2014 WRX?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by A1337STI

Uhm the phrase "suck it trebek" comes to mind.

...

SINCE EVERYONE IS TRYING SO HARD TO READ INTO MY POSTS.. ARG!!! LET ME SPELL IT OUT

I WANT SUBARU TO THINK ABOUT MOTORSPORTS AND TRY TO MAKE IT LIGHTER, EASIER TO WORK ON, AND SUSPENSION GEOMETRY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR WHAT THEY RACE IN.

I stand corrected... it appears that back in 2011 the WRX redesign was intended to to make the car more competitive. Whether or not that's the reality, we'll see when the car is out because there are hints that things have changed. For example:

Originally Posted by 2011

That’s why we have focused so heavily on weight issues, not to mention a shorter wheelbase that permits faster, more precise turn-in.

Originally Posted by 2013

The WRX's wheelbase has grown from 103.3 inches to 108.7 inches, likely making for a less frantic and more stable ride.

I can easily imagine a scenario where they tell the design team "go and make a new WRX for rally!" Then after they come up with something like this:



Subaru goes back to the designers and says "okay, now use an off-the-shelf drivetrain, and make it comfortable and large enough for us to sell it to more than 1000 people". It's just the nature of being a car manufacturer that isn't selling niche cars. And that's how that tiny yellow coupe with the roof scoop and rally wing becomes the prototype shown at the NYAS.

If you look at the prototype car, it's not a rally car any longer. Maybe it looks a bit like something that can go racing in the WTCC... but if it's got AWD, and a 2.5L boxer motor, it's not exactly a touring car. No Subaru is going to fit into a Super 2000 based series, which currently both WRC and WTCC are based on, which is why Subaru got out of WRC in the first place. Current rally and touring cars are cars like the Ford Fiesta, the Peugot 207, the Seat Leon, Chevy Cruze, Honda Civic.... all cars that are in market segments smaller than the Impreza. So, the new WRX will need to be a sub-compact instead of a compact car, and the prototype just doesn't seem that much smaller than the compact Impreza. 2.3" shorter isn't the difference between a Focus and a Fiesta, for example, which are more like 8" different in length. I'll be very surprised to see this WRX in the WTCC or the WRC. I won't be surprised if it runs rally in the US under Group-N, but that's simply because the existing Impreza-based WRX is going away... rally teams will *have* to use this car, or find something else entirely.

So, you can want Subaru to really build a motorsports targeted car... we all sorta want that... but the reality is that Subaru has been pushing for more mainstream marketshare rather than for more race wins over the last 5 years or so. Hopefully they'll surprise us with something raw and race-ready. But it seems highly unlikely. The BRZ is already closer to "track-ready" than I expected, and I can't see Subaru believing they need 2 enthusiast models. The new WRX feels more like Subaru trying keep a car like the current WRX in the lineup, while the Impreza becomes more and more like a boring family car. So, it might be a bit better than the latest WRX revisions, but I highly doubt it's going to swing drastically the other way and be specifically designed around motorsports the way the transition from the old Legacy to the 1st Impreza was.

Originally Posted by A1337STI

I'm not changing my mind, and obviously i'm not going to change anyone else's.

its fine to not agree with me (ever) but its pretty lame when you come across as disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing with me.

And I'm honestly not arguing just for the sake of arguing. My points are based on my observations of Subaru's cars over the last few years and the known details about the WRX prototype. And I'm trying to be explicit about how I'm coming to my conclusions. If you disagree with me, feel free to point out the mistakes in my logic.

Either way, I don't really know how this new WRX is going to turn out. I know it looks pretty nice, for once, compared to Subaru's normal new car designs... so maybe they're turning a corner. I'm just pessimistic based on the trend from Subaru since about 2008.

[A1337STI]

Yes subaru has had a very bad track record as of late of "improving" their cars.

that's why i referenced Dream on, when i said i would like to see it lighter, shorter wheel base, etc, etc. it was a wish list, not what i expect to see.

at this point i do expect they will Botch the competitiveness , things like their 108" wheel base on the WRX sounds like they are off to a bad start. or leaking false stories of how they are motorsports focused to get people like me excited, and then drop an other ugly disappointing cluster of a car on us that's really just aimed at get the largest market share possible by designing it by committee.

design by committee Ie bigger interior but shorter outside, turbo but heavier. suspension that gives more trunk room and less durability. suspension that holds the camber better on the track but no RWD only option .

ya the BRZ will probably be their only "good" motorsports offering for a while. SOA Rally team will continue to win because they are the only factory team (and they influence the rule book) but that's for an other thread.


Still i want to remain optimistic for a while until the car is more finalized and breaks my heart again.

[rubberbiscuitt]

WRX got divorced with the impreza and I predict future new stepmom will be the BRZ. Can be seen in the concept drawing on a page prior.

Originally Posted by A1337STI

...I really hope all 4 wheel bearings are bolt off, and that it has McPherson all around. Supposedly it was a from the ground up redesign for auto sport ... so they better not have "trunk space boosting - rear suspension)

hopefully they move back to beefier rear stuff. , the change in 08 caused a lot of Bent and broken rear suspension parts compared to an 07 ...

Any simple, or greater, machine will be stronger with less moving parts. Ya mac fear son struts are nice and strong too. Active Steering Axis Inclination sucks and it would be nice to be unseen in this neighborhood. Feeble mcpheason parts are easy to change (consumer maintenance) and easier to mass produce accurately (Subaru o'mighty themselves)

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by A1337STI

I'm saying a known geometry design of the suspension that causes a lot of failures should be avoided.

What the hell are you even talking about? If you think the suspension geometry/kinematics are responsible for fatigue failures under off road racing conditions you clearly don't know the first thing about suspension design in particular or machine design in general. Stop whining out of your ass about a vehicle that does exactly what it was designed to do, namely cart people around public roads in a fun, safe and 'sporty' manner.

If previous gens happened to hold up better on rally stages that is because their parts were overdesigned for the intended (street) usage, which by the way carries a cost & weight penalty along with it. Welcome to engineering - where products are gradually optimized over time to meet design targets (which rally stages are not part of), and have gradually less safety margin as real world loadings during intended usage are better understood.

[cody]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

What the hell are you even talking about? If you think the suspension geometry/kinematics are responsible for fatigue failures under off road racing conditions you clearly don't know the first thing about suspension design in particular or machine design in general. Stop whining out of your ass about a vehicle that does exactly what it was designed to do, namely cart people around public roads in a fun, safe and 'sporty' manner.

If previous gens happened to hold up better on rally stages that is because their parts were overdesigned for the intended (street) usage, which by the way carries a cost & weight penalty along with it. Welcome to engineering - where products are gradually optimized over time to meet design targets (which rally stages are not part of), and have gradually less safety margin as real world loadings during intended usage are better understood.

Alex is using the apparent weakness of the dual A arm setup as compared to the previous macpherson strut setup as an example of the direction he doesn't want to see these cars going. And he clearly tells you why. You get it, but you genuinely enjoy being dick on the internet...and we get that.

There is no gradual optimization/safety reduction occurring. They simply chose to replace one technology for another to save space and improve road handling.

I've learned some cool things from your posts throughout the years, since you have a background in some very interesting automotive technologies, but I'm kind of sick of weeding through your douchery to get to that part. Carry on as you will.

[A1337STI]

Cody Nailed it!!!


labmonkey you are missing the fact that Subaru does have 2 factory backed rally efforts, and no road racing efforts.
You are also missing the fact that I'm saying what i would like to see in their new car where motorsports are a thought of in the design.

How the F is saying what i would Like to see in the new 2014 car whining? Subaru didn't change the double A arm to save money (it costs more) they did it to enlarge the trunk and passenger areas. which they did that to try and increase market share ..

In divorcing the WRX from the Impreza, you will get the grocery buyers & point A to B drivers buying Impreza, and the performance oriented buyers going WRX, the new WRX buyers won't be the type who care so much about trunk space / back seat leg room, that they will end up going with a Honda to fit in that extra sack of groceries.


So what exactly are you truly disagreeing with?

Do you Think someone looking at a WRX IS going to turn away because they lost 2 Cubic feet of trunk space?
do you think someone looking at the WRX will go Honda to give their 3rd and 4th passengers more leg room?

Really?

Obviously you seem to disagree strongly the 08-12 dual A Arm is weaker than the 93-07 macpherson . How many off road races with subarus have you been too? how many of your close friends have been to these races to notice which cars break and where?


Am i claiming to be a master of suspension geometry? NO! am i saying I've seen an increase in failure on parts in a car after a design change. YES.

So just who is talking with out any knowledge here? is it Really me? or is it you?

Originally Posted by atomiclabmonkey

What the hell are you even talking about? If you think the suspension geometry/kinematics are responsible for fatigue failures under off road racing conditions you clearly don't know the first thing about suspension design in particular or machine design in general.

Maybe have a quick look at my results to see if Maybe, just maybe i have some clue of what i'm talking about...
http://www.californiarallyseries.com...=article&id=56 CRS P-stock champion
http://www.californiarallyseries.com...v%208_2011.htm CRS GT champion
http://www.californiarallyseries.com...gsOct32012.htm CRS GT champion
http://www.rally-america.com/champ_s...hamp=5&yr=2010 rally america south west 2wd production champion
http://www.rally-america.com/champ_s...hamp=5&yr=2011 rally america south west open light
http://www.unitedstatesrallychampion...dingsfinal.pdf West coast champion
http://www.unitedstatesrallychampion...Cstandings.pdf 3rd for the nation in open (in a stock NA car)


How about you Enter and compete in a few off road races, in your subaru, then get back to me.
-------------------------------------
to sum it up :
you want subaru to build an optimized passenger car with no thought for off road (and you hate me)
I want subaru to make Slight changes to help off road (and i'm starting to hate you)

I think everyone is clear, thanks

[sperry]

Well, this thread ceased to be fun.

LabMonkey builds off-road suspensions designed to be literally bomb-proof, so I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about with regards to what decisions Subaru may or may not make that would actually improve suspension strength. Which is to say, the geometry has very little to do with strength. The thing he's missing is tact.

The fact is the rally guys are breaking parts because the *aftermarket* parts designed to work with the newer suspension designs aren't as strong as the older aftermarkets parts designed to work with the older suspension. Without the WRC and actual factory racing efforts to develop the racing parts (Subaru's current US rally support is *not* an actual factory team... it's just the factory giving parts to privateers), it takes a while to figure out how to make them strong enough to survive rally. Plus, without factory money involved, it's up to the much poorer race teams to fund this development. So, it's not at all surprising that newer cars break stuff more than the older, better developed cars. Christ, just typing that makes it seem obvious.

Wanting a better suspension design for racing should be about wanting the car to handle better. Because that's what the geometry can improve. Wanting the suspension to be stronger is a request better made to the folks at DMS or Ohlin, or to the FIA to allow people to swap out more factory parts in the rules. There's no reason you can't build a bomb-proof current gen Impreza rally car within the current car's geometry. The only thing Subaru can do is beef up factory parts so there are less things that need to be swapped on a rally car... which Subaru will never do because a) it doesn't help their bottom line and b) the more parts that need to be swapped, the more replacement parts they sell to privateers. If the current gen cars are failing, it's not Subaru's fault... it's the fault of whatever suspension parts have or haven't been put on the car. If you rally guys want to break less often, swap in better/stronger parts... you know, like every other rally team ever. You're just spoiled because the WRX used to be a factory homologation car.

Again, Subaru's "factory" effort here is just with the supply of cheap/free replacement OEM parts. They *are not* building factory race cars... you can't fault them for designing perfectly road-capable suspension parts and then not uprating them to survive rally. There is no incentive for them to do so like there was when they were actually building WRC cars. It's a shame, but like I said earlier, there's no real evidence that Subaru's policy is going to change with the new WRX. It's just a sportier looking version of the current WRX. It's not being built for a factory racing effort, despite that one comment made back in June 2011.

Also, what's with the talk of dual a-arm suspension? I *wish* the Impreza had dual a-arms. AFAIK, the Impreza still has a multi-link suspension of sorts. The MacStrut has been replaced with an upper control arm, but there is still a trailing link:



If the car had a true A-arm suspension (like the Miata for example) that would be ideal for motorsports, since it means the camber change coupled to the vehicle roll can be totally controlled:

[ScottyS]

The wrap: I blame the flat brims.

[A1337STI]

Yes i'm definitely missing some tact, and suspension geometry knowledge. (Sorry)

I do have a flat brim hat and ... oh wait ..

but ya, i've seen what works with cheap bolt ons, and what hasn't been working. and i guess there's more to the puzzle too. older gen cars were lighter which makes it easier to not break stuff with just replacing a coilover. where as the newer ones are heavier, slap in a new coil over (or spring + damper) and stuff seems to break more often.

maybe we can all agree we want it to be lighter (no matter what we want to use the car for) ?

also what just occurred to me is how people like me, Need people like LabMonkey (Who actually know a lot about suspension design) . and how people like him need people like me (who break anything remotely close to stock, demand better stuff and need someone to step in and design said suspension)

hi chicken meet egg? (there's a joke in there somewhere)

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by A1337STI

Obviously you seem to disagree strongly the 08-12 dual A Arm is weaker than the 93-07 macpherson . How many off road races with subarus have you been too? how many of your close friends have been to these races to notice which cars break and where?

I'm not involved in rally racing, and don't know first hand which design iteration is more durable under those conditions nor do I care.

If you want to clearly break it down (as above) into 'car A held up better than car B, under X circumstances', that is a perfectly valid observation. You were however making very generalized statements about geometry somehow being responsible for parts failures, which is completely baseless and demonstrates a thorough lack of understanding on the topic.

There is nothing inherently stronger or weaker about the general suspension layouts of dual A-arms, multi links, mcstruts, or any combination thereof. Durability is purely a function of a variety of other factors ranging from parts design (shape), materials used, & loads applied. Vehicle design is a game of trade offs, most notably between cost, weight, packaging space used, durability, performance requirements, and allotted design time (schedule). There's no telling what was involved in the decisions which produced the current design, but I guarantee it was done in an effort to entice buyers in their target market, which is clearly not you.

[Nick Koan]

In other words,

Subaru *could* make the current multi-link suspension as durable as the mcstruts of old. There is nothing inherent in the geometry (in general) that makes the suspension more prone to failures.

Now, what we can now argue about is Subaru's specific implementation and manufacturing processes. Subaru took trade offs to gain cargo space, save weight, and still perform well under normal (street driving) circumstances. And from your experience Alex, you show that the WRX multi-link rear suspension is weaker, but that doesn't necessarily mean going back to mcstruts will make things stronger or more durable for racing. It could, but that really depends more on the specific mcstrut and all the other considerations and trade-offs Subaru would make for the new part.

[cody]

So anyway...this happened.

Link to more pics and article

[cody]

Wait, isn't this supposed to be MY 2014 WRX? Motor Trend is calling it 2015. :confused:

[A1337STI]

So will that paint scheme be available from the factory ? (J/K) lol

has anyone heard any word if they will be putting a LSD back into the wrx? or are they staying with that lame apply the brakes to the spinning wheel work around ?

[100_Percent_Juice]

It looks like a legacy/evo to me.

[sperry]

Well... that's actually not surprising. Way to keep the bar low Subaru!

Oh, hey, I'm not disappointed enough. How about announcing the hatchback is discontinued, red and green will be the only 2 colors for the STi, the stereo will be a non-DIN 6-CD changer w/ no satellite/AUX/bluetooth, the front seats will be the new "sport bench" configuration, hubs are 4x100, and enabling Sport# mode now voids your warranty?

Here's to hoping to god that's just the new "Impreza Sport" or "Impreza GT" that inherits the STi's old bodywork, while the WRX really is the car they showed in NY.