Why subaru leaving WRC worries me

[BAC5.2]

Tarzan drove the Cusco car, right?

 

WRC just seems to put less thought into things than the FIA does. At least the FIA has drivers in mind. They banned active suspension so the driver factored in more.

 

WRC banned non-inline engines for no apparent reason. 300hp is 300hp is 300hp. Subaru doesn't use different horses than anyone else. If there wasn't a vendetta out against Subaru, it certainly doesn't seem like it.

[Scotty]

Have you guys even follow the WRC over the last 5 years?

 

BTW, the WRC is organized by the FIA. It's not a separate entity.

 

The FIA changing the engine spec had nothing to do with Subaru. It wasn't like Subaru was dominating the WRC. Subaru has only won 6 WRC driver and constructor championships combined in Subaru's rally history.

 

The engine change along with using mechanical diffs was part of a major cost cutting agenda that the FIA has since WRC cars are costing over $1 million each. Nothing has been banned in the last 5 years because someone had an unfair advantage. Things have been banned to reduce cost.

 

FIA started a separate series with the Super 2000 formula a few years ago which was to cut cost significantly across the board. Everyone was fully aware the goal of the WRC was to move towards the Super 2000 formula which has occur now.

 

FIA still hasn't touched the PWRC with the Group N cars since those require homologated production cars. You can still call up Prodrive and order a 2010 Group N Impreza which still has a flat 4. https://www.prodrive-sales.com/banner_files/N2010%20brochure%20website.pdf

[IwannaSportSedan]

Why would the Super 2000 regulations mandate a drivetrain layout, if it were only to contain costs?

 

There is no other reason to limit cars to inline transverse 4s than to EXCLUDE all other formats. There is only one other prominent format, which was Subaru's symmetrical longitudinal drivetrain, of which the boxer engine design is an integral design factor.

 

If they only wanted to contain costs, they could have left the language on how to do so less precise, and still allowed alternative layout drivetrains.

 

And Subaru, as a corporate entity and factory team, would have been able to stay.

[KurtP]

^ that

[Scotty]

It's like any other regulation that they write. Take a look at the F1 spec for the engine, 4 stroke, reciprocating, 8 round cylinders, 90 degree V, 18,000 rpm, 2.4 L, 2 inlet and 2 outlet valves, valves must be reciprocating poppets, max bore diameter 98mm, cyclinder spacing fixed at 106.5mm, the list goes on and on.

 

Leaving the language less precise invites teams to spend more money to develop alternatives.

 

Remember Subaru didn't leave WRC this year. They left 2 years ago before any of these rules were implemented. Corporate simply ran out of money to allocate to the WRC team.

[fishbone]

They should have just let the WRC team run a stock spec.B since it is faster than their GroupN STi anyway.

[finse]

Remember Subaru didn't leave WRC this year. They left 2 years ago before any of these rules were implemented. .

 

IIRC, Subaru left due to economic concerns. The global economy was in free fall and they pulled out to save money. They are not the biggest car manufacturer, so it made since. However, the rule change ensures they can not return to the WRC, at least not with the Subaru power train.

[TrueWhiteBoy]

Weren't they joining some other rally circuit anyway?

[IwannaSportSedan]

It's like any other regulation that they write. Take a look at the F1 spec for the engine, 4 stroke, reciprocating, 8 round cylinders, 90 degree V, 18,000 rpm, 2.4 L, 2 inlet and 2 outlet valves, valves must be reciprocating poppets, max bore diameter 98mm, cyclinder spacing fixed at 106.5mm, the list goes on and on.

 

Leaving the language less precise invites teams to spend more money to develop alternatives.

 

Remember Subaru didn't leave WRC this year. They left 2 years ago before any of these rules were implemented. Corporate simply ran out of money to allocate to the WRC team.

 

I get your point. I know they can't leave it wide open.

 

But regulating round pistons in engines, rather than oval or something... is pretty obscure.

 

On the other hand, mandating transverse drivetrains is fundamental to chassis and powertrain design, and not something that is just an experiment. It bars any RWD based chassis from competition, whether RWD or longitudinal AWD. It would require Subaru to completely generate a new car from the factory, to meet those rules. I am glad they gave WRC the bird, and didn't dilute their engineering for those rules.

 

And S2000 rules have been on the agenda for years, long before their effective date. Just following the daily automotive industry news, I've known about it long before Subaru's announcement to discontinue, because I remember it being talked about as a big factor when that was announced.

 

Frankly, why should Subaru have incurred the costs of continuing to compete right up to the drop dead date, when they saw it coming?

 

I still maintain that capping costs and limiting drivetrain layout are two different things that are not mutually dependent.

 

And if Subaru saw the demise of their ability to even enter the series... they might as well save the money, and shut the effort down.

 

I still hope they work in IRC, or Paris Dakar, or something...

 

But FIA can take a long walk off a short pier... not that I ever really cared to begin with... they have made F1 a soap-opera, and most of their head honchos in europe are degenerate tyrants, if they are the people I am thinking of.

[katalyst]

But FIA can take a long walk off a short pier... not that I ever really cared to begin with... they have made F1 a soap-opera, and most of their head honchos in europe are degenerate tyrants, if they are the people I am thinking of.

 

^ this

 

although hopefully f1 won't be so bad with jean todt in power now

[Scotty]

On the other hand, mandating transverse drivetrains is fundamental to chassis and powertrain design, and not something that is just an experiment. It bars any RWD based chassis from competition, whether RWD or longitudinal AWD. It would require Subaru to completely generate a new car from the factory, to meet those rules. I am glad they gave WRC the bird, and didn't dilute their engineering for those rules.

 

BUT, Super 2000 also mandates that everyone uses the same transmission and drivetrain. That basically requires everyone to design a new car. It's not that unusual for a race team to develop a new car. Each generation of the Impreza WRC was a completely different car.

[IwannaSportSedan]

WHA????

 

A bunch of transverse inline 4 cars don't require a complete re-design to run a common transverse FWD-based gearbox. The gearbox fits in the same geographical location in each car. Skoda, Ford, Mitsubishi, and all the other transverse cars, are basically laid out the same, with the gearbox bent around the side of a transversely mounted inline 4 engine but in front of the firewall.

 

On those FWD-based cars, aside from the rearward driveshaft and car specific rear suspension, the whole drivetrain is in the cubic space forward of the firewall.

 

A Subaru is WHOLLY DIFFERENT. The gearbox is not under the hood, it is under the car, turned 90 degrees along the centerline, and the engine's crankshaft doesn't even face the same direction. Even FWD Subarus don't use transverse layouts.

 

That is almost as disparate as trying to mount a Corvette drivetrain into a Toyota MR2. completely different, even if they are both RWD.

 

And each generation of the Impreza WRC car were not completely different. THEY ALL SHARED THE DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT. And what differences there were, were because they were new generations of the chassis from the factory, so of course they were re-developed with progressively newer techniques and materials.

 

But they ALL were longitudinal, symmetrical drivetrains, and turbocharged boxers at the front. They did not change that, other than progressive systems updates over time.

 

Subaru would have to change the Impreza to something more like a Mazdaspeed 3, Cobalt SS, or Mitsu Lancer Evo, mechanically, which Subaru has not really built before, other than R1 or R2 micro-cars... which are not rally cars by any stretch.

 

You might as well ask Porsche to build a transverse FWD inline-engined car.