Jump to content


Photo

WRC vs Group B


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:50

I understand it so that due to better tires/gearboxes/diffs etc. the modern WRC cars sets better stage times than Group B did.

But at what point did they start to do that?

And i believe i saw a clip where they stated that the stage record time on a gravel road to be by a group B car. This was during a WRC event at that stage. Does anyone know if that clip is out on the net? it was a fast stage.

I demand sources!

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


Advertisement

#2 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 13:08

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

#3 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:13

I don`t se any sources. :)

And i doubt it only took one year. the Intergrale had only 265hp pluss it was heavier.

"In compliance with the rule changes, Lancia developed a rally car much more closely related to the Delta production car. The engine was mounted transversely in front of the driver and although Turbocharged, produced a more civilized 265 bhp. "

http://www.ultimatec...S4-Group-B.html

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


#4 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:19

They are all awesme.

#5 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,443 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:23

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


I'm absolutely stunned by these figures. Especially considering Group B was banned on safety grounds.

#6 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:33

265hp and 1230kg is half the power to weight ratio.

#7 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:47

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


#8 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,947 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:59

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


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

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.


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.

#9 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 August 2012 - 15:06

Would a Group B car do as good as a current WRC car on say Spa-Franchorchamps, a race track with lots of fast stretches and such? I guess not so because of lack of downforce there too is it?

#10 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 15:17

In F1 they bring out new regulations every year to try and slow the cars down.

A mid 1980's F1 car had on full boost almost 1500bhp in qualifying trim
In 1986 (the final year of F1 turbos and Group B) Alain Prost qualified on pole in monaco with 1:22.627
In 2006, with just over half as much power Kimi Raikkonens pole time was 1:13.664

After the introduction of Group A for '87, the next change was the introduction of the faster and more open WRC rules in '97.
The change to the current 1.6 turbo engines a couple of years ago has been the only real attempt to slow down the cars in 25 years


#11 ArnageWRC

ArnageWRC
  • Member

  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 15:26

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...... :lol:




#12 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 16:49

A pretty accurate summation.


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

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!

#13 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 16:52

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.


what is that source? And again its a opinion.

Is there really not a source on stage times?

Kosmic33.
Im only interested in good sources..

Everyone with some knowhow about cars knows that drivetrains, dampers and tires have evolved.

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


#14 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:19

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.

#15 skywing

skywing
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:30

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.

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

#16 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:36

There is tons of threads where people argue about this, posting all kinds of rubbish. i have tried to find out of this on my own.

If no one has a source with any good facts im not interested in hearing from them in this thread.

And im not going to bug some random dude named Evans that i know nothing about. If you know who he is you should do it. The members of this forum would appreciate that greatly.

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


#17 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 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. :)


THAT is nice. thank you.


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


#18 skywing

skywing
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:43

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.

There are stage times, for example here 1000 Lakes 1985 http://www.juwra.com...ge_winners.html and Rally Finland 2011 http://www.juwra.com...ge_winners.html But as you can see the stages are rarely the same every year. But average speeds can be used to do some comparison. :)

Oh you just edited :D

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


#19 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:46

Slowest stage Finnland: Year: 1987

SS34 Valkeakoski 3.06 km Kankkunen, Juha 2:08 86.06 km/h

Year: 1986
SS12 Valkeakoski 3.20 km Grundel, Karl 2:06 91.43 km/h

Thats actually very good for the 1987 car.

I bet/hope some of you will digg up some more impressive stuff. Proving Kosmic33 right in hes claims ;)


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


Advertisement

#20 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:55

Acropolis 1986
slowest stage

SS40 Pendagi 10.85 km Kankkunen, Juha 10:55 59.63 km/h

Acropolis 1987
SS22 Pendagi 1 10.80 km Biasion, Massimo 11:15 57.60 km/h

Thats gravel right?

Tarmac

Monte Carlo
Random stage


1984
SS21 Col de la Madone 1 18.00 km Bettega, Attilio 14:56 72.32 km/h


1986
SS26 Col de la Madone 1 18.00 km Salonen, Timo 13:33 79.70 km/h

1987
SS22 Col de la Madone 18.11 km Kankkunen, Juha 18:03 60.20 km/h

1988
SS18 Col de la Madone 1 18.00 km Ballet, Jean-Pierre 14:54 72.48 km/h

1989
SS15 Col de la Madone 1 18.38 km Biasion, Massimo 13:35 81.19 km/h

1991
SS22 Col de la Madone 1 18.46 km Delecour, Francois 15:29 71.53 km/h

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


#21 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 18:07

Monaco 1986

SS32 Col de Turini 2 22.40 km Toivonen, Henri 18:36 72.26 km/h

1992
SS19 Col de Turini 2 22.21 km Sainz, Carlos 16:05 82.86 km/h

#22 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,476 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 05 August 2012 - 18:22

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 shit to those who offer you help just because it doesn't meet your exact criteria.

Neil

#23 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 18:25

People are more helpful and nice than you might think.

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


#24 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 18:58

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 shit to those who offer you help just because it doesn't meet your exact criteria.

Neil

^This
At least he chose a rally with good consistent conditions for his comparisons.
You never see variable weather on the Monte

Also Mads, since you are a member of the Autosport forum, posting about rallying, I expected that you might know that Autosports only rally reporter is David Evans!

Maybe you should go back to talking to yourself in your Pikes Peak thread......

#25 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 19:07

The stage times with the same distance seems good enough for me.

Im guessing same weather.

1984
SS21 Col de la Madone 1 18.00 km Bettega, Attilio 14:56 72.32 km/h

Attilio Bettega drove a Lancia 037 Evo II
Posted Image


1986
SS26 Col de la Madone 1 18.00 km Salonen, Timo 13:33 79.70 km/h

Timo Salonen drove a Peugeot 205 T16 E2
Posted Image


1988
SS18 Col de la Madone 1 18.00 km Ballet, Jean-Pierre 14:54 72.48 km/h
Ballet, Jean-Pierre drove a Peugeot 205 GTI
Posted Image

Another good page.
http://www.rallye-in...le.asp?driver=6

1984 vs 1988 is a good indicator of the improvements made.

Lancia 037 Evo II specs:
http://www.flickr.co...75076/lightbox/


#26 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 19:11

Angry angry angry


Let it go.. your gain nothing. back to OT please.

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


#27 kosmic33

kosmic33
  • Member

  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 19:15

The Monte Carlo is in January and weather can range from a Snow Blizzard to sunshine. It is the worst possible event to use for a comparison!

Also, why are you comparing a Group B car with an unknown driver in a 1.9 non-turbo 205?
That is like comparing the times of the Ford RS200 Group B with the times of some guy in a Ford Fiesta 1.2 that he built in his garage......

#28 Konsta

Konsta
  • Member

  • 1,768 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 05 August 2012 - 19:34

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


True yes but then again...you could here them coming a kilometer away. When they passed you - goosebumps. Nothing short of amazing. In 1987 when the first group A cars came it was such a downer - quiet, slow, bland.

#29 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 457 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 22:47

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!

I've stepped on the pedals of an MG once and it was mind boggling. I didn't turn the wheel in anger and I didn't go full throttle, but it's a beast of a machine and I wouldn't race in it for the world. A modern 300bhp awd fiesta wrc though? I certainly would, and from what I've seen, it's even faster on most stuff!

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


#30 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 August 2012 - 03:09

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 ?



#31 NoDivergence

NoDivergence
  • Member

  • 1,862 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:07

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 ?


300 hp but 500+ ft lb of torque... lol