useless event from a spectator point of view and quite possibly from a competition point of view also... Long tarmac stages just decide things way too early. San Remo int he ERC is a nice example of that.
Printable View
useless event from a spectator point of view and quite possibly from a competition point of view also... Long tarmac stages just decide things way too early. San Remo int he ERC is a nice example of that.
In 1989 when i first attended the rally as a tall kid there was significant traffic over the island.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Some roads are so narrow that a Mini crossing a 2CV would pretty much jam the traffic, so nothing changed in that respect.
Analogy to your point of view on the Corsican route ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AL14
I must say that I dont like modern "style" with so long stages. It is going against spectators, who can see the cars only once per day, it is going against crews, because there is more chances for technical problem. And dont forget much bigger chance for cancellation the stage (due to crash or in France very popular problem with spectators). I remember last year, how really big problem was moving all the stuff from Porto-Vecchio to Ajaccio - not only rally cars, but mainly all service trucks and tools. It was disaster, roads (especially on south) are not prepared for it. I cannot imagine how this will be working in WRC...
I'm with you on this... WRC is not Rally Raid or something like that... Stages should never be more than 30k long and should be in average 15k-20k... the racing in shorter distances is completly different and much better... Rally Argentina was decided on the first stage of a 3 day long race! how can this be exciting?? shorter stages means shorter gaps and more full atack style from drivers... and that's what I wan't when watching a WRC event...Quote:
Originally Posted by PLuto
Rally GB 1980 709km / 70 stages = 10.1km/stage
Rally GB 1985 897km / 65 stages = 13.8km/stage
Rally GB 1990 566km / 41 stages = 13.8km/stage
Rally GB 1995 510km / 28 stages = 18.2km/stage
Rally GB 2000 380km / 17 stages = 22.4km/stage
Rally GB 2005 354km / 17 stages = 20.8km/stage
Rally GB 2010 344km / 20 stages = 17.2km/stage
Rally GB 2014 305km / 23 stages = 13.3km/stage
The problem isn't really the reduction in stage numbers, it's the woeful total distance covered by modern WRC rallies. 305km is shorter than a Grand Prix! pre-1995 is a more sensible distance for a WRC event.
Then watch World RX. The WRC is not meant to be just a sprint.Quote:
Originally Posted by marcosg
Charly Lamm once said there are 2 types of people; those who get Endurance, and those that don't. It seems most WRC fans (well the ones on here) simply don't.
I've never used that logic, which I don't understand well in what it consists of btw. I assume you meant something like: the more visible action, the better. But I never talked about it either. I've talked about a "minimum amount of action" that is very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
Reaching the stages, the kms, all good but there should be a reason to do that...
300k of stages isn't just a sprint... and yes, i do think endurance days in rallying are over...Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
It's too cheap to say something like "then watch RX" or "go to F1". The long stages are actually really problematic stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
The main concern is of course what PLuto pointed out. If You have 300 km long event and You cancel just one 50 km long stage You cancel 17% of the overall distance. And I don't speak about canceling the stage for top crews which happens very rarely but about cancellation for the rest which on the other hand happens very often. Do the crews pay the entry fee to skip 15-20% of the rally distance with every canceled stage? I'm sure they don't.
Is it even good idea to have one stage covering 15% of the rally? I'm totally sure it's not. Let's go back to what N.O.T. mentioned. Rally Sanremo during the IRC days brought the extreme night stage Ronde. The stage for sure was tough as hell and always made a roller coaster with the results but the downside was that the whole rally shrank to that one epic stage preceded and followed by number of irrelevant stages.
Another point is that while we all like to see some privateers to do well among the works drivers these extreme stages work for the opposite. One such stage is more expensive and harder for the machinery than two with the same overall length. In the end the extremely long stages open the scissors between the privateers and works drivers more. It's nice to speak about endurance but 50 km is not endurance. Professional works driver and his works car can do the 50 km long stage in pretty crazy tempo which I believe is hardly different to 20 or 30 km long one. For the privateers that's hardly possible and also the risk of mechanical problems is way higher than for works crews.
Fourth point was already mentioned and it's spectators. I don't see any point why to restrict spectators to less stages per day. OK, if there is a very big problem with the traffic it's probably better to make spectators sit on one place for the whole day but why else? People want to see something especially if they pay for it. If I shall choose if I go to Corsica to see one stage per day or to Ypres to see eight in the same time I know for sure where I go and where I spend my money. Some events have quite high-priced entry tickets. Ask Yourself, would You pay 100 GBP to see 3-4 stages of rainy and muddy Rally GB? Now add to that the money for flight tickets, car rental and accommodation and divide it by number of stages You see.
Let's go further. How about marketing? Again I can hardly find a reason to push for the extremely long stages. From marketing point of view what shall be better with them? I know it's just marketing but WRC IS marketing tool for the carmakers. That's the only reason why they do it.
The last point of mine is my favorite and I'm sure You all read it plenty of times in discussions about superally. Simply said the superally rules are not prepared for such type of stages. As a result we get nonsensical results where retired cars score better stage times than those which actually pass through. Imagine, You are sitting behind a wheel of an R2, leading JWRC and pushing like hell through that 50 km long muddy and rainy inferno and in the end You are half a minute slower than some WRC guy who spends the whole stage sitting in the service park drinking coffee and watching online splits because he broke a wheel on the stage before. If that's not ridiculous I don't know what is.
For sure we can argue for days but what I wanted to say is that 50 km long stages bring very little and create a lot of problems. Anyway I don't want the organizers to be pushed for some linked scheme. No, let them decide what they feel is better for their event. Be it long, short or whatever stages. I just don't get the hype about them.
One or 2 big stages (35+ kms) are ok in every round. it can mix things up.
But when you have more it just ruins the whole rally and turns it into a cruising mode event.
WRC is about speed not about survival and stages with average of 30 km/hr. It is a sport of brave men not little boys like in the old days.
I disagree, to me rally is the ultimate combination of man vs machine and environment, against the clock. That's why I do it (admittedly my rally budget would be less the the coffee budget for one rally for any of the big teams).Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
These days of having utterly reliable cars is BS and makes the most reliable car with the best driver automatically the easy victor, which means the whole thing becomes a procession. Much more like your favourite lady boy event - F1. There is no drama and yes, the fastest guy in the fastest factory car typically wins. And if they end up using Rally2 for some reason they can still score good points overall and have a chance at the power stage as well.
However if you are in a privateer car or a low budget team, as has been said you have no chance to do well as you can't take the same risks and probably can't afford to crash and Rally2. And simply your car may well let you down, so you can't push it as much either. This effectively reduces the chance of bringing in young, committed, good drivers, and giving them an opportunity to do well, on a lower budget.
If the cars were all less reliable or more realistically pushed past their limits more, then I think natural selection would balance things further. Ie yes Seb would still be quick, but the balance of having to manage the health of the car would make the whole rally more even.
And that's not about handicapping the fastest driver, it's more about making it more even against the fastest car/most reliable car, to make it a more even playing field focused on drivers overall skill, not purely their ability to push the most, which is only one aspect of talent, if you get the difference?
I really like the idea of what Finland are doing, with a whole day with no service. This will help find those who can balance speed vs risk. And I still think Loeb would destroy all. But you would find more people fighting with him...
And on that note, I think the current format in some ways hinders finding a challenger to Seb O - as everyone has to push flat out from the beginning as everything is a sprint now, and if you are new and still building to that level, you are far more likely to crash frequently, which soon pisses off sponsors and that is the end to your WRC career without a lot of money behind you. Whereas if you have to balance speed vs risk to the car more, you are more likely to be able to do well.
However I imagine you may well see that NOT as just handicapping the fastest driver...
Mirek - what about making the power stage the one long stage of the event, ie has to be over 40km? That would mean people have to push and there is the incentive to do well on a long stage and not Rally2 it. And still without splits you don't know where you sit, so you don't know if you are going hard enough versus everyone else. So you take more risks.
Personally I like driving longer stages, they are more of a challenge on the car and driver, you again have to balance speed vs risk to the car. And you get tired, 30+mins of driving balls out is bloody hard work, so more likely to make a mistake too!
Of course from a TV perspective it would in some ways make for a better spectacle, as you could potentially have 6-7 cars on stage at once, so can compare split times and you will always have lots of cars moving to include in the footage. And then the drama is more likely to be caught when things go wrong?
I should probably mention that I also do some Endurance racing, so I guess I am biased!
so you prefer the winner to be decided by factor either than driving...
very interesting logic... i will name it the "An underachiever who wants a piece of the pie without trying" logic.
I don't think current WRC cars are ultimately reliable at the moment.
What about mixing all this all year long?
Why there isn't rallys that are really more sprint focused and others more endurance focused?
Every rally should have his own identity and bring something different in the championship. We can't say rally is all about speed or is all about endurance, I think that is more a personal opinion, or a personal liking. Rally is the mix of the two and I think would be good to have some of them concetrating more on speed and other on endurance, or other again in a 50-50 between them.
But IMO none of them should be like this one in Corsica for the reasons already explained in this thread.
Completely agree. I also think the endurance aspect on some occasions is overestimated and probably understood the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by AL14
I figured you would miss my point. I want a fairer playing field, so we can see who else has the talent, but not necessarily the money/equipment to keep up with Seb O. Or ideally I would like Loeb to come back. But I can't see that happening!Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
I think the sport is quite fair as it is apart form some rich/famous nobodies filling the lower ranks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkvy
but at the top i think it is quite fair...
A bit like the Olympic Games ?Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
Perhaps Munkuy's point was that every one irrespective of dollar value or skill level should not be denied the opportunity to complete with a compliant vehicle.
Who or what the spectator or keyboard warrior choses to watch or follow is their choice too.
i think that is what is happening now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk2 RS2000
Nobody is being denied his chances in a compliant vehicle (of course if you are a favela-boy you are not getting a WRC for free) but the top of the sport should remain clean of nobodies, that is what the village events are for. As for the absolute top this place should be reserved for those (man and machine) who are the fastest and more reliable and not some lucky draw coming out of stupidly hard events that are decided on luck most of the times.
Glad to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli
Sorry for the late response, Eli.
no problem:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Karukera