| Clegg | 09-29-2004 03:20 PM |
Max's new plan for WRC?!
�
�
[url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/rally/13153/[/url]
Seems mr FIA is all about removing the teeth from WRC in order to make it exist. His doom and gloom predictions are pretty hard core.
The removal of Turbo 2.0L engine's and high end management systems really could make for a slower rally.
Hmm makes me wonder.
Joe
Seems mr FIA is all about removing the teeth from WRC in order to make it exist. His doom and gloom predictions are pretty hard core.
The removal of Turbo 2.0L engine's and high end management systems really could make for a slower rally.
Hmm makes me wonder.
Joe
| rautox | 09-29-2004 03:34 PM |
Pretty gloomy and doomy. Spec tranny? Is that really the sore spot for competing in the WRC?
And that seems to put the cars out of touch with the North American market where the small displacement normally aspirated sporty sedan or coupe is ceasing to exist.
*edit* And what impact would this have on group N?
On whole, kinda weird (though not their weirdest). But then, it is the FIA.
And that seems to put the cars out of touch with the North American market where the small displacement normally aspirated sporty sedan or coupe is ceasing to exist.
*edit* And what impact would this have on group N?
On whole, kinda weird (though not their weirdest). But then, it is the FIA.
| DougM | 09-29-2004 03:34 PM |
"Under Mosley's proposed new system, two-liter engines would replace the existing turbocharged power plants"
uh, currently the engines are two-liters... they gonna do away with the turbos then?
yeah, I could see how the WRC could collapse. very easily infact.
uh, currently the engines are two-liters... they gonna do away with the turbos then?
yeah, I could see how the WRC could collapse. very easily infact.
| Scoobyslack1 | 09-29-2004 03:35 PM |
[QUOTE] while the sophisticated electronic and transmission systems would be canned in favor of a simpler and cheaper alternative that would be made available to all the manufacturers through a single supplier.[/QUOTE]
that could be a good and bad thing
Not sure about all that, just have to wait and see. At least they didn't say anything about getting rid of AWD.
that could be a good and bad thing
Not sure about all that, just have to wait and see. At least they didn't say anything about getting rid of AWD.
| dwx | 09-29-2004 03:48 PM |
How are you going to make a spec transmission when the engine layouts of the cars are all different? They have a 2WD class that uses 1600cc NA engines. Those cars are pretty fast, around 200hp but they still use sequential transmissions and cost more to build than a GrpN car. Before they were talking about going to a 3L NA engine as opposed to the 2L turbo.
| greg donovan | 09-29-2004 03:59 PM |
have you ever watched the super 1600 stuff. those cars are fast. and they produce good drivers. i would not view most of the changes as a bad thing. except the spec trans thing. that seems kida silly. just do away w/the active diffs and the sequential gear boxes and go back to floor mounted h-pattern shifters.
slow em down and get em sideways!
slow em down and get em sideways!
| Clegg | 09-29-2004 04:07 PM |
hehe I just think they should go back to Group B baby :)
| fengshui-fu | 09-29-2004 04:15 PM |
Maybe someone with more knowledge can answer this, but can a Worldwide motorsport exist without FIA control? I know it works for national organizations like the SCCA and NASA, but is there any other organizations besides FIA that can admin a worldwide rally championship series? If WRC dies, I wonder if it will go back to the days of manufacturers contesting local rallies.
-chris
-chris
| BryanH | 09-29-2004 04:46 PM |
I dont think the measures needed to keep rally alive are draconian but the enforcement is sure gonna have to be. It will have to be positively NASCAR like.
| Scoobyslack1 | 09-29-2004 04:52 PM |
[QUOTE=BryanH]It will have to be positively NASCAR like.[/QUOTE]
ASSCAR like....as long as they don't make them use carborators :lol:
ASSCAR like....as long as they don't make them use carborators :lol:
| Clegg | 09-29-2004 04:55 PM |
Hehe like replacing Cossy V10's with Roush Carb'd V8's in F1 hehe
| zoomfactor | 09-29-2004 05:32 PM |
While I'm not a huge NASCAR viewer, you can't argue with the fact that at every event the grid is full, with many of the also-rans getting bumped out of the show -- and sponsers clammoring to throw money. Would the WRC be more entertaining with 30 cars all with a legitimate shot? Like in any other motorsport, the teams with $$ are still going to be at the top - and there will alway be an arms ($$$) race.
I think they just need to sell more liquor and cigarette advertising (and maybe some porn advertising), those companies always have $$ to throw around ;) ...just nobody wants to take their money. (beer and light stuff excluded)
I think they just need to sell more liquor and cigarette advertising (and maybe some porn advertising), those companies always have $$ to throw around ;) ...just nobody wants to take their money. (beer and light stuff excluded)
| 10th Warrior | 09-29-2004 05:54 PM |
spec anything has no place in a World Championship. period.
why not just have everybody race spec miata then?
why not just have everybody race spec miata then?
| Patrick L | 09-29-2004 06:09 PM |
I thought Max was stepping down.
| BryanH | 09-30-2004 08:55 AM |
[QUOTE]spec anything has no place in a World Championship. period.[/QUOTE]
Spec stuff does have a place in the WRC. Much like in F1, WRC costs are out of control and teams can no longer muster enough resources (CASH!!!) to be competitive. And why even compete in the series if you cant be competitive?
Does it do Ford, Mitsubishi, or even Subaru any good to go out there week after week and get there butts handed to them? Nope...they need to win or at least be very competitive. I think the WRC would be very wise to make rule changes designed to keep costs down. Lower costs = more participation = more popularity and this is a good thing.
As much as I hate NASCAR they seem to be on to something with the way they put together teams. EVERYONE is making money and you won't see any empty spaces on there starting grids. F1 cannot say this. WRC cannot say this. Hell, the cost cutting is the only reason CART and IRL are even still with us.
And to top it off for fairly little money you can put together a car and compete in the smaller circuits and have a blast doing it.
Spec stuff does have a place in the WRC. Much like in F1, WRC costs are out of control and teams can no longer muster enough resources (CASH!!!) to be competitive. And why even compete in the series if you cant be competitive?
Does it do Ford, Mitsubishi, or even Subaru any good to go out there week after week and get there butts handed to them? Nope...they need to win or at least be very competitive. I think the WRC would be very wise to make rule changes designed to keep costs down. Lower costs = more participation = more popularity and this is a good thing.
As much as I hate NASCAR they seem to be on to something with the way they put together teams. EVERYONE is making money and you won't see any empty spaces on there starting grids. F1 cannot say this. WRC cannot say this. Hell, the cost cutting is the only reason CART and IRL are even still with us.
And to top it off for fairly little money you can put together a car and compete in the smaller circuits and have a blast doing it.
| 10th Warrior | 09-30-2004 10:10 AM |
yeah, and CART and IRL and NASCAR are crap.
i have no idea what you are talking about. 4/5 teams this year have a real shot at winning every rally, and we've had 4 different makes/5 different drivers win this year. seems competitive to me. when has there ever been more then 5-6 manufacturers in the WRC? i can't think of a time.
WRC costs are no where near F1 costs.
what NASCAR does is make winning a crap shoot. great for entertaining drunk rednecks, bad for crowning the best in the world.
what the FIA seems to be doing is the same thing CART did a few years ago. they are trying to appease the teams that are leaving rather then working on making the commited teams happy. bass-ackwards. if Ford are going to leave, they are going to leave regardless of what ruleset is in place. Skoda will be back. Mitsu will come back if they don't fold as a company. hyundai will be back. suzuki will probably join. the last two seasons have been extremely competitive. why fix what's not broke?
i have no idea what you are talking about. 4/5 teams this year have a real shot at winning every rally, and we've had 4 different makes/5 different drivers win this year. seems competitive to me. when has there ever been more then 5-6 manufacturers in the WRC? i can't think of a time.
WRC costs are no where near F1 costs.
what NASCAR does is make winning a crap shoot. great for entertaining drunk rednecks, bad for crowning the best in the world.
what the FIA seems to be doing is the same thing CART did a few years ago. they are trying to appease the teams that are leaving rather then working on making the commited teams happy. bass-ackwards. if Ford are going to leave, they are going to leave regardless of what ruleset is in place. Skoda will be back. Mitsu will come back if they don't fold as a company. hyundai will be back. suzuki will probably join. the last two seasons have been extremely competitive. why fix what's not broke?
| Rebellion | 09-30-2004 11:15 AM |
yes there's 4 teams that are competitive for this years WRC... but one's pulling out after this season. So ... we're left w/ Peugeot, Citroen, and Subaru as the only real contenders (Skoda will be running next year but how successful?)
We've basically lost 5 manufacturers in the past 5 years, Ford, Hyundai, SEAT, Toyota and Mitsubishi...
of course in 97 there were only 3 manufacturers... so I guess we're not doing that bad.
We've basically lost 5 manufacturers in the past 5 years, Ford, Hyundai, SEAT, Toyota and Mitsubishi...
of course in 97 there were only 3 manufacturers... so I guess we're not doing that bad.
| MattDell | 09-30-2004 11:22 AM |
[QUOTE=Top_Dog]I thought Max was stepping down.[/QUOTE]
-Matt
-Matt
| BryanH | 09-30-2004 11:32 AM |
I think you need to go back and re-read the article a little better. It makes sense.
WRC costs are no where near F1 costs but they are skyrocketing just like F1. And I would think it is scaring off manfacturers. I wonder how long it will be before ALMS or the other smaller series in the US run into this same issue with all the factory support for the Corvettes, Audi, Caddy, and the like. The lack of factory support ($$$) is why Lamborghini will no longer be out there.
What the FIA is doing is trying to make it so that the only two teams on the track arent Ferrari and BMW. Watching 4 cars run around a circuit would be pretty boring. But then again people said it would be the end of the world when turbos were removed from F1...and the costs have only gone up since then.
