| WRXMaster | 06-25-2003 01:15 PM |
The FIA sucks!
�
�
I dont get this rule!
[URL=http://www.wrc.com/en_GB/News/2003/008/2003_R_FIArules.htm]3rd rule is going to happen[/URL]
With not enough manufactures.............I think this rule is stupid!
[URL=http://www.worldrallynews.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1056545477,14142,]More info[/URL]
This is worse they are trying to make all the cars naturally aspirated! NO TURBOS!!!!!:eek: :(
[URL=http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/rally/6900/?from=[HOME]]more [/URL]
[URL=http://www.wrc.com/en_GB/News/2003/008/2003_R_FIArules.htm]3rd rule is going to happen[/URL]
With not enough manufactures.............I think this rule is stupid!
[URL=http://www.worldrallynews.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1056545477,14142,]More info[/URL]
This is worse they are trying to make all the cars naturally aspirated! NO TURBOS!!!!!:eek: :(
[URL=http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/rally/6900/?from=[HOME]]more [/URL]
| WagonMonster | 06-25-2003 01:27 PM |
I does hurt a lot of great drivers like Sainz and Panizzi, but it helps Subaru :p
If Makinen Retires, maybe Subaru can get Panizzi or Sainz as a second driver behind Solberg!
If Makinen Retires, maybe Subaru can get Panizzi or Sainz as a second driver behind Solberg!
| fengshui-fu | 06-25-2003 01:29 PM |
Doh. That explains why Sainz was chatting with Subaru team boss.
chris
chris
| skuttledude | 06-25-2003 01:30 PM |
Good catch!
That is by far the worst rule I have seen by the FIA. I really do not see the reason for doing so. If there is a good reason, please somebody, fill us in. UGH!
Next, they'll take aways the San Marino GP.....oh wait, actually they are considering this...double ugh!
And no Turbos!!!! (2006) UGH!!! what are they doing??? (Subaru would pobably pull out:()
Davis
That is by far the worst rule I have seen by the FIA. I really do not see the reason for doing so. If there is a good reason, please somebody, fill us in. UGH!
Next, they'll take aways the San Marino GP.....oh wait, actually they are considering this...double ugh!
And no Turbos!!!! (2006) UGH!!! what are they doing??? (Subaru would pobably pull out:()
Davis
| fengshui-fu | 06-25-2003 02:07 PM |
Ah beat me to it. Here is the paragraph:
"The Council has also suggested further cost-cutting measures for following years. For 2005 onwards, the Council has suggested that control tyres and standard sealed components could be introduced. For 2006, the Council wants to consider the use of normally aspirated engines instead of the current turbo-charged units."
[url]http://www.wrc.com/en_GB/News/2003/008/2003_RuleChangesProposed.htm[/url]
No turbo WRC = no need for homologation = no need for AWD turbo cars to be produced = :(
When will the FIA realize that less rules = more fun = more spectators = more money. Bring back group B rules with more safety and you'll see the money and fans flow in.
chris
"The Council has also suggested further cost-cutting measures for following years. For 2005 onwards, the Council has suggested that control tyres and standard sealed components could be introduced. For 2006, the Council wants to consider the use of normally aspirated engines instead of the current turbo-charged units."
[url]http://www.wrc.com/en_GB/News/2003/008/2003_RuleChangesProposed.htm[/url]
No turbo WRC = no need for homologation = no need for AWD turbo cars to be produced = :(
When will the FIA realize that less rules = more fun = more spectators = more money. Bring back group B rules with more safety and you'll see the money and fans flow in.
chris
| 10th Warrior | 06-25-2003 03:17 PM |
yup. all of those are pretty retarded. i mean come on, spec tires in a world championship :rolleyes:
| TimStevens | 06-25-2003 03:21 PM |
Less rules = more cost and less rules = more speed = more danger = more need to protect spectators. That's why there doing it, though I can't say I necessarily agree with the ways they're going about it...
As far as the driver thing goes, I don't like it, but it should really help to move up those in the lower ranks. It's a rule like this that could help guys like Lagemann get a shot at a WRC drive!
-tim
As far as the driver thing goes, I don't like it, but it should really help to move up those in the lower ranks. It's a rule like this that could help guys like Lagemann get a shot at a WRC drive!
-tim
| jmott | 06-25-2003 03:38 PM |
good, then we will see 4 liter WRXs =)
| Ru fan | 06-25-2003 04:26 PM |
While many of these changes come as a shock, it does shake things up a bit. I can see both sides of the no turbo's rule. I wish the rules would change the cars closer to their street car counter-parts.
Later,
Seth E.:alien:
Later,
Seth E.:alien:
| johnfelstead | 06-25-2003 07:34 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by fengshui-fu [/i]
[B]
No turbo WRC = no need for homologation = no need for AWD turbo cars to be produced = :(
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thats not true, there is no need to homologate a car under the WRC rules format that has been in force for years, you are thinking of the Group A rules which are not used anymore.
Going to NA engines is a great move as long as they allow them to produce enough power to break traction, they will sound awesome in the forests reving the nuts off.
I dont like the driver rules, that efectively ends Carlos Sainz career, which is a great shame as he is driving really well this year. He has already gone on record saying he wont be driving unless in a top team. I think his only hope is if Tommi retires.
Just imagine how you would feel if the government dictated that anyone with experience has to lose their job next year to make room for a rookie. Its bad news, it's especially bad news when the rule promotes drivers who are doing nothing, such as Freddy Loix, it's backwards.
Spec tyres are going to drive up costs for some of the teams, not reduce them as tyre competition between Michelin and Pirelli is giving the teams free tyres.
Can you imagine if Pirelli didnt get the contract, no more
[img]http://www.johnfelstead.co.uk/rally/wrc/cyprus_2003/images/DCP06206.JPG[/img]
Now that alone is a reason to fight this rule being introduced!:lol:
[B]
No turbo WRC = no need for homologation = no need for AWD turbo cars to be produced = :(
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thats not true, there is no need to homologate a car under the WRC rules format that has been in force for years, you are thinking of the Group A rules which are not used anymore.
Going to NA engines is a great move as long as they allow them to produce enough power to break traction, they will sound awesome in the forests reving the nuts off.
I dont like the driver rules, that efectively ends Carlos Sainz career, which is a great shame as he is driving really well this year. He has already gone on record saying he wont be driving unless in a top team. I think his only hope is if Tommi retires.
Just imagine how you would feel if the government dictated that anyone with experience has to lose their job next year to make room for a rookie. Its bad news, it's especially bad news when the rule promotes drivers who are doing nothing, such as Freddy Loix, it's backwards.
Spec tyres are going to drive up costs for some of the teams, not reduce them as tyre competition between Michelin and Pirelli is giving the teams free tyres.
Can you imagine if Pirelli didnt get the contract, no more
[img]http://www.johnfelstead.co.uk/rally/wrc/cyprus_2003/images/DCP06206.JPG[/img]
Now that alone is a reason to fight this rule being introduced!:lol:
| WRXMaster | 06-25-2003 07:49 PM |
Yea but if they go NA wouldnt they need to increase the engine size? I do not want them sounding like a bunch of bumble bees in the forest. I think they would have to add more cylinders.
| johnfelstead | 06-25-2003 08:04 PM |
my ideal would be a complete revamp of the rules, with 2.5 litre V6 prototype engines screeming to 10,000rpm, that would sound awesome.
I cant see it though, they will probably go for 2 litre 16 valve 10,000rpm screemers, this should produce 300BHP but not a lot of torque, which is going to be pants unless they drop the weight down to around 900Kg from the current 1250Kg.
The rules need a bigger change than just the engines to make NA work.
I cant see it though, they will probably go for 2 litre 16 valve 10,000rpm screemers, this should produce 300BHP but not a lot of torque, which is going to be pants unless they drop the weight down to around 900Kg from the current 1250Kg.
The rules need a bigger change than just the engines to make NA work.
| travmn | 06-25-2003 08:41 PM |
To a certain extent, I'm actually looking forward to the driver rule change. It should provide a much needed balance across the teams. It may effectively "end careers" for drivers on certain teams, but it will prevent a team from having multiple experts (read peugeot) that could result in a level of dominance.
I'll reserve judgement on anything engine related till I actually see anything in application.
I'll reserve judgement on anything engine related till I actually see anything in application.
| WRXMaster | 06-25-2003 09:12 PM |
Yea but if your the new driver ...................and your about to get a top 3 in a race............the first thing I would do is make sure I dont get in the top 3 so I can keep my job.
| WRXinWhite | 06-25-2003 11:45 PM |
Actually those rules are not as stupid as they sound. Sure it would suck for Carlos, but he has become a little of a prima donna. I would love to see him behind the wheel, however if he things that say Skoda is not enough then it is time to retire. Bring Kankunnen back he would drive anything. There are some rumors of Seat coming back to WRC as well
As far as displacement, at the moment the engine displacement for turbo engine is calculated with the multiplier of 1.7, so 2.0 turbo would translate to 3.4 NA. Maybe slightly heavier but very interesting and it is time to experiment with something new. Heck almost every manufacturer is building an AWD model now, even Cadillac will have its AWD CTS.
As far as displacement, at the moment the engine displacement for turbo engine is calculated with the multiplier of 1.7, so 2.0 turbo would translate to 3.4 NA. Maybe slightly heavier but very interesting and it is time to experiment with something new. Heck almost every manufacturer is building an AWD model now, even Cadillac will have its AWD CTS.
| TimStevens | 06-26-2003 07:41 AM |
Sainz a prima donna? :confused: He seems to be one of the most down to earth guys in the WRC, much moreso than Petter, who's head seems to be getting a bit big lately...
Hell, Carlos took a big pay cut and a 3rd drive at Citroen just to stay in the WRC, and has done very well with it. And, I can understand/respect wanting to go out somewhere near the top, and not wanting to just sorta fade away like Juha has.
-tim
Hell, Carlos took a big pay cut and a 3rd drive at Citroen just to stay in the WRC, and has done very well with it. And, I can understand/respect wanting to go out somewhere near the top, and not wanting to just sorta fade away like Juha has.
-tim
| elgorey | 06-26-2003 08:22 AM |
this struck me as.....insteresting
[QUOTE]The FIA World Motor Sport Council has made a series of cost-cutting recommendations for the World Rally Championship.........when combined with its cost-cutting recommendations, would enable the [b]WRC calendar to be increased from 14 to 16 events.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
adding 2 events doesnt cut costs, but it sure does increase profits for the FIA. Sounds to me like FIA is just trying to get more money under the guise of "cost-cutting"
[QUOTE]The FIA World Motor Sport Council has made a series of cost-cutting recommendations for the World Rally Championship.........when combined with its cost-cutting recommendations, would enable the [b]WRC calendar to be increased from 14 to 16 events.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
adding 2 events doesnt cut costs, but it sure does increase profits for the FIA. Sounds to me like FIA is just trying to get more money under the guise of "cost-cutting"
| AndyRoo | 06-26-2003 08:50 AM |
I think its trying to say that the reduced costs would let the teams be able to afford two more events.
The drivers rule is stupid. Drivers arent supposed to be passed around the block like that. Gimme 10 minutes and i could come up with something better (maybe).
NA engines is an interesting idea, but i'd rather turbos. How much money would NA engines save a team? If they are 10,000 rpm screamers, reliability over a 3 day event would be difficult, id imagine.
The drivers rule is stupid. Drivers arent supposed to be passed around the block like that. Gimme 10 minutes and i could come up with something better (maybe).
NA engines is an interesting idea, but i'd rather turbos. How much money would NA engines save a team? If they are 10,000 rpm screamers, reliability over a 3 day event would be difficult, id imagine.
| TimStevens | 06-26-2003 08:55 AM |
I don't think it'd be that hard to build an NA engine to last three days at all. Probably even easier than building a turbo with anti-lag that will last three days.
| a10thunder | 06-26-2003 09:17 AM |
NO to NA engines! The sounds emitted by the anti-lag systems have become synonymous with WRC cars. I can't imagine getting excited for NA engines.
The FIA seems to be trying to get more money for themselves. They propose all these cost-cutting measures, but they want to increase the calendar from 14 to 16 events. That, IMO, will offset the cost-cutting measures.
The FIA seems to be trying to get more money for themselves. They propose all these cost-cutting measures, but they want to increase the calendar from 14 to 16 events. That, IMO, will offset the cost-cutting measures.
| TimStevens | 06-26-2003 09:21 AM |
Perhaps, but 2 more events would likely mean more sponsorship money for teams too.
| Idjiit | 06-26-2003 09:30 AM |
John -
Do you know what the impetus behind moving to NA cars is? I don't think I've really heard an explanation of the rationale...
Also, for clarification on the new driver's rules - does it mean that you can't have been on the podium to get a year-long contract? Meaning, if you sign a year contract and get on the podium during your first race of the season, are you off the team or what?
Do you know what the impetus behind moving to NA cars is? I don't think I've really heard an explanation of the rationale...
Also, for clarification on the new driver's rules - does it mean that you can't have been on the podium to get a year-long contract? Meaning, if you sign a year contract and get on the podium during your first race of the season, are you off the team or what?
| WRXinWhite | 06-26-2003 02:04 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TimStevens [/i]
[B]Sainz a prima donna? :confused: He seems to be one of the most down to earth guys in the WRC, much moreso than Petter, who's head seems to be getting a bit big lately...
Hell, Carlos took a big pay cut and a 3rd drive at Citroen just to stay in the WRC, and has done very well with it. And, I can understand/respect wanting to go out somewhere near the top, and not wanting to just sorta fade away like Juha has.
-tim [/B][/QUOTE]
I still stick to my assessment of Carlos. Yes, he is one of the greatest and I admire him more than any other driver, however with his vast experience and knowledge he could help a weeker team much more than driving for a rich team like Peugeut, Citroen or Ford. He also is extremly good in development of new drivers (a few comments by Martin and Duval, who benefited from his help). I'd rather see him being involved for a long time than just get the best ride and retire in glory. The decision belongs to Carlos, my opinion is just my wishful thinking.
[B]Sainz a prima donna? :confused: He seems to be one of the most down to earth guys in the WRC, much moreso than Petter, who's head seems to be getting a bit big lately...
Hell, Carlos took a big pay cut and a 3rd drive at Citroen just to stay in the WRC, and has done very well with it. And, I can understand/respect wanting to go out somewhere near the top, and not wanting to just sorta fade away like Juha has.
-tim [/B][/QUOTE]
I still stick to my assessment of Carlos. Yes, he is one of the greatest and I admire him more than any other driver, however with his vast experience and knowledge he could help a weeker team much more than driving for a rich team like Peugeut, Citroen or Ford. He also is extremly good in development of new drivers (a few comments by Martin and Duval, who benefited from his help). I'd rather see him being involved for a long time than just get the best ride and retire in glory. The decision belongs to Carlos, my opinion is just my wishful thinking.
| elgorey | 06-26-2003 02:20 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WRXinWhite [/i]
[B]I still stick to my assessment of Carlos. Yes, he is one of the greatest and I admire him more than any other driver, however with his vast experience and knowledge he could help a weeker team much more than driving for a rich team like Peugeut, Citroen or Ford. He also is extremly good in development of new drivers (a few comments by Martin and Duval, who benefited from his help). I'd rather see him being involved for a long time than just get the best ride and retire in glory. The decision belongs to Carlos, my opinion is just my wishful thinking. [/B][/QUOTE]
How about we put what you just said in perspective.
Lets assume that you are really good at your job. So, instead of going to a large company and get paid extremely well, achieve your personal goals, and have the possibility of being recognized as being the best in the world at what you do, you should go to a small, struggling company who cant pay you squat, and have no chance of achieving your goals or being recognized for what you do.
Im sure you would pick the small company. :rolleyes:
he is a prima donna alright! :lol:
[i]now Burns on the other hand.......[/i]
[B]I still stick to my assessment of Carlos. Yes, he is one of the greatest and I admire him more than any other driver, however with his vast experience and knowledge he could help a weeker team much more than driving for a rich team like Peugeut, Citroen or Ford. He also is extremly good in development of new drivers (a few comments by Martin and Duval, who benefited from his help). I'd rather see him being involved for a long time than just get the best ride and retire in glory. The decision belongs to Carlos, my opinion is just my wishful thinking. [/B][/QUOTE]
How about we put what you just said in perspective.
Lets assume that you are really good at your job. So, instead of going to a large company and get paid extremely well, achieve your personal goals, and have the possibility of being recognized as being the best in the world at what you do, you should go to a small, struggling company who cant pay you squat, and have no chance of achieving your goals or being recognized for what you do.
Im sure you would pick the small company. :rolleyes:
he is a prima donna alright! :lol:
[i]now Burns on the other hand.......[/i]
| jmott | 06-26-2003 03:03 PM |
The point of turbos is to get a buttload of power out of a small lightweight engine.
since WRC restricts the power to around 300hp, there isn't much point in using turbos.
a 3 or 4 liter n/a engine could get the same 300hp easily, and probably weigh no more, perhaps less. It would be cheaper and more reliable, and have a nice broad power curve without having to use destructive and complex anti-lag setups.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Idjiit [/i]
[B]John -
Do you know what the impetus behind moving to NA cars is? I don't think I've really heard an explanation of the rationale...
Also, for clarification on the new driver's rules - does it mean that you can't have been on the podium to get a year-long contract? Meaning, if you sign a year contract and get on the podium during your first race of the season, are you off the team or what? [/B][/QUOTE]
since WRC restricts the power to around 300hp, there isn't much point in using turbos.
a 3 or 4 liter n/a engine could get the same 300hp easily, and probably weigh no more, perhaps less. It would be cheaper and more reliable, and have a nice broad power curve without having to use destructive and complex anti-lag setups.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Idjiit [/i]
[B]John -
Do you know what the impetus behind moving to NA cars is? I don't think I've really heard an explanation of the rationale...
Also, for clarification on the new driver's rules - does it mean that you can't have been on the podium to get a year-long contract? Meaning, if you sign a year contract and get on the podium during your first race of the season, are you off the team or what? [/B][/QUOTE]
| 10th Warrior | 06-26-2003 04:31 PM |
but turbos are cool :) they aren't used in any other top level motorsport anymore. they have to be somewhere!
IMHO, its just another incidence of the FIA thinking fans don't care about the technology. last year Max Mosley said something along the lines of fans don't care whether a F1 engine revs to 12k or 20k. wrong. i care. i think its neat. it appeals to my nerdiness. personally, i think the current formula is rather good. as a consumer, i'd prefer a return to more homologation but i can see why they went away from that. a two manufacturer championship wouldn't be much fun. the cars are fairly safe and fast enough without being too dangerous. if its a speed issue, choose slower roads :rolleyes: i don't care for the more compact layout but once again makes sense. and keep in mind if they go to the new 4 day format, night stages are gone. only rallying in the morning. rally should be part endurance race.
IMHO, its just another incidence of the FIA thinking fans don't care about the technology. last year Max Mosley said something along the lines of fans don't care whether a F1 engine revs to 12k or 20k. wrong. i care. i think its neat. it appeals to my nerdiness. personally, i think the current formula is rather good. as a consumer, i'd prefer a return to more homologation but i can see why they went away from that. a two manufacturer championship wouldn't be much fun. the cars are fairly safe and fast enough without being too dangerous. if its a speed issue, choose slower roads :rolleyes: i don't care for the more compact layout but once again makes sense. and keep in mind if they go to the new 4 day format, night stages are gone. only rallying in the morning. rally should be part endurance race.
| Kitsune | 06-26-2003 08:04 PM |
About the engine sizes. The engine size is restricted, it is not a simple task to push 300HP out of a 2.0 liter engine. A turbo charger makes up for the lack of displacement. It is easier to add a turbo then push the limits of a small block. The turbo creates more power while still being reliable. Also, producing tourqe in a small four cylinder is difficult, something else the turbo charger makes up for. WRC are restricted to 300HP, but they produce tourqe numbers 500+.
And the three driver rule is representive of a ignorant and foolish sanctioning body. Oh wait, it's the FIA, synonimous with ignorance and fools.
I enjoyed the pole on WRC.com. "Is Cyprus too rough." God for bid these teams actually had to earn something. I mean, being that they are such struggling companies.
Drivers, well Carlos is probably the most anaylitical and intelligent driver in the WRC, from what I can tell during his interviews. He's proven he is one of the best ever, if I was in his position, I would probably consider retirment instead of helping Hyundia or Skoda develop a car that still has'nt been succesful after years of full factory efforts. If this idiotic three driver rule made it impossiable for him to sign with a top team I'd be surely pissed. I also don't belive this rule would benefit so called "struggling" young drivers. How exactly does this help them? By allowing them to win one event then putting them in danger of lossing their ride? Yes I see the wisdom, makes perfect sense.
rambled a bit there....
And the three driver rule is representive of a ignorant and foolish sanctioning body. Oh wait, it's the FIA, synonimous with ignorance and fools.
I enjoyed the pole on WRC.com. "Is Cyprus too rough." God for bid these teams actually had to earn something. I mean, being that they are such struggling companies.
Drivers, well Carlos is probably the most anaylitical and intelligent driver in the WRC, from what I can tell during his interviews. He's proven he is one of the best ever, if I was in his position, I would probably consider retirment instead of helping Hyundia or Skoda develop a car that still has'nt been succesful after years of full factory efforts. If this idiotic three driver rule made it impossiable for him to sign with a top team I'd be surely pissed. I also don't belive this rule would benefit so called "struggling" young drivers. How exactly does this help them? By allowing them to win one event then putting them in danger of lossing their ride? Yes I see the wisdom, makes perfect sense.
rambled a bit there....
| jmott | 06-26-2003 08:22 PM |
Are you saying that the displacecment limit won't be going up when the turbos are dissallowed?
that would be odd.
other options is roots superchargers, which build boost instantly and are still simpler than turbos with anti-lag.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kitsune [/i]
[B]About the engine sizes. The engine size is restricted, it is not a simple task to push 300HP out of a 2.0 liter engine. A turbo charger makes up for the lack of displacement. It is easier to add a turbo then push the limits of a small block. The turbo creates more power while still being reliable. Also, producing tourqe in a small four cylinder is difficult, something else the turbo charger makes up for. WRC are restricted to 300HP, but they produce tourqe numbers 500+.
And the three driver rule is representive of a ignorant and foolish sanctioning body. Oh wait, it's the FIA, synonimous with ignorance and fools.
I enjoyed the pole on WRC.com. "Is Cyprus too rough." God for bid these teams actually had to earn something. I mean, being that they are such struggling companies.
Drivers, well Carlos is probably the most anaylitical and intelligent driver in the WRC, from what I can tell during his interviews. He's proven he is one of the best ever, if I was in his position, I would probably consider retirment instead of helping Hyundia or Skoda develop a car that still has'nt been succesful after years of full factory efforts. If this idiotic three driver rule made it impossiable for him to sign with a top team I'd be surely pissed. I also don't belive this rule would benefit so called "struggling" young drivers. How exactly does this help them? By allowing them to win one event then putting them in danger of lossing their ride? Yes I see the wisdom, makes perfect sense.
rambled a bit there.... [/B][/QUOTE]
that would be odd.
other options is roots superchargers, which build boost instantly and are still simpler than turbos with anti-lag.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kitsune [/i]
[B]About the engine sizes. The engine size is restricted, it is not a simple task to push 300HP out of a 2.0 liter engine. A turbo charger makes up for the lack of displacement. It is easier to add a turbo then push the limits of a small block. The turbo creates more power while still being reliable. Also, producing tourqe in a small four cylinder is difficult, something else the turbo charger makes up for. WRC are restricted to 300HP, but they produce tourqe numbers 500+.
And the three driver rule is representive of a ignorant and foolish sanctioning body. Oh wait, it's the FIA, synonimous with ignorance and fools.
I enjoyed the pole on WRC.com. "Is Cyprus too rough." God for bid these teams actually had to earn something. I mean, being that they are such struggling companies.
Drivers, well Carlos is probably the most anaylitical and intelligent driver in the WRC, from what I can tell during his interviews. He's proven he is one of the best ever, if I was in his position, I would probably consider retirment instead of helping Hyundia or Skoda develop a car that still has'nt been succesful after years of full factory efforts. If this idiotic three driver rule made it impossiable for him to sign with a top team I'd be surely pissed. I also don't belive this rule would benefit so called "struggling" young drivers. How exactly does this help them? By allowing them to win one event then putting them in danger of lossing their ride? Yes I see the wisdom, makes perfect sense.
rambled a bit there.... [/B][/QUOTE]
| Kitsune | 06-26-2003 10:09 PM |
If the FIA outlawed forced induction, I would think they would be trying to limit the power output of the WRC cars. Allowing larger displacment engines would be counterproductive I'd say.
I see nothing wrong with the current specs on the WRC cars, the FIA should learn to leave things alone and stop meddling in the sport too it's board of directors personal gain.
(At least it does a better job of medling then the SCCA though hehe)
I see nothing wrong with the current specs on the WRC cars, the FIA should learn to leave things alone and stop meddling in the sport too it's board of directors personal gain.
(At least it does a better job of medling then the SCCA though hehe)
| Dr. WOT | 06-27-2003 08:14 AM |
Max Mosley is an idiot. A very intelligent well educated idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. They wrecked F1 with grooved tires and the narrow track and now these rules where they can't work on the car after qualifying leads to some very absurd situations (e.g.: starting from the pit lane, red flag = stop and go penalty).
I agree the WRC formula as it stands now is just right. It allows for great power, yet small packaging which is critical for these cars.
The driver rule is also pretty contrived particularly because as mentioned before, what happens when a team's #3 driver scores a podium? He's out for next year? I've never heard of a rule that discourages results.
I agree the WRC formula as it stands now is just right. It allows for great power, yet small packaging which is critical for these cars.
The driver rule is also pretty contrived particularly because as mentioned before, what happens when a team's #3 driver scores a podium? He's out for next year? I've never heard of a rule that discourages results.
| Idjiit | 06-27-2003 09:56 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dr. WOT [/i]
[B]
The driver rule is also pretty contrived particularly because as mentioned before, what happens when a team's #3 driver scores a podium? He's out for next year? I've never heard of a rule that discourages results. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think [b]some sort[/b] of driver rule needed to be implemented, although I'm not sure this is the best way to go. Ultimately it's designed to keep costs down - and yes, believe it or not these teams [b]do[/b] have budgets. Right now, Subaru has no hope of winning the manufacturer's championship since Peugeot can afford to have three top-notch (and condition-appropriate) drivers for each rally. Subaru simply can't afford to do that.
So, I think keeping costs down is a good thing - do any of you have other suggestions?
[B]
The driver rule is also pretty contrived particularly because as mentioned before, what happens when a team's #3 driver scores a podium? He's out for next year? I've never heard of a rule that discourages results. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think [b]some sort[/b] of driver rule needed to be implemented, although I'm not sure this is the best way to go. Ultimately it's designed to keep costs down - and yes, believe it or not these teams [b]do[/b] have budgets. Right now, Subaru has no hope of winning the manufacturer's championship since Peugeot can afford to have three top-notch (and condition-appropriate) drivers for each rally. Subaru simply can't afford to do that.
So, I think keeping costs down is a good thing - do any of you have other suggestions?
| 10th Warrior | 06-27-2003 10:13 AM |
[QUOTE]So, I think keeping costs down is a good thing - do any of you have other suggestions?[/QUOTE]
the revolutionary idea of only having two offical cars per team. the whole have a bunch of drivers but nominate two per event was silly but now they've eclipsed that :rolleyes: why not just restrict teams to two crews. no more specialists. keep costs down. they can still run a one-off car to let the young guns prove themselves just like they used to.
the revolutionary idea of only having two offical cars per team. the whole have a bunch of drivers but nominate two per event was silly but now they've eclipsed that :rolleyes: why not just restrict teams to two crews. no more specialists. keep costs down. they can still run a one-off car to let the young guns prove themselves just like they used to.
| Big C | 06-27-2003 10:59 AM |
I distinctly remember Colin Mcrae calling for NA 6cyl motors in an interview awhile back. Have to look around and see if I can find it as he also gave his reasons for wanting it.
I don't know what to think about the driver rule. If it gives new guys an opportunity to prove themselves it may be good. If it gives guys like Loix an employment opp over Sainz its total BS.
C
I don't know what to think about the driver rule. If it gives new guys an opportunity to prove themselves it may be good. If it gives guys like Loix an employment opp over Sainz its total BS.
C
| jmott | 06-27-2003 11:07 AM |
the cars only make 300hp
that isn't the goal
the goal is to reduce costs.
currently WRC cars have an absurd situation where they are using turbos to make a measly 300hp because they are stuck with 2.0 liter engines. To get the nice torque curve they have they are forced to use self destructive anti-lag technology.
slap in a n/a 6 cylinder and you can get the same 300hp, nice torque, and you dont have to replace components every race.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kitsune [/i]
[B]If the FIA outlawed forced induction, I would think they would be trying to limit the power output of the WRC cars. Allowing larger displacment engines would be counterproductive I'd say.
I see nothing wrong with the current specs on the WRC cars, the FIA should learn to leave things alone and stop meddling in the sport too it's board of directors personal gain.
(At least it does a better job of medling then the SCCA though hehe) [/B][/QUOTE]
that isn't the goal
the goal is to reduce costs.
currently WRC cars have an absurd situation where they are using turbos to make a measly 300hp because they are stuck with 2.0 liter engines. To get the nice torque curve they have they are forced to use self destructive anti-lag technology.
slap in a n/a 6 cylinder and you can get the same 300hp, nice torque, and you dont have to replace components every race.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kitsune [/i]
[B]If the FIA outlawed forced induction, I would think they would be trying to limit the power output of the WRC cars. Allowing larger displacment engines would be counterproductive I'd say.
I see nothing wrong with the current specs on the WRC cars, the FIA should learn to leave things alone and stop meddling in the sport too it's board of directors personal gain.
(At least it does a better job of medling then the SCCA though hehe) [/B][/QUOTE]
| TyrannoSullyRex | 06-27-2003 11:36 AM |
I don't know about you guys but a 6 cylinder screaming to 12-14K RPM would sound pretty sick, although the FIA would probably put a rev limiter on it to kill the fun.
Going NA could leverage F1 technology (pneumatic valvetrain, ceramics, etc.) but I don't know if that stuff could survive the beating that WRC gives to mechanicals.
Going NA could leverage F1 technology (pneumatic valvetrain, ceramics, etc.) but I don't know if that stuff could survive the beating that WRC gives to mechanicals.
| 10th Warrior | 06-27-2003 01:33 PM |
[QUOTE]make a measly 300hp because they are stuck with 2.0 liter engines.[/QUOTE]
or, perhaps, because of the inlet restrictor :rolleyes:
if they did go N/A, don't expect them to wind up to 14k. that isn't a good way to make a flat torque curve.
or, perhaps, because of the inlet restrictor :rolleyes:
if they did go N/A, don't expect them to wind up to 14k. that isn't a good way to make a flat torque curve.
| Dr. WOT | 06-27-2003 02:15 PM |
How about this for the driver rule: run as many crews and cars as you like, but only two crews can score driver's or manufact. point and they must be nominated at the start of the year.
I think NA is perfect for F1 where they can carry tremondous speed through to corners and keep revs up. It isn't right for rally where they need deep torque to pull out of slow corners. A NA motor big enough to do that would be far too big and heavy for these cars. That or they'd have 27 speed gearboxes!
I think NA is perfect for F1 where they can carry tremondous speed through to corners and keep revs up. It isn't right for rally where they need deep torque to pull out of slow corners. A NA motor big enough to do that would be far too big and heavy for these cars. That or they'd have 27 speed gearboxes!
| johnfelstead | 06-27-2003 08:35 PM |
This is what WRC cars should sound like under NA rules. Andy Burtons 2.5 V6 mid engined rally car. It's just like the old group B in many ways, but with NA engines.
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/cambrian2000/pugcos.avi]video one[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/cambrian2000/pugcos1.avi]video two[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/bulldog2000/pugcos.avi]video three[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/dean/pug.mpg]video four[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/dean/pug1.mpg]video five[/URL]
[URL=http://www.skodahome.freeserve.co.uk/videos/peugeot_cosworth_kerridge_1999_part_1.wmv]video six[/URL]
[URL=http://www.skodahome.freeserve.co.uk/videos/peugeot_cosworth_kerridge_1999_part_2.wmv]video seven[/URL]
[URL=http://www.skodahome.freeserve.co.uk/videos/peugeot_cosworth_wyedean_1997_1998.wmv]video eight[/URL]
now tell me that doesnt sound awesome or look amazing. :D
[URL=http://www.peugeot-cosworth.co.uk/index.htm]Andy's web site[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/cambrian2000/pugcos.avi]video one[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/cambrian2000/pugcos1.avi]video two[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/bulldog2000/pugcos.avi]video three[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/dean/pug.mpg]video four[/URL]
[URL=http://www.britishrallying.com/rallyvideo/dean/pug1.mpg]video five[/URL]
[URL=http://www.skodahome.freeserve.co.uk/videos/peugeot_cosworth_kerridge_1999_part_1.wmv]video six[/URL]
[URL=http://www.skodahome.freeserve.co.uk/videos/peugeot_cosworth_kerridge_1999_part_2.wmv]video seven[/URL]
[URL=http://www.skodahome.freeserve.co.uk/videos/peugeot_cosworth_wyedean_1997_1998.wmv]video eight[/URL]
now tell me that doesnt sound awesome or look amazing. :D
[URL=http://www.peugeot-cosworth.co.uk/index.htm]Andy's web site[/URL]
| WRXinWhite | 06-28-2003 05:33 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by elgorey [/i]
[B]
How about we put what you just said in perspective.
