WRC

[Frank]

How do you feel about WRC and rally in general? And do you like the idea, that in a year from now the cars used have to be a whole lot closer to the production cars they are based upon? I do, although I really don't like them dumping turbos altogether.

Anyway, what is your favorite brand and driver, and why?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I dont really follow WRC, but WRC, just like all other forms of motorsport is being screwed up. It isnt about the sport anymore, it isnt about speed and engineering anymore, its not about entertainment its all about cash.

Where are the days of the group B rally cars? 600hp cars in the 70's, even with RWD only in the beginning. Now that is rally racing. Not the modern cars that are effectivly limited to 300hp. Sure, they probably are faster because they have the advantage of more than 20 years of technological advances in chassis, suspension, gearbox and tire technology but they arnt half as cool as the B cars. The quattro, the 037 monte carlo, the peugots, the intergrale and the rs200, that are real awsome cars.

Its the same with other forms of rally like the dakar. You almost get no footage shown on tv and the days of awsome cars like the 959 or the turbotwin daf truck that could easily reach 200kph are gone and traded for emotionless machines that arnt even faster.

The same goes for F1. 30, 20 or even 10 years back things were so much more enjoyable to watch.

 

[Frank]

Definitely! I totally agree, but I wanted to keep the subject open when starting this thread.

I really would want the teams to take a stock car, tinker it to high performance and take it all-out.

 

[DJ12]

Subaru are my favourite for 2 reasons, 1 Colin McRae and 2 that sound.

The cound is the reason I bought one over an Evo a few years back. Get a nice exhaust and it's almost orgasmic

I often find myself doubling back to go through a tunnel again (sad I know)

As for the other point, I don't really pay much attention to rallying these days so hadn't heard they are scrapping turbos. So "WRC" is going to be 2 litre normally aspirated now?

That's going to suck in my opinion. It cannot be for safety reasons as no one has died rallying for years.

 

[Frank]

I have a "simple" 2.0R suub (I know, but it's lease) for the same reason, and it's probably as expensive as yours. And I don't really want to drive as fast as possible, I simply don't like to slow down to take corners, especially when it's wet or cold. And I like going the maximum allowed speed (80 km/h) on bad dirt roads, especially in the winter.

But it would have been a WRC model (in black), if I could have pulled that off. But then again, I rarely have the opportunity to go all-out as it is, so that might be frustrating as well.

 

[Frank]

For WRC: rules suck. Sure, we need some, and I like using a stock car as the basis. But let them improve it and drive it as much as possible!

 

[hoho]

My favourite driver was obviously Markko Märtin as he is a fellow Estonian and drove really good. Too bad he retired. I think next after him is Marcus Grönholm. I don't really care what cars they are driving, its all about the driver for me

It cannot be for safety reasons as no one has died rallying for years.

Michael Park died two years ago. Last one before that was in 1993 so yes, it probably isn't about safety.

As for the rules, I'm not quite familiar with the changes. They seem to make it cheaper for the manufacturers so we might see more new drivers and manufacturers. Then again I hope that cars durability won't suffer and most can still finish events.

 

[Gubbi]

Considering the top speed in Rally Finland is above 200kph, there is zero need for more horsepower.

The old class B cars where killing machines. Not just for the drivers but for spectators as well (Rally kills a lot more spectators than drivers).

I'm surprised they'll change anything. Seemed pretty good as it is. I certainly don't understand the drive to make the rally cars more like their production counterparts. Both Subaru and Mitsubishi sells models that are distinct by being "rally-spec" (WRXs and EVOs).

Personally I wouldn't change a thing. And with Grönholm and Loeb (and to some extend Solberg) we'll see lot of exciting duels

Cheers

 

[Sxotty]

I haven't heard this but it is terrible. I don't watch WRC as I don't have much in the way of tv channels anyway. If I did however I would as it is much more entertaining than driving in circles (Nascar). I have a wrx though and as such the idea of taking the turbo out is just silly. It doesn't matter that you have only 200kph races. The turbo is used for accelerating when you are driving far slower. If this is serious then forget WRC completely.

 

[hoho]

I certainly don't understand the drive to make the rally cars more like their production counterparts. Both Subaru and Mitsubishi sells models that are distinct by being "rally-spec" (WRXs and EVOs).

I'm not sure about those cars but I remember that the Ford Märtin used costed around $1-1.5M whereas production model was around 1/10'th of that.

 

[DJ12]

There was no production version of the Focus.

Closest you get is the Focus RS.

 

[Gubbi]

I'm not sure about those cars but I remember that the Ford Märtin used costed around $1-1.5M whereas production model was around 1/10'th of that.

Well I'd put rally spec in citation quotes ("rally spec", there). Since the weight is reduced and suspension, shock absorbers, drive chain etc. is all beefed up considerably on the real rally cars. And custom parts costs. Not to mention the modular way the entire thing is assembled (saw the Subaru team changing a gear box+suspension+shocks on one side of the front of their car, all in 12 minute )

Cheers

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Considering the top speed in Rally Findland is above 200kph, there is zero need for more horsepower.

More is better.

The old class B cars where killing machines. Not just for the drivers but for spectators as well (Rally kills a lot more spectators than drivers).

Sorry but I couldnt care about some stupid spectator that wants to be on the freaking road when some 600hp monster comes racing past him at high speeds. It isnt the fault of the cars that people died, its the fault of the spectators. Thats what we call common sense.

Yes the cars themselves are less safe too, but that is the case with every form of motorsport from that era so that isnt really a argument imo.

 

[DJ12]

Sorry but I couldnt care about some stupid spectator that wants to be on the freaking road when some 600hp monster comes racing past him at high speeds. It isnt the fault of the cars that people died, its the fault of the spectators. Thats what we call common sense.

Exactly, watching that clip posted at the top they were stood right on the road, even as the car was flying past them.

There was some catastrophic crashes though that would've killed people even if they were 200 yards away


Technology has moved on though, I can see no reason for wanting to reduce the power and spectacle of the racing.

The same thing happened with touring cars, the RS500 and M3 days are way better than this two litre crap we have to put up with these days.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

People just shouldnt be close to the road. F1 has tons of barriers and fences and everything to protect the spectators against a crash. You cant do that with Rally so you just have to keep the people away, and if they dont want to, fine, its their problem if they get hit.

The group B drivers didnt see the spectators as humans, they said they see them as bushes because if they see them as humans they cant drive the car because they would be afraid to hit somebody.

 

[Gubbi]

Are you interested in rally at all ? Or do you just want as many craches and as much carnage as possible ?

WRC has never been better, this season is the best since 1998, which was the best ever (or at least since the 80s), where Sainz lost to Mäkinen when his car gave up 500 meters from the finishing line of the last stage of the last race of the season.

Cheers

 

[DJ12]

Doing away with turbos isn't going to make the sport any safer, in fact it could possibly make it worse as drivers will try and take more speed into the corners to make up for the lack of power and drivability on exiting.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Are you interested in rally at all ? Or do you just want as many craches and as much carnage as possible ?

Well you cant deny that is one of the aspects that makes motorsport interresting to watch. If there wasnt a aspect of danger involved with motorsport it wouldnt be as interresting.

WRC has never been better, this season is the best since 1998, which was the best ever (or at least since the 80s), where Sainz lost to Mäkinen when his car gave up 500 meters from the finishing line of the last stage of the last race of the season.

Cheers

So group B era was better? as that was in the 70 and 80's.

For me I dont care about the competition aspect in rally so much. The reason for that is that untill you get to see the stage time you have no clue who's going fastest anyway so im not really botherd who's fastest as its not a direct race like F1. I do care about how spectaculair it looks on my tv though. That for me is the cool thing about rally racing. The other day I was watching a old video of ari vatanen in a opel manta and even on the straight he just couldnt keep the steeringwheel straight, it was going all over the place. That is fun to watch, I dont care if he won.

If you want spectacel you need to either go back to the old dodgy cars or jank out driver electronics and but big engines back in but now with modern chassis and tire tech so you can actually use it beyond the straight.

I think it should be possible to make such a car safe. Afterall you can smash your F1 car into a wall at over 200kmph and walk away without a scratch so surely the must be capable of making rally cars that safe.

 

[MPI]

First of all, I'm a huge rally fan, being born of a rallying father and been somewhat involved in the sport (marshalling).

I think there are a few misconceptions about what rallying is and was about. Group B for instance, wasn't really what rallying was about. People see it as the end-all-be-all of rallying, but in the grand scheme of things it was merely a blip on the radar. Group B existed between 1983 and 1986 and quickly went out of control. In 1979 they drove slightly modified Ford Escorts (they even ran w/ leaf-springs initially! Although with 270hp Cossies in them at the end) and by 1985 there were tubular spaceframed 600hp cars with plastic/carbon fibre body shells. Does anyone see a disconnect somewhere between those? Not to mention one or two decades before that... (think Mini Cooper, SAAB 92, Cortinas)

Rallying has it's roots not in "Formula One on dirt", rather in "Getting a car across Europe with some trials along the way". Stage rallying, as it's known today, only came about in the '60s.

That's not to say that I didn't appreciate the Audi S1 or the Lancia S4, but from my viewpoint, the sport kind of took a detour there. It wasn't supposed to be, really.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Rallying has it's roots not in "Formula One on dirt", rather in "Getting a car across Europe with some trials along the way". Stage rallying, as it's known today, only came about in the '60s.

Why cant the two become one? Stage rally with the fastest possible cars. In a way, rally too has always been about building the fastest possible cars only the rules limit how fast cars can be these days but the idea behind it is still to go as fast as possible. Why not build supercars fit for rallying than? It certainly will be alot more exiting for everyone involved. There is a reason why all the top classes in every form of motorsport are the most populair, that is because people want to see the fastest possible cars. Thats why people watch motogp more than 125cc, thats why people watch F1 and not F2 or F3, thats why people watch WRC and not some lower class rally with gentleman racers.