Toyota back in WRC....

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/toyota-turned-yaris-300hp-rally-monster-170022027.html

Coolness.

Too bad there won't be a Yaris GT-Four ever coming out of this

Just when I thought Toyota was dead they are showing life again, wonder what a street version will cost?

awesome but I do not see that helping sales of toyota or helping sales with yaris.

kanaric wrote: Too bad there won't be a Yaris GT-Four ever coming out of this

I like the current iteration of WRC cars and when I'm daydreaming I'll try and figure out how to build an AWD street version of some little hatch. A Yaris, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Ford Fiesta, or Chev Sonic based car, complete with box flares. The sticking point is always what to do to create an AWD/4WD system with a couple of hundred horsepower.

Now I just wish I could watch some WRC on one of my cable channels. Coverage disappeared a few years ago and never came back. Sorting out random youtube videos stored out of order is too much work.

Wrc is boring nowadays anyways. The cars are too good/not entertaining.

Limit suspension travel, move manufacturers back to group N style cars as the top class. The pinnacle of racing is f1... We really dont need two f1's.

They already are in a spec FRS

If it's not old Group B or the old E30 BMWs, I'll watch it but it's not nearly as awesome.

HiTempguy wrote: Wrc is boring nowadays anyways. The cars are too good/not entertaining. Limit suspension travel, move manufacturers back to group N style cars as the top class. The pinnacle of racing is f1... We really dont need two f1's.

Did you watch the Monte Carlo rally this year? If not go and watch it then come back with a revised opinion. If you did and you honestly think they are boring then what counts as fun to watch to you?

This is cool news though. I just wish Ford would go all in and become an official entrant in their own right again, rather than backing M-Sport as a quazi works team.

We will now have:
VW
Citroen
Hyundai M Sport (Ford) Adding Toyota.

That's 5 works teams so that's 10-15 works drivers plus the privateers. Hopefully that means we will soon be back to fields of 20+ RC1 cars insread of the 10-15 we've had recently. I just wish the WRC3 2WD cars were faster so on the tarmac rounds you could occasionaly see a hard charging FWD car in amongst the 4WD monsters.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: If you did and you honestly think they are boring then what counts as fun to watch to you?

I have watched every single season of WRC since 1982, as well as virtually all national championships available on video. Modern day national championships are more interesting to me, the BRC, ARC, CRC, and RA are all fun to watch.

I stand by my statement. I will give you that I have NOT watched Monte yet this year, so maybe things are changing. Yes, it is exciting that Toyota is in, but I'd rather them campaign the FRS in national championships compared to the Yaris in the WRC.

F1 is a spec class. The pinnacle of racing is currently Le Mans. FWD turbo V6 with flywheels, naturally aspirated V8 with supercaps, turbo diesel V6 with flywheels, turbo V4 with batteries - all racing further in one race than a complete season of F1.

WRC will always be awesome simply due to the rallies themselves. It's not as dramatic to watch as it used to be because of Loeb's influence - he showed that clean and precise is faster than McRae's technique constantly almost crashing, so that's what the guys are doing now. But they're still going incredibly fast on real roads.

Keith Tanner wrote: The pinnacle of racing is currently Le Mans.

Pinnacle:

a lofty peak.

F1 cars are faster than lemans. Therefore, the pinnacle of racing (at least on-road).

So, while you can have your opinion, I disagree. I also disagree that it is Loeb himself that has changed rallying. It is the cars. If Loeb had been driving back in the 90's, he either would not have done as well, or he would have adapted to the car/technology at the time.

All of this would be a moot point if there was close racing, close racing solves everything. A minute spread between first and second at the top level of rally racing is not close racing.

Top Fuel cars are faster than F1 cars, and LSR cars are fastest of all. So if we're simply judging velocity, there you go. An F1 car wouldn't even survive the Le Mans race, never mind some of the 6 hour "sprints", so the average speed would rapidly trend to zero Based on technical interest, level of innovation, difficulty of the race and combination of driver/engineer/crew, I still maintain that Le Mans is at the peak of the motorsport mountain.

Agreed that close racing helps any series. Although it's really only visible in rally via the time sheets. And I disgree that a minute after a three day rally is not close racing - I'm pretty sure I remember those sorts of gaps in the 90's as well. I'll let someone else dig up the actual numbers, as we're really just debating opinion.

Which racing series results in more trickle down tech that advances the world of motorsport/automobiles more? Isn't that the real test of which race series is best because the best tech is being developed in it?

In 2014 at the Silverstone 1,000 km World endurance race the pole time of 1:42.744 while way slower than the F1 pole of 1:37.766 but would have got into FP2 and would have been good for 15th on the grid. Not bad.

At the COTA round the pole time of 1:49.093 would have been 10 secs off the slowest F1 time.

Winning margins in 1985.....
Monte Carlo......5m 17s
Sweden...........1m 49s
Portugal.........4m 47s
Kenya...........34m
Corsica.........12m 33s
Acropolis........4m 15s
New Zealand......1m 17s
1000 Lakes......... 48s
San Remo.........6m 29s
Great Britain...... 56s

DeadSkunk wrote: Kenya...........34m

Would be really cool to see that on the WRC calendar again.

It was a Safari that got me hooked on WRC. Mid 90's. One of the Subarus had lost a wheel and had to drive 20-30km to get to a service stop. Once it got there, the team only barely missed the 20 minute window to repair the car. The sheer insanity of the drive followed by the repair was unbelievable.

DeadSkunk wrote: Winning margins in 1985..... Monte Carlo......5m 17s Sweden...........1m 49s Portugal.........4m 47s Kenya...........34m Corsica.........12m 33s Acropolis........4m 15s New Zealand......1m 17s 1000 Lakes......... 48s San Remo.........6m 29s Great Britain...... 56s

And?

My comment wasn't exclusive to only times. I also made mention of the cars.

If the physical appearance/movement of the cars is entertaining, that is great. If it isn't, the competition should be entertaining.

When both aren't, then it is boring. I understand it can be hard for some of you to actually picture what a 0.5s/KM time difference is, but it is substantial. 1.0s/KM means you aren't even really in the same league.

I'd like to see expanded RGT entries as well, if Ford were to return to WRC I'd like to see a mustang in R-GT in addition to a RC1 effort.