WRC.com being stupid again:

"Like the absolute professional that he also is, Malcolm Wilson refuses to apportion blame to Latvala for the suspension breakage that cost him the rally win, but the truth is that these things don’t tend to break on their own."

I think our friend Antony would disagree. But so does the person they quote as evidence:

"As one senior engineer explained: 'You can easily build a car to resist most types of impact. But the problem is that this inevitably costs weight, which is why Safari cars are always so heavy, for example. So it’s a trade-off: if the driver wants a car that is light enough to be competitive, he will have to accept that there are some things he can’t hit.

“But equally, teams sometimes have to accept that they have made their car too vulnerable in the pursuit of performance. It’s a question of where you draw the line - and what makes that judgment more complicated is the fact that no two impacts are ever quite the same. An impact that a component might comfortably absorb in one direction could break it in a slightly different direction.”

Conclusion: the only thing you can practically do is design a car to resist the most common types of impact and tell your driver to avoid hitting anything, something that Loeb obviously remembered when he saw that bull all those years ago. And he obviously remembered it again this year, as his Citroen was bomb proof despite the severity of some of the stages.'

So, why exactly is it Latvala's fault, again? What if Ford simply designed their car badly - it wouldn't seem to be the first time! Also, why does the person they quote talk about Safari cars as if they are still made? How old is the quote? Silly wrc.com.