I found this article to be very interesting. I think if the problems highlighted were to be true Subaru just might have a chance if they'd listen and get better drivers. I did a search and I didn't get any results indicating this was a repost so it would be interesting to hear what your thoughts are on the subject. :laugh: http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/170587-0/airikkala_subaru_is_dead.html
sounds like its one retard that dislikes subaru without any basis for his arguement, yes we need better drivers, something tells me thats not the car's fault though. He'll eat is words eventually.
I can swear this is a repost. BUt Yea, I have heard the same thing too. wah wah wah understeer, wah wah wah body flaw. They should just use a GC wagon.
Chong, I don’t totally disagree with the author, and given Airikkala's credentials, I did think twice about his opinions rather than being blindly faithful to Subaru/Prodrive/SWRT. However, there are 3 points that I was confused about. 1) He talks about faster transition with a higher CG. I was under the impression that having the CG closer to the roll center would be more important to transitioning (shortened moment arm means shorter roll moment, right?)... I thought the roll center on these cars is low and center? Admittedly, I’m very green to vehicle dynamics on loose surfaces, so maybe I’m thinking about this all wrong. Any thoughts? 2) The idea of needing to put the engine further back threw me off too, considering the layout, location, and weight of the drivetrain. Wouldn’t the entire engine/drivetrain configuration need to be considered when talking about center of mass? Certainly, putting the motor rearward would change the center of mass rearward, but I’d think that it’s fine where it is… also, I’d be surprised if the engine could even go any further back in it’s current configuration without contacting the firewall or disrupting the axle geometry. But maybe that’s the author’s point. Maybe he’s alluding that Subaru needs a redesign (or new platform) to stay competitive. 3) Which ties into my last point. He doesn’t mention the fact that the current Impreza is a tank compared to the competition. So is his position a slight on the current platform or Subaru? I agree that the current platform isn’t ideal for racing, and I think that is driven by other factors (mainly the market). It’s interesting to me though, that the drivers seem to like the new platform more and are more successful in it (compared to the hawkeye) despite it being it’s first year… maybe this speaks to reliability more than vehicle dynamics… I dunno, I don’t follow WRC or this new model closely enough to make an informed call… but if it is indeed a superior platform and Subaru is still losing, that supports the argument that Subaru isn’t staying competitive with the rest of the class… just itself. Certainly Loeb is a monster (super clean driving style), but I’d like to think that at this level, driver skill is fairly comparable. Anyway, we’ll see if and how the Toyota/Subaru coupe pans out. Hopefully it will be a marketable car as well as a competitive platform for WRC... or maybe a 3-door STI
It sounds to me like he is a little out of touch with things. Yes, having the engine more rearward will lower your polar moment of inertia and allow the cars to turn in faster. Him basing that argument on how the subaru engine is a bit forward is a bit n00b on his part. The motor may sit farther forward compared to the Citroen, but is a light motor, and the transmission sits much further back than on a transverse engine awd car. To say what he did is foolish. You are right about the roll moment Sheen. Wanting the CGH higher isn't the answer either, unless you want more weight transfer to the outside wheels. Looks to me that a driver is trying to be an engineer.
After reading the whole article and his comment on the placement of spare wheels (at what 30 lbs max?) I began to give less credit to his arguements. Devils Advocate: Under the intense brake/gas/brake/gas that happens in the WRC I would imagine that weight transfer within the confines of the car matter more than just about anything and in his arguement he asks for the engin to be moved backward and up. I would say that while the engine being lower would be better in blacktop stituations where "grip" is something that can be calculated/counted on, in loose surface racing having the weight of the car sitting higher and coming down over the top on the outside wheel might in-fact aid in the search for grip.. And now a crappy MS paint rendition: The lines of force (in my head) seem to make sense, and are illustarted by the red lines. The higher engine allows a more down to the down-and-outward transfer, while having the engine father back would bring that "down" to bear more effectively over the Hub/axel/wheel assembly. Think like porshe. Seems like all sorts of crappy until you apply brakes, then suddenly: GRIP!! What I wonder about though, is with all this thought to the braking, how then, would the massive "digging" acceleration be affected. I'd think too much rear equalling a crappy squierrelly rear end.
They still really need to do something better with the front suspension. There's GOT to be a better system other than the MacPherson strut. I mean my 1984 FOUR WHEELER has a similar setup to my Subaru.
he apparently has never heard "power is nothing without control" as for the drivers, I don't think Petter will be able to get back his former glory, Atkinson is still fairly new and I hope he continues to improve. I still like Hirvonen better and continue to cheer for him despite his driving for ford. It agree it would be quite interesting to see the drivers switch cars just for fun. *edit* Also i think the REAL reasons Hirvonen didn't win the Driver's Title this year are 1. He's still young and has made a few mistakes. 2. Loeb has some of the cleanest lines of any driver and is just that damn good.
That may be true but Citroen just started using the C4, supposedly they threw a lot of resources into making sure the car was ready to win rallys. Maybe Subaru hasn't. I know they will keep trying to develop the current platform and it give's me hope to know that both Solberg and Atkinson say they like the new car better.
Strut suspensions are more durable at high slip angles on rough conditions. That is why they use it and will continue to do so. Who actually builds the rally cars for Citroen? Subaru does not build the rally cars, Prodrive does. I'm guessing you saw the thread about Prodrive. There is very little left of the production car all said and done.
I don't know who built Citroens C4 wrc car. I have never heard another company mentioned, I have heard many times about how they had loeb heavily involved in the development and extensive testing of the new car.
