mitlan

Thx for the input. I think I didn't said it clear, too. I was talking able "Lancer EVO" not just "EVO"
I can see from what you mean that the street version Lancer Evolution has a little common with the rally or WRC version but is a different car.

However, back to my question, so do you mean that the "WRC Lancer Evolution" was never a rally car?

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

Here is my understanding (which is open to correction, but only if you know what you're talking about, please).

The rules for Group N, for example, require that a version of the car, matching in terms of chassis, engine, transmission, and a few other (major) things, be sold to the public. You have to offer at least 2500, to be precise. But some of the things that really matter to rallying, such as the suspension, and other things that are required, such as the cage, do not have to be available to anyone.

And then there is the Open class. The cars here share very little with the publicly-offered car of the same name and the maker is not obligated to make them available. And when people say "WRC Evo" or "WRC Focus" or "WRC DS3," they are referring to an Open-class car. The Group N cars that more-closely resemble what you see on a dealer's lot run in WRC-2 (which used to be P-WRC). The Open-class cars run in WRC-1 (which used to be just WRC).

To answer your question, then, a "WRC Evo" is, by definition, a rally car that probably ran in the Open class. Note that there hasn't been such a creature for many years. All the Evo rally cars you see these days and probably prepped for Group N or the new R4.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

did i ever say that?

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

very basic and short:

"grupe N" is a closes thing to a stock car. Basically is a stock car with safety and suspension and brake upgrades etc.

"Grupe A" is a advanced version less restriction of the Grupe N car.
Examples: bigger restrictor plate allows more HP , more transmission and drive train upgrades so as body and weight . Like side mirrors can be changed etc.

WRC (Wrold Rally Car) is another rally class. It is a WRC class, its a class just like the N or the A or the F2 - H6 - R4 etc. They are a factory rally race cars. Completely build for one purpose only.... to fit this class, they are not have to be sold at the dealer etc. Hence phantom cars in the reality. Example the 4wd for fiesta with a turbo 1.6l engine. there is none at the dealer. So as the Citroen etc.

All of them rally cars but different classes

mitlan

Thx for the great input.
By the way, whenever I saw the name "Robevo RS" and "Iowa999" in posts, I always see some great input. You guys have build up the structure of this forum~

Gyroscope

JinTae

iTrader: (1)

Wow this is one really long thread that I learned a lot about WRC from. Thank you for the information. To comment on the Golf R vs the Evo X....

I just sold my mkiv R32 with low miles for a 2010 evo X gsr. The only reason I sold my R32 is because I needed a larger car and I was disappointed with how the R32 did in autox. It was definitely a fun car to race but parts to modify it were very expensive with minimal gains and the haldex system in it was really weird in my opinion. To feel the car moment shift mid turn as the front tires slip was so weird to me as a novice driver. You can overcome with by spending almost a grand and getting a haldex controller which forces the ECU to go 50/50 but it was an expensive upgrade. I have been in R32s with the haldex controller and the upgrade definitely makes the car feel night and day different at auto x. In regards to interior quality coming from a 240 I would say it was definitely a nice upgrade. The mkiv R has some of the nicest factory seats and I would say compete well against the EVO X recaros. Now I know in the video the reviewer spoke about the Golf R which I also looked at before deciding on the Evo. The Golf R is a nice car for what it is but definitely overpriced because I value performance in the overall value of the car. VW enthusiasts have already learned how to disable the traction control so now they have the same experience that mkiv and mkv r32 owners have but it will still feel goofy in turns unless they upgrade with a haldex controller. I've seen a few Golf Rs with nice upgrades that make them fast in a straight line but for me I don't consider that fast. I went with an Evo after getting multiple rides at NASA and SCCA events. The car felt so amazing when you exit corners and it seemed a car you could really feel confident in. While they may argue that interior quality is subpar to VW I would say after having my R for 2 years I started to hear some rattles here as well. While the Evo I buy may end up with more rattles than my R I think I'll be able to accept it for what kind of performance it gives me. Just my .02.

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

sigh

If you think that any controller can make a Haldex "go 50/50" then you still don't understand how the system works. A locked center (whether it be a locked Haldex or a locked ACD) does not split torque 50/50. A locked center (assuming that it locks hard enough) can support any torque split between 0/100 and 100/0, depending on the amount of torque being used at the two ends of the car.

With that said, I agree that the Haldex in an R32 is hard to drive on tight courses as it has a tendency to alter lock at weird and unpredictable moments.

But, now, with that said, I would like to suggest that what impressed you about the Evo X was probably the AYC, not the ACD. The AYC is amazing when the course is tight.

JinTae

iTrader: (1)

You're probably right. The 50/50 split is what they tell us from the companies that sell the haldex controller. Also I'm a novice driver with not much mechanical experience. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do and are probably correct. Just wanted to throw in my .02 on how it felt different than the Evo but again you are probably right as I have no background in car mechanics. Trying to learn though.

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for admitting that. Let me reciprocate.

The key distinction to keep in mind is that between a torque split and torque distribution. (And note that I said this incorrectly above.) Torque split is set by the gearing of a standard differential. It has no real meaning for coupler-type systems, such as a Haldex or 4-Matic or X-drive (but I'll give it a meaning in a minute). Torque split determines how much torque is "offered" to each end of the car. Thus, an Evo with its 50/50 center "offers" half the torque to each end, while the 38/62 (or whatever it is these days) center of a Scooby "offers" more torque to the rear. If no limited-slip device steps in, then the native torque split of the center diff is the torque distribution and it never changes. Thus, if your ACD is dead in your Evo and you floor it, weight transfer causes the rear tires to have more grip and the fronts start slipping first.

A coupler (Haldex) center can be thought of as having a 100/0 or 0/100 native torque split with the end of the car geared to the engine being the 100 and the end of the car only coupled to the engine being the 0.

When a diff starts to lock, however, because the Haldex or ACD (or whatever limited-slip device that you have) kicks in, the diff starts to have a meaningful torque distribution, as well as - or maybe instead of - a meaningful torque split. What I mean by "torque distribution" is how much torque is being used at each end, which can be different from the how much torque was "offered" to each end by the native torque split. In fact, when a diff locks rock-hard, any amount of torque can be used at either end. For example, with a rock-hard-locked center, if you drive across a 3' sheet of oiled glass, for a moment the torque distribution would be 0/100 (with the first number being the front and the second being the rear), because, for a moment, no torque would be used by the front due to there being no grip in the front. Then, a moment later, when the fronts are off the glass but the rears are on it, the torque distribution would be 100/0. Again, all of this assumes that the locking device on the center was capable of remaining locked with this amount of torque being re-routed.

But the key to all this is the following: all this time, as you drive across the oiled glass, the torque split of the center remained 50/50 (or an Evo, at least). The center "offered" half the torque to each end. But, then, by the locking action of the diff, when the fronts didn't use any of the torque that it was being offered, said unused torque was re-routed to the rear and used by that end, instead. That's why the torque distribution was, for a moment, 0/100 and then, for a moment, 100/0. When a limited-slip device is involved, torque distribution can be almost anything.

OK, so why was the Evo a better autocross car? We [as in Evos] start with a 50/50 split and then, through the actions of the ACD, can have any distribution from 100/0 to 0/100 to happen. The stock ACD can just about do this, assuming stock levels of torque. A Haldex-based car starts with a 0/100 or 100/0 split (depending on which end is the "default" or geared end), but can also switch to anything that's needed if the coupler's clutch is up to it. And that's why a 50/50 center is better for many forms of racing: moving from 50/50 to something else is, at most, a shift of 50%; moving from 100/0, for example, to something else might involve a shift of 100%. When huge shifts occur unpredictably, the car is jerked, instead of driven smoothly, and jerking always lowers total grip. Also, when huge shifts in torque distribution occur and you had one end of the car at the edge of the traction circle, any increase in torque at that end causes that end of the car to go bye-bye.

[must rest fingers now]

JinTae

iTrader: (1)

Thank you for explaining this.

jenichael

iTrader: (1)

+1