http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113305
Printable View
Don't struggle too much, Ogier is the only driver who actually "drives" the car, not being driven by it;)
BTW Loeb's and Ogier's driving styles are completely different, Loeb's lines are much more "smooth", while Ogier's are quite "rough".
Here some videos from generous me (without any beers) (on the last one you can notice what I mean at the post begin):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EJ9fWiUouU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4NmTs4FHdk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcIAGIsdzuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m66_5k5ozs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDI1gM3VS_k
ogier has several "hot moments" in almost every rally. loeb had those rarely.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
based on the footage i have seen ogier was very lucky at least 3 times in monte, ran out of luck in sweden and got lucky at least once in mexico.
i think every driver has a couple of lucky moments in every rally...it is impossible to try and be fast without close moments through 300kms for special stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
Interesting post, but I disagree with some things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
Sordo has complained about indersteering - fine, but that's matter of setup of the car, not the car itself. He is very fast driver on asphalt, probably now is his last chance to prove himself at gravel too. I'm impressed with his performance at Portugal.
Neuville - hmm, promising driver for sure, he had his chance with Citroen if You don't remember and crashed a lot, yes, only his first year, but he said himself he is much more comfortable to drive Ford. I don't know how good is to develop a car to be honest, that's why Hyunday has number of drivers to do that job. Neuville is just their N1 driver for this season.
I followed the Rally closely, and the only problem Hirvonen had issue about is worn tyres, not that he can't go faster with Ford - he can't go faster with any other car. He had bever been good with saving his tyres, that's for sure.
AFAIK Tanak had some damage to the car while ge gone off. No excuses for Mexico though. Impressive speed this year though and probably he learned from his past mistakes, at least seem so from spectator point of view.
Latvala - well, the best of the rest. Its not bad habbit here, he had understeering issues AFAIK with different tyres on both sides of the car. I see some progress from him this year, but still some work to do with getting use to it.
Citroen did not try to replicate anything with Hirvonen, he was fast enough 12' on some events, it is just his limit. They said he tried to adapt to the car as found it more difficult to drive than Ford AFAIR, but I think that was just dust in people's eyes. He hadn't been knocked out by Loeb 12', it was the next year when Ogier was unreachable.
Mikkelsen is mistery for me - he probably believed himself too much after Sweden and tried to do the impossible in Mexico. Now seem to be "mentored" by the team, at least 1st day seemed so.
"Rallying is chess at 200 km/h" - definitelly not. In chess you can see the moves of your opponet, that looks more like circuit racing for me. Well now driver's can watch in some degree the splits of their competition, but that has nothing to do with original idea of Rallying. In Rallying the only "enemy" you have is the TIME. So original Rallying is actually about maximum speed you can achieve.
I have no idea what Black Book is TBH. What Ogier things about this - well he thinks he deserved it long time ago when Loeb was still competing, no regrets I suppose. Ogier's driving style comparing to Loeb I commented on my previous post, it has nothing to do with circuits, but you're right about the laws of Physics - they are Universal, its all about keeping the right balance on the road to achieve maximum momentum.
I don't thing the other drivers can do much about it, its just the way it is.
Sure, trying to achieve the impossible and compensate the huge disadvantage after 1st day. With some more risks, the impossible appeared possible, when you risk, there is a chance for a flaw, especially at Monte - he was fortunate too - no flaw happened. BTW he compensated lot of disadvantage on France last year too, but that was different beer, because it was not Monte with its unpredictible conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
I think you're taking it too literally. No, rally drivers can't physically see what the other drivers are doing like you can in circuit racing (the nearby other drivers, anyway). But the drivers can still have a good idea of what their opponents are doing through the splits, through the info that his team relays via radio, and through background info on their opponents' strengths and tendencies. You're still "seeing" what the other drivers are doing and thinking about (like when they are about to go on the attack, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
And though rallying (and all auto racing, let's be honest) is theoretically about driving as fast as possible and getting your best time, the drivers clearly can't go on maximum attack all the time. You mentioned one reason yourself: tire management. Mikko Hirvonen could very well be as fast as Ogier or Loeb if tire management were not an issue. But it is, so his driving style tends to wear down on the tires before they can be changed at service.
