WRC engines

[Spencifer_Murphy]

The group B cars where extremely fast....too fast for Rally events. But they are/were by no means anywhere near as fast around a tarmac circuit as an F1 car from the same year.

Yes they had good downforce, and yes they had a great power-to-weight ratio...but F1 cars of the time (and now) surpass them on both grounds. So there is simply no way the Group B car could be remotely as fast.

Which stands to reason, a Rally car shuddnt be as quick as an F1 car on tarmac...otherwise it wouldnt end up being much good on graval!

[Reca]

Perhaps Toivonen was using full track lenght on dry day and perhaps F1 qualifying that year was under the rain?

No, just look at the time and the average speed, 200 km/h means that it was certainly dry for the F1 and it’s absolutely out of reach for a Group B (or any car bar F1 for that matter). Obviously I’m assuming that the reported laptime (1’18”1) is correct, if it’s not then it’s not even worth discussing.

on what grounds is a modern wrc car better at cornering? the b groups had unrestricted technology, when today everything is restricted. ofcourse things such as engine management and four wheel drive have evolved, but not enought to make up for over 400kgs of mass and all the aero devices, including skirts, which many of the cars(at least audi and lancia) had. cars havnt changed that much, the 83(not quite positive on the year) audi sport quattro2.2t beat the new mitsubishi evo9 on dry tarmac, on track. recently.

Also a F1 car of mid 80s was, compared with today, unrestricted technology and had possibly more power, still a current F1 car is several seconds, per lap (hence in just 4-5 km), faster than a mid 80s F1 was.
A current WRC benefits, compared with a Group B, of 20 years of development in, first of all, tyres, then transmission system (and their electronic control, even if nowadays only the central differential is active) suspension design, chassis design, etc etc etc, all of that is more than enough to make up the weight difference (that is more in the order of 200-250, not 400). Also because the Group B engines, although very powerful, weren’t certainly very driveable.
Anyway you could ask the drivers, I did hear/talk with several drivers, amongst them Miki Biasion (who drove the Group B, S4, in races) and all of them share my opinion.

[pyry]

got offtopic, lets rather discuss the current wrc versus group b

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Well as far as I know the current crop of WRC cars are getting quite close to group B speeds, obviously they arent as powerful, but as technology as advanced they set average sppeds on a stage close to that of the group B cars...

...they arent quite at the same speed yet, but they're getting there.

[Reca]

Yesterday night on a program on a local Italian tv (“Griglia di Partenza”, it’s sort of talkshow about motorsport with many guests, current/former drivers and riders, team managers etc etc), one of the guests was Cesare Fiorio. Amongst other things they did talk about rally and Group B and the host asked Cesare about that Toivonen’s time that would have put him on the 6th position on an hypothetical F1 grid. Fiorio’s answer was pretty eloquent : “Honestly, that’s the first time I hear about that thing, and considering I did manage that team and that driver I assume I should know if it happened...”

[manchild]

So meny sites are mentioning that 6th place... I'm not saying yes or no, just mentioning. Perhapes we should write to Lancia and ask for official info

Some examples:

http://www.stormloader.com/groupb/

...For instance, the Lancia Delta S4 could accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.3 seconds on a gravel road. Henri Toivonen drove an S4 around Estoril, the Portuguese Grand Prix circuit, so quickly that he would have qualified sixth for the 1986 Portuguese Grand Prix. Nigel Mansell sampled a Peugeot 205 T16 and said it could out-accelerate his F1 car...

http://www.answers.com/topic/group-b-1

Henri Toivonen drove a Delta S4 around the Portuguese Grand Prix track, Estoril, so quickly that he could have qualified just five places from the pole in the 1986 Grand Prix race.

http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/Cars_Background2.html

To give you an idea of the kind of performance GroupB cars were capable of I'll mention that in the 1986 season Henri Toivonen made two laps around the Estoril circuit, during a stage of the Portuguese rally, the fastest of which, in 1 minute and 18,1 seconds, would have qualified him in the sixth position of the F1 Grand Prix that same season. Ayrton Senna had the Pole Position in the 1986 Portuguese Grand Prix in 1 minute and 16,7 seconds...Toivonen was using the Lancia Delta S4 and was accompanied by his usual co-driver Sergio Cresto.

...

[zac510]

I recall a big thread discussing the possibility of that on AtlasF1's Nostalgia Forum. If you like I'm sure I can dig it up.

If I recall there was an element of truth to it but mostly it is a combination of chinese whispers and old wives tales!

[Reca]

So meny sites are mentioning that 6th place... I'm not saying yes or no, just mentioning. Perhapes we should write to Lancia and ask for official info

Honestly manchild, no matter how many websites report it as a proven fact (especially because they have very likely a common origin), in the moment you calculate the average speed and you see it’s close to 200 km/h, then you know that it can’t be.
Another matter is the acceleration 0-100km/h and there a Group B is/was a match for a F1 car, but that’s just normal, acceleration from standing still is limited by longitudinal grip and isn’t certainly one of the features where a F1 car excels, some of the characteristics of F1 design go even against it, while on the contrary it’s a very important characteristic for a Rally car, helped on that by the 4WD; low weight, lot of power and there you are.
Take for an example an Enzo, even better, the new FXX (that is an Enzo with 800 hp, better aero, lower weight, slick tyres etc etc), on 0-100 acceleration it’s not that slower than a current F1. But when you look at the laptime at Fiorano, 3 km of mickey mouse track where a F1 can’t even express fully its potential, the Enzo needs 1’23”-24”, the FXX 1’18”, a F1, 56”.

As for asking Lancia... I thought that the opinion of the Lancia team manager of the time was pretty close to an official answer

[manchild]

As for asking Lancia... I thought that the opinion of the Lancia team manager of the time was pretty close to an official answer

This is what I found on another forum...

...I asked this from Henri`s brother Harri Toivonen (fine rally/race driver he too, well ok their father Pauli win the Monte Carlo!!).

So, here is: Henri drove some tarmac tests in Estoril (yes the GP track) with Lancia and results were as it is here mentioned! He had "passanger" next to him, who had some "health problems" after rounds! The driving lines were a little diffent than F1 cars had, because of slide!....

[zac510]

It still smells fishy to me..
As I read on Atlas nostalgia forum.

A Lancia Delta rally car is:

heavier
less powerful,
taller,
less rubber,
much less downforce..

The only advantage the Lancia has is 4WD.

It really doesn't add up unless you compare the vehicles in the rain, which some of those website quotes seem to do.

[manchild]

What about...

gr.B

Better torque
Much more elasticity of engine
No turbo lag because of turbo + super charger working in pair
Skirts (some gr.B cars hade them)
Estoril is not fast circuit and has some turns that br.B car could take much faster than F1 car

Another thing regarding average speed of 200 km/h Reca mentioned...

Last year Solberg asked for "longer" gearbox even though the one he had enabled over 225 km/h. So if the WRC cars with some 300-350 HP can afford to go 250 km/h without spoiling acceleration than why couldn't gr.B cars with 600-650 HP make average of 200 km/h?

For example, in cup racing of small cars with 90-120 HP those cars on certain tracks make average of more than 100 km/h and they have only front wheel drive and weight 7-8 times per HP they got, not to mention awful torque.

Why couldn't than cars that had over almost same weight/power ratio, downforce generating elements and 4 WD make 200 km/h average speed? I mean 600 HP car with weight of less than 1000 kg could for sure go over 300 km/h regardless on bad aerodynamics.

Renault 5 super production with only 380 HP and rear-wheel drive only had top speed of 275 km/h with long gearbox. Now add some 250 HP more that Lancia had and think about it.

I mean, if Lancia was able to go 300 km/h than why couldn't it make average speed that is only 2/3 of its top speed or even less?

[joseff]

The 4WD's advantage is practically negated on a dry tarmac track. I think 4WD wasn't banned in F1 until the late 90's because nobody bothered to build a 4WD car. Look up any recent 911C2/911C4 comparison for proof.

As for the Lancia's performance, I'd say it'll more or less equal the FXX as Reca mentioned, with 800bhp, ground effect and active aero. I'd imagine they weigh about the same. And still nowhere near the laptime of an F1 car.

All we need is now a 1986 F1 Monaco/2005 F1 Monaco laptime comparison to roughly estimate how an '86 F1 car does around Fiorano, then compare that to the Enzo's time around Fiorano.

[manchild]

I think that the better way would be to compare official data from Lancia testing in Estoril with 1986 F1 qualifying than to drag Ezno FXX into this story.

BTW, 4WD was in F1 and it was on Lotus 35 years ago. Also, it was banned long before late '90s I think.

http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/lotus72.htm

[Spencifer_Murphy]

It just doesnt add up to me, sure the Gr. B cars had skirts (well..some of 'em), and ure there was little or no turbo lag due to the supercharger & turbo working in harmonry etc.

But that does not change the fundamental fact that F1 cars had more power and weighed less, and had NO turbo lag at all...cos there wasnt a turbo or a supercharger.

Not to mention that untill relatively recently 4WD cars were notorious for understeer on a tarmac surface. Only with the developments from companies such as Subaru & Mitsubishi (with thewir clever active-yaw control) have these problems been ironed out.

Its just doesnt make sense.

Besides Jeremy Clarkson is quite accurate when he jokingly says "Everyone of the 246 Billion facts on the internet is wrong".

To setup a website now is so easy and you can post all manner of "facts" without proof. So sooner ot later, more people who make similar themed websites will visit yours to gain "information, data & facts" to fill up their website. Soon this incorrect "fact" spreads.

I just dont believe that a Gp. B car could lap a circuit as fast as an F1 car...especially when SLIDING! Sliding scrubs off speed when you race on tarmac - fact. (Then again...tht could be wrong too )

[manchild]

...But that does not change the fundamental fact that F1 cars had more power and weighed less, and had NO turbo lag at all...cos there wasnt a turbo or a supercharger.

F1 cars in 1986 had turbos and only turbo (no supercharger) and I think there was still great turbo lag because turbos back than didn't have variable geometry (I could be wrong).

...I just dont believe that a Gp. B car could lap a circuit as fast as an F1 car...especially when SLIDING! Sliding scrubs off speed when you race on tarmac - fact. (Then again...tht could be wrong too )

Sliding (power slide) is technique used deliberately and if used deliberately (not accidetaly ) than it enables faster passing trough certain corners than driving trough them with no sliding.

I can't say yes or no beacuse I wasn't there so only thing that would convince me are offical informations.