102 replies to this topic

[jeze]

I've been wondering for quite a while how good times a professional racecar driver would be able to drive a Citroën C4 WRC or Ford Focus WRC on a real racetrack. Could it be somewhere between DTM and WTCC pace? I've never heard anyone trying it on a track, but for a couple of excursions my Mäkinen in the 90's, for example at a Marlboro Masters demo in Zandvoort, in 1999. The rally cars have such high downforce that I have no doubt they would be able to take many corners falt, but what I doubt is whether the horsepower would be enough to overhaul a DTM car?

[Matt Somers]

I'd imagine their issues on a circuit would be top speed as the gearing will be relitively low for rallying.

[jeze]

I'd imagine their issues on a circuit would be top speed as the gearing will be relitively low for rallying.

I think so too, maybe even a bit lower than a WTCC car? Anyway, they can reach 130 mph in Finland (on gravel), so the gearing could surely be tuned to suit a normal racetrack? There's still quite good horsepower in it, so I wouldn't discount it completely!

[alfista]

I've been wondering for quite a while how good times a professional racecar driver would be able to drive a Citroën C4 WRC or Ford Focus WRC on a real racetrack. Could it be somewhere between DTM and WTCC pace? I've never heard anyone trying it on a track, but for a couple of excursions my Mäkinen in the 90's, for example at a Marlboro Masters demo in Zandvoort, in 1999. The rally cars have such high downforce that I have no doubt they would be able to take many corners falt, but what I doubt is whether the horsepower would be enough to overhaul a DTM car?

DTM car has something like 480 HP while WRC has about 330. WRC may accelerate better, especially from slow turns, thanks to its huge torque (600 Nm) and 4WD. Then WRC car weights 1230 kg (IIRC) while DTM is only 1010-1050 (depending on age). DTM car has much less drag and lower center of gravity, so it will be miles faster on straights and through quick turns and over the whole lap.
I even doubt if WRC is faster over the lap than WTCC. IMHO the latters better aerodynamics should make it faster, at least on longer circuit. In Monaco or Pau WRC may have some chance but definitely not at Monza or Silverstone.

[Anssi]

This is very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia..../Henri_Toivonen

During the Portuguese rally, Toivonen is often reported to have tested his Delta S4 at the Estoril circuit and to have set a fastest lap time that would have qualified him in sixth position at the 1986 Portuguese Grand Prix.

To me that's nothing short of amazing. I found it hard to believe at first, but then again, who am I to say it's not true.

That was a Group B rally car and not a WRC rally car.



There is another interesting thing in that article:

In his Formula One test for March Grand Prix, Toivonen managed to lap over a second quicker than the team's regular driver.

Almost needless to say, this man was a legend already back then, and it is a shame death took him so early.

Edited by Anssi, 20 August 2009 - 09:14.

[cheapracer]

This is very interesting:
To me that's nothing short of amazing. I found it hard to believe at first, but then again, who am I to say it's not true.
That was a Group B rally car and not a WRC rally car.
There is another interesting thing in that article:
Almost needless to say, this man was a legend already back then, and it is a shame death took him so early.

Don't want to burst your bubble too much (I'm a big Henri fan by the way) but the Portugese test was in a 6 - 700hp Group B with big aero and 4WD of course.

As for the March test, it's the same old same old - usually the regular driver goes out and sets a basic time, comes in and reports to the team track conditions, any car problems etc. and leaves. The time is nothing special and the test driver may have set a time that the newbies should beat or they ain't worth pursuing. Rossi beat Schumachers time under the same conditions - and so did 6 others on the same day, Senna beat Palmer's time by nearly 2 seconds but Frank Williams didnt sign him - 2 seconds and Palmer wasn't sacked on the spot and Senna signed to drive? You figure it out.

Anyway, I would think that Henri at least beat the target time but we aren't to know by how much is or inn't impressive.

[Anssi]

Didn't I say it was a Group B car? No bubble to burst there - I still find it difficult to believe that a rally car can be that competitive compared to F1 cars in a racetrack. The F1 cars were designed to be raced in the racetrack while obviously the rally car was not. 600 horsepower or not, it's hard to believe it could qualify that high in a F1 race. It was in 1986, the F1 cars weren't exactly low on aero or horsepower!


And about the F1 test time... Rossi and Schumacher? Erm, sorry, but you didn't add anything that would make Toivonen's test time less good I don't claim to know any more about it than what has been published about it. If you have more information about it, like, insider information, then please share it here.

Edited by Anssi, 20 August 2009 - 09:56.

[ryan86]

There's a Jeremy Clarkson video where he races three Fords (a road car, WRC Focus and Stewart GP) round Silverstone with McRae and Herbert I believe, don't know how staged it was though, but maybe something could be worked out from that.

Edited by ryan86, 20 August 2009 - 10:00.

[jb_128]

There's a Jeremy Clarkson video where he races three Fords (a road car, WRC Focus and Stewart GP) round Silverstone with McRae and Herbert I believe, don't know how staged it was though, but maybe something could be worked out from that.

Here it is:

It even has the lap times (Silverstone GP, semi wet, standing start).

170 bhp Ford road car: 2:54.81
Ford WRC: 2:10.64
Stewart F1: 1:33.82

That means the WRC laptime is about 140% of the F1 laptime.
Using Hockenheim as reference DTM laptime is about 125% of F1.
And based on Oschersleben WTCC laptime is about 118% of DTM.

Based on this data it seems it might be possible for a WRC car to beat a WTCC (125% * 118% =148% for WTCC vs F1 on a hypothetical track made up of parts of semi wet Silverstone, Hockenheim and Oschersleben ).

Edited by jb_128, 20 August 2009 - 12:06.

[jeze]

Here it is:

It even has the lap times (Silverstone GP, semi wet, standing start).

170 bhp Ford road car: 2:54.81
Ford WRC: 2:10.64
Stewart F1: 1:33.82

That means the WRC laptime is about 140% of the F1 laptime.
Using Hockenheim as reference DTM laptime is about 125% of F1.
And based on Oschersleben WTCC laptime is about 118% of DTM.

Based on this data it seems it might be possible for a WRC car to beat a WTCC (125% * 118% =148% for WTCC vs F1 on a hypothetical track made up of parts of semi wet Silverstone, Hockenheim and Oschersleben ).

The WTCC cars are on average 40-45 % slower than an F1 car, depending on track layout, which probably means it'd be a very close shave between those cars. The WRC would steamroller Monaco or Singapore, but probably wouldn't stand a chance at Monza or Spa with the horsepoer required.

[PNSD]

I remember always hearing that story about Estroil, but never really found the evidence. I too palmed it off as pure BS but apparently its true. Thanks for that info!

Its no wonder the Group B's were banned. Lovley machines but abit too lovley!

This is a question ive have wondered since the old Gran Turismo days of the PS1. Back then like many young boys one of the main motoring icons was either the Impreza or Lancer, so naturally when enough credits were built up they were the first two choices and they seemed quite happy racing against GTR's lol. Only a game but got my mind going on the question!

[Seanspeed]

I remember always hearing that story about Estroil, but never really found the evidence. I too palmed it off as pure BS but apparently its true. Thanks for that info!

Its no wonder the Group B's were banned. Lovley machines but abit too lovley!

Well just cuz somebody else has heard of the story doesn't mean its true. I doubt anyone here knows for sure, and I certainly dont believe it for a second.

[Anssi]

I've heard that story about Toivonen a couple of times. I might try and find someone, perhaps from Finland, who could shed some light on that. As I said, I found it hard to believe that he could've taken 6th position in the starting grid of the F1 race. But then again, as I said, who am I to say it is not a true story. I'll try to see if I can find more information about that story from the rally experts or journalists here in Finland. Someone who knew Toivonen personally could perhaps be able to confirm whether the story is true or not.





As a side note, there was a time in the 1990's when the best F3000 cars would have qualified into the F1 race at Spa-Francorchamps.

The slowest F1 cars were like 5-7 seconds slower per lap than the polesitter. Can't remember the team now. Pacific?

But I think the best F3000 car would have been higher up the grid, not just ahead of 2 F1 cars, but even more. Can't remember the exact details, but at the time when I noticed that, it was a little bit of a shock. It would have been interesting to let them run in the same race.

[Victor_RO]

As a side note, there was a time in the 1990's when the best F3000 cars would have qualified into the F1 race at Spa-Francorchamps.

The slowest F1 cars were like 5-7 seconds slower per lap than the polesitter. Can't remember the team now. Pacific?

But I think the best F3000 car would have been higher up the grid, not just ahead of 2 F1 cars, but even more. Can't remember the exact details, but at the time when I noticed that, it was a little bit of a shock. It would have been interesting to let them run in the same race.

The Pacifics were constantly 7-8 seconds slower than the rest of the field in 1995. The Fortis were even slower. So it's quite likely that a well-sorted F3000 car could have beaten them on pace.

[FlatOverCrest]

Well just cuz somebody else has heard of the story doesn't mean its true. I doubt anyone here knows for sure, and I certainly dont believe it for a second.

Sean,

Phil Berg a motor journalist quotes this event aspart of his contribution to the article on 50 years of Autoweek...

I dont think he would have put this to record unless there was some pretty solid truth to the event.

PHIL BERG, 1981-89, is a freelance journalist who lives in Michigan.

The FIA 1982 Group B rules superseded those that led Porsche to use weight-saving balsa shift knobs for 917s and spawned 959 supercars (concept name: Grüppe B).

Rallying embraced the formula with the physics-defying Lancia 037 and Delta S4 (a street-legal car that Henri Toivonen drove at the Grand Prix track in Estoril, Portugal, fast enough to qualify sixth for the 1986 Formula One race there), Peugeot 205 T16, Renault 5 Turbo, Ford RS200 and Audi Sport Quattro. The penalty for violating laws of physics was multiple deaths in Por-tugal and the loss of Toivonen in Corsica, a cost that ended Group B after the four-day 800-mile Olympus Rally in Washington in 1986. There, Markku Alen and Juha Kankkunen decided the world title on the very last mile of wet gravel, hooking wheels inside ditches, sliding, spinning and banging the 200-foot-tall-pine-blanketed earth, witnessed by almost nobody. I was there.

Article -
http://www.autoweek..../free/197124336

[Slowinfastout]

I take it it means that this 4wd Lancia would have beaten Senna for the win in 1985 in the heavy rain?

That story doesn't make any sense to me...

[Seanspeed]

Sean,

Phil Berg a motor journalist quotes this event aspart of his contribution to the article on 50 years of Autoweek...

I dont think he would have put this to record unless there was some pretty solid truth to the event.

Even the most reputable journalists get it wrong sometimes.

Its just not a believable scenario.

[alfista]

Even the most reputable journalists get it wrong sometimes.

Its just not a believable scenario.

Nelson Piquet was sixth there with an average of 198,7 kph. How on earth should Lancia beat that? Even if it had 700 HP, F1 had no less but was at least one third lighter.

Edited by alfista, 20 August 2009 - 19:33.

[FlatOverCrest]

Even the most reputable journalists get it wrong sometimes.
Its just not a believable scenario.

OK...what is it exactly that you cannot get your head around? I have provided some extra data below which may help explain why this is easily feasible...

Remember the engines used in Group B, were all using the Turbo's fom F1 engines. In the 1980's a Group B car actually accelerated faster than an F1 car, it had more technology on board than an F1 car.
Also bear in mind the track layout.



The Delta S4 was recognised as the most powerful Group B car of the day. Official figures were 550BHP for the car, whereas most suspected it had the ability to be tweaked to over 700BHP..

The Lancia Delta S4 is a Group B rally car that competed in the World Rally Championship in 1985 and 1986, until Group B cars were banned from competition by the FIA. The car replaced and was an evolution of the Lancia 037 Monte Carlo. The S4 took full advantage of the Group B regulations, and featured a midship-mounted engine and all wheel drive for superior traction and handling. The car's 1759 cc four cylinder engine combined supercharging and turbocharging to reduce turbo lag at low RPM. Officially the car produced 550 horsepower (410 kW). Independent figures show the S4 could accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) on gravel in just 2.3 seconds. An engine capacity multiple of 1.4 was applied to forced induction engines by the FIA and the choice of 1759 cc put the S4 in the under 2500 cc class which allowed a min weight of 890 kg (1,962 lb). The combined super/turbocharger system was a development of the 037 engine that produced 350 hp

A car that acclerates 0-62mph ON GRAVEL in 2.3 seconds..... with 4 wheel drive, and all the early electronic aids and devices they were using at the time to get traction down, shows easily that these cars were at the very least equal to many (if not the fastest) F1 cars of their time.

So with the above evidence, why is is so hard to not consider the viability of an equivalent 6th place on the grid of the 1986 Grand Prix?

Considering how much and how widely this was reported at the time, I see no reason why somone would make this up? Surely if they were going to make it up, it would have been far more fantastic to have been in the Top 3 on the grid rather than 6th?

Research is a wonderful thing and I encourage you, if you still dont believe to do some research of your own and you may be surprisd at what you dig up, which all of us I am sure would enjoy reading. Jut to be clear, that is not meant in any way shape or form as sarcasm, I genuinely enjoy reading some of the data that people have bothered to researc and then choose to share here, rather than the over abundance of posts that simple say "what a load of crap, I dont believe it".

[DOF_power]

The story isn't true, simple.
It's isn't mentioned by any credible source.

One version I've heard was that they compared it to the 85 (rain) lap times and it was done on the shorter version of the track.

Edited by DOF_power, 20 August 2009 - 19:17.

[FlatOverCrest]

Nelson Piquet was sixth there with an average of 198,7 kph. How on earth should Lancia beat that? Even if it had 700 HP, F1 had no less but was at least one third lighter.

Personally I would have thought traction....

But as I said to Sean... this would be a very interesting project to investigate, if someone has the time to take it on... I would be very interested to hear the results.

[FlatOverCrest]

The story isn't true, simple.
It's isn't mentioned by any credible source.

One version I've heard was that they compared it to the 85 (rain) lap times and it was done on the shorter version of the track.

Then take it on DOF....

Contact the records Department at Estoril, try and track down members of the Lancia team, photographers, anyone that might have been involved...

We can have our very own "Autosport Mythbusters" thread.....

But simple pulling out a statement "The story simply isnt true" without any backed up data is merely an opinion and not a statement of fact...

[Ogami musashi]

The story isn't true, simple.
It's isn't mentioned by any credible source.

One version I've heard was that they compared it to the 85 (rain) lap times and it was done on the shorter version of the track.

Yeah that's unbeliveable from many points, the power to weight ratio, the drag, the downforce (relative to the weight), the tires etc..how could a rally car (be it a group B) be faster that the 505 kg F1 of those times?

I searched a lot on this occurence but didn't find anything else but toivonen talking about this lap in one youtuve video (where i said he would have qualified 5th).

[DOF_power]

Then take it on DOF....

Contact the records Department at Estoril, try and track down members of the Lancia team, photographers, anyone that might have been involved...

We can have our very own "Autosport Mythbusters" thread.....

But simple pulling out a statement "The story simply isnt true" without any backed up data is merely an opinion and not a statement of fact...

It's B* pure and simple, and there's no real proof.

[highdownforce]

Contact the records Department at Estoril, try and track down members of the Lancia team, photographers, anyone that might have been involved...

If you guys feel compelled to:

Circuito do Estoril

Av. Alfredo César Torres
Apartado 49
2646 - 901 Alcabideche
PORTUGAL

Telefone: +351 21 460 95 00
Fax: +351 21 460 23 86
E-mail: dep.comercial@circuito-estoril.pt

[DOF_power]

Yeah that's unbeliveable from many points, the power to weight ratio, the drag, the downforce (relative to the weight), the tires etc..how could a rally car (be it a group B) be faster that the 505 kg F1 of those times?

I searched a lot on this occurence but didn't find anything else but toivonen talking about this lap in one youtuve video (where i said he would have qualified 5th).

Rally cars did have good 0 to 100 acceleration tough.

[FlatOverCrest]

It's B* pure and simple, and there's no real proof.

So go find it... prove its BS?

Or do you prefer us to think, because you say it's BS we should all just accept that and agree with you?

[FlatOverCrest]

If you guys feel compelled to:

Cheers HDF.... so who is going to email them? anyone want to take this one on?

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 20 August 2009 - 19:31.

[DOF_power]

So go find it... prove its BS?

Or do you prefer us to think, because you say it's BS we should all just accept that and agree with you?

By what logic could a WRC car beat an F1 car in the dry ?!

[FlatOverCrest]

By what logic could a WRC car beat an F1 car in the dry ?!

We are discussing the fastest Group B car of its time, versus an F1 car of the time. Rather than continue to throw negatives up, why not take on the task of emailing the circuit and maybe you might be surprised, not only at the information you gather, but also the contacts you may make.

It is things like this, that are the first step from going from the "Public Speccy" side of the fence to moving across the track and seeing things from the inside of the pits!

You never know, you might make a good rapport and freindship from the PR and maketing team at Estoril... you can say you are doing a small research projet on behalf of the Autosport forum community... next thing you know...you have found out once and for all if this is true or not... YOU personally will have learned some more motorsport information... and who knows, if you get to know them well enough, you may be able to swing an access pass for yourself for a F1 test day in the future, or pit passes for an FIA GT race or something....

Challenge yourself...you might be surprised at the results....

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 20 August 2009 - 19:41.

[jeze]

We are discussing the fastest Group B car of its time, versus an F1 car of the time. Rather than continue to throw negatives up, why not take on the task of emailing the circuit and maybe you might be surprised, not only at the information you gather, but also the contacts you may make.

It is things like this, that are the first step from going from the "Public Speccy" side of the fence to moving across the track and seeing things from the inside of the pits!

You never know, you might make a good rapport and freindship from the PR and maketing team at Estoril... you can say you are doing a small research projet on behalf of the Autosport forum community... next thing you know...you have found out once and for all if this is true or not... YOU personally will have learned some more motorsport information... and who knows, if you get to know them well enough, you may be able to swing an access pass for yourself for a F1 test day in the future, or pit passes for an FIA GT race or something....

Challenge yourself...you might be surprised at the results....

Actually, the F1 cars back then were 17 % of today's cars in performance, and I have difficulty to belive the Group B car would be so much faster than a DTM car of today, even taking horsepower into account. Bear in mind all fast sweepers of Estoril at the time, and I just can't see it! If it was the wet race times, well... Anyway, Guy Wilks ran a test between his regular Mitsubishi Group N against an Audi group B on a short circuit last year, and beat it, so I don't know...

[kismet]

Is Estoril one of those tracks that have several possible configurations - some of them shorter/faster than others? Because that could explain a lot.

[blackonyx4]

Actually, the F1 cars back then were 17 % of today's cars in performance, and I have difficulty to belive the Group B car would be so much faster than a DTM car of today, even taking horsepower into account. Bear in mind all fast sweepers of Estoril at the time, and I just can't see it! If it was the wet race times, well... Anyway, Guy Wilks ran a test between his regular Mitsubishi Group N against an Audi group B on a short circuit last year, and beat it, so I don't know...

I think that except GP2 cars (and F1 obviously), none of todays racing cars from any series would be able to qualify into 6th position for 1986 Portuguese Grand Prix in Estoril. I never believe in that story about Delta S4 that day and never will. It just isnt possible.

[BullHead]

Don't see it as being impossible, but Toivonen must have drove his boll*cks off for that.

Edited by BullHead, 20 August 2009 - 20:04.

[Sydark]

FoC, your restraint under pressure is admirable. I'd have told the nay-sayers where to go by now

[Slowinfastout]

I foud this googling the forum..

http://forums.autosp...t=#entry1771234

Quote from "Rallyworld" 1986/87, from their coverage of the 1986 Rally of Portugal:

"Picking a winner was difficult, near impossible, but Henri Toivonen was one of the favorites. Still on a high and enjoying it all so much, he relaxed one evening by taking Grand Prix driver Jonathan Palmer on a few laps of the Estoril track in his Delta S4. In pouring rain, and at night, the Finn startled Palmer somewhat with the sheer performance of the racer, some unofficial estimates suggesting that the lap times would have had them somewhere on the front half of the grid for the 'wet' 1985 Portuguese Formula One race."

Senna's pole in the rain in 1985 was 1.21.007
Senna's pole in the dry in 1986 was 1.16.673

Already that's a completely different story... now apart from the extra lard of the Delta S4 there's a whole Janathan Palmer in the car as well...

Hehe.. there's absolutely no way a car like the Lancia can be anywhere near F1 pace in the dry.... for instance a Prodrive-built 2002 BMS Scuderia Italia Ferrari 550 was on pole at Estoril with a 1:37 flat... that's 20 seconds away from Senna's '86 F1 pole..

[Panch]

In the Finnish forum there was this 29 page topic from the same subject. Shall we get 30 pages?



BTW. The story is not true.

[BMW_F1]

I think is slow..
a BMW M5/M6 is probably faster

[Slowinfastout]

Another time to compare and consider how fast F1s were going in '86:

Estoril 1000 Kilometres (2001) Audi R8 - Stefan Johansson (S) - 1:28.876 - 169.390 km/h

http://www.racingspo...2001-07-15.html

[alfista]

Toivonen being 6th on grid is IMO nice legend and will probably live forever but unfortunately it seems to be just a legend. I believe he was spectacular and fast there and could beat some laptimes from 1985 wet race (Senna's best was 1:44) but no more. Even Henri Toivonen and Lancia engineers couldn't beat laws of physic. S4 could accelerate faster than F1, that's highly possible thanks to 4WD. But its frontal area was at least double compared to F1 while drag coefficient was perhaps almost the same. Which combined to weaker engine (F1 had perhaps 1000+ HP in qualification) means Lancia could not achieve top speeds even near to F1. And imagine what Lancia's higher center of gravity and minimal downforce were doing to the car in Estoril's final fast 180-degree turn.
DTM pole laps from 1995-96 were 1:40 but I don't know if it was with or without temporary chicane. The car was Alfa 155 V6 (500 HP, 1060 kilos, 4WD, computerized everything), one of the most advanced touring cars ever.

[FlatOverCrest]

FoC, your restraint under pressure is admirable. I'd have told the nay-sayers where to go by now

;) not easy my friend...not easy...

But Bumper and Gilles have provided some excellent insight into the mindset of some posters which was of great use...

In all honesty, I simply have an interest and desire for people to truly get more involved in the sport rather than listen to "hear say". Not only do they learn more, but it also expands all of our knowledge bases...

With some of the data being produced above with just a little effort, it is really interesting to see if we can either prove or bust this myth... well done to those finding comparison lap times, its very interesting.

Bear in mind the fact that the track has been redesigned I believe in recent years? That may also affect comparison times...

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 20 August 2009 - 20:49.

[Seanspeed]

So go find it... prove its BS?

Or do you prefer us to think, because you say it's BS we should all just accept that and agree with you?

Well I think it should be up to the people claiming its true to suffer the burden of proof, right?

[FlatOverCrest]

Well I think it should be up to the people claiming its true to suffer the burden of proof, right?

If you cant be bothered then yes it would seem that is the case. However then the person looking to take this on has to sit back and think....

"Ok, so the person I am talking to about this clearly doesnt give a crap, otherwise they would be interested to prove the matter one way or another, and more importantly, do I really want to spend the time and the research to present the findings and if the answer is not what the person wants to hear they answer - "I still dont believe it and think its BS"... so I guess the responsibility could be argued to be on the shouldrs of either.."

The question is .... are YOU worth the effort for someone to spend time and energy on to prove a point in question? Only someone who is willing to take on the task can answer that.

I personally just thought it may be of interest to someone to take on the project and become famed for either officially proving the Myth/Legend is true or NOT.

Or... we can simply let the resting image/legend of Henri sit in all our minds as a brilliantly fast rally driver, and if he said he lapped Estoril in such a time... then so be it....

[alfista]

Bear in mind the fact that the track has been redesigned I believe in recent years? That may also affect comparison times...

Chicane was built in 1994. It increased the length only by 10 meters (from 4350 to 4360) but F1 pole time by nine seconds (1:11.4 to 1:20.6) in one year. So DTM cars were roughly 20 secs per lap slower than F1. Then in 2000 the track was reconstructed and has a length of 4183 meters now.

[Seanspeed]

If you cant be bothered then yes it would seem that is the case. However then the person looking to take this on has to sit back and think....

"Ok, so the person I am talking to about this clearly doesnt give a crap, otherwise they would be interested to prove the matter one way or another, and more importantly, do I really want to spend the time and the research to present the findings and if the answer is not what the person wants to hear they answer - "I still dont believe it and think its BS"... so I guess the responsibility could be argued to be on the shouldrs of either.."

The question is .... are YOU worth the effort for someone to spend time and energy on to prove a point in question? Only someone who is willing to take on the task can answer that.

I personally just thought it may be of interest to someone to take on the project and become famed for either officially proving the Myth/Legend is true or NOT.

Or... we can simply let the resting image/legend of Henri sit in all our minds as a brilliantly fast rally driver, and if he said he lapped Estoril in such a time... then so be it....

Thats just how burden of proof works. You cant just go around claiming 'x' and 'y' to be true with no proof, and then when doubters come along, tell them they need to prove you wrong. Just doesn't work like that.

I have my common sense, which tells me that an F1 car, with more power, more downforce, less drag, substantially less weight, and probably better tires would wipe a rally car(even a Group B one) to the floor on a full length Grand Prix track(ya know, the sort that F1 cars are built to go fast around).

I dont need anymore doubt than that for me to not believe it.

How about you go and prove it right?

Edited by Seanspeed, 20 August 2009 - 21:18.

[FlatOverCrest]

Thats just how burden of proof works. You cant just go around claiming 'x' and 'y' to be true with no proof, and then when doubters come along, tell them they need to prove you wrong. Just doesn't work like that.
How about you go and prove it right?

Er...firstly I personally never said to anyone they "needed to prove me wrong" as in case you did not read properly, I have not claimed this is FACT. I simply choose to believe it "MIGHT" have been possible.

However, there were plenty of people who were claiming outright that this was "BS" and never happened. So no your arguement does not tally back, the responsibility lies on someone who states a "FACT" in their opinion to prove that this "FACT" is in fact true...

So before you post above about people claiming x and y, make sure that they actually "claimed" X and Y in the first place.

Your last question brings me to my point above and as you asked me specifically I will answer from my perspective.

I may try to look into this some more BUT understand this... it is NOT to prove to you or to make you understand anything s your opinion really does not affect or matter to me a great deal... I am simply personally interested in this subject matter and may choose to try and find more information on this out of curiousity.

Hows that...right?

[Slowinfastout]

Ok..

let the facts speak for themselves:



1986 Portuguese GP - Qualification - P6 - Nelson Piquet - Williams FW11 - 1'18.180 / 200.307 km/h

http://upload.wikime...ection_Hall.jpg

Williams FW11 - Honda 1.5 Litre V6 turbo engine. The most powerful in F1 at the time producing, 800bhp at 12,000rpm and WELL over 1,000bhp in qualifying. 540 kg.

VS

Toivonen - Laptime between 1'18.180 and 1'18.360

http://upload.wikime...elta_S4_005.JPG

Lancia Delta S4 - 480 bhp / 358 KW @ 8400 rpm (double it if you want heh ) - 970 Kg (without driver).

HHhmmmm.......

[Seanspeed]

Er...firstly I personally never said to anyone they "needed to prove me wrong" as in case you did not read properly, I have not claimed this is FACT. I simply choose to believe it "MIGHT" have been possible.

However, there were plenty of people who were claiming outright that this was "BS" and never happened. So no your arguement does not tally back, the responsibility lies on someone who states a "FACT" in their opinion to prove that this "FACT" is in fact true...

So before you post above about people claiming x and y, make sure that they actually "claimed" X and Y in the first place.

Your last question brings me to my point above and as you asked me specifically I will answer from my perspective.

I may try to look into this some more BUT understand this... it is NOT to prove to you or to make you understand anything s your opinion really does not affect or matter to me a great deal... I am simply personally interested in this subject matter and may choose to try and find more information on this out of curiousity.

Hows that...right?

The way you were going about it, you certainly made it sound like you believed it. You were, in fact, saying its likely to be true considering some respected motorsport journalist said so and because of the 'acceleration' of the Group B car. Forgive me if I miscontrued your position.

And I realize this isn't a case of trying to prove one another wrong for any ego's sake or anything. I'm interested, too, but I simply dont believe it based on some simple common sense. And until somebody can come along and prove its true, I will continue to believe so and feel justified in believing so. I dont see the need to take time and investigate some claim that seems ridiculous in the first place. Again, the burden of proof is on the people who believe it to be true. If you're not one of them, then ok, but I'm certainly not.

[LB]

We are discussing the fastest Group B car of its time, versus an F1 car of the time.

Yes a F1 car that was producing 900hp in race trim and up to 1300hp in qualifying trim whilst weighing 540kg with good aerodynamics
or
900kg of Rallycar producing 700bhp shaped like a brick

oh bog off slowinfastout lol I was just doing that lol

[V8 Fireworks]

By what logic could a WRC car beat an F1 car in the dry ?!

On an icy tarmac rally stage perhaps, the poor visibility from the F1 and patchy road service would probably see the F1 car off in a picket fence a few corners in!