WRC mudhens

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

>this is like mud wrestling....
>errr, its a very long strech to call active suspension active dampers.
>active dampers are simply a method to control rebound, pure and simple, and
>have been used on high-end cars for years.  true active suspension doesn't
>require springs (which are *re*active), but uses (generally hydraulic,
>sometines pneumatic) pistons instead.  enough said?

A true active damper doesn't necessarily require a spring, nor does it 
necessarily require a piston.  Enough said.

>wrt the economics of the 'wrc' car vs the group 'a' car.  as i have said the
>'wrc' came about simply because manufacturers approached the fia seeking to
>*not* have to homologate a car to the group 'a' rules, in order to compete
>in the wrc.  and so the fia drafted the rules allowing a manufacturer with a
>homologated 2wd, non-turbo machine to add a turbo and awd hardware in order
>to go racing.  remember that the move was basically economically driven in
>the 1st place.  since the regulations have been in place, another 4
>manufacturers (none with an applicable turbo awd car) have entered wrc cars
>(peugeot, seat, skoda, and now hyundai).  remember that ford/toyota had let
>the homologation on the escort lapse simply because they could use the wrc
>rules to develop the focus (again wihtout an awd, turbo base car).  is this
>"economics" so hard to understand?

Slow down Dave...  The WRC hasn't been as simple as you propose, in economics 
or politics.  Several teams early on realized (1994) that "winning" was going 
to be difficult, and several Works teams delayed commitment to the 1995 
season.  FIA fired back that no WRC other than fwd would be allowed if no 
less than 4 works teams committed for the 1995 season.  Also slid in the mix, 
was the proposal by FIA that AWD be banned from WRC all together.  Subaru 
threatened to pull all WRC, since 95% of their road cars were of the awd 
variety.  So economics isn't all we need to understand in the "progression" 
of WRC.  FIA punted in a 1996 meeting/directive many of the problems they 
created on their own accord.  Thankfully, the economics of WRC has proceded 
despite the mud wrestling.  Still, the formula for the win hasn't found a 
winner.  All top guns gain in tenths of a second relative to each other, and 
it's not consistent, hasn't been in a couple years.  The race to have that 
dominance was felt hardest by toyota in 1995.  The complexity and true 
artistry of the retracting restrictor shows the pressure felt by the teams to 
bring home wins to justify their existence.  Let's not think for a second 
that everyone is in WRC to play with a lot of money.  ROI is the win.  Tough 
to do consistently.

>wrt suspension allowances in wrc.  lets keep this simple.  the homologated
>car does not require a full transmission tunnel, and can have a 2wd setup.
>the regulations allow the placement of a tunnel,  and the full rear
>axle/suspension assembly.  the ford engineer i talked to was quite clear
>that that gave many advantages.  as of today, there is 1 group 'a' car left
>in the field, the others are all 'wrc', and of the 6 or so top line 'wrc'
>teams, only 1 of which i am aware use other than struts.  enough said?

NO.  You haven't answered the question.  What are the advantages?  If they 
are that clear, explain them.  What is the night and day difference in design 
or performance of the struts used, compared to the "old" tech groupe a?  What 
did the ford engineer say specifically?  What can the old groupe a cars do to 
use the "new" tech to make the a cars faster (running open class of course).  
That is what I'm asking Dave.  Many posts, and still not close to clear on 
the answer, your simplistic explanation so noted, it has only claims, no 
specifics.

>you dispute that group 'b' is slower than 'wrc'!  i simply can't believe
>that you would dispute this, as it is such common knowledge. 
 >here in newzealand, we have had the world championship rally since the 
early '80s, >a couple of years excepted.  during that time a number of stages 
have been
>retained and give a fair indication of the progress of cars over the years.
>the nz rally press pack gives you the stage times for each of the last 10 or
>so years.  a perusal of these results will show you that the group 'a' cars
>by 1990 and 1991 were beating the old group 'b' times over common stages.
>needless to say that the '90-'91 group 'a' cars are now so old-tech now as
>to be laughable.  happy to provide actual stage times if you need further
>education.

Just thought you deserved a tweek in return Davey, mine are just harmless and 
more subtle. Gotcha :)

>given that the cars are unquestionably faster (documented), and the engines
>are around 200hp *less*, and you state that there has been little or no
>progress in tyres, suspensions and transmissions over the last 15 years, i'm
>puzzled as to where you think that the speed has come from?  why is progress
>through technology so difficult for you to understand?  for example, last
>year in formula 1, it was commonly supposed that the tyre (note the
>*english* spelling) war between goodyear and bridgestone made around 4sec a
>lap difference over the course of a single year of tyre development.  need i
>remind you that pirelli and michelin have been hammer and tongs in the wrc
>now for more years than i care to remember?  you are now trying to get us to
>swallow that 15 years of tyre development (specifically for rallying need i
>say) has produced only "some small improvement".  rotflmho.

Dave, all is equal relative to the cars using the tires.  Right now WRC is 
won and lost on more luck than any equipment or driver, the individual stage 
results clearly show that.  That luck includes the propensity for the tires 
to go pop, and the subsequent driver call to change or finish the stage (or 
not, as the case may be).  When they do, the field stretches from the 5 
second between 1 and 10 to the 5 minutes you see in the final results.  I'm 
biting on the active diffs as a big advantage to the WRC, and better 
commitment to baseline chassis design as well, the pressure of road car is 
now gone.  Stiffer and lighter chassis, optimized strut placement (not design 
as of yet), and active diffs make for a fast ride.  Choice of transmissions 
and relative software (and there are differences in the teams running) has 
little effect on the standings, only in terms of failure, not performance per 
sae.

I'm not sure you at all answered the questions raised, but certainly you 
finished better than you started.  Right now, my interest is in strut design, 
and to the compromises the rally teams in the US need to accept.  I would 
like to see a faster change of the front struts in our Groupe a S2 (and I 
know Sprongl has interest in this too, not to mention a bunch of other teams 
following the ME rally), we blew the fronts out (not bad enough to accept a 
bogey service time however), so did a bunch of other drivers.  I'm thinking 
along the lines of the 44 chassis design, I've done strut swaps in <10 
minutes there.  However, Dave, when I read "night and day" differences, my 
ears perked.  I've seen nothing to keep them aquiver as of yet.  Appreciate 
your latest efforts to be civil.

Scott Justusson