I think that group a was called underpowered due to a comment Walter Rörl did 1987. that he was underwhelmed by the power of the gruppe A car he had and hence forth he was quitting his rally career

Kit cars were the best

I’m just going to leave this here; Metro 6R4 (being driven hard by a competent rally driver) 2.41 60ft 34.33 finish time 2.14 31.54 2.04 32.25 2.02 31.35 Volvo C30 full weight road car (driven by me, baby seat in back, 316bhp, road tyres) 2.81 35.17 2.75 32.77 2.76 32.80 2.63 32.06 0.71 seconds difference between us, and 0.61 of that was purely launching off the start line (4WD vs open diff FWD), meaning a full on Group B 6R4 posts basically the same times as a Volvo. Oh and just for laughs from the same event; Impreza S12 WRC 2.19. 30.25 2.14. 29.41 2.18. 28.88 2.17. 28.69 (Using launch control with Rocket ALS!)

It's like someone figured out what 80s tech compared to 00s. Its like a child that talked about the r32. Kinda like how it went from facebook to myspace to facebook again. You weren't there or watching, so kinda how no idea how it was. But thats the assuie feel right?

something that bothers me about the "new rally cars are easy to drive" crowd is while technically true. the difficulty comes in actually being fast. a grippier car with equal safety standards will be much more dangerous because you can push harder, and a 50mph corner will turn into a 80mph corner.

It had the shortest development time out of all the lmp1s so ofcourse it would have reliability issues. Although did have a very aerodynamic and fuel effcent design.

I just like to talk about 1986 portugal. No specific reason. All jokes aside, i think its called the best since it reminds us of the days when WRC was at the top of motorsport, everybody wanted to be part of it. Group A threw some punches too. But when you look at WRC now its kinda sad? Three manufacturers left, ford dosnt provide enough financial support for teams to build a fast reliable car. And Hyundai will remove manufacturers support for 2025 from what ive heard. So its just toyota battling itself.

The f1 vs group B rally car is not really saying anything since you picked the audi quattro, notoriously bad on tarmac compared to other group B cars of the same era. A 205 T16 or a 037 would have been more fitting

I think you might be arguing with no one in the first couple minutes of your video, Group B might be overrated but it was still great in many ways (if your talking about the tik-tokification i don't know anything about it because i don't use tiktok for car related content)

pathetic video.

I can't speak for others, but look, I'm a Group 4 and Group B fan, let's focus on Group B, though, and, yes, absolutely agree, the speed claims are ridiculous and non-sensical, well known fact Group A's surpassed Group B's in a matter of years, and also as you put it yourself, the specifications of the cars themselves simply can't make them quicker than then-contemporary open-wheelers. But that's not the point. In fact, neither is "real men," cars being hard to drive. And the whole flat-out driving, close finishes and competition thing isn't either. If you want any of that, in any motorsport discipline, then modern motorsport is right for you, that is pretty obvious. Me personally, what I like about Group B is just how interesting the cars were. All unique, engines of all types and sizes, any chassis, engine location and drivetrain combination possible, and the bodywork... It's Bernard Beguin's M1 Procar doing tarmac stages, a car completely out of place there, or the Porsche 911s, similar cars you'd expect at Le Mans, rather than a rally stage. It's the hatchbacks like the Peugeot 205 and Lancia Delta (038) (and the modified old Group 4 Renault 5 (now Maxi) Turbo) with engines in the middle. The RWD still being a thing (yes it was a thing in early Group A as well). And the "rally-prototype"-esque bodies of the 037 Lancia and RS200 Ford. A bit less car-related, but as you mentioned it, I mention it as well, the rallies were longer. Rallies were comparable to World Sportscar Championship's endurance races in length. You had to make it to the end, nurse the car through, sometimes, more than 1000 km. And the cars, as stated in the video, were fragile and unreliable, requiring further care. The finishes were minutes apart, competiton was rarely very close, at least on a rally-per-rally basis, but this is not what I'm asking for. I like to see just how big of a gap can a certain car and crew pull on others, be it in endurance racing or rally for this matter. This is the reason why I think the Group B regulations of the WRC were, together with Group 4, by far the best. Should Group B come back? Well no, it shouldn't, it's a thing of the past, that's where it should stay. But the cars of today, simply don't interest me. Sure I follow WRC these days, but I'm not merely as interested in 1.6L inline 4 turbo hatchbacks with, let's face it, similar bodywork solutions and similar performance, do what would be the rally equivalent of a hotlap for 17 stages straight. You may like it, that's fine. I don't. I could draw parallels to other big motorsport diciplines (sportscars, touring cars), it's an almost identical story, but that's irrelevant here.

