have to scrap their car."

Do they use that suspension anymore though? nothing special realy they just moved the mounting of the rollbar electricaly to lower ore raise the ridehight.

[RS]

Reed all post, than you see that S2000+Turbo is not posible!!!!! :!:
They have to change almost everything on the current S2000 cars!!!!http://paradise.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/spanner.gif


I heard the interview with Loriaux. He has a point, but it is more about the strength of the parts rather than the technology.

I think he should be less worried about placating the current (4) manufacturers than trying to attract some new ones in.

Re:the Focus suspension, that sounds like it is bordering on active. Kudos for developing it but it looks ugly and it gives too much traction and grip and makes the handling of the car look boring. That coupled with the muffled sound makes it my least favourite WRCar by a long way.

[Windsofwar]

But i don't think we are going to see stuff like this by the S2000. Has anyone ever seen a S2000 jump by the way?
http://www.racingworld.it/public/rally/FIA_IRC_Fiat/28264a.jpg

And if you seek around, there are some cool videos with Punto S2000 jumping around.

[Wim_Impreza]

Been to Condroz 06 and 07? 2007 was far better!

No, the Condroz is too busy for me... But I have seen Loix with Polo, Tsjoen with Punto and Casier with 207. These cars are really boring for me.

[AndyRAC]

If S2000 means lots more manufacturers, then I'm all for it. At the moment the WRC is almost a Ford benefit ( not forgetting Citroen). I would prefer S2500, but it doesn't look as if this is possible. A competetive WRC is what we want, if S2000 gives us this then I won't complain.

[c4]

Michel Nandin, who recently quit Suzuki, expresses his views on S2000+, amongst other things. http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/158312-0/qa_michel_nandan_suzuki_-_exclusive.html

[M5]

Ok but you can't keep saying that forever, come on the S2000 can't even do a donut on tarmac. The wrc is already underpowered on tarmac.

Its all about being quickest using what is available within the regulations, saying that the current WRC car is underpowered, even on asphalt is in my opinion very far from the truth. You can always wish for more, and thats the reason for this discussion !!!!!!

Everything turns in to a moped when you get used to it. When I bought my old M5 with 340 hp, it seemed like a rocket to me, two years after, its not that special....

[Helstar]

Michel Nandin, who recently quit Suzuki, expresses his views on S2000+, amongst other things. http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/158312-0/qa_michel_nandan_suzuki_-_exclusive.html
It's strange because if you read the interview he talks like he'll be involved for quite a time in SX4 development... he couldn't say the truth until the contract is over (end of the year ?), isn't it ?

[M5]

Would it not make sense to have a S2000 based WRC that was constructed to have a turbo from begin with, also the drivetrain - and NA S2000 with the same drivetrain - and that one would be bulletproof ?

[jparker]

Would it not make sense to have a S2000 based WRC that was constructed to have a turbo from begin with, also the drivetrain - and NA S2000 with the same drivetrain - and that one would be bulletproof ?
I've been thinking the same way for quite some time. After all, I'm yet to see full tech specs of Suzuki WRC.

[LeonBrooke]

Would it not make sense to have a S2000 based WRC that was constructed to have a turbo from begin with, also the drivetrain - and NA S2000 with the same drivetrain - and that one would be bulletproof ?

I'd read that that was how they designed the SX4 - so that it could be converted to S2000 comparatively easily - i.e. with suspension and aerodynamics.

[Audimadgeoff]

But i don't think we are going to see stuff like this by the S2000. Has anyone ever seen a S2000 jump by the way? without the rear wing and dampers there's no way we are going to se 50m jumps anymore.
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/46bbf5dc-fd17-45ba-b9a9-99fa00cfd828.htm

Really???

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5636/stujonesqb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

not too bad for the first ever gravel jump tackled by the MSD built MG S2000 Sport!

[SubaruNorway]

Well anyway they need to make the S2000 much faster than today to not get beaten by the old group N cars.

Was that jump 50m? and how was the landing? David Higgins Corola almost goes end over end on the Barry Johnson jump at 5sec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Cp05u9wDY&feature=related

[Audimadgeoff]

It wasn't 50 metres.... apart from Henning no one came close to the 50 m mark, but it landed perfectly.

[Tom206wrc]

Well anyway they need to make the S2000 much faster than today to not get beaten by the old group N cars.
...




A well driven S2000 is already faster than a well driven GrN :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Makes me think of '87... From Gr B to Gr A. Well, it wasn't that bad!

I agree. Despite what some might think (and what some might have thought at the time), that transition was almost immediately successful. There were some great events in the 1987 WRC — Sweden, Portugal, the 1000 Lakes and the RAC were all excellent.

[BDunnell]

Ok but you can't keep saying that forever, come on the S2000 can't even do a donut on tarmac. The wrc is already underpowered on tarmac.

I don't think power and the ability to do donuts are everything — far from it.

[BDunnell]

If S2000 means lots more manufacturers, then I'm all for it. At the moment the WRC is almost a Ford benefit ( not forgetting Citroen). I would prefer S2500, but it doesn't look as if this is possible. A competetive WRC is what we want, if S2000 gives us this then I won't complain.

:up:

And if it means the cars are spectacular, with a mixture of different types represented (as Group A originally allowed), it has tremendous potential.

[A.F.F.]

A well driven S2000 is already faster than a well driven GrN :rolleyes:

I agree. Need proof ?? Alen this year at NORF.

[HaCo]

You should see what Loix did in the Polo in Belgium: lot's of high speed sideways action + very high jumps too (like in Haspengouw)...

[Tom206wrc]

I agree. Need proof ?? Alen this year at NORF.



Also Magalhaes at Rali de Portugal, Basso in italian championship, Fuster/Hevia in Spain and Bouffier in Poland,... ;)

[AndyRAC]

What do you want? Hi-tech expensive WRCars with 2-3 Manufacturers or Less expensive lower-tech cars with many Manufacturers?

Personally, its a no-brainer,

[cut the b.s.]

What do you want? Hi-tech expensive WRCars with 2-3 Manufacturers or Less expensive lower-tech cars with many Manufacturers?

Personally, its a no-brainer,

But this is not the choice that is to be made, rallying formulas have often been set up to bring in more manufacturers, however history shows that only a couple will succeed and stick at it, dont kid yourself S2000 will be no different, unless rallying moves away from manus and to a common spaceframe silhouette category this situation will always be so

[AndyRAC]

But this is not the choice that is to be made, rallying formulas have often been set up to bring in more manufacturers, however history shows that only a couple will succeed and stick at it, dont kid yourself S2000 will be no different, unless rallying moves away from manus and to a common spaceframe silhouette category this situation will always be so

While I know what you mean, I think there's a greater chance of more Manufacturers coming in and joining if the cars are cheaper and easier to produce, obviously there's no guarantee, but the current situation is no good. Something had to be done, it's a case of wait and see

[Leon]

While I know what you mean, I think there's a greater chance of more Manufacturers coming in and joining if the cars are cheaper and easier to produce, obviously there's no guarantee, but the current situation is no good. Something had to be done, it's a case of wait and see

If we consider Formula 1 then propably the answer to attract more manufacturers lays on the value of the WRC for the manufacturers in terms of promotion and return on their investment and not lets say the costs or the number of events. In F1 only one team/manufacture wins every year but we do not see the other manufactures who loose consistently leaving the series because the association of a manufacturer with f1 is more valuable than the win of a championship.

my opinion.

[cut the b.s.]

If we consider Formula 1 then propably the answer to attract more manufacturers lays on the value of the WRC for the manufacturers in terms of promotion and return on their investment and not lets say the costs or the number of events. In F1 only one team/manufacture wins every year but we do not see the other manufactures who loose consistently leaving the series because the association of a manufacturer with f1 is more valuable than the win of a championship.

my opinion.

It would appear Toyota share your opinion

[AndyRAC]

At the moment the promotion of the WRC isn't good, can't say I've seen many adverts from Ford promoting their 2006/07 Manufacturers success. TV and media coverage is pathetic, well in UK it is.

[AndyRAC]

It would appear Toyota share your opinion

Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.

[L5->R5/CR]

While I know what you mean, I think there's a greater chance of more Manufacturers coming in and joining if the cars are cheaper and easier to produce, obviously there's no guarantee, but the current situation is no good. Something had to be done, it's a case of wait and see



Lets not kid ourselves though.

Every WRC formula change has been to allow manufacturers to either A) enter due to an obstacle or B) show case a level/type of technology.

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?


Cutting the costs of the WRC is a fools errand if they think it will bring in more teams/make more teams competitive. Ultimately spending money does not equate to success but at the same time teams that have more money will be able to pursue competitive advantages that other teams cannot.

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

[c4]

Citroen are backing S2000 according to Autosport. Sources state they see formula as workable. Xavier Mestelan-Pinon seems less enthused:
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/158333-0/qa_xavier_mestelan-pinon_citroen_-_exclusive.html

[A.F.F.]

Lets not kid ourselves though.

Every WRC formula change has been to allow manufacturers to either A) enter due to an obstacle or B) show case a level/type of technology.

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?


Cutting the costs of the WRC is a fools errand if they think it will bring in more teams/make more teams competitive. Ultimately spending money does not equate to success but at the same time teams that have more money will be able to pursue competitive advantages that other teams cannot.

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

This is probably all true, but there's one minor thing coming with the change of rules. For one little moment, the table is clean for everybody. Pretty much like with group-A.

[BDunnell]

A very good post, L5->R5/CR. A few points from me...



It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

I feel that restricting the amounts of money that teams/manufacturers can spend on any form of motorsport is pointless and unenforceable. There will always be 'haves and have-nots'. However, it is surely within the power of the FIA, via the technical regulations and their enforcement, to retain a more level playing field than has previously been the case?

I say this with my mind on Group A again. A.F.F.'s last post refers to the table having been 'clean for everybody' when Group A rules were adopted in 1987. That season was really excellent, as far as I'm concerned, yet what happened? Gradually, the front-running cars drifted away from the original concept of Group A, to the point where the World Rally Car rules were deemed necessary. Of course, it was a natural progression as knowledge and technology developed, but nonetheless I would be very interested to find out whether every rule of Group A was upheld with absolute strictness by the FIA. S2000 rules would seem to offer less scope for such development, and I don't have a problem with this, because to me the technological exercise is far less important than the quality of competition between drivers on the special stage (or racetrack).



The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

All very true, but there are so many different ideas as to how to make that extra progression, and about what is best for the WRC, that it's difficult to know where to start!

[M5]

Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.


If the swede had not had his dream of F1, and TOYOTA had stayed in Rally I am pretty sure they had had better publicity and sold more cars (that hopefully is their aim) than they do spending most, and getting nowhere !!!

Maybe next year !! (without Schumacher Jr !!!)

Tip off: Send a couple old WRC engineers to help out in the development of the Auris, and play both horses !!

[c4]

[quote="BDunnell"].
I say this with my mind on Group A again. A.F.F.'s last post refers to the table having been 'clean for everybody' when Group A rules were adopted in 1987. That season was really excellent, as far as I'm concerned, yet what happened? Gradually, the front-running cars drifted away from the original concept of Group A, to the point where the World Rally Car rules

Unfortnately 1987 was not excellent imo, rules suited Lancia who were way ahead on development and no one else had a chance that year. FISA's decision with group A was knee jerk and political (remember Peugeot tried to sue FISA for banning group B), but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

[BDunnell]

Unfortnately 1987 was not excellent imo, rules suited Lancia who were way ahead on development and no one else had a chance that year.

I think some of the most entertaining rallies of the last 20 years took place in 1987. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Swedish, Portuguese, 1000 Lakes and RAC rallies that year were really quite outstanding, highly competitive affairs — and Portugal, in my view, witnessed one of the outstanding WRC performances of all time thanks to Jean Ragnotti. What I would give to see a bit of that magic again in the championship.

Lancia deserved to win in 1987, because it wasn't as if other manufacturers couldn't have done the same. Mazda tried, and had long enough to prepare, but simply didn't do as good a job. Others either went with what they had, or thought they could get away without spending a lot on development. It worked for the likes of Renault and Ford in 1987, but no longer than that.



FISA's decision with group A was knee jerk and political (remember Peugeot tried to sue FISA for banning group B), but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

I think there is such a range of views regarding the banning of Group B that it will be impossible to resolve the matter here. Suffice to say, I think the circumstances in 1986 were so exceptional that on that occasion FISA can be forgiven for a knee-jerk reaction, and I hope those circumstances never arise again as part of the authorities' deliberations on the technical regulations.

[L5->R5/CR]

I feel that restricting the amounts of money that teams/manufacturers can spend on any form of motorsport is pointless and unenforceable. There will always be 'haves and have-nots'. However, it is surely within the power of the FIA, via the technical regulations and their enforcement, to retain a more level playing field than has previously been the case?



How do yo limit costs more?

The cars arguably only consume maybe 10-20% of the budget, tops. The rest of the costs come from running events and the tangibles, like hospitality staff, testing, weather crews, and so on.

If you restrict testing, more affluent teams will build private test tracks and facilities and spend money building different roads and surfaces to mimic rallies at their bases.

If you restrict tires, teams will spend more money on tire testing and weather and stage conditions staff to perfect their tire choice.

If you restrict the mechanics teams will just put more time and effort (and money) in to designing their cars to be easier to work on.


At some point the rules have to accept that money will be spent, you can't stop it.

[A.F.F.]

How do yo limit costs more?

The cars arguably only consume maybe 10-20% of the budget, tops. The rest of the costs come from running events and the tangibles, like hospitality staff, testing, weather crews, and so on.

If you restrict testing, more affluent teams will build private test tracks and facilities and spend money building different roads and surfaces to mimic rallies at their bases.

If you restrict tires, teams will spend more money on tire testing and weather and stage conditions staff to perfect their tire choice.

If you restrict the mechanics teams will just put more time and effort (and money) in to designing their cars to be easier to work on.


At some point the rules have to accept that money will be spent, you can't stop it.

I personally don't think it's a matter of spending money. I think it's a matter of worth spending money. A manufacturer joining now, like Suzuki, has a serious lead to catch from the two top contendors, Ford and Citroen. Their budget is way up there, not to mention their development of the car and the team. I can understand why WRC doesn't sound very appealing to new factory.

What I meant with the clean table was that I hope it'll encourages new manufacturers to join in as they supposely don't feel the gap too big. And, more importantly, should they have success, they'll stick to rallying and surprise surprise, are willing to spend more money. Now there's absolutely no point.

Fiat chose another strategy and they're heading to much criticized IRC with two car team with promising young driver(s) ;) . They are at least getting publicity their money's worth.

[Donney]

but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

To me being this the key point of the S2000 formula, which hopefully will level the field again and provide with something like we had in the mentioned early 90's.

[L5->R5/CR]

I personally don't think it's a matter of spending money. I think it's a matter of worth spending money.


We agree here



A manufacturer joining now, like Suzuki, has a serious lead to catch from the two top contendors, Ford and Citroen. Their budget is way up there, not to mention their development of the car and the team. I can understand why WRC doesn't sound very appealing to new factory.

What I meant with the clean table was that I hope it'll encourages new manufacturers to join in as they supposely don't feel the gap too big. And, more importantly, should they have success, they'll stick to rallying and surprise surprise, are willing to spend more money. Now there's absolutely no point.

Fiat chose another strategy and they're heading to much criticized IRC with two car team with promising young driver(s) ;) . They are at least getting publicity their money's worth.


I understand your argument (I don't disagree with it either for whatever that is worth).

I would simply offer this thought.

Would it be doing right by the teams that are heavily committed to rallying to have the rules makers go, new teams want in but you guys have too much of an advantage with your cars so we are going to radically change the technical rules so the new team has a chance as everybody starts from scratch.

Being competitive in a world championship isn't supposed to be easy or cheap, is it fair to make it easier for new teams to be competitive at the expense of the existing teams investment?

[Dilek]

Here is some news about Skoda..Michael Jernberg's rallycross car like a S200;) but news is swedish..

http://www.skoda.se/page_3376.shtml
http://www.jernberg-motorsport.se/

[Mirek]

Dilek: Rallycross cars are completely different to rally cars. It is only marketing. The car would be probably his old Fabia with new bodyshell (the image is repainted official image of Geneve Blue car).

[Dilek]

:) Yes.I know this Mirek Fric[cze]..Only I don't understand the news..And want to share..

[A.F.F.]

I would simply offer this thought.

Would it be doing right by the teams that are heavily committed to rallying to have the rules makers go, new teams want in but you guys have too much of an advantage with your cars so we are going to radically change the technical rules so the new team has a chance as everybody starts from scratch.

Being competitive in a world championship isn't supposed to be easy or cheap, is it fair to make it easier for new teams to be competitive at the expense of the existing teams investment?

Exactly. That is the conflict here. :up: It sounds really unfair and unsportsman-like to the ones like Ford and Citroen now.

But the public wants entertaiment, just like in Colosseum. So, are we ready to throw them to the lions just because we want better and more exciting rallying ???

Damn right we are.

On serious note, the only, even remotely fair way to "clean the table", is to give clear change of rules with long term schedule. I personally don't think there are any good and equal ways to do this. FIA just has to pick the one which is least damaging.

[Lousada]

]Dilek: Rallycross cars are completely different to rally cars. It is only marketing. The car would be probably his old Fabia with new bodyshell (the image is repainted official image of Geneve Blue car).

Michael Jernberg always drove Ford. This car will be completely new. For the rest I agree. "Based on the S2000 car", does anything more than a drawing excist for the Skoda Fabia S2000????

[Rover V8]

Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.


but how long will they carry on? Toyota aren't in F1 for the love of the sport, they're in it because their marketing department thinks the investment is worthwhile to help sell Corollas- If they carry on being uncompetitive, how long before some guy in an office in Japan looks at the figures and asks exactly why they're spending enough money to fight a small war to give the world the impression that they're not quite as good as Renault, BMW or whoever is curently beating them at the time?

Right now, the marketing value of F1 is worth the cost- as soon as it stops being- and it will- then there will be manufacturers looking to find somewhere they can spend less money and still get the marketing result they want. If WRC can bring down costs, and make itself more promotable, then it may benefit in the long term. You only need to look at the history of touring cars and sportscar racing over the last 20 years to see how these things turn around- in the late 80's there were half-a-dozen manufacturers in sportscars, and 9 or 10 in the BTCC in the mid-90's- or the manufacturers who've come and gone from the WRC for that matter.

If S2000 brings the depth of competition back, then I'm all for it

[Mirek]

Lousada: Oh, sorry, I made myself confused with other Swedish driver on Skoda - Lars Larsson I think (I don't know rallycross drivers very well).

[A.F.F.]

but how long will they carry on?

Very good question.

I don't follow F1 much nor know much about the facts but I've understood that Toyota has had one of the biggest budgets every year. Frankly it shouldn't need that one guy in the office to realize how much they have spent to gain so little. It's obvious for all of us. :mark:

I'm pretty sure their success in WRC did way better to their status than crawling in F1 with ****ty car and ****ty drivers. :down:

[AndyRAC]

but how long will they carry on? Toyota aren't in F1 for the love of the sport, they're in it because their marketing department thinks the investment is worthwhile to help sell Corollas- If they carry on being uncompetitive, how long before some guy in an office in Japan looks at the figures and asks exactly why they're spending enough money to fight a small war to give the world the impression that they're not quite as good as Renault, BMW or whoever is curently beating them at the time?

Right now, the marketing value of F1 is worth the cost- as soon as it stops being- and it will- then there will be manufacturers looking to find somewhere they can spend less money and still get the marketing result they want. If WRC can bring down costs, and make itself more promotable, then it may benefit in the long term. You only need to look at the history of touring cars and sportscar racing over the last 20 years to see how these things turn around- in the late 80's there were half-a-dozen manufacturers in sportscars, and 9 or 10 in the BTCC in the mid-90's- or the manufacturers who've come and gone from the WRC for that matter.

If S2000 brings the depth of competition back, then I'm all for it

How does the WRC make itself more promotable? It's already bent over backwards for TV, and look, it's now a pale shadow of itself.
But I agree, more Manufacturers aren't going to join if the current levels of promotion are still in place, no matter what cars or how cheap they are. Put yourself in the place of a Manufacturer, what are you going to get out of the WRC? The TV and media coverage is terrible, and the TV coverage shown is awful, why honestly would you join?

[L5->R5/CR]

How does the WRC make itself more promotable? It's already bent over backwards for TV, and look, it's now a pale shadow of itself.
But I agree, more Manufacturers aren't going to join if the current levels of promotion are still in place, no matter what cars or how cheap they are. Put yourself in the place of a Manufacturer, what are you going to get out of the WRC? The TV and media coverage is terrible, and the TV coverage shown is awful, why honestly would you join?



The sport has become a shadow of itself by becoming easier for TV, as a result, the TV is boring.

I would PAY to get 1.5-2 hours of real quality footage of exciting rallying (including long in car, virtual spectator, and heli footage) on Sunday night after each rally. Similarly, I would PAY to watch footage from rallies that were spectactular, like Sweden, Finland, the real Australia, and of course, the Safari.


Rally isn't a sport that lends itself to nightly recaps (at least not in a cost effective manner). Accept that, do small web casts each night (that are sponsored to help pay for them) on WRC.com that are free, and put together genuine quality footage and just show it all at once at the end of the rally. A true fan will know the results before TV could ever be broadcast (unless it were live) so we don't need to constantly be bombarded with stage time results, we want to see the action!

[Tom206wrc]

Yeah, but for you, Americans, for example, it's rather hard to follow the WRC without TV, as most rounds are in Europe, far from USA...TV can't be that bad and can be helpful if you can't go to assist the rallies by yourself :rolleyes:

[L5->R5/CR]

Yeah, but for you, Americans, for example, it's rather hard to follow the WRC without TV, as most rounds are in Europe, far from USA...TV can't be that bad and can be helpful if you can't go to assist the rallies by yourself :rolleyes:



We've managed with Sunday night broadcasts, internet downloads, forums/news sites, so on and so forth for many years.

I've downloaded and burned to DVD every rally of the 2007 season, however, I have watched only 4 of them (Sweden, Norway, Finland and New Zealand). I haven't watched the others, not because I wouldn't love to still watch the action, but because the TV programs are so mediocore that unless the rally is over the top the TV show is underwhelming.

If the TV shows were better, I as a rally fan, would watch them, irregardless of a pre-existing level of knowledge of the results. Currently we have to make an effort to seek out coverage, but the coverage is not worth seeking out (although, that doesn't stop me). I think it is clear that if the coverage was better there would be more interest.

For cripes sake, isn't the WRC moving to pay TV in a lot of Europe right now. That is not the sign of a healthy series of events or shows. The current coverage is focused on reporting the event, this isn't working, if the focused changed from reporting the event to sharing the excitement I think viewership would go up....



Edit to add:
I also watched most of Germany on my laptop before I burned it to DVD while in my rental car waiting for stages to start at a US rally, so technically, I watched 5 rallies I suppose.

[jonkka]

Put yourself in the place of a Manufacturer, what are you going to get out of the WRC? The TV and media coverage is terrible, and the TV coverage shown is awful, why honestly would you join?

In all honesty, those decisions are made - as always in corporate world - by uninformed senior executives based on recommendations prepared by almost equally uninformed sycophants. Besides being the official Dilbert-view, I think this is also major part of the reality.

In addition, internal company politics play major part, just see at PSA how Frequelin's persistence paid out by not only allowing Citroen to get Xsara T4 to run at all but to continue at WRC even after Peugeot left.

But back to media coverage. Since decisions are made by those who don't care about the WRC as a sport but as a means to an end (read: marketing) and since all decisions where understanding of the content is lacking are made using metrics. The only metric available is viewings in hours and eyeballs and if you look at the official WRC Factbook (prepared by ISC, the 2006 version is here: http://www.walesrallygb.com/documents/2006_WRC_End_of_Season_Fact_Book.pdf), you'll note that quality of the coverage isn't mentioned.

So, for all intentions and purposes, WRC is getting better 'cause it's being broadcasted to a wider audience? Unfortunately, no, and that is why I do hope for the change for better.

[jonkka]

I don't follow F1 much nor know much about the facts but I've understood that Toyota has had one of the biggest budgets every year. Frankly it shouldn't need that one guy in the office to realize how much they have spent to gain so little.

I can't comment on budgets in that silly sport and I'd rather not know anything about it but there is one thing I've heard and readily accept. Participation in F1 is image marketing, merely being there is beneficial as it gets your name mentioned (much the same as for example being a title sponsor in olympics). It doesn't really matter whether you're successful or not as you get a lot of exposure by hiring drivers that are being interviewed often, even their personal lives detailed in women's magazines.

On the other hand, WRC is promotion of a single product of a company, not as much the company itself. That is the problem of all silhouette classes, corporate presence identifies itself very strongly around the car that is being raced and not the make of it. In the other words, WRC sells Focus, Impreza and C4, not Ford, Subaru or Citroen.

And guess which of these gets the big bucks, the image marketing or the product marketing? Does a "brand" ring a bell?


I'm pretty sure their success in WRC did way better to their status than crawling in F1

How much of that iconic status was tarnished by the turbo scandal? Admittedly, it's over ten years since but so are their glory years of WRC too. And even if John Doe never heard of it and most fans have already forgotten, the Japan and top brass of motorsport community has not. I think it was a small miracle they did return with Corolla WRC in 1997.

[cut the b.s.]

How much of that iconic status was tarnished by the turbo scandal? Admittedly, it's over ten years since but so are their glory years of WRC too. And even if John Doe never heard of it and most fans have already forgotten, the Japan and top brass of motorsport community has not. I think it was a small miracle they did return with Corolla WRC in 1997.


I think a return to WRC was nessary to show they could compete in a 'straight' car, to have walked away in 95 would have ruined much of what they had achieved in rallying in the previous few years

[A.F.F.]

I can't comment on budgets in that silly sport and I'd rather not know anything about it but there is one thing I've heard and readily accept. Participation in F1 is image marketing, merely being there is beneficial as it gets your name mentioned (much the same as for example being a title sponsor in olympics). It doesn't really matter whether you're successful or not as you get a lot of exposure by hiring drivers that are being interviewed often, even their personal lives detailed in women's magazines.

On the other hand, WRC is promotion of a single product of a company, not as much the company itself. That is the problem of all silhouette classes, corporate presence identifies itself very strongly around the car that is being raced and not the make of it. In the other words, WRC sells Focus, Impreza and C4, not Ford, Subaru or Citroen.

And guess which of these gets the big bucks, the image marketing or the product marketing? Does a "brand" ring a bell?

Yes a brand rings a bell. Maybe I'm an exceptional person but Toyota's crawling year after year doesn't really brighten their image in my eyes. Their budget is something the reporters always remember to tell. So, put an Avarage Joe in the pit-line and he'll know who's hot and who's not. Of course I can be totally wrong. Maybe it's Panasonic which pay 90% of their multi-million budget and 90% of the F1 fans just keep on saluting Toyota of the job well done.




How much of that iconic status was tarnished by the turbo scandal? Admittedly, it's over ten years since but so are their glory years of WRC too. And even if John Doe never heard of it and most fans have already forgotten, the Japan and top brass of motorsport community has not. I think it was a small miracle they did return with Corolla WRC in 1997.

I don't think that status was any more ruined by a turbo-scandal than what happened at RAC -98 to Carlos Sainz. What they did with Corolla was however amazing and IMO they should put scandals behind.

But if it's the same pride what keeps them remembering that incident that keeps them in F1, then I don't know what to say anymore :mark:

[A.F.F.]

Stop the press !!!

According to MTV3, Toyota F1 team has two years time to succeed. This is what their team manager Tadashi Yamashima has told. http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/f1/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/f1/2007/12/595701

So, apparently there is a bottom in their bucket too. Jolly good, come back WRc when you've done not succeeding ;)

[matSLO]

When we talk about media coverage, besides day reviews which are actually quite good (we have to consider that cause of the nature of nowadays rallies, with few exceptions there is not much action in last 2 days). For me one thing that really shows that world of rallying lost their compass are so called TV stages, or spectator stages being run on stupid stadiums...that are really boring, shows nothing what rally is about, and even in cases when they can make better stages (this years Ireland) they insist on stupid head to head battle. The only real SS that were fun for watch were this years rally Norway TV stage and last year Cyprus TV stage, although it was dangerous for spectators because organizers put them on wrong places. On that part of media promotion I thing rally made big step backwards, I really miss old TV stages from 80s and 90s, like MC86 SS1 TV stage, many RAC rally TV stages, or even in Finland when they made in 99 fantastic Ruuhimakki SS TV stage not to mention Harju SS on streets of Jyvaskyla...and similar stages...I hope you understand what I mean.

And apart of all said to now about new rally classes, they are only one aspect that need to be changed...there are perhaps even more vital elements needed to be reconsidered...like length of SS, night rallying, repeating of stages!!! (honestly I would rather banned repeating the stages, especially nowadays with so limited number of different SS being driven), servicing the cars, tyre rules,...

And for the last, about rally being broadcasted in different countries meant that it is becoming more popular...honestly when you look at old rally reviews with all that huge crowd standing even on the road, with nowadays almost no spectators stages... I really don`t believe everything FIA said. Even in my country when we have this year first year of WRC coverages (in our national language), I didn`t watch them because they were boring and so badly made (they only made slovenian translation of english version, which was also heard in back...so stupid, and person who translated it have no idea what he is translating, so there were lots of stupid translations). It really turn me off watching it rather than made me spent an hour of my day watching interesting racing...And on internet there are quite lot of websites that offers much better and exciting (although being amateur) WRC clips...sadly that rallying can`t benefit from them cause perhaps rallying could be better promoted by them...

It is just my point of view...

[Sulland]

Stop the press !!!

According to MTV3, Toyota F1 team has two years time to succeed. This is what their team manager Tadashi Yamashima has told. http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/f1/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/f1/2007/12/595701

So, apparently there is a bottom in their bucket too. Jolly good, come back WRc when you've done not succeeding ;)

That timeframe pretty well matches FIA's timeframe on the new WRC format as well.......

[Lousada]

That timeframe pretty well matches FIA's timeframe on the new WRC format as well.......

It also matches the timeframe on the new definite Le Mans regulations. Although they could probably do both with the money they are now spending on F1.

[Corny]

It is just my point of view...

Not only yours, for much it is mine as well

[MJW]

That timeframe pretty well matches FIA's timeframe on the new WRC format as well.......

That was what I thought also when I read about it. Toyota's return to WRC would be very welcome.

[AndyRAC]

That was what I thought also when I read about it. Toyota's return to WRC would be very welcome.

It certainly would be, and while it may be wrong to wish mis-fortune on hard working people, lets hope the next 2 years aren't successful for Toyota. Maybe they'll realise their mistake, and return to their natural home - WRC!!

[Brother John]

Looks nice for me! :up:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f204/skjef/news_m10.jpg

[Mirek]

Brother John: This only repainted blue car concept from Geneve. None of us probably (maybe someone from Skoda motorsport is here too) knows how Fabia S2000 looks in real.

[OldF]

As the S2000 is nowadays (2 litre normal aspirated engine) I don’t think it’s the solution. To get to the minimum weight, 1150 kg for gravel, the car can’t be big. The Pug 207 is about 4-meter car and has a weight of 1170 kg. The S2000 regulations say that the minimum length of a car is 3,90 m. For example Citroen doesn’t have a suitable car for this minimum length, the C2 is to short (3,66 m) and the C4 is too big to get down to the minimum with of 1150 kg. Toyota has the same problem although it’s smaller than the C4. The only solution IMO is a 2 litre turbo or a 2,5 litre N/A engine or maybe even a 3 l N/A engine with a restrictor to keep the power not getting to high but with a lot of torque. I would prefer N/A engines because of the sound. I think it’s quite easy to get from a 2,5 l N/A engines about 350 hp, which would be quite close to the power from a WRC car.



Ford Europe’s chief executive John Fleming said last summer in an interview when he was visiting at NORF that:

“Rallying supports well Ford’s sales and marketing. Rallying suites better the building of Ford’s image than F1.”

“When Ford decided to enter WRC a big weight was giving to that, that many of Ford’s customers like rally.”

Here are at least two reasons for why Ford is in WRC. So it isn’t always the money that counts. IMO the manufacturers make choices between different marketing channels and rally is one of them. One common factor is the visibility and the manufacturers ponder if the WRC gives enough visibility vs. required money and that’s why the car shouldn’t be too expensive to keep the overall costs down to attract more manufacturers. I think the sponsors are also important in rallying because they invite their customer to the events and then it would be good if they see spectacular cars (noisy, sliding).

[Helstar]

“When Ford decided to enter WRC a big weight was giving to that, that many of Ford’s customers like rally.”

Perfect. Infact my brother has just bought a Focus. Awesome car too, nothing compared to the FIAT Punto he got previously ^^
We are going to see Montecarlo with that car :p

[Sulland]

Torque is something that is essential in a rally car.

Why not base the new ladder of rally cars on the technology that more than 50 % of us are using in our private car - Diesel.
It has tremendous torque at very low revs, easy to tune (Change the chip) ;) and would make a sensible way ahead. Would it not ???

The germans have a Diesel Cup:http://www.hjs-drm.de/home.php
and maybe other countries as well.

Fiat has made a Punto R3D: as this one:http://www.autoaktuell.at/rallyeteam/ (Click Grande Punto button in the top left corner for the tech details)

Is Diesel one of the options on the way ahead, or at least as one of the new classes ?

[Mirek]

Diesel? No...

First of all. Tuned diesel is very very non-ecologic and if FIA wants some bio fuel etc. in the future (simply some "green" technologies) it means no way (standard diesel is too, the only good think is low fuel consumption -> low CO2 emissions, but all the realy dangerous emissions are tragic).
Diesel cars have no sound at all.
Diesel engines are heavy and need massive clamping. That means bad weight distribution on the front and also bad overal weight.
Diesel has massive torque in very low RPM which means very low power. Simply the car may have 600 Nm at 1500 rpm, but that is only 128 Hp, yes it could be more in higher rpm, but not much, even 600 Nm at 3000 is 256 Hp only. And racing diesel won't be able to get to some higher rpm without loosing torque much.
More torque means more tension in any part. You know, You can get only 250 Hp diesel but with gearbox, differentials or driveshafts dimensioned on huge torque which means much havier all parts than for petrol engine with more power.
Torque itself is nothing. The more important is in which rpm You can get it because You need some speed. If You need only to pull something no matter how fast, than it's ok but if You need speed...

[AndyRAC]

I don't understand, the Audi Diesel that has dominated the last 2 Le Mans is very fast as well as reliable. Sorry, I'm not mechanically minded, I know they produce loads of Torque, but this car is fast as well, though it is very quiet, almost a whooshing sound.

[Mirek]

You know, they have different rulles for diesel cars than for petrol cars... Basicly You can have 6 liter normaly aspirated or 3,5 liter Turbo petrol engine. But Audi is 5,5 liter bi-turbo diesel. I think that this doesn't need any other explanation.

PS
Le Mans prototypes has its engines close to the centre of gravity that means much less problems with havier engine.

[flat out fred]

one of the main reasons the WRC coverage has become so poor is it is impossible to create an interesting program when you have only got 2 competitors winning rallies and stages ,with only 1 other who is capable of winning the odd event when the situation allows.
You cannot promote a championship with only 3 competative crews and that is the reason that until
1 costs
and
2 relative % of competativeness between the rich teams and the not so rich teams is narrowed to a point that when you have a hot young driver who is on a mission is able to post some fastest stage times and get in the mix with the top drivers even though he would still stand no chance of winning championships as money always wins championships
This can only be achieved in a more basic and technoligy stripped car such as super 2000
One of the strong rules in super 2000 is that the homoligation is over 4 years and the number of joker upgrades during this time is very limited .this will severly limit the amount of advantage that can be gained by endless testing and development
If the WRC was to adopt the super 2000 concept with the only change being a 2.5 litre engine then you would have a formula to truly bring back the noise,competativity and exitment that has been lost completely over the last few years
Then you will have a story to sell that is interesting and so people will want ot watch and so the trend of diminishing audience and sposor interest will be reversed.

[Sulland]

What kind of figures could we expect from a 2.5 ltr NA engine ?

[Mirek]

Simply it depends on the rulles. For example engines of S2000 and F2 were both normaly aspirated 2.0 litre but both had big differences in the rulles and nowadays I think about 320 Hp would be possible to achieve in F2 rulles...

[OldF]

One of the strong rules in super 2000 is that the homoligation is over 4 years and the number of joker upgrades during this time is very limited .this will severly limit the amount of advantage that can be gained by endless testing and development
reversed.

That’s true that continuous development of the WRC cars that is IMO the biggest reason for costs.

There was a good example on the M-Sports old Web site. The Focus consists of about (I don’t remember the exact figures) 2500 parts of which 400-500 came from the standard car and of those 400-500 parts only 40-50 hadn’t been modified at all. WRC car = hand made car. The S2000 regulations prevent the continuous development of the car very effectively.

Another good example was in the interview of Christian Loriaux at crash net where he told that to decrease the weight 20 kg is not from one part but 100 g from 200 parts!

A WRC team is a quite big company also. By Guy Frequelin Citroen had 250 people working before the “holiday year”. When they joined again at the beginning of 2007 (no more active diffs etc.) they needed “only” 175 people.


What kind of figures could we expect from a 2.5 ltr NA engine ?

My guess is about 340-350 hp. A S2000 Pug has 280 hp = 140 hp / litre * 2,5 = 350 hp.

[AndyRAC]

one of the main reasons the WRC coverage has become so poor is it is impossible to create an interesting program when you have only got 2 competitors winning rallies and stages ,with only 1 other who is capable of winning the odd event when the situation allows.
You cannot promote a championship with only 3 competative crews and that is the reason that until
1 costs
and
2 relative % of competativeness between the rich teams and the not so rich teams is narrowed to a point that when you have a hot young driver who is on a mission is able to post some fastest stage times and get in the mix with the top drivers even though he would still stand no chance of winning championships as money always wins championships
This can only be achieved in a more basic and technoligy stripped car such as super 2000
One of the strong rules in super 2000 is that the homoligation is over 4 years and the number of joker upgrades during this time is very limited .this will severly limit the amount of advantage that can be gained by endless testing and development
If the WRC was to adopt the super 2000 concept with the only change being a 2.5 litre engine then you would have a formula to truly bring back the noise,competativity and exitment that has been lost completely over the last few years
Then you will have a story to sell that is interesting and so people will want ot watch and so the trend of diminishing audience and sposor interest will be reversed.

Good post!! I quite agree, Ford are the Manufacturers Champions, but to be brutally honest, they only had 1 team to beat - Citroen( Subaru are a shambles). It's hardly worth advertising the fact that they are the WChampions!

[Sulland]

[/QUOTE] guess is about 340-350 hp. A S2000 Pug has 280 hp = 140 hp / litre * 2,5 = 350 hp.[/QUOTE]

Since Torque is a big issue in rally, what would the difference in torque be between S2000 and S2500, including torque range ?

[Sulland]

[/QUOTE] My guess is about 340-350 hp. A S2000 Pug has 280 hp = 140 hp / litre * 2,5 = 350 hp.[/QUOTE]

Since Torque is a big issue in rally, what would the difference in torque be between S2000 and S2500, including torque range ?

[flat out fred]

Don,t know exact figures but i believe a diamond millington at 2.5 litre is pushing between 220 and 240hp with adequate torqe figures to make it all work and all for a price of circa 20 - 25k.
Andy Burtons Peugeot cosworth is 2.5 nat aspV6,goes like s**t of a shovel and makes the hairs on the back of your neck rise when you hear it coming.It is also twice as impresive to watch compared to any W.R.C.

[Sulland]

Any news of the McRae SX4 project, or did that also die along with Colin ?

That one is also using a 2.5 NA is it not ?

[urabus-denoS2000]

i like the s2000,but there are 2 problems
1.VALUE FOR MONEY
A s2000 car costs 168.000 euros minimum,plus spares
A real N4 Evo 9 from a proper team,for example Ralliart Italy, costs around 135.000 euros.paolo andreucci almost won the title with an evo 9
Plus you have to service an s2000 after every 2 rallies,while an Subaru or evo must be serviced twice a year
2.TORQUE because of the lack of turbo

[Tom206wrc]

Any news of the McRae SX4 project, or did that also die along with Colin ?



:confused:


The only McRae concept auto project I know is the 4WD for the Rally-Raid...

[Daniel]

You're forgetting the R4.

[Mirek]

Bur R4 can't be homologated for rally since it has no production base...

[OldF]

Since Torque is a big issue in rally, what would the difference in torque be between S2000 and S2500, including torque range ?



I made some comparison with other NA engines and it seems that at top power there is about 80%-90% of the top torque in use. With an engine producing 350 hp @ 8500 rpm the torque would be 285 Nm (lb-ft = 285 * 0,7376 = 213 lb-ft). If 90% of the torque were in use at top power, the top torque would be 321 Nm. If the percentage is 85% the torque is 340 Nm and with 80% the torque is 361 Nm.

If the engine produce 350 hp @ 8000 rpm the results are:
90% = 341 Nm
85% = 361 Nm
80% = 384 Nm

The torque range I believe depends so much on the engines attributes (camshaft timings etc.) so it&#8217]http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=14836[/URL]

This is still quite far away from the torques of Subaru and Mitsubishis grp N cars torques.

Subaru: 285 hp @ 4400 rpm / 570 Nm @ 3500 rpm
Mitsubishi: 292 hp @ 4300 rpm / 580 Nm @ 3300 rpm

I’d still prefer a NA engine with higher revs and lower torque. And if the cars had a fixed front/rear torque split 40/60 they would act more like a rear wheel drive cars, which would be more spectacular.


The formula I used in my calculations:

P (W) = T (Nm) * 2 * pii * n (1/sec)

P = power
T = torque
2 * pii * n = angular velocity

To make it easier to calculate and use hp and rev/min in the formula I made the following:

1 kW = 1,36 hp
1 rev/min = 1/60 rev/sec
1 W = 0,001 kW

(2 * pii * 1,36 * 0,001) / 60 = 0,001424

Now the formula is P (hp) = T (Nm) * n (rev/min) * 0,0001424

For example the R4 torque at top power is T = P / (n * 0,0001424) = 340 / (7900 * 0,0001424) = 302 Nm and 302 / 332 * 100 = 90,96%.

[OldF]

i like the s2000,but there are 2 problems
1.VALUE FOR MONEY
A s2000 car costs 168.000 euros minimum,plus spares
A real N4 Evo 9 from a proper team,for example Ralliart Italy, costs around 135.000 euros.paolo andreucci almost won the title with an evo 9
Plus you have to service an s2000 after every 2 rallies,while an Subaru or evo must be serviced twice a year
2.TORQUE because of the lack of turbo

And the cost of a S2000 is not just the 168.000 €, this is the price of the S20000 kit. The price of a S2000 that is ready to race is much higher (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-112634-p-3.html)

So the inclusive price for a S2000 is about twice than a full spec N group car.

But I think FIA is not talking about that the future WRC cars had to be a group N or a S2000 car but a car BASED ON GROUP N OR S2000. IMO that could mean that the WRC car based on group N would be allowed more advanced suspension, some engine parts replaced (pistons, camshaft). That could get the prices more close to each other. For a S2000 it could mean a turbo or if not a turbo perhaps a mechanical supercharger (roots).

[Sulland]

Thanks for that impressive insight into the technicalities of the engine world !

If your memory serves you right the curve and drivability of a S2000R car is not that bad, with 2500-3000 rpm of ok HP and Torque.

Of course this will improve with 500 ccm more, but then we are talking a different ballgame. Not being able to crossuse btw WTCC type cars and rally cars. We are for the S2500 over to a V6 engine most likely, that few manufacturers have in stock.

I think the best way ahead is to go ahead and say that S2000 is the basis for the new WRC car, and if we need it to have a turbo, then let that car decide drivetrain ++ so it is dimensioned to take the power.
But I could also live with that S2000 NA will be top of the pops in the future.

Engineers are a strange breed, they can move limits - also for a 2 ltr NA engine !

In some years new ways of pushing our cars will be here anyway, be it Hydrogen cell, E-85 or something else !!

PS.
Would love to see a special class for McRae R4 type of spaceframe cars, also in Int rally, the sound must be beautiful !!

[Mirek]

Sulland: There is no big problem to make 320+ Hp from just 2 litre n/a engine but the car would cost like WRC and we would move nowhere...

[urabus-denoS2000]

And the cost of a S2000 is not just the 168.000 €, this is the price of the S20000 kit. The price of a S2000 that is ready to race is much higher (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-112634-p-3.html)

So the inclusive price for a S2000 is about twice than a full spec N group car.

But I think FIA is not talking about that the future WRC cars had to be a group N or a S2000 car but a car BASED ON GROUP N OR S2000. IMO that could mean that the WRC car based on group N would be allowed more advanced suspension, some engine parts replaced (pistons, camshaft). That could get the prices more close to each other. For a S2000 it could mean a turbo or if not a turbo perhaps a mechanical supercharger (roots).





Thats why i said minimum 168.000.it is twice as expensive as a evo or impreza and it is not that faster.but i think that the s2000 cars have potential

[Buzz Lightyear]

who builds peugoet 207 s2000's, and what is the price to buy?

[bf1_IRL]

Peugeot Sport :) Price info here :) : http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=244696&postcount=503

[OldF]

It crossed my mind that there is also a mechanical supercharger (Roots compressor) that could be used instead of a turbo. The Lancia 037 (http://www.lanciarally037.com/e-homepage.htm) used one and the EVO II engine produced 310-325 hp at 8000 rpm and about 340 Nm at 5000 rpm. In the “technical analysis” they said that last evolution of the 037 produced 350 hp. Nowadays I think the same engine would give more power. With a supercharger you can get more power and torque without loosing the nice sound and high revs of an NA engine.



]Sulland: There is no big problem to make 320+ Hp from just 2 litre n/a engine but the car would cost like WRC and we would move nowhere...

I know that the BTCC cars in the 90s produced about 320-330 hp but I would say that rally car with that kind of engine would be very difficult to drive because of it’s narrow torque window. I think that a 2-ltr engine that is suitable for rally use, the maximum power is about 300 hp. I could also be wrong. Perhaps the technology has developed that much in 10 years.

[Mirek]

OldF: I ment it quite a different way... You know, S2000 cars are much limited in the rulles in engine upgrades from pruction. They could have more both power and torque (not so much) but for much higher cost.

About compressor, I think that small turbo is better since the best mechanical compressor effectiveness is usualy in lower rpm. Turbo effectiveness depends (besides other) on it's dimensions. Also turbo is simpler. And group B cars are not the way to go, I think ;)

[flat out fred]

Trouble with turbo in grp n ,they are cheap and produce enough torque overcome the exesive weight that has been imposed with the current crash protection however the stronger transmission componants to take the high levels of torgue has only compounded this, the result is an overweight almost silent car that is so boring to watch .
the fact that an evo 9 weighs more than the old galant at the end of the 80,s means the Grp N cars have got so overweight ( to the tune of 150kg)
That is not exactly progress

In W.R.C i have heard figures of 2.5 bar boost with a compression ratio of over 12 to1, the cost of the Turbo alone is over twice the cost of a 2.5 Millington engine never mind the Engine and F1 tech ECU to keep it together

I cannot see how a Super 2000 type car with sensible restrictions from the start could even come close to the cost of a world car

[Daniel]

Trouble with turbo in grp n ,they are cheap and produce enough torque overcome the exesive weight that has been imposed with the current crash protection however the stronger transmission componants to take the high levels of torgue has only compounded this, the result is an overweight almost silent car that is so boring to watch .
the fact that an evo 9 weighs more than the old galant at the end of the 80,s means the Grp N cars have got so overweight ( to the tune of 150kg)
That is not exactly progress

In W.R.C i have heard figures of 2.5 bar boost with a compression ratio of over 12 to1, the cost of the Turbo alone is over twice the cost of a 2.5 Millington engine never mind the Engine and F1 tech ECU to keep it together

I cannot see how a Super 2000 type car with sensible restrictions from the start could even come close to the cost of a world car
It is usually cheaper to get lots of HP out of a car with a turbo than it is to get it from an NA engine.

[Sulland]

Then it is confirmed by FIA that the future of the WRC car will be based on either S2000 or Gr N from 2009. Read that in Autosport last week.

The only one of the WRC teams that does not have a base car from 09 onwards is Ford - So what route will they choose - Gr N or S2000 ?


Rumours also has it that Proton is using the British team MEM to build a S2000 rally car for them, not saying if there is a plan to do WRC as well. But good news anyway !

[urabus-denoS2000]

What car does Citroen have???

[TKM Jnr]

If this is true that it will go ahead and be S2000, I can't wait.

Will be more interesting then a 4 make series as it is now.

More cars, More teams, More drivers, More competition, More Spectators, More coverage.

S2000 cars are tops over here in Aus we only have the TRD Corollas and the Ford Fiestas and love the sound and they aren't so straight and smooth, they are interesting to watch besause the drivers are fighting them more.

I think that the few S2000 cars we have here has already created alot more interest. Although not sure how much longer we will have a National Championship, fingers crossed this years Rally Commision can turn things around.

Tristan.

[SubaruNorway]

Subaru?

[urabus-denoS2000]

Subaru has N4

[Shrike]

There may be mostly pros here but in my opinioin this would be taking a step backwards.

[DonJippo]

If this is true that it will go ahead and be S2000, I can't wait.

Will be more interesting then a 4 make series as it is now.

More cars, More teams, More drivers, More competition, More Spectators, More coverage.

What quarantees there are that we would have more manufactures in WRC?

[Sulland]

The article in Autosport said that Citroen was still thinking, but was closest to making a S2000, so if that is correct we would have:

Abarth GP
Pug 207
MG
Toyota Corolla/Auris (?)
Ford Fiesta
Citroen C3 ??
Skoda Fabia
VW Polo
Proton

Gr N
Mitsubishi
Subaru

So all in all 11 potential WRC cars, thats not bad !!!???

[SubaruNorway]

But weren't they supposed to seperate S2000 and the old N4 cars?

[Roy]

....
Ford Fiesta
...

You can skip the Fiesta. Ford goes further with Focus in rallying. Maybe this one http://www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/CARS/news/FORD/38515.html
N4 or S2000?

[MJW]

Subaru? The autosport article refered to earlier in the thread said that whilst Subaru has a Group N base car it is also considering an S2000 model for evaluation once the rules are announced.

[m.lowe]

Bakewell based company Mellors Elliot Motorsport have announced their Proton S2000 prototype.
Proton have shown some interest but are not sure if they will back it fully
Once up and running MEM hope to sell more customer cars
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7792/protons20001hp4.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6249/protons2000gq9.jpg

[A.F.F.]

At least the proto is very good looking :up:

[LeonBrooke]

That Proton is beautiful :up:

Most S2000 cars I've seen are absolutely gorgeous, with the possible exception of the Pug 207 - the front end looks weird.

I think the best-looking rally cars are the most rugged-looking ones.

Anyway, can't wait for the S2000 WRC. More manufacturers, and cars which actually resemble road cars, it'll be great.

[m.lowe]

MG S2000 SPORT SITE (http://mg-s2000sport.mysite.orange.co.uk/)

[AndyRAC]

Anyway, can't wait for the S2000 WRC. More manufacturers, and cars which actually resemble road cars, it'll be great.

I agree, if, and it is if, the public can relate the Rally car to the road car it might help. I've never seen a Focus or C4 on a forecourt with a huge rear wing on. No guarantee of course but it can only help.

[alleskids]

Suzuki will debute their SX4 S2000 in the Rally New Zealand. They also plan a couple of IRC rounds this year.

[m.lowe]

more pics added to MG S2000 SPORT SITE (http://mg-s2000sport.mysite.orange.co.uk/)

[jparker]

more pics added to MG S2000 SPORT SITE (http://mg-s2000sport.mysite.orange.co.uk/)

... and some nice video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zoiz2Xg4F4

[Tiggeriffic]

I must say I love S2000. Maybe it is that we were exposed to it quite rapidly the past few years. This year more than 10 S2000 will run in the South-African national championship representing possibly 3 different manufacturers.(One has to be confirmed).

It did wonders for our national championship and the past year we saw a few cars running dead heats.The competion is fierce and fast and the people are coming back to spectate.It is maybe that they sound like rallycars again with the high revving engines and the sequential boxes.

And for the guys that think N4 are faster. N4 struggle to get into the top 5 and it was N12B Prodrive cars running.I'm all for S2000 and the fact that there is plenty manufactures showing interst in S2000 must show that there is a market for s2000. :)

[Helstar]

... and some nice video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zoiz2Xg4F4
Whoa that passage at 3'33" is really .... dangerous ! Nearly rolled the car ... who's driving ?_? I like him xD

[Mirek]

It was Stuart Jones I think...

[c4]

Think it is Ian Gwynne, Niall McShea was also apparently driving it at that session.

[Zico]

I must say I much prefer them to Grp N which are the dullest things ever rallied. I'd love to see S2500 or even S3000 as an eventual WRC replacement format, the noise would be tremendous. Thumbs up from me..

[flat out fred]

It was the mad Irishman

[Sulland]

The rally commission had a meeting last week where they hammered out the blueprint of the new WRC regulations that will go into effect from 2010. They will try to get them approved at the council meeting on March 26.

On this meeting it was a new tone amongst the participants; FIA, manufacturers and ISC the media rights holder. Since the last meeting the change was that now that all worked for the same target, a cheaper and more low-tech WR Car.

The most important things in the new rules are printed in the latest Autosport, and I will try to put in a condensed version here.

Engine: Will be based on a S2000 engine, and a standard Turbo will be added, to get more torque, but not much more hp's than 270-280 that S2000 has today.

Transmission: Semi automatic boxes are out. Sequential box is in. Hydraulics on any of the diffs are out, mechanical diffs at all 3 places in.

Electronics: Much more standard ECU, closer to a road car. Therefor: Launch control out, toghether with all the rest of the electronic controls they have today.

Brakes: Brakes will be smaller than today, especially the asphalt brakes. Water injection to cool them is out.

Interior: Will look much more spartan and simple than today. Much because of the loss of all the electronics. Just gauges for pressures and temperatures will be there.

Exterior: Will keep the large rear wing that they have today. Both for giving more downforce, but also to separate them from the S2000 cars.

They are aiming to write the regs to try to make it difficult to use the WRC in any other championship than WRC, but as they are saying; we do not dictate the national governing bodies - so lets see.

Implementation: They aim to implement from 2010, and since the last version of todays WR Car will get homologated in 09, they will be allowed in the championship in 2010 in de tuned version, for non prioritized drivers, but not in 2011.

We are doing this to save money, and by that getting more manufacturers into WRC says Morrie Chandler to Autosport, and he is hoping for 7 manufacturers in 2010.

Well, Abarth has announced that they will start building a new WRC if/ when this is approved by FIA, and Suzuki and Peugeot will also jump onboard I guess.

This also opens up the road to merge WRC and IRC if that in the future will be an issue, and IRC will steal too much glory !

Do You think this is the right way to go ??

[MJW]

Do You think this is the right way to go ??
Time will tell about that, but it is long past the time that costs were controlled. Being a techno fan I feel a little loss at the super technology (electronics) on current cars, but from a sporting point of view if these new cars could be say €250,000 and not be out of date after 1 year, (see difference between 05 Focus and 07 car - not in the same rally) and have a 3 year life and down to €100,000 after a few years and young drivers could get a chance to prove themselves in a few year old works cars it would be good. Almost back to the days of say Petter and Markko Martin in Celicas 205s. Anything that rewards fast (young) drivers and returns us to 6+ manufactureres who pay drivers to drive rather than the blatant bring money situation we have now is a good thing. The proposals about mechanical sequential gearboxes should also reward "real drivers"

[Mirek]

Sulland: Thank You, very interesting.

[BDunnell]

Thank you very much indeed, Sulland. Most of it sounds good to me, but these are my comments...



Engine: Will be based on a S2000 engine, and a standard Turbo will be added, to get more torque, but not much more hp's than 270-280 that S2000 has today.[/B]

Personally, I don't like the idea of everyone having to have a turbo to be competitive. My preference is for a variety of engines in a variety of cars in a variety of configurations, allowing some manufacturers to be competitive with less powerful machinery if it has other advantages. I'm a little concerned that the front-runners will all be cars of the same configuration that just look different externally.



Transmission: Semi automatic boxes are out. Sequential box is in. Hydraulics on any of the diffs are out, mechanical diffs at all 3 places in.

Electronics: Much more standard ECU, closer to a road car. Therefor: Launch control out, toghether with all the rest of the electronic controls they have today.

Brakes: Brakes will be smaller than today, especially the asphalt brakes. Water injection to cool them is out.

Interior: Will look much more spartan and simple than today. Much because of the loss of all the electronics. Just gauges for pressures and temperatures will be there.
[/B]

All that seems excellent at first glance.



Exterior: Will keep the large rear wing that they have today. Both for giving more downforce, but also to separate them from the S2000 cars.[/B]

I would be interested if anyone could say how much slower S2000 cars are expected to be.



They are aiming to write the regs to try to make it difficult to use the WRC in any other championship than WRC, but as they are saying; we do not dictate the national governing bodies - so lets see.[/B]

Instinctively, I don't like that. It will make national championships seem more insignificant than they already are. Surely history should tell the FIA to some extent that national championships are at their best when they are allowed to run the same sort of equipment as the WRC?



Implementation: They aim to implement from 2010, and since the last version of todays WR Car will get homologated in 09, they will be allowed in the championship in 2010 in de tuned version, for non prioritized drivers, but not in 2011.[/B]

Sounds like 2010 could be a bit of an 'interim' year, with this odd mix of cars. I'd prefer a completely 'clean break', though I recognise why this probably isn't possible.



This also opens up the road to merge WRC and IRC if that in the future will be an issue, and IRC will steal too much glory ![/B]

I think this has to be inevitable.

Having watched the PWRC coverage from Sweden on TV today, the S2000 Peugeot was by far the best car to watch in that field, and the thought of similar machines being pushed hard by the very top drivers is exciting. However, my main concern is that we will have a field full of cars that are almost identical in configuration and behaviour, with little scope for manufacturers to vary from a 'norm' if they are to be successful.

[grugsticles]

Do I think its the right way to go?

Hmm, in a word - Yes.

Although I havent read the complete proposed guidelines and havent hear all the exact changes, I do believe that the aboe mentioned changes are the right idea.
They seem to be a mi of S2000 with a hint of Group A which I think is perfect.

They say that the cars will have a turbo, which by the sounds of it will be a pissy little thing just for a little more torque at low revs. Thats a good thing IMO, but to limit the cars to the same approx horsepower that a S2000 has is probably not the best move.

Im also excited to hear the plans for 7 manufacturers in 2010 - an absolute godsend if you ask me. The would be Ford, Citroen, Subaru, Suzuki, Peugeot, Fiat(Abarth) but who else? Are Toyota/Skoda/Mitsubishi/Lancia planning on making a return to WRC?


Anyway, at least someone sems to be thinking straight at the FIA

[urabus-denoS2000]

I think thats a good idea.
There will probably be a lot of manufacters.
I like the idea of a small turbo and a bigger wing

[Daniel]

Anything which brings 7 manufacturers into the WRC will be alright with me. Time will tell though.

[N.O.T]

Its another thing to produce a car of certain specifications and sell it to rich boys and another to run a full WRC program. i doubt that all the manufacturers that will produce an s2000 will take part in the WRC.

[Sulland]

Time will tell about that, but it is long past the time that costs were controlled. Being a techno fan I feel a little loss at the super technology (electronics) on current cars, but from a sporting point of view if these new cars could be say €250,000 and not be out of date after 1 year, (see difference between 05 Focus and 07 car - not in the same rally) and have a 3 year life and down to €100,000 after a few years and young drivers could get a chance to prove themselves in a few year old works cars it would be good. Almost back to the days of say Petter and Markko Martin in Celicas 205s. Anything that rewards fast (young) drivers and returns us to 6+ manufactureres who pay drivers to drive rather than the blatant bring money situation we have now is a good thing. The proposals about mechanical sequential gearboxes should also reward "real drivers"

If this will happen it will be good, another way is of course to go in and say that basic homologations are for 3 years, and that just a few small things can be updated btw homologations - that would also create level playing fields for privateers and private teams !!

[BDunnell]

If this will happen it will be good, another way is of course to go in and say that basic homologations are for 3 years, and that just a few small things can be updated btw homologations - that would also create level playing fields for privateers and private teams !!

I agree strongly with this. It nearly happened with Group A, and, to be fair, the Sierra Cosworth and BMW M3 in particular were competitive customer cars for several seasons without major changes.

[OldF]

If the cost goes down and more manufacturers join, it’s the right way. :up:


Engine: Will be based on a S2000 engine, and a standard Turbo will be added, to get more torque, but not much more hp's than 270-280 that S2000 has today.

This would mean a quite standard engine like N4 nowadays. It would be nice if there were an option for the manufacturer to use a NA engine (2,5 l- 3,0 l) also. Not all manufacturers have a 2,5 l engine in it’s program but I think for the price of a turbo a 2,8 l – 3,2 l engine could be downsized to a 2,5 l.


Exterior: Will keep the large rear wing that they have today. Both for giving more downforce, but also to separate them from the S2000 cars.

The big rear wing is good because the S2000 (and S1600) have a tendency to land on their nose after jumps and the big rear wing helps with that problem. One pitfall is if the design of the wing is totally free, the manufacturers will spend a lot of time in the wind tunnel and that’s not cheap.


Implementation: They aim to implement from 2010, and since the last version of todays WR Car will get homologated in 09, they will be allowed in the championship in 2010 in de tuned version, for non prioritized drivers, but not in 2011.

What will happen to all the WRC cars, obsolete?

[Daniel]

This would mean a quite standard engine like N4 nowadays. It would be nice if there were an option for the manufacturer to use a NA engine (2,5 l- 3,0 l) also. Not all manufacturers have a 2,5 l engine in it’s program but I think for the price of a turbo a 2,8 l – 3,2 l engine could be downsized to a 2,5 l.

Thing is it's cheaper to get power out of an engine with a turbo than it is to tune a bigger engine. At least in terms of a competition car :)

[OldF]

Thing is it's cheaper to get power out of an engine with a turbo than it is to tune a bigger engine. At least in terms of a competition car :)

At least it’s easier to get more power from an engine with a turbo but in this case if the power is restricted to 270-280 hp, I don’t think a 2,5 l or 3,0 l NA engine has to be tuned so much to get the same power. A S2000 engine has to been modified anyway (compression ratio etc.) when a turbo is added.

[Daniel]

At least it’s easier to get more power from an engine with a turbo but in this case if the power is restricted to 270-280 hp, I don’t think a 2,5 l or 3,0 l NA engine has to be tuned so much to get the same power. A S2000 engine has to been modified anyway (compression ratio etc.) when a turbo is added.
I think a turbo is still cheaper :)

[LeonBrooke]

This would mean a quite standard engine like N4 nowadays. It would be nice if there were an option for the manufacturer to use a NA engine (2,5 l- 3,0 l) also. Not all manufacturers have a 2,5 l engine in it’s program but I think for the price of a turbo a 2,8 l – 3,2 l engine could be downsized to a 2,5 l.

I think it would be great to see a variety of different configurations of engine competing against each other, so long as they were equivalent. a 2.5L or 2.8L NA engine might even suit some manufacturers' marketing better than a 2.0L turbo.


The big rear wing is good because the S2000 (and S1600) have a tendency to land on their nose after jumps and the big rear wing helps with that problem. One pitfall is if the design of the wing is totally free, the manufacturers will spend a lot of time in the wind tunnel and that’s not cheap.

Not only do the WRC rear wings cost a lot do develop, but IMO they're ugly. At least you can imagine a S1600/S2000 rear wing on a road car.


What will happen to all the WRC cars, obsolete?

I'm imagining hillclimbs, rallycross, etc., like the group Bs when they were banned from the WRC. Plus, they'll probably still be legal in some national championships.

[AndyRAC]

Having seen the article in Autosport, I am quite hopeful about the future. I just hope it attracts a good number of Manufacturers, and some new ones.


I think it would be great to see a variety of different configurations of engine competing against each other, so long as they were equivalent. a 2.5L or 2.8L NA engine might even suit some manufacturers' marketing better than a 2.0L turbo.



Not only do the WRC rear wings cost a lot do develop, but IMO they're ugly. At least you can imagine a S1600/S2000 rear wing on a road car.



I'm imagining hillclimbs, rallycross, etc., like the group Bs when they were banned from the WRC. Plus, they'll probably still be legal in some national championships.

I would like to see a variety of different configurations- it can get boring listening to the same 'strangled fart' sound. At Epynt yesterday there were all kinds of engines and sounds. It would be nice if the WRC was ike this.
I'd like to go further though and see a variety of transmission configurations, i;e 4WD, FWD, RWD. So a 4WD car would have les power than FWD/RWD, but obviously superior traction. Whereas a FWD/RWD would have a lot more power but less traction. But I know this won't happen- it was remembering Ragnotti against the Lancia Deltas in Portugal in 1987 got me thinking.

[Helstar]

I don't want turbo ! Because if so there will be a limiter like now on Gr.N = bad sound. S2000 is ok, sounds good (high RPM) and good speed that will only improve in years - I think in 2-3 years max we will have a very very nice top speed from some engines (think about Citroen they always do unbelievable work on engines power).

[Daniel]

I don't want turbo ! Because if so there will be a limiter like now on Gr.N = bad sound. S2000 is ok, sounds good (high RPM) and good speed that will only improve in years - I think in 2-3 years max we will have a very very nice top speed from some engines (think about Citroen they always do unbelievable work on engines power).
I agree turbo's suck but it is the cheapest way to get power.

[Daniel]

I would like to see a variety of different configurations- it can get boring listening to the same 'strangled fart' sound. At Epynt yesterday there were all kinds of engines and sounds. It would be nice if the WRC was ike this.
I'd like to go further though and see a variety of transmission configurations, i;e 4WD, FWD, RWD. So a 4WD car would have les power than FWD/RWD, but obviously superior traction. Whereas a FWD/RWD would have a lot more power but less traction. But I know this won't happen- it was remembering Ragnotti against the Lancia Deltas in Portugal in 1987 got me thinking.

Was watching the 95 season review on dvd the other day and it was amazing. The cars sounded different and performed differently on different surfaces and there were rallies where 2wd car were up there also. Would it be possible to make the cars moldular in regards to drivetrain? IE car can be 4wd or FWD or RWD? I do think it would be good if the cars could at least have an option for 2wd in some form or another and be given allowances in tyre width and weight as the F2 cars had over WRCars in the 90's just to make things a bit different.

The best thing about the WRC in the 90's was that you had so many different factors in play. Specialists, 2wd cars, tyre manufacturer, one car being suited to a specific surface and so on.

These days you get the feeling that the cars are very similar underneath the bodywork :mark:

[AndyRAC]

Was watching the 95 season review on dvd the other day and it was amazing. The cars sounded different and performed differently on different surfaces and there were rallies where 2wd car were up there also. Would it be possible to make the cars moldular in regards to drivetrain? IE car can be 4wd or FWD or RWD? I do think it would be good if the cars could at least have an option for 2wd in some form or another and be given allowances in tyre width and weight as the F2 cars had over WRCars in the 90's just to make things a bit different.

The best thing about the WRC in the 90's was that you had so many different factors in play. Specialists, 2wd cars, tyre manufacturer, one car being suited to a specific surface and so on.

These days you get the feeling that the cars are very similar underneath the bodywork :mark:

In my mind that was one of the stengths of the WRC - all the different variables - cars and tyres for gravel, some for tarmac, same with drivers; on Tar specialists would come into the team, on snow Eriksson, Jonsson, Radstrom, etc. I seem to remember somebody high up saying the teams having specialists wasn't good because you wouldn't get that in F1- i;e bringing in a driver for a certain circuit. So what WRC is not F1, thank goodness, that's half the problem now- changes made to make it F1 like.

[Abarth]

I agree turbo's suck but it is the cheapest way to get power.

So if not Turbo, what about a Supercharger/Kompressor to boost the S2000 engine ?

[RAS007]

One of the main reasons the WRC coverage has become so poor is it is impossible to create an interesting program when you have only got 2 competitors winning rallies............

+1

That is it in a nutshell.

[Daniel]

So if not Turbo, what about a Supercharger/Kompressor to boost the S2000 engine ?
Why does the engine have to have forced induction? :confused:

[Carlo]

I agree turbo's suck .

But only on the inlet side

[RAS007]

In my mind that was one of the stengths of the WRC - all the different variables - cars and tyres for gravel, some for tarmac, same with drivers; on Tar specialists would come into the team, on snow Eriksson, Jonsson, Radstrom, etc.

Aghini, Liatti, Blomqvist, Cunico, Bourne, Duncan.........

It used to be so much more exciting.

[Isthmus]

So, what do you think about the end of the not most powerfull, but the fastest rally cars ever made? Perhaps the C4WRC tarmac spec is the fastest ever.

Todays WRC cars are technological piece of engeneering, and i will really miss them, even with 2 seasons from end. The idea of the new being an S2000 "tuned" is just :( I really hop the new cars will be completely different from what S2000 are....because they´re quite boring to watch, when compared to WRC cars!

Its a pitty that few manufacturers are in today or, i should say, real contenders? Because for me the problem is not the number of manufacturers, but the fact that they are not competitive. We need that all brands get in with REAL intents for win, not just to make number. Years in the past, we had less manufacturers in the field to figth to the win.
Do you have present the number of manufacturers in F1? 5...(Ferrari/BMW/Renault/Toyota/Honda) the others are privateers, including Mclaren(with engines from Mercedes). But here, the privateers are competitive!

So, we also need more teams like Stobart. But there´s problems in that because a privateer can´t have is hown car in WRC.

And what to think about the new Subaru, a new car being developed to compite 1.5years :dozey:

[Viktory]

I really hop the new cars will be completely different from what S2000 are....because they´re quite boring to watch, when compared to WRC cars!


I was of the same opinion at first, but after spectating in Sweden, and seeing Patrik Sandell in the Peugeot S2000 I've changed my mind. Sandell was the driver I was most looking forward to seeing of the whole field. The sound and attack of his driving was amazing to see. I agree though that as the S2000 regulations are now, we will pretty much get a field of very similar cars which is not very fun.

[urabus-denoS2000]

This sounds interesting.

http://www.rallye-magazin.de/r/wm/d/n/d/2008/03/05/tueroeffner-fuer-mitsubishi/index.html

It says something about Mitsubishi coimg back to the WRC,although my german is not very good.
So now comes the usual question:
Can someone translate?

[BDunnell]

I would like to see a variety of different configurations- it can get boring listening to the same 'strangled fart' sound. At Epynt yesterday there were all kinds of engines and sounds. It would be nice if the WRC was ike this.
I'd like to go further though and see a variety of transmission configurations, i;e 4WD, FWD, RWD. So a 4WD car would have les power than FWD/RWD, but obviously superior traction. Whereas a FWD/RWD would have a lot more power but less traction. But I know this won't happen- it was remembering Ragnotti against the Lancia Deltas in Portugal in 1987 got me thinking.

That's always at the forefront of my mind too (as I keep going on about, endlessly). Remember the 1987 Manx International? If not, try and find a video of it. It's another classic example of the same thing.

[BDunnell]

In my mind that was one of the stengths of the WRC - all the different variables - cars and tyres for gravel, some for tarmac, same with drivers; on Tar specialists would come into the team, on snow Eriksson, Jonsson, Radstrom, etc. I seem to remember somebody high up saying the teams having specialists wasn't good because you wouldn't get that in F1- i;e bringing in a driver for a certain circuit. So what WRC is not F1, thank goodness, that's half the problem now- changes made to make it F1 like.

Yes, around 1995-97 it was great. Of course, it used to be even more varied. Look at the fastest times Roger Clark set on the 1981 RAC. He was well past his prime by then, but they all occurred in his favourite Welsh forests; a whole string of fastest times, against Mikkola, Vatanen, Airikkala, etc. Nowadays, how many different drivers set fastest times in a single WRC event? Hardly any.

The tremendous battles in the old British Open Championship also provide good examples. Manta 400s used to be able to keep up with, and beat, Quattros. Why? Because the Opel Dealer Teams prepared them brilliantly, the drivers were excellent, and an element of local knowledge came into it. Bertie Fisher's scrap against Stig Blomqvist on the Ulster International in 1983 sums this up.

It's really the lack of variety in the plans for the WRC that concern me. Yes, it will be possible (hopefully) for more drivers and manufacturers to win, but their cars will all have to be the same. The problem, of course, is that the rules under which rallying was at its best in my opinion were not sufficiently 'tight' to be able to restrict further development, which led first to the Group B monsters of 1985-6 that were unsustainable, and then the WRCs of today. What's the way to stop this happening again with the next set of rules?

[OldF]

This sounds interesting.

http://www.rallye-magazin.de/r/wm/d/n/d/2008/03/05/tueroeffner-fuer-mitsubishi/index.html

It says something about Mitsubishi coimg back to the WRC,although my german is not very good.
So now comes the usual question:
Can someone translate?

Translated with: http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/tr


Door opener for Mitsubishi? The new technical rules of the Rallye world championship could up-push also for Mitsubishi the doors for a return to the Topliga. RETURN POSSIBLE: Mitsubishi could start in the future with a N+ in the WRC It prevails to departure tendency. At the end of March wants the FIA over important changes of rule in the Rallye WM to advise and could the way for new manufacturers to open. 2009 is already in-braked World Rally Cars and Super-2000-Autos with a turbo-kit certified. Starting from 2011 only the rigged S2000-Fahrzeuge becomes certified, however under the well-known names "WRC". For the armament of the Super2000 only about 30 per cent of additional parts should be necessary, the change takes maximally 48 hours. If a current Super2000 in full equipment costs about 250,000 euro, the new World Rally Cars is not to become more expensive than 300,000 euro, whereby the turbo-kit with approximately 50,000 euro is to show in the books and a drive with approximately 30,000 euro, strengthened by the increased torque, will have to be had. By these changes of rule also Mitsubishi could become again a WM candidate beside Fiats. According to Fiat haven boss Claudio Berro plans the FIA likewise to permit group cars like the new Lancer Evo X with an armament kit (likewise about 30 per cent of new parts) for the future WRC class. Mitsubishi Sportchef Isao Torii signaled already on the IAA in past September that its enterprise under these circumstances had large interest in a return to the WM.

[grugsticles]

Translated with: http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/tr


Door opener for Mitsubishi? The new technical rules of the Rallye world championship could up-push also for Mitsubishi the doors for a return to the Topliga. RETURN POSSIBLE: Mitsubishi could start in the future with a N+ in the WRC It prevails to departure tendency. At the end of March wants the FIA over important changes of rule in the Rallye WM to advise and could the way for new manufacturers to open. 2009 is already in-braked World Rally Cars and Super-2000-Autos with a turbo-kit certified. Starting from 2011 only the rigged S2000-Fahrzeuge becomes certified, however under the well-known names "WRC". For the armament of the Super2000 only about 30 per cent of additional parts should be necessary, the change takes maximally 48 hours. If a current Super2000 in full equipment costs about 250,000 euro, the new World Rally Cars is not to become more expensive than 300,000 euro, whereby the turbo-kit with approximately 50,000 euro is to show in the books and a drive with approximately 30,000 euro, strengthened by the increased torque, will have to be had. By these changes of rule also Mitsubishi could become again a WM candidate beside Fiats. According to Fiat haven boss Claudio Berro plans the FIA likewise to permit group cars like the new Lancer Evo X with an armament kit (likewise about 30 per cent of new parts) for the future WRC class. Mitsubishi Sportchef Isao Torii signaled already on the IAA in past September that its enterprise under these circumstances had large interest in a return to the WM.

Translation - my arse!
LOL, i still have trouble understanding it:P

[OldF]

Translation - my arse!
LOL, i still have trouble understanding it:P

What’s the problem, most of the words are in English. :) I didn’t claim that it was a translation,
it was translated with http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/

[grugsticles]

Yeah, I know. Just joking.

[bstrat]

Punto S2000 rules (I love that sound too !) :p
Also the Pug S2000 is a great car, funny to watch already now. Think about next years... when the speed bar will be raised.

It would be bad if Ford Citroen Subaru Suzuki won't develop a S2000 and quit. Then the change is not good. But all of these 4 plus the new manus, more cars, better :p
Gr. N sucks I must agree.

Well I hope this all works out. I am not sure if anybody has answerd this but I only disscoverd it today. Hopefully they can work out a way of using S2000 cars. I think that they should make different rules so they don't all sound or drive the same etheir, what just about everyone on this forum is saying. I know that over in Australia Ford made a Feista S2000. Best sounding rally car in Australia I reckon. It also did sound different to the Toyota Corolla S2000. I guess Citroen could make a C4 S2000. Suzuki could make an S2000 version of their SX4. Subaru could make oine around their new Impreza too. I think it would be good to get turbos in, get different things happening so they don't get boring.

Thats just my two cents. :D :D

[OldF]

Well, we know now that the future WRC cars will be based on S2000 and N group cars. My concern is when the power will be restricted to 270 – 280 hp, will the S2000+turbo cars also sound like the N-grp cars nowadays, i.e. boring. The turbo allowed to the S2000 should be the same type they used in the beginning of the 90’s when the cars where spectacular to watch and the revs where higher, although they had a turbo. It would also be nice with an option for a 2,5-3,0 litre NA engine for the manufacturers that prefer a NA prior to a turbo.

What about the N-grp based WRC cars then? I would assume they would have at least more freedom regarding the suspension.

[Mirek]

bstrat: SX4 S2000 is under full development. Homologation is expected in the late summer. Citroën won't built C4 S2000 because it has already started development of new generation C3 S2000.

[GigiGalliNo1]

I haven't heard the name Isao Torii in a while!

[L5->R5/CR]

Well, we know now that the future WRC cars will be based on S2000 and N group cars. My concern is when the power will be restricted to 270 – 280 hp, will the S2000+turbo cars also sound like the N-grp cars nowadays, i.e. boring. The turbo allowed to the S2000 should be the same type they used in the beginning of the 90’s when the cars where spectacular to watch and the revs where higher, although they had a turbo. It would also be nice with an option for a 2,5-3,0 litre NA engine for the manufacturers that prefer a NA prior to a turbo.

What about the N-grp based WRC cars then? I would assume they would have at least more freedom regarding the suspension.



I read an interesting comment the other day (and then looked at a variety of times to confirm it).

Based on stage times, on many stages today's N4 cars are faster than the Group A cars of the mid to late 90s...

How our perceptions change...

[GigiGalliNo1]

So phasing out WRC cars for S2000/Grp. N cars will perhaps be more exciting?

Not too sure, but I am finding the IRC better... well i've lost track of the WRC now... unless I know it is on!

Oh with the calendar being 12 rounds a year... something about it making it 24 a season would that mean the next season will start in 2009 and finish at the end of 2010? (and WRChampion will be crowned in 2010 with both years points tallied up?)

[Maui J.]

This new S2000 + Turbo has got me thinking that it will improve the sport with more manufacturers, but one rule needs to change.
Please ignore this if it has been mentioned before.

Today with the WRC car format, if I’m not wrong, but to have it run in WRC events as well as registered for the manufacturer’s championship, basically the consent of the parent company is needed. Prodrive and MSport have this consent on behalf of Subaru and Ford respectively. Citroen and Suzuki are in-house.

It seems like S2000 cars can be built and campaigned by anyone with enough resources.
MSD make the MG S2000, TRD Australia with the Corolla S2000, VW South Africa with the Polo S2000, MEM are making the new Proton S2000 etc.

So with the basic S2000 built, it seems as if three quarters of the job is already done before taking the next step up to the top division, S2000 +Turbo.

Here's the problem I see. I can’t really see a private development team going this next step if their car can’t run for points in the manufacturers’ championship or even run in a WRC round.

Maybe the consent rule should be dropped.

S2000 cars by Peugeot, Abarth (Fiat), Skoda and the yet to be built Suzuki and Citroen are all in-house, so it would seem logically for them to step up to S2000 + Turbo. Unfortunately if the parent companies of these other brands aren’t interested we may never see a Proton, MG, VW or Toyota top flight car if the consent rule remains.

Say for interest sake that the VW parent company weren’t interested in either funding or consenting to a VW Polo S2000T. That shouldn’t stop the private developers still making one, and for it to be eligable to run in WRC events for points. We could see privateers, like Henning or Stohl using them with their own sponsors or even with the backing of local VW dealers/importers. Similar to Patrik Sandell with the Peugeot Sweden entry in the PWRC.

Anyway just some thoughts. I’m hoping for many more manufacturers in this next era of the WRC. More manufacturers equates to more bums on seats, which equates to more depth, which equates to better rallies! Hope the FIA get it right!

[wwbroe]

This new S2000 + Turbo has got me thinking that it will improve the sport with more manufacturers, but one rule needs to change.
Please ignore this if it has been mentioned before.

Today with the WRC car format, if I’m not wrong, but to have it run in WRC events as well as registered for the manufacturer’s championship, basically the consent of the parent company is needed. Prodrive and MSport have this consent on behalf of Subaru and Ford respectively. Citroen and Suzuki are in-house.

It seems like S2000 cars can be built and campaigned by anyone with enough resources.
MSD make the MG S2000, TRD Australia with the Corolla S2000, VW South Africa with the Polo S2000, MEM are making the new Proton S2000 etc.

So with the basic S2000 built, it seems as if three quarters of the job is already done before taking the next step up to the top division, S2000 +Turbo.

Here's the problem I see. I can’t really see a private development team going this next step if their car can’t run for points in the manufacturers’ championship or even run in a WRC round.

Maybe the consent rule should be dropped.

S2000 cars by Peugeot, Abarth (Fiat), Skoda and the yet to be built Suzuki and Citroen are all in-house, so it would seem logically for them to step up to S2000 + Turbo. Unfortunately if the parent companies of these other brands aren’t interested we may never see a Proton, MG, VW or Toyota top flight car if the consent rule remains.

Say for interest sake that the VW parent company weren’t interested in either funding or consenting to a VW Polo S2000T. That shouldn’t stop the private developers still making one, and for it to be eligable to run in WRC events for points. We could see privateers, like Henning or Stohl using them with their own sponsors or even with the backing of local VW dealers/importers. Similar to Patrik Sandell with the Peugeot Sweden entry in the PWRC.

Anyway just some thoughts. I’m hoping for many more manufacturers in this next era of the WRC. More manufacturers equates to more bums on seats, which equates to more depth, which equates to better rallies! Hope the FIA get it right!


Good post mate, i think you have a point there. Hopefully FIA will see the point of it too, but i'm afraid they won't. ;)

[Sulland]

First pics of the new car that probably will form the basis of the new Citroen S2000, and S2000 based WRC

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/220215/citroen_c3.html

[urabus-denoS2000]

This is weird,they usually show the picture of the new rally car based on the new car and then the standard new car(both C2 S1600 and C4 WRC were shown before the C2 and C4)

[Daniel]

First pics of the new car that probably will form the basis of the new Citroen S2000, and S2000 based WRC

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/220215/citroen_c3.html

Nice joke :) Autoexpress is THE worst magazine in the world. They make stuff up. They made stuff up about a Ferrari Dino and photochopped it onto the background of a Porsche shoot.

Look at this. Pure fantasy. THey just crookedly chopped a 2cvesque nose onto a C3 middle section and then changed the back a bit. It's pure fantasy and will never happen.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208391/citroens_2cv_is_back.html

By the time this car is supposed to debut Auto Express will have made up so many other cars that you'll forget about this one and how it was so wrong compared to the real thing.


This is weird,they usually show the picture of the new rally car based on the new car and then the standard new car(both C2 S1600 and C4 WRC were shown before the C2 and C4)

As I said above this is Auto Express. They are forever breaking these exlusive bullpoop stories which have no link to reality at all. This is rubbish. It may look a tiny bit like the real thing but the real thing will probably be quite a bit different.

[OldF]

Changes ahead for the WRC - Part two

http://www.wrc.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=201&featureid=840&desc=Changes%20ahead%20for%20the%20WRC%20-%20Part%20two

[Helstar]

Thats just my two cents. :D :D
You actually quoted me from a 23rd Dec 2007 post, but it's all ok :p

[Brother John]

This new S2000 + Turbo has got me thinking that it will improve the sport with more manufacturers, but one rule needs to change.
Please ignore this if it has been mentioned before.

Today with the WRC car format, if I’m not wrong, but to have it run in WRC events as well as registered for the manufacturer’s championship, basically the consent of the parent company is needed. Prodrive and MSport have this consent on behalf of Subaru and Ford respectively. Citroen and Suzuki are in-house.

It seems like S2000 cars can be built and campaigned by anyone with enough resources.
MSD make the MG S2000, TRD Australia with the Corolla S2000, VW South Africa with the Polo S2000, MEM are making the new Proton S2000 etc.

So with the basic S2000 built, it seems as if three quarters of the job is already done before taking the next step up to the top division, S2000 +Turbo.

Here's the problem I see. I can’t really see a private development team going this next step if their car can’t run for points in the manufacturers’ championship or even run in a WRC round.

Maybe the consent rule should be dropped.

S2000 cars by Peugeot, Abarth (Fiat), Skoda and the yet to be built Suzuki and Citroen are all in-house, so it would seem logically for them to step up to S2000 + Turbo. Unfortunately if the parent companies of these other brands aren’t interested we may never see a Proton, MG, VW or Toyota top flight car if the consent rule remains.

Say for interest sake that the VW parent company weren’t interested in either funding or consenting to a VW Polo S2000T. That shouldn’t stop the private developers still making one, and for it to be eligable to run in WRC events for points. We could see privateers, like Henning or Stohl using them with their own sponsors or even with the backing of local VW dealers/importers. Similar to Patrik Sandell with the Peugeot Sweden entry in the PWRC.

Anyway just some thoughts. I’m hoping for many more manufacturers in this next era of the WRC. More manufacturers equates to more bums on seats, which equates to more depth, which equates to better rallies! Hope the FIA get it right!

Maybe the answer appears here? If I reed it correct!
The cost of competing at WRC level was beyond the means of privateer teams too. There's nothing to prevent anybody sitting down with a particular brand of car and deciding to contest the WRC. What we're saying is we've got to make it affordable. The object of the exercise is to widen as much as we can the opportunities for people to contest the WRC at the top end.


Source: http://www.wrc.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=201&featureid=840&desc=Changes%20ahead%20for%20the%20WRC%20-%20Part%20two

[jonkka]

Only manufacturer can initiate a homologation process - or authorize a third party to do it for them.

[Helstar]

from wrc.com

"Will they be as spectacular to watch? - We're working to ensure the new cars are exciting to watch. Whether we like it or not, the right amount of exhaust noise is popular with spectators and even though a car going sideways isn't the fastest way through a stage it certainly looks good. So we'll be addressing these and other areas. We're not copying Formula 1 but you've only got to look at what's happened there this season; traction control is removed and all of a sudden the drivers have got to actually drive the cars. I hope we'll see the same thing with the new WRC car. The new technical regulations will mean a lot of the electronic components and driver aids will disappear."

AH ! Look who was right :p me !

[bstrat]

from wrc.com

"Will they be as spectacular to watch? - We're working to ensure the new cars are exciting to watch. Whether we like it or not, the right amount of exhaust noise is popular with spectators and even though a car going sideways isn't the fastest way through a stage it certainly looks good. So we'll be addressing these and other areas. We're not copying Formula 1 but you've only got to look at what's happened there this season; traction control is removed and all of a sudden the drivers have got to actually drive the cars. I hope we'll see the same thing with the new WRC car. The new technical regulations will mean a lot of the electronic components and driver aids will disappear."

It sounds like they actually have been listening to what almost everybody is saying. It sounds good to me though. :D :D I can't wait.

[kolvas]

Picking up a old thread
Whats the different costs between a Gr. N and a S2000 car?
I know that Gr. N i cheaper to buy but the costs in service and thoose things?