General Forum (Archived)

Thread: WRC S2000Turbo future Go to Top of This Forum

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

3-Mar-09 07:23 PM 

Bollox to all them new tech rules!

Sorry, just being annoyed at the latest FIA trick. No week without stupidity, it's really getting time to kill the WRC and let someone else have the say with an alternative series.

At least Ron will now ever more agree with my complaints about S2000. As you all know, I am a bliever in we need less grip at much torque and the S2000 with expensive and heavy 4x4 and without efficient turbo is exactly the opposite.

What gets me wanting to rant yet again is the latest FIA suggestion as of Tuesday night is that S2000 cars should have their maximum revs cut!

The FIA always wanted to see S2000 as a production car -how can a 4x4 kit car be a production car, you couldn't find anything more remote- Now comes on top of it that the FIA has decided agains an S2000+Turbo future for the next WRCar. So of course S2000 cars not only need to be slowed down to be more in line with groupN, but to be slower than the next generation WRCars, that the FIA wants to be slow with much grip. Twice in the last 12 months they have increased the minimum weight of S2000 cars. Now they are going to cut the max revs.

Near future of S2000 cars should be 1200kg and 8000rpm. And they may well continue this trend. Oh for Christ sake, if I give Nico Vouilloz my road car, he will dominate IRC like Loeb dominates WRC at the moment!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by RonSkoda

4-Mar-09 00:15 AM 

Last week the rumour was that the rev limit would be increased!

That really is stupid. If anything they should be taking weight off.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by AndyRAC

4-Mar-09 03:56 AM 

When will someone end this madness?
Why were the S2000's ever put in the same class as the Group N cars? Idiots!!
And why are GroupN cars no longer TRUE Production cars?
A proper Production car should be driven out of a showroom - and safety equipment fitted and you're ready to go!!
A S2000 is a proper Race/Rally car - and should bear no resemblance to a Production car!!
We should have cars that are as light as is safe - and more power than grip!! Simple - has anybody told the FIA?

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

4-Mar-09 04:35 AM 

"and more power than grip!!" - Exactly! That's why I am no fan of S2000!

Give me best 2WD turbo. Or if you want 2WD atmo or 4x4 turbo, but NOT 4x4 atmo! If we want a spectacular class we need more power than grip, not vice versa! Plus S2000 fails the original intention, as what makes WRCars expensive is kit car freedom with electronics and is 4x4, NOT the turbo! If you would write a study about the future of rallying, you would fail your exams suggesting what the FIA is pushing through! But that I all said before.

Why S2000 has to be like gN? No freaking idea! Now we keep increasing weight and drooping revs? Oh well, at this rate it will not take much longer and our dream rally cars are no faster than road cars, the only difference is the rally cars cost half a million!

It annoys the hell out of me. When will someone stop the FIA? When will the WRC die, so we can have an alternative -maybe IRC- series as World Championship with new, different people making the rules!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

4-Mar-09 06:33 AM 

I was actually quite excited by the prospect of S2000 at regional levels finally we could do away with grp N production cars, and have cars that could carry some speed through a corner. F2 cars are in the same good category.

Does anybody know of any World Champion that has spent much time if any in a grp N Production Car?

Anyhow I believe driving a grp N production car takes a different mind set that is hard to break out of, quite a few really exciting drivers have been ruined by it and it results in very unspectacular motorsport.

S2000 WRC will work (for now) and well if they drop the weight significantly like around 700kgs and, they can stick all sorts of wings on it because invariably it will need them to stay on the ground, and non WRC S2000 should be about 1000kgs.

Group N production car parity should be a non-issue, if you want to Sunday drive, stay in and keep driving a production car, if you are serious about driving and winning step up to S2000. Come on Mitsubishi, Subaru and any other Grp N production car promoter, get with the program!!!! or make your cars quicker for the longevity of the sport!

I would even say WRCar would continue to work well if they could be run in regional competition and also if fans hadn't voted with their feet because WRC's promoters had neglected the ideology and turned their backs on what has sustained them for so many years.

We should be drafting some letters is anybody in?

P.S. Chris I do think the WRC is a tradition worth fighting for.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

4-Mar-09 07:32 AM 

No, sorry, given up on them. IRC is probably closer to WRC tradition than WRC itself, they only need the name.

"I would even say WRCar would continue to work well if they could be run in regional competition"

This is in fact very important! How were Colin McRae and Richard Burns for example discovered? Driving gN cars? Nope! The fact the BRC cars were the same as the WRC cars meant that WRC stars were going to British rallies on occasions and the British - or any nationality - newcomers could prove themselves in machinery equal to what WRC teams had to offer! If you think carefully, the BRC and its drivers went down the drain exactly the moment they disallowed A8 cars!

So I don't understand why WRC tries to ban their cars on any other level. Wrong, I actually do understand. They are kind of self admitting that the WRC has nothing else to stand out for these days. Some years back we did not need this. The WRC was special, never mind the cars, but today... And the latest rules are not making it better, they only let me lose trust and hope even more in the WRC.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

4-Mar-09 10:10 AM 

You may be right, though I haven't given up on WRC, things can change.

I actually think it is the other way around, the regional championship decides on the ban and the cost argument is usually decisive.

Anyhow if you focus on how expensive something is then it can't be anything but and what results is a cut back, that's probably why they call it economic rationalisation.

Somehow the focus needs to shift to what can be realised.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by bringbackrealrallying

4-Mar-09 10:38 AM 

What made the old world rally championship stand out was not the cars or even to a certain extent the drivers but the rally's. They were all epic challenges and great events, from the world famous monte carlo, to the famous endurance of the safari and the scandinavian sprints. People could appreciate that winning this championship really was something. Now they have destroyed the rallies to the point where they are no longer than most club events and brought in a load of rally's that are all similar to each other and less famous than most rounds of the Birtish rally championship this aspect of the series has been removed. It used to not matter that the top cars and some top drivers could be seen in most rounds of the British, Italian and European championships, they were still inferior. Now all they have to fall back on is the cars.

To make a point about the cars. They're not supposed to be made to race specials and used to mainly be modified road cars, albeit homologation specials. If you want to watch some made to order car perfectly tackle a series of similar bends then watch circuit racing. Thats why I believe Grp N should be the new regs. The fact that they are difficult to drive compared to a specifically designed racer is part of the appeal. The top drivers will stand out more if it requires a greater amount of skill to hussle the cars through the corners. Do you reckon a pikey little 1800 cc Ford Escort was easy to drag round corners like they used to be, no, and that was the point. The best drivers made driving relatively road going cars through greasy horrible wet forests appear easy. Grp N cars dont all have to be Mitsubishi's and Subaru's either. Costs would plummet and any manufacturer could turn out their sporty models, particularly on tarmac. I'm sure some would knock out a homologation special or 2, and we could see sports cars back on stages too, like they always were until they made that daft rule in 87 about rear passenger window size. There would be no need to feck around so much with weights and turbo boosts because the reduction in technology would cut speeds.
Thats how I see it anyway.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by RonSkoda

4-Mar-09 11:05 AM 

I am with LevingT regarding Grp N. There is nothing too wrong with it for a budget category for amateurs but we should keep it like that - not half way house like we have now. I think the only way to really keep costs down is to have a very strict set of rules so the Grp N cars are virtually literally showroom cars with a rollcage in them. In fact for pWRC I would the turbo 4x4s Impreza and Lancer and indeed replace them with 2.0 litre front wheel drive turbos.

But for the top flight I would want something better. Some people not just Chris have criticised the "kit car" culture but for top flight motorsport I want a car that has been engineered for the job and I want it to look and sound like a competition car too. I dont want a road car tuned up so that it its engine is too much for its chassis, I want to see a complete competition car! And I believe the teams would want this engineering challenge too, and despite some criticms of S2000 some fans, I have seen several quotes by drivers saying that they are "proper" competition cars compared to the boring N4s.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

4-Mar-09 11:40 AM 

With you on the first paragraph, not with you on group N production class at all.

For a driver to fully enjoy driving, being able to push to the limit when required they need a car they have a feeling is up to it, mostly in the area of suspension, but power, torque and responsiveness and braking all add to the feeling. Also knowing that youre not going to break things if you push hard allows you to operate freely and instinctually.

Group N production cars mostly through suspension limitation cant carry speed through corners and tend to break if pushed hard. So consciously the driver is required to hold back.

My theory is this dulls the senses and brings the drivers focus of attention closer in so the points of reference used to get the car around a corner are different a driver in a quicker car say WRCcar. So when a regular Grp N driver jumps a faster car he uses the old Grp N points of reference because it is habitualised and therefore cant get the car to go as nearly as quick as a driver that has come up through say JWRC.

