group bye for wrc style spoilers.

[stijoy]

http://www.scoobycity.co.uk/phpBB2/view ... highlight=

[SPIKE LIKE MIKE]

whats with the "bye" where are they going

thats fookin cheap!!! where is my scoob

[WR 1mposter]

would like one

but have other plans which be be more beneficial

[marky mark]

would like one

but have other plans which be be more beneficial

And i thought you were a man of taste!

[WR 1mposter]

would like one

but have other plans which be be more beneficial

And i thought you were a man of taste!

your the tasting expert on here

[Gee Wr1]

Na thanks, some things should stay on a WRC car.

[The Swede]

Disagree. Scoob's been developed as a rally car, not a poser's car or a trackday car.

If I still had mine, I'd have that wing straight away.

[POESY]

Disagree. Car must look

That spoiler wont help

[marky mark]

I agree with Poesy They turn an agressive haunch looking car into something that the saxo mob slaver after.

Swede, its not been developed as a rally car, its a road car that when suitably modified has been succesful as a rally car- same as an EVO and the current WRC citroens and fords.

If it was not that way, they would not have sold as many for road use.

[SPIKE LIKE MIKE]

these are too want i for teh evo!!

[The Swede]

Swede, its not been developed as a rally car, its a road car that when suitably modified has been succesful as a rally car- same as an EVO and the current WRC citroens and fords.

Marky Mark, dig in your memory !

The scoob and Evo date from the Group A days (1987-1998). (First ones were even based on the Legacy Turbo and Galant VR4). The Evo was still run as a group A (and not a WRC) until the Evo 6(.5) in 2001.

Regulations specified that you needed to build 5000 units (later reduced to 2500) of the base car. You could change brakes, gearbox and suspension (but not suspension mounting points). You could not add extra wings, cool openings, a turbo, 4WD or wider tracks like on the current WRC's. The turbo even had to be the same size. Hence why the first 2500 Escort Cosworths were sold with a bigger turbo that had more lag than the one on the subsequent cars.

If the base car was cr@p, you got a bad rallycar. As a result, the Escort Cosworth, the Impreza Turbo and the Evo were designed with the thought in mind they had to be a successfull base for the competition.

Even today, Mitsubishi and Subaru still keep rallyconversion in mind at development as they aim to run them in Group N. Because of that, the current Impreza for instance became twice as stiff in 2000 as the old Turbo.

Don't think anyone at Mitsi or Subaru ever drew the structure of the car with amateur trackday use in mind though...

Both are indeed still making the road cars due to their huge sales success, unlike Lancia, Ford or Toyota.

And clearly the sales comes from the rallying success.

You see people buying Peugeot 206RC's, Shitroen Xsara VTS's or Toyota Corolla T-TS because they identify them with the WRC cars ? No sh1t !
Even the Focus RS is hardly seen as a relative to the rallycar.


I do however fully agree with you that some items, such as WRC wings, look boy-racer-ish on quite a few cars.
1. Because they use items that don't actually look like the real item.
2. Because they don't adapt the rest of the car and the spoiler sticks out like an aftermarket add-on.

[marky mark]

Its the same as various production based racing classes (cars and bikes) around the world. They are designed as road cars (as you point out they have to be homologated models), but wth rallying at the back of the mind.

Its not a true racing class as such any more, that ended with Group B which obviously were designed with only one thing in mind.

[The Swede]

I think this is a discussion on what was first: the chicken or the egg. Fact is that, if they hadn't engaged into rallying and the rules of rallying hadn't forced Subaru, Mitsubishi or Ford to make such a cars, we would never had had the Impreza, Evo or Cosworth as they were.
Hence my statement: the cars were developed for rallying because they needed a rallycar. And afterwards... well sure, they needed to sell those 5000 units.
Subaru and Mitsi even made good business out of it.

Its not a true racing class as such any more, that ended with Group B which obviously were designed with only one thing in mind.

True. As rallyfan, I must say though this is not about going to watch Formula 1's racing on a more bumpy track or Paris-Dakar style prototypes racing through the Welsh forests instead of the Desert. The magic of rallying comes is about driving normal cars on normal roads... fast !

The Group B's sure were a fantastic era, but I personally also like the Group 4 period before (with the Quattros and the Fiat 131 etc) and the late group A era (1996-1997). Cars were reasonably 'standard' and recognisable.

Also, the manufacturers were FORCED to bring some of the competition development to the people, otherwise they couldn't run it on the rallycar.
An interesting fact e.g. was that the Celica GT-Four (ST205) always had a waterinjection and anti-lag build in, just not switched on for the roadgoing version.

What have manufacturers (Peugeot, Citroen, Skoda,...) brought us under the new rules of rallying ? Squat !
What has F1 brought to Renault, Mercedes, BMW or Honda cars ? Squat ! Sure, they're doing gearbox look-a-likes and they make engines with 10 cilinders, but they don't fit a single item on their standard cars that Alonso or Raikkonen are also running on Sunday.

[JP]

[The Swede]

:zzz:

Sorry, mate, anoraks only !

[marky mark]

Its all interesting JP! get with it man.

I dont confess to being a WRC anorak (ask me about 80's-present day bike GP's though and i am sad), but a F1 car cant be compared. Its a pure prototype. If its anything like the premier bike class (moto GP) then the rules stipulate that NO parts can be on a production homologated bike.

Superbikes have to use many common parts with its road going brother though (cranckases, frame etc)

F1 = moto GP (pure prototype thoroughbred)
WRC = superbike ( competition machinery bred from a homolgated model)

The WRC citroens, fords etc....have to look like the road car. Im sure you know the exact rules but IIRC its along the lines of the sillhouette remaining the same (give or take aerodynamic additions)

[The Swede]

Interesting discussion, Mark ! Didn't know the thing about the Premier Bike class.

In fact, the WRC cars go a bit further than 'retaining the silhouette of the production car'. That was was the Group B's were about.

The car has to be based on a mass produced model of the manufacturer. The base engine block (2.0) has to be the standard unit used in the car.
If I am not mistaken, you must produce at least 40000 units of the base car model (e.g. Citroens Xsara or Ford Focus) and you must produce at least 2500 of that specific body type (e.g. Xsara Coupe or Focus 3d).

Starting from that, they can follow the Group A regulations (brakes, gearox, etc) plus they can add a turbo, 4WD, change the wheelbase by 2cm, widen the tracks upto 155cm and widen the car upto 177cm. The car also has to be at least 4m long (which is why Peugeot had to run 2500 206 GT's off theline with longer front and rear bumper like the rallycar)

The underlaying structure etc remains the same though (except for the usual role cage of course).

[marky mark]

The underlaying structure etc remains the same though (except for the usual role cage of course).

Its this that hits the nail on the head. I totally agree with you that they bear no relation to the road going car, But this rule means that a WRC car (to current regulations) will always be a compromised design between road and competition in exactly the same way a superbike is.

You have crappy bendy chassis, then you stiffen it up with a bit of welding and 2" tube!

A F1 car or moto GP bike is designed from the outset with full finite element stres analysis of the chassis structure. There is no waste, no lugs to hold a wiring gromett etc...etc.. Every single thing on them is for a purpose.

[The Swede]

The Group B's indeed had no issue with that at all. They just skipped the whole body issue and were a tubular structure clad with some plastics to keep the driver and the mechanical bits dry.

But unfortunately, we, normal, poor souls, would not benefit of any of the developments unless we could pay a small fortune to buy a roadgoing 205 T16 or Delta S4.

Back on our discussion whether rallycars have been developed with competition in mind: my view is that Group B only lasted for 2-3 seasons. Outside that window, the cars were always very close to production cars. We can only hope that Group N will get more successful still.

[WR 1mposter]

I remember watching David Lapworth stating the Impreza was developed to take over from the Legacy .............in other words Subaru developed a car solely to win the WRC !

now it was a few years ago i watch that so 90% certain on that

[marky mark]

Its called ad-speak 1mposter.

If anyone can tell me that Subaru designed and developed the car without any thought for the road i will blow them!

It has 4 doors FFS!

[The Swede]

True. No car has be designed not be used on th road.

Kepe it simple. Every manufacturer uses rallying to promote his brand and to do so, he needs people to recognise the car that is raced.

So obviously, they start from an existing roadgoing car.

Initially they will select the best base, at a later stage, when they change the road car, they will incorporate some requirements to make it a good rallycar and/or, they will select a new model they are developing (like Subaru chose the Impreza instead of the Legacy) and again introduce the base elements for rallying into that car.

If Lapworth said they did the Impreza to replace the Legacy, he sure meant that:
1. the took in account rallying also when developing the structure of the Impreza road car
2. they gave the Impreza the turbo engine and 4WD, while initially this type of engine might have been reserved to the Legacy if they'd never rallied the Impreza.

Fact still is, the STi's were mainly conceived as Impreza derivatives to go rallying (hence my statement that these cars (I mean the STi versions and Evo versions of Impreza and Lancer) have been developed for rallying). None of them really has been developed with trackday use in mind or poser's cruise.

[WR 1mposter]

Its called ad-speak 1mposter.

If anyone can tell me that Subaru designed and developed the car without any thought for the road i will blow them!

It has 4 doors FFS!

Only stating Mr Lapworth's quote

Perhaps Subaru wanted to designed the car solely for WRC !
but the rules in doing so meant you needed a road going version to enter .........

or should I say if group b's were still around they might not have bothered doing a road going version


or am I talking crap

[The Swede]

Only stating Mr Lapworth's quote

Perhaps Subaru wanted to designed the car solely for WRC !
but the rules in doing so meant you needed a road going version to enter .........

or should I say if group b's were still around they might not have bothered doing a road going version


or am I talking crap

No, good point.

When you look at the limited success of the non WRX Impreza's, you indeed wonder if they didn't want to make a rallycar first and then made some roadgoing car to sell the required number of cars.

Assume it's the other way round, but the success of the WRX and STi's is clearly much bigger than that of the normal cars.

That being said, looked at a normal 2.0R a while ago and I must say it sure is a nice car. 4WD, reasonable power. Perfect car here to have fun without having to revert to the big gun.