Thread: How do you see the future of rally?

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

the FiA should have waited until 2015 for the new regs. Until then have S2000 as the top class; look at the Manufacturers of these cars; Peugeot, Ford, Skoda, Proton, Fiat-Abarth....and there are more. Unfortnately, Ford & Citroen got their way, rather than the WRC’s long term growth. And now look were we are; only 2 extra Manufacturers have signed up.

This is the truth! I was then very disappointed about the decision and still has the same feeling...

If the S2000 would have been the main series already during the season 2010 we have had at least 4-5 Manufacturers fighting for the title and the costs had been on the lower level. The new 1.6T engines are very expensive and demanding to develop and it may be too much to attract new Manufacturers when the economical situation is just like now...

The competion would have been very tight (look at SWRC and IRC) and nobody have missed World Rally Cars...

Originally Posted by BDunnell

2011 really has been a year of 'no change' in the profile of the WRC, hasn't it? It's interesting that the entry of Mini hasn't led to the upsurge in interest in the UK that some predicted.

In quite moments this week I have found myself watching a number of old clips on YouTube, and while I am, with hindsight, no fan of the Group B supercars — it was clearly an unsustainable era and not good overall for the sport — I was struck by just how enormous the crowds watching them on the stages were. Too big, as we know now. This wasn't just the case on World Championship events, but British and European ones also. It begs the question — how did this happen? Let's not forget that TV coverage then, while looked back on fondly now, was not brilliant — I don't know what it was like elsewhere, but in the UK it was 15-20-minute (at most) highlights of some WRC rounds, the same for all British Open Championship rounds, and then extended coverage of the RAC. Very much less than F1, in other words, yet nonetheless the popularity of the sport was clear to see.

Agree about the TV coverage – it actually wasn’t a lot, except for the RAC – however, it was on either BBC or ITV...so reached a lot more people.
I think the power brokers are naive if they think having a top British driver would suddenly bring more interest to the sport – there is a whole raft of reasons. From 1976 – 1994 there was no British winner, they occasionally challenged and had the odd podium, but that didn’t stop huge crowds and very good media coverage.

I have some old statistics from 1994 (Vauhdin Maailma 1/1995) made by WTRA (world rally team association) and by their study WRC had 9,6 million on site spectators in 1994.

By rally

Monte Carlo 750 000
Portugal 1 100 000
Safari 1 500 000
Corsica 120 000
Acropolis 400 000
Argentina 800 000
New Zeeland 920 000
Finland 300 000
San Remo 1 600 000
RAC 2 100 000

By the article New Zeeland was in it’s own class by the numbers of spectators relative to the population. 25 % of the population spectating on site.

The population in Finland in 1994 was about 5,1 million which means that 5,9% of the population was spectating on site.

Originally Posted by OldF

Finland 300 000

The population in Finland in 1994 was about 5,1 million which means that 5,9% of the population was spectating on site.

No these numbers mean there were 300 000 visits on stages during the event and if as an average one spectator saw six stages the right number of spectators was 50000. Even that may be a bit too many in reality as these statistics are estimations.

Originally Posted by DonJippo

No these numbers mean there were 300 000 visits on stages during the event and if as an average one spectator saw six stages the right number of spectators was 50000. Even that may be a bit too many in reality as these statistics are estimations.

Yes I know that these figures are “gross” figures but IMO it’s impossible to even estimate the true amount of spectators.

Originally Posted by OldF

Yes I know that these figures are “gross” figures but IMO it’s impossible to even estimate the true amount of spectators.

Exactly and as these numbers are mostly provided by organizers or other parties who have interest in rallying figures tend to be on high side, in reality rallying over all is not as popular as we would like to think it is, not even in Finland.

Originally Posted by OldF

I have some old statistics from 1994 (Vauhdin Maailma 1/1995) made by WTRA (world rally team association) and by their study WRC had 9,6 million on site spectators in 1994.

By rally

Monte Carlo 750 000
Portugal 1 100 000
Safari 1 500 000
Corsica 120 000
Acropolis 400 000
Argentina 800 000
New Zeeland 920 000
Finland 300 000
San Remo 1 600 000
RAC 2 100 000

By the article New Zeeland was in it’s own class by the numbers of spectators relative to the population. 25 % of the population spectating on site.

The population in Finland in 1994 was about 5,1 million which means that 5,9% of the population was spectating on site.

I was an entrant of Rally NZ in '94 so obviously the 920,000 spectators were there to watch me. Me and some young fella called McSomething.

In truth the numbers are nonsense. It's unlikely 20,000 people turned out to watch let alone 920,000. Sometimes we need to stop reading our own press.

I think that these numbers are really too high. I don't know how they count it but here traffic police estimates Barum rally audience to 200-250 thousand in last years. That could be truth because MotoGP event held in Brno (close to Zlin) usually has similar audience (around 150 thousand for Sunday and somewhat less in other two days) and there it is sure because it's held in closed area.

There are a lot of things that can be done that might help the WRC, lower costs, better coverage, et cetera. But few have touched upon the REAL problem: There is no competition. For 2011, there were two teams with a realistic chance of winning. The factory teams of Citroen and Ford. Due to team orders the winner would be the top driver at the team that wins, unless something extraordinary (like a crash) happened.

So with 10-15 cars starting in the same class, only TWO drivers would have a realistic chance of winning.

Think about it! It's like watching soccer where one team has a goal twice the size of the others, or a golf tournament where only the two best players have drivers. Why the hell would anyone want to watch that?! I'm surprised I bothered to pay attention the whole season, and for the first time in many years there were whole rounds of the WRC that I didn't watch a single minute from.

The FIA needs to level the field a LOT more. Start with the most obvious offender, do like in F1, take control of the ECUs. Stop the factories from handing out horsepower at their own discretion. If the costs really are too high, enforce standardized diffs, gearboxes and/or suspension. The suspension components can be made to be interchangeable at all four corners. There are a lot more to keep costs at bay without loosing too much speed. Although we want to be careful and not dumb it down too much, it isn't Nascar.


When there actually is a competition again I can promise that both spectators and sponsors will come flocking back. There's a lot of attraction with the World Rally Championship, the problem is that it just isn't a championship any more. It's two guys and the rest, and I'm sick and tired of it.

I don't think it is possible to make the cost lower by technical rules. Manufacturers will always spend as much as they are allowed to even the simplest possible part. Look at S2000 which is in fact very simple formula. All shocks are same without ball bearings, diffs are dumb clutchpacks with none center one, all transmission is highly standardized and limited to just two manufacturers. Cars have steel bodyshells. Carbon is allowed only for covering layer, no titanium allowed etc. There are limited options of homologating new things and even those like ECU software must be homologated. And in the end it's still rather expensive car with differences between works and private one.

It's like in a lumberjack competition. You can buy an axe for 10 Euro but the competition one costs 200 Euro even though it is still an axe.

But you could do as they do in for instance Karting, keep or freeze homologation periodes for 3 years.

No manufacturer will ever agree with that. They need to develop their speed and not to loose for three years just because they once homologated something wrong.

So do you really believe that F1 was a competition this year? one team dominated and both championships were over and done early.
At least the WRC drivers championship went down to the last round.
If you dont like it no one is making you watch it.
If you think that the manufacturers want to rally production based cars at the sports top level again, you're kidding your self.
Group N came and now is going,and personally i'm not going to miss it

Originally Posted by sollitt

I was an entrant of Rally NZ in '94 so obviously the 920,000 spectators were there to watch me. Me and some young fella called McSomething.

In truth the numbers are nonsense. It's unlikely 20,000 people turned out to watch let alone 920,000. Sometimes we need to stop reading our own press.

I was wondering about the numbers of NZ. In Finland tickets have been sold as long as I remember. In 1994 there was already a rally pass (called vauhtipassi at that time) but if I remember correctly me and my friend didn’t buy them because you should have to visit at least five stages before it pays off.

Maybe this tells something about the numbers. Tickets sold 1994 in NORF 95 000!

Originally Posted by Mirek

I don't think it is possible to make the cost lower by technical rules. Manufacturers will always spend as much as they are allowed to even the simplest possible part. Look at S2000 which is in fact very simple formula. All shocks are same without ball bearings, diffs are dumb clutchpacks with none center one, all transmission is highly standardized and limited to just two manufacturers. Cars have steel bodyshells. Carbon is allowed only for covering layer, no titanium allowed etc. There are limited options of homologating new things and even those like ECU software must be homologated. And in the end it's still rather expensive car with differences between works and private one.

It's like in a lumberjack competition. You can buy an axe for 10 Euro but the competition one costs 200 Euro even though it is still an axe.

The only way IMO is to use as many standard parts as possibly. I don’t know but I think that even about 95% of the parts are racing parts in a S2000. For a R2/R3 I think it’s about 50%.

Cost control will always be difficult but lets hope this cost control will work.

“’Final user’ cost control rules are extended in that every major item on the car must be available at under a maximum cost.”

GP Week (page 20)

That is not the way because for manufacturer standard parts useful for competition use are way more expensive than special competition parts. That's how it is - for manufacturer it is much cheaper to build hand-made competition car than to produce thousands of half-competition cars. Also it is much more flexible because development and production planning of stock car takes years before a new one is launched.

The maximum cost for every component is already applied in S2000/WRC rules...

I also don't agree with making all cars using same standard components. That's no longer a manufacturer competition. It can be done for some cup to make numbers of entrants but not more.

Originally Posted by Mirek

No manufacturer will ever agree with that. They need to develop their speed and not to loose for three years just because they once homologated something wrong.

So make a regime where manu's can apply for a change in homologation if one thing obviously make them slower pver time.


But to me the drivers championship is pri 1, and manu championship pri 2, (but not very important) not vice versa. Here we differ in view Mirek, and that is ok!

Originally Posted by Sulland

But to me the drivers championship is pri 1, and manu championship pri 2, (but not very important) not vice versa. Here we differ in view Mirek, and that is ok!

For a manufacturer how can the driver championship be more important than the manufacturer championship?

Originally Posted by Sulland

So make a regime where manu's can apply for a change in homologation if one thing obviously make them slower pver time.

Impossible to evaluate anyhow.

Originally Posted by Sulland

But to me the drivers championship is pri 1, and manu championship pri 2, (but not very important) not vice versa. Here we differ in view Mirek, and that is ok!

It's manufacturers who drives the motorsport and it's them who sell cars so they are the most important. We can't change it.

For me the way to make the sport cheaper is to cancel any homologations completely. Just make clear simple rules and let anyone build whatever he wants. But this is what manufacturers will never allow to happen so again just an utopia.