FIA letter

[A.F.F.]

I have a suggestion. Why don't we suggest and discuss the best possible rules for WRC and then appoint someone with a good grammar to transcribe it in form of letter? Then all of us who agrees with it, would sign it.

Then just send it to FIA.

Surely it would be read. I'm not sure if we would be in hundreds but at least we would be around the world. That should count something.

It would be interesting to know if FIA is willing to hear the fans at least :)

Just an idea.

[Donney]

It's an interesting idea.

[A.F.F.]

Yes, I mean instead of whining how crabby rules they make, why don't we show them how the job is done ;)

[Viktory]

I think it's a great idea :)

[Donney]

Any good writers among us?

[Jarek Z]

But hasn't FIA already made a poll for fans on wrc.com? FIA is somehow related with this website, isn't it? Don't they already know what people think?

[General Prim]

I agree. We must write it

[JAM]

After find agreement between all members (wich is the most difficult part) a letter must be sent to FIA. Could have no efect at all, but at least we try to do something positive for the WRC... otherwise someone could show us the door!

[EuroTroll]

An appropriate video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcy-TGFotgk&mode=related&search=) :p :

[Tomi]

I have a suggestion. Why don't we suggest and discuss the best possible rules for WRC and then appoint someone with a good grammar to transcribe it in form of letter? Then all of us who agrees with it, would sign it.

Then just send it to FIA.

Surely it would be read. I'm not sure if we would be in hundreds but at least we would be around the world. That should count something.

It would be interesting to know if FIA is willing to hear the fans at least :)

Just an idea.

If you have good ideas, you better write Mahonen at AKK, he could bring the ideas up in the rally comission, writing to FIA takes you nowhere, they take ideas only from official sourses, so the FIA top guy's told in Jyväskylä last summer. :)

[Brother John]

Yes, I mean instead of whining how crabby rules they make, why don't we show them how the job is done ;)

Good suggestion A.F.F. it's a great idea. I´m in! :up:

[DonJippo]

An appropriate video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcy-TGFotgk&mode=related&search=) :p :

:rotflmao: I can imagine it already...AFF and others around the table... :p :

[EuroTroll]

Well, I think it's a good idea, too. :) Make a start then, A.F.F. ;) Seems like you already have plenty of people around the table. :)

[J4MIE]

I vote for studiose to write the letter :) :up:

[Daniel]

:rotflmao: I can imagine it already...AFF and others around the table... :p :
:rotflmao: So true

[A.F.F.]

I don't mind if it goes through Mahonen's hands at all Tomi. Call me crazy but I'm sure this rallying community of ours is indeed in the knowledge of some members of FIA.

About the suggestions. I think it's fair to say that all of us wants more competition, more drivers and manufacturers. How this is possible? With our favourite word; the costcutting.

One definite way is to have a smaller calendar with fewer events. One suggestions I have is to drop the events down to 14 which I guess was the maximum some manufacturers were willing to do. I say let’s have 10 permanent rallies, and four alternative with a rotating system. The TEN should be selected considering them competitionwise, by their market and tradition value. My suggestion is the following:

1. Monte Carlo
2. Sweden
3. Argentina
4. Italy (on tarmac)
5. Acropolis
6. Finland
7. Germany
8. New-Zealand
9. Spain
0. GB

How about the cars ? Some of us would be willing to get rid of 4wd. I’m not. WRC needs 4wd. But the cars should be cheaper. Now, this really isn’t my area of speak so I’m willing to let you guys do the suggestions. How to make the cars cheaper?

One rule I’m all for is one tyre supplier. I don’t care the lack of development. The tyre farce was too much in the couple of last years. I wouldn’t get rid of the mousse though.

The combined PWRC with group-N and S2000 should get an up-grade to it’s status. It should be make appealing for drivers with more than just it’s prize. I really do think it would be an excellent GP2-like series from where the future young guns could come along to WRC. It should be easier and cheaper to access and the reward of doing well in there should be appealing like I said. The promising thing for S2000 is that already two ex-champions ( Mikkola & Salonen ) see it very potential class in the future.

More drivers? If the teams get the equipment cheaper, would they accept to get more drivers in their team? Three drivers per team would be excellent but is it realistic ? And how about the privateer teams ?

I’m sure I left out about a hundred things but this is just a start. The table is yours folks. :)

Oh, btw. Studi is a fine choise, along with Puddlejumper ;)

[N.O.T]

Nice idea......but

1. We re far too many users and we have different opinions on things....so it will never materialise...since i doubt we can agree on something.

