| heffergm | 11-04-2004 07:28 AM |
Holy crapola Batman - WRC pullouts
�
�
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/world_rally/3982347.stm[/url]
Rallying suffers double team blow
Peugeot and Citroen have announced they will pull out of the World Rally Championship at the end of 2005.
----
I'm watching for more details....
Rallying suffers double team blow
Peugeot and Citroen have announced they will pull out of the World Rally Championship at the end of 2005.
----
I'm watching for more details....
| thrdeye | 11-04-2004 07:35 AM |
Mazda ought to join.....with the new 6....I think it's 2.3 L though, so that prob wouldn't work
| heffergm | 11-04-2004 07:36 AM |
It's going to leave some top drivers looking for rides... and if no more manufacturers join in, that means a lot of guys won't be driving in 2006. Obviously a lot can happen between then and now...
| Rebellion | 11-04-2004 07:40 AM |
if no other manufacturers join... that leaves us w/ what? Subaru, Ford who's already thought about leaving, and Skoda who [i]JUST[/i] returned.
that's not good at all.
that's not good at all.
| thrdeye | 11-04-2004 09:14 AM |
Mitsubishi
| big_adventure | 11-04-2004 09:18 AM |
Incredible that PSA is pulling out of Rallying. They have FAR and AWAY the highest budgets, and have more or less owned the sport recently. This would be like Ferarri pulling out of F1.
-Sean
-Sean
| asquaredrex | 11-04-2004 09:31 AM |
[QUOTE=big_adventure]Incredible that PSA is pulling out of Rallying. They have FAR and AWAY the highest budgets, and have more or less owned the sport recently. This would be like Ferarri pulling out of F1.
-Sean[/QUOTE]
They don't have much marketing value in it though. My guess is someone did a study that demonstrated their win streak has not resulted in the sale of many more cars, whereas Ferrari's F1 participation is critical to their brand image. Sad to think this is the way it goes, but the European car market has been really, *really* difficult for manufacturers recently and shows no signs of improvement.
Hopefully Suzuki will make the leap as they've been thinking of doing, and hopefully one more manufacturer can be enticed by the new low cost format (Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are all doing well and were all oberserving at the Rally Japan).
Still, :(
-Sean[/QUOTE]
They don't have much marketing value in it though. My guess is someone did a study that demonstrated their win streak has not resulted in the sale of many more cars, whereas Ferrari's F1 participation is critical to their brand image. Sad to think this is the way it goes, but the European car market has been really, *really* difficult for manufacturers recently and shows no signs of improvement.
Hopefully Suzuki will make the leap as they've been thinking of doing, and hopefully one more manufacturer can be enticed by the new low cost format (Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are all doing well and were all oberserving at the Rally Japan).
Still, :(
| RaceComp Engineering | 11-04-2004 09:36 AM |
One quick trip to France and you realize the success of the small cars, 206, 306 etc,..and then you see and feel the race Sunday , buy Monday theory still in effect in Europe. With both manurfactures releasing larger more upscale cars soon, you'll prob see some GT series cars and less ,money spent promoting those, as they sell less of those cars and GT racing cost less than WRC schedules and technology.
This doesnt look good for the sport at all.
944 turbo guy
This doesnt look good for the sport at all.
944 turbo guy
| CirrusWRX | 11-04-2004 10:14 AM |
:( :(
| SlideWRX | 11-04-2004 10:41 AM |
So basically Citroen dumped a ****load of money in for a ~4 year run, so they could get to the top, then drop it like a bad habit and be done with it. They showed everyone they could spend a lot of money and make a fast car. Sounds like WRC got used as a bitch and then dumped.
Tom
Tom
| ITWRX4ME | 11-04-2004 10:48 AM |
Am I crazy for thinking that maybe the sanctioning bodies should move to a run-what-you-manufacture strategy? No mods, other than safety and nav equipment, period. Raise the homologation numbers to make it so a manufacture can't afford to produce a limited run of ringers.
I think that would get manufacturers to focus on component durability and performance right from the start. Better for everyone.
So what if the cars are a little slower and don't handle as well as the big budget WRC cars of today? If manufacturers want to be competitive they have to develop better cars for the general public first.
Cars retiring because of punctured oil pans? Figure out a way to make skid plates feasible for the consumer. Brakes fading? Figure out a way to produce brakes that work cold or hot. Wheels breaking? Make them stronger. Tires blowing? Either learn to conserve them during the race or find a manufacturer that makes stronger ones?
Frankly, I'm tired of manufacturers paying lip service to 'improving their road going cars through R&D in their racing programs'. Let's face it, the Subaru WRC car has so little in common with my car it's pathetic. Let's see these WRC drivers take my car to new levels.
I'd much rather know that the only difference between my car and a race car is the safety equipment. That would be cool. That would be impressive. That would make me say "Wow, maybe I could drive like that."
I think that would get manufacturers to focus on component durability and performance right from the start. Better for everyone.
So what if the cars are a little slower and don't handle as well as the big budget WRC cars of today? If manufacturers want to be competitive they have to develop better cars for the general public first.
Cars retiring because of punctured oil pans? Figure out a way to make skid plates feasible for the consumer. Brakes fading? Figure out a way to produce brakes that work cold or hot. Wheels breaking? Make them stronger. Tires blowing? Either learn to conserve them during the race or find a manufacturer that makes stronger ones?
Frankly, I'm tired of manufacturers paying lip service to 'improving their road going cars through R&D in their racing programs'. Let's face it, the Subaru WRC car has so little in common with my car it's pathetic. Let's see these WRC drivers take my car to new levels.
I'd much rather know that the only difference between my car and a race car is the safety equipment. That would be cool. That would be impressive. That would make me say "Wow, maybe I could drive like that."
| artkevin | 11-04-2004 11:02 AM |
Been thinking about that much ITWRX4ME?
I would consider breaks and tires part of safety. No one ever drivers their road car for 15 straight minutes 5-7 times a day at full tilt through water splashes, over jumps (or yumps if your Norwegian) and through abandoned tank yards. The idea of homologation is a good one but a road car and a race car are 2 different beasts. Particularly in rally. Don't get me wrong, I love series like Speed GT and Touring simply because the cars are so close to stock ( I know, relatively speaking) but for competion and speed you have to make concessions.
I would consider breaks and tires part of safety. No one ever drivers their road car for 15 straight minutes 5-7 times a day at full tilt through water splashes, over jumps (or yumps if your Norwegian) and through abandoned tank yards. The idea of homologation is a good one but a road car and a race car are 2 different beasts. Particularly in rally. Don't get me wrong, I love series like Speed GT and Touring simply because the cars are so close to stock ( I know, relatively speaking) but for competion and speed you have to make concessions.
| Ferg | 11-04-2004 11:03 AM |
[QUOTE]French car manufacturers Peugeot and Citroen will both withdraw from the World Rally Championship at the end of 2005, according to a statement from parent company PSA Peugeot Citroen on Thursday.
PSA blamed tougher conditions in the car market for the decision, which it claims will enable it to significantly cut its sporting budget and allow it to evaluate new projects beyond 2005.
In the statement, PSA indicated that both Citroen Sport and Peugeot Sport will remain fully committed to winning in the WRC next year.
The announcement came just 48 hours after Ford made it clear that it would remain in the WRC for at least four more years. It means that there are now only two manufacturers (Ford and Subaru) fully committed to the WRC for 2006, with Skoda and Mitsubishi currently only guaranteed for 2005. At least one of them is likely to continue though.
Citroen and Peugeot have won the last three WRC drivers titles and the last five manufacturers' championships, and they represent half of the fulltime factory contingent in this year's championship alongside Ford and Subaru.
Sebastien Loeb last month clinched the world rally championship at the Rallye De France, while his Citroen team-mate Carlos Sainz's third place in the same event was enough to give the marque its second consecutive manufacturers' crown.[/QUOTE]
Sad stuff...
PSA blamed tougher conditions in the car market for the decision, which it claims will enable it to significantly cut its sporting budget and allow it to evaluate new projects beyond 2005.
In the statement, PSA indicated that both Citroen Sport and Peugeot Sport will remain fully committed to winning in the WRC next year.
The announcement came just 48 hours after Ford made it clear that it would remain in the WRC for at least four more years. It means that there are now only two manufacturers (Ford and Subaru) fully committed to the WRC for 2006, with Skoda and Mitsubishi currently only guaranteed for 2005. At least one of them is likely to continue though.
Citroen and Peugeot have won the last three WRC drivers titles and the last five manufacturers' championships, and they represent half of the fulltime factory contingent in this year's championship alongside Ford and Subaru.
Sebastien Loeb last month clinched the world rally championship at the Rallye De France, while his Citroen team-mate Carlos Sainz's third place in the same event was enough to give the marque its second consecutive manufacturers' crown.[/QUOTE]
Sad stuff...
| WimpWgn | 11-04-2004 11:33 AM |
what happened to Lancia?
| Warp3 | 11-04-2004 11:38 AM |
Well of course, Peugeot's racing doesn't translate to sales as much as they'd like. IIRC, they don't even make an AWD Turbo 206, right? I know every racing game I've seen with non-WRC Peugeots included in it only includes the wussy little FWD S16 (which isn't a bad car, but it's only real comparison to a 206 WRC is looks).
I'm sure Subaru and Mitsubishi notice this effect more since their WRX-STi and Lancer EVO series actually have a somewhat similar engine and drivetrain setup to the rally cars, so the connection is better made between racing and sales. (Then again, NASCAR teams put skins on tube-frame race cars and still get sales to translate over...so who knows.)
