I love WRC, but I don't ever keep track of it. WRC is why I want a Subaru WRX. I want to take it off-road 
WRC
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Better make sure you have a good insurance then because if you try to drive it like a WRC it probably wont last 5 minutes.
Have you tried it? 70k miles and it is lasting just fine. Just buy a nice thick skid plate before you crack your oil pan in half, get a cover for your differential too. Of course you have to have a bit of common sense, if by off-road he means off tarmac then it is peachy. If he means out through nothing then he might be in for trouble as 6.5 inch ground clearance isn't going to get you very far.
The leaves and crap was because the logging road we were on had deeper mud holes than I thought and I had to go fast through them so I would not get stuck, but we bottomed out and scraped em up.
Last edited by a moderator:
WRC cars are supercars for rallying. Your fixation on engine output is just plain wrong. There's no way to get 600bhp into a gravel/mud/snow covered road surface. All it does is increase top speed, which will only improve stage times marginally (typical average speed for a rally is around 100-120kph while the car's top speed is well above 200kph) but compromise safety greatly.
If you want crashes, watch NASCAR.
More importantly it's where the best race drivers are. Your suggestion would kill them off rather quickly. Every single form of motorsport, including F1, has restrictions to keep a handle on safety.
Cheers
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
They're not supercars, they only have 300hp. Sure, engine power isnt everything, hardly, as getting all the power on the ground is alot more important but im pretty sure that if you build a modern day group B car it will eat a wrc alive. The rs200 is 200kg lighter than the lowest allowed weight in WRC, and its mid engined so the balans is alot better. If you'd build a new rs200 with modern chassis, suspension, tires etc a wrc wont stand a chance.
Oval racing is the most boring thing on the planet.
Ofcourse you need restrictions, I dont want to go back to the days a driver was lucky if he'd survive a whole season (though those guys were real man, without a doubt). But its perfectly possible to make fast cars that are extremely safe, F1 is the proof of this.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
The difference with F1 is that the tracks are also made safe, so that a car can go off the track and still protect the driver pretty well. As WRC takes place on public roads, there's not a lot you can do to make a ravine drop, huge rock by the side of the road, or large tree on the corner safe.
All the safety features from F1 isn't going to stop people getting hurt when a rally car hits a large immovable object or a drop down a mountainside.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
OTOH speeds are very likely to be lower, even if you'd build a modern B car. A thing I always wonder with WRC is why the cars hardly break when you crash. Even a modern Ferrari roadcar you see losing as much parts as possible in a accident but if I watch WRC crashes you'll see a car losing a wheel or two at best.
I think safety is important, but I think its even more important that this is motorsport, and motorsport has a certain risk attached to it. The drivers get paid alot of money and know the risks very well so I think we should stop that constant complaining about safety (and making the cars slower because of that). There are more than enough possibilities to make a fast and safe car. Use those, make them better, but keep in mind motorsport will always have a risk. If you dont want to take that risk dont become a freaking racedriver.
What would the oldskool drivers think of the modern drivers? they didnt even wore seatbelts because they rather be slingshoted out of the car than be in it at a crash. They'd probably laugh modern drivers in the face with their moaning about safety.
I think safety is important, but I think its even more important that this is motorsport, and motorsport has a certain risk attached to it. The drivers get paid alot of money and know the risks very well so I think we should stop that constant complaining about safety (and making the cars slower because of that). There are more than enough possibilities to make a fast and safe car. Use those, make them better, but keep in mind motorsport will always have a risk. If you dont want to take that risk dont become a freaking racedriver.
What would the oldskool drivers think of the modern drivers? they didnt even wore seatbelts because they rather be slingshoted out of the car than be in it at a crash. They'd probably laugh modern drivers in the face with their moaning about safety.
We get it already, you want more dead drivers.
No amount of roll-cage, carbon fiber driver-well and crash absorbing structures is going to save a rally driver going off a 300 foot cliff because of a faulty suspension breaking down or a tyre blowing out.
Nurburgring was boycotted in the late 1960s because of safety, Monza was revamped several times. I've seen Jackie Stewart comment on the "appalling safety" of race cars and tracks back when he was winning. Nobody laughs when drivers or spectators die, nobody wants another tragedy like Senna (and others).
Cheers
You can drive pretty fast on dirt roads without damaging your car if you know what you're doing. And safe as well, if you stick to roads with good visibility. But it's totally different than driving fast on a hard road. Bad weather and agressive cornering on a dirt road give a much bigger adrenalin rush.
You can essentially do that with any car, but without 150+ hp and AWD, it isn't anywhere as much fun.
Agreed. That's why all the 2005+ models have those by default. Only plastic (metal is an option), but better than nothing.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
No I dont want more dead drivers, I said that. But im pretty sure you could make faster cars and make them roughly as safe as the cars now.
The 60's cars were deathtraps, if you'd drive one of those you have the right to say a thing or two about safety because there hardly is any.
And dont give me that Senna crap. Senna's crash and his death had NOTHING to do with the speed of the cars. Senna's case is one of very very bad luck.
His first bad luck was that it was one of the first times they used a safety car. Because they spend so much time behind it his tires cooled down and shrinked. So when he got in the corner, speeded up and the downforce kicked in the car was pushed to the ground. Because the cars from that era were run as close to the ground as possible the bottom of the car hit the ground (as you often see with the cars from that era, just watch the sparks from the back) and he lost controll and crashed in the wall.
His second bad luck was the crash. The crash itself wasnt lethal however he had the bad luck of his helmet being impaled by a piece of the front suspension because the tire got stuck between the wall and the car. It was all a case of bad luck, with modern cars the same could still happen.
Similar threads
