Common Sense leaves the WRC

**JAM** · 19th December 2006, 09:29

I don't understand why some of you talk in repeated stages as a problem. For me repeated stages are not a problem. The Rally of Portugal, on the golden years, had repeated stages, for instance the Sintra stages near Lisbon were run 3 times!

A bigger problem than the repeated stages are the low number of stages per each leg. That is really a problem. A day with 4 or 5 stages is not very interesting, 8 or 9 would be better. If the stages are repeated or not, for me is not a problem. I only want to see stages, and the repeated stages are good for spectators.

Talking in repeated stages as a problem, with so few stages per leg, is, IMO, lack of comon sense.

I remember Rally of Portugal in the 80's with 46 special stages and one repeated with 56km - Arganil. It were 4 days of rally, he had 3 stages repeated 3 times at the beggining of the rally near Lisbon (with more that 200.000 spectators on the road in about 20km of stages). That was true rallying. I remember seing the RAC on newspapers, the Monte Carlo by night.. that were true rallyes. True challenges not suitable to dome of the modern drivers and some of the modern spectators that see everything on the computer.

**A.F.F.** · 19th December 2006, 09:33

Why more stages in a day since the milage is the same in modern rallying?

**JAM** · 19th December 2006, 09:46

The milage was not the same as today:

1000 lakes 1985 - 1418 km including 479 km over 50 special stages
1000 lakes 1995 - 1539 km including 530 km over 32 special stages
1000 lakes 2005 - 1363.4 km including 355.59 km over 21 special stages

At the present you don't have more than 400km of SS in a rally.

The number of stages as to deal with the interest of follow the rallying and having a story. With 2 SSS per stage what kind of excitment we had? Two changes in classification? With 9 or 10 stages you see thing changing 9 or 10 times, wich is more exciting.

**Simmi** · 19th December 2006, 09:55

Originally Posted by A.F.F.

I really don't understand how you figure the car more boring

I've seen one rallying and it wasn't really very interesting. I just think the IRC and S2000 is a bit of a false dawn. Fair enough they are better than Group N and about on a par with JWRC cars so fit them in somewhere by all means, just not as the premiere attraction for a WRC event.

**Daniel** · 19th December 2006, 09:57

They were NEVER meant to be the premier class and most likely never will be. You've seen one!!!!!

We should make you forum S2000 expert because you've seen ONE S2000 car!

**Jarek Z** · 19th December 2006, 09:59

Originally Posted by Simmi

I'm all for rallies like that but is that what the IRC is actually like? I dont know much about next season but does anyone have any itenaries from this season so we can compare?

Here you can see this year's time schedules for Barum Rally and Rali Vinho da Madeira, which are both IRC and ERC events:
http://www.barum.rally.cz/2006/soutezici/casharm.pdf
http://www.ralivm.com/detailedRoute/index.cfm

**AndyRAC** · 19th December 2006, 13:53

Some points discussed:
Repeated stages; not necessarily bad if its just a few, I first went to the RAC Rally at Hafren, they came through at 8:20, then returned at 15:45 (the stage was reversed), that was the only stage repeated that day I think. So if it is just the first and last stage repeated then that is okay.
Rally Length;Personally I feel that 350 miles is the minimum a Rally should be, ideally about 8 stages a day.
I think we all agree that we want a strong WRC, that means a proper championship with proper events, plenty of manufacturers running 3-4 cars with less drivers on the sidelines. We don't want the WRC selling out to T.V either.

**JAM** · 19th December 2006, 14:04

Dear AndyWRC

Please explain me the problem of repeated stages. I saw many comments here saying that, but i can't see where the problem is.

When defending the end of repeated stages people must look at what is behind that option. Repeating stages means many costs saved, and costs are a priority point in rallying.

With a repeated stage you save money, because you need less people, less emergency staff and structure. In the 80's, usually stages weren't repeated, but at that time the structure needed to run a stage was very short, Today the need of people is bigger and the struture is also big, because you have, for instance, better emergency answer in case of accident.

Let's see an example: A stage at 9am need to be ready at least at 8am, wich means that all must start being done by 5 or 6am. The stage as 90 cars wich means that at 12am is ended. With one hour to put things down and 1pm all the staff is ready to go to another stage and by 4pm the next stage is ready. But this is valid only if nothing happen at 9am stage, in case of hazzard you could have the stage ended at 1 or 2 pm. If you have 8 stages in a leg you need 8 structures. But if the 8 stages were repeated, then you need only 4 structures.

Another point: public. The spectators could see two stages at once with the repetition. In case of no repetition spectators must move to another stage creating traffic and problems, And in Portugal and Spain this move means rallying on the road made by spectators.

**AndyRAC** · 19th December 2006, 14:22

You've misunderstood me; I don't have a oroblem with a few stages being repeated, like my example above; once the cars had been through by about 11:00 most people went back to the cars and stayed in the car park until 15:00 when the cars returned, meaning less Rally traffic on the roads.
My problem is with repeating every stage meaning very few stages are used and the Rally uses a very small area.
If it was up to me you would do stages A,B,C,D, then service, then stages E,F,B,A;just repeating the first 2 stages and reversing them later in the day. Yes repeating stages cuts costs and cut the traffic on the roads, I would just like a bit more variety.

**JAM** · 19th December 2006, 15:21

The problem is not the repetition of stages that creates litle area. The litle area is created by the rule of only one service park. With one service park and not allowing the repeat of stages, then some organizers would have real problems.

Repeated stages are no problem at all. The problem is only one service park, the locations of some rallyes (Austrália and Italy for instace, they loose good rallyes by moving him).

Repeatade stages has only advantages. If you want a big area, then make the 3 legs in diferente locations and allow more than one location of service park.