| whtlegacy | 10-04-2004 01:12 AM |
I would certainly rather watch Group N then a sport where cars increasingly have nothing to do with production cars. If Group N was televised even now, I think I would rather watch it than WRC.
| mattjb | 10-04-2004 01:49 AM |
[QUOTE=wrxsubaru]I hate to say it but i would rather see subaru out of the WRC than making a transvers inline 4.[/QUOTE]
Word.
-MB
Word.
-MB
| doghauler | 10-04-2004 09:02 AM |
OK, I can't see FHI going to an inline 4, just for WRC, but on a broader scale it makes even less sense.
All Subaru platforms use the boxer engine, every single car. There is a 2.0, and 2.5, even the 3.0 is a boxer. Why would they even think to go this direction? Could it be a future plan with GM? I can't imagine that GM has that much of an input to engine specs for Subaru. Why would they make certain cars with boxer, certain cars without?
Why would Max dictate engine/tranny layout? I don't think the boxer layout is much of an advantage. I can see limits on technology being helpful as far as costs go, but only so far. The calendar of events alone dictates who can afford to be in the series. Any team that can afford to go around the world should have a reasonable budget to compete.
I would love to see a bunch of makes competeing, but 1 dollar or 10 million dollars, a Manufacturer will enter a series only for the bottom line in sales. Toyota won't come back because they could care less about awd, they sell family cars because it makes them money. No supra, no celica, etc.. Many companies have gone this route and will not come back, rules or no rules change.
All Subaru platforms use the boxer engine, every single car. There is a 2.0, and 2.5, even the 3.0 is a boxer. Why would they even think to go this direction? Could it be a future plan with GM? I can't imagine that GM has that much of an input to engine specs for Subaru. Why would they make certain cars with boxer, certain cars without?
Why would Max dictate engine/tranny layout? I don't think the boxer layout is much of an advantage. I can see limits on technology being helpful as far as costs go, but only so far. The calendar of events alone dictates who can afford to be in the series. Any team that can afford to go around the world should have a reasonable budget to compete.
I would love to see a bunch of makes competeing, but 1 dollar or 10 million dollars, a Manufacturer will enter a series only for the bottom line in sales. Toyota won't come back because they could care less about awd, they sell family cars because it makes them money. No supra, no celica, etc.. Many companies have gone this route and will not come back, rules or no rules change.
| Psydotek | 10-04-2004 09:37 AM |
Yeah, the rules change does suck a little bit of @$$... How about production cost caps for the cars much like they have salary caps for some pro sports here in the USA?
I always saw WRC as a field for innovation where you could develop technologies that would possibly make their way into the cars we drive today (i.e. Subaru proved AWD's superiority in WRC). Sure we probably won't be seeing electronically controlled dogboxes with paddle shifters in cars anytime soon, but i'm sure there's some things that would be useful for the consumer.
I always saw WRC as a field for innovation where you could develop technologies that would possibly make their way into the cars we drive today (i.e. Subaru proved AWD's superiority in WRC). Sure we probably won't be seeing electronically controlled dogboxes with paddle shifters in cars anytime soon, but i'm sure there's some things that would be useful for the consumer.
| jamesohoh7 | 10-04-2004 09:48 AM |
[QUOTE=doghauler]OK, I can't see FHI going to an inline 4, just for WRC, but on a broader scale it makes even less sense.
All Subaru platforms use the boxer engine, every single car. There is a 2.0, and 2.5, even the 3.0 is a boxer. Why would they even think to go this direction? Could it be a future plan with GM? I can't imagine that GM has that much of an input to engine specs for Subaru. Why would they make certain cars with boxer, certain cars without?
[/quote]
100% agree... makes no sense to me either.
[quote=doghauler] Why would Max dictate engine/tranny layout? [/quote]
because he's smoking crack!? :D
[quote=doghauler]
I would love to see a bunch of makes competeing, but 1 dollar or 10 million dollars, a Manufacturer will enter a series only for the bottom line in sales. Toyota won't come back because they could care less about awd, they sell family cars because it makes them money. No supra, no celica, etc.. Many companies have gone this route and will not come back, rules or no rules change.[/QUOTE]
Exactly!... after Toyota got spanked for cheating, they turned tail (and other things happened of course, anyway...) .. they won't be back, they show no interest, like you said... what cars are they building that could be entered?.. a Scion TC?.. :lol: They're in Nascar-trucks for Jeebussakes!
As everyone is saying... the folks in WRC now are the only ones that care to be in. Dictating anything about engine layouts would seem to be terminal for the series. Go more production based if need be, but don't sanitize the series into something so cookie-cutter like Nascar, or even worse... NHRA Funny Cars... a cruel joke; every car is powered by the same motor design regardless of brand on the 'hood'.
When you give the manufacturers no reason to innovate, you get -that-. NO thanks.
Someone said it earlier, but again.. taking out turbos just means that it'll cost even more to build a NA engine that makes the same power. I think we know how easy it is to build power with a turbo... why are they being viewed as bad all of the sudden?
Since when is it impossible to build a mechanically shifted sequential gearbox?... if H-pattern is too difficult to shift (???), just do a mech.-sequential. Every friggin' motorcycle tranny on the planet is sequential and mechanically shifted. big whoop.. not like it's impossible.
Take the electronics out if you want... but don't mandate -transverse engines-.. good gravy... horrible.
Mandate performance-targets, not platorms.
All Subaru platforms use the boxer engine, every single car. There is a 2.0, and 2.5, even the 3.0 is a boxer. Why would they even think to go this direction? Could it be a future plan with GM? I can't imagine that GM has that much of an input to engine specs for Subaru. Why would they make certain cars with boxer, certain cars without?
[/quote]
100% agree... makes no sense to me either.
[quote=doghauler] Why would Max dictate engine/tranny layout? [/quote]
because he's smoking crack!? :D
[quote=doghauler]
I would love to see a bunch of makes competeing, but 1 dollar or 10 million dollars, a Manufacturer will enter a series only for the bottom line in sales. Toyota won't come back because they could care less about awd, they sell family cars because it makes them money. No supra, no celica, etc.. Many companies have gone this route and will not come back, rules or no rules change.[/QUOTE]
Exactly!... after Toyota got spanked for cheating, they turned tail (and other things happened of course, anyway...) .. they won't be back, they show no interest, like you said... what cars are they building that could be entered?.. a Scion TC?.. :lol: They're in Nascar-trucks for Jeebussakes!
As everyone is saying... the folks in WRC now are the only ones that care to be in. Dictating anything about engine layouts would seem to be terminal for the series. Go more production based if need be, but don't sanitize the series into something so cookie-cutter like Nascar, or even worse... NHRA Funny Cars... a cruel joke; every car is powered by the same motor design regardless of brand on the 'hood'.
When you give the manufacturers no reason to innovate, you get -that-. NO thanks.
Someone said it earlier, but again.. taking out turbos just means that it'll cost even more to build a NA engine that makes the same power. I think we know how easy it is to build power with a turbo... why are they being viewed as bad all of the sudden?
Since when is it impossible to build a mechanically shifted sequential gearbox?... if H-pattern is too difficult to shift (???), just do a mech.-sequential. Every friggin' motorcycle tranny on the planet is sequential and mechanically shifted. big whoop.. not like it's impossible.
Take the electronics out if you want... but don't mandate -transverse engines-.. good gravy... horrible.
Mandate performance-targets, not platorms.
| BryanH | 10-04-2004 10:17 AM |
The only way you could keep costs down on an NA engine would be to limit revs and intake size.
As for the no boxer rule...I think that would really end Subaru's involvement.
As for the no boxer rule...I think that would really end Subaru's involvement.
| tbert | 10-04-2004 11:08 AM |
Well, the proposed rule changes can spell disaster for Suabru. If I heard it correctly from Nicky Grist, the letter the manufacturers recieved outlining the rules stated: 2.0 L, NA TRANSVERSE MOUNTED engines. HTH can you mount a boxer engine transverse. Of course, if you can come up w/a design to comply w/the new specs, yo still have to build a good number of road cars (5000 IIRC for Group A), to have the car homologated. Is this the end of boxer-engined Subaru?????
edit: helps to read teh whole thread....:mad: :p
edit: helps to read teh whole thread....:mad: :p
| Psydotek | 10-04-2004 11:38 AM |
Well, either Subaru will be forced to pull out of WRC or through some radical feat of engineering (which Subaru/FHI is known for actually) they'll find some way to pull it out of their @$$ and mount the current boxer engine sideways... Impossible, No. Difficult, Yes. Unfortunately if they do that it'll destroy their "classic symmetrical AWD" image, but maybe a limited production run to get it to comply with the rules?