Lets assume that you are really good at your job. So, instead of going to a large company and get paid extremely well, achieve your personal goals, and have the possibility of being recognized as being the best in the world at what you do, you should go to a small, struggling company who cant pay you squat, and have no chance of achieving your goals or being recognized for what you do.
Im sure you would pick the small company. :rolleyes:
he is a prima donna alright! :lol:
[i]now Burns on the other hand.......[/i] [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't want to beat on Carlos, but let's be realistic this year is possibly the last one that he is somewhat competitive. After a few tarmac rallies he will drop in driver points and will be forced to retire as the only team, which will be interested in hiring him, will be Hyundai.
If we want to compare it to corporate structure? Any one wants to hire a 70-ty year old CEO with a great past and doubtfull future?
[B]
How about we put what you just said in perspective.
Lets assume that you are really good at your job. So, instead of going to a large company and get paid extremely well, achieve your personal goals, and have the possibility of being recognized as being the best in the world at what you do, you should go to a small, struggling company who cant pay you squat, and have no chance of achieving your goals or being recognized for what you do.
Im sure you would pick the small company. :rolleyes:
he is a prima donna alright! :lol:
[i]now Burns on the other hand.......[/i] [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't want to beat on Carlos, but let's be realistic this year is possibly the last one that he is somewhat competitive. After a few tarmac rallies he will drop in driver points and will be forced to retire as the only team, which will be interested in hiring him, will be Hyundai.
If we want to compare it to corporate structure? Any one wants to hire a 70-ty year old CEO with a great past and doubtfull future?
| Kitsune | 06-28-2003 10:21 AM |
I really do not feel it is appropriate to compare CEO's and Proffesional drivers. I also am not sure why people suddenly turn on the senior members of most social organizations and sports. How exactly does Sainz have a doubtful future? He is one point behind Burns for the championship lead! He finished third or fourth in last years standings! Are you people that blind? Do you really belive someone else deserves a good ride like Sainz has just because they are half his age?
If a person has the ability to his or her job, in Carlos's case "drive the car fast", exactly why should he be forced to retire or placed in a less competative team. Because he's had his day? Because younger driver's should take presidence? People like Loix or Gradimiester. If they where such good drivers, they'd have a seat in a Subaru, Ford, Pug or Citrieon. Do I want to see them fail? No, of course not. But no one should be forced to comprimise themselves for no other reason then they are "Too old".
Nominating two cars to score points, makes sense perhaps, although three car teams would be more intresting and less F1 like. However forcing the teams to hire based on this podium rule is friken idoitic. I honestly do not care how many cars Pug or Citreon runs. (Aside the points factors.) If it gives more driver's a chance to race, then all the better! Less cars per team means LESS seats for drivers young or old. If Subaru can't afford to keep up with Pug or Citreon's spending, then maybe they should drop those damn Lance Armstrong ads and spend more money on their race program. Since I know what a WRX is, since I just saw the damn commerical at the start of the commerical loop and since you just showed it at the end of the commerical loop...!!!!!!
If a person has the ability to his or her job, in Carlos's case "drive the car fast", exactly why should he be forced to retire or placed in a less competative team. Because he's had his day? Because younger driver's should take presidence? People like Loix or Gradimiester. If they where such good drivers, they'd have a seat in a Subaru, Ford, Pug or Citrieon. Do I want to see them fail? No, of course not. But no one should be forced to comprimise themselves for no other reason then they are "Too old".
Nominating two cars to score points, makes sense perhaps, although three car teams would be more intresting and less F1 like. However forcing the teams to hire based on this podium rule is friken idoitic. I honestly do not care how many cars Pug or Citreon runs. (Aside the points factors.) If it gives more driver's a chance to race, then all the better! Less cars per team means LESS seats for drivers young or old. If Subaru can't afford to keep up with Pug or Citreon's spending, then maybe they should drop those damn Lance Armstrong ads and spend more money on their race program. Since I know what a WRX is, since I just saw the damn commerical at the start of the commerical loop and since you just showed it at the end of the commerical loop...!!!!!!
| Dr. WOT | 06-28-2003 01:11 PM |
I definitely care how many cars Pug runs. As much as I love the drivers, for me my primary interest in motorsports is technical diversity. If Pug is running 10 car, finishing 1st-7th I'll be falling asleep. No different that if McLaren wins 15 out of 16 races, or Ferrari dominates as they did in 2002. Two car teams spices up the sport and keeps the series strong because manufactorers like Hyundai and Skoda feel they have a chance so they continue to participate.
| Kitsune | 06-28-2003 01:46 PM |
Yes, I do aggree that there needs to be limits. But just how limited is too limited. There are what six major manufactures right now? Subaru, Pug, Citroen, Ford, Hyudai, Skoda. Well, let's consider that Hyundia, Skoda and Subaru are only affording two factory cars per season. Ford and Citreon have three, and Pug has four(?) I am not sure what the current structure is for how manufactures score points, but lets say two drivers are nominated at season start and teams are limited to two winning drivers or two factory backed cars. That means two seats, one from Ford and one from Citreon are eliminated, then two more from put. That's four seats no longer available to drivers/navigators. There does need to be a way to limit how many points a manufacturer can gobble up, but without watering down the field or making it a ultra elite playground. It's also not fair to give teams like Skoda and Hyundia concessions just to give them a better chance of winning. If Pug is willing to put it's check book on the table, then they should be allowed to excersise that advantage to a CERTIAN extent. If other teams want to win, they should have to earn it not have success handed to them. Two car teams, I just do not think is the way to go with WRC.
| Idjiit | 06-30-2003 09:51 AM |
Interesting interview with David Lapworth commenting on the new rules...
[url]http://www.wrc.com/en_GB/News/2003/008/2003_DLWRCCommissionqanda.htm[/url]
[quote]
[b]Q: Do you think the existing rule on third drivers needed to be changed? And if so, does the new rule satisfy the concerns you had?[/b]
[b]DL:[/b] "We certainly welcome the decision that any third nominated driver in a manufacturers� team must not have achieved a top three position in an FIA event in the last three years.
�It should maximise competition in the series by preventing any team from taking three top-level drivers. The move should also have the effect of making more top-level drivers available to manufacturer teams further down the table, and presenting more opportunities for young, up-coming drivers.�
[/quote]
[quote]
[b]Q: The Council also asked the Commission to look at switching to normally aspirated engines. Is this something you would welcome?[/b]
[b]DL:[/b] �We're not in favour of this proposal as we believe that rather than saving money, it will actually require a great deal more investment. Apart from the costs associated with developing a new non-turbo engine, we believe that the necessarily high state of tune required will have serious consequences for the life expectancy of all WRC engines.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.wrc.com/en_GB/News/2003/008/2003_DLWRCCommissionqanda.htm[/url]
[quote]
[b]Q: Do you think the existing rule on third drivers needed to be changed? And if so, does the new rule satisfy the concerns you had?[/b]
[b]DL:[/b] "We certainly welcome the decision that any third nominated driver in a manufacturers� team must not have achieved a top three position in an FIA event in the last three years.
�It should maximise competition in the series by preventing any team from taking three top-level drivers. The move should also have the effect of making more top-level drivers available to manufacturer teams further down the table, and presenting more opportunities for young, up-coming drivers.�
[/quote]
[quote]
[b]Q: The Council also asked the Commission to look at switching to normally aspirated engines. Is this something you would welcome?[/b]
[b]DL:[/b] �We're not in favour of this proposal as we believe that rather than saving money, it will actually require a great deal more investment. Apart from the costs associated with developing a new non-turbo engine, we believe that the necessarily high state of tune required will have serious consequences for the life expectancy of all WRC engines.
[/quote]
| jmott | 06-30-2003 11:22 AM |
that would be a could challenege though
to develop such technology such that it could survive the beating
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TyrannoSullyRex [/i]
[B]I don't know about you guys but a 6 cylinder screaming to 12-14K RPM would sound pretty sick, although the FIA would probably put a rev limiter on it to kill the fun.
Going NA could leverage F1 technology (pneumatic valvetrain, ceramics, etc.) but I don't know if that stuff could survive the beating that WRC gives to mechanicals. [/B][/QUOTE]
to develop such technology such that it could survive the beating
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TyrannoSullyRex [/i]
[B]I don't know about you guys but a 6 cylinder screaming to 12-14K RPM would sound pretty sick, although the FIA would probably put a rev limiter on it to kill the fun.
Going NA could leverage F1 technology (pneumatic valvetrain, ceramics, etc.) but I don't know if that stuff could survive the beating that WRC gives to mechanicals. [/B][/QUOTE]
| jmott | 06-30-2003 11:24 AM |
thats not what I meant, which I think was clearer if the quote is left in its context.
The point was, theres no point in a turbo being involved if 300hp is the limit that a sanctioning body is going to impose.
you can get that much power easily enough with a medium sized n/a engine.
a turbo would be useful when trying to push like 600hp out of a 2.0 liter (see some of the pikes peak cars) something which can only be duplicated with a very large and heavy n/a engine.
I myself had a WRX with over 300hp, so don't roll your eyes at me foo
=)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior [/i]
[B]
or, perhaps, because of the inlet restrictor :rolleyes:
if they did go N/A, don't expect them to wind up to 14k. that isn't a good way to make a flat torque curve. [/B][/QUOTE]
The point was, theres no point in a turbo being involved if 300hp is the limit that a sanctioning body is going to impose.
you can get that much power easily enough with a medium sized n/a engine.
a turbo would be useful when trying to push like 600hp out of a 2.0 liter (see some of the pikes peak cars) something which can only be duplicated with a very large and heavy n/a engine.
I myself had a WRX with over 300hp, so don't roll your eyes at me foo
=)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior [/i]
[B]
or, perhaps, because of the inlet restrictor :rolleyes:
if they did go N/A, don't expect them to wind up to 14k. that isn't a good way to make a flat torque curve. [/B][/QUOTE]
| johnfelstead | 06-30-2003 11:48 AM |
power isnt what pushes a car forward, torque is! You can get over 500Lb/ft of torque from a turbo restricted 2 litre engine, you will find it very hard to get 300Lb/ft from the same NA engine.
If you are going to use NA in WRC, you will have to raise the engine size in order to give the same performance, plus you will have to lose weight from the cars too, by quite a big amount at that. For that reason the rules would have to be far more radical than just an engine change to make the "show" the same.
The rule on drivers is very short sighted. We almost lost Hyundai from the WRC this year, that could happen next year. There are not enough teams around to make a rule like that workable. F1 has a 2 car rule, but it also has a rule that at least 10 teams must be present, if that drops below 10 teams the remaining teams have to run a 3rd car. Thats in the concorde agreement. That is the real reason why Bernie Eclestone invested in Minardi.
The rule is an attempt to force down wages IMHO, if i was a team boss i would probably want that too. It is restricting the career prospects for top drivers though, which i think is unfair and will lead to mediocre drivers getting a job the top drivers should get on merit. If there were double the number of teams then i would say it was workable, with the current situation i think its going to lose us some great drivers, Sainz being a prime example. (and based on this years performance that may actually be Colin if Sainz is kept at Citroen)
If you are going to use NA in WRC, you will have to raise the engine size in order to give the same performance, plus you will have to lose weight from the cars too, by quite a big amount at that. For that reason the rules would have to be far more radical than just an engine change to make the "show" the same.
The rule on drivers is very short sighted. We almost lost Hyundai from the WRC this year, that could happen next year. There are not enough teams around to make a rule like that workable. F1 has a 2 car rule, but it also has a rule that at least 10 teams must be present, if that drops below 10 teams the remaining teams have to run a 3rd car. Thats in the concorde agreement. That is the real reason why Bernie Eclestone invested in Minardi.
The rule is an attempt to force down wages IMHO, if i was a team boss i would probably want that too. It is restricting the career prospects for top drivers though, which i think is unfair and will lead to mediocre drivers getting a job the top drivers should get on merit. If there were double the number of teams then i would say it was workable, with the current situation i think its going to lose us some great drivers, Sainz being a prime example. (and based on this years performance that may actually be Colin if Sainz is kept at Citroen)
| WReXinEfX | 06-30-2003 01:23 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jmott [/i]
[B]The point of turbos is to get a buttload of power out of a small lightweight engine.
since WRC restricts the power to around 300hp, there isn't much point in using turbos.
a 3 or 4 liter n/a engine could get the same 300hp easily, and probably weigh no more, perhaps less. It would be cheaper and more reliable, and have a nice broad power curve without having to use destructive and complex anti-lag setups.
[/B][/QUOTE]
How many "light-weight" NA engine makes 300ft-lbs Torque and 300HP?
300HP limit is to limit the car's top end power.
There's no limit on how much torque you can make which is vital, most "light weight" V6 NA 300HP engine, barely cranks out 250ft-lbs of torque.
[B]The point of turbos is to get a buttload of power out of a small lightweight engine.
since WRC restricts the power to around 300hp, there isn't much point in using turbos.
a 3 or 4 liter n/a engine could get the same 300hp easily, and probably weigh no more, perhaps less. It would be cheaper and more reliable, and have a nice broad power curve without having to use destructive and complex anti-lag setups.
[/B][/QUOTE]
How many "light-weight" NA engine makes 300ft-lbs Torque and 300HP?
300HP limit is to limit the car's top end power.
There's no limit on how much torque you can make which is vital, most "light weight" V6 NA 300HP engine, barely cranks out 250ft-lbs of torque.
| 10th Warrior | 06-30-2003 01:24 PM |
[QUOTE]thats not what I meant, which I think was clearer if the quote is left in its context.[/QUOTE]
gotcha. i didn't read it that way at first but now i see what you meant. of course, Felstead already said what I would have, hp is only part of the equation.
gotcha. i didn't read it that way at first but now i see what you meant. of course, Felstead already said what I would have, hp is only part of the equation.
| jmott | 06-30-2003 02:10 PM |
Im guessing a high compression race motor 6 can make plenty of torque.
call me crazy, seems to work for lots of race cars!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WReXinEfX [/i]
[B]
How many "light-weight" NA engine makes 300ft-lbs Torque and 300HP?
300HP limit is to limit the car's top end power.
There's no limit on how much torque you can make which is vital, most "light weight" V6 NA 300HP engine, barely cranks out 250ft-lbs of torque. [/B][/QUOTE]
call me crazy, seems to work for lots of race cars!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WReXinEfX [/i]
[B]
How many "light-weight" NA engine makes 300ft-lbs Torque and 300HP?
300HP limit is to limit the car's top end power.
There's no limit on how much torque you can make which is vital, most "light weight" V6 NA 300HP engine, barely cranks out 250ft-lbs of torque. [/B][/QUOTE]
| Rebellion | 06-30-2003 03:01 PM |
how about this cost-reduction plan as being a model for getting OTHER manufacturers into WRC? Then these 3rd drivers would be able to get seats in cars. I know Toyota got out to pursue the F1 stuff, but if the price of operating a WRC team gets cheaper, they might be very well interested in returning... maybe get some of the other marques in like .. ehh ... mmm... Porsche?
| 10th Warrior | 06-30-2003 03:05 PM |
[QUOTE]I know Toyota got out to pursue the F1 stuff[/QUOTE]
check your WRC history, Toyota done got banned ;)
check your WRC history, Toyota done got banned ;)
| Idjiit | 06-30-2003 03:52 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rebellion [/i]
[B]maybe get some of the other marques in like .. ehh ... mmm... Porsche? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, [b]that's[/b] gonna happen. ;)
In all seriousness, I would like to see another American manufacturer in WRC, if not just to elevate WRC's visibility here. I know there are some teams racing Neon's, time to put your money where your mouth is, Chrysler. :D
(Yeah, [b] that's[/b] gonna happen)
[B]maybe get some of the other marques in like .. ehh ... mmm... Porsche? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, [b]that's[/b] gonna happen. ;)
In all seriousness, I would like to see another American manufacturer in WRC, if not just to elevate WRC's visibility here. I know there are some teams racing Neon's, time to put your money where your mouth is, Chrysler. :D
(Yeah, [b] that's[/b] gonna happen)
| prost893 | 06-30-2003 04:58 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior [/i]
[B]
check your WRC history, Toyota done got banned ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Do tell or link if you know one. I started watching after Toyota was out. I don't know the story.
[B]
check your WRC history, Toyota done got banned ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Do tell or link if you know one. I started watching after Toyota was out. I don't know the story.
| Idjiit | 06-30-2003 05:19 PM |
[url]http://freespace.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm[/url]
| johnfelstead | 06-30-2003 06:26 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior [/i]
[B]
check your WRC history, Toyota done got banned ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
And after serving out the ban they returned, dont you check your WRC history? :disco: :devil:
[B]
check your WRC history, Toyota done got banned ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
And after serving out the ban they returned, dont you check your WRC history? :disco: :devil:
| Jewbaru | 06-30-2003 07:18 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]And after serving out the ban they returned, dont you check your WRC history? :disco: :devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
Yea, I remember watching them compete a few years back (I think 99 was their last year), in which they then dropped out to compete in F1. ;)
[B]And after serving out the ban they returned, dont you check your WRC history? :disco: :devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
Yea, I remember watching them compete a few years back (I think 99 was their last year), in which they then dropped out to compete in F1. ;)
| jesse370 | 06-30-2003 11:21 PM |
I think this is the first time I've ever been in favor of some sort of salary cap but why not, Only allow a team to spend x amount on its drivers per year. That way it shouldn't hurt the drivers ability to earn money by being forced out after winning a rally as the third driver.
And the whole NA thing. Like the companies with the biggest budgets wouldn't have an even bigger advantage with more money to develop a new powerplant. And as for the lance armstrong bit.....big difference from soa and the people the cut the checks for the wrc. And you shouldn't need any spokesperson to sell a wrx:mad:
Dodge has had a full factory srt4 at the scca rallies this year, I doubt they would make the jump to wrc but you never know.
If that stupid third driver rule does come into effect I think you may see more drivers possibly jumping the pond and whooping some butt in the scca series if they can't get a good seat overseas.
And the whole NA thing. Like the companies with the biggest budgets wouldn't have an even bigger advantage with more money to develop a new powerplant. And as for the lance armstrong bit.....big difference from soa and the people the cut the checks for the wrc. And you shouldn't need any spokesperson to sell a wrx:mad:
Dodge has had a full factory srt4 at the scca rallies this year, I doubt they would make the jump to wrc but you never know.
If that stupid third driver rule does come into effect I think you may see more drivers possibly jumping the pond and whooping some butt in the scca series if they can't get a good seat overseas.
| Rebellion | 07-01-2003 10:58 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jesse370 [/i]
Dodge has had a full factory srt4 at the scca rallies this year, I doubt they would make the jump to wrc but you never know.
If that stupid third driver rule does come into effect I think you may see more drivers possibly jumping the pond and whooping some butt in the scca series if they can't get a good seat overseas.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt they'd jump the pond and come play w/ us... but they'd definitely be hitting up the many other series.
Dodge has had a full factory srt4 at the scca rallies this year, I doubt they would make the jump to wrc but you never know.
If that stupid third driver rule does come into effect I think you may see more drivers possibly jumping the pond and whooping some butt in the scca series if they can't get a good seat overseas.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt they'd jump the pond and come play w/ us... but they'd definitely be hitting up the many other series.
| WRXinWhite | 07-02-2003 01:29 AM |
I am not sure why you are spending so much time on the 3rd driver rule. It will affect one or two drivers next season if it becomes effective. Team Peugeot is not wasiting time and already negotiating the winning driver team for next season:
[URL=http://www.worldrallynews.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1056519615,31207,]Loeb to Peugeot?[/URL]
[URL=http://www.worldrallynews.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1056519615,31207,]Loeb to Peugeot?[/URL]
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét