4WD has proved it’s point. So much so that most family cars don’t use it – and these are the cars the WRC is meant to be promoting. When Ford brought the Focus RS out, neither model was equipped with it. So, what is the point?
Printable View
4WD has proved it’s point. So much so that most family cars don’t use it – and these are the cars the WRC is meant to be promoting. When Ford brought the Focus RS out, neither model was equipped with it. So, what is the point?
So what? You want to have RWD WRC? But there is maybe even less RWD stock cars than 4WD. So to make it all suiting reality of the market will we make WRC FWD? Sorry but that's total nonsense. See British championship. FWD are cheap and close to stock cars but nobody is interested in them. With no audience there are no sponsors and the sport is done. 4WD is a must for spectacle. Without spectacle the sport can't survive. Those few geeks sitting at live timing will appreciate close fights of FWD cars drowning in the Welsh mud but the rest will watch something else.
Well, there's the problem. In fact, I think the front-drive F2 cars of old were exciting to watch on tarmac and gravel, though I take your point about their performance in really bad conditions. So, the only answer is surely further cost-cutting in relation to 4wd cars — but then we return to AndyRAC's point about the irrelevance of 4wd to most road cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
FWD isn’t the answer, though the F2 cars were fantastic. The current BRC cars aren’t – as they look like the road cars, and despite the drivers giving it 100%, it isn’t really WOW!!!
RWD could be – but most cars sold aren’t RWD,but neither are they 4WD. Audi race RWD in DTM/ GT3 – don’t sell one in their showrooms.
If they truly wanted a spectacle, they would have 380-400BHP and RWD......but that’s not going to happen.
I understand why we still have 4WD, but I’m not totally sure whether it’s good for the sport.
I think the genie is out of the bottle as far as 4wd is concerned. The problem is finding a way of making the sport (far) more affordable with that in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
I have always been very keen on a formula like the basic Group A rules circa 1987, when it was possible for 2wd and 4wd cars truly to compete against one another.
F2 were nothing but cheap cars. Their rules were much more free than today's S2000, not speaking about R5 at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
About the 2WD or RWD... According to ICCT some 2% of new cars in EU are RWD (14% in Germany). 90% of all new RWD cars in EU are BMW and Mercedes. Some 13% of all new cars in EU are 4WD. That's cca 1,6 million cars per year in EU alone. Outside of EU the share must be higher because there is higher percentage of unpaved roads. That's quite a big market in 4WD alone.
Anyway I don't think there is any significant impact on marketing value in fact that the race model is 4WD while the production not. Nowadays far majority of car buyers have no knowledge of car technology and usually has also no interest in it at all. They buy car to have a tool to transport themselves which looks nice and that's all. What the marketing tool called motorsport can lose by not presenting exactly same cars as are on sale is insignificant in my opinion. The biggest marketing value is in my opinion in winning of something everybody knows (nobody cares about class wins, only overall) and best in a spectacular way.
And last I would repeat myself again. No technical formula is cheap if rich players are involved. Making rules more and more ancient-like is quite useless for cutting costs in a long term. S2000 cars are filled by 80' technology and still they were somewhat expensive. What can help is to get rid of homologations. Let anybody build his own car if that is according to the rules. Same for part suppliers.
Also in terms of spectacle. I always prefer a 4WD car over a RWD car, especially when the grip is less (like gravel/snow). Even if you bring back RWD, I don't believe you can bring back the spectacle of the old RWD cars. Since everything is so much focussed on having optimal traction, I think it could be very disappointing (we can already see how clean the current GT cars are driving in natinoal championships)...
Some very good points there. However, I am left with the over-riding impression that the sport as we know it is effectively dead, with no meaningful way to cut costs, no way to re-energise national championships, no way to give new talent a chance without large sums of money (a problem in all forms of motorsport, and nothing new, of course, but especially acute now) and, worst of all, no wider public interest in the sport's premier championship. You say, 'The biggest marketing value is in my opinion in winning of something everybody knows', which is right, but does 'everybody know' the WRC today? Not that I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
The future is bleak, no doubt about it.
I think that most of that is in the change of general car market direction. Rallying was on its best when every car maker was selling faster, stronger, more agile cars than his opponents but what do we have now? Already since fifteen years a go everybody is selling cars which are safer, more fuel efficient, more ecologic than his opponents. These values which drive the mass car market are not going well along with motorsport spirit. In my opinion this trend is irreversible and the value of motorsport will further decrease.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That of course applies for mass-production vehicles. Small high-profile companies like Ferrari will keep their business quite a lot dependent on their motorsport activities but we have to see their customers are different. Rallying has always been a sport for masses and that's why it suffers from the ecology/safety/efficiency values of today.
This! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek