Rallye de France 2015

[N.O.T]

useless event from a spectator point of view and quite possibly from a competition point of view also... Long tarmac stages just decide things way too early. San Remo int he ERC is a nice example of that.

[Karukera]

In that time there was near zero traffic on Corsican roads apart of the rally. Times changed a bit.

In 1989 when i first attended the rally as a tall kid there was significant traffic over the island.

Some roads are so narrow that a Mini crossing a 2CV would pretty much jam the traffic, so nothing changed in that respect.

[Franky]

Agree with your final sentence, but please, can you tell me when I (or others in this thread if you're referring to them) have used this circuit racing logic?

Analogy to your point of view on the Corsican route

[PLuto]

I must say that I dont like modern "style" with so long stages. It is going against spectators, who can see the cars only once per day, it is going against crews, because there is more chances for technical problem. And dont forget much bigger chance for cancellation the stage (due to crash or in France very popular problem with spectators). I remember last year, how really big problem was moving all the stuff from Porto-Vecchio to Ajaccio - not only rally cars, but mainly all service trucks and tools. It was disaster, roads (especially on south) are not prepared for it. I cannot imagine how this will be working in WRC...

[marcosg]

I must say that I dont like modern "style" with so long stages. It is going against spectators, who can see the cars only once per day, it is going against crews, because there is more chances for technical problem. And dont forget much bigger chance for cancellation the stage.

I'm with you on this... WRC is not Rally Raid or something like that... Stages should never be more than 30k long and should be in average 15k-20k... the racing in shorter distances is completly different and much better... Rally Argentina was decided on the first stage of a 3 day long race! how can this be exciting?? shorter stages means shorter gaps and more full atack style from drivers... and that's what I wan't when watching a WRC event...

[Alfa Fan]

Rally GB 1980 709km / 70 stages = 10.1km/stage
Rally GB 1985 897km / 65 stages = 13.8km/stage
Rally GB 1990 566km / 41 stages = 13.8km/stage
Rally GB 1995 510km / 28 stages = 18.2km/stage
Rally GB 2000 380km / 17 stages = 22.4km/stage
Rally GB 2005 354km / 17 stages = 20.8km/stage
Rally GB 2010 344km / 20 stages = 17.2km/stage
Rally GB 2014 305km / 23 stages = 13.3km/stage

The problem isn't really the reduction in stage numbers, it's the woeful total distance covered by modern WRC rallies. 305km is shorter than a Grand Prix! pre-1995 is a more sensible distance for a WRC event.

[AndyRAC]

I'm with you on this... WRC is not Rally Raid or something like that... Stages should never be more than 30k long and should be in average 15k-20k... the racing in shorter distances is completly different and much better... Rally Argentina was decided on the first stage of a 3 day long race! how can this be exciting?? shorter stages means shorter gaps and more full attack style from drivers... and that's what I wan't when watching a WRC event...

Then watch World RX. The WRC is not meant to be just a sprint.
Charly Lamm once said there are 2 types of people; those who get Endurance, and those that don't. It seems most WRC fans (well the ones on here) simply don't.

[AL14]

Analogy to your point of view on the Corsican route

I've never used that logic, which I don't understand well in what it consists of btw. I assume you meant something like: the more visible action, the better. But I never talked about it either. I've talked about a "minimum amount of action" that is very different.

Reaching the stages, the kms, all good but there should be a reason to do that...

[marcosg]

Then watch World RX. The WRC is not meant to be just a sprint.
Charly Lamm once said there are 2 types of people; those who get Endurance, and those that don't. It seems most WRC fans (well the ones on here) simply don't.

300k of stages isn't just a sprint... and yes, i do think endurance days in rallying are over...

[Mirek]

Then watch World RX. The WRC is not meant to be just a sprint.
Charly Lamm once said there are 2 types of people; those who get Endurance, and those that don't. It seems most WRC fans (well the ones on here) simply don't.

It's too cheap to say something like "then watch RX" or "go to F1". The long stages are actually really problematic stuff.

The main concern is of course what PLuto pointed out. If You have 300 km long event and You cancel just one 50 km long stage You cancel 17% of the overall distance. And I don't speak about canceling the stage for top crews which happens very rarely but about cancellation for the rest which on the other hand happens very often. Do the crews pay the entry fee to skip 15-20% of the rally distance with every canceled stage? I'm sure they don't.

Is it even good idea to have one stage covering 15% of the rally? I'm totally sure it's not. Let's go back to what N.O.T. mentioned. Rally Sanremo during the IRC days brought the extreme night stage Ronde. The stage for sure was tough as hell and always made a roller coaster with the results but the downside was that the whole rally shrank to that one epic stage preceded and followed by number of irrelevant stages.

Another point is that while we all like to see some privateers to do well among the works drivers these extreme stages work for the opposite. One such stage is more expensive and harder for the machinery than two with the same overall length. In the end the extremely long stages open the scissors between the privateers and works drivers more. It's nice to speak about endurance but 50 km is not endurance. Professional works driver and his works car can do the 50 km long stage in pretty crazy tempo which I believe is hardly different to 20 or 30 km long one. For the privateers that's hardly possible and also the risk of mechanical problems is way higher than for works crews.

Fourth point was already mentioned and it's spectators. I don't see any point why to restrict spectators to less stages per day. OK, if there is a very big problem with the traffic it's probably better to make spectators sit on one place for the whole day but why else? People want to see something especially if they pay for it. If I shall choose if I go to Corsica to see one stage per day or to Ypres to see eight in the same time I know for sure where I go and where I spend my money. Some events have quite high-priced entry tickets. Ask Yourself, would You pay 100 GBP to see 3-4 stages of rainy and muddy Rally GB? Now add to that the money for flight tickets, car rental and accommodation and divide it by number of stages You see.

Let's go further. How about marketing? Again I can hardly find a reason to push for the extremely long stages. From marketing point of view what shall be better with them? I know it's just marketing but WRC IS marketing tool for the carmakers. That's the only reason why they do it.

The last point of mine is my favorite and I'm sure You all read it plenty of times in discussions about superally. Simply said the superally rules are not prepared for such type of stages. As a result we get nonsensical results where retired cars score better stage times than those which actually pass through. Imagine, You are sitting behind a wheel of an R2, leading JWRC and pushing like hell through that 50 km long muddy and rainy inferno and in the end You are half a minute slower than some WRC guy who spends the whole stage sitting in the service park drinking coffee and watching online splits because he broke a wheel on the stage before. If that's not ridiculous I don't know what is.

For sure we can argue for days but what I wanted to say is that 50 km long stages bring very little and create a lot of problems. Anyway I don't want the organizers to be pushed for some linked scheme. No, let them decide what they feel is better for their event. Be it long, short or whatever stages. I just don't get the hype about them.