But yes, why alienate the one company that's practically known for bringing WRC mainstream in an effort to "level" the playing field?
But yes, why alienate the one company that's practically known for bringing WRC mainstream in an effort to "level" the playing field?
| SlideWRX | 10-04-2004 11:48 AM |
[QUOTE=GC84ever]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.
[/QUOTE]
EXACTY!!! Regulating engines is going to raise cost. Teams with money will get more hp regardless. Turbo engines with restrictors are fairly low cost (comparatively).
Just cause Peugot can't build a trans to save their program don't spec a trans. Citroen uses the same engine and had the fewest mechanical failures this year. I'd say they figured out the trans stuff.
I'd say for every championship point, a car/driver gets two pounds or a kg penalty weight. Loeb would have a hard time stayng in the points with ~100 kg extra in his car. 'Course, Petter wouldn't be far ahead with ~70 kg.
Tom
[/QUOTE]
EXACTY!!! Regulating engines is going to raise cost. Teams with money will get more hp regardless. Turbo engines with restrictors are fairly low cost (comparatively).
Just cause Peugot can't build a trans to save their program don't spec a trans. Citroen uses the same engine and had the fewest mechanical failures this year. I'd say they figured out the trans stuff.
I'd say for every championship point, a car/driver gets two pounds or a kg penalty weight. Loeb would have a hard time stayng in the points with ~100 kg extra in his car. 'Course, Petter wouldn't be far ahead with ~70 kg.
Tom
| DougM | 10-04-2004 11:52 AM |
this is just plain stupid...
I'd rather Subaru pulled out of the wrc than see them compromise like this
I also agree with the Group N comments, that seems like a good alternative to me.
I'd rather Subaru pulled out of the wrc than see them compromise like this
I also agree with the Group N comments, that seems like a good alternative to me.
| Howl | 10-04-2004 11:54 AM |
So is WRC going to be NA and Group N Turbo?
| MattDell | 10-04-2004 11:56 AM |
[IMG]http://www.subaru-msm.com/global/wrc2004/db/8/pre/photo/pre_5.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.subaru-msm.com/global/feature/issues/imgs/6_3.jpg[/IMG]
Ummm.. can anyone say Subaru R2 WRC car? It's got an inline Suzuki engine and optional 4WD. If the FIA won't change the rules and Subaru does decide to stay in the WRC, I bet they will be replacing the Impreza with the R2 (unfortunately:().
-Matt
[IMG]http://www.subaru-msm.com/global/feature/issues/imgs/6_3.jpg[/IMG]
Ummm.. can anyone say Subaru R2 WRC car? It's got an inline Suzuki engine and optional 4WD. If the FIA won't change the rules and Subaru does decide to stay in the WRC, I bet they will be replacing the Impreza with the R2 (unfortunately:().
-Matt
| Mopho | 10-04-2004 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE=jamesohoh7]
Exactly!... after Toyota got spanked for cheating, they turned tail (and other things happened of course, anyway...) .. they won't be back, they show no interest, like you said... what cars are they building that could be entered?.. a Scion TC?.. :lol: They're in Nascar-trucks for Jeebussakes! [/QUOTE]
Actually, Toyota came back after getting caught cheating, I believe they eventually withdrew from WRC to pursue F1 because it has a bigger audience, so it is a "better" value to a manufacturer
Scions and NASCAR trucks are US market only (WRC does not market to the US) so it makes sense to participate in Nascar
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by doghauler
I would love to see a bunch of makes competeing, but 1 dollar or 10 million dollars, a Manufacturer will enter a series only for the bottom line in sales. Toyota won't come back because they could care less about awd, they sell family cars because it makes them money. No supra, no celica, etc.. Many companies have gone this route and will not come back, rules or no rules change.
[/QUOTE]
Every car in the WRC is a family car. You forget that Toyota ran the Corolla in the WRC. Don't forget Toyota does have a AWD car, the matrix, also don't forget that Lexus is also Toyota (and are sold as Toyotas in the rest of the world)
Also most of the Japanese car makers have AWD cars for their home market. AWD is really popular in Japan
[QUOTE]Since when is it impossible to build a mechanically shifted sequential gearbox?... if H-pattern is too difficult to shift (???), just do a mech.-sequential. Every friggin' motorcycle tranny on the planet is sequential and mechanically shifted. big whoop.. not like it's impossible.
[/QUOTE]
There already has been mechanically shifted sequential gearboxes and the current gearboxes are just evolutions of a mechanical gearbox- ie. it is still mechanical but the electronics/hydraulics do the shifting
A good H-pattern/sequential gearbox is almost as expensive ($70k) as the active boxes, but they end up taking more of a beating because of driver error, so they are supposedly less reliable and in the long run cost more to maintain.
Personally, I think adopting something similar to the US/Canadian open class rules would be the best way to cut costs and still keep things exciting.
I would not get too bent out of shape just yet, it is just a proposal and the manufacturers still have to discuss it with the FIA, it is quite likely it will be drastically changed by the time it comes to fruition
Exactly!... after Toyota got spanked for cheating, they turned tail (and other things happened of course, anyway...) .. they won't be back, they show no interest, like you said... what cars are they building that could be entered?.. a Scion TC?.. :lol: They're in Nascar-trucks for Jeebussakes! [/QUOTE]
Actually, Toyota came back after getting caught cheating, I believe they eventually withdrew from WRC to pursue F1 because it has a bigger audience, so it is a "better" value to a manufacturer
Scions and NASCAR trucks are US market only (WRC does not market to the US) so it makes sense to participate in Nascar
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by doghauler
I would love to see a bunch of makes competeing, but 1 dollar or 10 million dollars, a Manufacturer will enter a series only for the bottom line in sales. Toyota won't come back because they could care less about awd, they sell family cars because it makes them money. No supra, no celica, etc.. Many companies have gone this route and will not come back, rules or no rules change.
[/QUOTE]
Every car in the WRC is a family car. You forget that Toyota ran the Corolla in the WRC. Don't forget Toyota does have a AWD car, the matrix, also don't forget that Lexus is also Toyota (and are sold as Toyotas in the rest of the world)
Also most of the Japanese car makers have AWD cars for their home market. AWD is really popular in Japan
[QUOTE]Since when is it impossible to build a mechanically shifted sequential gearbox?... if H-pattern is too difficult to shift (???), just do a mech.-sequential. Every friggin' motorcycle tranny on the planet is sequential and mechanically shifted. big whoop.. not like it's impossible.
[/QUOTE]
There already has been mechanically shifted sequential gearboxes and the current gearboxes are just evolutions of a mechanical gearbox- ie. it is still mechanical but the electronics/hydraulics do the shifting
A good H-pattern/sequential gearbox is almost as expensive ($70k) as the active boxes, but they end up taking more of a beating because of driver error, so they are supposedly less reliable and in the long run cost more to maintain.
Personally, I think adopting something similar to the US/Canadian open class rules would be the best way to cut costs and still keep things exciting.
I would not get too bent out of shape just yet, it is just a proposal and the manufacturers still have to discuss it with the FIA, it is quite likely it will be drastically changed by the time it comes to fruition
| Seeing StaRS | 10-04-2004 12:43 PM |
If they want to save money how about the FIA stop expanding the schedule from 12 to 16 events, forcing the teams to take on additional transportation costs? Seems like a logical move to keep the number of events low and perhaps not as far flung?
Joe
Joe
| gtguy | 10-04-2004 01:16 PM |
Relax, gang. The FIA always makes radical suggestions to get the teams talking. WRC does need to reduce costs. We don't know what Mosley actually wants yet, and we won't know until that all shakes out in the wash.
Kevin
Kevin
| forced4 | 10-04-2004 02:29 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.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Group N specs and let the drivers be the difference.
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.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Group N specs and let the drivers be the difference.
| Mopho | 10-04-2004 02:48 PM |
[QUOTE=forced4]Agreed. Group N specs and let the drivers be the difference.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that is that any car company that wanted to participate, would have to design and engineer an AWD Turbo car, develop a manufacturing process to produce said car, either designate or modify a manufacturing plant (or build a new plant) develop a marketing strategy, advertise, etc. All this could take 3-7+ years and tens of millions of $ to put together. Once the car is built, they then hope that the car sells well even though it gets terrible gas mileage (remember the rest of the world pays WAY more for gas than we do) and is expensive to buy and maintain.
This was the whole reason why WRC rules came into play after Grp A, so a manufacture did not have to produce a low volume car to compete.
The problem with that is that any car company that wanted to participate, would have to design and engineer an AWD Turbo car, develop a manufacturing process to produce said car, either designate or modify a manufacturing plant (or build a new plant) develop a marketing strategy, advertise, etc. All this could take 3-7+ years and tens of millions of $ to put together. Once the car is built, they then hope that the car sells well even though it gets terrible gas mileage (remember the rest of the world pays WAY more for gas than we do) and is expensive to buy and maintain.
This was the whole reason why WRC rules came into play after Grp A, so a manufacture did not have to produce a low volume car to compete.
| jamesohoh7 | 10-04-2004 03:40 PM |
[QUOTE=Mopho]The problem with that is that any car company that wanted to participate, would have to design and engineer an AWD Turbo car, develop a manufacturing process to produce said car, either designate or modify a manufacturing plant (or build a new plant) develop a marketing strategy, advertise, etc. All this could take 3-7+ years and tens of millions of $ to put together. Once the car is built, they then hope that the car sells well even though it gets terrible gas mileage (remember the rest of the world pays WAY more for gas than we do) and is expensive to buy and maintain.
This was the whole reason why WRC rules came into play after Grp A, so a manufacture did not have to produce a low volume car to compete.[/QUOTE]
So, the point is?... what?... find rules that allow any car company to compete with whatever they have on the floor now?.. I'm not following.
Any car company that wants to compete now has to already have a car they can enter, or develop one. This holds true not matter what rules you enact.
I doubt there's any manuf's -not- in the WRC now that could get in under new (simpler, cheaper) rules... competitively... in less than 2 years anyway. If the rules changed tomorrow for 2005, you'd see exactly zero new entrants until 2007 at the earliest, probably even if the rules -mandated- showroom stock... unless some back-door info was being passed around already and gave someone a jump.
This is exactly what happened in MotoGP. Honda had been advocating going to four-strokes for years... finally got their way, and oh-by-the-way, they'd already been developing a new 4-stroke motor + chassis for a couple of years in the off-chance they got their way (knowing they'd eventually wear down the FIM anyway b/c they're the king-kong of the sport). Not surprisingly, they've been all-dominant since.. only recently has Yamaha (after stealing Rossi from Honda and finally getting first-class support from Michelin) gotten competitive.
Everything must be tested, regardless of the spec/rules/whatever. That's where the time/effort/money go. If car company X isn't producing a car that they can enter, well... they just don't enter. Not everyone can play, but the glory goes to those willing to nut up and take the plunge, IMHO.
-James
This was the whole reason why WRC rules came into play after Grp A, so a manufacture did not have to produce a low volume car to compete.[/QUOTE]
So, the point is?... what?... find rules that allow any car company to compete with whatever they have on the floor now?.. I'm not following.
Any car company that wants to compete now has to already have a car they can enter, or develop one. This holds true not matter what rules you enact.
I doubt there's any manuf's -not- in the WRC now that could get in under new (simpler, cheaper) rules... competitively... in less than 2 years anyway. If the rules changed tomorrow for 2005, you'd see exactly zero new entrants until 2007 at the earliest, probably even if the rules -mandated- showroom stock... unless some back-door info was being passed around already and gave someone a jump.
This is exactly what happened in MotoGP. Honda had been advocating going to four-strokes for years... finally got their way, and oh-by-the-way, they'd already been developing a new 4-stroke motor + chassis for a couple of years in the off-chance they got their way (knowing they'd eventually wear down the FIM anyway b/c they're the king-kong of the sport). Not surprisingly, they've been all-dominant since.. only recently has Yamaha (after stealing Rossi from Honda and finally getting first-class support from Michelin) gotten competitive.
Everything must be tested, regardless of the spec/rules/whatever. That's where the time/effort/money go. If car company X isn't producing a car that they can enter, well... they just don't enter. Not everyone can play, but the glory goes to those willing to nut up and take the plunge, IMHO.
-James
| ANZAC_1915 | 10-04-2004 03:42 PM |
[QUOTE=whtlegacy]I would certainly rather watch Group N then a sport where cars increasingly have nothing to do with production cars. If Group N was televised even now, I think I would rather watch it than WRC.[/QUOTE]
Group N coverage is produced by ISC; it just isn't picked up here.
Group N coverage is produced by ISC; it just isn't picked up here.
| Butt Dyno | 10-04-2004 03:58 PM |
[QUOTE=TV3WRX]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.[/QUOTE]A rev limiter doesn't save you if you misshift. Just ask a bunch of early adopters of the Celica GTS and Acura RSX-S :)
john
john
| Mopho | 10-04-2004 04:16 PM |
[QUOTE=jamesohoh7]So, the point is?... what?... find rules that allow any car company to compete with whatever they have on the floor now?.. I'm not following.
Any car company that wants to compete now has to already have a car they can enter, or develop one. This holds true not matter what rules you enact.
I doubt there's any manuf's -not- in the WRC now that could get in under new (simpler, cheaper) rules... competitively... in less than 2 years anyway. If the rules changed tomorrow for 2005, you'd see exactly zero new entrants until 2007 at the earliest, probably even if the rules -mandated- showroom stock... unless some back-door info was being passed around already and gave someone a jump.
This is exactly what happened in MotoGP. Honda had been advocating going to four-strokes for years... finally got their way, and oh-by-the-way, they'd already been developing a new 4-stroke motor + chassis for a couple of years in the off-chance they got their way (knowing they'd eventually wear down the FIM anyway b/c they're the king-kong of the sport). Not surprisingly, they've been all-dominant since.. only recently has Yamaha (after stealing Rossi from Honda and finally getting first-class support from Michelin) gotten competitive.
Everything must be tested, regardless of the spec/rules/whatever. That's where the time/effort/money go. If car company X isn't producing a car that they can enter, well... they just don't enter. Not everyone can play, but the glory goes to those willing to nut up and take the plunge, IMHO.
-James[/QUOTE]
Yes that is the point, to find rules that allow car companies to compete with their existing line up.
WRC are cars are designed and built [b] by hand[/b] (and in small quantities) in specialty shops with a small number of employees. They are not built by the manufacturers, the manufacturers only give a bodyshell and money. These shops are not completely designing a car from the ground up, they are starting with an existing deign created by the manufacturer and modifying it to be competitive. Yes it takes time and money to engineer and test, but not nearly as much
In group N not only does a competition car need to be engineered, but a street car that meets all safety standards and marketing standards needs to be designed into that as well. Then a way to build that car in [b]mass quantities[/b] has to be designed as well, which includes investing in a facility, a production line, training/hiring employees and creating robots, etc to do the job. Then after that, they have to advertise said car (which costs millions too) and hope enough of them sell to make it worth it.
So in essence, it is the difference of spending $10 million +/- to convert an existing production car that already is selling into a rally car, or spend $100 million +/- to develop a street car that works well as a race car and only appeals to a small demographic.
Your moto GP example appears to be just an example of a smart motorsports [b]team[/b] thinking ahead, not of a company having to come out with a whole new product to be able to race.
Any car company that wants to compete now has to already have a car they can enter, or develop one. This holds true not matter what rules you enact.
