Pete, what do you mean that AWD is downright commonplace? I can only think of two current models in the size segment that would be rallyable that have AWD in the US: Impreza and Evo. That's a very small portion of all rally-size cars out there. Like maybe 5% (guesstimate) of all the compact models currently available.

As to the article, I think Max at least has his heart in the right place this time:
"Mr Mosley has been very clear on what he wants from the future regulations. He wants the cars to be slower, safer, cheaper, and more spectacular."

This was a rich quote though:
"I don't think the manufacturers spending around 50 million euros would be impressed to find that they have to use a car that can't be bought by the man on the street."

Yeah, like any of the cars that are on the WRC currently can be bought by the man on the street. Subaru could at least claim that their street cars are AWD just like the rally cars, but all the other manufacturers can't.

---

-----------------------------
http://www.max-attack.com

Shenan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pete, what do you mean that AWD is downright
> commonplace? I can only think of two current
> models in the size segment that would be rallyable
> that have AWD in the US: Impreza and Evo. That's a
> very small portion of all rally-size cars out
> there. Like maybe 5% (guesstimate) of all the
> compact models currently available.

Not everyone drives compact cars. (As if Subarus/Evos were compact!)
Not everyone drives "rallyable" cars.

That was not my point: my point was that as AWD becomes much more common *as a mode of transportation for John Q. Public*, they want to take it from the top tier of rally.

Every manufacturer (selling in the US anyway) is making or has made in the past five years an AWD car of some description, save the Koreans, Rolls-Royce, and the Italian exotica. And they're downright popular. Do they even *make* a two wheel drive version of the STS? Every one I have seen is an STS4. And AWD Vibes, Suzukis, Lexus ISs, G35s, BMWs of all manner of different flavors, Mercedes 4Matics and their stepchild Chrysler kin, Ford schlepmobiles... Even *Honda* has an AWD vehicle on the market. With a turbo, even.

I'm not even bothering to count SUV/minivan/crossover type vehicles, either.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What did they not have at the start of the GpA
> period that they have today.
>
> Good gearboxes, good diffs, and good suspension.

They did have pretty good gearboxes or boxes with good ratios, they had good clutch plate diffs everywhere (except for Ford who used big Viscous Diffs till '93) and they had good suspension. Everybody had around 200-210mm then.

They also had 40mm restrictors in GpA and 38mm in GpN---and that caused a lot of the failures in the gearboxes, just LOTS of ft/lbs.

And looking at taped from say 1990, they were a lot more fun to watch.
>
> Off road trucks have suspension travel
> limitations, why not WRC?

Maybe not a bad idea, as I have reports that the World Rally Cars have around 275mm travel.
Maybe give them 185mm.
>
> Stick 'em with 175mm travel. That will slow them
> down in a way that is "crowd pleasing" instead of
> cutting acceleration.
>
> Just a thought...

Nothing wrong with thinking.
>
> Pete Remner
> Cleveland, Ohio
>
> 1984 RX-7 reshell
> 1978

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

No shit? 275mm of travel? Small wonder they fly and land like a trials bike.

---

JohnLane

Overkill is consistently more fun

I would love to see rear drive car, there is nothing cooler than watching John Lane, carl yardivale?? , Leon Styles etc in a rear drive car
Who cares if they are slower than WRC cars
John Watson