FIA Rally Working Group: the future of WRC and the rally sport

[WRCStan]

Exposure / money spent. I guess you can compare the viewership and online impressions you get for WRC with other sports and decide where you want to spend your money.

Why restrict it to sport if you're selling cars? If it was 1% the cost would you advertise on Putin's forehead for global exposure? No.

In Dakar there's Audi and Mini, besides non-europeans Toyota and Ford, plus Dacia recently announced they are joining and hired Loeb and Al-Attiyah.

Audi are at least electric. Mini and Dacia are in through a team. I don't think imagery of unrecognisable spaceships in a desert landscape matters to them as much as cars that look a little like things we can actually buy on roads we can drive on, as Europeans. But more importantly, there's no big brand promotion, same as Skoda and Citroen in WRC2. They're mainly there only for the function of selling the cars that go rallying, not consumer road cars.

[seb_sh]

Why restrict it to sport if you're selling cars? If it was 1% the cost would you advertise on Putin's forehead for global exposure? No.



Audi are at least electric. Mini and Dacia are in through a team. I don't think imagery of unrecognisable spaceships in a desert landscape matters to them as much as cars that look a little like things we can actually buy on roads we can drive on, as Europeans. But more importantly, there's no big brand promotion, same as Skoda and Citroen in WRC2. They're mainly there only for the function of selling the cars that go rallying, not consumer road cars.

Dacia will be full works supported, branding and whatever you want, but Prodrive will build and run the cars.

Maybe that kind of proves the point of what other people are saying that maybe the WRC needs to re evaluate what they want to be and maybe full works teams is not the way forward.

There are various opinions and examples in this thread and I think no one is fully right or wrong. Some are pointing to examples where the customer model works, on the other hand becher tells about TCR where WTCR failed but he is a bit wrong because the category itself is quite ok with a ton of national and regional series with decent grids, but he is also right because if that same scenario happens for rally then WRC dies and we just have ERC and national series. But it could also end up like GT3 where it's everywhere and doing well.

As I said before, we are getting lost in the details. Taking just one element to "fix" things will not work. Instead someone has to see the whole picture, and importantly talk to manufacturers and then decide on a plan and vision for the sport moving forward. That's why I previously gave Ratel as an example, he knew the competitors, he knew the customers, he knew the manufacturers, he knew the audience and he knew the lessons and made something quite successful.

[WRCStan]

All opinions and examples are very welcome. I don't mind the details or one element at a time, I'm here to learn, build and rebuild my opinion as new information arises. This subject isn't being wrapped up for years.

Ratel, might have fixed the championship but there wasn't underlying concerns with the discipline of circuit racing. Sounds like organisation control rather than having vision of what competitors do when they arrive. I think that'll be in the conversations the rally working group will be having.

I might be wrong on Dacia, I just don't get it and won't until it happens. It just screams of a repeat of Mini in WRC. If W2RC shifts rules to volume production association something is definitely up.

[denkimi]

Why restrict it to sport if you're selling cars? If it was 1% the cost would you advertise on Putin's forehead for global exposure? No.

I think a lot of people would like to advertise on putin's head. There is a whole world outside of europe and the usa that doesn't see russia as their eternal enemy. If you want to attract 3th world customers, putin would be a good advertisement platform.

For the wrc it is kinda the same. Why change the sport to cater to people who don't watch it and will hate it anyway, whatever you do. Going electric and chasing away most of the petrolheads that make up your fans, will not make the green fundamentalists into your new fans.

[rallyfiend]

I think a lot of people would like to advertise on putin's head. There is a whole world outside of europe and the usa that doesn't see russia as their eternal enemy. If you want to attract 3th world customers, putin would be a good advertisement platform.

For the wrc it is kinda the same. Why change the sport to cater to people who don't watch it and will hate it anyway, whatever you do. Going electric and chasing away most of the petrolheads that make up your fans, will not make the green fundamentalists into your new fans.

Electric motorsport does not seem to be the path forward.

Formula E has struggled to become anything other than a business platform. It's fanbase is limited and it's really struggling. It must have the most volatile calendar world motorsport has ever seen. It seems to burn every location it goes to because no one cares.

Extreme E is a fringe motorsport at BEST. EVen the top motorsport publications don't even report on it.

ETCR folded like a deck of cards, and took the unborn E-GT series with it....

[wyler]

Electric motorsport does not seem to be the path forward.

Formula E has struggled to become anything other than a business platform. It's fanbase is limited and it's really struggling. It must have the most volatile calendar world motorsport has ever seen. It seems to burn every location it goes to because no one cares.

Extreme E is a fringe motorsport at BEST. EVen the top motorsport publications don't even report on it.

ETCR folded like a deck of cards, and took the unborn E-GT series with it....

on the other side, a motorsport with a big generic and not really competent fanbase (mostly because of fan service/audience building -like netflix show-) introduced hybrid and changes regulation at will with not much fuss.

[Rallyper]

Going back to WRC2 as mainclass is not by far as big step they had to take in 1986 to 1987. From Group B to Group A. Big change of the material.

And absolutely no affect on fanbase.

So louder Rally2 and maybe +50 hp. cars would make a perfect combination for WRC.

[WRCStan]

Electric motorsport does not seem to be the path forward.

Surely electric motorsport must have its own path forward? Aping traditional motorsport is doing it no favours.

E-GT is just retarded. FIA need to rewrite Appendix J too with some modern definitions of cars.

[HKSjbg]

Going back to WRC2 as mainclass is not by far as big step they had to take in 1986 to 1987. From Group B to Group A. Big change of the material.

And absolutely no affect on fanbase.

So louder Rally2 and maybe +50 hp. cars would make a perfect combination for WRC.

I completely disagree that more power will make Rally2 instantly more interesting. They are already pushing 300bhp which should be more than enough. The issue (if any is perceived) with current rally cars, and has been for some years, is the suspension travel (and possibly the advancement of sophisticated suspension geometry?) which makes the cars more 'planted'. i.e. the tyre is spending more time in contact with the road surface, therefore less time that the car is sliding or the driver has to do something more aggressive to get the best out of the car.

I've also read on other forums this notion of the tyres 'have too much grip, they need less grippy tyres'. Again, I don't buy into this. Surely shit tyres will just cause the cars to handle like pigs and just understeer? I also wonder how much effect the diffs have to play in this. There have been discussions on this forum over the years of certain regulations stipulating 'no centre diff'. To me this is engineering nonsense - 'no centre diff' means no four-wheel-drive. It's either locked 1:1 ratio (no way that is what is being used without dreadful tyre wear and horrible handling characteristics), open (what I suspect is truly meant by 'no centre diff'), limited-slip (torque-sensing, viscous etc.), or electronically controlled 'active diff'. I know that even Rally2s have LSDs (correct me if I'm wrong), but not in the centre?

To me, the perfect 'Rally2+' would be:

• No change in bodywork/spoilers - not necessary unless you want to appeal to 10-year old boys
• 0.5mm increase in restrictor size - only to appease those who say they should have more power, not too much as to increase stresses and service costs/reduce service intervals. Again correct me if I'm wrongly assuming this will not still cause the problems noted. Rally2 would need to be downgraded by 0.5mm to keep that gap.
• Reduced suspension travel - this would need to be carefully researched to find out what the sweet spot is to stop the cars appearing to be glued to the road then stipulated in regulations, same would have to be for downgraded Rally2s.
• Non-active, LSD centre-diffs - this is not new and expensive technology, my perception is it will increase on-throttle adjustability in slippery circumstances. Again, correct me if I'm way off here.
• 6-speed gearboxes - why were 5-speed boxes introduced in the first place? I heard George Donaldson (99% sure it was him) on a podcast ask that same question, it seems to have been made to no positive affect at all. Surely having more gears gets the best out of your engine anyway? Sequential actuation also is the least road-relevant method of changing gears, just go back to paddle shifters, these boxes were proven and reliable for a long time in the previous two generations of 1.6L World Rally Cars. For Rally2 I'd love to see H-pattern (still relevant in sports cars today) make a return, but this is just a pipe dream. It would at least be another performance differentiator between Rally2 and Rally1/Rally2+.

I know a lot of this is never going to happen - I think if Rally2+ did become a thing perhaps the best compromise would be go back to 6-speed gearboxes and a modest increase in power i.e. 1mm difference between restrictor sizes. I'm sure there would also be arguments of 'you can't downgrade the spec of Rally2s, there's too much of them out there on the market', but the same thing happened in the mid-90s with the downgrade in size of turbo restrictors on Group A8 cars. If you wanted to enter an international rally in an A8 car you had to comply, old spec cars could still be used in national rallies if the local ASN deemed so.

[Mirek]

There have been discussions on this forum over the years of certain regulations stipulating 'no centre diff'. To me this is engineering nonsense - 'no centre diff' means no four-wheel-drive. It's either locked 1:1 ratio (no way that is what is being used without dreadful tyre wear and horrible handling characteristics), open (what I suspect is truly meant by 'no centre diff'), limited-slip (torque-sensing, viscous etc.), or electronically controlled 'active diff'. I know that even Rally2s have LSDs (correct me if I'm wrong), but not in the centre?

Man, where have you been in past two decades? 90% of all 4WD rally cars produced since 2007 (first one to be Peugeot 207 S2000) have had no center differential. Most of S2000, all R5, all Rally2, all RRC, all WRC 2011. And yes, they do use 1:1 torque split for all the time except when they pull the handbrake for which there is a release clutch.

To me, the perfect 'Rally2+' would be:

[LIST][*]0.5mm increase in restrictor size - only to appease those who say they should have more power, not too much as to increase stresses and service costs/reduce service intervals. Again correct me if I'm wrongly assuming this will not still cause the problems noted. Rally2 would need to be downgraded by 0.5mm to keep that gap.

0,5 mm will add roughly 3% of power. Completely useless modification which nobody will notice. It's just an extra cost with zero benefit.

Reduced suspension travel - this would need to be carefully researched to find out what the sweet spot is to stop the cars appearing to be glued to the road then stipulated in regulations, same would have to be for downgraded Rally2s.

The suspension travel is also a major safety feature. Why do you think we have had by far most deadly accidents with 4WD gr.N cars?

Non-active, LSD centre-diffs - this is not new and expensive technology, my perception is it will increase on-throttle adjustability in slippery circumstances. Again, correct me if I'm way off here.

Welcome to 2005 and the initial S2000 regulations. Do you know what the clever heads in Peugeot found back then and what other teams immediately copied? They found that the mechanical central LSD brings close to zero benefits in handling over having no center diff at all and only consumes power via friction. Nearly all following S2000 cars had no center diff. The R5, Rally2, RRC and WRC 2011 followed suit. The center diff returned only when the active one was allowed again in 2017.

6-speed gearboxes - why were 5-speed boxes introduced in the first place? I heard George Donaldson (99% sure it was him) on a podcast ask that same question, it seems to have been made to no positive affect at all. Surely having more gears gets the best out of your engine anyway? Sequential actuation also is the least road-relevant method of changing gears, just go back to paddle shifters, these boxes were proven and reliable for a long time in the previous two generations of 1.6L World Rally Cars. For Rally2 I'd love to see H-pattern (still relevant in sports cars today) make a return, but this is just a pipe dream. It would at least be another performance differentiator between Rally2 and Rally1/Rally2+.

Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. Let's start with an explanation what sequential gearbox means. As the name suggests with such gearbox the gears can be changed only one by one in a sequence. It doesn't matter if you do that by paddles or by a stick, by hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics or steel wires.

Six gears over five. First let me tell you that all WRC cars (with the only exception probably being the 2011 ones) have so wide power band that even 5-speed gearbox is enough to keep you driving in the ideal rpms. More gears mean more mass, more innertia, more parts, more complexity, higher price. The 2.0 WRC cars with super high turbo boost could use even 4-speed gearbox (and P307 actually did). The reason for using more gears in a WRC cars is basically only reliability because the steps from one gear to another are smaller and the gear shifting is therefore smoother. Anyway there are no mechanical problems with the current 5-speed geaboxes, so why going for 6-speed? For spectators such change don't matter, far majority of them won't notice anything.