WRC vs Group B

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 12:54.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 14:30.

It took the group a cars that replaced group b 1 year of development to be able to cover the same stages faster.

A proper period (1980's tyres/brakes/suspension) spec group b car easily would be slower than the r3 cars that contest the British Championships and probably slower than the wrc academy cars too!

I read an article a few years ago that said that over one of the stages in portugal that has not changed significantly the WRC's were 8 seconds per km faster

It took the group a cars that replaced group b 1 year of development to be able to cover the same stages faster.

A proper period (1980's tyres/brakes/suspension) spec group b car easily would be slower than the r3 cars that contest the British Championships and probably slower than the wrc academy cars too!

I read an article a few years ago that said that over one of the stages in portugal that has not changed significantly the WRC's were 8 seconds per km faster

This is the question many people want to know the answer to. Well, it depends. On a racetrack, up Pikes Peak, or on fast, sweeping roads like those used in the 1980s, the Group B car would win. On tight, winding stages like those run today (due to the maximum allowable average speed of 120km/h), the WRC car would be quicker. The Lancia's significant power and weight advantages would give it the edge on faster roads, while the Focus' chassis and handling are worlds better than any Group B car, giving it the nod for any modern rally.

In short, the development of the Group B cars was mainly focused on getting as much power as possible out of the engine, while the designers of the current crop of rally cars pay much more attention to the chassis. It's a classic case of brute force versus finesse.

The only thing a group b car did well was accelerate

1. Their handling was atrocious.

2. Their brakes were awful

3. The tyres of the time were, by modern standards, wooden.

These three things are what makes a rallycar fast, not power

A pretty accurate summation.


However, they were far more spectacular, and were louder. And more importantly; they made children scared......

http://groupb.storml...comparison.html

Sounds very close. "Handling" - or more correctly, the ability to carry more speed into corners or start accelerating more soon while exiting - generally improves year on year.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 16:53.

Kosmic33.
Im only interested in good sources..

Look, I'm certain it was an Autosport article written by David Evans that said it only took 1 year for the Group A cars to beat the Group B stage times so why dont you send him an email or something and he will confirm it for you

There is not a source for 1980's stage times, in fact, you'd be doing well to find stage times from an event 10 years ago......
Also, there are very few stages that remain exactly the same as they were then. and I mean less than 10 in the world.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 17:40.

kosmic, are you aware of http://www.juwra.com/? In my opinion a really comprehensive source of WRC statistics, starting from 1973.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 17:42.

THAT is nice. thank you.

Beeing looking at it just a bit and there is no stage times. just overall. So if they had the same stage composition at one time we can compare.

Edited by skywing, 05 August 2012 - 17:44.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 17:47.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 18:17.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 18:25.

Yeh, and that's useful given that you know exactly what the weather was every year and every other variable in play.... not. Don't be surprised if you don't get the help you're looking for when you keep coming back as an arrogant **** to those who offer you help just because it doesn't meet your exact criteria.

Neil

Angry angry angry

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 August 2012 - 19:14.

The only thing a group b car did well was accelerate

1. Their handling was atrocious.

2. Their brakes were awful

3. The tyres of the time were, by modern standards, wooden.

These three things are what makes a rallycar fast, not power

Not just children!

I've drove a 205 T16 recently and it was definitely an eye opener!
Frightening to drive but at the same time I can see why the drivers loved them.
Must've been a fantastic time to be a rally driver!

Edited by Morbus, 05 August 2012 - 22:51.

im sure thats partly because there lieing about the 300bhp, unless the fia does random dyno tests.

historic ish hill climbs and rallys might give you another benchmark comparison ?