Anyway just a theory could be wrong, but its all about freedom of expression for a driver that results in good viewing, I also like watching the back end of the field... god damn it I just love rallying!!!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by RonSkoda

4-Mar-09 12:01 AM 

Sorry, I didn't quite word my original post quite right as I agree with pretty much everything you just said...

To re-iterate, I would maybe like to see a 'real' production car for a real budget category (maybe not for WRC level) but proper cars for top flight ralling (WRC, pWRC, jWRC or IRC)

You are right, generally speaking pWRC has produced absolutely nothing in the way of major talent in recent years.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by bringbackrealrallying

4-Mar-09 03:27 PM 

yeah but.... production suspension now is probably what competition suspension was 20 years ago and they wernt dull were they? Its not that I think properly enginered cars are bad just that they are too fast now due to technological advances so need all these stupid false things like turbo restrictors et al.
I'm no mechanic so I may be way off with the suspension thing

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

4-Mar-09 06:14 PM 

I am largely with bringbackrealrallying on this one. Except the turbo air restrictor, which proved an excellent tool to control cost and power, while without we would have 1000BHP - at a cheaper cost than an S2000 engine. But OK.

I agree the WRCar or top flight IRC car should be something better than groupN. But I am still strictly against kit cars. If we dont need road car relation for spectators and engineers, why dont we go monoposto racing then Not only the expense, just watch an S2000 live next to groupN cars. Maybe live at the stage enhances it. But even an S2000 car without WRCar electronics brakes perfect to the point without a twitch, anything and then surrounds the corners like on rails. OK, maybe for lack of electronics the driver needs a bit more aggression and we see the odd slide, but watch the perfect to the point and perfectly s braking! It is like watching touring cars! And that in my books is somehow not what rallying is all about. Rallying is about endurance events on natural roads with natural cars, cars the public can relate to, cars the driver has to fight with to get the best out of them - and if you see an S2000 under braking, an S2000 is not that!

Maybe for cost and spectacle we should look at the old groups 3 and 4. Group3 is like N-GT and group4 was a tuned version of g3 with enough freedom like wheel arches, but not silly freedom like kit cars, turn your car something that not a single panel has anything to do with the road product. In late group4 you couldnt even add 16v if the road engine did not have that. Example Stratos had to return to a 12v V6, because it used a Ferrari engine that was not sold as a 24v. In modern rallying they should not allow to change anything on the chassis floorpan at all! See the changes on an S2000 car floor pan. It is like they strip the road car completely, cut everything to pieces and in the end the only thing they can use is the doors, but we replace the wing mirrors and windows for lighter stuff.... and then wonder nobody can control the price. While engineering and spectacle surely is not helped by wing mirrors and floor pans!

Some fun historic banter for your entertainment

Seeing how Ron writes LevinGTs name with capitals, etc, little trick question Ron, any idea what an AE86 is It could probably give a hint what corner LevinGT is coming .

Also the note on the stupid rear side window size rules. Was it like that I thought it was about rear interior space. Silly and pointless rule nevertheless. It reminds me on the Alfa GTV6. Beautiful car in sounds and looks. And a real promising groupA car in 1986. Seeing that on Corsica 86 it won groupA by an hour and finished on the podium of a groupB event, you could only have wondered what this car could do on asphalt rounds in groupA only 1987. But then came this size rule and it was decided the GTV6 was too small for groupA and was moved groupB, which was banned! Why did this car have to take the groupB blame. And why was the Toyota Supra allowed for comparison. The Supra also was a beauty, but it was new for 1987 and was homologated in groupA with a 3-litre 6-cylinder turbo engine of which even Toyota never hid the fact it would have 400BHP, near twice the power of an Alfa GTV6, only a few months after the groupB ban and 300BHP limit! Though maybe I could add here for fairness that Max Mosley had nothing to do with this one.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

4-Mar-09 08:49 PM

Yeah baby!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

4-Mar-09 10:58 PM 

should have said 'Oh what a feeling'

Meeks's comments say it all...and unfortunately the showroom floor has been more about how you will look to other people more than true spirited driving.

This is why I feel kit cars are needed!

 Page 18 of 25 - Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | Next Page