2. The FIA will not pay attention

[A.F.F.]

Nice idea......but

1. We re far too many users and we have different opinions on things....so it will never materialise...since i doubt we can agree on something.

2. The FIA will not pay attention


1. If we agree to do some suggestions, it's up to those members who'll want to sign it.

2. I disagree. Read Tomi's post. If we for instance deliver it to Mahonen, I'm pretty sure it'll be at least notified. I know a member on this very forum who has gotten replies to every e-mail he has written to Mahonen. I trust he wouldn't throw it in the resycle bin without reading it first.

I'm interest to find out if we get an answer.

3. What prevents us trying? It's like Wilson's seat. Not away from anybody ;)

[cosmicpanda]

I don't think that the FIA will listen to us about which events, specifically, will be included. It depends on which events are suitable at the time, I think.

Also, I'm not in favour of reducing the number of events. Doing so reduces the exposure that rallying receives, and in these days of crap TV coverage, WRC needs all the exposure that it can get.

[N.O.T]

Well although i think its a waste of time...if we conduct a letter like that i think we should do it proposing general changes rather than specific ones....for example propose the number of events not which ones we want...let them decide that.

[White Sauron]

I think one of the best decisions to be made for WRC is to return to 14 rallies-3-cars rule scheme...

[seb_sh]

A letter isn't a bad idea but it must be carefully written so that it is specific enough so it's not the same thing as the wrc.com survey but not so specific that you'd be telling the FIA what to do. Of course the suggestions should also be backed by facts and examples to show why they would be good.

If we decide to do this first we should try to gather as many ideas and discuss them so we can form some coherent proposals.

It's definitely worth a shot.

[A.F.F.]

Well although i think its a waste of time...if we conduct a letter like that i think we should do it proposing general changes rather than specific ones....for example propose the number of events not which ones we want...let them decide that.


:up: I agree.

I was merely giving an example with the calendar.

Please feel free to disagree and suggest anything you want. :)

[White Sauron]

Please feel free to disagree and suggest anything you want. :)

So... Let's start... Who agrees with a 3-cars rule?

Cons: it's more xpensive for teams, but they do agree, that spending money on one more car in a rally is more efficient then spending money on two more rallies in the calendar!
Pros: There're lot of very good drivers without a works drive (like Duval or Galli) and very talented young drivers who just can't step up onto the next level (like Wilks or Meeke or Aava). If there're 3 crews allowed for a team, then two experienced drivers will hunt for points, and the pressure will be off from young guns, allowing them to drive as they want, to learn.

Anyone wants to add more "+" and "-"?

[J4MIE]

As SpooSH posted, it has to be a politically-minded letter.

3 cars rule - well officially there's nothing stopping you entering 3 cars. But it should change back to the "top 2 manufacturer entries to finish" get the points rather than specifically-nominated drivers.

14 event calendar. I like AFF's idea of 10 standard events and the rest rotating :up:

[White Sauron]

As SpooSH posted, it has to be a politically-minded letter.

3 cars rule - well officially there's nothing stopping you entering 3 cars. But it should change back to the "top 2 manufacturer entries to finish" get the points rather than specifically-nominated drivers.

14 event calendar. I like AFF's idea of 10 standard events and the rest rotating :up:


tYes, his is precisely what I mean. 3 nominated FOR POINTS crews, two best of them get these points.
And this combined with 14 events in a season would be an ideal version for me. And yeah, if 4 of them are rotated, that would be great I think.

[Viktory]

tYes, his is precisely what I mean. 3 nominated FOR POINTS crews, two best of them get these points.
And this combined with 14 events in a season would be an ideal version for me. And yeah, if 4 of them are rotated, that would be great I think.

I'm with you on this one :up:

[DonJippo]

3 nominated FOR POINTS crews, two best of them get these points.

Why it has to be nominated drivers? Why can't it be two best of make gets the points? We could see more manufacturer supported private teams/entries this way.

[White Sauron]

Why it has to be nominated drivers? Why can't it be two best of make gets the points? We could see more manufacturer supported private teams/entries this way.

Because if we allow teams nominate four or more drivers two best of which will get points, big teams will be in a big advantage. Just think. For example, Ford and Citroen nominate 6 drivers. Subaru can allow only three... And for example, each team loses three drivers in a rally (loses I mean - retire or go off). Ford and Subaru will have three more crews to be able to bring crews, while Subaru - no. Thus, if we want teams to nominate more crews than the number of crews that can bring points, we must LIMIT this number anyway, otherwise some team can dominate the champ.

[Erki]

Sauron, if you take a close look, you see that there's no need for any nomination. Even Ostberg with his Legacy could score points for Subaru. ;)

[DonJippo]

Sauron, if you take a close look, you see that there's no need for any nomination. Even Ostberg with his Legacy could score points for Subaru. ;)

You got it kiddo :up:

[White Sauron]

Sauron, if you take a close look, you see that there's no need for any nomination. Even Ostberg with his Legacy could score points for Subaru. ;)

Argh... and you don't see my point! Just think, if there will be no nomination, the brand, which is wider represented in a rally, will be in advantage! Ford, which has 8 cars, will have more chances for points, then Subaru, for example, if it's represented only by three cars!

[FrankenSchwinn]

i dont think a team is going to spend the money on getting 6 drivers up for a rally!

but on the other hand, imagine ford really wants to take seb's thunder on tarmac and they add 2 french drivers and a spaniard, all of them paying for their tarmac drives, and BAM, there you have an all ford top 5.

[FrankenSchwinn]

and not restricting the amount of drivers might also see some M2 teams dissapear like that ford team and kronos.....

just a thought.

[DonJippo]

Argh... and you don't see my point! Just think, if there will be no nomination, the brand, which is wider represented in a rally, will be in advantage! Ford, which has 8 cars, will have more chances for points, then Subaru, for example, if it's represented only by three cars!

As only best two per make would score manu points I see it more fair than this year when it's possible that top six manu points scorer will all be driving Fords.

[White Sauron]

As only best two per make would score manu points I see it more fair than this year when it's possible that top six manu points scorer will all be driving Fords.

It's all about probability theory. The more cars of a certain brand are entered, the more chances the brand has to get two crews into points. So that all teams were equal in terms of sport competition, the quanity of crews, eligable for bringing points to a team must be limited.

[Erki]

If this was applied, would there be any Munchi's WRT and Stobart team? Wouldn't they all be one big Ford?

[White Sauron]

If this was applied, would there be any Munchi's WRT and Stobart team? Wouldn't they all be one big Ford?

No, there would be Stobart as it is now, with Solberg, Latvala and Wilson all nominated for points, with two best of which get this points. The same situation, but better for teams. If this rule had been last year, Kronos would have got points for Pons' high finish.

[seb_sh]

I agree with Sauron, the limit for the works/M1 should be 3 drivers / rally with top 2 scoring points for equality's sake, some manufacturers could spend more than others and run more cars which would unbalance the championship. Also if each team fields 3 cars then there are less chances of other cars finishing in front of the 3 official cars because there would be more quality official entries, plus like Franken said M2 would be almost pointless if you remove nominations altogether.

14 rallies with 4 rotating is good but which ones should rotate? perhaps a system where FIA observers, teams and drivers rate rallies and bottom 4 go into rotation.

[Daniel]

Manufacturers are wanting to cut cars. Back in the days of Peugeot spending lots and lots of money they weren't throwing 10 drivers out just to make sure they got max points. Making a limit is like saying that manufacturers can't fit rocket boosters to their cars or ski's. It wasn't going to happen anyway......

[Woodeye]

First of all, great idea A.F.F! :up: I'm in!

Before going presenting the practical suggestions to FIA or Mahonen I would like to start this letter with few simple reminders to FIA.

1. This letter comes from your most core audience. From those people who have followed are following and will follow rally also in the future, no matter what happens.

2. This same audience goes to rallies, pays to see the events, buy tickets and rally passes, buy rally merchandise, listen to rally radio and so on. We are your customers, please don't ignore us. Rally lives because of fans.

3. But it also lives because of teams participating into it. So please do whatever it takes to lure some more manufacturers to participate in WRC, S2000, PWRC or other classes. Please take manufacturers also in consideration when making the rules, don't make rules that could possibly make manufacturers to leave WRC. Make rally attractive to manufacturers.

How about those to start with?

[DonJippo]

I agree with Sauron, the limit for the works/M1 should be 3 drivers / rally with top 2 scoring points for equality's sake, some manufacturers could spend more than others and run more cars which would unbalance the championship.

I don't get your logic here nor White Saurons either...how it will unbalance the championship if you enable manufacturer points scoring without nominations when you limit it to two per make can score manu points? It's not that one has to be from a factory team to be able to get manu points, every private entry would bring manu points to make as well if in top two per brand.

[White Sauron]

I don't get your logic here nor White Saurons either...how it will unbalance the championship if you enable manufacturer points scoring without nominations when you limit it to two per make can score manu points? It's not that one has to be from a factory team to be able to get manu points, every private entry would bring manu points to make as well if in top two per brand.

But the brand with more private entries will be in advantage then!!! How don't you see it?

The ideal decision for me is back to 2002 and around. A team can enter as many drivers as they want (for example Peugeot entered up to 6 crews), 3 of them are nominated for points (Gro, Burns and Rovanpera for Panizzi), two of them will bring points, even if all three finish. For example, rally San Remo 2002 for Peugeot or Monte 2003 for Citroen.

[Daniel]

I don't get your logic here nor White Saurons either...how it will unbalance the championship if you enable manufacturer points scoring without nominations when you limit it to two per make can score manu points? It's not that one has to be from a factory team to be able to get manu points, every private entry would bring manu points to make as well if in top two per brand.
I have a good idea. To make everything simple lets just ban manufacturers from entering more than 0 cars. That way we don't have a boring championship dominated by just one manufacturer or one driver. Far better in my opinion. I think we should have a forum focus group to think up of yet more useless ideas for ways to make the championship even worse than it is :up:

Seriously though. It's people who thought they had a good idea who came up with great ideas like the 2nd driver rule, superally, repeated stages and centralised services. Like your mum probably said to you when you were young "STOP PLAYING WITH IT OR IT'LL FALL OFF!!!!!!!"

TBH if we're going to make any changes we should just make it so the drivers do donuts and nothing more. After all everyone likes donuts right? :laugh:

[Daniel]

I don't get your logic here nor White Saurons either...how it will unbalance the championship if you enable manufacturer points scoring without nominations when you limit it to two per make can score manu points? It's not that one has to be from a factory team to be able to get manu points, every private entry would bring manu points to make as well if in top two per brand.
I have a good idea. To make everything simple lets just ban manufacturers from entering more than 0 cars. That way we don't have a boring championship dominated by just one manufacturer or one driver. Far better in my opinion. I think we should have a forum focus group to think up of yet more useless ideas for ways to make the championship even worse than it is now :up:

[White Sauron]

just proves it's impossible to get to consensus even between fans...

[General Prim]

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Start with your comments.
I vote for 14 rallies and 3 nominated drivers

[Lousada]

But the brand with more private entries will be in advantage then!!! How don't you see it?


How do you see that? At the moment the brand with more private entries is in an advantage, because they can all take points. While without nominations only the two best can score.
I also doubt this will have an effect on M2 teams as they are all filled by paid drivers with individual sponsors. There is no reason to believe that Expert or OMV would stop sponsoring without M2 teams, or that Stobart only joined because they could score manufacturers points.

[Lousada]

TBH if we're going to make any changes we should just make it so the drivers do donuts and nothing more. After all everyone likes donuts right? :laugh:

:up: I think they should hire stadiums in all the big cities of the country and make superspecials in them. Then rally is right where the people are in densely populated areas, we don't need so many camera's anymore and the vips will have nice warmseats with good food.

[A.F.F.]

1. This letter comes from your most core audience. From those people who have followed are following and will follow rally also in the future, no matter what happens.

2. This same audience goes to rallies, pays to see the events, buy tickets and rally passes, buy rally merchandise, listen to rally radio and so on. We are your customers, please don't ignore us. Rally lives because of fans.

3. But it also lives because of teams participating into it. So please do whatever it takes to lure some more manufacturers to participate in WRC, S2000, PWRC or other classes. Please take manufacturers also in consideration when making the rules, don't make rules that could possibly make manufacturers to leave WRC. Make rally attractive to manufacturers.

How about those to start with?


:up:

We're the ambassadors of HC-rally fans around the globe.

[Lousada]

First of all, great idea A.F.F! :up: I'm in!

Before going presenting the practical suggestions to FIA or Mahonen I would like to start this letter with few simple reminders to FIA.

1. This letter comes from your most core audience. From those people who have followed are following and will follow rally also in the future, no matter what happens.