Shane
I'm sure Subaru and Mitsubishi notice this effect more since their WRX-STi and Lancer EVO series actually have a somewhat similar engine and drivetrain setup to the rally cars, so the connection is better made between racing and sales. (Then again, NASCAR teams put skins on tube-frame race cars and still get sales to translate over...so who knows.)
Shane
| big_adventure | 11-04-2004 11:48 AM |
PSA sure doesnt seem to be doing too badly. Every other car in France is a Peugeot or Citroen.
But they both need to get off their butts and make a hot car for those that want them. In my opinion...
-Sean
But they both need to get off their butts and make a hot car for those that want them. In my opinion...
-Sean
| ITWRX4ME | 11-04-2004 01:15 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]Been thinking about that much ITWRX4ME?
I would consider breaks and tires part of safety. No one ever drivers their road car for 15 straight minutes 5-7 times a day at full tilt through water splashes, over jumps (or yumps if your Norwegian) and through abandoned tank yards. The idea of homologation is a good one but a road car and a race car are 2 different beasts. Particularly in rally. Don't get me wrong, I love series like Speed GT and Touring simply because the cars are so close to stock ( I know, relatively speaking) but for competion and speed you have to make concessions.[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly my point. Pretty soon one manufacturer will, in order to be more competitive, strengthen the components that are breaking. And guess what, he has to put that strength into the cars you and I buy. I pick the cars I'm going to by based on, among other things, the cars' durability and success in whatever type of racing I happen to be interested in.
The next manufacturer looks at those successes and his declining market share and follows suit, maybe even eclipsing the other guy. Then people start clamoring for his cars.
You have to keep in mind that this scheme is based on the premise that a given manufacturer can't necessarily afford to build WRC level race cars at the level of homologation I'm suggesting. Plus, I'm suggesting that there be only one run-what-you-manufacture class. Any car is eligible as long as it meets the homologation rules.
In order to be competitive, a manufacture has to source the best components feasible. Speed, durability and driver skill win races. Duh. Under the above rules, a manufacturer is going to have to constantly keep pace with developments in order to be competitive. On top of that, he has to be able to manufacture and sell enough units to meet the requirements.
Sure, development might be slower. But that's because they have to use mass produced components in order to be cost competitive. But the consumer ultimately wins.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying but that's how see it playing out.
I would consider breaks and tires part of safety. No one ever drivers their road car for 15 straight minutes 5-7 times a day at full tilt through water splashes, over jumps (or yumps if your Norwegian) and through abandoned tank yards. The idea of homologation is a good one but a road car and a race car are 2 different beasts. Particularly in rally. Don't get me wrong, I love series like Speed GT and Touring simply because the cars are so close to stock ( I know, relatively speaking) but for competion and speed you have to make concessions.[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly my point. Pretty soon one manufacturer will, in order to be more competitive, strengthen the components that are breaking. And guess what, he has to put that strength into the cars you and I buy. I pick the cars I'm going to by based on, among other things, the cars' durability and success in whatever type of racing I happen to be interested in.
The next manufacturer looks at those successes and his declining market share and follows suit, maybe even eclipsing the other guy. Then people start clamoring for his cars.
You have to keep in mind that this scheme is based on the premise that a given manufacturer can't necessarily afford to build WRC level race cars at the level of homologation I'm suggesting. Plus, I'm suggesting that there be only one run-what-you-manufacture class. Any car is eligible as long as it meets the homologation rules.
In order to be competitive, a manufacture has to source the best components feasible. Speed, durability and driver skill win races. Duh. Under the above rules, a manufacturer is going to have to constantly keep pace with developments in order to be competitive. On top of that, he has to be able to manufacture and sell enough units to meet the requirements.
Sure, development might be slower. But that's because they have to use mass produced components in order to be cost competitive. But the consumer ultimately wins.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying but that's how see it playing out.
| Rebellion | 11-04-2004 01:40 PM |
I'm not really sure how you can say that F1 is a better marketing method for Ferrari than WRC is for Citroen/Peugeot. At least WRC cars LOOK like factory ones. I would think marketing is far better for C/P then Ferrari... that and your target market is MUCH MUCH MUCH broader than Ferrari.
Anywhoo... I'll agree w/ ITWRX4ME too... I say they drop Group A and make Group N the WRC Championship. Costs are far lower and they're much closer to stock cars.
Anywhoo... I'll agree w/ ITWRX4ME too... I say they drop Group A and make Group N the WRC Championship. Costs are far lower and they're much closer to stock cars.
| WRXMaster | 11-04-2004 02:35 PM |
WRC is far cheaper and better bang for the buck then f1............... Ford did alot of reasearch and wrc was a huge bang for the buck
| SlideWRX | 11-04-2004 02:45 PM |
[QUOTE=ITWRX4ME]Am I crazy for thinking that maybe the sanctioning bodies should move to a run-what-you-manufacture strategy? No mods, other than safety and nav equipment, period. Raise the homologation numbers to make it so a manufacture can't afford to produce a limited run of ringers.
[/QUOTE]
go to autocross (or rally cross)and watch. that sounds exactly like what you are interested in. Although technically, Subaru produced a limited run of ringers with the STi.
Tom
[/QUOTE]
go to autocross (or rally cross)and watch. that sounds exactly like what you are interested in. Although technically, Subaru produced a limited run of ringers with the STi.
Tom
| ITWRX4ME | 11-04-2004 02:49 PM |
[QUOTE=WRXMaster]WRC is far cheaper and better bang for the buck then f1............... Ford did alot of reasearch and wrc was a huge bang for the buck[/QUOTE]
:lol: Research? That seems like a no brainer? How many people can watch an F1 race and identify which car represents which manufacturer? F1's an awesome sport but does anyone go to the local dealership based on anything they saw in a race? Maybe it prompts some folks to buy Marlboros or Quaker State. But where's the payoff for Ford or Chevy?
WRC? USTCC? JGTC? NASCAR? Sure.
:lol: Research? That seems like a no brainer? How many people can watch an F1 race and identify which car represents which manufacturer? F1's an awesome sport but does anyone go to the local dealership based on anything they saw in a race? Maybe it prompts some folks to buy Marlboros or Quaker State. But where's the payoff for Ford or Chevy?
WRC? USTCC? JGTC? NASCAR? Sure.
| ITWRX4ME | 11-04-2004 03:03 PM |
[QUOTE=SlideWRX]go to autocross (or rally cross)and watch. that sounds exactly like what you are interested in. Although technically, Subaru produced a limited run of ringers with the STi.
Tom[/QUOTE]
You're totally missing my point. Why should I get excited about cars I can't hope to attain? Would WRC be any less exciting to watch if stock WRXs and EVOs were competing? I'd certainly watch it, if it wasn't on TV at 3 am. The same goes for USTCC, although I still don't like the rules (too many expensive mods).
Tom[/QUOTE]
You're totally missing my point. Why should I get excited about cars I can't hope to attain? Would WRC be any less exciting to watch if stock WRXs and EVOs were competing? I'd certainly watch it, if it wasn't on TV at 3 am. The same goes for USTCC, although I still don't like the rules (too many expensive mods).
| artkevin | 11-04-2004 03:13 PM |
I want to buy a Suaber.
| robmarch | 11-04-2004 03:19 PM |
[QUOTE=ITWRX4ME]You're totally missing my point. Why should I get excited about cars I can't hope to attain? Would WRC be any less exciting to watch if stock WRXs and EVOs were competing? I'd certainly watch it, if it wasn't on TV at 3 am. The same goes for USTCC, although I still don't like the rules (too many expensive mods).[/QUOTE]
I'd love to see a stock series. make wheels and tires free, and make the drivers all race cars off the lot otherwise. add weight to balance, like they do now in touring cars.
great drivers in WRX's and 350Z's going at it would probably be just as fun to watch, in my opinion. and far cheaper.
I'd love to see a stock series. make wheels and tires free, and make the drivers all race cars off the lot otherwise. add weight to balance, like they do now in touring cars.
great drivers in WRX's and 350Z's going at it would probably be just as fun to watch, in my opinion. and far cheaper.
| Chromer | 11-04-2004 03:25 PM |
[QUOTE=ITWRX4ME]Am I crazy for thinking that maybe the sanctioning bodies should move to a run-what-you-manufacture strategy? No mods, other than safety and nav equipment, period. Raise the homologation numbers to make it so a manufacture can't afford to produce a limited run of ringers.[/QUOTE]
You've just described GroupN and the PWRC. They don't get much TV time...
You've just described GroupN and the PWRC. They don't get much TV time...
| WRX8XB | 11-04-2004 04:10 PM |
[QUOTE=big_adventure]PSA sure doesnt seem to be doing too badly. Every other car in France is a Peugeot or Citroen.
But they both need to get off their butts and make a hot car for those that want them. In my opinion...
-Sean[/QUOTE]
AWD Bi-Turbo Clio!!!!
that will come the same day the All-Trac Celica starts racing with WRXs in the WRC though :rolleyes:
Drew
But they both need to get off their butts and make a hot car for those that want them. In my opinion...
-Sean[/QUOTE]
AWD Bi-Turbo Clio!!!!
that will come the same day the All-Trac Celica starts racing with WRXs in the WRC though :rolleyes:
Drew
| artkevin | 11-04-2004 04:16 PM |
Its all good ITWRX4ME. I agree with you just to a lesser extent. You discribed one of my major problems with NASCAR, almost no tie to the street version. I feel that the WRC WRX strikes a good balance between street and race car. The Focus, Xsara and 306, not so much.
| TheRipler | 11-04-2004 04:35 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]I want to buy a Suaber.[/QUOTE]
Definitely staying away from the Minardi dealership... :alien:
Definitely staying away from the Minardi dealership... :alien:
| tt_ttf | 11-04-2004 05:53 PM |
The things people are forgetting is that a large part of the reason for the move to the WRC kit car rules was the large costs associated with the old Group A/N rules
When the WRX came out originally, it was for the first 3 years, a homogolation special.
You had to build (and sell - that was audited) X number of road going versions, then make and sell 5000 versions with all the go fast bits. (then step and repeat for all the tweaks you want to do - hence the STi versions)
The overall cost of that is more than having a small number of special cars. You have all the market certifcations, crash testing etc etc etc etc to deal with before you even get to the racing budget.
As much as I liked knowing that my MY94 WRX was a direct relation to the rally cars, I more than understand the changes they made to the Group A rules......
Now if we add the block head control gearbox issue, how many teams will be left?
When the WRX came out originally, it was for the first 3 years, a homogolation special.
You had to build (and sell - that was audited) X number of road going versions, then make and sell 5000 versions with all the go fast bits. (then step and repeat for all the tweaks you want to do - hence the STi versions)
The overall cost of that is more than having a small number of special cars. You have all the market certifcations, crash testing etc etc etc etc to deal with before you even get to the racing budget.
As much as I liked knowing that my MY94 WRX was a direct relation to the rally cars, I more than understand the changes they made to the Group A rules......
Now if we add the block head control gearbox issue, how many teams will be left?
| AndyRoo | 11-04-2004 06:32 PM |
This is a bummer.
Who do we blame this on...hmmmmm.
Who do we blame this on...hmmmmm.
| WRX8XB | 11-04-2004 07:17 PM |
[QUOTE=AndyRoo]This is a bummer.
Who do we blame this on...hmmmmm.[/QUOTE]
canada??
[entire population of south park]
"BLAME CANADA"
[/entire population of south park]
Drew
Who do we blame this on...hmmmmm.[/QUOTE]
canada??
[entire population of south park]
"BLAME CANADA"
[/entire population of south park]
Drew
| johnfelstead | 11-04-2004 07:50 PM |
as tt_ttf mentions, we have been there before, and not so long ago, with GroupA. The reason WRC car rules came about was to make it easier for mainstream manufacturers to enter the sport. The problem has been, costs have been allowed to get out of control, both in terms of the technology in use and the number of events. Each year the callender has expanded which has driven up the costs to compete in the championship, and yet the TV coverage has if anything dropped. It makes no comercial sense right now.
If we go back to GroupA rules, you will probably see 2 manufacturers, Subaru and Mitsubishi, just as you would only see them if the WRC became a GroupN formula.
Costs need to be ramped down, part of that must come from a reduction in technology and a reduction in the number of events. The concept of the WRC car formula is sound, the current aplication isnt, it needs a fundemental rethink.
If we go back to GroupA rules, you will probably see 2 manufacturers, Subaru and Mitsubishi, just as you would only see them if the WRC became a GroupN formula.
Costs need to be ramped down, part of that must come from a reduction in technology and a reduction in the number of events. The concept of the WRC car formula is sound, the current aplication isnt, it needs a fundemental rethink.
| WRXedUSA | 11-04-2004 09:43 PM |
It is a shock to me. But then again, you look around Europe, do you see and 4wd turbo 307's? 206's? Xsara? Really, those cars are not even on the same class as Evo/STi.
They have less roadcar-rallycar connectivity I think.
Sad, but I'll roll with the punches and see if Suzuki comes up to play. Remember WRC rules have only been around since 1997...
They have less roadcar-rallycar connectivity I think.
Sad, but I'll roll with the punches and see if Suzuki comes up to play. Remember WRC rules have only been around since 1997...
| ITWRX4ME | 11-05-2004 09:17 AM |
Here's another reason I think a run-what-you-manufacturer series should be successful: How often do we see threads that pose the "Which is faster..." question?
They nearly always seem to pit cars from different manufacturers against one another. WRX or Mustang GT. STi or EVO. WRX or SRT4. Whatever.
If people are asking the question so often, doesn't if follow that there is interest in the answer? And what better place to settle the matter than at the races on TV?
You might think I'm nuts. A race series like that could be pitting Ferraris against Focuses (Foci?). But not if Ferrari can't meet the homologation numbers. And if they can, more power to 'em, so to speak.
I'd pit my stock WRX against a stock Mustang GT on a road course any day. If I'm beating him consistently (not bloody likely), don't you think Ford might say, "Hmmm. You know, we could tweak this and that, charge a few bucks more and we could beat that sucker next year." And if the reverse were true...well, you get the idea.
If you insist on stratifying things, you could have multiple homologation ranges. Just no performance mods.
They nearly always seem to pit cars from different manufacturers against one another. WRX or Mustang GT. STi or EVO. WRX or SRT4. Whatever.
If people are asking the question so often, doesn't if follow that there is interest in the answer? And what better place to settle the matter than at the races on TV?
You might think I'm nuts. A race series like that could be pitting Ferraris against Focuses (Foci?). But not if Ferrari can't meet the homologation numbers. And if they can, more power to 'em, so to speak.
I'd pit my stock WRX against a stock Mustang GT on a road course any day. If I'm beating him consistently (not bloody likely), don't you think Ford might say, "Hmmm. You know, we could tweak this and that, charge a few bucks more and we could beat that sucker next year." And if the reverse were true...well, you get the idea.
If you insist on stratifying things, you could have multiple homologation ranges. Just no performance mods.
| wrrrx | 11-05-2004 09:24 AM |
[QUOTE=johnfelstead]as tt_ttf mentions, we have been there before, and not so long ago, with GroupA. The reason WRC car rules came about was to make it easier for mainstream manufacturers to enter the sport.
The problem has been, costs have been allowed to get out of control, both in terms of the technology in use and the number of events. Each year the callender has expanded which has driven up the costs to compete in the championship, and yet the TV coverage has if anything dropped. It makes no comercial sense right now.
If we go back to GroupA rules, you will probably see 2 manufacturers, Subaru and Mitsubishi, just as you would only see them if the WRC became a GroupN formula.
Costs need to be ramped down, part of that must come from a reduction in technology and a reduction in the number of events. The concept of the WRC car formula is sound, the current aplication isnt, it needs a fundemental rethink.[/QUOTE]
Well said, John! :) It's easy to blame Max Mosley for all this (and honestly, I do!), but there are a lot of problems endemic with the setup as it currently exists.
Although individual WRC cars are hugely expensive, they're a lot cheaper than designing and mfg a road-going turbo AWD performance car. I do have [B][I]far[/I][/B] more respect for Subaru and Mitsubishi for sort of honoring the old "rally homologation special", since we as drivers reap the rewards. At the same time, without the current WRC "kit car" rules, it would be a fairly empty playing field- which it looks like it shall be again.
This makes me very sad. :(
Russ R
The problem has been, costs have been allowed to get out of control, both in terms of the technology in use and the number of events. Each year the callender has expanded which has driven up the costs to compete in the championship, and yet the TV coverage has if anything dropped. It makes no comercial sense right now.
If we go back to GroupA rules, you will probably see 2 manufacturers, Subaru and Mitsubishi, just as you would only see them if the WRC became a GroupN formula.
Costs need to be ramped down, part of that must come from a reduction in technology and a reduction in the number of events. The concept of the WRC car formula is sound, the current aplication isnt, it needs a fundemental rethink.[/QUOTE]
Well said, John! :) It's easy to blame Max Mosley for all this (and honestly, I do!), but there are a lot of problems endemic with the setup as it currently exists.
Although individual WRC cars are hugely expensive, they're a lot cheaper than designing and mfg a road-going turbo AWD performance car. I do have [B][I]far[/I][/B] more respect for Subaru and Mitsubishi for sort of honoring the old "rally homologation special", since we as drivers reap the rewards. At the same time, without the current WRC "kit car" rules, it would be a fairly empty playing field- which it looks like it shall be again.
This makes me very sad. :(
Russ R
| wrrrx | 11-05-2004 09:31 AM |
In addition to cutting down the calendar, what other areas would be the most logical for cost reductions?
Which technologies are the most expensive?
I know the transmissions are extremely expensive... and I seem to remember Nicky Grist saying [I]each[/I] corner of the Focus used a $40,000 active suspension...
Do you guys think some/any of this pullout is in response to the new/newer/newest proposed WRC cost-cutting measures? The latest proposals almost seem to favor PSA's cars...
Just wondering,
Russ R
Which technologies are the most expensive?
I know the transmissions are extremely expensive... and I seem to remember Nicky Grist saying [I]each[/I] corner of the Focus used a $40,000 active suspension...
Do you guys think some/any of this pullout is in response to the new/newer/newest proposed WRC cost-cutting measures? The latest proposals almost seem to favor PSA's cars...
Just wondering,
Russ R
| Mikko | 11-05-2004 01:00 PM |
[quote][b][i]heffergm wrote: [/b][/i]
Peugeot and Citroen have announced they will pull out of the World Rally Championship at the end of 2005. [/quote]- :( This makes me sad..
[quote][b][i]thrdeye wrote: [/b][/i]
Mazda ought to join.....with the new 6....I think it's 2.3 L though, so that prob wouldn't work[/quote]- They would never run a car that huge in the World Rally Championship. And then there is the engine issue. If they joined, they would use the Mazda 3.
[quote][b][i]ITWRX4ME wrote: [/b][/i]
Am I crazy for thinking that maybe the sanctioning bodies should move to a run-what-you-manufacture strategy? No mods, other than safety and nav equipment, period. Raise the homologation numbers to make it so a manufacture can't afford to produce a limited run of ringers.
I think that would get manufacturers to focus on component durability and performance right from the start. Better for everyone.[/quote]- As someone else pointed out, that is the "Group N" aka "Production WRC". It's really interesting, I think. But they have only two cars in it. Impreza and Evo.
[quote][b][i]ITWRX4ME wrote: [/b][/i]
So what if the cars are a little slower and don't handle as well as the big budget WRC cars of today? If manufacturers want to be competitive they have to develop better cars for the general public first.[/quote]- The FIA is suggesting a move to a new class called "Super 2000". Same weight as the Super 1600 (JWRC) cars, 950kg or so. No more turbo, active suspension, exotic materials and driving aids. The decreased weight will keep the speed at similar levels.
[quote][b][i]ITWRX4ME wrote: [/b][/i]
Why should I get excited about cars I can't hope to attain?[/quote]- :D But you can. They make at least 20 WRC class cars of every new 'model' so to speak. Price is about 750,000 dollars.
[quote][b][i]wrrrx wrote: [/b][/i]
In addition to cutting down the calendar, what other areas would be the most logical for cost reductions?
Which technologies are the most expensive?
I know the transmissions are extremely expensive... and I seem to remember Nicky Grist saying each corner of the Focus used a $40,000 active suspension...
[/quote]- Gearbox, Suspension, Engine. Titanium and gold are probably the most expensive materials.
The strut assembly of each corner costs 15,000 dollars (Extruded titanium). But it doesn't have active suspension. Not yet.
Peugeot and Citroen have announced they will pull out of the World Rally Championship at the end of 2005. [/quote]- :( This makes me sad..
[quote][b][i]thrdeye wrote: [/b][/i]
Mazda ought to join.....with the new 6....I think it's 2.3 L though, so that prob wouldn't work[/quote]- They would never run a car that huge in the World Rally Championship. And then there is the engine issue. If they joined, they would use the Mazda 3.
[quote][b][i]ITWRX4ME wrote: [/b][/i]
Am I crazy for thinking that maybe the sanctioning bodies should move to a run-what-you-manufacture strategy? No mods, other than safety and nav equipment, period. Raise the homologation numbers to make it so a manufacture can't afford to produce a limited run of ringers.
I think that would get manufacturers to focus on component durability and performance right from the start. Better for everyone.[/quote]- As someone else pointed out, that is the "Group N" aka "Production WRC". It's really interesting, I think. But they have only two cars in it. Impreza and Evo.
[quote][b][i]ITWRX4ME wrote: [/b][/i]
So what if the cars are a little slower and don't handle as well as the big budget WRC cars of today? If manufacturers want to be competitive they have to develop better cars for the general public first.[/quote]- The FIA is suggesting a move to a new class called "Super 2000". Same weight as the Super 1600 (JWRC) cars, 950kg or so. No more turbo, active suspension, exotic materials and driving aids. The decreased weight will keep the speed at similar levels.
[quote][b][i]ITWRX4ME wrote: [/b][/i]
Why should I get excited about cars I can't hope to attain?[/quote]- :D But you can. They make at least 20 WRC class cars of every new 'model' so to speak. Price is about 750,000 dollars.
[quote][b][i]wrrrx wrote: [/b][/i]
In addition to cutting down the calendar, what other areas would be the most logical for cost reductions?
Which technologies are the most expensive?
I know the transmissions are extremely expensive... and I seem to remember Nicky Grist saying each corner of the Focus used a $40,000 active suspension...
[/quote]- Gearbox, Suspension, Engine. Titanium and gold are probably the most expensive materials.
The strut assembly of each corner costs 15,000 dollars (Extruded titanium). But it doesn't have active suspension. Not yet.
| Rebellion | 11-05-2004 01:38 PM |
hrm... I thought group a = WRC but I guess I was wrong. I still say dropping WRC and going to a Group N setup would rock... though I hadn't considered the whole Subaru and Mitsubishi would be the ones ones that could run that series. :( I'm sure there's got to be some way to get rules to make turbo'd awd Peugeots, Citroens, Fords, Skodas, VW's, Audi's, Suzukis, etc into a Group N style environment. Even w/o true roadgoing versions of those cars the development costs of building one up to be like an STi/EVO would be cheaper than building a full fledged WRC car.
| Mikko | 11-05-2004 02:15 PM |
First there was.. something. Then in 1981 or so, there was Group B, the most brutal open rules ever (resulting in 550hp, mid engined, 4WD tiny hatchbacks that weighed as little as the current Super 1600 tiny class).
Then after too many deaths, Group B was banned in 1986. Another class was planned, called Group S. This would have been EVEN more open and faster than Group B. But that was scrapped with Group B.
Group A became the 'WRC' front-runner from 1987 to 1998 or so. Group A required a homologation version of the road car which lead to many fun things.. like Celica 4WD Turbo, Lancia Integrale EVO, Lancer Evolution, Impreza Turbo. These cars were allowed to be modified more than Group N, but not that much. I think overall I like Group A the most. Most related to road cars. *SNEEZE* while being very fast. *SNEEZE*.. uh oh.
Then in 1998 or whenever it was, WRC class came along. Requiring only 20 cars to be built, but based on a 'general' series of car that must be sold in the many thousands. Obviously the 206, Lancer and all those sell that much so they use them as basis.
They allow suspension mounts to be moved around (for more suspension travel), can tilt the engine if you want, a little bit, and fit turbo, 4WD, active systems. Engine block must be original. Shell tracks can be widened a fair bit. Any gearbox you want. Lots of aerodynamic modifications. Suspension can be altered in many ways, too. Thus they use titanium, etc.
And now they are looking at the Super 2000 (for 2006 or onwards perhaps). No more exotic materials, no turbo, 2 liters.. no active stuff, just passive differentials. Regular sequential gearbox. It's a bit like Group N (because of the low tech, and engine power), meets Group B (because it's so light).
Personally, I think the super 2000 might kick ass. It is SO much cheaper to develop and build that Nissan, Toyota and Honda might enter!
Then after too many deaths, Group B was banned in 1986. Another class was planned, called Group S. This would have been EVEN more open and faster than Group B. But that was scrapped with Group B.
Group A became the 'WRC' front-runner from 1987 to 1998 or so. Group A required a homologation version of the road car which lead to many fun things.. like Celica 4WD Turbo, Lancia Integrale EVO, Lancer Evolution, Impreza Turbo. These cars were allowed to be modified more than Group N, but not that much. I think overall I like Group A the most. Most related to road cars. *SNEEZE* while being very fast. *SNEEZE*.. uh oh.
Then in 1998 or whenever it was, WRC class came along. Requiring only 20 cars to be built, but based on a 'general' series of car that must be sold in the many thousands. Obviously the 206, Lancer and all those sell that much so they use them as basis.
They allow suspension mounts to be moved around (for more suspension travel), can tilt the engine if you want, a little bit, and fit turbo, 4WD, active systems. Engine block must be original. Shell tracks can be widened a fair bit. Any gearbox you want. Lots of aerodynamic modifications. Suspension can be altered in many ways, too. Thus they use titanium, etc.
And now they are looking at the Super 2000 (for 2006 or onwards perhaps). No more exotic materials, no turbo, 2 liters.. no active stuff, just passive differentials. Regular sequential gearbox. It's a bit like Group N (because of the low tech, and engine power), meets Group B (because it's so light).
Personally, I think the super 2000 might kick ass. It is SO much cheaper to develop and build that Nissan, Toyota and Honda might enter!
| WRXedUSA | 11-05-2004 03:12 PM |
I'm all for a more simple gearbox and the banning of front and rear active diffs. I think the 1 motor 2 events rule will save some costs.
But then again, think where the WRC has gone this year new: Mexico, Japan.
I think its the hospitality that kills some of these teams, considering they have out outfit a crew of 80, on top of guests, then the recce cars, team cars, 4 rally cars at least and all the tools.
Yikes.
But then again, think where the WRC has gone this year new: Mexico, Japan.
I think its the hospitality that kills some of these teams, considering they have out outfit a crew of 80, on top of guests, then the recce cars, team cars, 4 rally cars at least and all the tools.
Yikes.
| Mikko | 11-05-2004 03:22 PM |
New rules could slash costs
Spain - Ford - 05/11/2004 11:35:57
The technical boss of the works Ford rally outfit reckons that new technical rules that are currently being decided by the leading teams in the championship could slash build, development and running costs by as much as half.
Representatives from the World Rally Championship�s manufacturer-backed teams have been meeting in recent weeks to produce a blueprint for World Rally Car design for future season, which they will submit for approval to the World Council meeting of the FIA, world motorsport�s governing body, in December.
�We�re talking a lot about what we would ban � things like electronics, where we would have been going in the future,� Loriaux told Autosport this week. �We could get rid of the active front and rear differentials, but leave a controlled centre, so the handbrake can still be used. This, combined with other possible savings, such as using one engine for two rallies, would cut the cost of the cars by about 50 percent.�
Spain - Ford - 05/11/2004 11:35:57
The technical boss of the works Ford rally outfit reckons that new technical rules that are currently being decided by the leading teams in the championship could slash build, development and running costs by as much as half.
Representatives from the World Rally Championship�s manufacturer-backed teams have been meeting in recent weeks to produce a blueprint for World Rally Car design for future season, which they will submit for approval to the World Council meeting of the FIA, world motorsport�s governing body, in December.
�We�re talking a lot about what we would ban � things like electronics, where we would have been going in the future,� Loriaux told Autosport this week. �We could get rid of the active front and rear differentials, but leave a controlled centre, so the handbrake can still be used. This, combined with other possible savings, such as using one engine for two rallies, would cut the cost of the cars by about 50 percent.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét