Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The FIA World Council has approved limits on World Champoionship rally teams? choice of third drivers and proposed dramatic changes that include a new vehicle formula, a fundamental alteration to the recce system and an increase in the size of the calendar for 2006.

Today?s World Council meeting has confirmed that from 2004, no works team will be allowed to employ a third driver who has finished in the top three of a World Championship rally in the previous three years. The change will force both Citroen and Peugeot to change their driver line-ups next season.

Its proposals are even more radical. Recommended changes include a ban on testing outside one country, a ban on telemetry, a switch to naturally aspirated engines and the adoption of ?1000 Pistes?-type practising. Rather like the famed French rally of the 1970s and 1980s, drivers will practise stages in their rally cars. The FIA suggests that this should be in the afternoon for the following morning. Rallies will be extended to four days, but the abolition of conventional recces will save an estimated three days per rally. Sealing of more components and a control tyre are also recommended

In view of the time saving, the World Council has suggested that the World Championship could be expanded to 16 rallies.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>The current WRC rules allow N/A engines up to 3.0L and 6
>cyl, so that seems logical, but that is just a guess.
actually Brian the 2,0 motor with the tubo coeff. makes it in the 3 to 3.5 liter weight and whell and everything else catagory.
Back in the GpB days Audi sleeved down their 2150cc or so motor down to make the the beast fit in the max 3.5l class.

Since most of the world seems to be fairly content with 1.6l motors and most see 2.0 motors as a reasonably large enough motor, and there has been in the past variable sales or luxury taxes at already 1.6 or 2.0 AND as the Sooper 1600s are already quicker than strangled GpN 2.0 turbo cars, I would bet a nickle that the class limit will be 2.0l.
There was in the past some suggestion of this from some in management at Ford motorsport by John Wheeler. 1996? '97?
His old proposal was:
2,0l N.A. since that represents what 99.5% of gas cars are
Standard gearbox from min production run of 25,000.
No replacement box for event, ie sealed box.

He conceded that in terms of both power and reliabilty there would be a season or maybe two of "adjustment" before the similar levels of performance would return.

He said "I have only to suggest that we look at Japanese street motorcycles to see that similar levels of output in normally aspirated motors in series production can be achieved and in fact superior levels in terms of gearbox performance and reliabilty at reasonable costs. it is all a question of production numbers."

For more than 25 years many in Europe with experience have been worried about the decreasing numbers of participants, and increasing irrelevance to mainline production, aside from advertising hype.

Let's keep the eyes peeled, and wonder is this something for the US?






John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
>and increasing irrelevance to mainline production, aside
>from advertising hype.
>
>
>John Vanlandingham
>Seattle, WA. 98168
>

I thought the purpose of the A8 (wrc cars) was to allow teams to go away from mainline production. Thus manufacturers without a turbo AWD street car could compete, increasing the number of manufacturers involved. Also, by loosening homolagation restrictions the cars could be made more exotic and exciting, and theoretically more fun to watch. It has supposedly worked as there are many more manufacturers involved now than when GrA was the standard, and speeds have reached near GrB levels. I heard a number of long time rally people describe the GrA era as "boring" compared to GrB and WRC.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>
>>and increasing irrelevance to mainline production, aside
>>from advertising hype.
>>
>>
>>John Vanlandingham
>>Seattle, WA. 98168
>>
>
>I thought the purpose of the A8 (wrc cars) was to allow
>teams to go away from mainline production.
WRC cars are a subset within A8, you can build and homologate a car under the min 2500 identical unit rule under GpA OR build a WRC car from a 25000 series run and then do the kits of whatever it is 25 or something


Thus
>manufacturers without a turbo AWD street car could compete,
>increasing the number of manufacturers involved.
But by that same logic even more could compete if there were NO turbos.

Also, by
>loosening homolagation restrictions the cars could be made
>more exotic and exciting, and theoretically more fun to
>watch. It has supposedly worked as there are many more
>manufacturers involved now than when GrA was the standard,
>and speeds have reached near GrB levels.
The cars had matched GpB stage times by 1989, it is documented, I could dig for a link. They exceeded it by 1990 when 40mm was the rule on restrictors (sorta the reason I like the cars of that era, Sierra Cosworth 4x4, Misterbitchy Gaylant, Subarat Legacy, Lancia Deltona, Toieletta Sillycar)and that was achieved by allowing alternate )read X-trac) boxes.

I heard a number
>of long time rally people describe the GrA era as "boring"
>compared to GrB and WRC.
well they matched the stage times but the way it was done was different, I have seen both when it counted, and the GpB cars were insane fast accelleration; the GpA cars were very very quick, but the difference were in better chassis, better diffs for more grip and better and larger discs and calipers.

I can't find the old French magazine were renault's competition cheif talks about the differences and why steel bodied GpA cars were quicker with hundreds of HP less. But that's what he said, so what does he know.

Dennis, listen to Wheeler, first year or so would be adjustment, then back to previous levels and by banning turbos and sealing very likely boxes costs would lower.
>
>Dennis Martin
>[email protected]
>920-432-4845





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
R2- 50...WAIT! Make a left!
Joined
·
258 Posts
Effects of Third Driver rule change

This effectively negates Sainz, Panizzi, & Rovanpera from the third car. Sainz is getting nixed where ever he goes.

Is this a move to promote younger drivers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
RE: Effects of Third Driver rule change

I became a Panizzi Brothers fan last year when they did the donut during a stage. Was that driver exuberance and an affirmation of life or just following the navvies instructions. How would those notes read?

My question is how will a ban of turbos affect US rallying? I'm assuming the no-turbo rule would be across all classes. Will our group N & A & Production classes follow? Will cheap turbo cars and motors be available for import? With such fast US stages and straights could Group 5 and cubic inches dominate?

2 more events...I vote for Mexico and a winter event in Canada. Do you still get free entry for crossing borders...rallying outside of your "home" country?

RCF
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top