WRC costs are no where near F1 costs but they are skyrocketing just like F1. And I would think it is scaring off manfacturers. I wonder how long it will be before ALMS or the other smaller series in the US run into this same issue with all the factory support for the Corvettes, Audi, Caddy, and the like. The lack of factory support ($$$) is why Lamborghini will no longer be out there.
What the FIA is doing is trying to make it so that the only two teams on the track arent Ferrari and BMW. Watching 4 cars run around a circuit would be pretty boring. But then again people said it would be the end of the world when turbos were removed from F1...and the costs have only gone up since then.
| Clegg | 09-30-2004 11:38 AM |
ALMS has cleaned its act up a bit and also has pretty big restrictions between the classes already. the formation of LMP1/LMP2 was made to help privateers be able to compete for less money than against the factory audi's and such.
Also notice that "factory" teams make up a fraction of the grid at ALMS events, and are not promised a win at any event. (last year the Vette's vs Ferrari battle was VERY good to see). I think ALMS is not only doing it right but is moving in the right direction by not letting prices sky rocket then making big changes, but making small changes along the way to adjust the series and keep it reasonable.
Its market presence is what hurts it more than anything. But with the recent ratings showing people enjoy watching ALMS on SpeedTV more than any other series on the network... It should kick ALMS in the ass a bit :)
Also notice that "factory" teams make up a fraction of the grid at ALMS events, and are not promised a win at any event. (last year the Vette's vs Ferrari battle was VERY good to see). I think ALMS is not only doing it right but is moving in the right direction by not letting prices sky rocket then making big changes, but making small changes along the way to adjust the series and keep it reasonable.
Its market presence is what hurts it more than anything. But with the recent ratings showing people enjoy watching ALMS on SpeedTV more than any other series on the network... It should kick ALMS in the ass a bit :)
| BryanH | 09-30-2004 11:49 AM |
I read an article complaining about the open checkbook racing of caddy with the CTS-v. I will have to find a copy of it.
But thanks for proving my point in a round about sort of way.
But thanks for proving my point in a round about sort of way.
| kfoote | 09-30-2004 11:55 AM |
When will sanctioning bodies realize that escalating costs in racing have nothing to do with how expensive the car is? Generally, rules changes make a series more expensive, not less, and in the short term the teams that have the most money to spend on testing and development are able to react more quickly and do better. Even if the WRC cars go from $1 mil to $250k, Peugeot, Subaru, etc, will still find a way to spend the extra couple of million that they saved in less expensive cars and parts.
| BryanH | 09-30-2004 12:10 PM |
but doing basic things like making the drivers shift there own gears and maybe trying to eliminate SOME of the electronic stuff might save some of the teams some money.
But I do agree that if you give a racing team money it will find a way to spend it.
But I do agree that if you give a racing team money it will find a way to spend it.
| Clegg | 09-30-2004 12:12 PM |
[QUOTE=BryanH]I read an article complaining about the open checkbook racing of caddy with the CTS-v. I will have to find a copy of it.
But thanks for proving my point in a round about sort of way.[/QUOTE]
Isnt that World Challenge? And yes Speed WC has some issues it needs to deal with.
But thanks for proving my point in a round about sort of way.[/QUOTE]
Isnt that World Challenge? And yes Speed WC has some issues it needs to deal with.
| BryanH | 09-30-2004 12:27 PM |
I thought I was thinking of the wrong series....DOH!!!
| Predwolf | 09-30-2004 03:37 PM |
Just make them use their production counterpart ;)..that outta spice things up.
| GravelRash | 09-30-2004 10:00 PM |
As a counterpoint, does anyone think we'd be seeing DCCD, or other active diffs in production Subaru/Evo if they hadn't be able to develop them for WRC etc.? Let alone the 6spd in the STi?
In some cases the trickle down from racing really does work, and I think especially so for WRC where the cars/engines are based on production items. (Yes, I know, you can't buy anything close from the factory, but the basic point is valid I believe.) Even the trans/diff/ECU etc. technology gives them data and results they simply wouldn't do from a purely research standpoint.
Which is also why I think the "spec trans" would be a bad idea...then we'd never get a good upgrade for the (in)famous Subie 5spd :p
In some cases the trickle down from racing really does work, and I think especially so for WRC where the cars/engines are based on production items. (Yes, I know, you can't buy anything close from the factory, but the basic point is valid I believe.) Even the trans/diff/ECU etc. technology gives them data and results they simply wouldn't do from a purely research standpoint.
Which is also why I think the "spec trans" would be a bad idea...then we'd never get a good upgrade for the (in)famous Subie 5spd :p
| RS WRC | 10-01-2004 08:51 AM |
[QUOTE=Rebellion]yes there's 4 teams that are competitive for this years WRC... but one's pulling out after this season. So ... we're left w/ Peugeot, Citroen, and Subaru as the only real contenders (Skoda will be running next year but how successful?)
We've basically lost 5 manufacturers in the past 5 years, Ford, Hyundai, SEAT, Toyota and Mitsubishi...
of course in 97 there were only 3 manufacturers... so I guess we're not doing that bad.[/QUOTE]
Ford will be running next year no matter what...
Mitsubishi recently announced their full programme for next year...
We've basically lost 5 manufacturers in the past 5 years, Ford, Hyundai, SEAT, Toyota and Mitsubishi...
of course in 97 there were only 3 manufacturers... so I guess we're not doing that bad.[/QUOTE]
Ford will be running next year no matter what...
Mitsubishi recently announced their full programme for next year...
| RS WRC | 10-01-2004 08:59 AM |
[QUOTE=Clegg][url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/rally/13153/[/url]
Seems mr FIA is all about removing the teeth from WRC in order to make it exist. His doom and gloom predictions are pretty hard core.
The removal of Turbo 2.0L engine's and high end management systems really could make for a slower rally.
Hmm makes me wonder.
Joe[/QUOTE]
The 'proposal' is for 2.0 litre engines, non-turbo... same bottom-end, just NA. Also, no electronic gearing, diff, etc.
If it's for cost cutting, I'd vote since it will give privateers a chance. Not a level field with the factory teams may be, but the gap will be much smaller.
I hope they intoduce it as early as 2006, but then again, it's one of Mr. Mosley's proposal's, and he usually goes along with the manufacturers' feedback.
Seems mr FIA is all about removing the teeth from WRC in order to make it exist. His doom and gloom predictions are pretty hard core.
The removal of Turbo 2.0L engine's and high end management systems really could make for a slower rally.
Hmm makes me wonder.
Joe[/QUOTE]
The 'proposal' is for 2.0 litre engines, non-turbo... same bottom-end, just NA. Also, no electronic gearing, diff, etc.
If it's for cost cutting, I'd vote since it will give privateers a chance. Not a level field with the factory teams may be, but the gap will be much smaller.
I hope they intoduce it as early as 2006, but then again, it's one of Mr. Mosley's proposal's, and he usually goes along with the manufacturers' feedback.
| RS WRC | 10-01-2004 09:08 AM |
[QUOTE=GravelRash]As a counterpoint, does anyone think we'd be seeing DCCD, or other active diffs in production Subaru/Evo if they hadn't be able to develop them for WRC etc.? Let alone the 6spd in the STi?
In some cases the trickle down from racing really does work, and I think especially so for WRC where the cars/engines are based on production items. (Yes, I know, you can't buy anything close from the factory, but the basic point is valid I believe.) Even the trans/diff/ECU etc. technology gives them data and results they simply wouldn't do from a purely research standpoint.
Which is also why I think the "spec trans" would be a bad idea...then we'd never get a good upgrade for the (in)famous Subie 5spd :p[/QUOTE]
Guess how the next generation STI Type RA spec 'X' will be then :)
Imagine a stock NA STI(I know it's hard to picture, but try it!):
Prodrive/STI Engineered to meet the new homologation...i.e. lightweight shell, a tranny good to take Solberg-style beating, no DCCD-just mechanical LSDs, and of course 276hp! The price will go down, and I'll be the first one to buy:)
In some cases the trickle down from racing really does work, and I think especially so for WRC where the cars/engines are based on production items. (Yes, I know, you can't buy anything close from the factory, but the basic point is valid I believe.) Even the trans/diff/ECU etc. technology gives them data and results they simply wouldn't do from a purely research standpoint.
Which is also why I think the "spec trans" would be a bad idea...then we'd never get a good upgrade for the (in)famous Subie 5spd :p[/QUOTE]
Guess how the next generation STI Type RA spec 'X' will be then :)
Imagine a stock NA STI(I know it's hard to picture, but try it!):
Prodrive/STI Engineered to meet the new homologation...i.e. lightweight shell, a tranny good to take Solberg-style beating, no DCCD-just mechanical LSDs, and of course 276hp! The price will go down, and I'll be the first one to buy:)
| Rich10 | 10-01-2004 09:21 AM |
I would prefer that they tried to save money by moving to traditional H pattern transmissions and simpler differentials. I don't like the idea of removing turbos. It would just increase costs by making manufacturers build engines that rev like F1 engines.
| TV3WRX | 10-01-2004 09:54 AM |
I'd welcome the changes and do not see it as a bad thing at all, for WRC or F1. Sure, as fans we like to see the most technically advanced cars we can see competing. But really we need to be looking at the long-term success of WRC and motorsports in general, and currently motorsports has some real problems presenting itself as a viable marketing means for sponsors; costs vs. return on investment are way out of whack. That will kill any business no matter how big or popular. Not to mention, as has been said above, once you get past car-brand loyalties the racing has not been very good in either WRC or F1, with only a few exceptions.
To me, WRC is far better when you can come away feeling that the driver/team's effort won an event, not the car, the budget, the technology. WRC's roots are with cars that were far more production based than they are now. I'd love to see them return to that. I believe that Suzuki, Mitsu, Skoda, Ford have all come forward to say that their committment to participate in WRC long term depends entirely on aggressive reigning-in of costs, and so it will be.
Building the car is not the biggest part of a team's budget. The engineering time, people and testing to figure out how to make it competitive costs much more, not to mention that team travel and driver salaries are a huge component, too. If you reduce the use of electronics, smart diffs, sequential box, etc., there is far less expense in making the car competitive. (Boy I'd hate to see turbos go away, though.) Sure, some teams will still spend more on driver salary or testing time or whatever, but there will still be 10 teams within 5% of each others pace rather than 2 teams that dominate, (assuming the rules were fair to begin with). I'd be perfectly happy if gpN or some variation was essentially the top class in WRC.
FIA: it's the UN of motorsports. Bureaucratic behemoth, more concerned with perpetuating it's own gravy train and weilding its politcal power than doing the right thing for the sport it governs.
To me, WRC is far better when you can come away feeling that the driver/team's effort won an event, not the car, the budget, the technology. WRC's roots are with cars that were far more production based than they are now. I'd love to see them return to that. I believe that Suzuki, Mitsu, Skoda, Ford have all come forward to say that their committment to participate in WRC long term depends entirely on aggressive reigning-in of costs, and so it will be.
Building the car is not the biggest part of a team's budget. The engineering time, people and testing to figure out how to make it competitive costs much more, not to mention that team travel and driver salaries are a huge component, too. If you reduce the use of electronics, smart diffs, sequential box, etc., there is far less expense in making the car competitive. (Boy I'd hate to see turbos go away, though.) Sure, some teams will still spend more on driver salary or testing time or whatever, but there will still be 10 teams within 5% of each others pace rather than 2 teams that dominate, (assuming the rules were fair to begin with). I'd be perfectly happy if gpN or some variation was essentially the top class in WRC.
FIA: it's the UN of motorsports. Bureaucratic behemoth, more concerned with perpetuating it's own gravy train and weilding its politcal power than doing the right thing for the sport it governs.
| kfoote | 10-01-2004 09:58 AM |
[QUOTE=Rich10]I would prefer that they tried to save money by moving to traditional H pattern transmissions and simpler differentials. I don't like the idea of removing turbos. It would just increase costs by making manufacturers build engines that rev like F1 engines.[/QUOTE]
They tried this in F1 last year, and discovered that it was less expensive long term to use a sequential gearbox. One missed shift that's virtually impossible to do with the elecrtonics in the sequential gearbox = blowing a $75k engine that would have been fine using a 25k gearbox instead of a 5k gearbox.
They tried this in F1 last year, and discovered that it was less expensive long term to use a sequential gearbox. One missed shift that's virtually impossible to do with the elecrtonics in the sequential gearbox = blowing a $75k engine that would have been fine using a 25k gearbox instead of a 5k gearbox.
| TV3WRX | 10-01-2004 10:06 AM |
That's what happens when engineers make the decisions to justify their existence, and reliance on the gadgets they love and worship. A simple rev-limiter takes car of that problem more or less, just like in a street car. A driver should have to think about not missing shifts, and maybe, just maybe, the engine should cost $30k, not $75k to begin with.
It's kind of like the IRS being left to decide on tax reform: "We cannot implement tax reform, because what would we all do then?"
It's kind of like the IRS being left to decide on tax reform: "We cannot implement tax reform, because what would we all do then?"
| Rich10 | 10-01-2004 09:00 PM |
[QUOTE=kfoote]They tried this in F1 last year, and discovered that it was less expensive long term to use a sequential gearbox. One missed shift that's virtually impossible to do with the elecrtonics in the sequential gearbox = blowing a $75k engine that would have been fine using a 25k gearbox instead of a 5k gearbox.[/QUOTE]
For nearly 100 years, drivers have been in races and have had the requirement to shift correctly. If I can shift my own gears, a professional driver can do it too.
My original point is that the transmission and diffs could be simplified and the racing would be just as exciting. It would also increase the driver skill component of the rally.
For nearly 100 years, drivers have been in races and have had the requirement to shift correctly. If I can shift my own gears, a professional driver can do it too.
My original point is that the transmission and diffs could be simplified and the racing would be just as exciting. It would also increase the driver skill component of the rally.
| 22wannabe | 10-01-2004 11:14 PM |
[QUOTE=RS WRC]Guess how the next generation STI Type RA spec 'X' will be then :)
Imagine a stock NA STI(I know it's hard to picture, but try it!):
Prodrive/STI Engineered to meet the new homologation...i.e. lightweight shell, a tranny good to take Solberg-style beating, no DCCD-just mechanical LSDs, and of course 276hp! The price will go down, and I'll be the first one to buy:)[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't mind a sequential gearbox and a paddle shifter to go with it!
Imagine a stock NA STI(I know it's hard to picture, but try it!):
Prodrive/STI Engineered to meet the new homologation...i.e. lightweight shell, a tranny good to take Solberg-style beating, no DCCD-just mechanical LSDs, and of course 276hp! The price will go down, and I'll be the first one to buy:)[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't mind a sequential gearbox and a paddle shifter to go with it!
| DGoReck | 10-03-2004 09:47 PM |
Is anyone watching the Speed WRC rally? Did anyhear Nicky mention that Subaru would need to design a new engine, no more flat4. To me that hurts.
| TV3WRX | 10-03-2004 09:56 PM |
OMG, yes I heard that. What he said is that there would be a "control" transmission that would be spec'd for transverse engines only, and therefore Subaru would have to design a completely new engine. I have to believe that Nicky is assuming a bit too much here, and that the framework of the new rules is just that...a framework. I cannot imagine Subaru, a stalwart of the WRC, just standing by and letting that happen. I support the new changes, but Subaru with a transverse I4 engine is hard to even think about. :huh:
| Longfury | 10-03-2004 09:56 PM |
Subaru does not have a transverse engine to use. They would have to not only develop a new engine from the ground up but a chassis and drive train to support it. This change would most likely drive Subaru out of the WRC
| dwx | 10-03-2004 10:03 PM |
I think they would make an allowance for Subaru, since they don't make any transverse engines. It's not that hard to change the gear ratios in a transmission if that's all the spec component is.
It would be easier to just throw some Subaru stickers on a Citroen than to rework the entire chassis and engine layout to fit some spec component.
It would be easier to just throw some Subaru stickers on a Citroen than to rework the entire chassis and engine layout to fit some spec component.
| tt_ttf | 10-03-2004 10:03 PM |
Yeah Max - how does it save money when you force the one major team that has been through thick and thin of the WRC for nearly 20 years now into having to dump all the engineering from that time (the current engine most definitely has roots in the first engine Subaru went rallying with) to completely redo their car and all the drive train.......
Also does not bode well for the development of Rallying here in the US just as we were starting to get the rules alligned with Group N etc.....
:furious:
[QUOTE=Longfury]Subaru does not have a transverse engine to use. They would have to not only develop a new engine from the ground up but a chassis and drive train to support it. This change would most likely drive Subaru out of the WRC[/QUOTE]
Also does not bode well for the development of Rallying here in the US just as we were starting to get the rules alligned with Group N etc.....
:furious:
[QUOTE=Longfury]Subaru does not have a transverse engine to use. They would have to not only develop a new engine from the ground up but a chassis and drive train to support it. This change would most likely drive Subaru out of the WRC[/QUOTE]
| fiftyonefifty | 10-03-2004 10:04 PM |
I would hope that if it came down to changing their engineering to a transverse engine that they would pull out. It goes against their entire philosophy. Nearly every subaru for the past 15 years has been a boxer engine with all wheel drive, it would just be dissapointing to all of a sudden change to a transverse I4 layout.
...oh and good quote on the FIA there TV3WRX, did you make it up?
...oh and good quote on the FIA there TV3WRX, did you make it up?
| WRXedUSA | 10-03-2004 10:15 PM |
Dear Max
| AzSandSlinger | 10-03-2004 10:34 PM |
this is completely useless.. so they want to make "an even playing field" for everyone and also cut costs.. Ridiculous.. how many "little guys" have you seen compete an ANY major (World-Class) racing event? All the major racing events have cars and teams with VERY deep pockets... this plight for the "little guy" is useless... look into NASCAR, I am not a big fan of it, but I can say that the major contenders are part of teams with deep pockets...
The WRC is where the "little guy" aspires to get to.. the driver, crew chiefs, etc.. all started in lower brackets where they BELONGED at the time and worked their way up to the WRC... The WRC should be the world-class showdown in top driver, manufacturer and crew... I don't beleive any of these changes will make a "more level playing field".. if anything, it will take Major manufacturers out of the loop.. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Prodrive actually own the broadcast rights to WRC?? I wonder how they feel about having their flagship being put in jeopardy??
-Shane
The WRC is where the "little guy" aspires to get to.. the driver, crew chiefs, etc.. all started in lower brackets where they BELONGED at the time and worked their way up to the WRC... The WRC should be the world-class showdown in top driver, manufacturer and crew... I don't beleive any of these changes will make a "more level playing field".. if anything, it will take Major manufacturers out of the loop.. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Prodrive actually own the broadcast rights to WRC?? I wonder how they feel about having their flagship being put in jeopardy??
-Shane
| meebs | 10-03-2004 10:37 PM |
[QUOTE=WRXedUSA]Dear Max,
You should have departed in July and kept your word. Die in a fire.
Sincerely,
Chad Cole
4x World Rally Supporter.[/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You should have departed in July and kept your word. Die in a fire.
Sincerely,
Chad Cole
4x World Rally Supporter.[/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
| Longfury | 10-03-2004 10:39 PM |
I just don't see Subaru developing an all new car. And yes Prodrive would not be happy in any respect as if Subaru leaves who are they gonna build rally cars for?
| Penguinking | 10-03-2004 10:47 PM |
ferarri
| GC84ever | 10-03-2004 10:55 PM |
If he wants to save cost. why not, you're gonna hate me for this, scrap WRC (which I don't want) and have just Grp N. Their cars are production based. You can't get any cheaper. And that way privateers can enter. We could see the Evo battling the STi, or see Patrick Richard (04 Canadian & SCCA proRally champ) beat other world class drivers.
