WRC is back!

gti138

gti138

Well-known member
1000+ Posts
Fellow Frogger
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
1,878
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
WRC is back!

Looks like a good run for the Citroen's & Peugeot's so far. With Loeb leading by about 2 minutes over Gronholm in the 307.

Duval was a bit unlucky in his debut for Citroen - He hit a Telgraph pole and felled it which blocked the stage. This meant that Loeb could not complete the stage and was given a nominal time.

Gronholm is pleased with the Peugeot's performance, considering the switch to Pirelli rubber and he has never really liked the monte and most importantly the 307 has been reliable!

The other good thing to see is stage wins for Mitsubishi & Skoda - Maybe the championship will close up a bit and make for a more interesting season.

The Results - after Day 2.

1. Loeb - Citroen
2. Gronholm - Peugeot
3. Gardemeister - Ford
4. Solberg - Subaru
5. Panizzi - Mitsubishi
6. Martin - Peugeot
 
Anyone know where i can find this years rules. Like do manufacturers still have to nominate 'point-earning cars'. It is just that i see a few privateers doing very well.
 
It will be an interesting year i think as there are now different track widths also. Peugeot, Subie & Mitsu are a bit wider now.

When toyota went wider track in the 90's it revealed that they were having to make there own driving line wich cost time because of the loose surface and lead them to the infamous trubo (non)restrictor incident.

But with several teams doing it it may be ok, but we will see. i am hoping for a subie, ford or citroen win this year. i think the 307 was an arrogant ploy buy the pug team thinking it could cope with the extra engineering with a convertible. I am a 180 driver too so dont think I want them to be crappy.

The big surprises will be in japan, NZ & aus i think when atkinson drives on roads hes done before.

Anyway lets hope its a good year and that PSA stick around and maybe renault get on board.
 
fluffybunnyv2 said:
i think the 307 was an arrogant ploy buy the pug team thinking it could cope with the extra engineering with a convertible.
Click to expand...
Some people say the swap to the 307cc was nothing but a marketing ploy, while Peugeot say it's because they had "developed" the 206 to it's maximum extent and needed a longer wheelbase to stay competitive. As for being a convertable, well the shell of the car is just that .. a shell only, the full cage is what is keeping the car together, they could have used a regular 307, but I don't think marketing would have liked it :)

- xTc -
 
XTC206 said:
Some people say the swap to the 307cc was nothing but a marketing ploy, while Peugeot say it's because they had "developed" the 206 to it's maximum extent and needed a longer wheelbase to stay competitive. As for being a convertable, well the shell of the car is just that .. a shell only, the full cage is what is keeping the car together, they could have used a regular 307, but I don't think marketing would have liked it :)

- xTc -
Click to expand...

Provera has admitted that they faced several strengthening issues while developing the car. The cage does NOT as many ppl think provide all the strength. Check the WRCar regulations, they are only permitted to do so much to the chassis etc. if the shell provided no strength then you might as well drop all the rules and let them run tube frames like in group B days.

The 307cc caused a lot of chassis tuning issues, time and money that could of been spent elsewhere.... like i dunno gearbox research. Damn they go for a 4 speed saying how less parts will make it more reliable and what happens. A: the drivers hate it, B: it brakes more(prolly because more load is going onto individual parts, mainly in second gear whereas it would of gone between 2 & 3 previously.
 
fluffybunnyv2 said:
Provera has admitted that they faced several strengthening issues while developing the car. The cage does NOT as many ppl think provide all the strength. Check the WRCar regulations, they are only permitted to do so much to the chassis etc. if the shell provided no strength then you might as well drop all the rules and let them run tube frames like in group B days.
Click to expand...
No doubt the frame is a structural component (even the windscreen plays a part), but the roll cage is the 4 points all the suspension hangs off, and indeed the key in the cars handling. (at least that's we found in the half dozen rally cars I've been a part of building).

These cars are nothing like their real world counterparts ... which is partly due to safety, but a shame really, it'd be nice to have something closer, like group N. How many WRX owners think they have a real rally car? - I bet it's a lot more then 307cc owners. :D

If you want to ask more about the 307WRC ask GTi138, he got a much closer look them most at TRA2004.

- xTc -
 
Well my point is the idea was flawed from day 1, it did not have the same chassis tuning potential from day 1 as its rivals. I dont need an education on rally cars as Ive been involved in rallying for nearly 15 years and am currently looking at punting a modern french front wheel drive to replace my aging AE86.

The car would of sold as many units without the WRCcar being based on it. Look at the popularity of the 206cc. It was a poor decision by pug and theyve been chasing there tails since

I nearly purchased a 307cc when i got my 180. lets be honest though its a bit of a ladies/30something bald guys car and thats where a lot of its sales will be. WRC aims at a younger/hoonier audience as far cars go. look at mitsu & suby with all the dumasses buying fake evos. It still makes plenty of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top