Why can’t we have rally cars like this anymore
Discussion
Not aiming this as lamenting past times. But I struggle to understand why we can’t have new rally cars like this?
This is largely a production car kitted out for rally. I know there were many subtle changes under the skin. But despite this, it’s still a pretty ‘normal’ car. And bears much resemblance to the road going models you really could buy.
Why does this financial model not work today?
Surely these ultra custom bespoke cars that teams are forced to build and race these days must cost many times more. And come with none of the perks of actually helping to sell cars or change a brands image.
I wonder if we would be better served if the car makers, rather than the FIA were to come up with a rule set for rallying.
This https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_N
Explains what happened but it doesn’t answer why it doesn’t work.
Explains what happened but it doesn’t answer why it doesn’t work.
IIRC it was pressure from European manufacturers that made FIA move further away from production-based rules, because they didn't have any suitable competitive cars for homologation etc.
Apparently its cheaper to build a few specialised competition vehicles that look a bit like the production version than it is to engineer production versions to be a suitable base.
Production based cars are still popular and competitive in many national championships though even if WRC has gone in a different direction.
Apparently its cheaper to build a few specialised competition vehicles that look a bit like the production version than it is to engineer production versions to be a suitable base.
Production based cars are still popular and competitive in many national championships though even if WRC has gone in a different direction.
GravelBen said:
IIRC it was pressure from European manufacturers that made FIA move further away from production-based rules, because they didn't have any suitable competitive cars for homologation etc.
Apparently its cheaper to build a few specialised competition vehicles that look a bit like the production version than it is to engineer production versions to be a suitable base.
Yet isn’t one of the reasons cited for modern WRC and often the lack of manufactures is the cost of it. Yet throughout the Group A era there were always loads of cars. Logically something doesn’t add up. Apparently its cheaper to build a few specialised competition vehicles that look a bit like the production version than it is to engineer production versions to be a suitable base.
We talk of lack of manufacturers, but the current WRC has Hyundai, Citroen, Toyota, plus M-Sport running the 'non official' Ford Fiesta; so 4 different cars. That's as good as you can expect in this day and age.
By way of comparison, the WEC top class currently only has Porsche and Toyota - and Porsche are pulling out.
4/ 5 is probably the most you can expect; normally, they can't all win - so someone has to lose, and eventually, the big bosses will pull the plug. Which is what Ford did at the end of 2012 - and they haven't returned.
As for the question; Ben has already answered; the Homologation specials were too expensive; so the Manufacturers asked for a rule change - and since 1997 we've had the WRCar formula. So, there is no need for a road going Rally rep.
By way of comparison, the WEC top class currently only has Porsche and Toyota - and Porsche are pulling out.
4/ 5 is probably the most you can expect; normally, they can't all win - so someone has to lose, and eventually, the big bosses will pull the plug. Which is what Ford did at the end of 2012 - and they haven't returned.
As for the question; Ben has already answered; the Homologation specials were too expensive; so the Manufacturers asked for a rule change - and since 1997 we've had the WRCar formula. So, there is no need for a road going Rally rep.
Not sure about others but WRC this year has been far more interesting
It needed to be to fight off the tinseltown threat of WRX that was taking away manufacturers who might otherwise have considered a WRC move.
The cars look and sound more spectacular, the drivers are as committed and talented as ever.
The rallies need some work, but are like they are to reduce budgets and travel times when WRC was really struggling years ago.
For me I would like to see some events dropped like Mexico, Turkey, even Wales and Italy.
Quite why Ypres is not a WRC event I don't know, but that would be a fabulous addition especially with Neuville now a main man, as would an event in Estonia to replace Poland that though amazing was very troubled this year by spectator issues.
A WRC event in Scotland or Ireland would be better than the dull Welsh event, and/or a share type deal where one year Scotland, one Wales, one Kielder etc would be far better.
It needed to be to fight off the tinseltown threat of WRX that was taking away manufacturers who might otherwise have considered a WRC move.
The cars look and sound more spectacular, the drivers are as committed and talented as ever.
The rallies need some work, but are like they are to reduce budgets and travel times when WRC was really struggling years ago.
For me I would like to see some events dropped like Mexico, Turkey, even Wales and Italy.
Quite why Ypres is not a WRC event I don't know, but that would be a fabulous addition especially with Neuville now a main man, as would an event in Estonia to replace Poland that though amazing was very troubled this year by spectator issues.
A WRC event in Scotland or Ireland would be better than the dull Welsh event, and/or a share type deal where one year Scotland, one Wales, one Kielder etc would be far better.
There never were that many Group A cars. Across the 10 years from 87-97, there was only really Lancia, Toyota, Subaru, Mitsubishi and Ford. No one else committed to building homologation specials.
As soon as WRC came along in 1997, it brought in a slew of new manufacturers, who couldn't justify building a special road model just to be competitive in rallying.
As soon as WRC came along in 1997, it brought in a slew of new manufacturers, who couldn't justify building a special road model just to be competitive in rallying.
Edited by DCLXIV on Saturday 21st October 21:54
Group A worked fine in my view. You had a lot more manufacturers than that, Audi, Renault, Mazda, Peugeot, Volkswagen, Vauxhall, yes they did not make 4wd cars, but nationally they were the backbone of rallying for 20 or 30 years.
It is always expensive to make 4wd rally cars and make 5000 of them. Not many could commit, but Group A did not just cater for 4wd turbo cars. And those years were just as exciting in some ways, I certainly enjoyed them.
The WRC years initially were great, but as soon as the FIUA allowed Peugeot to build car that was nothing like a 206 road car it lost its way.
It is always expensive to make 4wd rally cars and make 5000 of them. Not many could commit, but Group A did not just cater for 4wd turbo cars. And those years were just as exciting in some ways, I certainly enjoyed them.
The WRC years initially were great, but as soon as the FIUA allowed Peugeot to build car that was nothing like a 206 road car it lost its way.
300bhp/ton said:
Not aiming this as lamenting past times. But I struggle to understand why we can’t have new rally cars like this?
This is largely a production car kitted out for rally. I know there were many subtle changes under the skin. But despite this, it’s still a pretty ‘normal’ car. And bears much resemblance to the road going models you really could buy.
Why does this financial model not work today?
Surely these ultra custom bespoke cars that teams are forced to build and race these days must cost many times more. And come with none of the perks of actually helping to sell cars or change a brands image.
I wonder if we would be better served if the car makers, rather than the FIA were to come up with a rule set for rallying.
chunder27 said:
Group A worked fine in my view. You had a lot more manufacturers than that, Audi, Renault, Mazda, Peugeot, Volkswagen, Vauxhall, yes they did not make 4wd cars, but nationally they were the backbone of rallying for 20 or 30 years.
It is always expensive to make 4wd rally cars and make 5000 of them. Not many could commit, but Group A did not just cater for 4wd turbo cars. And those years were just as exciting in some ways, I certainly enjoyed them.
The WRC years initially were great, but as soon as the FIUA allowed Peugeot to build car that was nothing like a 206 road car it lost its way.
This sums it up for me really. +1It is always expensive to make 4wd rally cars and make 5000 of them. Not many could commit, but Group A did not just cater for 4wd turbo cars. And those years were just as exciting in some ways, I certainly enjoyed them.
The WRC years initially were great, but as soon as the FIUA allowed Peugeot to build car that was nothing like a 206 road car it lost its way.
DCLXIV said:
There never were that many Group A cars. Across the 10 years from 87-97, there was only really Lancia, Toyota, Subaru, Mitsubishi and Ford. No one else committed to building homologation specials.
As soon as WRC came along in 1997, it brought in a slew of new manufacturers, who couldn't justify building a special road model just to be competitive in rallying.
Group A was about longer than just that. It didn’t just happen after the Group B days. And it included Nissan, Mitsubishi, BMW, Citroen, Audi, Fiat, Lada and many others. As soon as WRC came along in 1997, it brought in a slew of new manufacturers, who couldn't justify building a special road model just to be competitive in rallying.
Edited by DCLXIV on Saturday 21st October 21:54
Groups A, B, C & N were introduced in around 1981/1982 following a re-organising of the older Groups 1-6, themselves given a reorganisation in 1970/1.
Group N was primarily showroom spec, with some concessions to competition and safety
Group A was for production cars with annual build requirements. There was an Evolution allowance as well.
Group B replaced Group 4, and had much smaller build requirements - 200 road cars, with an allowance for an Evolution version.
Group C replaced Groups 5 & 6 for sports prototypes.
Quite a lot of cars gained Group A homologation due to the numbers built per annum, but were not manufacturer supported because of lack of interest, or the manufacturer were concentrating on other models. However some privateers decided to use those cars, some with moderate success - eg the Ford Fiesta 1.1 of 1984 has Group A papers, as does the Daewoo Lanos 1.6.
Yes, its a shame that the homogolation special road cars died out, as there was a bigger link with the road car you could buy and the rally / circuit car you supported at the weekends.
Group N was primarily showroom spec, with some concessions to competition and safety
Group A was for production cars with annual build requirements. There was an Evolution allowance as well.
Group B replaced Group 4, and had much smaller build requirements - 200 road cars, with an allowance for an Evolution version.
Group C replaced Groups 5 & 6 for sports prototypes.
Quite a lot of cars gained Group A homologation due to the numbers built per annum, but were not manufacturer supported because of lack of interest, or the manufacturer were concentrating on other models. However some privateers decided to use those cars, some with moderate success - eg the Ford Fiesta 1.1 of 1984 has Group A papers, as does the Daewoo Lanos 1.6.
Yes, its a shame that the homogolation special road cars died out, as there was a bigger link with the road car you could buy and the rally / circuit car you supported at the weekends.
Only certain manufacturers could actually get away with making homologation specials.
Lancia did it not because they knew they could sell them, they couldn't, but because they wanted to win at all costs so kept a car designed in 86 at the front until 1992, quite a feat.
In that time Toyota designed two models, think about it, two models, that's 10000 cars, all the manufacturing involved, the dies, jigs media, development. Mazda did aswell but failed dismally.
Mitsubishi basically followed Lancia's model and introduced upgrades of the same basic car for years, no idea really if there 5000 Evo3's made and then 5000 Evo 4's made. I presume there were, and if so that was a very successful model.
And Subaru were the biggest success of all, transforming a company that made farm cars intone of the most desirable saloons anywhere in Europe, with the help of a Paystation game and a very fast Scot.
Ford did the same, but again to try and sell 5000 Escorts costing 25 grand each is tough anywhere!!
WRC was a good idea initially, and there was a boom in the late 90's early 00's, Skoda, SEAT, Mitsu, Ford, Toyota, Peugeot, Subaru. That's a lot of cars.
Lancia did it not because they knew they could sell them, they couldn't, but because they wanted to win at all costs so kept a car designed in 86 at the front until 1992, quite a feat.
In that time Toyota designed two models, think about it, two models, that's 10000 cars, all the manufacturing involved, the dies, jigs media, development. Mazda did aswell but failed dismally.
Mitsubishi basically followed Lancia's model and introduced upgrades of the same basic car for years, no idea really if there 5000 Evo3's made and then 5000 Evo 4's made. I presume there were, and if so that was a very successful model.
And Subaru were the biggest success of all, transforming a company that made farm cars intone of the most desirable saloons anywhere in Europe, with the help of a Paystation game and a very fast Scot.
Ford did the same, but again to try and sell 5000 Escorts costing 25 grand each is tough anywhere!!
WRC was a good idea initially, and there was a boom in the late 90's early 00's, Skoda, SEAT, Mitsu, Ford, Toyota, Peugeot, Subaru. That's a lot of cars.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff