WRC future

[Harry hairpin]

Who is the new manu coming into WRC next?
That is a good question my guess is Subaru as there seem to be some rumours about a joint project with Toyota.

[HaCo]

Not sure where to discuss the electric evolution of rallying, but rallye-magazin just posted an update on the Corsa-e. What is interesting is that Opel development team worked on the sound.
https://www.rallye-magazin.de/drm/artikel/so-klingt-der-opel-corsa-e-rally-46309/

The rules apparently dictate that a different (lower) sound level in required on the road section.

The sound system they build not only depends on the speed of the car, but also the rpm, so wheelspin will be hearable. They did not want to reproduce the sound of a combustion car, but create a specific sound for electric car. They use 2 speakers of 400W.

The video is not so good, switching from angles the whole time, but you get an idea:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=953716362078204

Paddon was also mentioning that sound would come on his eWRC, I'm very curious about that as well.

I'm not against electrifying of rallying at all, I just hope a elegant solution can be found for the lack of sound, at least they are working on it :-)

[Jarek Z]

It reminds me this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvfQU3Ewtso&t=66s

[mknight]

Not sure where to discuss the electric evolution of rallying, but rallye-magazin just posted an update on the Corsa-e. What is interesting is that Opel development team worked on the sound.
https://www.rallye-magazin.de/drm/artikel/so-klingt-der-opel-corsa-e-rally-46309/

The rules apparently dictate that a different (lower) sound level in required on the road section.

The sound system they build not only depends on the speed of the car, but also the rpm, so wheelspin will be hearable. They did not want to reproduce the sound of a combustion car, but create a specific sound for electric car. They use 2 speakers of 400W.

The video is not so good, switching from angles the whole time, but you get an idea:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=953716362078204

Paddon was also mentioning that sound would come on his eWRC, I'm very curious about that as well.

I'm not against electrifying of rallying at all, I just hope a elegant solution can be found for the lack of sound, at least they are working on it :-)

Sound is the only "real" issue that prevents electric rallying. Not only due to the security aspect but also due to the "excitement" aspect and "sporting" aspect (knowing what the driver is doing with throttle and whether the car is spinning).

Agree that "copying" combustion car sound is not a good idea in the longer term. Doesn't mean it has to sound like a startrek spaceship though....
Hard to tell how the Adam actually sounds live from a youtube vid and PC speakers, just remember that this should be compared with combustion Adam which isnt exactly an awesomely sounding car in the first place.


In the end I guess it will have to be mandated by the rules in some way, min./max sound level at given speed/throttle setting.

[pantealex]

Sound is the only "real" issue that prevents electric rallying. Not only due to the security aspect but also due to the "excitement" aspect and "sporting" aspect (knowing what the driver is doing with throttle and whether the car is spinning).

Agree that "copying" combustion car sound is not a good idea in the longer term. Doesn't mean it has to sound like a startrek spaceship though....
Hard to tell how the Adam actually sounds live from a youtube vid and PC speakers, just remember that this should be compared with combustion Adam which isnt exactly an awesomely sounding car in the first place.


In the end I guess it will have to be mandated by the rules in some way, min./max sound level at given speed/throttle setting.

Adam ?

it´s Corsa ;)

[steve.mandzij]

I've been thinking that WRC should try making a *massive* deal of the fact they will be switching to sustainable fuel next year. With the images of these cars going through natural environments, WRC has the chance to exploit the "feel good" environmental marketing that Extreme E is starting to find: "green" cars racing through extreme nature.

That would surely attract manufacturers.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[cali]

I've been thinking that WRC should try making a *massive* deal of the fact they will be switching to sustainable fuel next year. With the images of these cars going through natural environments, WRC has the chance to exploit the "feel good" environmental marketing that Extreme E is starting to find: "green" cars racing through extreme nature.

That would surely attract manufacturers.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using TapatalkBut electric cars are not green....

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[Googol]

But electric cars are not green....


I think what matters is that they are "green".

[cali]

I think what matters is that they are "green".Yes, the perception of green

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

Yes, the perception of green

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

Stand on a busy city corner during cold winter morning and tell me cars without exhaust are just a perception of green.

[cali]

Stand on a busy city corner during cold winter morning and tell me cars without exhaust are just a perception of green.It's a very narrow view about electric cars. Just a food for a thought. How are batteries made? How much resources are needed? At some point you need to utilize this toxic waste. Where and how? In Norway and in Finland i guess too you get more "green" electricity, but the rest of the world still burns something to get electricity. And now I even don't need to touch the real issue when more cars go electric you need to rebuild all the infrastucture (very very thick cabling, more substations etc)

Still green? I read a recent study where it's not so green anymore. Actually they state that petrol cars are now more "green".

Until we go hydrogen don't blabber about "green" electric cars. If you don't see a smoke from the cars tailpipe, it necessary doesn't mean that this vehicle is green.



Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

- For local polution electric cars are green, no perception there

- For CO2 as you write, it depends entirely on how the electricity is made. I also like reading studies on the matter, some are well made ( usually those where you can see all inputs and calculations), quite a few are just clickbait-level

All the serious studies show that on current european/EU energy mix electric cars are greener than petrol already now (given they drive at least 150k ish km over their life). Doesn't mean they are automatically greener elsewhere.

[cali]

- For local polution electric cars are green, no perception there

- For CO2 as you write, it depends entirely on how the electricity is made. I also like reading studies on the matter, some are well made ( usually those where you can see all inputs and calculations), quite a few are just clickbait-level

All the serious studies show that on current european/EU energy mix electric cars are greener than petrol already now (given they drive at least 150k ish km over their life). Doesn't mean they are automatically greener elsewhere.Just wait when electric cars are more popluar. More issues will rise.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

Just wait when electric cars are more popluar. More issues will rise.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

In this country they are. (Continously over 50% of new car sales for last two years, 350 000+ cars on the road).

Still waiting for the issues that people from countries where there are close to no electric cars talk about...

[cali]

In this country they are. (Continously over 50% of new car sales for last two years, 350 000+ cars on the road).

Still waiting for the issues that people from countries where there are close to no electric cars talk about...Get back to me if you have most of the cars electric, not just new car sales.

This thing is discussed so many times with an engineer who works for ABB. Complete revamp of electrical infrastructure is needed.

EDIT: sales in NO are heavily subsidied by govt if I'm not mistaken

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

Nobody is saying that you don't need charging stations etc. But even with over 50% electric sales it takes many years for most cars on the road to be electric. (here it's some 12% atm).

This gives the time to build infrastructure to cope. If the buildup is too slow, electric car sales slow down (for the benefit of hybrids) and then increase again.

The idea shared by some people (mostly from countries with no electric cars around) that "suddenly" everyone will realize that electric cars are wrong and go back to petrol-only is like believing in Santa.

[cali]

Nobody is saying that you don't need charging stations etc. But even with over 50% electric sales it takes many years for most cars on the road to be electric. (here it's some 12% atm).

This gives the time to build infrastructure to cope. If the buildup is too slow, electric car sales slow down (for the benefit of hybrids) and then increase again.

The idea shared by some people (mostly from countries with no electric cars around) that "suddenly" everyone will realize that electric cars are wrong and go back to petrol-only is like believing in Santa.No no you just didn't understand. As more power is required and drawed from system you need way more thicker cabling. More substations to meet the demands. Today as it is it's fine, but sooner or later more and bigger is needed everywhere. Also this can cause energy crisis. Solar and wind is not enough. Burning gas, coal or smth else is not an option. More nuclear? &

I'm not saying we should return to petrol but we need more sustainable as hydrogen or smth similar.

With electric we will cause more problems for the future. They are just different kind of problems as compared to petrol (battery dumping, Ni and Cobalt mining etc). Both are not smart. Not green or sustainable for the future. That's what I'm saying. We just eliminate one problem so we can have more problems in the future.

Calling electric cars green is just so wrong and hypocrite.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

Now you are starting to mix things together and even contradict yourself:

- primary power source is an issue. I guess most people agree that pumping dead dinosaurs is not sustainable in the long term.
Electricity in a battery, hydrogen or synthetic fuel is just a transport medium. Out of these batteries are at the moment most efficient and I don't see that changing in near future (15-20 years), but off course it's possible it will change at some point.

- "cabling" is an issue that can be slowly compensated for, as the demand grows. Load balancing is in many ways the fastest solution (no charging when energy demand is highest in the evening or early morning). To compare with hydrogen you would need to include distribution (by lorries?), production is already handled in previous point. Thing is, there is an existing electric grid that you can use and upgrade... there is no "hydrogen grid".

- battery production and end of life, that is the area that experiences most changes. Some problematic minerals are less and less used in battery production already. On the other end of the line old batteries are not thrown to trash after few years but often used for many years for other uses (for example for solar/wind power balancing) after they are taken out from the car. In the end you have a concentrated "brick of pollution" of some 200kg in 4x2x0,2 m instead of "tiny" pollution distributed all over the atmosphere (CO2, NOX...) and inside people's lungs (particles).

[cali]

Now you are starting to mix things together and even contradict yourself:

- primary power source is an issue. I guess most people agree that pumping dead dinosaurs is not sustainable in the long term.
Electricity in a battery, hydrogen or synthetic fuel is just a transport medium. Out of these batteries are at the moment most efficient and I don't see that changing in near future (15-20 years), but off course it's possible it will change at some point.

- "cabling" is an issue that can be slowly compensated for, as the demand grows. Load balancing is in many ways the fastest solution (no charging when energy demand is highest in the evening or early morning). To compare with hydrogen you would need to include distribution (by lorries?), production is already handled in previous point. Thing is, there is an existing electric grid that you can use and upgrade... there is no "hydrogen grid".

- battery production and end of life, that is the area that experiences most changes. Some problematic minerals are less and less used in battery production already. On the other end of the line old batteries are not thrown to trash after few years but often used for many years for other uses (for example for solar/wind power balancing) after they are taken out from the car. In the end you have a concentrated "brick of pollution" of some 200kg in 4x2x0,2 m instead of "tiny" pollution distributed all over the atmosphere (CO2, NOX...) and inside people's lungs (particles).Read my post again and try to unferstand it better, not just the way it suits you better.

My last answer to you, had enough of your out of context hypocrisy. There's real issues out there with electric cars and you are just trying to win an arguement. Go ahead, I'm not competing with your fantasies.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

Read my post again and try to unferstand it better, not just the way it suits you better.

My last answer to you, had enough of your out of context hypocrisy. There's real issues out there with electric cars and you are just trying to win an arguement. Go ahead, I'm not competing with your fantasies.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

No you are competing with reality. When it doesn't follow your dreams you keep hoping a miracle happens.

I was skeptical to electric cars for whole lots of reason, but I am not blind to the reality right outside of my window (literally, parking spot with 40 cars, 18 are electric right now + 7 hybrids).

[cali]

No you are competing with reality. When it doesn't follow your dreams you keep hoping a miracle happens.

I was skeptical to electric cars for whole lots of reason, but I am not blind to the reality right outside of my window (literally, parking spot with 40 cars, 18 are electric right now + 7 hybrids).You have some serious reading or understanding disabilities.

Where did say that electric car sales isn't a reality? Oh it's very real. As it is very real that soon we have a huge ecological footprint from electric cars.

They are not green, just electric and doesn't solve any existing problems but generating new ones. That's where you're fantasizing. Capiche?

Now don't twist my words anymore (I know your'e very good at that)

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[denkimi]

The only reasonable thing to do would be building many new nuclear power plants and use the excess power to produce hydrogen.

Combined with wind and solar power that would be the most "green" solution.

[Tanelv]

Now you are starting to mix things together and even contradict yourself:

- primary power source is an issue. I guess most people agree that pumping dead dinosaurs is not sustainable in the long term.
Electricity in a battery, hydrogen or synthetic fuel is just a transport medium. Out of these batteries are at the moment most efficient and I don't see that changing in near future (15-20 years), but off course it's possible it will change at some point.

- "cabling" is an issue that can be slowly compensated for, as the demand grows. Load balancing is in many ways the fastest solution (no charging when energy demand is highest in the evening or early morning). To compare with hydrogen you would need to include distribution (by lorries?), production is already handled in previous point. Thing is, there is an existing electric grid that you can use and upgrade... there is no "hydrogen grid".

- battery production and end of life, that is the area that experiences most changes. Some problematic minerals are less and less used in battery production already. On the other end of the line old batteries are not thrown to trash after few years but often used for many years for other uses (for example for solar/wind power balancing) after they are taken out from the car. In the end you have a concentrated "brick of pollution" of some 200kg in 4x2x0,2 m instead of "tiny" pollution distributed all over the atmosphere (CO2, NOX...) and inside people's lungs (particles).

Agreed completely.

About the grid throughput - an expert from the grid company here in Estonia said that each car in our capital Tallinn could be changed to EV and have sufficient electricity available (even with electricity surplus) for charging just by changing the street lightning to LED-s. Average distance driven in a day is just 40 km.

Also, does anyone here have real world long-term experience with an EV? I have had an EV for nearly 3 years now and it has driven 70 000 km so far. Still 100% of the battery capacity that was useable when it was new is useable now because the top buffer is large enough so degradation is not noticeable to the user for quite some time. I will probably see some degradation in the coming years, but the battery easily outlives the car as does the electric motor. And when it finally reaches its end it can be recycled at about 95% efficiency. And as mknight said the battery tech will keep evolving and less and less problematic minerals are being used. Hydrogen seems sexy from a far (I can actually understand it - it is relatable to the people that are used to put petrol in the cars) thats why some politicians also seem to like it, but in reality it is a very inefficient way and only has point when there is electricity surplus.

Finally cali has a fair point that EV-s or any other type of cars can not not save the planet, we generally need less cars on the road, that's the ultimate solution.

[NickRally]

Finally cali has a fair point that EV-s or any other type of cars can not not save the planet, we generally need less cars on the road, that's the ultimate solution.

This last point is the most important of all - we, as a humanity, can make a larger positive impact on environment by changing our habits than any switch to electric or other propulsion using existing technology. As I like saying, even the most polluting car is cleaner than the most environmentally friendly one, if the former is just left on the drive and the latter is driven for millions of miles.

I am not saying everyone should suddenly stop driving, simply that we should avoid driving whenever we can.

[Franky]

For people to drive less, there needs to be another reasonable, reliable and fast transport option.

[denkimi]

When people talk about being green and renewable, i always like to remind them that the global population grows by 80 million each year and the number or cars in the world by 70 million.

Every 4 year an entire EU worth of vehicles extra appears on the planet.

But hey, why should we worry about the reality when we can just pretend we will save the world by making ourself poor.

[lmmjvss]

TBH I thought the idea behind this "green" thing was not to simply head into "selling electric suvs" but to make "transportation" a completely different thing. Like fully Shared and possibly Autonomous mobilty. Like electric-autonomous "buses" and shared ride - like 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 seat "vans" that are owned by the "manufactures", running away from the idea of "individual's cars". (So we could have WAY less cars on road and the ones that are out there would be always being used by people, so you can erase the concept of "parking" from out daily lives) And with more room for bikes and e-motos, e-scooters and things like that.
Just selling a billion electric suvs will not change a thing in this planet so I agree with the idea of "Its just a lie" when "they" say we need to have only electric cars in the streets.
Humans will never restore the environment by PRODUCING more and more things. This is what took us to "this". Humans cannot save the environment because we are the ones ruinning it.

[cali]

Agreed completely.

About the grid throughput - an expert from the grid company here in Estonia said that each car in our capital Tallinn could be changed to EV and have sufficient electricity available (even with electricity surplus) for charging just by changing the street lightning to LED-s. Average distance driven in a day is just 40 km.

Also, does anyone here have real world long-term experience with an EV? I have had an EV for nearly 3 years now and it has driven 70 000 km so far. Still 100% of the battery capacity that was useable when it was new is useable now because the top buffer is large enough so degradation is not noticeable to the user for quite some time. I will probably see some degradation in the coming years, but the battery easily outlives the car as does the electric motor. And when it finally reaches its end it can be recycled at about 95% efficiency. And as mknight said the battery tech will keep evolving and less and less problematic minerals are being used. Hydrogen seems sexy from a far (I can actually understand it - it is relatable to the people that are used to put petrol in the cars) thats why some politicians also seem to like it, but in reality it is a very inefficient way and only has point when there is electricity surplus.

Finally cali has a fair point that EV-s or any other type of cars can not not save the planet, we generally need less cars on the road, that's the ultimate solution.

Hi Tanel,

By no means my intention is to start a pissing contest with you as your answer was quite reasonable.

- I have an engineer (ABB, EstLink as a reference) who says quite the opposite, that current infrastructure has to be revamped in order to avoid nightmare with EV's and their draw from the system. Keep in mind that this guy has been designing substations tens of years by now. Also keep in mind as electricity available is only one small factor. Current infrastructure is not designed for EV's and needs big investments. That alone is costly and certainly not green.

- I have only experience with EV's as a passenger in taxi's. Nice cars and certainly a nice power delivery. Nothing bad to say about that.

- as you know yourself, we currently in our banana republic are unable to recycle plastic or any other waste properly. Adding EV batteries to that list makes me feel very uncomfortable knowing how stupid human race can be what concerns making up ideas how to "go around the system".

- at some point we need to utilize this waste. If 10 or 15 years is OK with you I say it's quite naive thinking. Even if it would be in 50 years, we still have to do it. And the more EV's being sold we will pile up a completely new issue which needs again new resources to be partially recycled and partially dumped. That alone needs completely new ways of thinking, I would even say a completely new industry. So we the human race on top of all of our problems are creating a new complex problem on top of it.

- my avg yearly distance is approx 45 - 50 000 kms. I would be in deep-deep trouble with EV's. Also I do not feel comfortable paying charging fees for my car which I use 80% for work. No, I'm not a truck nor a taxi driver, currently own Merc V-klasse. Need the space for my family and work. How much would currently cost me to buy a electric van like that? And I'm not even going to touch long distance driving. All is doable but inconvenient and time consuming.

- we currently burn (or best to say burned) oil shale to get electricity. That's about the longest way from green if you also keep in mind that most of the resources goes to mining oil shale.

- as what goes to battery tech do you honestly believe that energy storage doesn't need minerals like Li, Ni or Co in the future? My experience has shown that all new stuff keeps exploiting even more rare minerals. History has shown on that end things tend to go worse and not for the better. I would not be that naive to hope that we will suddenly have some magic mineral for energy source or as a energy storage, probably it will be the opposite.

This all in all not even close to green as some other folks wrote, only if we are able to find a different ways of transportation we can mention it being green. Today's options are going to be million miles away from sustainable and green.

PS! If read carefully I mentioned hydrogen or smth similar. I have no illusions about hydrogen either but it currently feels more of an option than EV's. But still we need to come up with something more radical and different to reduce ecological footprint. And by no means I'm anti EV, but I don't like the current propaganda image of them as it isn't even remotely close to environment friendly.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[mknight]

So what's your solution? Keep burning oil and drive 50k/year or build up hydrogen infrastructure from absolute zero?

Electric infrastructure is there in every country already, even without without any upgrade it can support sizable number of EVs (10%+). This is confirmed by facts here right now
not "someone said".

Electric cars, battery production and above all renewable electricity generation have seen huge development last 10 years. Sure that rate won't last forever, but it's still going the right direction compared with very little developments in combustion engine efficiency (thumbs up for Toyota, though they also use batteries in their hybrids) and mostly more and more energy-hungry oil extraction.

Driving electric battery car doesn't automatically make it ecologic, but it's right now the only near-future (10-20 years) way to reduce car emissions of all kind. Obviously even in the most dramatic scenarions there won't be more than some 20% electric cars on the road in 10 years in Europe.

Going back to the very start here and my starting point , people totally ignore the "local" pollution effects you get from combustion engines everywhere they go. Yes latest Euro6++ cars have little coming out of their exhaust....once they get warm and when it's not below zero (6 months here), and when the "chemical factory" in the back works fine and in case of trucks when the driver doesn't cheat with AdBlue. That chemical factory now uses similar ammounts of rare metals like batteries.

[cali]

So what's your solution? Keep burning oil and drive 50k/year or build up hydrogen infrastructure from absolute zero?

Electric infrastructure is there in every country already, even without without any upgrade it can support sizable number of EVs (10%+). This is confirmed by facts here right now
not "someone said".

Electric cars, battery production and above all renewable electricity generation have seen huge development last 10 years. Sure that rate won't last forever, but it's still going the right direction compared with very little developments in combustion engine efficiency (thumbs up for Toyota, though they also use batteries in their hybrids) and mostly more and more energy-hungry oil extraction.

Driving electric battery car doesn't automatically make it ecologic, but it's right now the only near-future (10-20 years) way to reduce car emissions of all kind. Obviously even in the most dramatic scenarions there won't be more than some 20% electric cars on the road in 10 years in Europe.

Going back to the very start here and my starting point , people totally ignore the "local" pollution effects you get from combustion engines everywhere they go. Yes latest Euro6++ cars have little coming out of their exhaust....once they get warm and when it's not below zero (6 months here), and when the "chemical factory" in the back works fine and in case of trucks when the driver doesn't cheat with AdBlue. That chemical factory now uses similar ammounts of rare metals like batteries.
You have valid questions and points.
My idea from start has been not to treat EV's as THE Solution or people to actually think that now we suddenly have "green" vehicles.
As long as we acknowledge the shortcomings I think it's the way forward to the right direction. Currently we do not have a good solution to it.
My sole problem has been the image of EV's that has been painted to the general public. Like after Dieselgate VW went "green". It's laughable. It's business. It's naive to think businesses really care for the environment.

I think the end goal for both of us is the same, we just look at it from different angles.

[NickRally]

TBH I thought the idea behind this "green" thing was not to simply head into "selling electric suvs" but to make "transportation" a completely different thing. Like fully Shared and possibly Autonomous mobilty. Like electric-autonomous "buses" and shared ride - like 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 seat "vans" that are owned by the "manufactures", running away from the idea of "individual's cars". (So we could have WAY less cars on road and the ones that are out there would be always being used by people, so you can erase the concept of "parking" from out daily lives) And with more room for bikes and e-motos, e-scooters and things like that.
Just selling a billion electric suvs will not change a thing in this planet so I agree with the idea of "Its just a lie" when "they" say we need to have only electric cars in the streets.
Humans will never restore the environment by PRODUCING more and more things. This is what took us to "this". Humans cannot save the environment because we are the ones ruinning it.

Couldn't agree more.

[AndyRAC]

We need far less cars on the road; replacing petrol/diesel with EVs isn't a solution. Driving 5 mins down the road for a paper/loaf of bread/taking the kids to school is absolutely insane.......that is what we need to change. And I say this as a petrolhead/motorsport fan......

[lmmjvss]

Oh... and lets not forget that we actually need electric planes and cargo-ships. Cars are one of the fractions of this whole problem.

- But dont worry, motorsport will save the world again! Alejandro Agag is releasing the "e1 series" for electric boats and that old "red bull air race" (actually an interesting championship tbh) is now owned by FAI and the FAI World Air Race Championship will debut in 2022 with plans to have those "eVtol"(electric?...plane/drones?... with Vertical landings and take off...???) by 2024.

[fiscorpun]

Cool to see that at least most of the hardcore motorsport fans KNOW that all that "green agenda" is B.S.
Im all in favor of the ideas of producing WAY less cars and making them autonomous and shared and mostly electric for the streets. Tho I thought electric Motosrport would be the place for the "battery revolution" but we are not even close to that, since formula-e, extreme-e, fia eGT, eTCR, eRallycross etc are ALL spec. No room for inovations and new tech. IMO this is just a terrible failure at the core of what motorsport should be. Solar panels will probably enter some crazy revolution in a few years (5?) and that will change electric mobilty a lot too. Again... it could be motorsport pushing that tech too. It is not
"Sad face Hashtag"

[Sulland]

Lets do a what if.

What if Hyundai decide this is too expensive, lets pull out of Rally or pull out of just Rally1, and continue the Rally2 program.

What will that do to the 2022 season, and the future of the WRC?

[er88]

Hyundai won't pull out due to expense. I'm sure they're remaining in WRC, but if they do call it quits it will be because they start the season horribly/don't feel they can get competitive.

But to answer your question - nothing major would happen to the 22 season. We had 2 manufacturers for years with Citroen and Ford. Tanak and Neuville will probably join Msport to partner Breen in a lead team, Greensmith, Fourmaux will become a pay team for younger drivers + Loeb on a few events. Solberg would probably join Katsuta in the Toyota development team.

[WRCStan]

Lets do a what if.

What if Hyundai decide this is too expensive, lets pull out of Rally or pull out of just Rally1, and continue the Rally2 program.

What will that do to the 2022 season, and the future of the WRC?

I believe they are contractually obliged to do three seasons of what they helped to install. Being too expensive is not a valid excuse and not having Rally1 customers because it's too expensive is also not a valid excuse. They agreed to Rally1 being solely a manufacturer's (PR) game and is probably why they are still there at all. The future at the top of WRC hangs on this fundamental.

If they leave it may open the door for another to join long term. I don't believe Hyundai would have joined at all if WRC wasn't in a poor state back then with what - 2.5 manufacturers? VW left officially because of the negative PR, Citroen left officially because they couldn't win - neither because it was too expensive. I'll go to the extreme and say the threat of another manufacturer joining probably has more influence on Hyundai leaving then the costs. So IMO Hyundai leaving doesn't change anything about the sport's future alone.

As for 2022. Rally1 would obviously be duller with fewer fights. I can't see a situation where they'd continue Rally2 without Rally1.

[mknight]

For these big manus the WRC expenses are basically a rounding error on their yearly results.

It's all about the will and image.

VW had to show they are saving money ( to their shareholders) after facing all the dieselgate compensations.

Citroen had bad car and correspondingly bad publicity. (Shitroen..)

Subaru in 2008 had both of the above.

Lately manus don't want to be "seen" promoting petrol-only motorsport on top of these usual subjects.

[WRCStan]

When do you think we'll see the first fuel-economy stages? 5-4-3-2-1 points for the most fuel-efficient stage, or is it all the time now with the hybrids.

[mknight]

We will get a switch to full electric before any "fuel saving" points.

[Franky]

They'll just rename Power Stage to Power Saving.

[Tanelv]

When do you think we'll see the first fuel-economy stages? 5-4-3-2-1 points for the most fuel-efficient stage, or is it all the time now with the hybrids.

Some kind of combination of who is the fastest and has the lowest kWh consumption would be cool and would perhaps push manufacturers to make more efficient cars instead of pushing larger and larger batteries in humongous SUV-s.

[WRCStan]

Maybe we'll see it in future Sunday stages before the power stage. I don't think WRC will ever be used to push road-technology, but it is a great proving ground.

I can certainly see minimal energy-consumption forms of motorsport being big in the future. It could even form part of the Group A/N based series that cost-conscious members of Motorsport Forums and RallyTwit want that will attract hundreds of new manufacturers. I'm in if anybody else is.

[AnttiL]

https://dirtfish.com/rally/wrc/david-evans-why-wheatley-is-the-right-choice-for-rallying/

Andrew Wheatley is Matton’s successor as FIA rally director

[hutchie]

https://dirtfish.com/rally/wrc/david-evans-why-wheatley-is-the-right-choice-for-rallying/

Andrew Wheatley is Matton’s successor as FIA rally director

I see Dirtfish managed to still bring up Adamo. Wheatley seems a good fit though so did predecessors and despite some good changes in recent years, the top championship is still just 3 teams. We will see.

[AndyRAC]

One wishes him luck - he surely can't do a worse job than Matton; and as for Adamo.....Dirtfish's obsession is unhealthy.....

(Anybody who follows MX GP will have noticed a rider with the same name)