Another factor is each driver's specific endurance level, that is, how long he can sustain driving at his maximum ability. One driver may a bit slower than another driver at their respective maximum, but if the first driver is able to sustain his attack longer than the other driver, he can use that to his advantage. If the two drivers are separated by just a few seconds, the first driver can put more pressure on the second driver by driving to his maximum, which then forces the second driver is to go close to his maximum to keep up (or keep his lead). But after a while, the first driver is still driving fine at his maximum, but the second driver starts to make a few mistakes here and there because he's starting to lose concentration. Eventually, the second driver may make a big mistake and crash or spin out. When the first driver hears of the crash over the radio, he can then dial back his driving to a safer and more sustainable level.
Likewise, the drivers' individual abilities on different surfaces plays into the team and driver choosing when to attack, and when to "cruise" and try to limit mistakes.
Another factor is the driver's position in a rally. If the leader has a decent lead, he will try to preserve that lead for the win, and that usually means "cruising" by driving at a fast enough speed to maintain the lead, but not so fast as as to increase the risk of making a mistake. If the driver in second is within striking distance to the leader, he will then attempt to attack when he can while trying to limit his mistakes when he can. But if the leader has too large of a lead to overcome, then the second place driver will also "cruise" and try to maintain his pace for a second place finish.
And finally, there's championship points. If every rally was a race by itself with no effect on an overall championship, then the drivers should go all out and drive to their maximum abilities (within reason). But as it is, winning a rally is a nice prize, but the drivers and teams are mostly fighting for points to earn the bigger prize at the end. Going all out may allow you to win and earn the most points for a particular rally, but it may also lead to a crash and retirement and net you zero points. So in essence, the points race is another chess game that's being played over the course of a season.
So call it a chess game or whatever you would like (I would call it a game of risk management), but rally drivers and teams are indeed playing it. And the same goes for any auto racing type that's not an outright sprint. There's a reason that circuit drivers don't put up the same lap times during a race as they do in qualifying or time attacks, and it's not just because there are other cars on the track.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We are all armchair experts ... let's not forget that. From the onboards I have seen this year I would say Mikko is very fast, and I could not see a moment where he could have gained an extra tenth. TN seems to me to have a style of driving from the onboards similar to the way Loeb drove. And watching the onboards from FAFE I could see how Ogier is so much faster. He rarely takes his foot off the accelerator. He even accelerates between gears downshifting. With Sordo there was a noticeable gap between his foot off the accelerator, and the next boost. With Ogier, he does not lose much speed at all. He uses the power and compression to steer and drift the car much better.
Sordo out before stage.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...79646591_n.jpg
good to see people caring and sharing
broken driveshaft, god damn it!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Oliveira
Damn shame for Dani. He has done a great job.
Hänninen crashed on the stream http://tvfree2.me/rtp-2-online-em-direto
Hänninen :(
Hyundais dropping left and right...
certanly has, cruel ending, he should get another chance on a gravel event...
Ostberg, Mikko and Ogier will just play it safe. No threat to any of them.
Dimvii's beer transport system?Quote:
Originally Posted by litifeta
Let's see if someone pulls off a Rautenbach/Wilson on the next stage
new photos at borl
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bestofrallylive/
Explanations regarding my last post to the "non believers":
To stefanvv:
Sordo: The question is, how can a driver be complaining about anything if he wins stages against Ogier? Instead of thinking that "this car understeers way to much", maybe he should be thinking "you actually have to have this amount of understeer to have enough rear end grip to ensure enough aceleration out of the corners"
Neuville: You have to look at Neuville before and after the second part of the last season as two different drivers. Suddenly he started unlocking the code. The question is, has he enough understanding of the code/"Nose End First" to develop him self even further in a team that also develops a totaly new car?
Citroën has a car that is "ready made" to drive this driving style, therefore he would be perfect in a Citroën now, not earlier.
Hirvonen: To much energy in the wrong places equals excesive tire ware, higher risks, and slower speed. If you look at Hirvonens offs they are directly related to his driving style.
Could Hirvonen be faster? Yes, sure, but he then needs to adjust his driving style acordingly.
Tanak: His speed is highly impressive, but his risk management is not. In rallying even your pace note strategy has to be of the kind that premits the codriver to do small mistakes whitout the end result being an off. You have to understand the risks, and manage those in a way that ensures you getting al the way to the finnish in every rally.
Tanaks own explanations is highly illogical: He "blames it" on his codriver making a mistake, and then defends the codriver since he has so little experience.
If the codriver has so little experience that you yourself understand why he can make those kind of mistake, you should have managed this risk with a better pace note strategy in the first place.
Latvala: His "progress" from last year is that he is not trying to win each corner of each rally, but he is taking it slower. If going slower is progress, then I have a different view of progress than you.
If you messured distance traveled by each driver on each rally, and messured the average speed in corolation to the distance, Latvala would probably be the fastest. But his driving style would not be the smartest.
Citroën replicating Loeb: If you have a driver that have won the WRC championship nine times in a row, you atleast should try to replicate that particular strategy when a new driver is taking over the role as team leader. The results in Citroën "post Loeb" and "post Ogier" shows that to much of the knowledge rested with these to drivers, beqause the results show that they werent able to replicate it.
You find the same situation in Volkswagen. Without Ogier the team would be just "one of the others", and we actually would have a real fight for the championship. The only problem is: We have ONE driver that actually knows a little bit (not as much as Loeb) about what is needed to win WRC rallies.
Mikkelsen a mystery? There is no more mistery than the fact that he has the speed, but not the understanding of two things:
1) Where the speed comes from.
2) How to manage the risks involved.
"Rallying is chess at 200 km/h": What I am trying to explain with this quote is:
- Rallying needs a lot of brain power.
- Rallying is a lot about chosing the right strategy at the right time.
- Rallying is a lot abut risk management.
- Rallying is about "outsmarting" not only your competitors, but also the stages, etc.
- But in contrast to chess, in rallying you only have one competitor: yourselves.
The black book: This is a common phrase used mostly in The States, and in American movies, symbolising important secrets that is handed down from one man to another. For example about how to pick up girls.
Loeb handed a lot of his "secrets" down to Ogier, in exhange of Ogier letting him win his eight championship. When Loeb decided to drive yet another year, it all famously went to pieces, and Citroën lost its new star to Volkswagen the year after.
And yes, The Laws Of Physics are Universal, even for Ogier.
You say: "I don't thing the other drivers can do much about it, its just the way it is."
Well, they cant do much about it when they dont know what to look for and where to look.
Driving styles: Loeb vs Ogier
Was Loeb cleaner? Yes
Did Loeb have more tools in his toolbox? Yes
Did Loeb have an even higher understanding of the "secret" of "Nose End First": Yes.
Is Ogier more stereothypical: Yes
Is it the same general driving style: Yes
Look at it this way: Both Loeb and Ogier speaks the same language, but Ogier with a different prenaunsiation and a smaller vocabulary.
But this is difficut to understand if you dont know what to look for:
Tip:To identify this you have to look for the similarities, not the differences.
To lewalcindor: You are right in your understanding of my quote "rallying is like chess in 200 km/h". Rallying is risk management and strategy at high speed, requiring a lot of brain power.
To litifeta: You say watching the inboards of Hirvonen that you dont find a single momemt he could have gained an extra thenth: Does that mean that it is impossible to drive faster than Mikko Hirvonen (lets say if you put Ogier in the same car with the same set up, would he drive at the excact same speed), or does it mean that you dont know what to look for? When I watch inboards of Hirvonen I see A LOT of places he coud have gained extra thenths and lowered his risk, AND saved his tires.
To N.O.T: "i think every driver has a couple of lucky moments in every rally...it is impossible to try and be fast without close moments through 300kms for special stages."
Are you really sure about this? If we say that each rally is about 300 km in lenght, and each season has about 15 rallyies, that would be about 4500 km. If we multiply that with 9, we have 40.500 km. And then we can add testing etc. We maybe end up with something like 70.000 km or more. (its probably a lot more)
If we say that an average road car driver drives about 15.000 km a year, we then have about 5 years of driving.
If we then reflect on the amount of times Loeb went of the road during his 9 WRC Championships. You would then find that Loebs risk was no higher than that of a regular car driver driving the same amount of km on regular roads. And that is going at it at close to maximum speed on the tuffest surfaces in the world trying win championships.
This surely proves that it has to be another way to win rallies and championships than taking high risks?
Rallying is risk management and strategy at 200 km/h, and there is only one person in the current championship that has read the game rules. I bet he sleeps with a smile on his face. And I beg the other drivers to WAKE UP!
Try breaking up your posts to a smaller chunks. It's quite a task to read such long one (I did not bother).
Mikko is doing the wrong thing: Ostberg pushes, so Mikko thinks he has to respond. But he has big enough lead over Ostberg so he could take it easy in order to save tyres to power stage.
I did. Lot's of good points on the post. Try read in smaller chunks Jonkka :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
Good to see Mikko and Mads on the podium.
shhshh don't jynx it!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by litifeta
Gilbert after crash with a car of organisation of rally Portugal
https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/...09184394_n.jpg
Loeb will be the WTCC today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeakiwi
First round of WTCC in Morocco is next week ;)
So jonkka, what do you do if something requires that you read a book? Cut it up in small pieces and read them one at a time? Or do you write to the authour telling him to write shorter?Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkka
If you are not interested enough in the subject to read what would equal about one page in a book (a real book with writing, not those with mostly pictures), then you are probably not a member of the demografic group I am aiming for, and thats okay by me. I will continue to write long posts, and you will continue to read what you choose. Hope we still can be friends:)
Some very good points there, I was thinking "more directly" to current situation, a driver can react more quickly on circuits - like block his opponent's move for example, in more "general plan" You're right. Don't forget though in circuit racing drivers also have to manage their tyres, then the game is transferred in the box, some are shorter with less worn tyres and reused for next stint, longer stints, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by lewalcindor
Technically chapters are small pieces of a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
My comment was to mr Lundefaret. You know, it's possible to quote and reply to other posts one at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
While all the discussion about drivers and their talent is interesting, it is very polarised.
Most world class sports people will tell you that talent will only get you so far. The rest is self belief, commitment, and courage.
If your mind is not in the right space, all the talent in the world will not get you anywhere. Ogier believes he is entitled. That belief raises his enthusiasm, concentration, and courage.
You must believe you are a winner to be a winner.
Reading a book is one-way experience, I have no way to reply to the author. Online discussion is, or at least should be, two-way communication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundefaret
Also, when I read a book, it's one I have chosen, usually after careful consideration and one I think I can enjoy. Online discussion is not about literary experience and enjoyment in form of story telling, rather it's discussion where opinions are debated - or at least discussed. I can remember a good book years from now but I don't think anyone remembers even a good discussion next week.
Now, which way you think is more beneficial for the readers? Your way, where you take multiple posts and write a long reply to each of them in a single posting without quoting, or my way, where I take single post, quote the relevant part of it and say what I have to say in a single post before repeating that for the next?Quote:
If you are not interested enough in the subject to read what would equal about one page in a book (a real book with writing, not those with mostly pictures), then you are probably not a member of the demografic group I am aiming for, and thats okay by me. I will continue to write long posts, and you will continue to read what you choose. Hope we still can be friends:)
Quoting provides the anchor point to the readers who know to which post and part of that post one is replying to. That post may be several pages back (and hence, several days old). If you do not want to quote and write several posts, it is your prerogative.
only 5 minutes to go for the PS..bet VW will win...let's hope i'm wrong...