Or come up with rules similar to SCCA Speed Channel GT & TC challenge. which regulates hp, gives reward weight, and tries to level the playing field.
Or how about make the WRC a sort of Grp N+; where teams can tune their cars a bit by reprogramming the ecu, to raise boost and take it to stock settings +10%. or giving teams limited budgets to spend. Like salary caps that NHL team owners want for the players.
but wouldn't logistics of going all around the world cost a lot? If they could figure a way to maybe have all the teams travel together; it could save some of the cost.
Just some thoughts.
Or come up with rules similar to SCCA Speed Channel GT & TC challenge. which regulates hp, gives reward weight, and tries to level the playing field.
Or how about make the WRC a sort of Grp N+; where teams can tune their cars a bit by reprogramming the ecu, to raise boost and take it to stock settings +10%. or giving teams limited budgets to spend. Like salary caps that NHL team owners want for the players.
but wouldn't logistics of going all around the world cost a lot? If they could figure a way to maybe have all the teams travel together; it could save some of the cost.
Just some thoughts.
| Longfury | 10-03-2004 10:55 PM |
[QUOTE=Penguinking]ferarri[/QUOTE]
But thats not rally cars
But thats not rally cars
| Penguinking | 10-03-2004 11:00 PM |
MAKE THEM INTO RALLY CARS!
i was just joking, but really - they have all the data and tools. cant be that hard to convert a ferarri into a rally car instead of a GT car. what other cars do prodrive campaign?
i was just joking, but really - they have all the data and tools. cant be that hard to convert a ferarri into a rally car instead of a GT car. what other cars do prodrive campaign?
| meebs | 10-03-2004 11:03 PM |
The more I think about it... I just think that Subaru will not let the transverse engine rule fly.
| Longfury | 10-03-2004 11:07 PM |
[QUOTE=meebs]The more I think about it... I just think that Subaru will not let the transverse engine rule fly.[/QUOTE]
Your probally right. Question is does Prodrive and Subaru have enough pull in the FIA to keep that from happening and get the proposal changed?
Your probally right. Question is does Prodrive and Subaru have enough pull in the FIA to keep that from happening and get the proposal changed?
| WRXedUSA | 10-03-2004 11:16 PM |
I say this.
David Richards, as most of us know, commands Prodrive along with the WRC. You sure a hell know that he'll do everything he can to keep all 500 of his employees employed. I think all this talk is hogwash. There is no way MMS and Skoda would spend off seasons fine tuning a turbo motor to find out that they can't use it.
There is NO possible way the FiA can turn thier back on Citroen, Ford, Puegeot Subaru, Skoda and MMS. If they do. I'll be one lost puppy dog.
Max, I hear Mt. St. Helens is about to pop, how bout you pitch a tent up yonder.
David Richards, as most of us know, commands Prodrive along with the WRC. You sure a hell know that he'll do everything he can to keep all 500 of his employees employed. I think all this talk is hogwash. There is no way MMS and Skoda would spend off seasons fine tuning a turbo motor to find out that they can't use it.
There is NO possible way the FiA can turn thier back on Citroen, Ford, Puegeot Subaru, Skoda and MMS. If they do. I'll be one lost puppy dog.
Max, I hear Mt. St. Helens is about to pop, how bout you pitch a tent up yonder.
| Longfury | 10-03-2004 11:21 PM |
Remember that the WRC is not the only series that Max and screwed with. F1 is going in a bad direction as well IMO. Limiting the electronics and things of that nature do NOTHING to contain cost. The money that would have been spent on electronics gets spent making the mechanical stuff perform as well as the electronics.
And Max Please go camp at Mt. St. Helens and leave the 2 best professional motorsprots alone.
And Max Please go camp at Mt. St. Helens and leave the 2 best professional motorsprots alone.
| wrxsubaru | 10-03-2004 11:48 PM |
[QUOTE=GC84ever]If he wants to save cost. why not, you're gonna hate me for this, scrap WRC (which I don't want) and have just Grp N. Their cars are production based. You can't get any cheaper. And that way privateers can enter. We could see the Evo battling the STi, or see Patrick Richard (04 Canadian & SCCA proRally champ) beat other world class drivers.
Or come up with rules similar to SCCA Speed Channel GT & TC challenge. which regulates hp, gives reward weight, and tries to level the playing field.
Or how about make the WRC a sort of Grp N+; where teams can tune their cars a bit by reprogramming the ecu, to raise boost and take it to stock settings +10%. or giving teams limited budgets to spend. Like salary caps that NHL team owners want for the players.
but wouldn't logistics of going all around the world cost a lot? If they could figure a way to maybe have all the teams travel together; it could save some of the cost.
Just some thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I think this would be the best way to go, but it would kind of kill the sport for a couple of years at least since only Mitsubishi and Subaru sell turbo awd cars.
I hate to say it but i would rather see subaru out of the WRX than making a transvers inline 4.
Or come up with rules similar to SCCA Speed Channel GT & TC challenge. which regulates hp, gives reward weight, and tries to level the playing field.
Or how about make the WRC a sort of Grp N+; where teams can tune their cars a bit by reprogramming the ecu, to raise boost and take it to stock settings +10%. or giving teams limited budgets to spend. Like salary caps that NHL team owners want for the players.
but wouldn't logistics of going all around the world cost a lot? If they could figure a way to maybe have all the teams travel together; it could save some of the cost.
Just some thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I think this would be the best way to go, but it would kind of kill the sport for a couple of years at least since only Mitsubishi and Subaru sell turbo awd cars.
I hate to say it but i would rather see subaru out of the WRX than making a transvers inline 4.
| wrxsubaru | 10-03-2004 11:49 PM |
[QUOTE=GC84ever]If he wants to save cost. why not, you're gonna hate me for this, scrap WRC (which I don't want) and have just Grp N. Their cars are production based. You can't get any cheaper. And that way privateers can enter. We could see the Evo battling the STi, or see Patrick Richard (04 Canadian & SCCA proRally champ) beat other world class drivers.
Or come up with rules similar to SCCA Speed Channel GT & TC challenge. which regulates hp, gives reward weight, and tries to level the playing field.
Or how about make the WRC a sort of Grp N+; where teams can tune their cars a bit by reprogramming the ecu, to raise boost and take it to stock settings +10%. or giving teams limited budgets to spend. Like salary caps that NHL team owners want for the players.
but wouldn't logistics of going all around the world cost a lot? If they could figure a way to maybe have all the teams travel together; it could save some of the cost.
Just some thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I think this would be the best way to go, but it would kind of kill the sport for a couple of years at least since only Mitsubishi and Subaru sell turbo awd cars.
Why not make a spec trannie for subaru that weighs the same amount as the transverse one and loses the same amount of power through it, then i guess it would be fairly fair?
I hate to say it but i would rather see subaru out of the WRX than making a transvers inline 4.
Or come up with rules similar to SCCA Speed Channel GT & TC challenge. which regulates hp, gives reward weight, and tries to level the playing field.
Or how about make the WRC a sort of Grp N+; where teams can tune their cars a bit by reprogramming the ecu, to raise boost and take it to stock settings +10%. or giving teams limited budgets to spend. Like salary caps that NHL team owners want for the players.
but wouldn't logistics of going all around the world cost a lot? If they could figure a way to maybe have all the teams travel together; it could save some of the cost.
Just some thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I think this would be the best way to go, but it would kind of kill the sport for a couple of years at least since only Mitsubishi and Subaru sell turbo awd cars.
Why not make a spec trannie for subaru that weighs the same amount as the transverse one and loses the same amount of power through it, then i guess it would be fairly fair?
I hate to say it but i would rather see subaru out of the WRX than making a transvers inline 4.
| petergun | 10-04-2004 12:01 AM |
[QUOTE=TV3WRX]OMG, yes I heard that. What he said is that there would be a "control" transmission that would be spec'd for transverse engines only, and therefore Subaru would have to design a completely new engine. I have to believe that Nicky is assuming a bit too much here, and that the framework of the new rules is just that...a framework. I cannot imagine Subaru, a stalwart of the WRC, just standing by and letting that happen. I support the new changes, but Subaru with a transverse I4 engine is hard to even think about. :huh:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I hoped that as well, but Nicki immediatly followed on how the Japanese area looking into desinging a new engine. This is a bombshell.
:mad:
Yeah, I hoped that as well, but Nicki immediatly followed on how the Japanese area looking into desinging a new engine. This is a bombshell.
:mad:
| ANZAC_1915 | 10-04-2004 12:14 AM |
[QUOTE=Longfury]Subaru does not have a transverse engine to use. They would have to not only develop a new engine from the ground up but a chassis and drive train to support it. This change would most likely drive Subaru out of the WRC[/QUOTE]
Four words:
Saab World Rally Team :lol:
They have a transverse engine or two.
Glenn
PS Super 1600 cars are NOT cheap to build. Geez, they should have just made it a Group N championship; of course there would only be two types of cars in it....
Four words:
Saab World Rally Team :lol:
They have a transverse engine or two.
Glenn
PS Super 1600 cars are NOT cheap to build. Geez, they should have just made it a Group N championship; of course there would only be two types of cars in it....
| JC | 10-04-2004 12:24 AM |
[QUOTE=wrxsubaru]I hate to say it but i would rather see subaru out of the WRX than making a transvers inline 4.[/QUOTE]
You mean WRC not WRX I presume. I agree. If it's not a boxer, it's not a Subaru to me.
You mean WRC not WRX I presume. I agree. If it's not a boxer, it's not a Subaru to me.
| Imprezanator | 10-04-2004 12:50 AM |
Man, this is a crushing blow to Subaru! How can the expect them to totally redesign a completely different kind of car? Everything about Subaru's design philosophy is the symetrical AWD system. It can't be.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét