41 replies to this topic

[LouKayne]

I know this is most for Formula 1, but I wanted to see what other people in other Motorsports thought.

Just a forum for discussion on the next generation of World Rally Cars. What would you like to see changed in the technical aspects of the cars? The FIA had planned a technical overhaul of the formula in 2017 but have decided to wait because the recent additions of Hyundai and soon to be Toyota to the championship. For me I would Like to see:

- 1.6L Direct Injection Turbo Engine (Global Race Engine)
- 34mm Restrictor
- Variable timing systems (banned now)
- Keeping around 300-330 BHP
- Bring torque back to >500 Nm

- Return of exotic materials that were banned/controlled in 2011
- Increasing the use but still control materials such as:
- Carbon Fibers/Aramid
- Titanium
- Magnesium
- Ceramics
- Etc.

- Active Differentials
- Active Central Diff.
- LSD/Active Front and Rear Diffs.

- Hybrid technologies
- Road Sections
- Boost Mode (Petrol+ Electric)

- Run Flat Tires Mousse


I know they say that active differentials cost too much like exotic materials but this is the one of the pinnacle of motorsport, likewise to Formula 1. We need to bring the sparkle back into the WRC and I know these current WRC are beautiful but we need to bring the agility of these cars to the technical prominence of the 1st and 2nd generation WRC's together. This will be 2020 or 2021 before an technical change, so the ways thats these parts are manufactured and sourced should be much more refined, thus costing half the price they were paying in the mid 2000s. Hybrid technologies will hopefully also come along way from now, and being easily incorporated into a WRC. If we even look back into the 2008 when Citroen released its C4 HYmotion4 WRC, the technology in the hybrid system used on the car would be a perfect implementation for a WRC. The car used electric energy to run on the road sections between stages and has a boost mode in the stages where the drives can strategically use power from both engines (petrol and electric) to gain a "boost". The run flat tire mousse that was used in the champion prior to the 2008 season should also be implemented again because it used on road cars now and it would be a great marketing for tire manufacturers. It would help save thousands on body work from the exploded tires and would help cars get to the finish line of rallies such as Greece and Argentina where the rocks are the size of your head.

I know they restricted the champions formula in 2011 to save costs but the rally cars prior to 2011 and even more so prior to 2006 were some of the most technically advanced race car still to this day. I think with economy on a turn around from the late 2000s and many advances in the engineering and the manufacturing industry still to come, we can start to make these World Rally Cars into the technical marvels they need to be when running in a world's top motorsport like the World Rally Championship.

This is just my opinion on what I would like to see. Write in the comments below what you would like to see in the next generation of World Rally Cars.


http://argent.fia.co...b/fia-public.ns ... A_2011.pdf
http://www.citroenet....uk/sport/c4wrc ... -wrc1.html

[BRG]

No.  Active diffs and unobtainium type materials will just drive costs up and destroy the category as no-one will be able to afford it.  Anyway, it should be about the drivers, not what diff map they are using. 

 

As for hybrid, I have no problem in principle, but it won't happen as you can't build a hybrid car to meet the minimum weight limit.  A hybrid car at 1500kg will be slaughtered by a 1350kg conventional car.  And I don't want it to be mandatory.

 

Run flat tyres? Yes, and I don't understand why they banned them in the first place.

Edited by BRG, 08 March 2015 - 20:00.

[Nathan]

^ agreed.  Not enough money in WRC for trick stuff.

 

All electric.  Rallying seems a good R&D/marketing field for it.

[JHSingo]

All electric.  Rallying seems a good R&D/marketing field for it.

 

That's as maybe, but would the fans like it?

 

People often talk about the noise being just as important in rallying, as it is (or was, depending on who you talk to) in F1. I'm not sure a rally car blasting through Finland pretty much silently would really have the same appeal. Particularly when Group B is still talked about as being rallying's golden era.

 

For me, I'm not too fussed what the technical stuff is. I'd simply like to see more spectacular cars. More powerful, lairy beasts, that better show of the talent of the driver. The current cars don't do much for me - rallycross cars in comparison seem much more spectacular.

[MatsNorway]

I would ban all use of Carbon and fancy materials. Why run flat was banned i never understood either, it is a great invention.

Edited by MatsNorway, 09 March 2015 - 00:23.

[LouKayne]

I just think that in 2020 or when they do make new regulations that manufacturing of these parts such as active central diff would be a lot more advanced and therefore cheaper to make and use. Maybe they could use Xtrac/Sadev to homologate a Cen.Act.Diff to match with their gearboxes/mech. diffs or just one Cen.Act.Diff homologation unit like we see in the turbos from Garrett. On the on the hand though I wouldn't want to see it if it was going to be a major stake holder in the overall price of each world rally car. 

 

An all electric WRC would be horrible. I was thinking of electric turbos to keep the turbo spooled instead of ALS, but I just think that crackle and bang is so vital in a WRC and I wouldn't want that to go away. I think they will take hybrid technology on to the road section to help save fuel because some road section are over 100kms. I would love to see something like the Citroen C4 Hymotion but at the same time that adds a lot of cost and complexity for the engineers. 

 

I just really hope they can add a bit of extra technology that is road car relative like hybrid/active diff to the cars because it is the pinnacle motorsport, but with not much extra cost compared to todays cars (£450,000) and manufacture willing.

[Lee Nicolle]

Standard motor cars with at least a 1000 made. Freedom only in shocks springs, brake pads rims and tyres. And maybe exhausts to get some proper noise into the equasion. Standard ECUs and any cheats given a 12 month holiday.

And after this weekends effort life jackets!!! And more seriously standard windows that wind up and down.

The same people will still win, but by no where near as much.

[jcbc3]

12 years, please.

And as to the car:
1) rear wheel drive
2) 1.4 l atmospheric engines

But I AM an old fart.

[gruntguru]

1.4 l atmospheric engines
 

 

That would be music! 

 

 

 

But I AM an old fart.

 

That wouldn't. 

[kosmic33]

Run flat tyres were banned due to cost.

I cant remember the price but they were hideously expensive.

 

I'm dead against active cars too. The old fully active cars had 6 computers in the car (at a minimum) and required a neat and tidy driving style.

The current cars allow a more sideways driving style. The current cars might be little shopping cars but at least theyre spectacular to watch.

 

Not that pushed on hybrid technologies either. Lots of added cost and nothing added to the spectacle

[kikiturbo2]

just give them bigger restrictors and be done with it.

Also, no carbon, production panels except for homologation kit, and no fancy lightweight alternators and paddle gearboxes..

[LouKayne]

just give them bigger restrictors and be done with it.

Also, no carbon, production panels except for homologation kit, and no fancy lightweight alternators and paddle gearboxes..

 

Yes bigger restrictors would be perfect but I would like to see them manipulated to more torque than boosting horsepower. I would like to see the torque figures get back to the 500Nm range compared to the (350-450)Nm range as of now. The WTCC made increased their turbo inlet restrictors from 33mm to 36mm and it did a world of difference to the racing and overall appeal of the car. I think the WRC should at least go to a 34mm restrictor.

[gruntguru]

These restricted turbo engines have a very flat power curve which makes for best driveability. More torque would do nothing except require taller gearing.

[kikiturbo2]

These restricted turbo engines have a very flat power curve which makes for best driveability. More torque would do nothing except require taller gearing.

 

actually, restricted engines have a very flat POWER curve... lots of peak torque down below and then sudden drop off.. Anyway, they need more power...

 

I watched Rally legends in italy recently... this event mixes everything from old 911s trough group B, kit cars, wrc 2litre down to latest WRC machinery.. even the tuthill 997 was there

 

Two things were evident... the two litre wrc class was the most attractive to watch. When you combine a world class driver, such as LAtvala, and a modern WRC car, it shows some incredible roadholding abilities.. Ok, it doesnt dance on the road and oversteer as a 2 litre wrc, but still you appretiate what it does and how it does it..

[gruntguru]

. . . restricted turbo engines have a very flat power curve . . . 

 

 

actually, restricted engines have a very flat POWER curve . . . 

 

I stand corrected. 

 

 

Here's me thinking it was a "flat power curve" when in fact it was a "flat POWER curve".  

[LouKayne]

These restricted turbo engines have a very flat power curve which makes for best driveability. More torque would do nothing except require taller gearing.

Wouldn't more torque make them quicker? 

[kikiturbo2]

I stand corrected. 

 

 

Here's me thinking it was a "flat power curve" when in fact it was a "flat POWER curve".  

 

somehow I read "flat torque curve".. sorry...   probably because of the best driveability part..

[gruntguru]

Wouldn't more torque make them quicker? 

 

A little research for you. 

V8 - V10 Torque

[BRG]

Those calling for more power should remember the FIA's 'no more than 300bhp' rule, which followed the GpB carnage.  Now I know that many of the GpA and WRC cars since then have exceeded 300bhp (I suspect even Gp N cars might have also) but it was a public step to protect rallying on the public road.  It would be difficult to allow a power increase - the anti brigades would seize on it for sure.

 

A torque increase though.....

[kikiturbo2]

yes but a heavily restricted engine will have a massive tq peak and then a heavy drop off... kind of like a old turbo diesel..

 

One thing that people like juha kankkunen were vocal about is the whole stupidity of global race engine and cost. WRC 1.6 l engines are not cheap, by far.. being mostly bespoke engines. On the other hand, "old" gr. N engines with 2.0 capacity and their stock turbos made similar power (300 approx) and really good TQ while costing relatively little to buy.

 

Realistically speaking, modern WRC cars are superbly fast... it is probably down to the suspension and tire and not the engine.

[LouKayne]

A little research for you. 

V8 - V10 Torque

That forum is talking about F1 cars that perform on a track and with a high rev range. WRC is on Dirt/Tarmac/Snow with a lot lower levels of grip. Also they have so many turns compared too, we're they are only using the bottom part of their rev range. Would rally cars benefit a lot more from a torque increase compared to an F1, were they are constantly slowing down and using this torque to get them out of corners or a slide? 

[LouKayne]

A little research for you. 

V8 - V10 Torque

 

[kikiturbo2]

[kikiturbo2]

to go off topic a bit.. here is the real dyno plot from peugeot 208 pikes peak car... @altitude and @ the wheels.. Not relevant as far as WRC is concerned but some people say it is close to modern grp B spirit, although I wouldnt agree.. nice car though..

 

[gruntguru]

That forum is talking about F1 cars that perform on a track and with a high rev range. WRC is on Dirt/Tarmac/Snow with a lot lower levels of grip. Also they have so many turns compared too, we're they are only using the bottom part of their rev range. Would rally cars benefit a lot more from a torque increase compared to an F1, were they are constantly slowing down and using this torque to get them out of corners or a slide? 

 

You have replied within 24 hours - you obviously didn't read it all.

[LouKayne]

You have replied within 24 hours - you obviously didn't read it all.

Yes i know, but can you explain why a torque increase wouldn't matter in a WRC car?

[gruntguru]

Have a look at the WRC power and torque graphs in post #23. What rev band do you think they use for best acceleration?

 

Redraw the power and torque curves with the additional torque you are proposing. Is there also a power increase? What  percentage?

Edited by gruntguru, 12 March 2015 - 00:53.

[LouKayne]

Have a look at the WRC power and torque graphs in post #23. What rev band do you think they use for best acceleration?

 

Redraw the power and torque curves with the additional torque you are proposing. Is there also a power increase? What  percentage?

I never drew them I found them on this site (http://forums.nasioc...=1403855&page=4). So your saying the WRC pre 2011 has the same quickness as the post 2011 cars? Both have pretty much the same power @ 315BHP but take the Ctiroen's for example, the C4 had 570Nm @2750rpm and the DS3 has 350Nm @ 3250rpm. (Please don't take my tone as being saucy or sarcastic cause Im truly trying to learn haha). To answer your question about the rev range and acceleration on #23 I would think that 2800-4500 rpm would be the best but the revs only drops to around 2000rpm because that where they idle, isn't it? 

[gruntguru]

To answer your question about the rev range and acceleration on #23 I would think that 2800-4500 rpm would be the best but the revs only drops to around 2000rpm because that where they idle, isn't it? 

 

I would use 3400 rpm - 5400 rpm. Eat my dust.

 

Matter of fact with a close ratio box (they have those in WRC do they?) I would probably be using 3,800 - 4,800. Hey I'm not even using the peak torque!

Edited by gruntguru, 12 March 2015 - 04:15.

[LouKayne]

I would use 3400 rpm - 5400 rpm. Eat my dust.

 

Matter of fact with a close ratio box (they have those in WRC do they?) I would probably be using 3,800 - 4,800. Hey I'm not even using the peak torque!

 

So pretty much when the power curve hits the HP = 350 line? So If they increased torque they would have to increase the power as well to make it quicker, is this what your saying? 

[Kelpiecross]

Oh Dear - not the power versus torque debate again.

[gruntguru]

So pretty much when the power curve hits the HP = 350 line? So If they increased torque they would have to increase the power as well to make it quicker, is this what your saying? 

To maximise acceleration, top speed etc - operate the engine at the highest possible power output. Torque is irrelevant.

[carlt]

To maximise acceleration, top speed etc - operate the engine at the highest possible power output. Torque is irrelevant.

from experience, on a loose surface I'm not so sure this is true, similar to a wet track and short shifting, lower revs and a good torque spread are quicker than more power at higher revs when traction limited.

[LouKayne]

To maximise acceleration, top speed etc - operate the engine at the highest possible power output. Torque is irrelevant.

Crazy you would never think that. I got the chance to drive a 99 Ford Focus WRC and I just thought it was rapid and mind bogglingly quick because of the all the torque cause I driven a 300BHP car before but nothing like the Focus, but I guess not.

[kikiturbo2]

big and sudden torque peaks make cars feel fearsomely fast..

 

We recently performed a nice experiment with two identical peugeots.. one being a 115 hp diesel and the other a 120 hp petrol .The petrol one always felt utterly sluggish while the turbo diesel was lively and ah so easy to drive around town on a nice surge of torque..

 

we did a rolling start, 5 to 120 kmh.... guess which one was faster ?

 

Reality is, if you ask the WRC drivers all of them will say "I want MORE"... but the nature of engines with air restrictors is that they are very peaky in their torque delivery. If you want engines with broader torque delivery, then limit their boost lever and let go of the air restrictor. Just limit boost and RPM.

 

Every rally driver I talked to is of a similar opinion, that the engines, esp the gr N, are too restricted. As s result they tend to push max torque they can, which eventually leads to engine damage or too frequent engine rebuilds (in gr N) as a precation from rods breaking...

 

As a rally fan I could say that I'd like to see more sliding around, which could also be accomplished by adding power and doing away with some grip.

[Nathan]

 

Torque is irrelevant.

Not in my racing experience

 

[gruntguru]

Yes, in fact generally true - if you take that sentence in isolation.

[desmo]

I can create 100 lb-ft of torque leaning casually on a a foot long lever that won't budge--and I can apply that torque for quite a long time too and still not become tired. 

[MatsNorway]

Crazy you would never think that. I got the chance to drive a 99 Ford Focus WRC and I just thought it was rapid and mind bogglingly quick because of the all the torque cause I driven a 300BHP car before but nothing like the Focus, but I guess not.

Do not forget the weight. They hit the weight at only 1230kg if i remember correct. Also a 99 WRC Focus has more than 300hp most likely. The Lancia delta integrale had 300hp in 1990

Edited by MatsNorway, 13 March 2015 - 16:33.

[LouKayne]

Do not forget the weight. They hit the weight at only 1230kg if i remember correct. Also a 99 WRC Focus has more than 300hp most likely. The Lancia delta integrale had 300hp in 1990

 

Yeah Id say the weight had a bit to do with the feel too. From everywhere I could find technical specs on the 1999 Ford Focus WRC, it says it has 300BHP. Didn't the Delta in 1990 have a much bigger restrictor than the 34mm on the Ford? (http://www.rallycars...estrictors.html

[MatsNorway]

I see. Cool to know. Explains the high rpm for peak hp at the old Lancia. That said they definetly still had more than 300hp during the modern WRC days.

Wiki had some on it:http://en.wikipedia....97.E2.80.932010 330hp-340hp (lacks solid source?)

the 1.6 engines http://www.volkswage....php?id=339&L=1

 

And as previously discussed the engines did have a stupid wide powerband.

Edited by MatsNorway, 16 March 2015 - 18:59.

[thiscocks]

For WRC to be more inline with the WRC-2 WRC-3 Homologation rules. Strict Homologation on body/suspension. 1.6 turbo or 2000cc with lower miniumum weight (2wd or 4wd for both).

 

Also for R-GT formula power to weight to come inline with WRC.