74th PZM Rally Poland

[[WRCRR]]

30 in a few days. I do apologize for some of the language in that post, reading it back now. I was pretty riled up about something entirely unrelated. I stand by the main points, though.

What you might not appreciate is that many people here understand some of the points you were trying to make, even if you presented them in pretty awful way. However, some of the things you don't seem to grasp:

1) That rallying doesn't exist in a vacuum.
2) That we can't go "back to how things were" - this is true to everything in life in general, btw.

And believe me, I remember the Group B era well - I was there to see it live. However, I do not see it as a glorified golden era like so many others. There were enormous issues with safety back then - issues that definitely should not have been ignored then, but are totally impossible to ignore nowadays.

Also, If you haven't noticed the motor industry in general is in the middle of it's biggest change probably ever. Motorsport is not the hottest thing right now either. Rallying especially is a vulnerable sport in many ways, as the competition is not held on purpose-build courses where safety and other issues can be monitored on a wholly different level, unlike basically most other types of motor races.

The negative impact of a huge incident involving spectators (or competitors, but especially spectators) in a WRC rally would be enormous. We who truly enjoy this sport understand this, and are willing to sometimes compromise to safeguard the future. Sure, I dislike the modern "walled garden" spectator areas common in most WRC events as much as almost every rally fan. However, I also understand that this is necessary, especially in WRC events which bring in lots of spectators not familiar with rallying or motorsport in general. In a modern top level event there has to be a certain level of safety - otherwise there will be soon no event to follow at all.

And sure, you might not always get to the best spot in these modern events, like you used to in the "good old days". That is the price way pay - deal with it.

If you really want to support rallying, go to your local events, there you can almost always get to the best spot, even with the increased safety standards. Even better, at the same time you are supporting the local motoring club and safeguarding the future of rallying. And if you want to go all out in your support - get into marshalling as well. Not only you get to see the "safety issue" from totally different viewpoint, you are also becoming a vital part in making the event happen year after year.

[Rally Power]

I read something and I ask myself, "Is what this person is saying objectively correct or not?" You would all do well to do the same.

Following that fine principle one has to correct you: it wasn’t neither the public nor the bureaucrats fault, Gr.B cars were simply too dangerous.

I’m not in the mood to look for driver’s quotes, but everybody aged enough remembers they all mentioned (at the time or some years later) that driving those cars was a permanent risk.

The ban occurred after Toivonen and Cresto tragic accident in Corsica, which didn’t involve any spectator, because it became obvious the passive and active Gr.B poor safety standards shouldn’t be allowed anymore.

On current cars safety I’ll say what I’ve said a long time ago: these car are great and much safer than the old Gr.B, but the speed increase shouldn’t be taken lightly: spectators control must be a priority and second level drivers shouldn’t be allowed to use them (superlicense mandatory).

A final note: IMO dissonant views are always welcomed, there’s nothing worse than unanimity in a debate, but it’s wrong to confuse free opinion with systematic insult, like the forum troll you’ve mentioned (hopefully not your role model) does.

[AL14]

Too many lines debating over a simple fact. That's too dangerous -> it has not improved over the years -> get out from WRC and hopefully from rally in general.

[AnttiL]

The ban occurred after Toivonen and Cresto tragic accident in Corsica, which didn’t involve any spectator, because it became obvious the passive and active Gr.B poor safety standards shouldn’t be allowed anymore.

Yes. Canceling Group B wasn't only about spectator issues. Of course it's impossible to say if FISA would have decided the same without the Portugal accident, but the accidents of Bettega and Vatanen were still fresh in the memory. The drivers would have wanted to continue with Group B or Group S cars, if they would have taken the hot turbos away or increased the safety in some other way. And actually there were seven driver deaths in WRC events between 1987-1990 but only three since then. And same goes for spectator deaths. The safety has been improved on both sides, although the cars are again faster, now probably faster than ever, but also safer than ever.

[sonnybobiche]

First off I just want to apologize again for the salty language earlier. That was not on.

As for the actual safety issues and the future of rallying, I think that it's a mistake to sacrifice the sport in any way for what we pretend will be a temporary change to get through a rough patch. I think this is a form of managed decline. It's a vicious cycle. Let's say you make things safer, but it requires some sacrifice to the sport. Pushing crowds back, for example, or requiring all four wheels to be on the car, or getting rid of Safari with its open roads. The result is that the sport is a bit safer, but also has fewer fans and fewer eyeballs. So there's less money, less manufacturer interest. Also, the culture around the sport demands ever-increasing safety, so whatever change you made is now the new normal, and anything less than that is seen as outrageously dangerous. For both of those reasons, there's less money to pay outrageous insurance fees. So you have to go even safer. Eventually someone asks, "hey, why should there be any spectators allowed to line the roads at all? Can't we just close the stages to spectators? That's safer!" Or they might suggest something ridiculous, like, say, an average speed limit.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think this road leads to motorsport being saved. Again, it seems like managed decline. The counterexample to all this is the Isle of Man TT, in which multiple competitors die literally every year, and yet the event is as popular as ever (with the crowds, the riders, and the sponsors) and as far as I know there's no issue with insurance.

[rallyfiend]

Name another sport that kills its fans?

Rallying (as whole) does. That's rare.

[AnttiL]

Name another sport that kills its fans?

Rallying (as whole) does. That's rare.

You could get hit by a baseball or a hockey puck or a spectator stand at an arena could collapse.

[macebig]

Are you guys seriously debating on those issues? I think that a heavy vehicle going the opposite direction in a live stage is a common big No, No right? Plus, spectators playing bullfight with rally cars is a another common No, No, don't you think?Ok, I see that for some it may be exciting or spectacular but it will only take one bad luck moment for rallying to be banned. Is it worth it? A few moments of adrenaline for a serious injury/death and significant consequences for the rest of rally fans. Just use your brain, people...

[steve.mandzij]

First off I just want to apologize again for the salty language earlier. That was not on.

As for the actual safety issues and the future of rallying, I think that it's a mistake to sacrifice the sport in any way for what we pretend will be a temporary change to get through a rough patch. I think this is a form of managed decline. It's a vicious cycle. Let's say you make things safer, but it requires some sacrifice to the sport. Pushing crowds back, for example, or requiring all four wheels to be on the car, or getting rid of Safari with its open roads. The result is that the sport is a bit safer, but also has fewer fans and fewer eyeballs. So there's less money, less manufacturer interest. Also, the culture around the sport demands ever-increasing safety, so whatever change you made is now the new normal, and anything less than that is seen as outrageously dangerous. For both of those reasons, there's less money to pay outrageous insurance fees. So you have to go even safer. Eventually someone asks, "hey, why should there be any spectators allowed to line the roads at all? Can't we just close the stages to spectators? That's safer!" Or they might suggest something ridiculous, like, say, an average speed limit.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think this road leads to motorsport being saved. Again, it seems like managed decline. The counterexample to all this is the Isle of Man TT, in which multiple competitors die literally every year, and yet the event is as popular as ever (with the crowds, the riders, and the sponsors) and as far as I know there's no issue with insurance.

It's nice you realized you'd been "hostile"

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[AnttiL]

Pushing crowds back, for example, or requiring all four wheels to be on the car, or getting rid of Safari with its open roads. The result is that the sport is a bit safer, but also has fewer fans and fewer eyeballs. So there's less money, less manufacturer interest.

How do you prove that more safety results in less interest in rallying? The world has changed since the 80's and 90's. Car sales numbers are going down and even brands go bankrupt. Driving is not cool anymore. Furthermore, I don't see anymore those tobacco sponsors who probably brought a lot of money to the sport in the earlier decades.