no,we haven t got to understand vw needs, to ruin the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juha_Koo
If they dont like,they can go away.
Printable View
no,we haven t got to understand vw needs, to ruin the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juha_Koo
If they dont like,they can go away.
I understand that they are disappointed with RBMH promotion (we all are!), but will this idea solve anything? I expect that WRC will loose even more from the hardcore fans and gain nothing from itQuote:
Originally Posted by Juha_Koo
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
So thru!!!
People are not stupid. Wrc and also r5 cars are buggy s with an manufactures shell around it and cost s a fortune to run. It s only for an happy few. Sound is boring and the cars have nothing in common with roadcars like in early days with group a gp4 etc.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by dimviii
Capito's idea is like solving a house fire by demolishing the house. If he wants a sport that isn't rallying then maybe he should start his own sport.
To be honest some kind of stage-based heats-type championship wouldn't be too bad too watch - I personally would find it more interesting than Rallycross - but that concept has no place in any form of 'Rallying' as we know it. Maybe 'Capito Formula One' could end with a penalty shoot out and 'Capito Rugby' could end with seeing who could get a hole-in-one first :D
I can simply add: f**k VW, f**k RB, f**k MH and f**k FIA if Mr. Todt let Capito mad dreams goes ahead...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack4688`
PS: can someone explain why wasn't Eurosport Events chosen to promote WRC two years ago? Was RB/MH imposed by VW? Do we need a manufacturer that thinks it owns the sport???
Didn't Eurosport Events comment that RBMH had a better offer/package?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
Rallying is rallying. Start with good media coverage. FIA is responsible for doing that. So far they have failed. If VW wants spectacular motorsports they could choose anything but rallying.
Using cars available for more drivers than rich ones and factorydrivers could be a solution, as long as they are loud and banging. Look at F1 which sounds like s**t and which many involved people have made complaints about...
I don't talk only about TV, but too in newspapers, radio, internet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
In total honesty, compare the intensity of discussion here to that of say 10 years ago. Even the hardcore fans don't give a s**t anymore, so how can we expect anyone else to do so? And manufacturers rally inly to sell more cars. And because there is no interest, there is no added sale. Simple
There's no need to change the sport drastically; ideally, cars would be cheaper and we'd have more Manufacturers and drivers. But, 'gimmicks' aren't needed. You don't come into a sport and decide it might need changing... you simply don't do that. You accept it's plus and minus points and get on with it.
I've said before the main issue is the Promotion; and that is what the problem is. It's still pretty rubbish. The TV doesn't really capture the spectacular enough - I saw a video on Twitter last night from Sanremo 1997; it told a story of the event, interviews, had a small technical section on brakes, and this all in 27mins.
RBMH aren't doing enough - TV should be for highlights/ review type programmes. They have RedBull TV for live streaming....So why not use it more often? Too many promoters don't actually promote - but sell TV rights and think that's okay.
Absolute nonsense. A formula like Grp4 or Grp A is simply that ... a formula. It can be applied/adapted to fit any era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
There is no reason why the sport could not adopt a specification that is affordable and accessible to domestic competitors and in which they can then step up on to the world stage and be competitive.
GrpN, in it's day, could have provided the platform but they wouldn't have been spectacular enough. S2000 & R5 are certainly spectacular enough and manufacturers are producing the hardware. The cars are affordable to buy but are they too costly to run? Something in between?
Rallyper is exactly right. It's not for manufacturers to come and change the sport to suit themselves. They need to apply themselves to the nature of the sport.
I think RBMH have no idea about WRC and how to promote it. We don't expect miracles but at least solid highlights on free view channels at the end of rally day, lets say same way as Eurosport used to do it in 2005-2009. Anything more would be great. But if RBMH don't get it maybe they should leave, since they came nothing new or better happened to WRC, it's even worse in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Between 2005 - 2009 those highlights were just broadcast by Eurosport.Quote:
Originally Posted by rallyfun
They were actually created by North One Sport. They were the same highlights that were on TV in Australia and a few other countries.
We’re happy to welcome our new Technical Director Nino Frison into the team @HyundaiWRC !
He will head up engineering teams & development of i20
Nino has a wealth of experience in international #motorsport from single seaters, including roles in numerous #F1 team, to the #WRC.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoJbKmDIEAEBhGY.jpg
We’ve also revealed today that we have recently inaugurated our engine dyno to accelerate i20 #WRC engine development and testing processes
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114036, hope they'll come up with something good
On the same day as British publication Motoring News has a feature reporting what DR thinks is wrong with WRC and how 'he might like another shot at it' - In summary he says, forget TV, internet is the way forward, theer is no need for clover leaf routes (anymore - to be fair, especially as they were his idea) and he cant see teh benefit of R5 cars. DR says cars are too boring and should take a leaf out of GT3's book, "cars should be noisy, aggressive looking and something that people should aspire to, current cars dont have that"Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli
We will see what happens.
Blimey, DR had changed his tune. Being outside of the WRC has made him realise what is wrong with it. He actually said a lot of those things in January at the Autosport Show.
Live TV is old news, it's all about streaming on the internet.
And I actually agree about the cars; who honestly aspires to own a DS3, i20, Polo R....When I win the lottery, I won't be rushing to buy one of them, albeit they're nice, solid, reliable cars.
Is anybody brave enough to suggest turning their back on the hot hatch/ family runabout? And going for something more spectacular? I don't think they are. More of the same I expect.....
How could they've said it if they have a global TV channel and the experience of IRC?! Plus, EE was the right player to get a synergy between WRC and ERC, avoiding a clash that will probably happen again in a near future. What could FIA expected better???Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
Like many of you are saying, RB/MH don't do enough, so why on earth doesn't the FIA throw out their contract? In any commercial association if one of the parts doesn't fullfit their purposes there's a legal reason to dissolve it.
I'm really disappointed with Todt's choice and current approach. Above all, he's a rally guy and surely knows that EE is the right partner to promote rally sport.
TV still is a powerfull media toll. Don't throw it away too soon...Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
About cars tech definition, it's a permanent debating topic (now it seems to be Maxi Rally turn) but all we need is to make them more affordable.
R5 seems to be a nice compromise, but it would be better to open their homologation process in order to involve a larger number of tuners/builders.
The same for other R cars; it's ridiculous how few of this cars are homologated these days. In the 80's and 90's almost all makes had a reasonable number of Gr.A/N cars, now we only have a small bunch of manus involved at the sport, producing a very limited number of R models.
I don't mind the current regs or the R5s but the problem with them is there isn't enough disparity with the body styles. Almost all S2000-based rally cars and the R5s are 3 door superminis. The only exceptions I can think of are the Fabia S2000, a 5 door supermini and the Toyota Corolla & Auris S2000s - 5 door compact (or whatever one size up from supermini is) hatchbacks. If I have forgotten any please chime in :D
I don't know if there is any way regulations could successfully encourage use of more body styles but surely increasing minimum size would help as otherwise the manufacturers are limited pretty much to only using superminis.
In an ideal dream-world I'd have something like 2011 WRC but with similar measures to cut cost as R5 but the body style open to 'prototypes'. By that I mean Ford may enter the championship with something looking very Ford-like but they can sex-up the body shape instead of making it look like a Fiesta. Toyota could make a car looking distinctly Toyota-ish with a 3 door coupe body and call it, for example, 'Celica GT-Four' even though the road car doesn't exist.
The cars would be interesting to the fans because they're not limited to whatever boring crap the manufacturer sells but they'd have the VW, Ford, Citroen, Hyundai, Toyota etc. 'family face'. It's like Group-B for modern times. I personally hate mentioning Group-B because it's silly to live in the past, but I think having a 'prototype' rally car is a fairly simple (please prove me wrong :D) way of making spectacular looking rally cars - without resorting to £250,000 homologation specials with too much power to be safely hurtling through a forest or alpine road with and fuel tanks mounted under the occupants and magnesium everywhere to light up in a ball of flames!
Dream world I know but that's just my two-pennies worth!
S2000/R5 affordable? Depends on your definition of affordable I suppose... Without the need for homologations and homologated parts, cars of equal performance would be much much cheaper...Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Just putting this out there so don't flame me but....
As costs are such an issue what about adding in many standard parts or maybe even a silhouette formula, even if just for the next few years?
Discuss..
no
end of discussion
TV aims for the general masses, internet only aims for the current fans. Its the age old question, should I want 1 euro from one hundred people or 100 euro from a single person?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Well lets be fair, who ever aspired to own a Peugeot 205 or Mini Cooper or Ford Focus? Yet they are supposedly all classic rallycars. In my opinion rallycars have always been beefed up versions of common streetcars. Rallycars that became streetcars like the Mitsubishi Lancer Subaru Impreza or Lancia Stratos have been the exception to that rule, not the norm.Quote:
And I actually agree about the cars; who honestly aspires to own a DS3, i20, Polo R....When I win the lottery, I won't be rushing to buy one of them, albeit they're nice, solid, reliable cars.
Is anybody brave enough to suggest turning their back on the hot hatch/ family runabout? And going for something more spectacular? I don't think they are. More of the same I expect.....
look your inbox Greg.Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
I specifically asked FIA technical steward about this point. The answer was that they don't want to allow free supply of parts because of a) safety concerns and b) to protect business of those who homologate the parts. Take it as You like...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
Motorsport is about the cars first and second. Look into a Fiesta R5 once and you have seen them all. And you have seen them all for the next few years because the development on R5's is minimal. And then we wonder why people are gradually losing interest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Allyc85
Well... at least they were honest to you about the real reason (the second)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Maybe the best solution would have been to ban 4wd immediately when Quattro came, like they did in Formula 1 with Lotus...
It’s a little bit funny, but very popular national series are driven with old school technology, 2WD non-turbo cars. NASCAR is good example for the reason, that when the product is good, all the manufacturers want to be there.
My point is: When lot of people are interested about the product, the media and the money will be there also. And when there is lot of people, media and money, the manufacturers will be there also, for sure.
Media only can’t save the current situation. Capito’s idea won’t definitely save the current situation. Artificial respiration will keep the patient alive for a moment, but without big change we will loose our beloved sport like we remember it.
No need to change the original nature of the sport. But many people want to see, hear and smell something different comparing to their ordinary day.
Why can’t WorldRallyCar be 800-900kg, tube frame, RWD, non-turbo, max 3.0 litre engine with 10000rpm rev limiter and sequential gearbox silhouette car? Could be build by anyone, no mandatory to be an official car manufacturer.
Would you like to watch that kind of WRC cars?
You have a point :-) totally opposite to the way cars are going. In a few year 1.6 litre will be considered big engines. I do agree that the current power to grip levels are not ideal for spectacle. Why not go 2wd?
When we look back at the days past was it the cars we remember and salute or was it the drivers. If we look at golf do we follow the make of club used or cap worn or do we follow the golfer, likewise the skier or the brand of skis, the cyclist or the make of bicycle. The point is that we follow the people in the sport rather than the equipment that they use and if we wish to increase the following of the sport then more exposure time needs to be given to the participants rather than their equipment.
Historically rallying it's more linked with close to production cars than with prototypes like you suggest. With few exceptions, some Gr.4 machines and the Gr. B era, almost every rally car used in WRC were based in large production models. For many fans the last Gr. A generation still represents the best compromise in rally cars technical layout.Quote:
Originally Posted by giù tutto!
Turbo and 4wd were welcomed improvements to the sport. They've allowed a greater adaptation over the different surfaces and climate conditions. Going back to 2wd would be a technical downside and could easily put a pressure on the surface issue, affecting the long established gravel predominance.
I fully agree that we need to get back to the sports nature, but that nature was mainly damaged by mixing up each rally individuality when the 9 to 5 schedule and the clover leaf format were imposed (sorry, I’m repeating myself), so probably it would make sense to apply a more diversified and challenging calendar rather than being permanently questioning rally cars technical definition.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the only significant difference between Group A rules and WRC rules (at least initially) the number of cars a manufacturer had to produce in order to be elegible to comptete? I know what you mean though, those Group A cars were choice, but it maybe reflected the technology of the time rather than the rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
Yep, fully agree with this point. Completly! Can find it hard to get excited about most of the rallies because they almost all run to exactly the same format, in one small corner of the country. Maybe a lot of organisers have their hands tied by only being allowed 2 days for a 2 pass reece (amoung many of other factors too no doubt.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
Yes & no. Grp A cars were production based cars with a minimum build requirement. Essentially there was a requirement for a road going version of the rally car.Quote:
Originally Posted by anstis
With WRC cars there needed only to be a production car providing the body shell. There was no requirement for this car to be 4WD or have the same engine size ... or in fact any of the componentry.
