TheCobra21 for me in modern rally thé car dors so much

Rallying is prime time driving.

scruffy cars nowadays are getting to big and fat that's why they use small hatchbacks now and even then the wheel base of a fiesta is longer than a group a Scooby I miss the old stuff though wrc and f1 was far more exiting today it's just boring even the drivers their all to polite no drama

Wrong order Scruffy - should be (in order of timeline) Group B (which in turn got banned after 1986) > which forced Group A to be created > modern WRC 2.0T > current WRC 1.6T regs. Agree however Group A/90's brought lovely road going version that had to be sold to the public to meet then rally regulations.

Think also the Current Toyota Yaris rally campaign is a case in point all that effort to gain PR for the brand/Yaris but apart from the short lived GRMN rocket no fast Yaris available for the public to buy (a go faster looking one but not even the power of my Polo BlueGT 150ps 1.4T or what my next choice likely to be the New Suzuki Swift Sport 1.4T 138bhp car).....so sort of can't get my head round the point of it? At least Hyundai have the i30N monster for fans to choose (can't afford that one!).

Group B>WRC>Group A

@@markturner-smith5309 "Wrong" my balls; he thinks that's the right order for him. And, by the way, he also thinks that current cars are boring, such an opinion that I respect, but they're neither boring nor exciting: it all depends on the subjective view of each person. I think they're amazing machines, and them being tiny hatchbacks is specially good for me. So here you have, my subjective view: WRC > Group B > Group A.

chipsnever957 legend

Me too

That was Colin McRae

Lmao always crashing in the curves 😂

I also think WRC have gone down the drain nowadays. The appeal of rally was that it was mostly just regular cars competing wich would make you able to relate to the cars they are driving, today there´s only the steel skeleton wich a WRC car have in common with a production car, and even the steel skeleton get slightly modificated. Did the Group A also have an H-pattern shifter and clutch?

Hymer300 Yes, they did. None of this massive rod type thing to change gear and handbrake next to the wheel!

HannuMikkola You mean sequential gearbox?..

that's the point! wrc cars, even from the early days (1997-8), all make the same high pitch buzz

10110 01001 I agree - WRC cars always sounded pathetic. It's not happened in the last few years. Like i said, you have to go back to 1994 with the larger 38mm restrictor to hear loud, barking, flame throwing, anti lag exploding rally cars. But Malcolm Wilson loves all this WRC shit.

HannuMikkola your right what you say,they all sound the same nowadays. with wrc,group A and group B you could tell one car from the other by noise. Which made the sport more interesting and the main one,especially group B,group A you could actually buy a car which was very similar to what you seen on the tv.

1. Don’t fucking say that, the Subaru 555 WRC car sounds amazing, though the Audi Quattros and the other two were also amazing. 2. Does the sound matter? No, it’s a damn race, sound means jack shit when the car is better than the competition. 3. Again, a car’s illusion of speed means jack in a real race. I like all rally car’s noises.

You said that 5 years ago. I don't think you'll say the same with the new cars we have since 2017. If yes, it doesn't matters anyway: it's all about subjectivity. For example, there's people that thinks the Lancia 037 was the best looking car ever, but I think it's utter crap. It's all about tastes, my friend.

yeah but you had cigarette companies instead

Zulous and alcohol companies.

and i love ur channel man!

and that is a fact. On tarmac, Group B cars are much slower than Group A cars when it comes to hairpin.

Probably due to electronic aids and mostly evolution of rubber. But if you check times from 1986 and 2017 there isn't much difference on similar distance special stages.

@jonny j Sorry but with all the due respect, your statement is completely wrong. Group Bs were true monsters, there is no question about it. However, their powerband was very hard to use, they might have been on par with some of the more modern cars on very fast stages where cornering was not as important but when it comes to chassis, tires, suspension geometry/technology, engine (not raw power but when the peak power is reached), transmission, brakes, basically EVERYTHING except peak power, modern cars beat Group B any day. And I am not just referring to the current 2020 WRC cars, even current R5 cars would beat group B cars in a normal rally. The only place you MIGHT see a group B car beating a modern rally car is the drag strip or, as I mentioned earlier, a stage where there are a lot of straights with little cornering or deceleration. If you are looking at difference in stage times on the same stage but different years, keep in mind that stages change VERY often, perhaps the lenght is kept similar but stages might be moved 1-2-300 meters up or down a road and they are not exacly the same one year after the other. They can be shortened or Chicanes might have been added in certain areas. With that being said, time gaps of 1 second per km of special stage is a HUGE gap in rally.

If less technology is what you want, then you'd want to stick with the current WRC cars. As the FIA's regulations state: "Any driving aid system is prohibited (ABS / ASR / Traction Control / ESP...). Any such system must be rendered inoperative." [1]. On the other hand, Group A cars were getting increasingly more and more assisted by electronic aids [2]. [1] www.fia.com/file/82330/download/20694 [2] tech-racingcars.wikidot.com/subaru-impreza-gc8-555, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/naebnpSom62pk3k.html, etc.

In fact, those early WRC and even some Group A cars had plenty of electronic devices to aid on the driving, while today's WRC cars have NOTHING. As the FIA's regulations states: "Any driving aid system is prohibited (ABS / ASR / Traction Control / ESP...). Any such system must be rendered inoperative." - www.fia.com/file/82330/download/20694

group A were quicker than gpB with in a couple of years.modern wrc are far quicker.

Yes, in couple of years the were, but 1987 was bad .

SRAMEK they did need a bit more character i will admit.lol

@@SRAMEK Considering that manufacturers only had seven months to develope and homologate 500 cars, I think they did pretty well.

I believe the car shown during 1:33 is either the Lancia Delta or the Subaru Legacy?

Looks and sounds nothing like a Stratos. What have you been smoking?!

Toyota Celica

ST165 TC to be precise.

What filter?

"Don't worry folks, he's alrighhtttttt"

I've always asked myself this

@@pitergriffin01 Thanks God I'm not the only one

Maybe not same engine or exhaust

Same

+Skopey Dude! I TOTALLY agree! That shit is super annoying and defeats the purpose!

+eatthisvr6 In a nutshell group A had to have a road car equivalent when it comes to engine, drivetrain, measurements of the body and axles. The base car (road car) was developed to be quicker, sturdier, louder but it appeared like a normal road car. If you wanted to compete in group A (A8 class) you had to build a rally car based on 4WD, 2ltr, 4 cylinder, ca. 300bhp road car. That's why we were blessed with production legends such as Lancia Delta Integrale, Subaru Impreza, Mitsubishi Evo, Toyota Celica etc. All these cars were produced so that the group A rally car could be built from one of them. Homologation rules changed for the introduction of WRC cars. Manufacturers no longer had to use a road car equivalent in terms of drivetrain, engine etc. For WRC build, they could choose a car with 1.6l engine, 110bhp and FWD as a homologation base. Citroen C4 for example. As a road car it was never 4WD, 2.0 turbo, 300bhp+ etc, yet they built a C4 WRC. Now if Citroen wanted to build a C4 group A in the 90s (up until 1997) they would've had to produce a road going C4 with 4WD, 2ltr turbo engine, around 300bhp, wider body for wider track, etc. These were major rule differences, but performance wise the early WRCs were comparable to late group A. For instance Mitsubishi used a group A Evo until 2001 even though their rivals had WRC cars since 97! To make matters worse for WRC users, Tommi Makinen beat them for 3 consecutive years (97,98,99) in a group A Evo:) This was a one off combination though. Of course WRC was being constantly developed (especially diff electronics) and in 1999 you could see these cars were quicker than the group A Evos. In essence group A was louder and more raw and aggressive and more spectacular to watch as diff management electronics & hydraulics were not as advanced. That meant the cars didn't have as much traction so they would flick the cars into corners and slide a lot:) My favourite time in rallying was '90s up until mid 2000s. I could go on and on:)

+wisniorek thanks for the info, i used to watch group a but wrc has gone the same way as f1 imo ie too much tech making them boring to watch and actually hides the skill needed to drive them. f1 is particularly bad atm because teh current crop of drivers are among the best ever imo (theres 4 or 5 who would fit right in to any era) but its just garbage to watch

eatthisvr6 With regards to F1, I still enjoy it, mainly because of the drivers. Some people say they aren't colourful enough, but I disagree. The sound of the cars is a big issue for a purist like myself, but I try to take out as much as I can out of every other aspect of F1. The races are as good and entertaining as in the past, we have entertaining drivers who refuse to go along with the PR bullsh (Vettel and Hamilton), they still race on legendary tracks, there's always controversy about something... That's what I'm focussing on and that's why I still enjoy watching it. Now, in rally in mid 90's we had it all - charismatic drivers in awesome machines! But hey, nothing lasts forever;)

+wisniorek monaco is a shit track and was always about nothing but money, the other legendary tracks have been seriously neutered by safety measures too. i like the current drivers and hamilton reminds me alot of mansell

+eatthisvr6 Marcus Grönholm saida exactly the very same that Monaco is just a piece of shit as a rally. Not these words but said this is so useless, stupid and doesn't make sense to drive rally so extreme circumstances from ice to mud and gravel and wet and dry tarmac. There isn't one tyres for all of that. Money is the only reason to make a show to those filthy rich assholes. Marcus said that this isn't real rally at all.

In che senso puoi andare? già con rollbar montato non puoi poi tutto il resto. Pensi di andare al supermercato a fare la spesa con un delta gruppo A? Mah

@@maurizioburatti213 Nel senso che la carrozzeria del gruppo A è identica alle auto di serie. Anche la cavalleria non si differenzia di tanto. Bastava poco e avevi 300cv. Roll bar No! Non è questo il senso del mio ragionamento. Una WRC non puoi comprarla dal concessionario. E la differenza a livello economico é davvero tanto tra WRC e GruppoA...anche a livello prestazionale ovviamente.

Ah ok spiega5o così sono d accordo ma come avevi scritto te sembra che con una delta gruppo A potevi andare su normali strade

Ben Conway quite hard when you have 30+ cars going over 10 ish stages a day around average 200km long total to get that, that's my understanding.