As ever people concentrate only on the cars. But look back at the events in GpB days....... None of this 3 and a bit days, with repeated stages, and 300km of stages...... WRC is meant to be an Endurance event, not a short, sprint series........

24:12 What is that map?

Why are they doing the EV race in the snow? batts work worse in cold.

So what your saying is Group B is the RBR of Rally :D

I think you are quite a backseat driver.

Ah yes, I personally remember the good old days when Group B used to be the apex of rallying with thousands and thousands of fans standing on the road and the drivers killing at least 300 people every race. It was so good the FIA awarded them bonus points for ramming at least 5 toddlers per race and collecting nore than 20 limbs in the air intakes

The Peugeot 205 that was taken to estoril in 1985 could've beaten the F1 pole time at estoril from the previous year if they'd been running it at the full 1000+ horsepower it was dynoed at with max boost and the same literal rocket fuel that F1 used at the time. But they couldn't do that for two reasons: (A): the car would've been almost completely undrivable. (B): the motor almost certainly could not have run at the full dynoed power output at full speed for more than maybe a single lap before grenading itself. So they ended up supposedly setting a lap time that would've put them on the grid for the '85 portuguese grand prix in fourth place.

I've been a racing fan all my life and can say that motorsport, in general, was different in the 80's. The rules were a lot looser, the cars were often extremely delicate and events were more dangerous in general, they also had the benefit of the bottomless pit that was cigarette company sponsorship money funding all the development. We're now looking back at that era with somewhat rose tinted glasses, and there's a lot of people who weren't alive at the time (I'm 41, so I do remember it) that have built it up in their heads as being this amazing lost decade of motorsports, and it was...up to a point. Things did have to change eventually, and they did in the 90's when safety in pretty much every major global series started advancing by leaps and bounds, so things like driver fatalities became so rare that when they happened they were major news that got treated as legitimate lead stories rather than just sports stories stuffed in at the end of the broadcast. The tech continued to advance, the drivers got better and better, and I actually believe that motorsports as a whole are better than they've ever been right now.

The reason I like Group B is more philosophical than anything. The F1 story still has a bit of meaning, even if other comments have pointed out some problems with it. For a production-type car to throw down a time like that is huge, because an F1 car is a fragile, overengineered machine. Its one and only purpose was to be driven as quickly as possible by a single person around a prepared paved circuit in the summer, and so it was built entirely around that. An F1 car is less a car than a bathtub with wings and fat slicks. There is no room for a passenger seat or even a tiny amount of cargo. No place to mount headlights; to do so would be to mess up the aerodynamics anyway. To drive an F1 car on a dirt road, at any speed above perhaps 15MPH, would destroy it. The Group B car, on the other hand, had to be durable and adaptable enough to perform well under any and all conditions, it had to be repairable if/when crashed, and because of how rally works, it had to at least be possible to finagle a license plate onto it. That, to me, is peak car. The ultimate all-rounders, at least for the technology of the time. Absolutely unfathomable performance, in a car you could at least theoretically drive to work, even if you live someplace where sports cars usually have a hard time. To be sure, there are problems with the F1 story, and the engineers didn't stop engineering so later classes were once again very quick. But what sets Group B cars apart is the way they pushed the limits of their time with vehicles that were technically street driveable. Nothing since then has tried to reach that high, relative to the technology available at the time, in cars with doors and more than one seat. Given that all-rounders are my favorite type of modified car, that just plain speaks to me. In terms of favorite individual cars, most of mine do come from other eras. But as far as philosophy goes, what's more "peak car culture" than a brick ahh hatchback that can go from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds, on a surface where most cars would struggle to do it in 6, at a time when at lot of cars struggled to do it in 10 on any surface?

A good point of comparison is modern GT3 cars. They’re not super fast in terms of top speed and acceleration, but their aero and cornering capabilities are so strong they can still make good pace anyway

Go back a letter and forwards in time, Group A was the GOAT.

I just wish modern rally allowed different engines, all of them sound the same and without Subaru they're all straight 4 turbo engines. I wish we could have v6s, i5s, etc. Getting the sounds of n/a, turbos and superchargers would make things interesting. I know this can't happen in the modern era but I maintain it'd make it more exciting.

I say, every rally group was amazing in its own right. Before group b, rallying was tought. After group b, many improvements came in various areas like chassis, safety of fans-cars-drivers. Modern wrc cars 100times better but one cannot talk bad or compare them.

I agree that Michele Mouton was the manliest man of all ❤️

5:12 it’s also worth noting that the fastest cars in DR2 are R5 cars, which are nowhere near as fast as wrc+ or rally1 cars

I agree most of your statements in the video even though I wouldn't be so strict in expressions as you are. Some addition to the different topics you scratch. 1. The Estoril case. Your comparison between an Audi Quattro S1 and an 80's Lotus F1 car on a narrow, dry rally stage quite pointless in the case. First of all on this kind of stages had the Quattro the biggest disadvantage to a Delta S4. It was very understeery car (as all the Audis ever since usually are), had a quite big turbo lag and had to accelerate a few more additional kgs after each and every corner. In the meantime the Lancia was agile, with supercharger-turbo combo it has overcame the turbo lag issue and was much lighter. Secondly the condition in Estoril was a full wet on which the highly laggy F1 turbos got in an even worse situation when the punch came. And as I heard the Lancia put their new triflux engine in that Delta S4 which meant to be in the new Group S car and at the final stage it was said that it produces 800HP, but at the beginning it has started from 600. So we had a non-homologated 600-800HP 4WD car on a damp track against the 1000+ HP 2WD cars of the 80s with very unpredictable behaviors on those conditions. (And as I heard the story back then it would have qualified on the 6th place on the grid, so it wasn't the fastest anyway, just placed well) 2. Drivers of the era (as in many other disciplines of the motorsport) required more experience (to understand the car, learn and enhance the driving techniques) and were less athletes compared to modern drivers. The speed the modern R1 cars capable of are so insane and requires so sharp reactions sending at its full that young athletes with the quickest reaction times are a must. Sorry, I have to go now, but will continue ...

todays wrc is unbelievably faster

The current Rally1 cars are just completely insane. So much faster than Gr.B, but not undrivable pieces of junk you need to nurse around to not break them and to not die. The racing is very close and honestly much more exciting than ever before. The hybrid management is also a massive thing and hard to execute right, but i still think the sport will be better when the hybrid system is gone

Great video, great footage, great arguments. I really hope this video blows up. This mythos is actively hurting the WRC since there's a decent chunk of people who don't bother watching it because they think it's some unfortunate remnant of a former glory time. I long for an era where it's worth it for brands like Skoda, Dacia, Renault etc. (I'm still on the copium that Lancia is gonna be back and not suck) to participate on the highest level of rally.

Yeah 100% agree. I mean it took a couple of years for rallying to recover from Group B fully (especially due to that Lancia dominance that happened for like 5 or 6 years) but once they basically went bankrupt and they pulled out in 1993 (?), Group A and it's competitiveness really became great. Not to mention, the coverage for rallying was just better in the late 90s compared to the 80s when Group B took place, which really is what makes the Group A formula so memorable. On broads were now properly a thing, with better cameras and GPS alongside that comparison thing that started being used. However, in terms of the "aura" alone, nothing in Rallying will ever top Group B for me. The crowds, the danger, bullshit engineering, the trickiness and the wheel spin of the cars all encapsulate the true spirit of rallying for me. Sliding into every corner, blasting the throttle on exit, wrestling the cars make the drivers look like superheros. Yeah, all those that came after them like Burns, Sainz, Loeb, McRae are probably some of the best to ever do it, and they have these superhuman abilities, just doesn't feel like mythical beings like the guys and gals from Group B. The matter of fact is that Group B was much harder to drive than Group A. Once again, I'm not saying that Group A cars are easy and the drivers are less talented, because that is simply untrue. It's just missing that romanticized adventure feeling, you know. Either way, the overrated nature of Group B doesn't make it bad, and just because some people on tiktok are making up BS stuff, its still true that it was probably the peak of the "spirit of rally". But the golden era of rallying continued well into Group A till the Loeb dominance. If i have one small thing to critique, I really hoped that rallying had gone in the route of Group S after cancelling Group B instead of Group A becoming the de facto no.1. With the manufactures that were planning to enter the WRC's new Group, I'm sure it would have satisfied both fans of what Group A became, and fans that still want Group B.

i understand the appeal of the group b cars, i always have, they're cool.... they look cool, they sound cool... but they're also death traps. what really troubles me most with group b rallying is how dangerous it was, and how people contininuously hype up that danger. like losing fingers in an air intake because you tried to touch a 800hp monster flying sideways on a country road is a mark of glory or something ? and let's not talk about the absolute absence of security in the cars themselves, with paper-thin bodywork and fake rollcages... i was a kid back then and the images of the era legitimately *terrify* me now. group b was insane and not in a good way. i'm so glad it's dead ; i want to enjoy racing, not drivers turning themselves into fireballs by missing a braking point straight into a tree, or mowing down three rows of spectators because they were too dumb not to step 3meters onto the road... ....and seriously, the coolest cars ever to rally were the kit cars of the 90s. i'll die on that hill. :P

what good is top speed If you cannot fully utilise the power & handle it under pressure? Also the difference in driving technique vs now. Back then no group b cars really had a hydraulic handbrake.

As someone who has been a spectator into the 90s and later part of the sport, not WRC but local championships, I really like that era and feel nostalgic especially when I drive those cars on simulators. BUT, I drive a gdb WRX and dream of one day owning a Lancia Integrale or Escort RS. Group A was faster, had better handling cars, better drivers, more organized rallies and as a result it was more exciting. There are many statements I would debate in the video but overall, I agree.

All i can say is big thank you for this video and for realistic aspect with which it was made and for going for facts and not a telltale stuff. First video i see about Group B without overhyping it and for looking at the category with grounded point of view. Again,props for making it.

In terms of regulations, Group B wasn't an absolutely huge leap from Group 4, which preceded it. Purpose-built rally cars had existed since the 60's with stuff like the Alpines and Lancia Stratos. It was more about manufacturers learning how to use 4wd, turbos and composite materials, which all happened to come around over the span of a few years. I guess it was the brief mismatch of these (relatively) advanced supercars, combined with the traditional long-distance road racing origins of old rallying that creates such a strong impression of the Group B era for many people. And of course, it was inevitable that the regulations caught up with it eventually, either because of safety or costs.

I feel like it's because car sports are now too sanatized Group B was a time of experimentation and recklessness

Current state of Rally1 has shown maybe not trying to bringing back Gr. B isn't that bad at all. And even if it wasn't Corsica accident, Group B would be short lived anyway. Escalating costs would drive manufacturers away, switch to Group A with ease, and Group S would still remain unraced.

theyd get out and play with eachothers BALLS like real men🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥

I never shut up about group A, real cars not spaceships, that spawned many amazing cars people are still driving and obsessed with today

Yes, FINALLY! I extend this sentiment to other 80s/90s racing classes. - 90s F1 had more electronics than current F1 and the races were boring as hell most of the time. - Group C drivers rarely went flat out beyond qualifying, races were decided by several laps and wheel to wheel racing was rare. . BTCC supertouring races were shown as edited highlight reels of the best moments with at least partially scripted commentary by Murray Walker, and the series still produces fantastic door-banging racing to this day (you'd think it died after 2000 the way people talk about it). - 90s DTM had weight penalties and performance adjustments from the governing body, so anyone who claims BoP "kills" racing is ignorant at best. Oh, and there's articles from Wild West times about "real men" no longer being a thing, I despise that whole narrative.

I love Group B, but it was NOT faster than Group A starting in the early 90’s. Group A is also the golden era of rallying in my opinion, it was perfect, the cars, the teams, the drivers, etc. Group B was still fantastic and a hard start to beat as it kickstarted rally popularity, but I feel like Group A is overshadowed by Group B, thank you for covering this. Rally 1 is also faster and doesn’t deserve the hate it gets, I enjoy it and I’m proud to own a Evo 1

Hyperbolic, Spiteful and misterable... Your left wing GET OVER IT.

Watching this video I started questioning which cars are the fastest. World Rally Cars or the current Rally1 cars? Current cars have hybrid but I think the old ones had better aero. (Also amazing video)

the tik-tokification of rally and its consequences have been a disaster for the motorsport community

There is still some misconceptions in this video. Group b cars definately had more than 550 hp. People like Alen have said that they were pushing upto 800 hp in certain rallies. Other than that yeah pretty much accurate.

What a perfect example of "Do not recommend channel"

Nostalgia is a blinding force. Everyone looks at edited highlights that show 1% of what any favourite era of motorsport was but in reality it was the same as motorsport today. F1 during the 80’s turbo and V10 era was most races were meh like todays F1 apart from the V10 era where is was basically the Ferrari show. Also much to the common myth the 1980’s F1 cars did not always have 1000hp. A select few did have 1000hp in qualifying trim with qualifying spec engines, turbos and tire which blew up after barely two flying laps. In the race the cars would have had 800hp which is still impressive but every 5-10 years the horsepower estimations jumps another 200hp or so. Le Mans/sportscars have been generally the same for decades but with technology advancing. NASCAR let’s be honest here, has been the same close racing for the last 30-40 years only with added gimmicks in the last 20 years (that’s another kind of rant) Australian V8 Supercars haven’t gotten boring but the series is all about fully professional drivers in highly reliable cars finishing 161 laps of Bathurst mostly on the lead lap. However, the fans think the days of Peter Brock winning by 6-9 laps one year is amazing racing. Again I have a much longer rant about that too. I’m starting to think I should upload videos ranting about motorsport categories 😂😂😂😂

The obsession with group b shows a big downside of modern rally and racing in general. Most if not all of the modern racing series have very tight restrictions that limit creativity and in term making cars that drive not different enough there you can see a difference. And yes where is downside of who spends the most amount of money- wins. What people want is Hillclimb approach where only requirment is a cage. Second thing why group b has been gaining much more attention is simracing. then you are not restricted by reliability and fear while yes slower then wrc cars are much more fun to drive, not just because mainly reliesed on mechanical grip but also having different driving styles tbh only rbr makes modern wrc cars feel fast and giving that feeling of not having complete control of the car. Lastly then drives said that cars were too fast and the bluring colors ect. that most likely was taken out of context. Because of light, powerful cars with bad suspension you would lose part of the control not like modern wrc then good suspension and aero keeps you in control. If you played dirt rally 2.0 you can feel that lost control on rallies like poland then you are going 150kmh and you are just floating.