I doubt there's any manuf's -not- in the WRC now that could get in under new (simpler, cheaper) rules... competitively... in less than 2 years anyway. If the rules changed tomorrow for 2005, you'd see exactly zero new entrants until 2007 at the earliest, probably even if the rules -mandated- showroom stock... unless some back-door info was being passed around already and gave someone a jump.
This is exactly what happened in MotoGP. Honda had been advocating going to four-strokes for years... finally got their way, and oh-by-the-way, they'd already been developing a new 4-stroke motor + chassis for a couple of years in the off-chance they got their way (knowing they'd eventually wear down the FIM anyway b/c they're the king-kong of the sport). Not surprisingly, they've been all-dominant since.. only recently has Yamaha (after stealing Rossi from Honda and finally getting first-class support from Michelin) gotten competitive.
Everything must be tested, regardless of the spec/rules/whatever. That's where the time/effort/money go. If car company X isn't producing a car that they can enter, well... they just don't enter. Not everyone can play, but the glory goes to those willing to nut up and take the plunge, IMHO.
-James[/QUOTE]
Yes that is the point, to find rules that allow car companies to compete with their existing line up.
WRC are cars are designed and built [b] by hand[/b] (and in small quantities) in specialty shops with a small number of employees. They are not built by the manufacturers, the manufacturers only give a bodyshell and money. These shops are not completely designing a car from the ground up, they are starting with an existing deign created by the manufacturer and modifying it to be competitive. Yes it takes time and money to engineer and test, but not nearly as much
In group N not only does a competition car need to be engineered, but a street car that meets all safety standards and marketing standards needs to be designed into that as well. Then a way to build that car in [b]mass quantities[/b] has to be designed as well, which includes investing in a facility, a production line, training/hiring employees and creating robots, etc to do the job. Then after that, they have to advertise said car (which costs millions too) and hope enough of them sell to make it worth it.
So in essence, it is the difference of spending $10 million +/- to convert an existing production car that already is selling into a rally car, or spend $100 million +/- to develop a street car that works well as a race car and only appeals to a small demographic.
Your moto GP example appears to be just an example of a smart motorsports [b]team[/b] thinking ahead, not of a company having to come out with a whole new product to be able to race.
| WRXedUSA | 10-04-2004 07:54 PM |
I keep thinking.
Has the FiA given up on beating up Hyundai for pulling out early?
PS. Max, DIAF
Has the FiA given up on beating up Hyundai for pulling out early?
PS. Max, DIAF
| allan r | 10-04-2004 09:52 PM |
i have a feeling (i hope) that its all being blown way out of proportion. first, a spec transmission can mean the gearsets and materials are the same spec; otherwise everyone's going to have to design a block that can mate up with just one bellhousing. also i don't see how they can outlaw turbo engines when everyone has them right now. citroen pretty much designed the c4 for the wrc, you bet they'll put up a stink about this. as will subaru, who doesnt have its own transverse engine. to cut costs they can get rid of the anti lag systems.
i definately agree with doing away with active diffs and all that electronic jazz. mechanical ones and a sequential gearbox ought to be just fine imo. either way, it's all just rumors right now and even if they weren't, it'd still be a few years out. the fia can't possibly expect every single team can re-engineer their whole cars inside of a year ;)
i definately agree with doing away with active diffs and all that electronic jazz. mechanical ones and a sequential gearbox ought to be just fine imo. either way, it's all just rumors right now and even if they weren't, it'd still be a few years out. the fia can't possibly expect every single team can re-engineer their whole cars inside of a year ;)
| AzSandSlinger | 10-05-2004 01:06 AM |
I think a "level playing field" is COMPLETELY ludicrous... THe whole point of WRC is to bring the best drivers with the best rally cars that have the best rally crews to compete in the most challenging races in the world.. Personally, I could give a crap less about having cars that are almost identical to each other in order to have a "driver's" race... It's not ALL about the driver, it's also about the platform of the car... just like NASCAR... if you want to see a "driver's" race, go support the locals at the local track...or better yet, watch sprints and dirt-track racing...
| jamesohoh7 | 10-05-2004 08:42 AM |
[QUOTE=Mopho]Yes that is the point, to find rules that allow car companies to compete with their existing line up.
WRC are cars are designed and built [b] by hand[/b] (and in small quantities) in specialty shops with a small number of employees. They are not built by the manufacturers, the manufacturers only give a bodyshell and money. These shops are not completely designing a car from the ground up, they are starting with an existing deign created by the manufacturer and modifying it to be competitive. Yes it takes time and money to engineer and test, but not nearly as much
In group N not only does a competition car need to be engineered, but a street car that meets all safety standards and marketing standards needs to be designed into that as well. Then a way to build that car in [b]mass quantities[/b] has to be designed as well, which includes investing in a facility, a production line, training/hiring employees and creating robots, etc to do the job. Then after that, they have to advertise said car (which costs millions too) and hope enough of them sell to make it worth it.
So in essence, it is the difference of spending $10 million +/- to convert an existing production car that already is selling into a rally car, or spend $100 million +/- to develop a street car that works well as a race car and only appeals to a small demographic.
Your moto GP example appears to be just an example of a smart motorsports [b]team[/b] thinking ahead, not of a company having to come out with a whole new product to be able to race.[/QUOTE]
No, Honda (as a company) complained about the old GP500 bikes not directly translating their engine technology to street applications. Who cares... the motors were the least expensive part of Moto GP racing before... 2-strokes are far cheaper to build and maintain. Chassis & suspension technology is where it's at w/bikes. Honda has a long standing, public distaste for 2-strokes... they feel they can't be bothered with it (it's 'dirty' to them), even if it reduced costs of racing tenfold (probably more). They have deep-pockets, they know other teams don't... they did the math, they knew they could win a 4stroke based series even easier than they were already dominating the 2stroke based series.
The new Kawi ZX10 makes ~155rwhp... bike is insanely fast... no new engine technology from GP's is likely to be necessary anytime soon (if ever). The reason: the World SuperBike series: production based, much like GroupN... it brought new tech to street bikes in a way GP's never did/will simply b/c it's production based. Anyway, we have a situation where the costs of entering the MotoGP championship skyrocketed overnight.. the -few- small teams left are about to be forced out entirely (some already have been).
Follow the money behind the new WRC rules suggestion... might be interesting.
Anyway, instead of making it better, it got worse. Cost of entry went up, competitiveness went down. Lose-lose. They're already talking about reformulating the rules which will screw over the small guys again b/c they will be scrapping a lot of work.
My point about the MotoGP thing was, it was initially billed as a way to push the series into a mode more 'in-tune' with production-line bikes. It failed if you ask some people. Yeah, the bikes are four-stroke now, and sporting F1 type technology and all it's attendant costs... electronic clutches (b/c of engine braking problems, the original reason 4strokes gave way to 2strokes in GP).. ridiculously complex engine management, on and on.
Could this just be the 'difficult transition period'.. sure... I'll even grant that.
If you mean, [i]build a better showroom stock car[/i] that can compete right out of the box...well, we're back to square one, aren't we? Develop it ==> money.
The "existing lineup" issue is the problem as I see it... companies that already build a car suitable for GroupN have a huge head start and have spent the time + money to get there. Punish them so one or two new manuf's can, or even just -may-, enter?.. why?... you'll drive more away than bring more in I think.
Whatever new rules are enacted will cause -all- current manuf's back to the drawing board... how does that save anyone any money? A GroupN car is indeed production based, then hand re-built. My WRX has very little in common with a GroupN car after it's done... it's had roll-cages fitted, been seam-welded... all sorts of stuff. All of that happens not on an assembly line, but in a small shop... just like what happens with a WRC car now. The cost savings thereafter lies in the production based driveline vs. one-off WRC parts.
Where is the huge negative impact on production-lines you're worried about?
GroupN-type cars sound better and better to me the more I think about it. Regulate the electronic aids if need be, add weight/restrictions.
Subaru developed what they feel is [b] their competitive advantage [/b]... I thought that this concept was the crux of all motorsports to begin with: develop a 'better way', win, find a way to sell it.
Crushing the individuality out of the WRC is the first step towards NASCAR-'ization, or worse. If it's all about money, yippee...Nas-crud makes it in buckets at this time... but I won't watch World-Rally-Nascar (and sure, that's just my opinion.. doubt I'm alone).
-James
WRC are cars are designed and built [b] by hand[/b] (and in small quantities) in specialty shops with a small number of employees. They are not built by the manufacturers, the manufacturers only give a bodyshell and money. These shops are not completely designing a car from the ground up, they are starting with an existing deign created by the manufacturer and modifying it to be competitive. Yes it takes time and money to engineer and test, but not nearly as much
In group N not only does a competition car need to be engineered, but a street car that meets all safety standards and marketing standards needs to be designed into that as well. Then a way to build that car in [b]mass quantities[/b] has to be designed as well, which includes investing in a facility, a production line, training/hiring employees and creating robots, etc to do the job. Then after that, they have to advertise said car (which costs millions too) and hope enough of them sell to make it worth it.
So in essence, it is the difference of spending $10 million +/- to convert an existing production car that already is selling into a rally car, or spend $100 million +/- to develop a street car that works well as a race car and only appeals to a small demographic.
Your moto GP example appears to be just an example of a smart motorsports [b]team[/b] thinking ahead, not of a company having to come out with a whole new product to be able to race.[/QUOTE]
No, Honda (as a company) complained about the old GP500 bikes not directly translating their engine technology to street applications. Who cares... the motors were the least expensive part of Moto GP racing before... 2-strokes are far cheaper to build and maintain. Chassis & suspension technology is where it's at w/bikes. Honda has a long standing, public distaste for 2-strokes... they feel they can't be bothered with it (it's 'dirty' to them), even if it reduced costs of racing tenfold (probably more). They have deep-pockets, they know other teams don't... they did the math, they knew they could win a 4stroke based series even easier than they were already dominating the 2stroke based series.
The new Kawi ZX10 makes ~155rwhp... bike is insanely fast... no new engine technology from GP's is likely to be necessary anytime soon (if ever). The reason: the World SuperBike series: production based, much like GroupN... it brought new tech to street bikes in a way GP's never did/will simply b/c it's production based. Anyway, we have a situation where the costs of entering the MotoGP championship skyrocketed overnight.. the -few- small teams left are about to be forced out entirely (some already have been).
Follow the money behind the new WRC rules suggestion... might be interesting.
Anyway, instead of making it better, it got worse. Cost of entry went up, competitiveness went down. Lose-lose. They're already talking about reformulating the rules which will screw over the small guys again b/c they will be scrapping a lot of work.
My point about the MotoGP thing was, it was initially billed as a way to push the series into a mode more 'in-tune' with production-line bikes. It failed if you ask some people. Yeah, the bikes are four-stroke now, and sporting F1 type technology and all it's attendant costs... electronic clutches (b/c of engine braking problems, the original reason 4strokes gave way to 2strokes in GP).. ridiculously complex engine management, on and on.
Could this just be the 'difficult transition period'.. sure... I'll even grant that.
If you mean, [i]build a better showroom stock car[/i] that can compete right out of the box...well, we're back to square one, aren't we? Develop it ==> money.
The "existing lineup" issue is the problem as I see it... companies that already build a car suitable for GroupN have a huge head start and have spent the time + money to get there. Punish them so one or two new manuf's can, or even just -may-, enter?.. why?... you'll drive more away than bring more in I think.
Whatever new rules are enacted will cause -all- current manuf's back to the drawing board... how does that save anyone any money? A GroupN car is indeed production based, then hand re-built. My WRX has very little in common with a GroupN car after it's done... it's had roll-cages fitted, been seam-welded... all sorts of stuff. All of that happens not on an assembly line, but in a small shop... just like what happens with a WRC car now. The cost savings thereafter lies in the production based driveline vs. one-off WRC parts.
Where is the huge negative impact on production-lines you're worried about?
GroupN-type cars sound better and better to me the more I think about it. Regulate the electronic aids if need be, add weight/restrictions.
Subaru developed what they feel is [b] their competitive advantage [/b]... I thought that this concept was the crux of all motorsports to begin with: develop a 'better way', win, find a way to sell it.
Crushing the individuality out of the WRC is the first step towards NASCAR-'ization, or worse. If it's all about money, yippee...Nas-crud makes it in buckets at this time... but I won't watch World-Rally-Nascar (and sure, that's just my opinion.. doubt I'm alone).
-James
| Mopho | 10-05-2004 11:24 AM |
[QUOTE=jamesohoh7]
If you mean, [i]build a better showroom stock car[/i] that can compete right out of the box...well, we're back to square one, aren't we? Develop it ==> money.
The "existing lineup" issue is the problem as I see it... companies that already build a car suitable for GroupN have a huge head start and have spent the time + money to get there. Punish them so one or two new manuf's can, or even just -may-, enter?.. why?... you'll drive more away than bring more in I think.
Whatever new rules are enacted will cause -all- current manuf's back to the drawing board... how does that save anyone any money? A GroupN car is indeed production based, then hand re-built. My WRX has very little in common with a GroupN car after it's done... it's had roll-cages fitted, been seam-welded... all sorts of stuff. All of that happens not on an assembly line, but in a small shop... just like what happens with a WRC car now. The cost savings thereafter lies in the production based driveline vs. one-off WRC parts.
Where is the huge negative impact on production-lines you're worried about?
GroupN-type cars sound better and better to me the more I think about it. Regulate the electronic aids if need be, add weight/restrictions.
Subaru developed what they feel is their competitive advantage... I thought that this concept was the crux of all motorsports to begin with: develop a 'better way', win, find a way to sell it.
Crushing the individuality out of the WRC is the first step towards NASCAR-'ization, or worse. If it's all about money, yippee...Nas-crud makes it in buckets at this time... but I won't watch World-Rally-Nascar (and sure, that's just my opinion.. doubt I'm alone).
-James[/QUOTE]
Apparently you are unclear what Group N is. In Group N, 2500 identical cars need to be produced in one year, and many of the parts on those cars have to be homolgated on the rally car. That means for a car company to compete in group N they have to have a 2.0liter AWD turbo, high performance car in their line up, and make at least 2500 of them, in order to compete. A group N car is as close to showroom stock as there is in rallying of AWD cars.
If a car company does not have a car like that, they would have to come up with one, and as I mentioned twice now, that would cost A LOT!
Have you noticed that only two companies compete in Group N?
The whole point of WRC rules was to allow manufacturers to convert existing cars to AWD turbo even if they don't have one in the line up- A LOT CHEAPER
Group N would do nothing to encourage car companies to compete in the WRC
If you mean, [i]build a better showroom stock car[/i] that can compete right out of the box...well, we're back to square one, aren't we? Develop it ==> money.
The "existing lineup" issue is the problem as I see it... companies that already build a car suitable for GroupN have a huge head start and have spent the time + money to get there. Punish them so one or two new manuf's can, or even just -may-, enter?.. why?... you'll drive more away than bring more in I think.
Whatever new rules are enacted will cause -all- current manuf's back to the drawing board... how does that save anyone any money? A GroupN car is indeed production based, then hand re-built. My WRX has very little in common with a GroupN car after it's done... it's had roll-cages fitted, been seam-welded... all sorts of stuff. All of that happens not on an assembly line, but in a small shop... just like what happens with a WRC car now. The cost savings thereafter lies in the production based driveline vs. one-off WRC parts.
Where is the huge negative impact on production-lines you're worried about?
GroupN-type cars sound better and better to me the more I think about it. Regulate the electronic aids if need be, add weight/restrictions.
Subaru developed what they feel is their competitive advantage... I thought that this concept was the crux of all motorsports to begin with: develop a 'better way', win, find a way to sell it.
Crushing the individuality out of the WRC is the first step towards NASCAR-'ization, or worse. If it's all about money, yippee...Nas-crud makes it in buckets at this time... but I won't watch World-Rally-Nascar (and sure, that's just my opinion.. doubt I'm alone).
-James[/QUOTE]
Apparently you are unclear what Group N is. In Group N, 2500 identical cars need to be produced in one year, and many of the parts on those cars have to be homolgated on the rally car. That means for a car company to compete in group N they have to have a 2.0liter AWD turbo, high performance car in their line up, and make at least 2500 of them, in order to compete. A group N car is as close to showroom stock as there is in rallying of AWD cars.