2. This same audience goes to rallies, pays to see the events, buy tickets and rally passes, buy rally merchandise, listen to rally radio and so on. We are your customers, please don't ignore us. Rally lives because of fans.

3. But it also lives because of teams participating into it. So please do whatever it takes to lure some more manufacturers to participate in WRC, S2000, PWRC or other classes. Please take manufacturers also in consideration when making the rules, don't make rules that could possibly make manufacturers to leave WRC. Make rally attractive to manufacturers.

How about those to start with?

Your first point: if we follow rally no matter what, why would they listen too us? Now you are saying, we want this and this and this, but really it doesn't matter because we watch no matter what. :confused:

Your third point: This is exactly what they have been doing for a long time now and it did not really help (why would we write the letter otherwise?)

[DonJippo]

But the brand with more private entries will be in advantage then!!! How don't you see it?

Explain to me how? When only best two of the make would score...


Seriously though. It's people who thought they had a good idea who came up with great ideas like the 2nd driver rule, superally, repeated stages and centralised services. Like your mum probably said to you when you were young "STOP PLAYING WITH IT OR IT'LL FALL OFF!!!!!!!"

Maybe you should have been shouting this back then when they changed the rule so that it's required to have nominated drivers...which is not that long time ago...

[Woodeye]

Your first point: if we follow rally no matter what, why would they listen too us? Now you are saying, we want this and this and this, but really it doesn't matter because we watch no matter what. :confused:

Your third point: This is exactly what they have been doing for a long time now and it did not really help (why would we write the letter otherwise?)

1st point: I know that I will be watching rally in the future also, no matter what the changes are. I have watched since I can remember and I will do so in the future too. Are going to stop following because of some changes? I mean, I really am a fan to the bone, it would be nice for FIA to remember that they are here because of us, the fans. And even that I know I will be following the rally anyway, there still could be some people who stop watching the sport because of the changes, you are right about that. I still think that people of this forum will continue watching the sport no matter what happens.

3rd point: Then they have been doing it wrongly. They should be able to do whatever it takes to lure some more manufacturers to the sport. And maybe the changes shown in the letter could help with this?

[Erki]

Funny how some people are worried that one or two makes would dominate when that's exactly what we've got at the moment...

[Daniel]

Maybe you should have been shouting this back then when they changed the rule so that it's required to have nominated drivers...which is not that long time ago...

Yup. It's one of the rules I hate. But the championship doesn't need these improvements right now. It needs stability. The WRC is inherently good and very marketable even though it's not at full strength now it just needs manufacturers to come in and for that to happen you need stability.

[A.F.F.]

Yup. It's one of the rules I hate. But the championship doesn't need these improvements right now. It needs stability. The WRC is inherently good and very marketable even though it's not at full strength now it just needs manufacturers to come in and for that to happen you need stability.

Spot on Daniel :up:

One of the most important thing which has prevented manufacturers considering seriously to join in WRC has been the rapid change of rules. If they got assurance the rules won't change for certain amount of time, for instance for next three years, it would bring along some new brands.

[Tomi]

Yup. It's one of the rules I hate. But the championship doesn't need these improvements right now. It needs stability. The WRC is inherently good and very marketable even though it's not at full strength now it just needs manufacturers to come in and for that to happen you need stability.
It's the most important thing, that the comission understand fortunatly by now.

[amberie]

As SpooSH posted, it has to be a politically-minded letter.

3 cars rule - well officially there's nothing stopping you entering 3 cars. But it should change back to the "top 2 manufacturer entries to finish" get the points rather than specifically-nominated drivers.

14 event calendar. I like AFF's idea of 10 standard events and the rest rotating :up:

I really like the 3 cars/top 2 finishers score rule. It would stop manufacturers from outright "buying" the championship with a whole fleet of cars. Also, it was shame last year when Dani Sordo finished on the podium and couldn't score any points because Xevi Pons was nominated. It wouldn't make running a third car a pointless entry anymore.

As much as I love every rally, and love watching 16 WRC events a year, if I had to sacrifice 2 events for more manufacturer participation (ie-more seats), then it'd be worth it. Still, it's not very fair to the rally organizers on the rotating list. They would be in limbo half the time in getting local support to run a rally that may or may not happen. But we could get better events because they would have to put on a great show, so the WRC would want to return.

However, I don't think any set of rule changes would bring back the level of competition we saw in the 80s and 90s, when we had a plethora of legends vying for the win every rally. We simply don't have the same caliber of drivers in the WRC. We could get more cars, more drivers and more manufacturers in the game, but how do you create a legend? You can't train someone to be Winston Churchill or Michael Schumacher--the greats are just born that way.

Anyway, I think this letter to someone influential in the Commission is a great idea. It's better than griping, and doing nothing about it.

Another thing we should include: bring back donuts! They think donuts are dangerous? Rallying is dangerous! We'll live with it.

[bowler]

Another thing we should include: bring back donuts! They think donuts are dangerous? Rallying is dangerous! We'll live with it.

They did bring back donuts.

There was a trial at Rally New Zealand, and the teams did not allow their drivers to participate.

[White Sauron]

Explain to me how?

As I said earlier, it's all about probability theory!!! The more cars the brand has entered in a rally, the more chances it has to get these 2 drivers into the points!!! Just think, Ford enters 4 cars, Citroen - 2, manuf or private, whatever. Both teams lose 2 cars. This means Citroen has NO chances tog et points, while for Ford there's still 2 cars, which can bring smth. How don't you see it? The number of nominated cars must exist and it must be limited. But not as now on 2 cars, but on 3 cars.

[seb_sh]

I really like the 3 cars/top 2 finishers score rule. It would stop manufacturers from outright "buying" the championship with a whole fleet of cars. Also, it was shame last year when Dani Sordo finished on the podium and couldn't score any points because Xevi Pons was nominated. It wouldn't make running a third car a pointless entry anymore.


This is my view as well, in recent years a 3rd car for a younger or specialist driver has been popular but it could only score points up to when the rules allowed 3 official cars with two scoring points.

The main counter to any car of a make scoring points is the fact that some makes are more substantially represented numerically so that make has a higher chance of getting cars in the points in better places just by having more cars.

It's clear to me that we won't agree entirely on this matter so how about wording the request something like this: "Increase the number of crews eligible to score points for a manufacturer with the top 2 scoring points."

As for the number of rallies suggestion I think something along the lines of: "Reduce the number of rallies by at least one event in order to make the series more affordable and attract more manufacturers to make the series more appealing".

I'd also like to suggest keeping a stable ratio between gravel, tarmac and snow rallies. Something like 1 tarmac to every 2 gravel and 1 snow to every 5 gravel.
eg 8 gravel rallies, 4 tarmac, and 2 snow (14 rounds).

[DonJippo]

As I said earlier, it's all about probability theory!!! The more cars the brand has entered in a rally, the more chances it has to get these 2 drivers into the points!!! Just think, Ford enters 4 cars, Citroen - 2, manuf or private, whatever. Both teams lose 2 cars. This means Citroen has NO chances tog et points, while for Ford there's still 2 cars, which can bring smth.

If you don't get your cars to the finish you don't deserve any points simple as that.

[J4MIE]

If you don't get your cars to the finish you don't deserve any points simple as that.

Bingo! :up:

But what about super-rally? Do we get rid of it (as most hardcore fans want), but didn't the manufacturers think it was a good idea? Or do we increase the time penalty? I think that if you give a 10m penalty from the slowest in the class (rather than fastest as it is now) then it'd be much better.

[kabouter]

Bingo! :up:

But what about super-rally? Do we get rid of it (as most hardcore fans want), but didn't the manufacturers think it was a good idea? Or do we increase the time penalty? I think that if you give a 10m penalty from the slowest in the class (rather than fastest as it is now) then it'd be much better.

Then the gaps would be so big the superally drivers would all end up at the end of the classification, making it a futile excercise for the teams to have their cars return. And an added complication would be that the nominal superally time would depend too much on a certain car in that class hitting trouble on certain stage. If a priority 1 driver would go off on a stage and loose 15 minutes on the winner, the retired priority 1 drivers would probably get a superally time that is much slower than any retired N1 cars...

Even after two seasons of the system being used I'm still not sure whether I think it's good or not. Superally spoils the competition in a way - and it contradicts one of the original principles of rallying: to get a result you need to get to the finish without retiring. But I can also see why it's beneficial to teams and spectators, and if it helps keeping manufacturers in the championship, maybe it's not so bad after all...

[A.F.F.]

Superrally, or more specificly the time penalty, is a difficult thing. I agree with Tjeerd. In a way it's good thing. We get to see our favourite drivers despite mistakes or minor mechanical failures.

But how about the sanction? If any other driver than Loeb would have done that incredible rise in Monte last year, it would have been ok. Basicly Loeb and Grönholm ruin that rule. For other drivers it is enough ( 5 minutes ). For Big Boys it's a snack before the podium :mark: Maybe like J4MIE said, +10 minutes from the slowest of the class it could work better.

I can live with superrally although I was compeletely happy before it.

[Simmi]

Just purely from a spectating point of view then SupeRally is brilliant, I dont think there is anyone out on a stage who doesnt want to see the top cars come through, regardless of what has happened to them. Yet it's definately a confusing addition to the rules and goes against what the purists want. Hopefully the purists will stick with rallying regardless.

[Daniel]

If there are enough teams in the championship and 3 car teams as well then we can talk about ending SupeRally but not before then. It's a necesary evil at the moment. Plus some drivers seem to rely on SupeRally to get to the end of rallies anyway :)

[seb_sh]

How about increasing the superrally penalty so comebacks are much harder, although I think this is already planned.

[JAM]

The discussion is interesting, but as i said earlyer the agreement between members would be the most difficul part. But we have to try.

Her is my point ordered by importance:

1 The cost cutting is the more critical thing. Motorsport roles around money, and if teams have few money then the solution is a competition less expensive. I don't care about development. I want simple cars and cheaper then now, but spectacular. I'm in favour of turbocahrged 4WD WRC, but the cars must have the minimum technology allowed, and the option of standard parts for all is a good principle. One tyre suplyer is also a good point. Less costs would atract more teams and eventually more manufacturers. Stability is also nedded.

2 Reduce the WRChampionship to 10 events is IMO completely wrong. WRC is a world championship, and needs to go to the 4 continents, but must have more events were rally are more popular (Europe). Maybe to be back to 14 events would be a good solution, but 10 defenitively no. Rotation in events would be good ideia, but no the rotation made one decade ago neither the rotation that is being sugested to 2008. A event new on wrc must stay 2 yeera, and only after that would enter in the rotation system. No one invest so much money to enter the WRC and came out in the next year.

3 Driver Nominations for rallyes must be ended, agree with the obligation of nominating one driver to all season per team, but at the events the 2 better cars muts collect points. Each team (not manufacturer but team M1 or M2) must have points for the 2 better cars at the end of the rally. Forget the manufacturers idea, a lot of discussion about manufacturers but right now we have a team championmship and not a manufacturers championship. A manufacturer could be champion, but a team also could be.

4 Superaly is something that we need, because we want to see more cars in each stage. I agree with the actual time penalty, more than this would eventually put the returned cars completely out of points, and teams probably would not come back to the event after a retirement.

5 More visibility to WRC. How it can be reached? Rallyes in countries with big audiences and a lot of spectators on the stages. That was what made rally so popular in the past and without live transmissions or internet or the media support that we have now. Right choice on the events and more and better work in terms of television contracts. I think something is being in a bad way at the present. Without Europsort WRC would almost die...

[cosmicpanda]

I think, if we're serious about writing a letter to the FIA, we should find out what specific issues we have with the championship as it currently is, and debate each in separate threads. Then we can have a poll to find some statistics to give the FIA - wouldn't it be better to say that, for example, 71% of fans agree that day three of each event shuold be longer than 80 km or 3% think that cars should have seventeen wheels?

Trying to do everything in a single thread will only create a muddle.

Also, I think the letter should be sent to as many relevant members of the WMSC as possible, so that it's less likely to be ignored.

[JAM]

Separate threads to separate issues would be very good idea. The discussion would be more simple.

[Erki]

What, even more tables? :devil: :p :

[WRC2006]

. My suggestion is the following:

1. Monte Carlo
2. Sweden
3. Argentina
4. Italy (on tarmac)
5. Acropolis
6. Finland
7. Germany
8. New-Zealand
9. Spain
0. GB



This is a good idea to write a letter to FIA. I support the idea too.

But for me, I always not agree with the name " World Rally Championship" since all the continents are not representated. An example : Africa.

I agree very few country can organise such event if it is only the South Africa. But I think the FIA should help South Africa or Kenya to organise an event so then we can maintain the word WRC where all the continents are represented.

Remember in the past, the Safari Rally in Africa has been a big challenge both to drivers and cars. Maybe this will be a special case where FIA should invest more than in the others event because of those states can't do that themeslves.

Last year the FIA sent observers in South Africa and I think the report was not good enough to held an event there.