Whilst the initial thoughts were that removing the need for the production car would lessen costs and entice more manufacturers, the freedom to push boundaries with technological advancements added to the costs and limited the numbers who would compete.
For sure we will follow the golfer, skier, cyclist not the equipment, as long as the difference is made by their skills, not by their wallet. Think about the scenario like this: if only those who can afford would be the golfers, skiers and cyclist, or in soccer world championship the players would be only those who could pay something between 5 to 10 million euros for the place in the national team. How long people would be interested about that?
The idea is to cut the costs. Turbo and 4wd is ideal for the performance, but it’s like a Pandora’s box also. It will always be expensive, if we are thinking about the amount of rallies and km which are driven in the world rally championship. It’s not a rocket science to build fast 4wd turbo car and drive rallycross, hillclimb or small rallies for a hobby.
Lot of average drivers have been champions at the national level only because they have had enough money to buy good 4wd turbo car. In the 2wd field it’s not so easy, no matter how much money you have, cause there are plenty of very skilful drivers.
Why need to hanging on the idea to base to the production cars? Would it be enough if the car look like a production car by the cover like they have already been for many years. With the strict rules like in NASCAR the cost could be easier to control. As long as we want to keep the highest technology in this sport, it will always be to highest price also.
Summa summarum:
With the cheaper but spectacular equipment it would be possible to bring back the charismatic and skilful drivers, who are the heart and the soul of the product.
You are wrong with Your assumptions or better to say You concentrate only on price for end-customers - teams. Bringing gr.A back would be much more expensive for car manufacturers than to continue current WRC concept hence I'm sure manufacturers would not be interested at all. One single WRC car is more expensive than one gr.A car was. That's for sure. But You don't see the multiply higher expenses behind production of road-going rally cars. There is also the fact they don't suit modern standards of ecology and fuel efficiency (these law-based requirements exist and there is no use in pretending they are not).Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Exactly and thats why autosport is going to DIE! most spectaters/poeple don t want small engine s or electic race/rally cars. Why do you think rallycross is popular. It bangs and spit flames and light up all 4 wheels with 600 hp. Downgrading and fuel saving programs makes all motorsports more worse everytime.
I understand that group a cars is more expensive for manufactures but if spectators are not interested in wrc rally buggy s with small engines how much value does wrc have for them anyway if you look at the numbers. Factory rally teams are there to sell more cars. If it brings nothing they are gone from the sport!
Historic rallying/racing is gaining more and more interest why? Because you can drive with real engines. Cars are a joy to drive and go sideways everywhere. Engines rev high and the running cost are much lower than wrc and r5 cars. And you have more choice in different brands.
I agree with You.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdvEvo
You don't need road-going rallycars to have 600Hp beasts. You can use existing regulations and put there 600 Hp engine. It can be done without rising cost. The only point against that is safety. Rally is not rallycross. I'm afraid nobody will ever agree on regulations with so powerful cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdvEvo
My 2 cents on the matter, is that is what's wrong right now. I'm kind of a young male, and started to watch rallying in the 90's. But still, for me rallying is about defying the laws of commom sense. There's something special in seeing a little car like a 205 or a Metro blasting through a forest powered by a supercar power. Driver's back then where seen more like driving gods, right know they're just guys that drive really weel, because the risk factor to a non sport guy it's almost non (I know it's still a lot). If we analyze other sports, the MotoGP still on top of the list for many people that aren't fans, per se, of motorsport, just because bikes carry more risks than cars. And even if I not a bike fan, I've got to admite, there's something special about seeing a guy going nuts at 300km/h in Manx TT for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Group B was something special, but the cars we're tottally unsafe. But, to be fair, in this time in history they can comeback beeing safe. Construction materials have been improved, and engineerings have more knowledge of how to make more resistant cars... the only problem will be some cost rising :S