How do you see the future of rally?

I see the future of rally as being in India, because manufacturer teams want events that are worth their money, especially the flyaway events. With over a billion people in India, the popularity of motorsport in the country, and the emerging middle class economy, I think an event in India fits the profile of what the manufacturers want. This will encourage more manufacturers and sponsors to stay in the sport. Similarly, I think it has the potential to be very popular with fans and drivers, so to my mind, an event in India makes more sense than the proposed rallies in Brazil and South Africa. In fact, I see the potential for an event so varied and extreme that it could become an instant hit for all involved.

There are some bold dreamers here... I like it. I also agree that applying all of the nice suggestions right now is complete nonsense and nobody would agree to do that.

But in the long term, that doesn't seem so impossible. This year we already see some start of some changes in the rallies. Monte, Mexico, Portugal, Argentina were made endurance events and that definitely brought some charm. 5 days Monte was challenging for the drivers and teams 'cause of the various conditions each they. In Portugal there was actually a night stage in which we saw some surprise - The King made mistake, which happens as often as rain the desert. So I vote up for more variety. If continues this way, WRC will definitely attract more interest.

I also like the suggestion for more technical exposure, I don't know how achievable is this though as some developments of the cars remains secret for some time.

More events is also nice, but that is impossible at the moment, as this is the most expensive part, but grouping nearby Rallies ano after another in short period of time will make the logistics cost less. Events we never saw before, that would be really nice too, especially with unique surfaces which no other event has. I don't see why not as some of these countries are huge markets and will be appealing for manufacturers.

I don't know about Rally 2 though. With so few top level teams removing it will make the events much less appealing and teams will throw their money for nothing. But there is something here might be added - points for stage victories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefanvv

I don't know about Rally 2 though. With so few top level teams removing it will make the events much less appealing and teams will throw their money for nothing. But there is something here might be added - points for stage victories.

---

And/Or do what ERC does and award extra points for each leg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

1) Encourage the participation of more manufacturers by introducing a new championship: the World Championship for Manufacturers. All drivers who are elegible to score points will score them for their manufacturer, regardless of which team they are driving for (so Latvala and Tanak would both score points for Ford). The current World Championship for Manufacturers, where drivers score points for each team, would be renamed the World Championship for Teams.

---

In top 10, 3 citroen and 7 Ford, that would be unfair. Two best only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

2) Expand the calendar to twenty-four rallies, with sixteen events in a season.

---

16 rallies are too much for the manufacturers and even for drivers. 12 – 14 would be ideal. I listened an interview of Carlos Sainz (iRally | The free independent Rally App for the iPhone, iPad and Android, no sound anymore) and he said when the calendar was expanded it was enough for him. Also Marcus has said that he was fed up (not only with the Peugeot 307) being on the road all the time. Most of them have a family and children and want to spend more time with the children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

3) Encourage rallies to adopt a longer format - up to 600km, if not longer. Also explore the possibility of different formats: sprint (two days, 200km), standard (three days, 400km) and endurance (four-five days, 600km).

---

As somebody already told, for a rally with 600 km of stages, two days of recce is not enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

4) Introduce a new rule: 30% of a rally (roughly one day) should be run on stages that have never been used by that rally before (alternatively, run on stages that have not been used in the past five years).

---

I recall that this rule is already in use. I’m not sure if it is and if it is, I don’t know how much of the stages have to be unused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

5) Stages should not be used more than once in a rally. If they are to be re-used, then they should be run in reverse on the second pass through. This should be still be kept to a minimum, though.

---

Even in a rally addicted country as Finland there was some problems to get enough of marshals for some stages of NORF few year back. Most of the marshals are volunteers, the only salary they get is free rally sausage and the verbal feedback from some spectators.

Drivers should choose 10 favorite events before every season (just like in 90's).

"How do you see the future of rally?"

Bleak

It is dying and will die a slow and unassuming death drowned in the sound(?) of electric motors/fuel cells in a sterilised safety concious environment.

Not a criticism, just sign of the times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldF

Even in a rally addicted country as Finland there was some problems to get enough of marshals for some stages of NORF few year back. Most of the marshals are volunteers, the only salary they get is free rally sausage and the verbal feedback from some spectators.

---

Is that payment or punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Is that payment or punishment?

---

If you like meat, then it's a punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barreis

Drivers should choose 10 favorite events before every season (just like in 90's).

---

A bit like PWRC? Not a bad idea, but there are pros and cons. If you were portugese(I'm just using this as an example, I dont know your nationality) and Citroen decided against Portugal in favour of Germany( for example...) would you still be as willing to attend Portugal? It would mean it would be an almost certain win for Ford, and with no fighting up front apart from within team mates.

On the up side, it would be attractive to smaller teams like M sport and Prodrive and new manufacturers, because they could opt to skip Australia and Mexico, and the long haul expensive events. And new manufacturers and teams is exactly what we need right now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoukerman

"How do you see the future of rally?"

Bleak

It is dying and will die a slow and unassuming death drowned in the sound(?) of electric motors/fuel cells in a sterilised safety concious environment.

Not a criticism, just sign of the times.

---

Please, lets hope not. If this does happen we can say we have lived in the glory days of MotorSport and not Electric Motor Sport ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldF

In top 10, 3 citroen and 7 Ford, that would be unfair. Two best only.

---

The idea is to encourage manufacturers to make their cars available to privateer teams. Right now, there are, as you say, three Citroens and seven Fords in the top ten. But if all cars score points on behalf of their manufacturer, it would be in Citroen's interests to support privateer teams so that they can score more points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldF

Even in a rally addicted country as Finland there was some problems to get enough of marshals for some stages of NORF few year back. Most of the marshals are volunteers, the only salary they get is free rally sausage and the verbal feedback from some spectators.

---

It wouldn't be that difficult to reverse a stage - all you'd have to do is swap the split timing and signage around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

It wouldn't be that difficult to reverse a stage - all you'd have to do is swap the split timing and signage around.

---

You seem to forget about the spectators. Changing the spectators viewing areas takes time and man power. Also when you'd run all the stages once in a day it will increase the "cost" of marshalling a lot compared to the current format of X number of stages and their reruns on a single day.

You seem to choose to view only part of the picture, not the whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

You seem to forget about the spectators. Changing the spectators viewing areas takes time and man power.

---

And you seem to forget that the route is not planned the night before the rally starts. If the organisers knew that they were going to run a stage in both directions, common sense dictates that they would plan for this when setting up spectator viewing areas. They would either a) plan areas that would be safe for viewing when the cars are running in both directions, or b) set up all areas before the event, and then limit access on the day. The latter would also require that it be made clear to spectators that the viewing areas would change from one day to the next. It wouldn't be difficult - say that the stage will be run in one direction on the first morning, and in reverse on the second morning. Spectator areas for the first pass through could be marked in blue, and in orange for the second run through. The challenge is to keep the spectators informed of where they are supposed to be at any one time, but rallies already do that - after all, putting spectators on the outside of a hairpin bend that comes at the end of a long, fast straight is obviously unsafe, so this kind of crowd management is not a new concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommeke_B

I think reversing a stage to drive it again on the same day is quite dangerous for drivers also

---

That's why I'm proposing doing it on separate days. The first pass through happens on Day 1. The second pass through - when the stage is run in reverse - is done on Day 2 or even on Day 3.

Well, I still think that if it's planned out from the start and planned properly, it can be done.

Actually, the reversing of stages has been done on the old RAC in the 90’s. I remember the loops out of Chester started with Dyfnant, then moved on to Hafren Sweetlamb in the morning – and returned later in the day to Sweetlamb Hafren, then Dyfnant. Even with a huge 180 car field, there was time between the two runs to ‘turn around’ the stage.

If there is a will, then there is a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

If there is money, then there is a way.

---

Corrected your last sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Is that payment or punishment?

---

It’s not a payment nor a punishment, it’s a privilege to have a “rallimakkara” for free. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

Actually, the reversing of stages has been done on the old RAC in the 90’s. I remember the loops out of Chester started with Dyfnant, then moved on to Hafren Sweetlamb in the morning – and returned later in the day to Sweetlamb Hafren, then Dyfnant. Even with a huge 180 car field, there was time between the two runs to ‘turn around’ the stage.

If there is a will, then there is a way.

---

But were the spectator areas in the 90’s as strict as nowadays? At least I see the reverse stages as a problem at least in NORF with these VIP areas, which has in some circumstances has occupied the best spectator places (remembering one year at Urria’s deep jump, where the best places was a VIP area :s mash :) . With a reversed stage some of those could be at dangerous places and to move the big tents during the same day would be a huge task.

The only solution would be to plan the spectator and VIP areas considering both direction of approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldF

But were the spectator areas in the 90’s as strict as nowadays? At least I see the reverse stages as a problem at least in NORF with these VIP areas, which has in some circumstances has occupied the best spectator places (remembering one year at Urria’s deep jump, where the best places was a VIP area :s mash :) . With a reversed stage some of those could be at dangerous places and to move the big tents during the same day would be a huge task.

The only solution would be to plan the spectator and VIP areas considering both direction of approach.

---

The solution would be to use a large airship that is placed over the stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

The solution would be to use a large airship that is placed over the stage.

---

Great!then we could have "Trickle Down Spectating"
The 1% sees everything, the rest pay more to stand 250m back into a swamp. :arrows:

I hope things can fget better from here. I am sad to think that I am as interested in IRC,APRC and ERC as I am in the WRC. Ususally I am totally on WRC, but not for the last 2 seasons....

Looking at the number of cars in several championships, I think WRC need to give some airtime and publicity to WRC 2 and WRC 3 in 2013.

They have to give cred to the people willing to work themselves up the Rally Ladder. If they are to get sponsors, they need publicity on TV and internet, much more than today.
As of today many are going to IRC where Privateers and "work" teams get much more equal coverage. If you do well, you get cover and cred. Not like that in the WRC world - That need to change dramatically to get up the numbers agsin !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother John

The rally season is al most over, what do you think about in future? After Wales all the official news of rallies can be very different than we expect.
There are many questions that many people do not dare to talk about it just now!
Here are some questions from me and you can come with your questions and possible answers.
Which teams will continue to rally in the future?
Which factory teams continue to rally in the future?
What new factory teams will run against Citroen or Volkswagen in the future?
Who will still sponsor rallies in the future?
Is there money for more drivers than a few drivers who are paid just now?
Are the current rally cars not too expensive?
What do you think about the future.

Bring it on and let us talk about your views. :s mokin:

---

Again, we would now be able to start with this post for wrc 2013!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother John

Again, we would now be able to start with this post for wrc 2013!

---

Perfect timing, should think you had connections @ Ford :) )

I am hoping Qatar keeps a presence in the WRC. They have money to burn

The future also in rally is Chinese.

The reason for this is that in a few years they will own many of the businesses that are sponsoring rally, also WRC. They will also own most car companies. They are thinking long term profit, not short term like us!
Europe and US made a wring choice when we did not want to pay more than 10 euro for a T shirt.
Today most goods are made in China, to late to turn the trend.

but enough real world stuff.....

If it wasn't for Abu Dhabi coming back and sponsoring Citroen WRT. I guarantee you Citroen too, would be out of the WRC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GigiGalliNo1

If it wasn't for Abu Dhabi coming back and sponsoring Citroen WRT. I guarantee you Citroen too, would be out of the WRC!

---

I agree, no Peugeot 208 development either probably.

maybe Al Attiya's Qatar will come up with something for M-Sport as they didn't get Citroen racing....wishful thinking :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red bull

maybe Al Attiya's Qatar will come up with something for M-Sport as they didn't get Citroen racing....wishful thinking :D :D

---

I had an even more wishful thinking. Apart from WRC, Msport and their belgian designer (Mr Lauriox?) can be very helpful for the design of his buggy for his Dakar exploits.

So lets lobby him when he comes to Cyprus for the MERC IRC event :)

Much sense in this one
Ch-ch-ch-changes! - The Rally Report

I had this crazy, crazy idea the other day when I was in the thread for this year's Rally of Sweden. While discussing some of the finer details of the route, I realised that some of the stages that the rally covers are actually in Norway, and were enve used in the Rally of Norway when it was on the calendar. I may well be the very last person in the world to have realised this, and I apologise for having been so ignorant, but the idea took hold in my mind and has manifested itself like this: what if other rallies took a cue from Sweden's lead?

I have been quite critical of the Rally of France, primarily because I feel that it doesn't really contribute anything to the calendar. Strasboug is just 150km from Trier, making the roads and terrain rather similar, and the cynic in me believes it is really just there so that Sebastien Loeb can win the World Championship near his hometown, and that it will not last long once he retires. That being said, I like to believe that I am a man whose opinion can be changed in the face of a compelling argument, and with nothing better to do, it occurred to me that there must be something decent about the Rally of France. And despite my dislike of the event, I found that there are some decent stages.

At the same time, I have been critical of the way modern rallies pass over almost every stage twice during the event. I understand that this is required by the rules and helps keep costs down, but I feel that the practice dilutes the sport a bit. It was at this point that an idea struck like lightning: with Trier and Strasbourg being so close, would it be possible to run the Rallies of France and Germany as a joint event? Take half the stages from Germany and half the stages from France and fuse them together into one super event, which organisers from each country footing half the bill to keep the costs to themselves down.

In addition to France-Germany, we could have Sweden-Norway as we already do (except on a larger scale with more Norweigan stages), and even bring Monte Carlo and Sanremo together. Australia and New Zealand might even be a possiblity, though the trans-Tasman flight would be expensive. But the end result would be a greater range of more-challenging events, keeping the same number of overall rallies on the calendar, but freeing up space for additional rallies.

@prisoner monkeys, how about combining Iceland and Mongolia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommeke_B

@prisoner monkeys, how about combining Iceland and Mongolia?

---

Because they're not close to one another.

Monte Carlo-Sanremo, France-Germany and Sweden-Norway work because the stages are geographically close to one another. Sweden is already proving it can be done because the Kirkaener, Finnskogen and Opaker stages used in 2012 are in Norway - they were used in 2009.

You don't see the irony?

But you said Australia-NZ... Nothing realistic in that. Sweden-Norway works indeed, although there are only very few stages in Norway. But don't expect Monte-San Remo or France-Germany, both have their own sponsors... Rallye de France is supported by FFSA, while Germany by ADAC, no way they want to "share" their rally. I also don't see Monte Carlo make a such change in their classic, and why should they?

Australia and New Zealand - specifically Coffs Harbour and Auckand - are a three-hour flight apart. And maybe a five-hour drive from Sydney to Coffs Harbour. If the FIA could find some way of keeping them in parc ferme on a plane across the Tasman Sea and the organisers scheduled a day's break to relocate, it could be possible. Unrealistic and probably unpopular, but possible.

And if costs keep increasing, then perhaps the FFSA and ADAC could become amenable to sharing - particularly if they want to keep their rallies, but cannot afford to do so individually.

As for Monte Carlo-Sanremo, I admit that was an afterthought when I realised how close the two host cities actually are (and also because I think the WRC needs more than three tarmac events). Personally, I'd love to see a Monte Carlo Rally with eighteen individual stages, rather than nine stages run twice. If that's not possible using stages that have been run only on the Monte, then perhaps crossing into Italy would be a way to do it.

Borrowing some stages is one thing, Unifying two Rallies is completely another. Norway still has Rally "Norway" I think.

Even if I'm from Norway I'm not that keen on the Norwegian stages and the way it's set up this year, much more spectacular stages further north like The Mountain stage, Ringsaker and Løten with up to 1 1/2m snowbanks in a few places :) If we should have stages we should have proper ones in my opinion, not possible running together with Sweden of course because of the distance.

Rally Norway 2009 The Mountain stage
http://www.raceinfo.no/temp/tn_2126_...623_1386_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prisoner Monkeys

Australia and New Zealand - specifically Coffs Harbour and Auckand - are a three-hour flight apart. And maybe a five-hour drive from Sydney to Coffs Harbour. If the FIA could find some way of keeping them in parc ferme on a plane across the Tasman Sea and the organisers scheduled a day's break to relocate, it could be possible. Unrealistic and probably unpopular, but possible.

And if costs keep increasing, then perhaps the FFSA and ADAC could become amenable to sharing - particularly if they want to keep their rallies, but cannot afford to do so individually.

As for Monte Carlo-Sanremo, I admit that was an afterthought when I realised how close the two host cities actually are (and also because I think the WRC needs more than three tarmac events). Personally, I'd love to see a Monte Carlo Rally with eighteen individual stages, rather than nine stages run twice. If that's not possible using stages that have been run only on the Monte, then perhaps crossing into Italy would be a way to do it.

---

I don't understand how you even come up with the idea of Australia + NZ... A 3 hour flight, that's as much as flying from Monte Carlo to Sweden. ;) Parc fermé in a plane? Come on! Rallye Deutschland and Rallye de France are 2 of the financially most healthy events in the championship, when costs become too high for them, half of the events will have already dropped from the calendar.

For Monte there are plenty of other stages they could use too... But if you drive 2x as much stages, 2x costs, 2x marshalls, 2x police, 2x safety plan, 2x..., Also it means 2x as much recce for the crews. And after all, FIA has to agree with the events itinerary too. ;)

You have a lot of inspiration but nothing of it is realistic.

The Monte Carlo Rally was the pioneer in using stages from another event. In 1976 some roads from San Remo were part of the Monegasque rally: Coldidori - Vignal & Molini di Triora - Pigna.
All this about borrowing stages (and a lot less unifying rallies) isn't part of the past, but only an anecdote. I doubt it would be something to have in mind for the future. What has to be done is to include in the calendar proper stages and proper rallies, such as San Remo (even Ireland). I certainly won't be missing a rally full of stages with chicanes and steel poles on bends.