What about group "B" ??

[Meeve]

Hi, I'm new here and I have a lot of questions. First, I heard about a group B in rally that were like supercar. Can anyone tell me more about this? Why was it stopped? What was the drivers and cars that did the best performance back then? Will it ever have suche a group again? I'd like to know all what you guys have to say.

Thanks, Vincent

[sollitt]

Why was it stopped? Because, despite them being spectacular, they were dangerous.

Will it ever have suche a group again? No.

[Meeve]

Because, despite them being spectacular, they were dangerous.

They were dangerous? I heard about accident yes... but isint it a bit normal after all this is a race no? Rallying is dangerous.. Was there anything espacialy dangerous with group B?

[WRCfan]

Speeds and the sheer performance of the cars. The cars appeared hard to handle at times.

They were banned because they were killing drivers, Toivonen's death was the straw that broke the camel's back...

All racing has risks, but you try to make the risks manageable (sp). Thus in today's WRC I think they have done that quite well compared to the focus on safety of the group B era. Not just with car's but all round safety too.

[Magnus]

They were dangerous? I heard about accident yes... but isint it a bit normal after all this is a race no? Rallying is dangerous.. Was there anything espacialy dangerous with group B?

Rallying isn´t that dangerous, and the development in this area since the 80ies has gone very far. High risk is a very bad promotor for the sport.

[Spud]

Speeds and the sheer performance of the cars. The cars appeared hard to handle at times.

They were banned because they were killing drivers, Toivonen's death was the straw that broke the camel's back...

All racing has risks, but you try to make the risks manageable (sp). Thus in today's WRC I think they have done that quite well compared to the focus on safety of the group B era. Not just with car's but all round safety too.


Agreed WRCfan, safety has improved by leaps and bounds since the 80s.But thinking about it now, Group B was dangerous....fun to watch and listen to ...but very dangerous nontheless.

[tmx]

Hi, I'm new here and I have a lot of questions. First, I heard about a group B in rally that were like supercar. Can anyone tell me more about this? Why was it stopped? What was the drivers and cars that did the best performance back then? Will it ever have suche a group again? I'd like to know all what you guys have to say.

Thanks, Vincent

There are many video documentary on the subject. It was dangerous one because the FIA did not pay enough attention to the sport, the regulation were loose and the cars were developing so fast. If FIA had restrain to car performance it may be a different story. It got to almost 600bhp at one point and accel as fast as F1 on gravel. Since the car were so spectacular and the roar of the engine, it draws a lot of spectators.

Regardless of that the WRC car today even though is limited to 300hp, they accel as fast and go much faster than group B car, with better handling and the active differentials. But there is better marshalling and event organizing which is the main safety key. Otherwize the WRC cars today is really much faster than Group B imo, maybe not acceleration but overall.


They were dangerous? I heard about accident yes... but isint it a bit normal after all this is a race no? Rallying is dangerous.. Was there anything espacialy dangerous with group B?
Much harder to handle compared to today. Good example is Portugal 1985 and 1986, where they were driving in the middle of a river of people, and being used to it, just accelling through them.

[jiipee64]

Just read a book By Kleiin

"Gruppe B - Aufstieg und Fall der Rallye-Monster "

That has a exellent story from that time

About the cars technology and POLITICS

Don't worry it's bilangual german/english

[Iskald]

Rallying isn´t that dangerous, and the development in this area since the 80ies has gone very far. High risk is a very bad promotor for the sport.

On what scale re. risk and danger do you place rallying, Magnus? World-wide statistics actually tell that rallying is one of the most dangerous sports, killing a number of competitors and spectators every year. The last couple of years hasn`t been that "bad", but 2005 was a nasty year with something like 13-14 deaths. There are not many other competitive sports - if any - with such bad statistics.

[pino]

It would be interesting to look at all the statistics and see where rallying is placed.

(J4MIE)

[MrJan]

I was watching an MSA video last night and motorsport as a whole isn't even in the top four most dangerous sports. Bear in mind that on a half marathon in England the other year 4 people died, that doesn't happen in rallying but you don't hear people crying on about the dangers of running. It's just not fair.

For the record check out Group B on Youtube to see how dangerous it was. The cars were nuts compared to the well designed WRC cars of today

[jonkka]

And the absolute pinnacle of the madness was driving those monsters on full tilt between a human wall - as seen in Portugal and San Remo. It's a small wonder how drivers were able to do that, in-car footage defies belief.

[RicKT]

Hi, I'm new here and I have a lot of questions. First, I heard about a group B in rally that were like supercar. Can anyone tell me more about this? Why was it stopped? What was the drivers and cars that did the best performance back then? Will it ever have suche a group again? I'd like to know all what you guys have to say.

Thanks, Vincent

Hi Vincent.

Take a look at the below to get a true idea on what was going on..

The powerful sound track on the video gives the feeling what it was like.....

As said above, a major factor was the amount of people on the stages standing on outside of bends etc etc... and the power of the Group B cars...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJGPda5uGE


Also..

This below clip shows you the types of speed and spectator issues.... there are a few famous clips in there, which are famous for the WRONG reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJGPda5uGE

and below....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44iibIEeWGM&feature=related

Hopefully these videos will answer a few questions for you.

cheers

Rick

[ShiftingGears]

They were dangerous? I heard about accident yes... but isint it a bit normal after all this is a race no? Rallying is dangerous.. Was there anything espacialy dangerous with group B?

Group B would've lived on at least a few more years if Portugal had competent spectator enforcement, and if Toivonens Lancia had been protected by a skidplate maybe he probably would've survived. And if Toivonen had not been suffering a fever during the time around the '86 Tour de Corse maybe the crash would never have happened. In retrospect, those unfortunate and probably preventable events coupled with driver concerns from people like Toivonen put the writing on the wall for Group B.

[Iskald]

Group B would've lived on at least a few more years if Portugal had competent spectator enforcement, and if Toivonens Lancia had been protected by a skidplate maybe he probably would've survived. And if Toivonen had not been suffering a fever during the time around the '86 Tour de Corse maybe the crash would never have happened. In retrospect, those unfortunate and probably preventable events coupled with driver concerns from people like Toivonen put the writing on the wall for Group B.

I think you are simplyfying and speculating here. The accident in Portugal 1986 with Santos (Ford RS200) ploughing into and killing several spectators and a couple of months later Henri Toivonen/Sergio Cresto`s fatal accident in Corsica, were true enough two of the main arguments against Group B. But there were other grave accidents as well. Attilio Bettega had a fatal crash in Corsica 1985, in a RWD Lancia 037, but this was also a Group B car. Marc Surer was severely injured and his codriver killed in a Ford RS200 and Ari Vatanen nearly died crashing his Peugeot 205T16 in Argentina 1986.

Talking to former rally drivers from this period today I think you will find that many of them found the Group B cars extremely fascinating, but also probably were scared ****less of these monsterous machines while driving them. Group B actually had the writing on the wall nearly before the cars started rallying.

[N.O.T]

I think the reasons they stopped it were 70% politics from F1As dogs and 30% because of the cars themselves.

[Meeve]

Thanks to you all for answering my questions. But I still have a few more.. What was the best car then? Most of you talked about Peugot and Ford RS200 is that it? I heard about some car consrtructor like Audi won a "double" what is that? Why was Lancia not trustiong 4WD when audi proved it was the best? thanks

[Josti]

I think the reasons they stopped it were 70% politics from F1As dogs and 30% because of the cars themselves.

Yes, and if I remember correctly, Pentti once said that Bernie Ecclestone (and maybe some other F1 equivelants) played a role in FIA's decision of banning Group B. Rally was really grabbing hold on F1 in populairity those days.

Anyway, Great cars, probably too dangerous, but things around the cars weren't organized at it's best either. But the sound is just adorable...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qefKc-SPR-I&feature=related

[MrJan]

Thanks to you all for answering my questions. But I still have a few more.. What was the best car then? Most of you talked about Peugot and Ford RS200 is that it? I heard about some car consrtructor like Audi won a "double" what is that? Why was Lancia not trustiong 4WD when audi proved it was the best? thanks

I believe Audi were the most succesful as they were at the forefront of the Group B era. Lancia eventually moved to 4wd with the Delta S4 (the car that Toivonen was driving when he died) Ford and MG arrived on the scene a lot later and I don't think either had enough time to make real headlines so it's the Quattro and 205T16 that are best known.

I'd just like to add that my knowledge of Group B results are sketchy so others are likely to provide more reliable comment.

[Mirek]

Audi Quattro was first 4WD but it had also many issues, unreliable engine in the first variants and in all variants a lot of understeering because of longitudinal engine infront of front axle. They used small wheelbase and long car - big polar moments of innertia, especialy front as I mentioned before. The first versions also had wrong engine volume which made it too heavy (multiplied by turbo coefficient they were only few ccm above an engine limit for lighter car). Audi was all the time a classic conception car with engine in the front. In the very end they used semi-automatic Porsche gearbox with double clutch and sequential shifting, something like DSG nowadays. In 1986 they tested mid-engine prototype even in our county - Czechoslowakia - that days behind an iron curtain, very close to Zlin in guarded testing area. There are some photos of the prototype from that secret test.

Oposite to that Peugeot 205 T16 and later Lancia Delta S4, Ford RS200 or MG Metro 6R4 were built as racing monsters just from scratch. They used mid-engine concept with fuel tanks under crew seats which gave them ideal weight distribution and minimum polar moments of innertia. But using turbochargers, exhaust and engine so close to plastic fuel tanks was dangerous. From that point of view Metro was less dangerous since it had naturaly aspirated engine.
It is hard to say which car was the best. From RWD it was clearly Lancia 037 but from 4WD my vote goes to Peugeot 205 T16. Lancia Delta S4 was more sophisticated but very hard to drive.

[AndyRAC]

Yes, and if I remember correctly, Pentti once said that Bernie Ecclestone (and maybe some other F1 equivelants) played a role in FIA's decision of banning Group B. Rally was really grabbing hold on F1 in populairity those days.

Anyway, Great cars, probably too dangerous, but things around the cars weren't organized at it's best either. But the sound is just adorable...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qefKc-SPR-I&feature=related

The same thing happened allegedly a few years ago- when WRC was doing similar to the Schumi F1 borefest. Remember most of the teams had at least 3 cars, some more. And there were 6/7 teams - that's a lot of works drivers. Look what happened- stupid FIA rules; the limit to 2 drivers, then teams walked away. Now look were we are???

[Lousada]

Yes, and if I remember correctly, Pentti once said that Bernie Ecclestone (and maybe some other F1 equivelants) played a role in FIA's decision of banning Group B. Rally was really grabbing hold on F1 in populairity those days.

The same thing happened around that time to Group C which was Endurance racing and Group A which was Touring Cars. Those were also on the rise and fell even deeper then Rally.

[Lousada]

I think you are simplyfying and speculating here. The accident in Portugal 1986 with Santos (Ford RS200) ploughing into and killing several spectators and a couple of months later Henri Toivonen/Sergio Cresto`s fatal accident in Corsica, were true enough two of the main arguments against Group B. But there were other grave accidents as well. Attilio Bettega had a fatal crash in Corsica 1985, in a RWD Lancia 037, but this was also a Group B car. Marc Surer was severely injured and his codriver killed in a Ford RS200 and Ari Vatanen nearly died crashing his Peugeot 205T16 in Argentina 1986.


Bettega and Surer slammed sideways in a solid object. This kills drivers to this day. It is also the reason why Bettega's co-driver was uninjured. Vatanen was wounded because his seat(belts) failed. He had them modified. Again his co-driver was uninjured.
You can't just blame these incidents on Group B. Yes, by today's standards these cars were absolutely crazy. Actually they weren't safe for the standards in those days either. If the FIA had mandated better safety, especially with regards to fireprotection. And had they employed better regulations to rallies regarding spectator control and pressure on the drivers. Then Group B could have continued on.

The scrapping of Group B was more politics then concern for human lives. Not only Ecclesstone, but also people in Rally itself. Like some teams that were more than happy to start on a clean sheet again, or some other teams that had crap Group B cars and found a nice PR-exit.

[Nenukknak]

Think about this then:

If group B was really banned because of safety reasons, why let them finish the year? That's like saying we're stopping to race these cars because they kill, but we will let them kill untill the end of the year, but then it really has to stop.

Another thing has F1 ever been banned. F1 is too dangerous, from now on, F2 will be the pinnacle of open-wheel racing. Banning group B in fact is the same.

Another main reason: Balestre, I too just read the book rise and fall of group B, and this man has made some strange decisions and abused his position to fight out a lot of personal fights.

The FIA banned the cars, but did nothing towards spectator safety, nor car safety. In fact Balestre tried to punish in some way the teams for not obliging their drivers to drive after the Santos accident, also because of the organizers was a wingman from Balestre.

In some way the banning of group B was the ultimate payback from Balestre to the manufacturers. But it remains strange why FIA was so adement to ban group B and not search for other solutions.

Group B could have continued to exist, a lot of options were available, engine restriction, rules for crowd control, and other passive safety devices on the cars themselves.

Yet they chose to ignore all and ban it, and also group S. Which in some way is comparable to the current WRC cars.

[Zico]

Think about this then:

If group B was really banned because of safety reasons, why let them finish the year? That's like saying we're stopping to race these cars because they kill, but we will let them kill untill the end of the year, but then it really has to stop.

Another thing has F1 ever been banned. F1 is too dangerous, from now on, F2 will be the pinnacle of open-wheel racing. Banning group B in fact is the same.

Another main reason: Balestre, I too just read the book rise and fall of group B, and this man has made some strange decisions and abused his position to fight out a lot of personal fights.

The FIA banned the cars, but did nothing towards spectator safety, nor car safety. In fact Balestre tried to punish in some way the teams for not obliging their drivers to drive after the Santos accident, also because of the organizers was a wingman from Balestre.

In some way the banning of group B was the ultimate payback from Balestre to the manufacturers. But it remains strange why FIA was so adement to ban group B and not search for other solutions.

Group B could have continued to exist, a lot of options were available, engine restriction, rules for crowd control, and other passive safety devices on the cars themselves.

Yet they chose to ignore all and ban it, and also group S. Which in some way is comparable to the current WRC cars.

Good points, I agree... Could it also be that the FIA also percieved the incredible popularity of Grp B to be a threat to F1 ?

[tmx]

I think in the past there were many strange example of the doing of FIA and even favoritism toward a manufacturer (alleged), but they more more sensible now.


Thanks to you all for answering my questions. But I still have a few more.. What was the best car then? Most of you talked about Peugot and Ford RS200 is that it? I heard about some car consrtructor like Audi won a "double" what is that? Why was Lancia not trustiong 4WD when audi proved it was the best? thanks

The Audi were the first to enter the wrc with 4WD, and everyone were skeptical of it's success, since it was complicated and heavy. They really came in and dominated.

I think most people think the Peugeot is the best because it was lighter, control much better, there were less wheel spin, and performed much better on tarmac.

It wasn't until Lancia came out with the S4 that they become more successful, it has both turbocharging and supercharging for different acceleration. But it was said to have very strange handling, and Toivonen was said to be the only one who was able to extracted the most out of it. I think it was a disaster in term of benefit for Lancia because the class was banned and the death of Toivenen. I think this maybe the fastest Group B if drivable.

The Ford RS200 was a really good car, a bit heavy, but very durable and good to drive. Probably better for endurance events. It has a short life before the class was banned.

I really like to watch them all in action, but especially the Audi Quattro S1, I think that is the most noticable Group B car, Walter Röhrl was the only one to win on this car.

[Nenukknak]

Good points, I agree... Could it also be that the FIA also percieved the incredible popularity of Grp B to be a threat to F1 ?


That probably has a lot to do with it. Rather ironic that group B became the standard for the WRC, largely because of the FISA/FOCA wars in F1 in that time. When FISA had their concord agreement, and rallying became too popular, a reason was needed to pull the plug.

And also group S, with which's requirement even more manufacturers would have probably entered the arena, i.e. making rallying even more popular and drawing away attention from F1.

While you could hide behind safety reasons for banning group B, banning group S doesn't make sense from any point of view, except that it was too popular.

Again they could have done lots more, and spectator safety has remained an issue long after group B. But they chose to kill it, you do the math. F1 and all sorts of political stuff killed off group B.

[urabus-denoS2000]

Thanks to you all for answering my questions. But I still have a few more.. What was the best car then? Most of you talked about Peugot and Ford RS200 is that it? I heard about some car consrtructor like Audi won a "double" what is that? Why was Lancia not trustiong 4WD when audi proved it was the best? thanks

Meeve,welcome to our community!!!
I hope you will have a good time!!!
So,now to group B cars.The Peugeot 205 T16 E2 was the ultimate group B car.
It was small and powerfull.The Audi Quattro was never really a dominator at the peak of the group B era.There was always someone better and faster.It was very powerfull (some say that the Quattro S1 at its peak had 600 BHP!!!) but very unreliable.
The Lancia Delta S4 was a very advanced car.A little bit to complicated for that time.The interesting fact about the Delta is that it had a turbocharger and a supercharger.The supercharger was used to reduce turbo-lag.After the revs would build up till a certain point,the car would change to a turbocharger.A genious idea,but ahead of its time.At the practise of the 1986 Spanish F1 Grand Prix at the Estoril track , Toivonen ,in his Lancia ,scored a time that ,if he would enter ,would put him in 6th place!!!That shows how the group B cars had similar performances as the F1 cars.
The Ford RS200 came too late,but many say that it would become a dominator.It was a fast car,but it came a few months before the group B would be banned.
The MG 6R4 was an interesting car.It had extremely fast gear changes,which often was not a good thing.It was a normally aspirated car with around 450-500 BHP,so it would reach extremely high gear ratios extremely fast.It was very hard car to drive.It didnt make any great results.

[Mirek]

urabus-denoS2000: The story about Toivonen's drive against F1 in qualiffying for Estoril 1986 appears quite often in the internet but the truth is that GP of Estoril took place on 21st September but Henry died on 2nd May...

[urabus-denoS2000]

Wow,didnt know that..
So he never drove any F1 practise.And how did that info end up

[Josti]

]urabus-denoS2000: The story about Toivonen's drive against F1 in qualiffying for Estoril 1986 appears quite often in the internet but the truth is that GP of Estoril took place on 21st September but Henry died on 2nd May...

I think there's a grain of truth in this story. This could have happened at recce of the '86 Portuguese rally, in which the Estoril track was the Rally HQ
that year (could be near the track too, I'm not sure). But indeed, it's still an unconfirmed story.

Though these words of Hannu Mikkola do make quite a clear comparison of Group B and F1 (at the opening scene of the video).

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

[A.F.F.]

Good points, I agree... Could it also be that the FIA also percieved the incredible popularity of Grp B to be a threat to F1 ?

I recall right, this is exactly what Pentti has said many times.

[Meeve]

So it was not all about security reason but not to become more popular then the F1... But about now? That was about 20 years ago. Could it be possible to make a new kind of "group B"? And why do the FIA care so much about not to take over F1 popularity? F1 lost in popularity these days I think.. There is no more race it's all about qualification. If you have good qualification you will end the race in a good position. I heard that now in F1 it's 90% car and 10% driving skill. For the rally group B being banned for the F1 stay popular, is there sport more important then other sport? Why is F1 considered more important then rally by the FIA?

[DonJippo]

Why is F1 considered more important then rally by the FIA?

Because it is Bernie's money machine :rolleyes:

[Meeve]

Because it is Bernie's money machine :rolleyes:

What or who is Bernie? Is the F1 part of the FIA? If the F1 is a money machine, can't the rally become one? If it one day become more popular..

[tmx]

^ That is exactly what the F1A wanted to do, making the world rally championship an elite sport, an in way backfired, in my point of view. Although there are more politics to it than the fia. I am not 110% on the exact cost a WRC manu have to pay per car to enter per WRC rally right now, but even that number is huge. The cost droves all the privateers and some manufacturer away. There is less and less about endurance and more about sprinting. Very few manufacturers are left and there are not enough competitions.

I think the golden age for the WRC series has pass for a while, and they are really trying to bring this thing back right now. I don't think rallying can be as popular neither, because of the sport format. It is better and easier for television coverage with circuit racing, where you can follow the car around the track, with rallying, it can be hard to compare all the split time for normal viewers who isn't passonate and they think it's boring with one car by itself anyway. This is one the main problem, the sport has very bad coverage and advertisement. With the rally video games kind of promote the sport a bit for the younger audiances.

It's a controversial subject and we have been discussing it a lot lately in the forum.

Bernie Ecclestone is the ceo of formula one management and administration, for promoting and licensing of commercial rights of the sport.

[tmx]

btw, I'm not sure if you meant to ask the question: "Is the F1 part of the FIA?" in a literal way or in a philosophical way. But literally, basic the FIA is the governing political body that make all the rules and regulations for all the motosports under it's name, and supposingly, a nonprofit organization. Mostly for series "created/own" by the FIA, but they really have a big influences all around.

[WRCfan]

The story about Toivonen at Estoril is true.

The Rally HQ was held at Estoril and at the time Toivonen did some laps in the Group B car. Hs times were recorded and it was noticed when the GP took place, the times he set while Rally HQ was there would have earned him 6th place on the grid for that year's F1 GP.

He of course wasn't in the rally car at the Grand Prix.

[Meeve]

Thanks you all for answering me. I hope one day FIA will consider a new group "B", with of course a better gestion then they were back then. Today, can the WRC car compare to the famous group B car in term of performance? Because of the new technologies, it might be possible. If I remember it is now 300Hp maximum right? What is the difference between old group B and WRC car except for the engine limitation? Can you guys please help me with that?

[Shrike]

Though not quite the spectacle its been said that todays WRC cars get better stage times than Group B cars did.

[WRCfan]

The older group B cars were just less advanced with technology than the WRC cars, they were harder to drive as a result of this of course.

It was like any motorsport, compare now to 20 years ago and I would be pretty much the same....

[Tiggeriffic]

It might be so that the WRC cars do faster stage times than the group B's did, but it will never have the same character as any Group b.Although the technology in the wrc cars are incredible the spectacle has gone.

The FIA stands before another test again with Super 2000 and what will happen in 2010 we will have to see.Would S2000 live up to expectations.We dont know....

By the way, I'm new from sunny RSA. :)

[ShiftingGears]

Thanks you all for answering me. I hope one day FIA will consider a new group "B", with of course a better gestion then they were back then. Today, can the WRC car compare to the famous group B car in term of performance? Because of the new technologies, it might be possible. If I remember it is now 300Hp maximum right? What is the difference between old group B and WRC car except for the engine limitation? Can you guys please help me with that?

Modern rally cars are far faster than group B. After a few years of Group A the cars were already setting faster stage times than the Group B cars did.

So, if you want a modern rally car that moves like the Group B cars did, you'd have to increase the power to grip ratio by cutting the grip. A lot. Otherwise the cornering (read impact) speeds would be ten times more likely to kill the drivers.


But no rally car since Group B sounds as beastly as the Audi S1 Quattro.

[jparker]

It might be so that the WRC cars do faster stage times than the group B's did, but it will never have the same character as any Group b.Although the technology in the wrc cars are incredible the spectacle has gone.

The FIA stands before another test again with Super 2000 and what will happen in 2010 we will have to see.Would S2000 live up to expectations.We dont know....

By the way, I'm new from sunny RSA. :)

Nice first post :)
I guess most people in this forum (age 35 and up) know exactly what you mean. The roar, the burst of power, the wide slick tires, and fierce fights ......... all memories now. I bet that if somebody puts today's top WRC drivers in Group B cars, they all going to be "Rautenbached©A.F.F".

[sollitt]

So it was not all about security reason but not to become more popular then the F1...

Meeve, you're new to the forum and that's great. We need more people with fresh ideas and comments.
But a word of advice. Don't believe everything you read here.
There are people on this forum who would blame the FIA for their dinner being cold.
There are conspiracy theories trotted out here that the CIA would be proud of, let alone the FIA.

They seem to have overlooked the meetings that the drivers themselves called to discuss their concerns. The fact that Audi, and maybe one or two others, had withdrawn before the sport's announcement.
Safety was the catalyst for change and no, you will not see anything like Group B again - sadly.

[Maui J.]

... you will not see anything like Group B again - sadly.

Or maybe we will.

http://www.rallysportmag.com.au/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2353&Itemid=2

Where does Andrew get all his money from?!!!

[tmx]

^ well actaully in some wrc rally some privateer owners bring out the group b car to compete, such as germany, but not often.

[A.F.F.]

Nice first post :)
I guess most people in this forum (age 35 and up) know exactly what you mean. The roar, the burst of power, the wide slick tires, and fierce fights ......... all memories now. I bet that if somebody puts today's top WRC drivers in Group B cars, they all going to be "Rautenbached©A.F.F".


There's a thing Daniel could learn from you jparker ;) :p :

[Iskald]

The story about Toivonen at Estoril is true.

The Rally HQ was held at Estoril and at the time Toivonen did some laps in the Group B car. Hs times were recorded and it was noticed when the GP took place, the times he set while Rally HQ was there would have earned him 6th place on the grid for that year's F1 GP.

He of course wasn't in the rally car at the Grand Prix.

We have discussed this myth many times, and it is of course just a myth!
Pole position for the 1986 Portugal GP was set by Ayrton Senna at 1.16.67 with an average speed of 204.24 km/h. The Estoril track has three straights were the F1 cars (also in 1986) reached speed up to and above 300 km/h. Henri Toivonens Lancia Delta S4 possibly had a top speed of 220 km/h. It was of course impossible for the rally car to do average speeds araound that track in the region of 200 km/h.

The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.

[Josti]

The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.

Well, to my knowledge, the S4 weighed under a 1000 kg's and had around 500 bhp. Hannu Mikkola himself states that the S1 was only around 4 seconds slower than a F1 car, but on a gravel track with the same lenght as where F1's where driving. In this case, I wouldn't say it's totally bogus...

[Iskald]

Well, to my knowledge, the S4 weighed under a 1000 kg's and had around 500 bhp. Hannu Mikkola himself states that the S1 was only around 4 seconds slower than a F1 car, but on a gravel track with the same lenght as where F1's where driving. In this case, I wouldn't say it's totally bogus...

And possibly father Christmas really exists...
The physical laws simply wouldn`t allow it to happen, Josti. If you put the F1 car on a gravel track however, it could possibly be true. But when did you last time see F1 cars racing on gravel...?!

Group B rally cars went on to race in rallycross after being banned from rallying. I was a regular at ERC rallycross events in those days, and still today remembers it as extremely spectacular. With lower weight than the rally cars and up to 700 hp. in rallycross trim, these cars were real beasts! Much as I would have liked it to be true, its impossible to believe that they were anywhere near F1 cars in performance on a 4.7 km tarmac racing circuit. Simply because they weren`t!

[urabus-denoS2000]

Thanks you all for answering me. I hope one day FIA will consider a new group "B", with of course a better gestion then they were back then. Today, can the WRC car compare to the famous group B car in term of performance? Because of the new technologies, it might be possible. If I remember it is now 300Hp maximum right? What is the difference between old group B and WRC car except for the engine limitation? Can you guys please help me with that?

Electronics,my friend,electronics...
If you compare an N4(production class) with 280 BHP and an WRC with 300 BHP that doesnt seem as a big advantage.But still an N4 costs 150.000 euros and a WRC costs 700.000 euros.
WRC cars are a lot faster than the group B cars.They ARE A LOT FASTER IN CORNERS.
At the 1993 Spanish (not sure) rally,Juha Kankkunen in a group a Toyota Celica ST185 made faster times on stages that were driven in the same lenght and conditions during the group B era.So group a cars were faster than group B cars.You can imagine how faster the WRC cars are.
I think that the group B should never happen again.

[rx-guru]

FULL ACK, Iskald! Ever so funny, that lotsa young people, too young to have seen the GpB beasts in live action, know great rumors, hearsay and grapevine stories about them. Some Rallycross cars proved to out-accellerate F1 cars from standstill to 120 or even 140km/h without any problems. And they were much more powerfull than their WRC counterparts as well as prepared especially for sprints rather than long special stages. But even the most powerfull RX GpB car I remember, Martin Schanche’s Ford RS200 E2 with its oversized 2.3l mill (about 650 'driveable' bhp), IMO would have never been able to set times to qualify for a F1 GP. BTW, all bhp figures for RX GpB cars above 600–650bhp I would call dyno-power and 'non-driveable'. And do not forget the fact that RX machinery has to use those very limited 250mm wheels/tyres since the 1977 ERC already…

[urabus-denoS2000]

I think that a very important reason for todays WRC speed is that the tyre tehnology has improved extremely.Everyone of the 300 horses is put on the stage and used properly.Imagine how it was to drive 450 bhp lightweight cars on primitive tyres

[cut the b.s.]

We have discussed this myth many times, and it is of course just a myth!
Pole position for the 1986 Portugal GP was set by Ayrton Senna at 1.16.67 with an average speed of 204.24 km/h. The Estoril track has three straights were the F1 cars (also in 1986) reached speed up to and above 300 km/h. Henri Toivonens Lancia Delta S4 possibly had a top speed of 220 km/h. It was of course impossible for the rally car to do average speeds araound that track in the region of 200 km/h.

The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.

I also find this story hard to believe, but its the 85 Portugal times that you should be looking too, in 86 the event was on 21 Sep, and Henri was already taken from us, certainly how I have heard the story comparisons were to the previous years Gp, cant find much info on but seems Senna on pole again but his time was 1:21.007

[DonJippo]

We have discussed this myth many times, and it is of course just a myth!
Pole position for the 1986 Portugal GP was set by Ayrton Senna at 1.16.67 with an average speed of 204.24 km/h. The Estoril track has three straights were the F1 cars (also in 1986) reached speed up to and above 300 km/h. Henri Toivonens Lancia Delta S4 possibly had a top speed of 220 km/h. It was of course impossible for the rally car to do average speeds araound that track in the region of 200 km/h.

The rally car weighed in at appr. 1100 kgs with an engine delivering somwhere around 400 hp. Sennas Lotus weighed appr. 600 kgs. with a turbo engine (in qualifying trim) delivering more than 1000 hp. Still you are stating that this old story is true...? Sorry for saying so, but you are of course totally wrong.

Time might be right but did Henri drive the full lap...that's an intresting question ;)

[Mirek]

Meeve: Don't believe that WRCs have 300 Hp. Plenty years a go they counted with 34 mm restrictor as a limitation of power. But the development goes on and as for today WRC have some 350 Hp but about 700-750 Nm of torque. The exact numbers are usualy secret...

[Nenukknak]

Meeve, you're new to the forum and that's great. We need more people with fresh ideas and comments.
But a word of advice. Don't believe everything you read here.
There are people on this forum who would blame the FIA for their dinner being cold.
There are conspiracy theories trotted out here that the CIA would be proud of, let alone the FIA.

They seem to have overlooked the meetings that the drivers themselves called to discuss their concerns. The fact that Audi, and maybe one or two others, had withdrawn before the sport's announcement.
Safety was the catalyst for change and no, you will not see anything like Group B again - sadly.


You're absolutely right sollitt except that you interpret these meetings wrong. The drivers met indeed, indeed they met at Toivonen's funeral, their main concern was spectator safety and indeed passive car-safety. If indeed banning group B would address these subjects then they thought it not wise to fight to fight the FIA to ban group B. They felt however, that banning group B would not alter any of the subjects and were therefore not in favour of banning group B.

Even the manufacturers met several times in the BPICA (delegates of manufacturers board for FIA), and discussing several different options besides a complete ban.

Restrictions on fuel, even the use of turbochargers, the use of Evo-models, the use of extensive aerodynamics, etc. The manufacturers really tried hard to save group B in any way, but the FIA simply refused and never did anything for spectator safety. The only rallys that addressed spectator safety on their own accord were the 1000 lakes and San Remo, without any guidelines being put forward by the FIA.

As for Audi, they quit because the FISA refuced to do something about spectator safety, even explicitly stating so towards Balestre. The FIA refused to come up with any guidelines for rally-organizers to increase spectator-safety, and that was enough for Audi to draw their conclusions. The fact that they weren't up the pace anymore compared to Peugeot and Lancia might also have something to do with that, but that has always been denied.)

And then there is the matter of group S, this was a proposal initially put forward by the FIA itself, and everyone agreed, because most engineers and manufacturers could see that the race for power-outputs was a non-ending battle to little avail. It would have been the perfect solution, but it too got banned.

Politics killed group B, and the safetyconcern was the tool they used to kill it, but not the reason.

[rx-guru]

"[…] It would have been the perfect solution, but it too got banned."

Group S was not banned but aborted. ;)

[Meeve]

So now the WRC are as fast as the group B car. But there is not as much accident. Now that we have the technologies, and the knowledge, to go fast without killing ourself, why are the restriction so severe about WRC car? They are occasional accident but mostly it's not because of the car, is it? Why do the FIA don't rearange the restriction for group B?

[FAL]

Group B in rallying was not banned at the end of 1986. It carried on for several years. What was banned was the over 2000cc class of GpB that contained all the so-called "super cars".
The original regulations for GpB were exactly the same as for GpA except for allowing dry sumping and having a 200 minimum production not 5000. Evolution was not in the original regulations.
Virtually anything on 4 wheels that could not obtain homologation in GpN or GpA was homologated into GpB to allow entry lists to be kept high enough to allow events to run in the early days of the new Appendix J GpN/A/B. GpB cars included several previous Gp1 cars that, because they were not fitted with fuel injection as standard and had relied on "optional" carburetters to be competitive, could not achieve the new GpA homologation and were thus only homolgated in GpB after the end of 1981. Only a tiny percentage of GpB cars were what is now recalled as GpB ie. so-called "supercars".
As to what was the best/would have been the fastest/"best" GpB car, it is impossible to say. It was a moving target like all such formulae. The Audi, Peugeot and Lancia were more or less at the end of their development in 1986. The 6R4 could never have been fully competitive without homologating another 200 cars, this time with twin turbos. The RS200 was early in its potential development and would probably have become the leader, before being overtaken by a new car from one of the other manufacturers.
GpB was never originally intended to be a rally catgory, only a racing category. The new Appendix J for 1982 (GpN and A) was introduced to ban the many, largely British Gp1/2/4 "homologation specials". Without an extension of Gp2 and Gp4 for 2 years and GpB, there would not have been enough entries on International rallies in 1982 and 1983.
It was the construction of the cars that was dangerous in some cases, including the widespread use of titanium in structures, that all too tragically burnt fiercely.
For history, GpB was NOT just a few "supercars".

[jonkka]

(snip)But a word of advice. Don't believe everything you read here.
There are people on this forum who would blame the FIA for their dinner being cold.

(snip)They seem to have overlooked the meetings that the drivers themselves called to discuss their concerns. The fact that Audi, and maybe one or two others, had withdrawn before the sport's announcement.

Words of wisdom, Sollitt!

[jonkka]

The drivers met indeed, indeed they met at Toivonen's funeral, their main concern was spectator safety and indeed passive car-safety.

Drivers had a meeting long before Henri was killed, in fact Henri was one of the drivers who presented what had been decided in the discussions. Namely, this meeting took place 5th of March 1986, just hours after Santos' Ford RS200 had ploughed into group of spectators with fatal results.

The meeting minutes show that indeed their primary concern was the spectator safety and that type of the car (ie RS200 being a Group B car) was not a factor in the accident.

"3: The accident on Stage 1 was caused by the driver having to try to avoid spectators that were in the road. It was not due to the type of car or the speed of it."


The manufacturers really tried hard to save group B in any way, but the FIA simply refused and never did anything for spectator safety.

Which is exactly what happens in tyranny. When big boss makes a decision, he cannot reverse it without losing a face and that never happens, hence big boss' decisions are always final. Even if I applauded Sollitt above, I am not kidding myself with delusions about Balestre's judgement.

Group B ban was a kneejerk reaction to tragedy at Corsica, decision was made hastily in matter of days as FISA had to make a show of their decisiveness. At that time nobody yet knew why Toivonen had his accident (in fact, it's not known for sure even today), which made FISA's speedy decisions that much more absurd. In fact, amongst those decisions the Gr B ban was only one. Besides that, stage maximum distances were limited to a maximum of 30 km per stage (for the first time in history), further evolutions were banned (which made RS200 incompetitive with a single stroke), skirts and similar aerodynamic aids were banned and cars were required to carry automatic fire extinguishers.

[jonkka]

So now the WRC are as fast as the group B car. But there is not as much accident. Now that we have the technologies, and the knowledge, to go fast without killing ourself, why are the restriction so severe about WRC car? They are occasional accident but mostly it's not because of the car, is it? Why do the FIA don't rearange the restriction for group B?

Would you mind explaining why you'd want Group B or it's derivative back?

From safety point of view, current cars are too fast, especially on tarmac. With current narrow tyres and overweight cars, drivers are exactly on the limit and there is no margin for error. This was proven in 2000 and 2001 when Colin crashed in Corsica (nearly a fatal), Tommi as well in Corsica (could have been a lot worse), Delecour's huge accident in Australia had makings of a disaster as well. Then there is the Martin's unfortunate accident in 2005. Yes, cars are safer but how bad these accidents would have been with more powerful vehicles?

If you're after the technical freedoms that Gr B offered, the World Rally Car formula has much of the ideas incorporated in it but within safe envelope offered by the 34mm restrictor.

If you want spectacular driving, the safe way to provide that is to reduce grip, not increase power.

Or are you after something else?

[Zico]

Sadly Grp B will never return, but as Jonkka suggests lowering the tyre grip to Grp B era levels and also completely removing the current decibel limit may well be all that is required to bring back the spectacle we all love and miss..

[DonJippo]

also completely removing the current decibel limit may well be all that is required to bring back the spectacle we all love and miss..

FIA can't over rule trafic laws in any country...sadly.

[jonkka]

FIA can't over rule trafic laws in any country...sadly.

Not quite so... Current WRC regulations do have this:

14.4 Noise level in the special stages

For safety reasons, on special stages only, the possibility of bypassing the exhaust silencer is recommended, provided that the exit of the exhaust gases is in conformity with Appendix J and, for cars fitted with a catalytic converter, that the gases themselves pass through this catalytic converter.
In all cases, at any time on the road sections, the noise level must be in conformity with Appendix J.

On stages, cars can make more noise. On road sections they can't and that's the difficult part but provided it can be technically done, it's legal. You're correct that local laws may prevent this but sporting events can get waivers (usually).

[DonJippo]

Not quite so... Current WRC regulations do have this:

14.4 Noise level in the special stages

For safety reasons, on special stages only, the possibility of bypassing the exhaust silencer is recommended, provided that the exit of the exhaust gases is in conformity with Appendix J and, for cars fitted with a catalytic converter, that the gases themselves pass through this catalytic converter.
In all cases, at any time on the road sections, the noise level must be in conformity with Appendix J.

And the Appendix J says:


3.6 Exhaust system and silencer

Even when the specific provisions for a group allow the replacement of the original silencer, the cars competing in an open-road event shall always be equipped with an exhaust silencer complying with the traffic regulations of the country(ies) through which the event is run.that being my point.

Only in case local traffic regulation allows the noise level to be higher than 103dB FIA has regulation for it as 3.6 in Appendix J continues:


For all cars used in Rallies and unless the limits imposed by the local authorities are lower, the noise level on the open road must not exceed 103 dB(A) for an engine rotation speed of 3500 rpm for petrol engines and 2500 rpm for diesel engines.I sure would like to have a bit more noise on stages but as we are living in such environmental sensitive world I doubt if we can get it...

[MrJan]

Hey making a bit more noise won't kill off the pandas or whales. Bring it on.

[cosmicpanda]

They could make a safe, possibly cheaper and similar spectacle to group B by reducing the engine size, increasing anti-lag and/or allowing multiple turbochargers, keeping the sole tyre supplier (so that there is no incentive to make really grippy tyres), and reducing the efficiency of suspension, brakes and differentials. IMO, of course.

But then again, who says that cars must be 4wd? Clarkson, May and Hammond drove across Africa in 2wd cars, not to mention the incidental fact that rallying got by quite nicely without 4wd for a time before Audi brought it in. Certainly the RWD cars I've seen on the stages have been spectacular.

[AndyRAC]

Hey making a bit more noise won't kill off the pandas or whales. Bring it on.

Here, here!! Most of the current WRCars sound like strangled farts!!

[DonJippo]

But then again, who says that cars must be 4wd? Clarkson, May and Hammond drove across Africa in 2wd cars, not to mention the incidental fact that rallying got by quite nicely without 4wd for a time before Audi brought it in. Certainly the RWD cars I've seen on the stages have been spectacular.

:up: I agree forget 4WD and bring back 2WD

[jso1985]

Nice first post :)
I guess most people in this forum (age 35 and up) know exactly what you mean. The roar, the burst of power, the wide slick tires, and fierce fights ......... all memories now. I bet that if somebody puts today's top WRC drivers in Group B cars, they all going to be "Rautenbached©A.F.F".

I wonder why some people think current WRC drivers are useless morons...
Did something changed in the human DNA code? making people born after 1970 are slower and more prone to crash when driving?

As posted by other members, surely they're not even half as spectacular as group B was but WRC cars are probably faster...

[BDunnell]

Bettega and Surer slammed sideways in a solid object. This kills drivers to this day. It is also the reason why Bettega's co-driver was uninjured. Vatanen was wounded because his seat(belts) failed. He had them modified. Again his co-driver was uninjured.
You can't just blame these incidents on Group B. Yes, by today's standards these cars were absolutely crazy. Actually they weren't safe for the standards in those days either. If the FIA had mandated better safety, especially with regards to fireprotection. And had they employed better regulations to rallies regarding spectator control and pressure on the drivers. Then Group B could have continued on.

I think this is probably a fair assessment. After all, when they compete on the same stages and a comparison can be made, today's WRC cars are faster than Group B cars. The danger is still there, but the means of protection are better. With hindsight, the way the FIA and various rally organisers ignored the major spectator problems that afflicted numerous events was nothing short of negligent, and that didn't stop when Group B was banned. After all, several people were injured in Corsica in 1987 when a Peugeot 205 GTi went off the road at a hairpin. It didn't take a Group B car or anything approaching it to cause injury then, and, obviously, there have been deaths since.



The scrapping of Group B was more politics then concern for human lives. Not only Ecclesstone, but also people in Rally itself. Like some teams that were more than happy to start on a clean sheet again, or some other teams that had crap Group B cars and found a nice PR-exit.

Of course, Audi completely over-reacted. Yes, they weren't doing as well as they would have liked in 1986, but their complete withdrawal as a works team (not just from the WRC, but also the British Open series) did common sense no favours.

That said, as I have stated many times on here, I didn't feel that Group A was a bad replacement in 1987 — far from it. In fact, the WRC witnessed some splendid events that year, and the British Open Championship was on top form. When rallying videos, I continue to find the Group B cars far more entertaining than any of today's WRCs, but they were by no means a panacea. Anyone who saw Jean Ragnotti in a Renault 11 Turbo in 1987 will vouch for that.

[BDunnell]

It was the construction of the cars that was dangerous in some cases, including the widespread use of titanium in structures, that all too tragically burnt fiercely.

The volatile 'rocket fuel' that some were using was another contributory factor.

[BDunnell]

The Peugeot 205 T16 E2 was the ultimate group B car.
It was small and powerfull.

It was also quick out of the box in 1984, because, as I recall (though it is late at night), Peugeot brought out the road-going T16 at the same time as it introduced the standard 205 range. This gave it enough time to build the cars required for homologation and get the rally version testing well before its debut in Corsica.


The Audi Quattro was never really a dominator at the peak of the group B era.There was always someone better and faster.It was very powerfull (some say that the Quattro S1 at its peak had 600 BHP!!!) but very unreliable.

I have long felt that the Quattro's legendary status is down in very large part to its having been a pioneer of 4wd, rather than its particular ability as a rally car. Of course, I don't forget the superb performances that some great drivers put on in the car either, but it was often found wanting. They never made any of the variants reliable, the long-wheelbase version started out as being awfully heavy and was always pretty dreadful on tarmac, the first Sport Quattro was a dog to handle and the E2 broke easily.



The Lancia Delta S4 was a very advanced car.A little bit to complicated for that time.The interesting fact about the Delta is that it had a turbocharger and a supercharger.The supercharger was used to reduce turbo-lag.After the revs would build up till a certain point,the car would change to a turbocharger.A genious idea,but ahead of its time.At the practise of the 1986 Spanish F1 Grand Prix at the Estoril track , Toivonen ,in his Lancia ,scored a time that ,if he would enter ,would put him in 6th place!!!That shows how the group B cars had similar performances as the F1 cars.

Still should have won the 1986 world title, though!



The Ford RS200 came too late,but many say that it would become a dominator.It was a fast car,but it came a few months before the group B would be banned.

Yes, and in that time Ford had no reason to cure its faults. Still, it was a British championship winner, albeit without winning a rally.



The MG 6R4 was an interesting car.It had extremely fast gear changes,which often was not a good thing.It was a normally aspirated car with around 450-500 BHP,so it would reach extremely high gear ratios extremely fast.It was very hard car to drive.It didnt make any great results.

Don't forget that the 6R4 could have won on its WRC debut! Again, it was hamstrung by there being no incentive to develop it, and I think that Austin Rover's driver line-up for 1986 wasn't the best with which to mount a serious challenge, had the car not kept failing. Tony Pond was a truly great driver, but his preferences for certain events and dislike of others rather held him back.

[jparker]

I wonder why some people think current WRC drivers are useless morons...
Did something changed in the human DNA code? making people born after 1970 are slower and more prone to crash when driving?

As posted by other members, surely they're not even half as spectacular as group B was but WRC cars are probably faster...

The amount of physical effort, skills, and technical knowledge required to drive Group B car is nowhere near compared to nowadays rally cars, but that's not the point. Humans tend to adapt, so there is no doubt that today's drivers will get use to Group B cars if they have to, but the learning curve may be similar to Rautenbach's one, that's what I meant, but I may be wrong.
Do you think I'll be in this forum if I think WRC drivers are morons? I don't get it?!?!?!
What I hate is the cars they drive, especially the joystick gear shifters and fancy gearboxes. I hate to see drivers looking like sleeping queens in the car, moving just their fingers and toes, and occasionally hands :)

[Nenukknak]

The volatile 'rocket fuel' that some were using was another contributory factor.

Actually that volatile "rocket fuel" you mention, was in fact less volatile than normal pumpgas. They added stuff to it, (don't know the name right now, will have to look it up) to raise the burning point, so it would ignite at higher temperatures. Another point to add to this is that this stuff will dissolve almost anything and it's fumes are very toxic.

The problem was that the fueltanks and fuellines were not safe as they are now, add to that the close proximity to the drivers and the extremely heated exhaust and turbocharger, and well, sadly we all know what happened.

Another interesting fact on the Santos accident; Santos was having gearbox trouble and therefore his RS200 was tuned down to about 350BHP, or at least that's what's been said.

[Nenukknak]

The amount of physical effort, skills, and technical knowledge required to drive Group B car is nowhere near compared to nowadays rally cars, but that's not the point. Humans tend to adapt, so there is no doubt that today's drivers will get use to Group B cars if they have to, but the learning curve may be similar to Rautenbach's one, that's what I meant, but I may be wrong.
Do you think I'll be in this forum if I think WRC drivers are morons? I don't get it?!?!?!
What I hate is the cars they drive, especially the joystick gear shifters and fancy gearboxes. I hate to see drivers looking like sleeping queens in the car, moving just their fingers and toes, and occasionally hands :)

Drivers will adapt. Walter Rohrl didn't have a clue how to drive the Audi when he first entered it, he couldn't get it to steer, he was just incapable of driving 4wd, then he sat with Stig in the car to see how he did it, and how he used left-foot braking. After that he practiced all night, untill he finally got it most of the times, a few days later he won the Monte. But then again Rohrl wasn't just any driver, but the top WRC-drivers can drive anything fast, and learn fast how to do so.

[Meeve]

Would you mind explaining why you'd want Group B or it's derivative back?

[...]

If you're after the technical freedoms that Gr B offered, the World Rally Car formula has much of the ideas incorporated in it but within safe envelope offered by the 34mm restrictor.

If you want spectacular driving, the safe way to provide that is to reduce grip, not increase power.

Or are you after something else?

What I'm looking for is not these things you mentioned above. What I want, or what I DON'T want, is the rally to become like the F1 is right now. In F1 the cars are more important then the drivers. My worst nightmare is that. What I want is a group which it's more about the driver's skill. Of course car will matter, it always do and it's o.k. too because it's part of the race and I don't wanna lose that. Now rally car have sequential gearbox and they barely move their fingers like jparker said before. Imagine a group where your car have to be manual... Just making this rule would tell apart good and realy good driver. It's not about moving your fingers anymore. You probly all no what I'm talking about. If it keep going this way rally car will be automatic within a couple of years...

300 Hp max? Why? I think drivers know the risk of rallying. Cars like the one doing the Pike Peaks run have like 1000 hp. Of course you will tell me it's not the same thing. I know. Still that a group were 500Hp would be max is possible is it not? We all agreed the technologi is now at a higher level then it was back in group B. Restriction about the "automatisation" and "easy driving" of the car should be placed I think. A group were the driver's make the main difference that's what I want. Do you agree with me such a group would be interesting?

[cosmicpanda]

Actually that volatile "rocket fuel" you mention, was in fact less volatile than normal pumpgas. They added stuff to it, (don't know the name right now, will have to look it up) to raise the burning point, so it would ignite at higher temperatures.

So at a very high temperature, ordinary pump gas doesn't burn?

[bowler]

So now the WRC are as fast as the group B car. But there is not as much accident. Now that we have the technologies, and the knowledge, to go fast without killing ourself, why are the restriction so severe about WRC car? They are occasional accident but mostly it's not because of the car, is it? Why do the FIA don't rearange the restriction for group B?

It is impossible to recreate Group B. The equipment and technology that existed then has been overtaken by what we have now.

Why would anyone want to go back, when the cars that exist now in Group A (WRC) are faster, safer, more fuel efficient and cheaper.

Group B is an interesting part of Rally History, and that is all it will be.

[jonkka]

300 Hp max? Why? (snip) Do you agree with me such a group would be interesting?

I don't get hard-on from power figures.

[janvanvurpa]

So at a very high temperature, ordinary pump gas doesn't burn?


Right.
At very high temps, it doesn't burn, it explodes and that is much higher pressures and much higher temps.

[urabus-denoS2000]

300 Hp max? Why?


Well not really 300 BHP,I said that only because the FIA says so.
They realistically have around 330-350 BHP.
Citroen always admitted and stated that their Xsara WRC has 315.
I think that the group B should never happen again.Safety first.

And for those of you who say that the tyres should have less grip for spectacular sideways driving,think about what you said.I always say that tyres are the most important part of any car.Tyres save your head.Tyres today are safe and they should be like that.If you reduce grip,you will increase fatal accidents.
You cant just make rally more spectacular by putting the drivers and spectators health on the line...

[Nenukknak]

So at a very high temperature, ordinary pump gas doesn't burn?

If you raise the point of ignition that means the fuel will ignite at a higher temperature. This means they could raise the compression ratio, run with more turbopressure, etc., which they couldn't do if they used ordinary fuel.

[c4]

I have put up over 200 links on www.rallyforums.com (http://www.rallyforums.com), in the video section, of mostly rare group B (supercars) stuff.

[Zico]

And for those of you who say that the tyres should have less grip for spectacular sideways driving,think about what you said.I always say that tyres are the most important part of any car.Tyres save your head.Tyres today are safe and they should be like that.If you reduce grip,you will increase fatal accidents.
You cant just make rally more spectacular by putting the drivers and spectators health on the line...

By the same token.. lowering grip levels reduces overall speed, in turn reducing the risk of a fatal accident... surely ?

[iJones]

By the same token.. lowering grip levels reduces overall speed, in turn reducing the risk of a fatal accident... surely ?
I would say yes.

[urabus-denoS2000]

By the same token.. lowering grip levels reduces overall speed, in turn reducing the risk of a fatal accident... surely ?

Tyre grip makes the driver feel the car and the surface and is extremely important.
Something about this subject happened at the last rally in Croatia.
A driver chose to use old tyres for only one more stage,so he would save new tyres.The car was an N1 Skoda Fabia.
And it was slower alright...
And he ended up 5 meters by the road in the forest on the roof.He was fighting for the class title and he was driving fast.He entered the corner by the pace notes.He told he would never use an old tyre again...

[Zico]

Tyre grip makes the driver feel the car and the surface and is extremely important.

Lowering the levels of grip by a percentage wouldnt necessarily remove that feeling. The balance of the car may need to be worked on with maybe a slightly softer set-up to compensate but thats about it..



Something about this subject happened at the last rally in Croatia.
A driver chose to use old tyres for only one more stage,so he would save new tyres.The car was an N1 Skoda Fabia.
And it was slower alright...
And he ended up 5 meters by the road in the forest on the roof.He was fighting for the class title and he was driving fast.He entered the corner by the pace notes.He told he would never use an old tyre again...

Unfortunately accidents are part of the sport and pacenotes are rarely accuate enough to place 100% faith in. When we have accidents its natural to look for a reason or something to blame.. I blamed a rock on the inside of a corner which wasnt on the notes when I rolled spectacularly in Dec.

I've also tested Dunlops and another brand (cant be named for legal reasons) back to back.. While the Dunlops were aprox 1 - 2 secs a mile quicker, you could not really tell from the feeling or lateral grip levels what the car was shod with, just a very slight improvement on hooking up when the diff locked on coming out of the corners.

If the old tyres were to blame for this unfortunate Skoda driver I suggest its because he didnt compensate for a small reduction in grip, something all the teams would learn and be doing in testing if a low grip control tyre was introduced.

In a rally car you are always searching for that level of grip available, it changes with temperature, humidity, road positioning and many other factors, if we used your logic then we should only ever rally in dry consistant conditions. Lack of mechanical or tyre grip is not what proves fatal in an accident, the combination of speed and hitting solid objects are the real killers.

[cosmicpanda]

If you raise the point of ignition that means the fuel will ignite at a higher temperature. This means they could raise the compression ratio, run with more turbopressure, etc., which they couldn't do if they used ordinary fuel.

Ah, the point of ignition. Right. :)

[Daniel]

But a word of advice. Don't believe everything you read here.
There are people on this forum who would blame the FIA for their dinner being cold.
There are conspiracy theories trotted out here that the CIA would be proud of, let alone the FIA.

Perhaps true. But I'm sure I saw Max slipping onions into my curry this evening. I hate onions and Max knows it!