You're right, but not for the reason you think.
Rumor is that this guy was part of a 'parade lap' running at non-competition speeds. He definitely isn't on the start list or results anywhere.
Crashing a rare, custom exotic while competing? Winning.
Crashing a rare, custom exotic that's not competing, but potentially delaying and/or causing problems for an event? Total Douche.
Rumor is that this guy was part of a 'parade lap' running at non-competition speeds. He definitely isn't on the start list or results anywhere.
Crashing a rare, custom exotic while competing? Winning.
Crashing a rare, custom exotic that's not competing, but potentially delaying and/or causing problems for an event? Total Douche.
Odds we'll actually get it in the US? Pretty low IMO - I'm not sure the US 'cheap sports car' market is really large enough for them to drop their "All Subarus come standard with All Wheel Drive" schtick.
Build it on a unibody off the assembly line and I'll care. DTM is following in NASCAR's footsteps, 20 years behind or so.
No Michele Mouton? Blasphemy! Multiple WRC wins, 2nd place in the 1982 driver's championship, two overall wins (including a record setting time) at Pike's Peak.
Words out of my mouth. If you're going to mention any tuner 911's, you can't not mention the Yellowbird.
So, what you want is a Sierra? I see nothing wrong with that.
So, it's like a normal race at Pau, but quieter?
Seriously, Pau is one of the narrowest, most obstacle-ridden road courses in the world. Pretty much every race I've ever seen run there involves more than one multiple-car accident - regardless of how they're powered.
Seriously, Pau is one of the narrowest, most obstacle-ridden road courses in the world. Pretty much every race I've ever seen run there involves more than one multiple-car accident - regardless of how they're powered.
That mindset (eerily accurate btw) is even funnier when viewed against the reality that the average american driver doesn't even think about accelerating above 40mph until they've reached the end of the on-ramp.
agree with the edit...
But US gas isn't as bad as everybody thinks, octane-wise. Don't forget that Europe uses a different value to label their gas than we do. Talking in typical American terms (AKI, or (R+M)/2), our regular gas is ~87 octane, while Europe's is 91 - which is the same as premium for much of the US. And it's not like 50% of the cars on the market don't already recommend running premium.
(If you're talking about the whole E10 thing, then you've got a point, I think)
But US gas isn't as bad as everybody thinks, octane-wise. Don't forget that Europe uses a different value to label their gas than we do. Talking in typical American terms (AKI, or (R+M)/2), our regular gas is ~87 octane, while Europe's is 91 - which is the same as premium for much of the US. And it's not like 50% of the cars on the market don't already recommend running premium.
(If you're talking about the whole E10 thing, then you've got a point, I think)
A 4wd Porsche? No deal.
if you want to talk about the incremental downfall of rallying over the last 30 years, I think the cars are the smallest problem. Setting rally schedules and routes to ease TV production, less and less stage mileage with more and more service stops, these sorts of things are much bigger issues than what production models the cars are based on.
But, since you started the discussion...
The move away from Group A in 1997 definitely sealed the fate of any privateer thinking they could build a top-spec car on their own. But, I don't believe there was really any push-back, since all the teams at that point were more-or-less true factory teams. That, combined with the fact that the top-spec cars at that point were getting about the same treatment as they are now (what, you think they were actually racing the same 4wd transmissions that came in the road cars?), and it didn't make much sense that the mfrs should have to go though all that development work to create 200,000+ mile reliable 4wd street cars, just to throw it all out the window when they drop in a different gearbox.
Bottom line in my mind, the market for sporty 4wd cars (supercars excluded) is pretty well cornered by Subaru and Mitsubishi. As much as any enthusiast begs for more cars in this vein, the market just isn't there for them. If the FIA moved back to the sort of homologation requirements like the Group A days, there's a couple possible outcomes:
* Manufacturer involvement drops to 0. No manufacturers == no racing.
* Top-level rallying becomes 2wd only. Not necessarily a bad thing in my mind, but most disagree.
* Top-level rallying moves to something like the new R4 class - basically group N with fewer restrictions on weight and suspension. Really only Subaru and Mitsu right now, and since Mitsu's getting out of the sporty 4wd game...
TL;DR: really fast 4wd cars wouldn't be the top level of rallying these days without the homologation changes that allow 'tarted-up grocery getters'.
But, since you started the discussion...
The move away from Group A in 1997 definitely sealed the fate of any privateer thinking they could build a top-spec car on their own. But, I don't believe there was really any push-back, since all the teams at that point were more-or-less true factory teams. That, combined with the fact that the top-spec cars at that point were getting about the same treatment as they are now (what, you think they were actually racing the same 4wd transmissions that came in the road cars?), and it didn't make much sense that the mfrs should have to go though all that development work to create 200,000+ mile reliable 4wd street cars, just to throw it all out the window when they drop in a different gearbox.
Bottom line in my mind, the market for sporty 4wd cars (supercars excluded) is pretty well cornered by Subaru and Mitsubishi. As much as any enthusiast begs for more cars in this vein, the market just isn't there for them. If the FIA moved back to the sort of homologation requirements like the Group A days, there's a couple possible outcomes:
* Manufacturer involvement drops to 0. No manufacturers == no racing.
* Top-level rallying becomes 2wd only. Not necessarily a bad thing in my mind, but most disagree.
* Top-level rallying moves to something like the new R4 class - basically group N with fewer restrictions on weight and suspension. Really only Subaru and Mitsu right now, and since Mitsu's getting out of the sporty 4wd game...
TL;DR: really fast 4wd cars wouldn't be the top level of rallying these days without the homologation changes that allow 'tarted-up grocery getters'.
F-Cup. Finnish rally championship, rules are summed up by "2wd, naturally aspirated". Highest level of rally competition in the world. (Yes, I'm saying it's more competitive than the WRC.)
thanks for posting this, nice to hear some follow-up. Please continue posting these throughout the season!
I know doing anything more than just copying-and-pasting headlines is real hard work, but come on, guys. Not every rally out there is a WRC rally. The Mini won a small regional event - not too different (other than the level of competition being much, much higher) than the events in the US. Only thing it really shows is that the Mini S2000 is on par with the other S2000 cars - their lead was only 12s, which isn't much.
The fact that 1/2 the cars on that list never won a international-level event really calls into question their claim of 'best'. Hell, the 959 never actually raced in Group B. Don't get me wrong, I love the 6R4 and the RS200 (unlike pretty much everyone else in the known universe, I dislike the 959, but that's another story) - but they really don't belong on any best-of-group-B list.
Somewhat ironic, posing a McRae gif in a thread about wrecking rally cars - as Colin knew, taking a risk like that meant rolling 8 out of 10 times. When it works out, it can be quite fast - but it often doesn't work out. While taking risks like this is part of rally, knowing when to take those risks, and when to back off a touch is a bigger part.
look at ken block's rally-america results last year to see just how well a top-spec rallycross car does as a rally car - 5 DNFs speaks pretty loudly.
If it was a privateer building it, sure, they might make some compromises on either side to make it a decent rally and rallycross car.
But with a manufacturer backing the project, it's about the same as suggesting that McLaren are going to make some compromises with their F1 car to allow it to be raced and competitive at LeMans - not going to happen.
If it was a privateer building it, sure, they might make some compromises on either side to make it a decent rally and rallycross car.
But with a manufacturer backing the project, it's about the same as suggesting that McLaren are going to make some compromises with their F1 car to allow it to be raced and competitive at LeMans - not going to happen.
Yeah, probably got that backwards... Time to try out the edit button. Never mind, looks like I can't edit a comment that has been replied/promoted.
Rallycross:Rally::LeMans Prototype:F1
Just because they're similar, doesn't mean that they're the same.
Rallycross cars have to run for a whopping 3-5 minutes at a time - Rally cars have to run for hours on end.
Rallycross cars have to be able to deal with a fairly well groomed mix of dirt and pavement - rally cars have to deal with some of the roughest roads in the world.
Rallycross cars have a driver - rally cars have a driver AND a co-driver.
I'll stop there. Just call the thing what it is, FFS. And a rally car, it is not.
Just because they're similar, doesn't mean that they're the same.
Rallycross cars have to run for a whopping 3-5 minutes at a time - Rally cars have to run for hours on end.
Rallycross cars have to be able to deal with a fairly well groomed mix of dirt and pavement - rally cars have to deal with some of the roughest roads in the world.
Rallycross cars have a driver - rally cars have a driver AND a co-driver.
I'll stop there. Just call the thing what it is, FFS. And a rally car, it is not.
I stand corrected, thanks!
