| Pakin | 04-28-2004 10:07 PM |
The WRC 4WD System
�
�
I'm wondering if the WRC cars uses the 4WD system on the tarmac stages?
I understand back in the Group B days, the cars would spin and slide like crazy (controlled) on the corner because of thier lock.
Are the 4WD systems the traditional ones we see today on SUVs? Or are they designed differently and allow the system to differentiate speeds via driver control (maybe like DCCD?)?
Thanks,
-paK +1
I understand back in the Group B days, the cars would spin and slide like crazy (controlled) on the corner because of thier lock.
Are the 4WD systems the traditional ones we see today on SUVs? Or are they designed differently and allow the system to differentiate speeds via driver control (maybe like DCCD?)?
Thanks,
-paK +1
| DonA | 04-28-2004 10:20 PM |
They still use 4wd on tarmac. The differentials are very advanced and Electro-hydraulically controlled. Not anyting at all like an SUV
They slide around hairpins by pulling the handbrake which then locks rear wheels and opens center diff.
They slide around hairpins by pulling the handbrake which then locks rear wheels and opens center diff.
| ANZAC_1915 | 04-28-2004 10:35 PM |
Ford built their belated Group B RS200 with a shift on the fly 2WD/4WD system. The concept was that they'd use 2WD on tarmac events, and 4WD on gravel/snow.
The cars were just as fast in 4WD on tarmac as they were in 2WD, so most of the cars had the levers removed.
Glenn
The cars were just as fast in 4WD on tarmac as they were in 2WD, so most of the cars had the levers removed.
Glenn
| nKoan | 04-29-2004 01:59 AM |
Yup, the AWD system works just as well on tarmac as on gravel.
The system is way more advanced then almost anything available on a production car. Every WRCar (except the new Lancer WRC) uses active differentials, which can actively send power to the wheels that need it before any major slippage occurs.
In fact, the only reason F1 doesn't use AWD is because it is banned (it was banned due to saftey issues IIRC... driveshaft being literally inches away from drivers butt and spinning up to 12k rpm).
The system is way more advanced then almost anything available on a production car. Every WRCar (except the new Lancer WRC) uses active differentials, which can actively send power to the wheels that need it before any major slippage occurs.
In fact, the only reason F1 doesn't use AWD is because it is banned (it was banned due to saftey issues IIRC... driveshaft being literally inches away from drivers butt and spinning up to 12k rpm).
| jmott | 04-29-2004 09:33 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DonA [/i]
[B]They still use 4wd on tarmac. The differentials are very advanced and Electro-hydraulically controlled. Not anyting at all like an SUV
They slide around hairpins by pulling the handbrake which then locks rear wheels and opens center diff. [/B][/QUOTE]
do they?
you have seen this?
[B]They still use 4wd on tarmac. The differentials are very advanced and Electro-hydraulically controlled. Not anyting at all like an SUV
They slide around hairpins by pulling the handbrake which then locks rear wheels and opens center diff. [/B][/QUOTE]
do they?
you have seen this?
| heffergm | 04-29-2004 09:35 AM |
Don't you get Speed Channel? If not, bitch to your local cable company...
| nKoan | 04-29-2004 01:55 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jmott[/i]
[B] do they?
you have seen this? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, WRC drivers do it all the time. If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning.
[B] do they?
you have seen this? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, WRC drivers do it all the time. If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning.
| Pakin | 04-29-2004 02:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nKoan [/i]
[B]Yeah, WRC drivers do it all the time. If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning. [/B][/QUOTE]
This I can acknowledge. Sounds valid.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
-paK +3
[B]Yeah, WRC drivers do it all the time. If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning. [/B][/QUOTE]
This I can acknowledge. Sounds valid.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
-paK +3
| AndyRoo | 04-29-2004 02:18 PM |
they did have some AWD F1 cars in the late 60's early 70's. The werent fast enough, but one almost won a race in the rain before crashing.
i love this website
[URL]http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/story7.htm#Four%20Wheel%20Drive[/URL]
i love this website
[URL]http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/story7.htm#Four%20Wheel%20Drive[/URL]
| DonA | 04-29-2004 02:56 PM |
Here is some video of the 2002 season that shows a little tarmac fun [url]http://www.rallyplanet.com/media/movies/get.php?file=wrc-2002-1.wmv[/url]
BTW - The Citroen Xsara was once a 2wd entry only run in select tarmac events. They domated so much they outraged the World Rally teams to the point that the FIA made rules more rigid for the F2 cars. Citroen built a new turbo charged 4wd WRC the Xsara T4.
BTW - The Citroen Xsara was once a 2wd entry only run in select tarmac events. They domated so much they outraged the World Rally teams to the point that the FIA made rules more rigid for the F2 cars. Citroen built a new turbo charged 4wd WRC the Xsara T4.
| nKoan | 04-29-2004 06:41 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AndyRoo[/i]
[B] they did have some AWD F1 cars in the late 60's early 70's. The werent fast enough, but one almost won a race in the rain before crashing.
i love this website
[URL]http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/story7.htm#Four%20Wheel%20Drive[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
The AWD cars were technically banned due to a saftey argument IIRC. I think it was because of a driveshaft being literally inches away from a drivers butt, and spinning at 12k rpms.
I really wonder if the AWD F1 cars could have ever become as competitive as the RWD ones.
[B] they did have some AWD F1 cars in the late 60's early 70's. The werent fast enough, but one almost won a race in the rain before crashing.
i love this website
[URL]http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/story7.htm#Four%20Wheel%20Drive[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
The AWD cars were technically banned due to a saftey argument IIRC. I think it was because of a driveshaft being literally inches away from a drivers butt, and spinning at 12k rpms.
I really wonder if the AWD F1 cars could have ever become as competitive as the RWD ones.
| GravelRash | 04-29-2004 08:01 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nKoan [/i]
[B]Yeah, WRC drivers do it all the time. If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning. [/B][/QUOTE]
You can also see occasional shots of them pulling the handbrake on tarmac hairpins, just like on gravel.
[B]Yeah, WRC drivers do it all the time. If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning. [/B][/QUOTE]
You can also see occasional shots of them pulling the handbrake on tarmac hairpins, just like on gravel.
| digitalpimp | 04-29-2004 08:21 PM |
once utech was talking about driving a car with the totally active centerdiff, he said on corner entry it felt like a rx-7 (i'm fairly sure he said rx-7). i'd assume they actually open the centerdiff under heavy braking (or even engine decel?) to promote oversteer. on doug's #88 car i made a (crappy) bracket for the ebrake microswitch so the computer knows when the brake is on, but i believe he said it still didn't work (sorry doug).
a person could have the computer know when the brakes are on, ebrake is on, clutch is in, individual wheel speed, and the throttle %, so those are all imputs that could be used to decide how to control the center diff.
a person could have the computer know when the brakes are on, ebrake is on, clutch is in, individual wheel speed, and the throttle %, so those are all imputs that could be used to decide how to control the center diff.
| FuJi K | 04-29-2004 08:39 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by digitalpimp[/i]
[B]a person could have the computer know when the brakes are on, ebrake is on, clutch is in, individual wheel speed, and the throttle %, so those are all imputs that could be used to decide how to control the center diff. [/B][/QUOTE]
adding to yours...
The computer that controls the AWD system is quite advanced to a degree that is unknown to me. It collects data from various sensors around the vehicle such as yaw, g's, steering, wheel speed, and a few others and it electronically applies it's hydralic system and power the wheels that is designated to with those calculations from the sensors.
Ex.
Steering right, applying throttle will send 50% of torque to the rear outside tire and 25% to inside and 12.5% to both front wheels. Steering straight after the turn may then distribrute 65%rear and 35% front.
Ex.
If sliding/overteering out of a corner after the turn from the previous example, the yaw and G sensors will take those calculations and go from 50% of torque to the rear outside tire and 25% to inside and 12.5% to both front wheels to 25% all around OR 12.5% rear tires and 50% outside front and 25% inside front tire to pull out of the drift/slide.
This is done with the hydralic diffs.
That's my knowledge of this AWD system. Someone can correct or comment if wanting to.:)
[B]a person could have the computer know when the brakes are on, ebrake is on, clutch is in, individual wheel speed, and the throttle %, so those are all imputs that could be used to decide how to control the center diff. [/B][/QUOTE]
adding to yours...
The computer that controls the AWD system is quite advanced to a degree that is unknown to me. It collects data from various sensors around the vehicle such as yaw, g's, steering, wheel speed, and a few others and it electronically applies it's hydralic system and power the wheels that is designated to with those calculations from the sensors.
Ex.
Steering right, applying throttle will send 50% of torque to the rear outside tire and 25% to inside and 12.5% to both front wheels. Steering straight after the turn may then distribrute 65%rear and 35% front.
Ex.
If sliding/overteering out of a corner after the turn from the previous example, the yaw and G sensors will take those calculations and go from 50% of torque to the rear outside tire and 25% to inside and 12.5% to both front wheels to 25% all around OR 12.5% rear tires and 50% outside front and 25% inside front tire to pull out of the drift/slide.
This is done with the hydralic diffs.
That's my knowledge of this AWD system. Someone can correct or comment if wanting to.:)
| donmei | 04-30-2004 11:43 AM |
FYI - STI center diff opens when ebrake is pulled. I discovered that this winter.
Don
Don
| SleeperWRX | 04-30-2004 12:26 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nKoan [/i]
[B]If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning. [/B][/QUOTE]
You can pull the ebrake to lock up the rear wheels on a WRX and it doesn't lock up the front wheels. Yes this is bad for the diff...but its not impossible...and I've done it dozens of times. Something prolonged like towing the car on 2 wheels would of course destroy the center diff.
[B]If you watch any of the tarmac rallies, you'll notice from time to time the rear wheels will lock up and the front ones will keep spinning while sliding around a hairpin. The only way to do this is to disconnect the center diff, otherwise it would be utterly destroyed with the back wheels locked up and the front wheels spinning. [/B][/QUOTE]
You can pull the ebrake to lock up the rear wheels on a WRX and it doesn't lock up the front wheels. Yes this is bad for the diff...but its not impossible...and I've done it dozens of times. Something prolonged like towing the car on 2 wheels would of course destroy the center diff.
| Calimoxo2 | 04-30-2004 02:52 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jmott[/i]
[B] do they?
you have seen this? [/B][/QUOTE]
Last year Carlos Sainz did one and followed it through with a dual 360 on tarmac in a Focus.....:disco:
[B] do they?
you have seen this? [/B][/QUOTE]
Last year Carlos Sainz did one and followed it through with a dual 360 on tarmac in a Focus.....:disco:
| DonA | 04-30-2004 03:50 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Calimoxo2[/i]
[B] Last year Carlos Sainz did one and followed it through with a dual 360 on tarmac in a Focus.....:disco: [/B][/QUOTE]
What event was that? Are you thinking about Gilles Panizzi's little spin show at the 2002 Rally Catalunya in the Peugeot 206?
[B] Last year Carlos Sainz did one and followed it through with a dual 360 on tarmac in a Focus.....:disco: [/B][/QUOTE]
What event was that? Are you thinking about Gilles Panizzi's little spin show at the 2002 Rally Catalunya in the Peugeot 206?
| nKoan | 04-30-2004 05:13 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Calimoxo2[/i]
[B] Last year Carlos Sainz did one and followed it through with a dual 360 on tarmac in a Focus.....:disco: [/B][/QUOTE]
Carlos drove for Citroen last year. I think you are thinking of Panizi at Catalunya in 2002 in a Peugeot 206.
[B] Last year Carlos Sainz did one and followed it through with a dual 360 on tarmac in a Focus.....:disco: [/B][/QUOTE]
Carlos drove for Citroen last year. I think you are thinking of Panizi at Catalunya in 2002 in a Peugeot 206.
| Impreza01 | 04-30-2004 06:36 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SleeperWRX[/i]
[B] You can pull the ebrake to lock up the rear wheels on a WRX and it doesn't lock up the front wheels. Yes this is bad for the diff...but its not impossible...and I've done it dozens of times. Something prolonged like towing the car on 2 wheels would of course destroy the center diff. [/B][/QUOTE]
I hate to be the person who buys your car when you sell it.
[B] You can pull the ebrake to lock up the rear wheels on a WRX and it doesn't lock up the front wheels. Yes this is bad for the diff...but its not impossible...and I've done it dozens of times. Something prolonged like towing the car on 2 wheels would of course destroy the center diff. [/B][/QUOTE]
I hate to be the person who buys your car when you sell it.
| me�t�d | 05-01-2004 12:48 AM |
So what exactly is the benefit of the rally cars using 4WD over AWD? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the things I've read, 4WD locks all 4 wheels at the same speed where as AWD varries them.
| nKoan | 05-01-2004 04:49 AM |
If you want to draw that distinction, I believe that WR cars use AWD because the power to each wheel is constantly changing.
| DonA | 05-01-2004 08:55 AM |
Right but in the sport it is generally referred to as 4wd when I guess you could technically call it AWD
| BOY | 05-01-2004 09:20 AM |
center diff < transfer case... but essentially the same thing. Both divert power to the other set of wheels. [i]Most[/i] AWD cars are FWD layouts with center diffs sending power to the rear, most 4WD cars are rwd with a transfer case external to the tranny sending power to the front via a separate external driveshaft at a set (locked) ratio. Again, basically the same thing... its more semantics.
| HOK | 05-01-2004 06:53 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nKoan [/i]
[B]I really wonder if the AWD F1 cars could have ever become as competitive as the RWD ones. [/B][/QUOTE]
I bet it would be today... but the big teams simply won't put the R&D in it i would say. It would take time for it to be competitive... simply because of the advancements of the RWD cars today...
[B]I really wonder if the AWD F1 cars could have ever become as competitive as the RWD ones. [/B][/QUOTE]
I bet it would be today... but the big teams simply won't put the R&D in it i would say. It would take time for it to be competitive... simply because of the advancements of the RWD cars today...
| donmei | 05-01-2004 08:03 PM |
Hok,
Also, I'd bet that given todays regulatory climate in F1, AWD would be banned if it proved to be an advantage. Just like:
Launch control
active suspension
ABS
Yaw control
slick tires
Aluminum Berylium alloys (In certain parts, can't remember what)
I think automatic transmissions
They've really quashed any attempt at innovation because the teams know that if they do anything too unique, it will be banned, after untold millions are invested.
Don
Also, I'd bet that given todays regulatory climate in F1, AWD would be banned if it proved to be an advantage. Just like:
Launch control
active suspension
ABS
Yaw control
slick tires
Aluminum Berylium alloys (In certain parts, can't remember what)
I think automatic transmissions
They've really quashed any attempt at innovation because the teams know that if they do anything too unique, it will be banned, after untold millions are invested.
Don
| Epyon | 05-01-2004 08:15 PM |
My take on the regs:
-I'd like to see WRC get more to back production. Go with the stock drive systems and stock gearboxes. Why? The more competive you want to be in the championship, the better you have to make your production vehicle. Score one for the consumer (i.e. me).
-So with WRC moving more to production, I think Formula 1 should more and more high-tech. As long as it's not a safety concern, then go for it.
-I'd like to see WRC get more to back production. Go with the stock drive systems and stock gearboxes. Why? The more competive you want to be in the championship, the better you have to make your production vehicle. Score one for the consumer (i.e. me).
-So with WRC moving more to production, I think Formula 1 should more and more high-tech. As long as it's not a safety concern, then go for it.
| donmei | 05-01-2004 08:39 PM |
epyon
Interesting take. Makes sense intuitively since F1 is nothing about production cars anyway. Heck, the "gas" they run isn't even gas.
Don
Interesting take. Makes sense intuitively since F1 is nothing about production cars anyway. Heck, the "gas" they run isn't even gas.
Don
| DonA | 05-01-2004 10:29 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Epyon [/i]
[B]My take on the regs:
-I'd like to see WRC get more to back production. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's what Group N is for
[B]My take on the regs:
-I'd like to see WRC get more to back production. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's what Group N is for
| Epyon | 05-02-2004 12:10 AM |
Yeah, I know that DonA, but WRC is where the real money is and where the bulk of fans are. The Impreza STi doesn't get built for Group N, it gets built with WRC in mind. So until Group N takes center stage, WRC needs to be more production-based.
| Mopho | 05-02-2004 12:59 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Epyon [/i]
[B]Yeah, I know that DonA, but WRC is where the real money is and where the bulk of fans are. The Impreza STi doesn't get built for Group N, it gets built with WRC in mind. So until Group N takes center stage, WRC needs to be more production-based. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, the STI does get built with group N in mind, because the group N car has to be homolgated based on the street car. If not for group N competition (and group A before it) there would be no STI at all (or Evo for that matter). The Impreza is not built with WRC in mind at all, if it was, the Impreza would be a 2 door hatch back. That is the challenge for the engineers; to produce the best car possible with the hand they are dealt, ie. the production car.
Group N [b]is[/b] providing your wish for a better consumer car.
With WRC rules there is no need to build a street car that resembles the rally car, and without WRC rules there would be no Ford, Peugoet, Citroen, etc. since they don't build AWD turbo cars and don't see any value in producing such cars for consumers due to expense and limited market appeal. Without other manufacturers, WRC would be boring. (group N is bordering on boring as it is just a Subie vs Mitsu race)
You only need to look at the group B days and more so the Group A days when car companies had to build a production run of the car that was competing. Well that made for aweful street cars that were a nightmare to drive.
Your idea is a bad one IMO
[B]Yeah, I know that DonA, but WRC is where the real money is and where the bulk of fans are. The Impreza STi doesn't get built for Group N, it gets built with WRC in mind. So until Group N takes center stage, WRC needs to be more production-based. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, the STI does get built with group N in mind, because the group N car has to be homolgated based on the street car. If not for group N competition (and group A before it) there would be no STI at all (or Evo for that matter). The Impreza is not built with WRC in mind at all, if it was, the Impreza would be a 2 door hatch back. That is the challenge for the engineers; to produce the best car possible with the hand they are dealt, ie. the production car.
Group N [b]is[/b] providing your wish for a better consumer car.
With WRC rules there is no need to build a street car that resembles the rally car, and without WRC rules there would be no Ford, Peugoet, Citroen, etc. since they don't build AWD turbo cars and don't see any value in producing such cars for consumers due to expense and limited market appeal. Without other manufacturers, WRC would be boring. (group N is bordering on boring as it is just a Subie vs Mitsu race)
You only need to look at the group B days and more so the Group A days when car companies had to build a production run of the car that was competing. Well that made for aweful street cars that were a nightmare to drive.
Your idea is a bad one IMO
| Epyon | 05-02-2004 01:20 AM |
So you're saying homologation specials are bad?
| Mopho | 05-02-2004 01:22 AM |
Yes
| Pakin | 05-02-2004 02:08 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by me�t�d[/i]
[B] So what exactly is the benefit of the rally cars using 4WD over AWD? [/B][/QUOTE]
Weight distribution from what I've heard. Lowers the front weight bias and give more to the rear.
-paK +1
[B] So what exactly is the benefit of the rally cars using 4WD over AWD? [/B][/QUOTE]
Weight distribution from what I've heard. Lowers the front weight bias and give more to the rear.
-paK +1
| nKoan | 05-02-2004 02:36 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mopho[/i]
[B] Actually, the STI does get built with group N in mind, because the group N car has to be homolgated based on the street car. If not for group N competition (and group A before it) there would be no STI at all (or Evo for that matter). The Impreza is not built with WRC in mind at all, if it was, the Impreza would be a 2 door hatch back. That is the challenge for the engineers; to produce the best car possible with the hand they are dealt, ie. the production car.
Group N [b]is[/b] providing your wish for a better consumer car.
With WRC rules there is no need to build a street car that resembles the rally car, and without WRC rules there would be no Ford, Peugoet, Citroen, etc. since they don't build AWD turbo cars and don't see any value in producing such cars for consumers due to expense and limited market appeal. Without other manufacturers, WRC would be boring. (group N is bordering on boring as it is just a Subie vs Mitsu race)
You only need to look at the group B days and more so the Group A days when car companies had to build a production run of the car that was competing. Well that made for aweful street cars that were a nightmare to drive.
Your idea is a bad one IMO [/B][/QUOTE]
Just to clarify, Group A is a precursor to WRCar class, not Group N.
But that still doesn't really dilute your point. Group A cars still had to be more production based then the WRCars. And you can really blame that on Subaru and Mitsubishi. They basically started a full on war, and the only way to make their Group A cars better was to make the production cars better. To allow other manufacturers (who didn't offer AWD turbo production cars) the WRCars classifications were introduced.
And yes, contrary to your original point, the Impreza was built as a platform for a rally car. Subaru used to rally the Legacy, but after a few years, they realized that the platform had lots of disadvantages that could be taken car of by introducing and homologating a new car. Subaru designed the car so that Prodrive could easily build them a killer rally car; they basically designed everything they couldn't change (due to Group A rules) extremely well. The rest of the car was given decent parts for the streeet but these parts were no good for rallying.
[B] Actually, the STI does get built with group N in mind, because the group N car has to be homolgated based on the street car. If not for group N competition (and group A before it) there would be no STI at all (or Evo for that matter). The Impreza is not built with WRC in mind at all, if it was, the Impreza would be a 2 door hatch back. That is the challenge for the engineers; to produce the best car possible with the hand they are dealt, ie. the production car.
Group N [b]is[/b] providing your wish for a better consumer car.
With WRC rules there is no need to build a street car that resembles the rally car, and without WRC rules there would be no Ford, Peugoet, Citroen, etc. since they don't build AWD turbo cars and don't see any value in producing such cars for consumers due to expense and limited market appeal. Without other manufacturers, WRC would be boring. (group N is bordering on boring as it is just a Subie vs Mitsu race)
You only need to look at the group B days and more so the Group A days when car companies had to build a production run of the car that was competing. Well that made for aweful street cars that were a nightmare to drive.
Your idea is a bad one IMO [/B][/QUOTE]
Just to clarify, Group A is a precursor to WRCar class, not Group N.
But that still doesn't really dilute your point. Group A cars still had to be more production based then the WRCars. And you can really blame that on Subaru and Mitsubishi. They basically started a full on war, and the only way to make their Group A cars better was to make the production cars better. To allow other manufacturers (who didn't offer AWD turbo production cars) the WRCars classifications were introduced.
And yes, contrary to your original point, the Impreza was built as a platform for a rally car. Subaru used to rally the Legacy, but after a few years, they realized that the platform had lots of disadvantages that could be taken car of by introducing and homologating a new car. Subaru designed the car so that Prodrive could easily build them a killer rally car; they basically designed everything they couldn't change (due to Group A rules) extremely well. The rest of the car was given decent parts for the streeet but these parts were no good for rallying.
| Kyguy | 05-02-2004 07:31 AM |
What I want to know, is why the WRC doesn't visit the U.S. :(
literally millions of dollars just sitting here waiting to be taken.
literally millions of dollars just sitting here waiting to be taken.
| Mopho | 05-02-2004 08:27 AM |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by me�t�d
So what exactly is the benefit of the rally cars using 4WD over AWD? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pakin [/i]
[B]Weight distribution from what I've heard. Lowers the front weight bias and give more to the rear.
-paK +1 [/B][/QUOTE]
Huh? :huh:
4WD means that a car is front or rear wheel drive until the driver (or computer I suppose) changes it to drive all four wheels- Like a Ford pick up Truck
AWD means the car always powers all four wheels regardless-like a Subaru
Has nothing to do with weight distribution
Rally Cars are AWD
So what exactly is the benefit of the rally cars using 4WD over AWD? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pakin [/i]
[B]Weight distribution from what I've heard. Lowers the front weight bias and give more to the rear.
-paK +1 [/B][/QUOTE]
Huh? :huh:
4WD means that a car is front or rear wheel drive until the driver (or computer I suppose) changes it to drive all four wheels- Like a Ford pick up Truck
AWD means the car always powers all four wheels regardless-like a Subaru
Has nothing to do with weight distribution
Rally Cars are AWD
| Mopho | 05-02-2004 10:06 AM |
[QUOTE]Just to clarify, Group A is a precursor to WRCar class, not Group N[/QUOTE]
I know, but originally the Impreza WRX was homolated for Group A was what I was trying to say
[QUOTE]But that still doesn't really dilute your point. Group A cars still had to be more production based then the WRCars. And you can really blame that on Subaru and Mitsubishi. They basically started a full on war, and the only way to make their Group A cars better was to make the production cars better. To allow other manufacturers (who didn't offer AWD turbo production cars) the WRCars classifications were introduced.[/QUOTE]
No one is blaming anyone.
Ford, Toyota, Lancia, VW, Audi, Opel and Mazda also built group A homolagated cars that were not exactly succesful street cars. As the competition grew, they had to comprimise the street cars by adding all the trick bits, which drove up the cost and reduced the drivability of the cars for anyone short of boy racers who could not afford the car anyway. The cars did not sell and car companies stopped producing them (remember the VW Rallye Golf, Mazda 323GTX and the Toyota GT4?) The Evo and WRX only survived because of the Japanese home market liking cars like that
Group N does a better job of regulating this since the production requirements are much higher and the rules are tighter. Also remember that the STI and Evo we get here in the States is [b]not[/b]the homolgated car. The Spec C is not a car that [b]most[/b] people would want to live with on a daily basis
[QUOTE]And yes, contrary to your original point, the Impreza was built as a platform for a rally car. Subaru used to rally the Legacy, but after a few years, they realized that the platform had lots of disadvantages that could be taken car of by introducing and homologating a new car. Subaru designed the car so that Prodrive could easily build them a killer rally car; they basically designed everything they couldn't change (due to Group A rules) extremely well. The rest of the car was given decent parts for the streeet but these parts were no good for rallying.[/QUOTE]
The Impreza [b]was not[/b] built as platform for a rally car, it was built as a platform for an economy car. The Impreza already existed while they were racing the Legacy, Prodrive was begging them to use the Impreza because it was smaller and lighter, but Subaru said not until you win a race with the Legacy, a year later they finally won in New Zealand (they used the Legacy for 3 years). (check out the Impreza story DVD)
The WRX (STI) version of the Impreza [b]did[/b] get created with rallying in mind but it is still an economy car with trick bits added to it to make it sporty
Car manufacturers decide which car to rally more on marketing decisions than anything these days, a perfect example is the Peugeot 307, it is based on a convertable that is too small to fit its drivers and needed a special cage designed to compensate for the lack of structural rigidy
Sorry to go off topic
I know, but originally the Impreza WRX was homolated for Group A was what I was trying to say
[QUOTE]But that still doesn't really dilute your point. Group A cars still had to be more production based then the WRCars. And you can really blame that on Subaru and Mitsubishi. They basically started a full on war, and the only way to make their Group A cars better was to make the production cars better. To allow other manufacturers (who didn't offer AWD turbo production cars) the WRCars classifications were introduced.[/QUOTE]
No one is blaming anyone.
Ford, Toyota, Lancia, VW, Audi, Opel and Mazda also built group A homolagated cars that were not exactly succesful street cars. As the competition grew, they had to comprimise the street cars by adding all the trick bits, which drove up the cost and reduced the drivability of the cars for anyone short of boy racers who could not afford the car anyway. The cars did not sell and car companies stopped producing them (remember the VW Rallye Golf, Mazda 323GTX and the Toyota GT4?) The Evo and WRX only survived because of the Japanese home market liking cars like that
Group N does a better job of regulating this since the production requirements are much higher and the rules are tighter. Also remember that the STI and Evo we get here in the States is [b]not[/b]the homolgated car. The Spec C is not a car that [b]most[/b] people would want to live with on a daily basis
[QUOTE]And yes, contrary to your original point, the Impreza was built as a platform for a rally car. Subaru used to rally the Legacy, but after a few years, they realized that the platform had lots of disadvantages that could be taken car of by introducing and homologating a new car. Subaru designed the car so that Prodrive could easily build them a killer rally car; they basically designed everything they couldn't change (due to Group A rules) extremely well. The rest of the car was given decent parts for the streeet but these parts were no good for rallying.[/QUOTE]
The Impreza [b]was not[/b] built as platform for a rally car, it was built as a platform for an economy car. The Impreza already existed while they were racing the Legacy, Prodrive was begging them to use the Impreza because it was smaller and lighter, but Subaru said not until you win a race with the Legacy, a year later they finally won in New Zealand (they used the Legacy for 3 years). (check out the Impreza story DVD)
The WRX (STI) version of the Impreza [b]did[/b] get created with rallying in mind but it is still an economy car with trick bits added to it to make it sporty
Car manufacturers decide which car to rally more on marketing decisions than anything these days, a perfect example is the Peugeot 307, it is based on a convertable that is too small to fit its drivers and needed a special cage designed to compensate for the lack of structural rigidy
Sorry to go off topic
| Epyon | 05-02-2004 07:47 PM |
Homologation specials are freakin' awesome man. The Homologation rule is definitely the best rule in the world. Otherwise all race cars would be F1 cars and all cars would be Ford Tauruses (an exaggeration, I know, I know).
| johnfelstead | 05-02-2004 08:07 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mopho [/i]
[B]
Ford, Toyota, Lancia, VW, Audi, Opel and Mazda also built group A homolagated cars that were not exactly succesful street cars. As the competition grew, they had to comprimise the street cars by adding all the trick bits, which drove up the cost and reduced the drivability of the cars for anyone short of boy racers who could not afford the car anyway. The cars did not sell and car companies stopped producing them (remember the VW Rallye Golf, Mazda 323GTX and the Toyota GT4?) The Evo and WRX only survived because of the Japanese home market liking cars like that [/B][/QUOTE]
The cosworth homologation specials were very popular cars, from the original 3 door sierra through the sapphire cosworth 2WD and 4WD to the Escort Cosworth. The only ones that struggled to sell were the last small turbo Escort Cosworth, that was post homologation special requirements, so they made it into a more civilised car with a tiny T25 turbo and EECIV stock ECU rather than the webber P8 ECU. which was a stupid mistake. They still have a masive following in the UK with Escort Cossies selling for $30K if in good condition today.
The Toyota Celica GT4 was a big seller in europe, as was the various incarnations of Lancia Delta, Audi didnt really make a homologation GroupA Quatro as they decided to withdraw in 1986 from international rallying, some small teams ran Audi's but they never went to the expense of a homologation special groupA version. VW ran the Golf in GroupA rallying as a FWD car and won the 2WD championship, the Golf GTi they used is one of the biggest selling cars of its type ever seen. Opel ran the GroupB manta then when GroupA apeared as the top class again they ran the Astra/Kadett GTE, one of the biggest selling hot hatches in Europe.
Most of these homologation specials are European/Japan market models, they always will be too, they are not aimed at the US market. Right now Subaru are going for it big time with regards to GroupN, they are spending a fortune investing in testing and development on the Spec C to make it the best in that class of motorsport. The new Spec C out in June reinforces that in a big way.
The reason WRC rules came about was because manufacturers didnt want the expense of building a homolgation special car as the costs were high, even though they could sell them. The FIA also wanted to include companies that never were sucessful at building homologation specials and never would invest the sums of money required to do so. Thats how companies such as Seat, Citroen, Peugeot etc managed to get the budgets to compete. Even then Peugeot had to build a homolgation special bodied 206GT, that had longer bumpers than the standard model, all 2500 of them sold out.
[B]
Ford, Toyota, Lancia, VW, Audi, Opel and Mazda also built group A homolagated cars that were not exactly succesful street cars. As the competition grew, they had to comprimise the street cars by adding all the trick bits, which drove up the cost and reduced the drivability of the cars for anyone short of boy racers who could not afford the car anyway. The cars did not sell and car companies stopped producing them (remember the VW Rallye Golf, Mazda 323GTX and the Toyota GT4?) The Evo and WRX only survived because of the Japanese home market liking cars like that [/B][/QUOTE]
The cosworth homologation specials were very popular cars, from the original 3 door sierra through the sapphire cosworth 2WD and 4WD to the Escort Cosworth. The only ones that struggled to sell were the last small turbo Escort Cosworth, that was post homologation special requirements, so they made it into a more civilised car with a tiny T25 turbo and EECIV stock ECU rather than the webber P8 ECU. which was a stupid mistake. They still have a masive following in the UK with Escort Cossies selling for $30K if in good condition today.
The Toyota Celica GT4 was a big seller in europe, as was the various incarnations of Lancia Delta, Audi didnt really make a homologation GroupA Quatro as they decided to withdraw in 1986 from international rallying, some small teams ran Audi's but they never went to the expense of a homologation special groupA version. VW ran the Golf in GroupA rallying as a FWD car and won the 2WD championship, the Golf GTi they used is one of the biggest selling cars of its type ever seen. Opel ran the GroupB manta then when GroupA apeared as the top class again they ran the Astra/Kadett GTE, one of the biggest selling hot hatches in Europe.
Most of these homologation specials are European/Japan market models, they always will be too, they are not aimed at the US market. Right now Subaru are going for it big time with regards to GroupN, they are spending a fortune investing in testing and development on the Spec C to make it the best in that class of motorsport. The new Spec C out in June reinforces that in a big way.
The reason WRC rules came about was because manufacturers didnt want the expense of building a homolgation special car as the costs were high, even though they could sell them. The FIA also wanted to include companies that never were sucessful at building homologation specials and never would invest the sums of money required to do so. Thats how companies such as Seat, Citroen, Peugeot etc managed to get the budgets to compete. Even then Peugeot had to build a homolgation special bodied 206GT, that had longer bumpers than the standard model, all 2500 of them sold out.
| Mopho | 05-02-2004 08:39 PM |
Perhaps I am wrong, but I have read just the opposite, that sales of these cars were not so great.
Also in Reinhard Kleins book [i]Rally Cars[/i] a section on Homolagation specials and it talks about how a lot of non essential items were added to the road cars for homolagation purposes and made them less than fun to drive. It even refers to Francois Delecour returning his Escort Cosworth because he hated it. I had friend with a Cosworth Escort and said the turbo lag was aweful. the Lancia is supposedly fun, if you can keep it running.
Also in Reinhard Kleins book [i]Rally Cars[/i] a section on Homolagation specials and it talks about how a lot of non essential items were added to the road cars for homolagation purposes and made them less than fun to drive. It even refers to Francois Delecour returning his Escort Cosworth because he hated it. I had friend with a Cosworth Escort and said the turbo lag was aweful. the Lancia is supposedly fun, if you can keep it running.
| johnfelstead | 05-02-2004 08:55 PM |
The escort cosworth had a relatively small turbo being a T35. I had one of these on my 2wd Sapphire cosworth running 350BHP and it was enormous fun. It was obviously more laggy than a T3 of the standard sapphire cosworth but not horible to drive, it was at max boost (1.7BAR) by 3500rpm which isnt what i would call unusable. :lol: The only turbo on the cosssie homologation special range that was hard work to drive was fitted to the RS500, that was a T4 and was designed around circuit racing, not rallying, hence only 500 made, so was quite laggy in its 220BHP form, but even these are fine now with refinements in engine control (lots are 500BHP+ these days).
Dont forget these rally homologation specials have to be relatively flexible as you need good mid range torque on a rally car, this was especially so once the FIA started to put smaller turbo restrictors on the cars with the last GroupA turbo cars having 34mm restrictors, a big laggy turbo was a waste of time with this setup.
Dont forget these rally homologation specials have to be relatively flexible as you need good mid range torque on a rally car, this was especially so once the FIA started to put smaller turbo restrictors on the cars with the last GroupA turbo cars having 34mm restrictors, a big laggy turbo was a waste of time with this setup.
| Pakin | 05-02-2004 10:17 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mopho[/i]
[B] Huh? :huh:
4WD means that a car is front or rear wheel drive until the driver (or computer I suppose) changes it to drive all four wheels- Like a Ford pick up Truck
AWD means the car always powers all four wheels regardless-like a Subaru
Has nothing to do with weight distribution
Rally Cars are AWD [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, this is confusing now.
Whenever it be some reason that we classify 4WD [b]the same[/b] as AWD I would not know. I don't visit the Motorsports Forum on a daily basis. This seems to be the case during searches and whatnot.
To note, this 4WD you speak of is not the same as the ones used in the WRC (according to when they say "4WD").
About the weight distribution thing. I was watching the WRC (recently the NZ) when Nicky Grist was explaining about how the rally cars hold their ground, by swapping to the 4WD system instead of the factory car's existing, to better place the weight accordingly to a near 50/50. I have no idea what this system is like or how much does it weigh all across. That is the point of why I created this thread.
Again I'm a n00b on all this, assume your talking to someone who knows nothing :)
-paK +3
[B] Huh? :huh:
4WD means that a car is front or rear wheel drive until the driver (or computer I suppose) changes it to drive all four wheels- Like a Ford pick up Truck
AWD means the car always powers all four wheels regardless-like a Subaru
Has nothing to do with weight distribution
Rally Cars are AWD [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, this is confusing now.
Whenever it be some reason that we classify 4WD [b]the same[/b] as AWD I would not know. I don't visit the Motorsports Forum on a daily basis. This seems to be the case during searches and whatnot.
To note, this 4WD you speak of is not the same as the ones used in the WRC (according to when they say "4WD").
About the weight distribution thing. I was watching the WRC (recently the NZ) when Nicky Grist was explaining about how the rally cars hold their ground, by swapping to the 4WD system instead of the factory car's existing, to better place the weight accordingly to a near 50/50. I have no idea what this system is like or how much does it weigh all across. That is the point of why I created this thread.
Again I'm a n00b on all this, assume your talking to someone who knows nothing :)
-paK +3
| Onederer | 05-02-2004 10:58 PM |
i think the most relevant question in this thread is...
What the heck does the +#(i.e.-paK +3) mean in paK's sig????:banana:
What the heck does the +#(i.e.-paK +3) mean in paK's sig????:banana:
| Mopho | 05-03-2004 12:45 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pakin [/i]
[B]Ok, this is confusing now.
Whenever it be some reason that we classify 4WD [b]the same[/b] as AWD I would not know. I don't visit the Motorsports Forum on a daily basis. This seems to be the case during searches and whatnot.
To note, this 4WD you speak of is not the same as the ones used in the WRC (according to when they say "4WD").
About the weight distribution thing. I was watching the WRC (recently the NZ) when Nicky Grist was explaining about how the rally cars hold their ground, by swapping to the 4WD system instead of the factory car's existing, to better place the weight accordingly to a near 50/50. I have no idea what this system is like or how much does it weigh all across. That is the point of why I created this thread.
Again I'm a n00b on all this, assume your talking to someone who knows nothing :)
-paK +3 [/B][/QUOTE]
It is kind of semantics, most companies refer to 4wd as a system that is on trucks and SUV's etc, where it is 2wd most of the time and you shift it into 4wd when you need it
AWD is when the car is permantly 4wd -"the beauty of all wheel drive"
Most car magazines and advertising in the US refers to it like this
Technically you could refer to an awd car as 4wd, (and vice versa) since all four wheels are driven, and a lot of people refer to an awd as 4wd, so maybe that is why you are confused. Perhaps in Europe it is different.
On rally cars all 4 wheels are driven all the time (simplified) and in some WRCars computers control how much power goes to each wheel individually (again, this is a simplified version of how it works)
If I recall correctly it was the Nicky Grist segment with the Ford Focus ( though I was not paying too close attention) If it is what I am thinking of, he was refering to the swap to awd from the street cars fwd set up and how the FWD production car understeers in the corners. The Focus also uses a lonitudinal gear box meaning the gear box meets the engine at a 90 degree angle -they meet like an L (it may be a backwards L- I don't remember) which helps with weight distribution but not all the WRC cars use that set up.
Maybe John Felstead knows better what you are refering to.
[B]Ok, this is confusing now.
Whenever it be some reason that we classify 4WD [b]the same[/b] as AWD I would not know. I don't visit the Motorsports Forum on a daily basis. This seems to be the case during searches and whatnot.
To note, this 4WD you speak of is not the same as the ones used in the WRC (according to when they say "4WD").
About the weight distribution thing. I was watching the WRC (recently the NZ) when Nicky Grist was explaining about how the rally cars hold their ground, by swapping to the 4WD system instead of the factory car's existing, to better place the weight accordingly to a near 50/50. I have no idea what this system is like or how much does it weigh all across. That is the point of why I created this thread.
Again I'm a n00b on all this, assume your talking to someone who knows nothing :)
-paK +3 [/B][/QUOTE]
It is kind of semantics, most companies refer to 4wd as a system that is on trucks and SUV's etc, where it is 2wd most of the time and you shift it into 4wd when you need it
AWD is when the car is permantly 4wd -"the beauty of all wheel drive"
Most car magazines and advertising in the US refers to it like this
Technically you could refer to an awd car as 4wd, (and vice versa) since all four wheels are driven, and a lot of people refer to an awd as 4wd, so maybe that is why you are confused. Perhaps in Europe it is different.
On rally cars all 4 wheels are driven all the time (simplified) and in some WRCars computers control how much power goes to each wheel individually (again, this is a simplified version of how it works)
If I recall correctly it was the Nicky Grist segment with the Ford Focus ( though I was not paying too close attention) If it is what I am thinking of, he was refering to the swap to awd from the street cars fwd set up and how the FWD production car understeers in the corners. The Focus also uses a lonitudinal gear box meaning the gear box meets the engine at a 90 degree angle -they meet like an L (it may be a backwards L- I don't remember) which helps with weight distribution but not all the WRC cars use that set up.
Maybe John Felstead knows better what you are refering to.
| grinner | 05-18-2004 02:56 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mopho [/i]
[B]
No one is blaming anyone.
Ford, Toyota, Lancia, VW, Audi, Opel and Mazda also built group A homolagated cars that were not exactly succesful street cars. As the competition grew, they had to comprimise the street cars by adding all the trick bits, which drove up the cost and reduced the drivability of the cars for anyone short of boy racers who could not afford the car anyway. The cars did not sell and car companies stopped producing them (remember the VW Rallye Golf, Mazda 323GTX and the Toyota GT4?) The Evo and WRX only survived because of the Japanese home market liking cars like that
[/B][/QUOTE] You are wrong about the Mazda 323 GTX/GTR/GTA/GTAe... the reason that Mazda stopped building them is the same reason that Mazda got out of WRC... Ford BOUGHT THEM. Ford didn't want to have a competitor who was in the 'Family'. So Ford KILLED the GTX/GTR. The Mazda 323 GTX/GTR was built up to 1993 when the takeover was completed. Heck, the 1992 323 GTA and the GTAe had a cool trick X-Trac 6 speed gearbox designed expressly for WRC. But wasn't put into the car because of Ford buying the company
[B]
No one is blaming anyone.
Ford, Toyota, Lancia, VW, Audi, Opel and Mazda also built group A homolagated cars that were not exactly succesful street cars. As the competition grew, they had to comprimise the street cars by adding all the trick bits, which drove up the cost and reduced the drivability of the cars for anyone short of boy racers who could not afford the car anyway. The cars did not sell and car companies stopped producing them (remember the VW Rallye Golf, Mazda 323GTX and the Toyota GT4?) The Evo and WRX only survived because of the Japanese home market liking cars like that
[/B][/QUOTE] You are wrong about the Mazda 323 GTX/GTR/GTA/GTAe... the reason that Mazda stopped building them is the same reason that Mazda got out of WRC... Ford BOUGHT THEM. Ford didn't want to have a competitor who was in the 'Family'. So Ford KILLED the GTX/GTR. The Mazda 323 GTX/GTR was built up to 1993 when the takeover was completed. Heck, the 1992 323 GTA and the GTAe had a cool trick X-Trac 6 speed gearbox designed expressly for WRC. But wasn't put into the car because of Ford buying the company
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét