228 replies to this topic

[angst]

My idea for a new Formula One, which has a load of relevance to the manufacturers' road cars, will reduce speeds (and keep speeds down) and reduce costs - as much as costs can be reduced.

I present F3, with a few minor adjustments. Remove the air restrictor, remove the maximum number of cylinders and.... voila. The manufacturers would have to race with engines that are based upon the product they sell to the public - surely nothing could entice them more to use racing to improve the breed? Aerodynamics are pretty much covered off, there is little room for too much gain there. Skinny tyres, low grip, no TC or electronic diffs, incredible road relevance for the manufacturers - and I'm sure some pretty useful HP figures could be drawn out from those engines with a bit of work. Of course reliability might become an issue, what with the driver operating the gears and such like, and the stresses those road block engines will be put under but.... I love the idea.

All the manufacturers have the basis of an engine/gearbox - there's even room for rotary engines.

[Ross Stonefeld]

But F3 is really, really dull.

[angst]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
But F3 is really, really dull.

That depends. And frankly, if you stuck that kind of air restrictor on almost any series in the world it would have trouble being other than dull. That's why I suggested the removal of the air restricor, and given the sort of spending that a F1 would employ, a rather tidy amount of power could be extracted from those motors - at a cost, mind.

[canon1753]

I think you'd lose the sense of speed and it would be a lot of money for an unspectacular car. Since '66, F1 has always tried to be spectacular in some way or another. F1 with a 2 liter stock block engine is not a headliner type event. It would give road relevancy though.

Can I propose another idea? 4 liter V8 stockblock based engine, in a F1 spec chassis. You could even add various equivalency formulae (Diesels, turbos, rotaries). That could make it interesting. Or it turns into ACO/ALMS regs in an open wheel chassis.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by canon1753
F1 with a 2 liter stock block engine is not a headliner type event.

Maybe, but I had a vision of BMW 2002 cast iron block reduced to 1.5l and having the heck turbocharged out of it... Wait a sec, been there, done that- 1340BHP with "Hitler Prom" in qualifying trim is hardly unspectacular.;)

[desmo]

Curb weights: 1973 2002: 2282 lbs 2006 M3: 3781 lbs

Heavy cars suck. Sorry for the highjack, whenever I think of 2002s, I inevitably think of how wrong BMW have gone

[Wolf]

Originally posted by desmo
Curb weights: 1973 2002: 2282 lbs 2006 M3: 3781 lbs

Heavy cars suck. Sorry for the highjack, whenever I think of 2002s, I inevitably think of how wrong BMW have gone

You'll get a sympathetic shoulder to cry on from me... If ever I get my car project off the ground, I hope it will be less than 800lb. dry (no fancy stuff, only GRP).

[imaginesix]

Weight is weight, what good it does depends on what you do with it.

This article I happened to be reading illustrates an example of how weight was added to a new model, with the stated aim of improving performance. The underbody was more firmly tied together to the tune of 100 lbs to allow a more responsive handling. With the weight being added below the C of G it is clear how the car would roll less and also transfer less weight, which added to the reduced compliance could increase grip. Maybe even to the point of improving lateral acceleration?

Admittedly, most weight gain ends up compromising performance, but it's still kinda irrational to have a distaste for weight when it alone is not responsible for any performance indicator. The only direct effect of weight is added inertia, and there is one situation where pure unrestrained inertia is desireable, and that is in an accident. According to that reasoning, more weight is better.

The reality however is that fuel efficiency, cornering, braking, cabin noise... these are the metrics that matter. So it would be interesting to compare the 2002ti to the 66% heavier M3 in those regards. Or, it could be compared to any contemporary counterpart like the Protégé. It shouldn't be too hard to find a current model that is better than the ol' bimmer in every way, including affordability, even if it weighs more.

Oh, and I must point out that my post is 100% on topic since the page I linked to mentions something about a 2.0L 'street stock' block

[canon1753]

Originally posted by Wolf


Maybe, but I had a vision of BMW 2002 cast iron block reduced to 1.5l and having the heck turbocharged out of it... Wait a sec, been there, done that- 1340BHP with "Hitler Prom" in qualifying trim is hardly unspectacular.;)

No disagreement there! The sense I got of the original post was for a 2 ltr. non turbo. 2ltr turbos... you are cooking there, though a 4ltr v8 w/2 ltr turbos does seem pretty interesting. We can always hope...

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by angst
My idea for a new Formula One, which has a load of relevance to the manufacturers' road cars, will reduce speeds (and keep speeds down) and reduce costs - as much as costs can be reduced.

I present F3, with a few minor adjustments. Remove the air restrictor, remove the maximum number of cylinders and.... voila. The manufacturers would have to race with engines that are based upon the product they sell to the public - surely nothing could entice them more to use racing to improve the breed? Aerodynamics are pretty much covered off, there is little room for too much gain there. Skinny tyres, low grip, no TC or electronic diffs, incredible road relevance for the manufacturers - and I'm sure some pretty useful HP figures could be drawn out from those engines with a bit of work. Of course reliability might become an issue, what with the driver operating the gears and such like, and the stresses those road block engines will be put under but.... I love the idea.

All the manufacturers have the basis of an engine/gearbox - there's even room for rotary engines.

Race engines based on road car engines are not very suitable for a high end racing series, nor will it be cheap or offer that much road relevance.

When road car engines are going to be used in racing two main problems appear:

1. Some manufacturers doesn't have a suitable road engine which can be used for racing.

2. In the chase for more power some manufacturers will design a racing engine, then they make a road version of it which they sell in a few examples. After that they have their very own racing engine classed as a road engine. Costly, yes sir.

Aerodynamics are very costly, the most expensive part in F1 infact. Changing the regulations won't affect that since even a car which follows very limited aerodynamics regs can be further refined if you have money to spend. There is also very little road relevance in racing car aerodynamics.

No traction control and no electronic diffs, where is the road relevance in that? These days more and more road cars are fitted with traction control, advanced diffs and similar technology to make the cars easier and safer to drive. If we want more road relevance, allow more electronic stuff instead.

Skinny tires won't help anything. People who watch F1 want to se something spectacular, skinny tires isn't spectacular.

[Ben]

Originally posted by angst
My idea for a new Formula One, which has a load of relevance to the manufacturers' road cars,

Why should F1 have (and when indeed has it ever had?) relevance to road cars?

Ben

[Wolf]

ISTR that in South African races in '62 one of local drivers enterd in Lotus 7 (narrowed by 1" to fit the regulations) fitted with Ford engine...

Besides if mfgs like Renault and Mercedes are going to advertize with their successes in F1, it wouldn't hurt if their successes had some link to the product they're selling. Should Michelin advertize- look, we're best in the world in making tyres that start blistering after 50km like a tourist that has fallen asleep on the beach in midday sun?

[desmo]

Originally posted by Ben


Why should F1 have (and when indeed has it ever had?) relevance to road cars?

Ben

I think the dawning of the age of aerodynamic downforce ushered in a novel and significant bifurcation of racecar development from road car development. In much of the skinny tire era it seems subjectively to me that the GP/F1 cars were much closer to top-line sportscars than they presently are.

[indigoid]

Originally posted by Wolf


You'll get a sympathetic shoulder to cry on from me... If ever I get my car project off the ground, I hope it will be less than 800lb. dry (no fancy stuff, only GRP).

you can both cry on my shoulders

one of Australia's prominent car magazines (either Wheels or MOTOR, forget which) recently ran an article comparing the three generations of Mazda MX5, with detailed specs etc for both, and a track test. The weight of the current (new-ish) MX5 is over 1100kg! Lotus have fallen into the same trap with the Elise and Exige... the current Exige is nudging close to 1000kg. Not really what I had in mind

FFS, my early-1980s Volvo 245 wagon (a *huge* vehicle compared to an MX5 or practically any Lotus) weighed in at 1350-ish kg when it was checked at re-registration time a couple of years ago, and that included coolant, oil, brake fluid and an unknown quantity of fuel. Suddenly that new MX5 sounds like an enormous lump of lard

[Greg Locock]

1...2....3




CRASH



That's 50 kg. Crash forces us into some horrible inefficient design decisions, as far as front end structure goes.

And then because idiots won't wear seatbelts, we have airbags.

That's probably another 20 kg (I haven't checked).

[Ben]

Originally posted by desmo


I think the dawning of the age of aerodynamic downforce ushered in a novel and significant bifurcation of racecar development from road car development. In much of the skinny tire era it seems subjectively to me that the GP/F1 cars were much closer to top-line sportscars than they presently are.

Agreed the Lotus 19 sports racer was basically a widened Lotus 18 F1 car. The fact remains though that F1 cars of that era borrowed components (eg the ubiquitous Triumph Herald upright) from road cars and not the other way around.

Ben

[angst]

Originally posted by Ben


Why should F1 have (and when indeed has it ever had?) relevance to road cars?

Ben

I don't think it should, really. Nor do I think it will. I was responding to the FIA/GPMA Q&A in which they babbled about making F1 development more relevant to raod car development. I just thought, if the manufacturers really want some road relevance then make them use what they produce for the road.

I suppose, more than anything, you've responded correctly to the issue I was somewhat obtusely alluding to. I feel that this 'road relevance' BS is just an excuse to slap active suspension, ABS etc. onto the cars as that's what they've got on their road cars. Now, while techies might get excited about this, I also think that such will be introduced in a very controlled way. I think there will be very little room for innovation in this brave new world. I think, in short, that the manufacturers have no interest in F1 as a development forum for road car relevant technology, but simply as a marketing forum for the technology developed for their road cars. F1 will be neither about innovation, nor about driving skill. It will, in short, be the worst of all worlds.

[Greg Locock]

In the occasionally amusing Ali G show, at one point he slaps a skateboard down in front of a venture capitalist and says the he wants venture capital to make a hoverboard, just like in Back to the Future.

I saw, and worked on, the early attempts to take Active Suspension from F1 into production.

Absolutely laughable.

Having bright ideas that will work for two hours is one thing. Producing reliable, safe, low maintenance, robust, quiet, effective systems is a very different issue.

Actually, while I'm at it, the big problem with Active, technically, was the absence of feed forward sensors, both for coefficient of friction (use the car ahead) and road profile (use millimetric radar).

[McGuire]

Two years ago the official theme of the SAE Motorsports Conference was "relevance." By that they meant the relevance of motorsports to the industry and to society as a whole... but most interesting, the relevance of engineering and technology to motorsports. That is, how to make them serve the sport better.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo


I think the dawning of the age of aerodynamic downforce ushered in a novel and significant bifurcation of racecar development from road car development. In much of the skinny tire era it seems subjectively to me that the GP/F1 cars were much closer to top-line sportscars than they presently are.

To me the whole thing is driven by money. The only thing that made Jack Brabham's Olds-block Repco competitive was it cost too much to make something better from scratch. Sure enough, once Ford threw Cosworth a few bucks very soon there were no more production-based engines in F1.

Or we can look at it this way: why on earth would anyone use a Triumph Herald front upright on an F1 car? Because they couldn't afford better and it would do in the pinch.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


I think, in short, that the manufacturers have no interest in F1 as a development forum for road car relevant technology, but simply as a marketing forum for the technology developed for their road cars.

Exactly right.

[Powersteer]

This thread brings to mind the progress of Formula 1 achievement. Now the cars are 2.4 liters producing more than 750 horsepower regulated by design. In the mid 90's, BTCC cars regulated by RPM only achieved more than 300 horsepower and the difference in size is only 400cc.

Marketing wise this thread is a brilliant idea.

[shaun979]

what are you saying? Engine speed is a huge factor in total output, given roughly similar displacements. Budgets too.

[Ben]

Originally posted by angst

I think, in short, that the manufacturers have no interest in F1 as a development forum for road car relevant technology,

I'm stunned that anybody ever thought this was the case.

It's a very expensive branding exercise.

Motorsport is considered PR budget by most OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers. It's a personnal choice where that PR money is spent. Two case studies from my industry:

Michelin and Bridgestone (and to a lesser extent my lot) spend a lot of PR budget to go racing by supplying tyres at cost or free in some cases. Internally that is seen as worthwhile for the brand exposure we get. More technology in terms of materials comes our way from the road side rather than the other way round.

Continental Tyres do not participate in car motorsport at all. They sponsor TV coverage of UEFA Champions Leagye football, which is watched by millions. They also happen to be market leaders in the German aftermarket tuning tyre market, which is very lucrative. Motorsport isn't the only way to build a high performance brand image.

People forget that motorsport as big business is a relatively recent phenomenon and all of you lot who blather on about what we must do to keep the technically ignorant entertainment seaker happy make me laugh. The fact is, I love racing and would do it whatever. I am incredibly lucky to make a living from it currently but if that were to change I'd probably go and teach highschool kids physics and do motorsport at the weekends as a hobby, so forgive me for not caring too much about pleasing you...

Ben

[Ross Stonefeld]

In that case you should have no problems with sacrificing technical diversity for the sake of a more commercially successful series. Unless you think the guys in NASCAR are low tech.

[Powersteer]

Race on sunday, sell on monday. Don't ever forget that ;)

[Greg Locock]

Prove it.

[desmo]

If statistical analyses didn't bear this truism out, would manufacturers ever have financed racing expenditures? The other possibility seems to be that those who have, have all had crap accounting departments. The first seems more likely IMO.

[phantom II]

http://www.carofthec...l_on_monday.htm

Originally posted by Powersteer
Race on sunday, sell on monday. Don't ever forget that ;)

[phantom II]

http://www.orlandose...otive-headlines

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Prove it.

[Wolf]

About road relevance- how about putting a curb on pit entry and exit (say, pit area is 'sunk'), and I mean proper curb like on sidewalk, some 4 or 5" high?

Ben!!! Put that tar and feathers down!

[McGuire]

A race program works as advertising, putting the name out in front of eyeballs like any other form of advertising from billboards to product placement.

And it works as branding, getting people to associate the product with ideas like "performance" and "technology" and "sport" and "achievement" and "excitement." (The OEs sponsor golf tournaments and rock tours etc. with the same object.)

How well a racing program works at these specific things in any given case is a matter for study, requiring post-surveys and focus groups etc. Some programs hit their targets better than others, as you would expect.

And of course there are all the BtoB motivations for going racing...you bring all your business partners to the race, set them up in the hospitality unit and entertain them for the weekend...making a special effort to make them feel like "part of the race team." Speeches by the drivers at lunch, autographs and face time etc etc. By getting them to focus on your race team all weekend, you are really tricking them into focusing on you.

So really it's considerably more complicated than "win on Sunday, sell on Monday." Just winning isn't enough. Many winning programs fail to meet their objectives while many programs that are mediocre on the race track can be very successful.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by desmo
If statistical analyses didn't bear this truism out, would manufacturers ever have financed racing expenditures? The other possibility seems to be that those who have, have all had crap accounting departments. The first seems more likely IMO.

Desmo- every Renault commercial I've seen in last month(s) had a small yellar-an'-blue F1 'car' buzzing down the screen and some text to the effect 'Formula One Champions'... Would they have put it there if they thought it wouldn't help their sales? And they have been selling 'Renault-Elf' badges "for ages" (usualy seen on Clios and Twingos= with a Williams car. Over here they try to make the best out of their involvement in F1.

[Wolf]

Heheh, McGure- Volkswagen sponsor mediocrity TV programmes like 'Big Brother' in my country, yet they close down factories in Belgium... It seems 'corporate branding' is nowdays more important than doing sound business.

[Greg Locock]

My cynicism about this is corporate rather than personal - as someone once said : I waste half the money I spend on advertising, if only I could figure out which half.

[Powersteer]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Prove it.

W R X. MotoGP..... muscle cars ;)

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
My cynicism about this is corporate rather than personal - as someone once said : I waste half the money I spend on advertising, if only I could figure out which half.

Cynicism is totally warranted. Along with their very legitimate marketing purposes, racing programs also serve as an ego trip for company management. And also a perk package... who wouldn't want to spend their weekends jetting around to fabulous destinations, hanging around with celebrities and being a big wheel at the track.

Racing programs are also an excellent vehicle for skimming and kickbacks, where they can be virtually impossible to sort out of the legitimate expenditures. At the very least it is a system for execs to selectively enrich their personal friends in racing at the manufacturer's expense.

Many, many years ago I had my eyes opened up about how it works. Knowing I could type, a now very famous racer asked me to help write up a sponsor proposal for him. The pitch to the factory involved a couple of million dollars over several years (pretty big for that time) and the budget included funding for a building, a transporter and some other equipment. Naively I asked where all this stuff went at the end of the deal. The racer looked at me like I had two heads and said, "What, are you kidding? Those are mine."

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Ben


It's a very expensive branding exercise.

Yes and no. A one run, one page ad in a major automotive magazine might cost $100,000 including production. A one minute commercial on network television can run over $500,000 not including production. GM's total advertising and marketing expense (many, many types of spending including ad buys) was estimated at around $2.5 Billion for 2005.

So racing itself is not all that expensive in the big scheme of things. The question is does it deliver ROI. And any program must in turn be backed up with its own advertising, marketing and promotion campaign. Winning doesn't count for much if you don't get the word out. Some say racing programs should be backed up dollar for dollar with promotion in order to be effective.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
In that case you should have no problems with sacrificing technical diversity for the sake of a more commercially successful series. Unless you think the guys in NASCAR are low tech.

No, my point was that if not sacrificing the tech diversity made international commercial lucrative motorsport die it wouldn't bother me.

Ben

[dead_eye]

out of interest how do you think its going to slow the sport down? itl simply put a more ragged edge on the sport, look at the super car rally cross league, youve got focuses doing 0-100 quicker than f1 cars! and thats on realtively small team budgets. give that formula an f1 budget and youl get a stupidly quick road cars with none of the safety advances of an f1 car

Sounds like itd be awsome to watch- kinda like gp b all over again but doubt it could work

[Ben]

Originally posted by dead_eye
out of interest how do you think its going to slow the sport down? itl simply put a more ragged edge on the sport, look at the super car rally cross league, youve got focuses doing 0-100 quicker than f1 cars! and thats on realtively small team budgets. give that formula an f1 budget and youl get a stupidly quick road cars with none of the safety advances of an f1 car

Sounds like itd be awsome to watch- kinda like gp b all over again but doubt it could work

If 0-100 time was mroe important in F1 they'd do it quicker than the rallycross car. That's simply about optimising the package to meet the challenge you've been set rather than a superior product.

Ben

[Greg Locock]

Well, OK, now you've mentioned rally. Is 4wd a benefit to rallying, or a hindrance? If you aren't going to accept TC, then AWD is a step backwards?

I'd be the first to agree that as a spectacle, driven by amateurs (me), RWD on a gravel road is better than AWD. With AWD either the driver gets it, or he spears off the side of the road.

But surely you'd agree that guy who can keep an AWD on the road, fast, is exhibiting MORE skill than the guy who can keep his RWD car on the road, against equivalent competition.

[angst]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Well, OK, now you've mentioned rally. Is 4wd a benefit to rallying, or a hindrance? If you aren't going to accept TC, then AWD is a step backwards?

I'd be the first to agree that as a spectacle, driven by amateurs (me), RWD on a gravel road is better than AWD. With AWD either the driver gets it, or he spears off the side of the road.

But surely you'd agree that guy who can keep an AWD on the road, fast, is exhibiting MORE skill than the guy who can keep his RWD car on the road, against equivalent competition.

No, no, no. Are you now suggesting that TC increases driver input?

TC is designed specifically to do the job that a driver would normally do. It is not an additional mechanical facet of the car (such as 4WD) it is specifically a substitute for a driver input.

I'll put money on the fact that, had the FIA had the balls to implement the rules regarding TC and electronically controlled diffs in F1 as they do in F3, that there would have been little reason for the numerous regulation changes to bodywork, engine size and a move to a single tyre supplier. I firmly believe that the massive rate of development of tyres (which has increased the speeds equally dramatically), the direction that F1 aero has taken (incredibly pitch sensitive) have all been accelerated hugely by the use of those electronic control systems.

The massive design, redesing, redesign costs that put such as Minardi and Jordan over the edge might have been avoided, and F1 would, I believe be a much more interesting series.

[Ben]

The development of the tyres has been so rapid because Michelin and Bridgestone want to be able to advertise the fact that they are technically better than their competitor. This has nothing to do with TC.

With no competition Bridgestone have apparently already cut lap times by 2-3 seconds by changing the tyre spec.

Ben

[angst]

Originally posted by Ben
The development of the tyres has been so rapid because Michelin and Bridgestone want to be able to advertise the fact that they are technically better than their competitor. This has nothing to do with TC.

With no competition Bridgestone have apparently already cut lap times by 2-3 seconds by changing the tyre spec.

Ben

For somebody so keen to jump up and down on us 'non-techie' types that's a very simplistic answer.

Of course Michelin and Bridgestone want to beat each other but.....

....as I alluded to on the thread regarding TC, tyre development has always been limited by the potential response/feedback loop. That has, until recently, been limited as by the fact that it is human. The driver needs to be able to 'feel' what the tyre is doing in order to be able to push it to it's limits - and so those limts have necessarily been constrained by such. With the advent of TC, and more importantly, the combination of TC and electronically controlled diffs (and the myriad facets of the cars' performance parameters which can now be controlled through the use of this combination) has taken that human constraint out of the equation. The tyres can be designed around a response/feedback loop that is infinitely more adaptable, and as the tyres are designed around that then so there is even more to be gained by developments in electronic control and on and on....

The single tyre supplier is the latest in a long line of FIA decisions and reg changes that have come about in order to clear up a mess that should have been cleared up a long, long time ago. Cause and effect seems to be a concept too far for F1.

[Ben]

Originally posted by angst


For somebody so keen to jump up and down on us 'non-techie' types that's a very simplistic answer.

Of course Michelin and Bridgestone want to beat each other but.....

....as I alluded to on the thread regarding TC, tyre development has always been limited by the potential response/feedback loop. That has, until recently, been limited as by the fact that it is human. The driver needs to be able to 'feel' what the tyre is doing in order to be able to push it to it's limits - and so those limts have necessarily been constrained by such. With the advent of TC, and more importantly, the combination of TC and electronically controlled diffs (and the myriad facets of the cars' performance parameters which can now be controlled through the use of this combination) has taken that human constraint out of the equation. The tyres can be designed around a response/feedback loop that is infinitely more adaptable, and as the tyres are designed around that then so there is even more to be gained by developments in electronic control and on and on....

The single tyre supplier is the latest in a long line of FIA decisions and reg changes that have come about in order to clear up a mess that should have been cleared up a long, long time ago. Cause and effect seems to be a concept too far for F1.

Forgive me, but I think my answer was realistic and your answer is trying to sound all techie and clever, using words like feedback loop, response, etc.

What you're talking about might be the case in some way if the tyres and vehicles were developed by the same group of people in a completely integrated process, but that is fantasy.

In my experience traction control has its biggest effect in terms of abrasion and compound life. But the same rules apply to the tyre whether you have TC or not in terms of construction stiffness vs. grip vs. stability. You are trying to make an argument about tyre development fit your existing view on TC. The unfortunate thing is you clearly don't know a lot about tyre development.

Originally posted by angst

tyre development has always been limited by the potential response/feedback loop.

What does that mean and what was your source?

Ben

[FrankB]

Originally posted by Ben
With no competition Bridgestone have apparently already cut lap times by 2-3 seconds by changing the tyre spec.

Originally posted by Ben
What does that mean and what was your source?

... Is that "cut" meaning reduced (ie the laps are now faster) or "cut" meaning made worse (ie the laps are now slower)?

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Ben

What you're talking about might be the case in some way if the tyres and vehicles were developed by the same group of people in a completely integrated process, but that is fantasy.

This has also been my experience. While the tire manufacture may try to give you what you ask for, tires are such a difficult thing to quantify that they generally just show up at the track with compound A,B, and C and construction X,Y, and Z. Mix and match them and try to get something that works.

Then we find out of if those changes helped the particular problem that we were dealing with.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by dead_eye
out of interest how do you think its going to slow the sport down? itl simply put a more ragged edge on the sport, look at the super car rally cross league, youve got focuses doing 0-100 quicker than f1 cars! and thats on realtively small team budgets. give that formula an f1 budget and youl get a stupidly quick road cars with none of the safety advances of an f1 car

Sounds like itd be awsome to watch- kinda like gp b all over again but doubt it could work

Rally cross cars have quite short gears and a good grip since they are all wheel driven. This makes the cars very fast from standstill up to 100 km/h, but at higher speeds the acceleration will slow down.

Also, even though a rally cross car can beat a F1 car in acceleration up to 100 km/h, at a rally stage a WRC car can beat a rally cross car, so they are not "that" fast.

[Ben]

Originally posted by FrankB


... Is that "cut" meaning reduced (ie the laps are now faster) or "cut" meaning made worse (ie the laps are now slower)?

Sorry, yes I meant it in terms of "cut back" i.e made slower.

Ben