General Forum (Archived)

Thread: WRC S2000Turbo future Go to Top of This Forum

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

18-Mar-09 03:16 AM 

it'll be interesting to see if IRC cars will be quicker than WRC cars shod with a weighty aero kit.

Interesting side effect of down force is drag...extra weight and drag same power and torque... IRC will be the series to watch.

Hopefully they'll do their homework replace fenders, bonnet, glass, doors with light weight composite and remove ballast.

Maybe they could control costs by placing nominal price on the car and have a rule that anybody can come up at any time and offer to buy the car at that price and the owner must accept....



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by starboardtac

18-Mar-09 03:37 AM 

In regards to all of the kit car bashing going on, what kind of formula WOULDNT result in a manufacturer technological arms race that eventually resulted in escalating costs

There seems to be some assumption here that WRC can trump IRC if only they the right car formula. Sure the cars are important, but moot if the championship is poorly managed - so here we are one quarter 2009, and FIA just now finalizes regs for 2010. And the hell did the 1.6 liter S2000 idea come Dont they call it S2000 because it is a 2 liter

What are IRC car regs for next year - what! same as LAST YEAR p



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

18-Mar-09 04:31 AM 

I like kit cars.

I'm a bit perplexed about what what constitutes a Grp A homologation and a Grp N homologation and why they cannot just wipe the WRC kit rules and replace them with S2000 kit rules ie Grp A S2000 and F2.

Leave Grp N as totally showroom, add roll cage, seats harnesses and suspension, power and weight restrictions adhered to and go Rallying.

As an aside why is it that Grp N 'non kit cars' have a hard time keeping up with S2000 cars?



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

18-Mar-09 04:46 AM 

I forgot S1600 in the Grp A list



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

18-Mar-09 07:44 AM 

What a nice moving discussion.

To bringbackrealrallyings musings, how about the story of San Remo 1981 Walter Röhrl in the Porsche 911 running against Michèle Mouton in the Quattro like fighting windmills. He had no chance, so he still was 2nd when the car broke. Or read our database Ferrari 308 story, how Björn Waldegaard was asked by a completely unknown tuner if he wanted to drive his car in San Remo 1983. Björn said no, no, no, no way - until the guy mentioned his car was a Ferrari, Björn asked "wheere can I sign" without further discussion! Everybody would profit from these cars. For a sporty Ford Focus RS it would be exciting beating Porsches and Ferraris, yet for the Porsches and Ferraris it still is advertising if they can't win, because they add so much colour and mythos, everyone wants to drive or to see them, never mind the result!

And as the ultimate twist, if you go to national championship rallies in France, Belgium, Spain, these cars do exist and are homologated! The Future World team in Belgium even got Porsche works support developing the N-GT car, hence it is even a semi works effort. Piedrafita, known for running B-team Citroen Xsaras before Kronos and PH Sport, today runs Ferrari 360 N-GT in Spain. Bozian went bust and was bought by a BMW consortium around Corsican Patrick Bernardini, they are developing an N-GT BMW 130i. In Germany someone has set out developing an N-GT Lamborghini! The cars do exist, all we have to do is to allow them to start!

Starboardtac "In regards to all of the kit car bashing going on, what kind of formula WOULDNT result in a manufacturer technological arms race that eventually resulted in escalating costs"

It is the way the rules are written, and kit cars certainly don't help. I don't know if this is still the case, but when I had my 205 GTI gN for international rallying, I was amazed that the homologation papers were based on a groupA 205, telling what the groupN car cant have. This didnt make sense for me, groupN is a road car plus safety equipment, why not go the other way, take the gN papers and tell what the gA car can have in addition! Maybe it is different now in this gN - gA case, but the problem with kit cars is that basically everything is allowed unless it is specifically forbidden. And that simply is the wrong approach, leaving unlimited freedom as long as you are creeative enough!

Please note that when I dream of having more road car relation, I am not actually against cars that look and sound like monsters. But instead of kit cars without basically any road relation, why don't they say you have to take a car that you can sell in numbers on the road and then you can change this car here, here and add some proper wings. Giving ultimate freedom and then try to identify limits has always left loopwholes for the clever engineers.

Audi on the Sport Quattro S1 had such huge wings because the FIA had groupB as everything allowed and then issued max rear wing measures. Audi placed the oil cooler on the boot lid, had a wing much bigger then allowed and when the FIA complained Audi said "Well, look, it is not a rear wing, it is a radiator housing!" Since the radiator was not mentioned in the regs, they could have put it upright on the roof if they wanted. If we had road cars on which you can change specific issues, Audi could have never played this trick, because if the radiator is not mentioned in the regs it has to stay as original, basta! The Ford trick suspension as meanwhile found in S2000 is the perfect current example. When the FIA banned active suspensions and diffs, they surely did not mean with this that now we have a Ford trick suspension, which I believe makes a current Focus WRC more expensive and faster than an active one 3 years ago! But for what kit cars are, everything free unless it is specifically banned, the next costly invention is something we don't even think about yet!

"There seems to be some assumption here that WRC can trump IRC if only they the right car formula. Sure the cars are important, but moot if the championship is poorly managed"

Good additional point or slight misunderstanding. I totally agree with you. I think spectacular cars that are not overpriced are important to attract spectators as well as manufacturers. But they are not the full story. Because this is exactly another of my favourit lines. I lost interest in WRC not because of the cars, but because of silly rules, boring rallies, souprally, 2-car teams, etc. I very much prefer the IRC over WRC even though I detest the S2000 concept with a passion! Right now the only points I can see wherre the WRC beats the IRC is the cars and the World Champ tag, and the WRC organisers have just removed their cars advantage! Long live IRC!

LevinGT

I think I explained some way to gN and gA. Normally it should be gN equals showroom. WRCar is basically an A8 car as kit car with 4x4 added. S2000 is basically an A7 car as kit car with 4x4 added. Hence, apart from banning some more electronics an S2000 is basically nothing but a WRCar minus turbo. Which again is the wrong approach, as I am 100 percent convinced the turbo is not what makes a WRCar expensive and boring!

GroupN have a hard time keeping up with S2000 cars as the gN has a road relation, while S2000 cars have basically no limits to ultimate suspension and brakes technology! I know Ron and many others will tell that S2000 cars are a lot more spectacular round corners than WRCars and that groupN cars are boring to watch. They are right. But stand on a stage at the entry of a curve. At least if the driver has a heart to attack, the groupN Lancers get unsettled under braking and turning in, the driver has to fight the steering wheel so the back of the car does not start to overtake him. The fastest S2000 cars look like on rails in comparison even to gN Lancers, and that is surely wheere they make a lot of time! Though I rather watch the drivers having to fight their cars!



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by RonSkoda

18-Mar-09 08:52 AM 

Ok, back to the turbo engines again, whilst it might be cheaper to get a lot of power from a turbo engine, I still don't believe the current WRC turbo engines are that cheap in reality. Anyone got a price list for parts of a Focus WRC and a Fabia S2000? Because a Focus costs 435,000 Euros more than the Fabia, and this surely isn't just in one active differential.

The current S2000 cars don't use active differentials at all, in fact AFAIK the 207 doesn't even have a central diff at all. The current WRCars do have an active central diff and I think they must lose this from the new rules. At this stage, I believe they will, but who knows what will happen by the time the 1.6 turbos come.

I agree with Starboardtac, I think there are very few formulaes that would not see costs escelate over time, other than a very strict Grp N category (road cars plus roll cage). Even supposedly budget R3 cars are now over 100,000 Euros and they are not very quick either!



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

18-Mar-09 09:25 AM 

Early days and a vague report, but apparently Mark Deans has hinted to this German language site that banning turbos from future WRC could mean Ford quits the series. At least he is very strong in the points that turbos are the future and would make it even easier for new teams and a level play field.

I personally am a little surprised that the FIA has to discuss and see before 1600 turbos in 2013 what the road market future is like. The road market is not the FIA, I cannot see VW Group, PSA and everybody else making a massive u-turn on the current trend of of new TFSI and THP engines within the next 3 years!

Anyway, it seems not true that turbos were drooped from the original suggestion on manufacturer request. Last week VW has decided against joining the WRC, now Ford is considering leaving, and being all alone Citroen I can't see Citroen staying on to prove how they can beat themselves.

Long live the IRC!



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

18-Mar-09 09:26 AM 

http://www.motorsport-total.com/rallye/news/2009/03/WRC_ohne_Turbo_Deans_haelt_davon_wenig_09031702.html



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

18-Mar-09 10:03 AM 

"S2000 is basically nothing but a WRCar minus turbo"

This is what perplexes me, why are they seeking parity....why do S2000 and Grp N compete against each other!

And worst of all to do so they seem intent on slowing down S2000.




 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by RonSkoda

18-Mar-09 10:56 AM 

"Anyway, it seems not true that turbos were drooped from the original suggestion on manufacturer request."

That would not surprise me! The FIA also announced new championship rules for F1 this week meaning the champion will be the one with the most wins, whether or not he has the most points. The manufacturers offered an alternative plan, which IMHO, was the better one. But that was refused.

I also agree that they may as well go straight to 1.6 turbos from 2011 onnwards. The current manufacturers are going to have to develop 2.0 NA engines for 2011 anyway, so why not go straight to the new rules? It is that which gives me the suspicion that the powers that be are trying to kill off IRC!



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

18-Mar-09 04:34 PM 

Very good points made.

LevinGT, “"S2000 is basically nothing but a WRCar minus turbo"

This is what perplexes me, why are they seeking parity....why do S2000 and Grp N compete against each other!

And worst of all to do so they seem intent on slowing down S2000.”

Look for example in the French Championship, here Lyon-Charbonnieres 2008:

http://www.asarhone.com/v21/Charbonnieres/2008/Classement.htm

You will note that they do the classes as follows:
WRC = A8W
R3 = A7
F2 = A7K
S2000 = A7S
N4 = N4 – which strangely in this case were not beaten by N3 cars, hence I have little confidence that the N4 leaders since decades are actually the best N4 manufacturers, they just dont have competition.

Anyway, I hope everyone understands the meaning of A8, A7, N4, N3... and you get the hint. Not in their wildest dreams the FRC organisers would compare an S2000 car with a groupN car, in contrary it is like A7+! And simple put, whoever wants to do it in another way has no clue what these classes and tech details are all about!

S2000 as a 4x4 kit car class is in its basics not that far off WRCars. To slow S2000 down to be in line with N4 is equally as wrong as allowing composite materials and dog gearboxes nd bigger turbos in production cars to make them keep up with S2000! Alone that they started to attempt this made the category structure go tits up!


Also Ron’s point, I am completely with you on this one! Because we have to save money quick for the crisis we announce a lame category and its replacement. So to save money the manufacturers who develop an S2000+ car for 2011 have to develop yet another car for 2013! Get out of here, wheere does that make sense! Rather wait one year more and come up with something proper and lasting straight away!


Besides once again with 1600cc+T S2000 cars the FIA waiting to see what the future road car is by 2013. I have found something interesting I wanted to mention here.

This morning I found news on a German web site that Ford is discourage to the consideration of quitting by the news the future Wrcars are without turbo. Same day a German car magazin announces in road cars Ford is to turn 100 percent downsized common rail turbo, petrol as well as diesel, in 2-3 years time there will be no Ford atmo road car. – That would be by around 2012. Dare I lean very, very far out the window and predict that by 2013 Ford has still not scrapped all their downsized turbo engines to replace them by atmos! So what else do you need to identify the future.



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

18-Mar-09 04:41 PM 

Besides talking of the classes being tits up, one thing I also do not understand is to allow S2000 cars alongside WRCars in 2010. So we make N4 faster, S2000 slower and then expect S2000 compete with WRCars. How does that work, by fitting a Boeing 747 turbine to an N4 Lancer and tell us it is a production road car?



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Radiv

18-Mar-09 05:09 PM 

I believe in simple rules:

Course of action 1:
WRC: 1,6 Turbo, 4wd
PWRC and JWRC: S2000, 4wd
GTWRC: N-GT, 2wd

Course of action 2:
WRC: 1,6 Turbo, 4wd
PWRC, JWRC: 1,6 Turbo detutned, 4wd
GTWRC: N-GT, 2wd

Course of action 3:
WRC: S2000
PWRC,JWRC: S2000
GTWRC: N-GT, 2wd


Keep it simple !



 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

18-Mar-09 11:17 PM 

Well Ron I do smell a snake or two and that's just politics.

"allow S2000 cars alongside WRCars in 2010"

I get it if they were seeking to show S2000 WRC was the dominant class ie faster more spectacular to watch...or at least on par. Unfortunately from the information at hand I suspect that S2000 WRC might be slower then IRC and regional competition S2000's. I'm positive this is just to stir us up.

Also in the interest of cost sharing and synergy I thought Eurosport and N1TV might collaborate on some events such as the safari. Anyhow it wouldn't be of great value to WRC if their cars are slower or on par with IRC.

Back on parity if it is important to someone out there, wouldn't revising turbo restrictors and retuning engine management be a far cheaper way of making Grp N quicker.

So lower S2000 WRC weight so power to weight ratio, torque to weight ratio is at least on par with a WRCar and make 2010 season fun for all involved.




 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Ron@Work

19-Mar-09 01:49 AM 

STOP PRESS!

Ok, so this was probably published before the latest FIA announcement but there is news in Autosport today saying they could switch to diesels from 2011! This includes a quote from Mori Chandler so it is not just speculation!

Who would be against them changing their minds again in the next few months. Chaos!


 Page 20 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