If a car company does not have a car like that, they would have to come up with one, and as I mentioned twice now, that would cost A LOT!
Have you noticed that only two companies compete in Group N?
The whole point of WRC rules was to allow manufacturers to convert existing cars to AWD turbo even if they don't have one in the line up- A LOT CHEAPER
Group N would do nothing to encourage car companies to compete in the WRC
| Dr. WOT | 10-05-2004 12:47 PM |
Lose the turbos if you must, but this inline 4 deal cannot go through. What a way to pay back Subaru for all the loyalty to the sport and all the interest they have brought in. I really hope there is some middle ground in these proposed regs.
| Psydotek | 10-05-2004 12:55 PM |
How about forcing all the teams to use 91 octane gasoline in addition to the restrictor they put on the turbochargers? ;)
| NWWagon | 10-05-2004 02:29 PM |
If the whole inline 4 rules does stick would be intersting to see other Japanes compay get involved i.e. Honda or Toyota. That could bring in ALOT of money for WRC. If I remember right watching a F1 race they were saying Toyota dropped about 300+ million for their F1 program this year! Just think of all the trash talking would happen if a Honda Rally car won a WRC event or Title.
I'm in agreeance with haveing a controlled Tranny and using more traditional Diffs in the cars. I mean come on, one Tranny for the WRC Impreza costs $95,000. And they have atleast 4 on hand for each rally. However the idea of using I-4 engine configs isn't cool at all, nor making the cars NA. Its the drivetrain thats so damned expensive on the cars.
I'm in agreeance with haveing a controlled Tranny and using more traditional Diffs in the cars. I mean come on, one Tranny for the WRC Impreza costs $95,000. And they have atleast 4 on hand for each rally. However the idea of using I-4 engine configs isn't cool at all, nor making the cars NA. Its the drivetrain thats so damned expensive on the cars.
| Max | 10-05-2004 03:03 PM |
The Subaru transmission sits so high that an inline 4 would stick out of the hood like a blower on a muscle car. That would effectively make the symmetrical AWD system an impediment. If those rules pass Subaru is done.
| KAX | 10-05-2004 04:23 PM |
Honda in the WRC? Seems kinda interesting actually. AS of right now, technically they could already be part of the SCCA since neons and lancers compete in the FWD class. But i doubt honda would do any of that, let alone jump in the WRC, isnt their style.
But i dont see where you guys are getting these regulations as rumors? As Nicky and Speedtv.com puts it, it seems like these rules will be in effect for next year. Im relatively knew to the FIA, just starting to watch WRC 3 years ago, so i dont really know how they do things. But i just hope you guys are right. Id hate to see Subaru out of the WRC (even though they didnt bring me into it, mistu did), and Id hate even more them changing their entire manufacturer designs to compete. If either of those happen, good bye WRC for me. I just cant find myself rooting for another company just to have the french always win.
But i dont see where you guys are getting these regulations as rumors? As Nicky and Speedtv.com puts it, it seems like these rules will be in effect for next year. Im relatively knew to the FIA, just starting to watch WRC 3 years ago, so i dont really know how they do things. But i just hope you guys are right. Id hate to see Subaru out of the WRC (even though they didnt bring me into it, mistu did), and Id hate even more them changing their entire manufacturer designs to compete. If either of those happen, good bye WRC for me. I just cant find myself rooting for another company just to have the french always win.
| Torch | 10-05-2004 10:16 PM |
I do not like the direction motor sports have taken lately.
NASCAR has too many regulations and the whole restrictor plate races are just a mess. The idea is to keep people safe but all NASCAR wants to do is bunch them up so when one guy messes up 15+ are out of the race.
Formula One�s new proposed regulations are a waste and only take a direct shot at Ferrari that has been dominating. I do not want to see V8�s in F1 cars and the proposed down force regulations will slow the cars down quite a bit.
Now WRC is proposing new drastic changes that will really reduce the enjoyment of observing a rally. Why make such a drastic change?
I like change if there is a good reason.
Torch
NASCAR has too many regulations and the whole restrictor plate races are just a mess. The idea is to keep people safe but all NASCAR wants to do is bunch them up so when one guy messes up 15+ are out of the race.
Formula One�s new proposed regulations are a waste and only take a direct shot at Ferrari that has been dominating. I do not want to see V8�s in F1 cars and the proposed down force regulations will slow the cars down quite a bit.
Now WRC is proposing new drastic changes that will really reduce the enjoyment of observing a rally. Why make such a drastic change?
I like change if there is a good reason.
Torch
| Clegg | 10-05-2004 10:23 PM |
We need Group B back :)
| nos | 10-06-2004 04:22 PM |
I think group B was fun to watch, but those guys needed to produce 200 car to homologate. They did not have a power limit, but are not as fast as the WRC cars because of improvements in braking and suspension etc. WRC only needs 50. So, you can have guys who don't normally have all wheel drive turbo cars compete, like citroen, hyundai etc. What they need is to encourage more different types of cars like 2 wheel drive and N/A cars. Maybe giving them a better weight advantage and bigger/more pisten engine cars. I don't think cars like the MG Metro 6r4, Opel manta and Lancia 037 Rally would be able to compete in the WRC simply because, correct me if I'm wrong, but 2 liter all wheel drive 50 car per competitor are the basic requirement to compete for WRC championship points. Simple rule changes like making everyone use the same fuel source. Open up the competition for WRC points to other setups besides the 2 liter turbo all wheel drive cars. Eliminate things like anti-lag, make the courses more spectator friendly and safe. Drivers can drive flat out without some idiot jumping up and down on the road. Maybe push for more races that are TV friendly, closed course that is like the LeMans course? Get rid of the co driver, so every driver has to be good at seeing and reacting to the road?
| whtlegacy | 10-06-2004 07:07 PM |
[QUOTE=nos]Get rid of the co driver, so every driver has to be good at seeing and reacting to the road?[/QUOTE]
it wouldn't be the world RALLY championship then would it?
it wouldn't be the world RALLY championship then would it?
| jetfan2207 | 10-06-2004 08:16 PM |
I'm sorry I'm pretty new to the sport so this might sound dumb, but what is a transverse engine? Is it a normal "V" design? Also, if it is a rule next year, does that mean the WRX street car is going to have a transverse engine too?
No more boxer?
Thanks a bunch,
Steve
No more boxer?
Thanks a bunch,
Steve
| stiski | 10-07-2004 12:22 PM |
Look at the F1 track in China. Completely ridiculous. The teams want to bring hundreds of people to the track for schmoozing. Nicky G. mentioned that subaru brought 1300 people in to entertain at the Rally Japan. There is nothing the FIA can do to keep the manufacturers from wasting their money. It is almost like the FIA promotes it. The cars themselves are a fraction of the cost of the WRC. I say decrease the number of rounds in the championship. Just rotate the countries that each round is run in from year to year. Also, decrease the number of service parks and the amount of work that is allowed to be done on the cars. The teams will be required to make a more reliable, easier to maintain cars. This would hopefully decrease costs.
| SlideWRX | 10-07-2004 01:07 PM |
[QUOTE=jetfan2207]I'm sorry I'm pretty new to the sport so this might sound dumb, but what is a transverse engine?
Steve[/QUOTE]
traverse engine have the crank axis running side to side (parralell to the wheel axis), and longitudinal engines have the crank axis front to back. A mustang V-8 Rear wheel drive is longitudinal (spelling sucks), most four cylinder front wheel drive cars are traverse. Subaru is longitudinal.
Tom
Steve[/QUOTE]
traverse engine have the crank axis running side to side (parralell to the wheel axis), and longitudinal engines have the crank axis front to back. A mustang V-8 Rear wheel drive is longitudinal (spelling sucks), most four cylinder front wheel drive cars are traverse. Subaru is longitudinal.
Tom
| yo vanilla | 10-07-2004 01:55 PM |
[QUOTE=Mopho]
Every car in the WRC is a family car. You forget that Toyota ran the Corolla in the WRC. Don't forget Toyota does have a AWD car, the matrix, also don't forget that Lexus is also Toyota (and are sold as Toyotas in the rest of the world)
[/QUOTE]
actually in europe they are already sold as lexus and in japan will be too, starting either this year or the very near future. btw the matrix is the corolla
Every car in the WRC is a family car. You forget that Toyota ran the Corolla in the WRC. Don't forget Toyota does have a AWD car, the matrix, also don't forget that Lexus is also Toyota (and are sold as Toyotas in the rest of the world)
[/QUOTE]
actually in europe they are already sold as lexus and in japan will be too, starting either this year or the very near future. btw the matrix is the corolla
| nos | 10-07-2004 02:53 PM |
[QUOTE=whtlegacy]it wouldn't be the world RALLY championship then would it?[/QUOTE]
The point is to come up with some new ideas to reduce cost and make it more of a driver's race. In which case this is viable and no, not having a co-driver does not make it less of a world rally championship. This makes it more reliant on the driver and their ability to react and read the road themeselves.
The point is to come up with some new ideas to reduce cost and make it more of a driver's race. In which case this is viable and no, not having a co-driver does not make it less of a world rally championship. This makes it more reliant on the driver and their ability to react and read the road themeselves.
| KAX | 10-07-2004 04:45 PM |
But what about the corners in some of the rallies that dont have the arrows? Many drivers had made mistakes on those with co-drivers. Theyd just get lost without. Since rallying started they've used co-drivers, allows for a faster paced race and less confusion on directions for the driver. I think they should also keep the number of races in a season, gives a driver more of a chance to come back if they crash out a couple of races (exactly like Petter is using now). The idea of having less services is an ok idea, but certain things on reliablity arent up to the car manufacturer (or team rebuilding the car) when a rock is brought in by a driver running prior to one persons run on the same stage and the second driver hits it and runs on 2wd for the remainder of the stage. Like the final leg of the Italian rally a mistake on one of those stages meant the end of the rally, no more services. Really i dont see a very viable way of reducing costs in this. like everyone said, the companies have the money, and will spend it on something.
| TV3WRX | 10-07-2004 05:00 PM |
[QUOTE]Really i dont see a very viable way of reducing costs in this. like everyone said, the companies have the money, and will spend it on something.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit outdated. The companies really DON'T have the money anymore. They have to pick and choose what they do now, very carefully. Of all the automakers in the world, 2 or 3 of them are turning a healthy profit. The rest are sucking wind. It's a crowded business, globally, with a ton of new pressures. On top of that, hoards of new enviro and safety laws (with more to come) are sucking up a lot of R&D dollars that used to get put into racing. Not to mention global oil prices. It is a much different picture than it used to be.
That's a bit outdated. The companies really DON'T have the money anymore. They have to pick and choose what they do now, very carefully. Of all the automakers in the world, 2 or 3 of them are turning a healthy profit. The rest are sucking wind. It's a crowded business, globally, with a ton of new pressures. On top of that, hoards of new enviro and safety laws (with more to come) are sucking up a lot of R&D dollars that used to get put into racing. Not to mention global oil prices. It is a much different picture than it used to be.
| Chromer | 10-07-2004 07:30 PM |
Wanna reduce cost? Mandate non-active differentials and non-active suspension.
Boom. Two of the biggest development programs gone.
Boom. Two of the biggest development programs gone.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 10-07-2004 08:06 PM |
a spec trani would be horrible. think of how differetn each cars transmisions are in lay-out alone!
i would much rather see the active diffs and cerrtain active suspension components. not all of the suspension.
the engine costs will soar under an n/a moniker anyways, the cost will change however to fine metals, like formula one is now.
does wrc expect to flood it'self with competition?
so a couple manufacturers cant get their power to the ground, just give them weight bonuses. maybe the trans will fail less-often.
i would much rather see the active diffs and cerrtain active suspension components. not all of the suspension.
the engine costs will soar under an n/a moniker anyways, the cost will change however to fine metals, like formula one is now.
does wrc expect to flood it'self with competition?
so a couple manufacturers cant get their power to the ground, just give them weight bonuses. maybe the trans will fail less-often.
| tt_ttf | 10-08-2004 12:30 PM |
Honda has never really been interested in Rally and why Toyota? So they can get caught cheating for the 3rd time?
[QUOTE=NWWagon]If the whole inline 4 rules does stick would be intersting to see other Japanes compay get involved i.e. Honda or Toyota. That could bring in ALOT of money for WRC. If I remember right watching a F1 race they were saying Toyota dropped about 300+ million for their F1 program this year! Just think of all the trash talking would happen if a Honda Rally car won a WRC event or Title.
I'm in agreeance with haveing a controlled Tranny and using more traditional Diffs in the cars. I mean come on, one Tranny for the WRC Impreza costs $95,000. And they have atleast 4 on hand for each rally. However the idea of using I-4 engine configs isn't cool at all, nor making the cars NA. Its the drivetrain thats so damned expensive on the cars.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NWWagon]If the whole inline 4 rules does stick would be intersting to see other Japanes compay get involved i.e. Honda or Toyota. That could bring in ALOT of money for WRC. If I remember right watching a F1 race they were saying Toyota dropped about 300+ million for their F1 program this year! Just think of all the trash talking would happen if a Honda Rally car won a WRC event or Title.
I'm in agreeance with haveing a controlled Tranny and using more traditional Diffs in the cars. I mean come on, one Tranny for the WRC Impreza costs $95,000. And they have atleast 4 on hand for each rally. However the idea of using I-4 engine configs isn't cool at all, nor making the cars NA. Its the drivetrain thats so damned expensive on the cars.[/QUOTE]
| grue | 10-08-2004 12:56 PM |
Transverse engines can stay in the FWD-based econotrash boxes we see them in now. One of the reasons I love Subaru so much is because they build cars from the ground up to be high-performance, and yet, real world. They don't take an engine, jam it in the wrong way, and halfass an AWD system and call it a performance car.
I would rather see the WRC collapse, and have something viable rise from the ashes, than see the most recognisable name in rallye forced out because they did it right the first time. Cut the active diffs and $50,000 transmissions. Don't force a spec powerplant and transmission.
No longitudinal mount engine, no care.
I would rather see the WRC collapse, and have something viable rise from the ashes, than see the most recognisable name in rallye forced out because they did it right the first time. Cut the active diffs and $50,000 transmissions. Don't force a spec powerplant and transmission.
No longitudinal mount engine, no care.
| AzSandSlinger | 10-08-2004 01:33 PM |
[QUOTE=grue]...I would rather see the WRC collapse, and have something viable rise from the ashes, than see the most recognisable name in rallye forced out because they did it right the first time...[/QUOTE]
good point, I agree... ask a million people what car manufacturer they think of first when asked about the WRC, i'd put money that 7 out 10 people would call out Subaru...
-Shane
good point, I agree... ask a million people what car manufacturer they think of first when asked about the WRC, i'd put money that 7 out 10 people would call out Subaru...
-Shane
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 10-08-2004 09:41 PM |
maybe now. but not before subaru got into it.
it used to be audi, lancia. i think audi should be interested in provong thier awd against subaru in this form. it's not like they are currently spending any big money on motorsports right now. just on amercan gt racing. the r8 is in the profit range now.
if transmisions begin to be mandated imagine how much more ours would break. they should just be forced to use a noraml clutch action trans. that way maybe subaru could figure out how to make ours last. instead of making the semi-auto shift faster.
it used to be audi, lancia. i think audi should be interested in provong thier awd against subaru in this form. it's not like they are currently spending any big money on motorsports right now. just on amercan gt racing. the r8 is in the profit range now.
if transmisions begin to be mandated imagine how much more ours would break. they should just be forced to use a noraml clutch action trans. that way maybe subaru could figure out how to make ours last. instead of making the semi-auto shift faster.
| TV3WRX | 10-09-2004 08:55 AM |
Audi?
�
�
It's been almost 25 years since Audi was in WRC. I would not think it smart for them to do it again right now; they'd be a luxury car maker competing with economy car makers...nothing to gain really. Currently they do a ton of racing around the world, including DTM, LMES, Nurburgring 24 hrs, Lemans 24 hrs, Speed WC GT, American LeMans Prototypes. DTM alone is hugely expensive. How much more can/should they do?
| nos | 10-11-2004 12:51 PM |
Obviously the road would be marked off with tape or something. But otherwise you go as fast as you can see and drive. Yeah, they may have to go slower, but the ones who can drive will be able to go very fast. The big thing that I like about WRC racing is that it is closer to what I can relate to. Formula one?? Can I buy a car that is even remotely close to it? No. Nascar? Closer, but pushrod V8's taking a million of the same four lefts is not what I usually experience. So rally is the closest. With that, I am all for a race that encourages new developments that I could see in cars I can buy.
| NWWagon | 10-11-2004 06:06 PM |
[QUOTE=nos]The big thing that I like about WRC racing is that it is closer to what I can relate to. So rally is the closest. With that, I am all for a race that encourages new developments that I could see in cars I can buy.[/QUOTE]
SCCA Speed World Challenge is another one thats cool to watch for that fact. Got lots of "Sport Compact" cars in that racing and is heavily driver based racing although it seems the 325's are the more dominate chassis. And if I remeber right they'll be allowing WRX's and SRT-4's next season that'll make for some interesting racing.
SCCA Speed World Challenge is another one thats cool to watch for that fact. Got lots of "Sport Compact" cars in that racing and is heavily driver based racing although it seems the 325's are the more dominate chassis. And if I remeber right they'll be allowing WRX's and SRT-4's next season that'll make for some interesting racing.
| Pakin | 10-11-2004 09:29 PM |
How them about lowering WRC entry fees and costs, etc. for the teams?
I never paid attention on this thread title until someone in a local forum posted about the new FIA rules kills boxer engine. Very interesting read thus far.
As others have stated, I'd rather have Subaru pull out of the WRC than to see them horrifically Frankenstien a new tranverse mount configuration.
Or maybe Max would like to kill Subaru? Make them leave perhaps?
-paK +2
I never paid attention on this thread title until someone in a local forum posted about the new FIA rules kills boxer engine. Very interesting read thus far.
As others have stated, I'd rather have Subaru pull out of the WRC than to see them horrifically Frankenstien a new tranverse mount configuration.
Or maybe Max would like to kill Subaru? Make them leave perhaps?
-paK +2
| Seeing StaRS | 10-12-2004 12:02 AM |
I just emailed this to SWRT, Prodrive and to Subaru of America:
Hello,
I would like to express my deep fustration with the proposed FIA "Super 2000" rule changes governing the WRC. To think that the cherished venue of innovation and technology is being threatened by close minded attempts at cutting costs is very disheartening. What is Subaru's plan to contend with these proposed changes? I will deeply regret Subaru abandoning the Boxer turbo 4-cylinder and the advanced drivetrain to maintain its rally standing. As much as I would hate to see it I would rather Subaru drop out of a sport it has championed for nearly two decades and maintain its character than to except the awful regulations being proposed. Subaru please don't let this rally fan of 5 years down. Fight the good fight for all of us SWRT fans and don't let the FIA diminish the role of Subaru's engineering and innovation. My allegiance and desire to be a Subaru owner is heavily influenced by the "rally heritage" that is infused in all of Subaru's vehicles DNA. I think it would be a tremendous loss to the company to conform to standards akin to killing innovation. Subaru has always been about being a little different than the rest and I hope you guys at SWRT can lobby and negotiate a better proposal.
Thank you and best of luck to the team for the remainder of the season!
Joe
Rally fan and Subaru diehard
Express yourself:
[url]http://subaru.com/contact/contact/middle.jsp[/url] -- SOA
[url]http://swrt.com/29938.html[/url] -- SWRT
[url]http://www.prodrive.com/default2.asp?M=63[/url] -- Prodrive HQ
Hello,
I would like to express my deep fustration with the proposed FIA "Super 2000" rule changes governing the WRC. To think that the cherished venue of innovation and technology is being threatened by close minded attempts at cutting costs is very disheartening. What is Subaru's plan to contend with these proposed changes? I will deeply regret Subaru abandoning the Boxer turbo 4-cylinder and the advanced drivetrain to maintain its rally standing. As much as I would hate to see it I would rather Subaru drop out of a sport it has championed for nearly two decades and maintain its character than to except the awful regulations being proposed. Subaru please don't let this rally fan of 5 years down. Fight the good fight for all of us SWRT fans and don't let the FIA diminish the role of Subaru's engineering and innovation. My allegiance and desire to be a Subaru owner is heavily influenced by the "rally heritage" that is infused in all of Subaru's vehicles DNA. I think it would be a tremendous loss to the company to conform to standards akin to killing innovation. Subaru has always been about being a little different than the rest and I hope you guys at SWRT can lobby and negotiate a better proposal.
Thank you and best of luck to the team for the remainder of the season!
Joe
Rally fan and Subaru diehard
Express yourself:
[url]http://subaru.com/contact/contact/middle.jsp[/url] -- SOA
[url]http://swrt.com/29938.html[/url] -- SWRT
[url]http://www.prodrive.com/default2.asp?M=63[/url] -- Prodrive HQ
| codemunky | 10-12-2004 12:52 PM |
[QUOTE=whtlegacy]I would certainly rather watch Group N then a sport where cars increasingly have nothing to do with production cars. If Group N was televised even now, I think I would rather watch it than WRC.[/QUOTE]
When I was in Europe, I've seen a ton of Group N coverage. Especially Italy.
When I was in Europe, I've seen a ton of Group N coverage. Especially Italy.
| Seeing StaRS | 10-12-2004 01:09 PM |
Express yourself:
[url]http://subaru.com/contact/contact/middle.jsp[/url] -- SOA
[url]http://swrt.com/29938.html[/url] -- SWRT
[url]http://www.prodrive.com/default2.asp?M=63[/url] -- Prodrive HQ
[url]http://subaru.com/contact/contact/middle.jsp[/url] -- SOA
[url]http://swrt.com/29938.html[/url] -- SWRT
[url]http://www.prodrive.com/default2.asp?M=63[/url] -- Prodrive HQ
| KAX | 10-12-2004 03:03 PM |
Seeing Stars, any return on that email? id like to hear what they have to say about it, give us a little heads up on what to expect for the future years of subarus involvement based ont hese rules.
| Seeing StaRS | 10-13-2004 01:25 PM |
I received a wonderful response from Prodrive:
[quote]
Thank you for your email which has been passed to David Lapworth. Unfortunately David is out of the country at the moment, attending FIA meetings and another rally. However, I did relay your email to him.
There is little we can say unfortunately at this stage, other than to reassure you that we are heavily involved in discussions regarding the future WRC regulations, and trying to find a reasonable solution for all parties concerned. If you think it's frustrating for you, imagine how it feels to be stuck in the middle of it all!
I hope you remain a supporter and ride the storm. And of course wish Petter all the best for the remaining events of the season!
Kind regards
Sarah
[/quote]
:cool:
Joe
[quote]
Thank you for your email which has been passed to David Lapworth. Unfortunately David is out of the country at the moment, attending FIA meetings and another rally. However, I did relay your email to him.
There is little we can say unfortunately at this stage, other than to reassure you that we are heavily involved in discussions regarding the future WRC regulations, and trying to find a reasonable solution for all parties concerned. If you think it's frustrating for you, imagine how it feels to be stuck in the middle of it all!
I hope you remain a supporter and ride the storm. And of course wish Petter all the best for the remaining events of the season!
Kind regards
Sarah
[/quote]
:cool:
Joe
| Seeing StaRS | 10-13-2004 01:27 PM |
Don't hesitate to speak up guys....its sorta like voting. If you don't speak you won't be heard. Take the initiative to drop a line or two to Prodrive and SWRT and voice your support. Sounds like they could definitely use everything they can get. I'm trying to find out from Prodrive who I need to direct emails to at the FIA. If anything its the folks over at the FIA that need to hear from fans the most.
Joe
Joe
| Seeing StaRS | 10-17-2004 02:36 AM |
bump
| GreenMarine | 10-18-2004 09:59 AM |
Anyone got an email address that I can send a letter to??? Hell, can I just email one of you and then have you forward my email to those "big shots"??
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét