Weekly Race Series, Week 47

  • Thread starter boombexus
  • 121 comments
  • 4,205 views
Just for FYI, the Citreon Xsara that has run in WRC the last two years has been AWD. I'm a bit skeptical about why polyphonal made the Xsara only two wheel drive in GT3.
 
Found some info on a website

In 2000 Citroen announced that it would enter the World Rally Championship at the highest level with the Citroen Xsara T4. Following hard on the heals on the dominant success of the two wheel drive Xsara Kit Car - so quick it beat the four wheel drive super cars in two 1999 World Championship events to take the ultimate prize - Citroen has developed a world class competition car to challenge the world's best.


So, the Xsara in GT3 is'nt a full WRC spec car. Though on tarmac, not using an AWD system saves weight. Which probably gave the Xsara a good chance on tarmac.
 
Originally posted by BlazingDragon
Me too :)

But the Integrale is not as cool as a Lancia Rallye 037, or Quattro S1, or Delta S4, or Peugeot 205 T16, or Ford RS200, or....
....wanders off into dream land...
...what I'd really like is an Escort RS1700T - now that would be cool in GT4... :D
Click to expand...

*points to avatar* :D

Redline Fox - the Xsara in GT3 is the works Citroen Xsara Tarmac Rally car, run in 1999 by the Citroen team, driven by Phillippe Bugalski and Sebastien Loeb. They only competed on tarmac events - such as Tour de Corse - and frequently won, as although they only had a little over 200hp, they had a major weight advantage (the one in GT3 is 960kg, I believe).

But in this situation it just gives away too much power and, more importantly, far too much torque to the WRC spec cars in GT3.
 
It is also a wet tarmac race, which even the real Xsara kit car may have been put at a disadvantage with.

It is typical that french teams do well on tarmac events, both the Pug and Citreon are part of the same company and have been the most powerful two cars for the last three to four years until Ford brought the new Focus, which is faster and less reliable, just like the french cars. :P

I hope GT4 has some more classic rally machines and includes the Skoda Octavia and Hyundai WRCs even though they rarely are competative.
 
The Hyundai Accent WRC is in GT: Concept 2002 Tokyo-Geneva, so odds on it'll be in GT4.

It's not MUCH cop, but at least it's something different! :D
 
It would be nice if Poly caught on to the fact that the SCCA ProRally Hyundai, Evo and Subaru are actually more powerful then the WRC counterparts. They are just not allowed as much high-tech eletronics such as the fully sequential gearboxs.

The North America Tiburon was actually a really well sorted car, compared to the Accent, Vermont Sports Car I think preped the Tib? Until they started prepping Mitsu's cars.
 
Power is nothing without control... :lol:

The current crop of WRC cars are pulling stage times, where applicable, significantly quicker than the group B cars in the mid 1980s. And the RS200 in my avatar was running up to 850hp in competition spec...
 
I think we should probably take our discussion elsewhere, this is supposed to be about trap time discussions after all heh.
 
:lol: True - but I'm sure no-one would mind a little addition to their rally car knowledge...

I have at last turned in a registration lap time, so I'm now actually eligible to race in this one... No idea what class I'll be put in though.
 
Just did a clean lap with:
T1 = 31.399; T2 = 55.339

...but then remembered that I had changed the oil last night (I was up to 140 miles), and when I went back to check the specs of my Evo VII Prototype, the weight/power = 2.57 (it has been 2.71) :banghead:

Famine, I'm currently at 160 miles - if I get past 300 will the power start to drop (and weight/power start to increase back to 2.60)?

Also, is everyone running with TCS = 0, or a different value?? My laps so far have been with TCS = 1.
 
T1 31:973
T2 56.686

I've done a few "naked" runs with my choice car, thankfully it has stayed legal even with stage 2 turbo. There should be some better times once I've set the thing up to something I prefer.

It would be intresting to know the tourqe specs on the Group B cars compared to the WRC ones. The Citreon I've read produces around 576 ftlbs, all of the current WRCs probably produce at least 550. Even though their HP are limited to 300, tourqe becomes much more important in tight situations, espically with AWD.

Technological advancment in steering, suspension, tires, AWD systems...etc...do make for faster cars. Power and speed are not synonymies.
 
Originally posted by Redline Fox I've done a few "naked" runs with my choice car, thankfully it has stayed legal even with stage 2 turbo. There should be some better times once I've set the thing up to something I prefer.

It would be intresting to know the tourqe specs on the Group B cars compared to the WRC ones. The Citreon I've read produces around 576 ftlbs, all of the current WRCs probably produce at least 550. Even though their HP are limited to 300, tourqe becomes much more important in tight situations, espically with AWD.

Technological advancment in steering, suspension, tires, AWD systems...etc...do make for faster cars. Power and speed are not synonymies.
Click to expand...

the citroen is actually one of if not THE best rally cars for hotlap (atleast in arcade form) problem with the citroen is specific to the wet track. the wheels spin till the cows come home in the rain.
 
:eek: Scared to see Famine here. I thought he stayed to just the GT3 board! :D Nice to see you runnin'.

I gave this a try with the Subaru Rally and Pugeot, neither were even close to what you guys are getting.... sigh.
 
Originally posted by Redline Fox

It would be intresting to know the tourqe specs on the Group B cars compared to the WRC ones. The Citreon I've read produces around 576 ftlbs, all of the current WRCs probably produce at least 550. Even though their HP are limited to 300, tourqe becomes much more important in tight situations, espically with AWD.

Technological advancment in steering, suspension, tires, AWD systems...etc...do make for faster cars. Power and speed are not synonymies.
Click to expand...

Without going too much off topic again (sorry ;) ), the group B cars had far more highly stressed engines, with more power but a lot less torque. They were normally 1.8 litres (quattro Sport S1 Evo was 2.1, as was the Evolution RS200 which was never used in an official Group B WRC rally. It saw lots of rallycross action however...).

Quoted figures for the Delta S4 in '86 were 470 bhp and 330 lbs/ft torque. The Audi was rumoured to have over 550 bhp by mid '86 when Audi canned it. I think the RS200 was at about 450-475 bhp in the 1986 RAC rally (the last Group B world rally).
The Group S Lancia ECV (still-born replacement for the Delta S4) would have had 600 bhp. The minimum weight for Group B was 930 kg....

There a few good books and lots of web resources (have a look here for starters:
http://freespace.virgin.net/shalco.com/index.htm).

Back to racing...
 
Keep in mind, modern WRC cars are limited to 2.0 liters. They are just as highly stressed if not more so with the power gains in the low end.

All these rules keep the cars from being to fast. Wonder if we'll ever see a truely unlimted series like F1 and World Rally back in the early 80s.

Anyone remember the "Fan Cars" ?
 
Originally posted by Redline Fox
Keep in mind, modern WRC cars are limited to 2.0 liters. They are just as highly stressed if not more so with the power gains in the low end.

All these rules keep the cars from being to fast. Wonder if we'll ever see a truely unlimted series like F1 and World Rally back in the early 80s.

Anyone remember the "Fan Cars" ?
Click to expand...

By "highly stressed" I was referring to a combination of high engine revs and turbo boost pressures...modern WRC engines are air flow restricted and tuned for low end torque (and are definitely not highly stressed by modern racing engine standards - e.g. 19,500 rpm in F1).

The last purely unrestricted formulae were in the 60's - gas turbines, diesels, four wheel drive, forced induction, aerodynamics, etc.. all have subsequently been banned or regulated against ...:(
 
It has to be really, for safety. The pure absurd performance that could be created would get drivers killed at an unacceptable rate.
 
Sorry that I'm going to miss this weeks race. I just love SSR 5 Wet!! :lol:

Off for a week of sailing around the Virgin Islands with my poker buddies. :cool: I'll probably be out next week too. Fun, sun, cards, coral. I'll think of you guys if I bother thinking at all! :P Good luck to all, and keep the shiny side up!
 
iv been getting T1's of 29.264 with the impreza prototype,
im gonna try with the evo and see if i can do any better with that.

what tires are the rest of you using?
 
Originally posted by Spin Bad


what tires are the rest of you using?
Click to expand...

T8s - I hope they're the best choice.....I asked the question a couple of days ago but no one answered. My times seem competitive though.
 
Got some comparible times (sub 32 and sub 57 secs) using a Focus. Trouble is it's pwr is 2.622 - how close can u get? I'll have to forget oil changes cos I'm sure it'll slip to 2.599 just to be awkward! Or maybe I just keep reloading till i get my time ;)

But is this fair? Hmmm...



PS Celica rally car is PANTS. Probably Ok if you spent half your life tryuing to set it up - but it doesn't inspire me to try.
 
Yes - T8 tyres are my tyre of choice.

I'd imagine that if you ran the car past her prime to the magic 300 or so miles, you'd be looking at being back over the magic 2.600 mark. I think even the Scooby and Evo 7 prototypes would be inside regs if they were run past 300 miles too.
 
Originally posted by Famine
Yes - T8 tyres are my tyre of choice.

I'd imagine that if you ran the car past her prime to the magic 300 or so miles, you'd be looking at being back over the magic 2.600 mark. I think even the Scooby and Evo 7 prototypes would be inside regs if they were run past 300 miles too.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's what I was thinking. I'm running the EVO VII Proto, and I'm up to about 220 miles, so should be legal again soon...
 
Originally posted by GT3mich
You might want a steward ruling on this. This wasn't allowed in a past WRS.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean the Focus.
I think i'll just avoid it in case.
Unless Boom says OK.
Shame tho cos it's the most fun of the cars I've tried so far.
 
Originally posted by hippyneil
I take it you mean the Focus.
I think i'll just avoid it in case.
Unless Boom says OK.
Shame tho cos it's the most fun of the cars I've tried so far.
Click to expand...

Gt3Mich, do you mean the Focus, or running a car past 300 miles to increase the weight/power ratio, or using T8 tyes?

Boom, what's the official stance?
 
We had a past race with PWR restrictions and one car was above PWR but came under after it was run down. It wasn't allowed. I can't remember which race it was. Let me dig around a bit.
 
Dont worry too much... I seem to remember somethign similar a little while ago.

I think that maybe with pwr restrictions, these should be indicated as the pwr after a car has done a minimum distance (say 200k or whatever is the average for running in). This should mean that where a new car is just within the restrictions but once it's run the distance and had an oil change it will not be allowable, then the car is disallowed - even if it's new but within the current 'rule's.
If that makes sense.

Maybe we should push for firm ruling... what's your view Boom?

It might be a pain in the wassname but at least it'll stop this sort of query and any misundestanding in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shoenboggie
GTP_WRS Week 47: Highway 1 with the First Generation M3
Replies
29
Views
4K
tmtk
tmtk
shoenboggie
GTP_WRS Week 41: Autopolis Drift
Replies
17
Views
4K
Hasnain282
Hasnain282
Allibubba99
GTP_WRS Week 46: MonZda
Replies
13
Views
3K
Allibubba99
Allibubba99
EDK
GTP_WRS Week 198: Basking in Comfort
Replies
4
Views
911
roamer2629
roamer2629
shoenboggie
GTP_WRS Week 43: Circuit de Alonso
Replies
18
Views
4K
benjoi84
benjoi84

Latest Posts

Back