It would not be an independent comission then, it would be a comission of the manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saabaru
Printable View
It would not be an independent comission then, it would be a comission of the manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saabaru
No... But it has to start somewhere and they are the ones dumping money into the sport handover fist. Who would you suggest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
I would leave the comission the way it is, but i would get a promotor choosed by the manufacturers to run the ideas between the different parts (comission,manufacturer,FIA), the biggest problem i think has been too many rule changes, the manufacturers cant adapt if they dont know whats happens in next coming few years, also the rules should be thinked over properly before they are adapted ( maybe tested first on national level too), a good example is to ban the mousse tyre, it was supposed to save money, but now already cost more money to the teams. Also it would be good if they could find a solution to make it easier for new manufacturers to join, but the big teams dont want to make it easier for them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saabaru
Also the event organisers should be obligated to make their events more public friendly so that the event attracts more people, and I dont mean building water splashes or 2m snowbanks, but better facilities, transportation to the stages and so on.
Well, the title of world champion should be given by an official body. I live in the US so so i know how, here, we're quick to give the title of "world Champion" for the winner of privately run events (Super Bowl, World Serie, and even in rally (I hope Pastrana updated his web site)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Saabaru
Same thing happended in Chess when Kasparov broke away from the FIDE. He ultimatly (granted after losing "his" title) acknowledged this was a mistake. Even though everyone was recognizing him in the 93-00 period as a the best player, he was not the official world champion.
Actualy, I dont like the FIA any more than I like the FIDE. Though, they are the governing body of the sport. Things can be changed democractly: the FIA board is elected from FIA member (at least i think it's the way it works). So presure your National federation to elect a better one next time around!
I guess that it is daydreaming and corruption run probably as deep in the FIA than the FIDE. But even if IRC, for instance, become popular and the best drivers go there, the winner of the serie will not be the world champion.
Saabaru, I would like to know more about this 20 years of oppression/suppression that rallying has suffered at the hands of the FIA. Please elaborate.
Pastrana and his shameless self promoting web site is just that; shameless, tasteless self promotion. And you shouldn't reference the entire country as being as tastless as one person. And the title of world champion should be where the best of the best are racing, under whatever sanctioning body they are racing. If all the big boys in the WRC went to the IRC next year, which series do you think everyone would watch?Quote:
Originally Posted by xavier
There has been entire threads on this site and others about how the FIA has undermined the WRC to protect it's precious cash cow F1 series. They killed Group B, because it was threatening F1 using safty as the reason and after they had killed it off they didn't even address any of the major safty issues. Actions speak louder than words.Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
I agree, there have been entire threads about this. And most of them have been absolute nonsense.
The world over, in most national administrations, rallying plays 2nd fiddle to circuit racing for the very reason you've stated, that racing brings in the cash and rallying doesn't.
At world championship level the situation is no doubt the same.
However recognising this fact, and perhaps even acknowledging it is not, in itself, suppression.
Your claim, that the FIA has "suppressed rallying for 20 years" has been made by others before, however, just as in your case, it's always been a throw away line with no substance.
The one example that you have given, the canning of Group B, is emotive nonsense. It ignores the facts that there had been deaths and that there had been meetings staged and calls made by teams and drivers who wanted immediate steps taken to change direction.
Further, you state that although safety was the published reason for change no steps were taken to fix the safety issues. The issue was the formula and a move to a production based model was the fix.
It's very easy to blame the administration, especially from a position of anonymity but usually it's from one of ignorance.
Tomi is on the money. Better to fix from within than to throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Actions speak louder than words". If you want to read press releases and eat up every word they feed you then go ahead but don't call me ignorant because I choose to look at the facts and what actually happens instead of living in the dark like some people. Group B is just where it got started and it nevered ended and if you want proof then all you have to do is wait and see what a tight leash they keep on this new promoter. The manufactures wanted to fix Group B not get rid of it. Audi pulled it's Group B cars not because of the car itself but in protest of the crowed control, a safety issue that was never addressed.
But this is just ignorance talking, after you read those press releases you can enlighten us all...
If you want to see some spectacular racing that would kill there boring F1 money machine; unplug the stability control system and throw away the restrictor on todays WRC cars. Maybe we could call them PGB cars (Production Group B) and they could put the restrictors on those F1 gocart things.
This debate about the FIA ineptitude it’s over judged. Over the 36 years of the WRC there are obviously some wrong technical and political decisions from the ruling body, but only a handful of them could be considered really damaging to the sport.
The extinction of Gr.B (and the projected successor Gr.S) is one of them, mostly because of the emotional environment in witch was decided, but even then it took only 2 or 3 seasons to WRC regain interest, as shown by the large number of manufacturers involved at the Gr.A era.
The introduction of the WRC formula was also a step up, with more liberal homologation formats allowing new manufacturers to be involved, despite their industrial limitations (related to the lack of suitable 4wd products in their model range).
Problems came latter (coincidently with the larger involvement of Mr. David Richards in WRC guidance), with the uncontained technical developments of the WRC formula and the “mediatic” fury that perverted WRC nature and balance.
If the wildly expensive progresses of WRC cars had a real contribution for the reduction of manufacturers participation, the structural changes to WRC rally’s format dramatically deprived the series character.
Limitation of day courses and service areas and the proliferation of visited countries (some with limited rally tradition) had a negative impact over the sport, contributing for the dispersion of fans attention to other series.
FIA actual orientations (12 courses calendar and S2000+ cars) seemed reasonable in order to invert the decadent trajectory of WRC, but the recent revelled incapacity of generate consensus over this measures cannot predict a bright future…