lancia delta S4 on ebay
07-29-2004, 02:23 PM
#16
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by dahveed
for me, these cars are as good as it gets.
I hate to say it, but for me, even F1 doesn't come close enough.
I swear I will own and drive a Group B or Group S car in my lifetime.
I hate to say it, but for me, even F1 doesn't come close enough.
I swear I will own and drive a Group B or Group S car in my lifetime.
-Chris
07-29-2004, 02:37 PM
#17
Dahveed aka Robin Hood
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Robbin' the Hood (Claycord)
Posts: 4,793
Car Info: (RIP) '04 STi Silver
For instance, when it comes to F1, I'm a huge Schumi and Ferrari fan, but believe it or not, they have won, and continue to win within the rules.
This is unlike late 90's McLaren Mercedes, with the 3rd. pedal braking, illegal traction control, etc. Sure McLaren was (prolly still is, I just hate them) sneaky with their violations, but Group B was all about excess in every way, especially HP.
Group B cars averaged at least 150 HP more in race form than they were supposed to.
While Group S was supposed to be limited to 300hp, Lancia for instance had designed their ECV1 & ECV2 cars to have over 600hp; they couldn't have cared less what the FIA said, and I love that. This was the old days of the FIA (FISA), before it turned into (and it still is) the "No Fun Racing League". The change occured when Group B was canned along with its supposed successor, Group S. This attitude lives on with the puny HP limits for WRC cars (300HP???), and with the constant harrasment of Ferrari, threats of F1 rules changes, etc.
Group B and the proposed Group S's blatant disregard for the rules, these excessive cars, the lust for more and more power and advanced technology, I love it all more than anything else in the world.
This is unlike late 90's McLaren Mercedes, with the 3rd. pedal braking, illegal traction control, etc. Sure McLaren was (prolly still is, I just hate them) sneaky with their violations, but Group B was all about excess in every way, especially HP.
Group B cars averaged at least 150 HP more in race form than they were supposed to.
While Group S was supposed to be limited to 300hp, Lancia for instance had designed their ECV1 & ECV2 cars to have over 600hp; they couldn't have cared less what the FIA said, and I love that. This was the old days of the FIA (FISA), before it turned into (and it still is) the "No Fun Racing League". The change occured when Group B was canned along with its supposed successor, Group S. This attitude lives on with the puny HP limits for WRC cars (300HP???), and with the constant harrasment of Ferrari, threats of F1 rules changes, etc.
Group B and the proposed Group S's blatant disregard for the rules, these excessive cars, the lust for more and more power and advanced technology, I love it all more than anything else in the world.
07-29-2004, 02:42 PM
#18
word.
to clarify, there is no HP limit on WRC cars because that would be 'too hard to test' or something like that.
What the FIA did was add a mandatory 34mm air restrictor. With the 2.0L limit on engine displacement, this theoretically limited the HP at 300 (at least in '97) but there are many good arguements that current WRCars are putting out 350hp.
Originally Posted by dahveed
This attitude lives on with the puny HP limits for WRC cars (300HP???), and with the constant harrasment of Ferrari, threats of F1 rules changes, etc.
What the FIA did was add a mandatory 34mm air restrictor. With the 2.0L limit on engine displacement, this theoretically limited the HP at 300 (at least in '97) but there are many good arguements that current WRCars are putting out 350hp.
07-29-2004, 02:58 PM
#20
Dahveed aka Robin Hood
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Robbin' the Hood (Claycord)
Posts: 4,793
Car Info: (RIP) '04 STi Silver
right, but to me the principle is the same.
what business does a restrictor plate have in any car, esp. a race car?
this is how I'd want the WRC:
simply make the chassis, brakes, motor, and suspension specs open.
you want to win? simply build the best car, and/or hire the best driver.
would it be highly dangerous? yes, and racing is inherently dangerous anyways. would the manufacturers go for it? yes. this is the beauty of competition, that they wouldn't be able to resist pushing the limits...
what you would see evolve would ***k your eyes and ears...haha!
what business does a restrictor plate have in any car, esp. a race car?
this is how I'd want the WRC:
simply make the chassis, brakes, motor, and suspension specs open.
you want to win? simply build the best car, and/or hire the best driver.
would it be highly dangerous? yes, and racing is inherently dangerous anyways. would the manufacturers go for it? yes. this is the beauty of competition, that they wouldn't be able to resist pushing the limits...
what you would see evolve would ***k your eyes and ears...haha!
Originally Posted by nKoan
word.
to clarify, there is no HP limit on WRC cars because that would be 'too hard to test' or something like that.
What the FIA did was add a mandatory 34mm air restrictor. With the 2.0L limit on engine displacement, this theoretically limited the HP at 300 (at least in '97) but there are many good arguements that current WRCars are putting out 350hp.
to clarify, there is no HP limit on WRC cars because that would be 'too hard to test' or something like that.
What the FIA did was add a mandatory 34mm air restrictor. With the 2.0L limit on engine displacement, this theoretically limited the HP at 300 (at least in '97) but there are many good arguements that current WRCars are putting out 350hp.
Last edited by Group B; 07-29-2004 at 03:02 PM.
07-29-2004, 03:12 PM
#22
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by NZO
There are just too many punchlines to that...
-Chris
07-29-2004, 03:45 PM
#24
Originally Posted by dahveed
right, but to me the principle is the same.
what business does a restrictor plate have in any car, esp. a race car?
this is how I'd want the WRC:
simply make the chassis, brakes, motor, and suspension specs open.
you want to win? simply build the best car, and/or hire the best driver.
would it be highly dangerous? yes, and racing is inherently dangerous anyways. would the manufacturers go for it? yes. this is the beauty of competition, that they wouldn't be able to resist pushing the limits...
what you would see evolve would ***k your eyes and ears...haha!
what business does a restrictor plate have in any car, esp. a race car?
this is how I'd want the WRC:
simply make the chassis, brakes, motor, and suspension specs open.
you want to win? simply build the best car, and/or hire the best driver.
would it be highly dangerous? yes, and racing is inherently dangerous anyways. would the manufacturers go for it? yes. this is the beauty of competition, that they wouldn't be able to resist pushing the limits...
what you would see evolve would ***k your eyes and ears...haha!
07-30-2004, 08:50 AM
#26
The problem with mega horsepower rally cars is that it's not only dangerous for the drivers, but for the specatators as well. With the huge numbers of spectators and some of the problems they already have controlling them, it would be a nightmare if the cars were going faster (which is hard to imagine). I'm not sure how I feel about the restrictor, but the reason the Group B class was cancelled had a LOT to do with safety.
-Brian
-Brian
07-30-2004, 09:16 AM
#27
Dahveed aka Robin Hood
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Robbin' the Hood (Claycord)
Posts: 4,793
Car Info: (RIP) '04 STi Silver
Group B-era rally spectators would regularly enter the path of the vehicles to snap pictures. I have seen a spectator jump over a sliding Lancia 037 to avoid being smashed, because he was standing in the middle of the road (I have this on film - Too Fast To Race-video).
Yeah, there were a couple times where the vehicles left the roadway and killed spectators, but isn't that the risk of crowding the sides of the roadway the way the spectators did then?
The biggest safety problems of Group B were the lack of bladder-type fuel cells, and the lack of true fire suppression systems, both of which were to be introduced in the stillborn successor to Group B, Group S.
Yeah, there were a couple times where the vehicles left the roadway and killed spectators, but isn't that the risk of crowding the sides of the roadway the way the spectators did then?
The biggest safety problems of Group B were the lack of bladder-type fuel cells, and the lack of true fire suppression systems, both of which were to be introduced in the stillborn successor to Group B, Group S.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
