FIA Rally Working Group: the future of WRC and the rally sport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth

The point is that WRC can easily work as customer teams based series, if it's possible in much much more expensive WEC.

---

Perhaps we are having different trains of thought. I got here from Per saying somebody would buy a car on a Monday and go rallying the next weekend, these are Bomber's amateurs.

Customer teams are commercially viable/profitable, they're not amateurs, the clue is in the name. They have to meet the promoter's and FIA standards financially, oblige their commercial agreements and do other things like environmental accreditation. Amateurs aren't doing this except exceptionally. There is also a value of scale these teams bring where there are many customers, as do suppliers to the championships and events bring. The idea that these customers could arrange all this themselves as amateurs, that the FIA would allow it in a World Championship, is wrong.

Customer teams aren't a foreign concept to rallying, there is M-Sport in Rally1 and was 2C a few years ago, amongst the WRC2 offering. They aren't sustaining a world championship though, we can see it. Not even WRC2 or Rally2 as top class can sustain a world championship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

As i said before, manufacturers coming has nothing to do with the cost but everything with the cost/profit ratio.
.

---

Yeah; manufacturers will put up with costs, if there is value for them, from the sport. And, quite obviously, currently, there is no value.

Somebody well known has said, "the danger in cutting costs is you're left with no value" - and that applies to the WRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

As i said before, manufacturers coming has nothing to do with the cost but everything with the cost/profit ratio.

---

Not everything, there is branding values too. Manufacturers don't see thrashing a fossil fuel car in a reckless way as their brand. Except Toyota GR and Hyundai N. Fine in Asia obviously but not Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth

The point is that WRC can easily work as customer teams based series, if it's possible in much much more expensive WEC.

---

Sorry but you got it wrong if you think the WEC Hypercar teams are customers. A better word maybe would be partners but those operations are works operations that would not be there if the manufacturer wouldn't be there to drive the project. Such partnerships are common in sportscar racing going back a long time. Some examples are Audi (partnered with Joest, R8 was chassis built by Dallara, still it was a very works team), Toyota (not sure about now but when they came back in 2010's they partnered with ORECA to run the race team), Porsche (Manthey in the 2010s, now Penske) and the list could go on. Only Proton, JDC Miller, Jota and Action Express are LMDh customers as they bought the car and run it independently. As becher said WRC used to be the same in the 90s and 2000s with Mitsubishi (Ralliart), Subaru (Prodrive), Ford (MSport), Hyundai (MSD)

LMGT3 is different and is run in the spirit of all other amateur GT3 championships and mandate at least one amateur driver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

Not everything, there is branding values too. Manufacturers don't see thrashing a fossil fuel car in a reckless way as their brand. Except Toyota GR and Hyundai N. Fine in Asia obviously but not Europe.

---

I'm not sure this is valid, they have no problem going to the Dakar and WRC2... I think it's more to due with the WRC not being a good return for the costs.

I'm not saying that WEC Hypercars are customer, but that they are mostly run the same way as Toksport run Škoda cars, except Toyota and Peugeot, which are in-house works teams. And there are still few fully customer teams. Which I wrote in previous posts.

GT3 cars cost is very close to Rally1 cars and is fully customer class. It works because ACO were able to come with efficient way to keep costs down, which not only allows to run these cars on customer basis, but also it drew attention of bunch new (or returning) manufacturers. Idk who you think that "amateur driver" is, but if we used WRC analogy again, these are usually drivers without larger achievements, like let's say Munster or Pajari, or in few cases rich gentleman drivers. These are no drivers that are in the car for 5th time.

There is no reason why WRC would need fully in-house works teams like there are now. It can easily work on the similar basis as WEC. Manufacturers could field the cars through private teams like Toksport or Oreca or even make it mandatory to sell cars on customer basis for other private teams that would like to compete in WRC. Again, costs of GT3 racing isn't far from WRC and it's much more expensive than Rally2.

If FIA can effectively keep the costs down (again, WEC were able do to that), WRC could run largely on customer basis, same as it was possible in early 2000s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth

I'm not saying that WEC Hypercars are customer, but that they are mostly run the same way as Toksport run Škoda cars, except Toyota and Peugeot, which are in-house works teams. And there are still few fully customer teams. Which I wrote in previous posts.

GT3 cars cost is very close to Rally1 cars and is fully customer class. It works because ACO were able to come with efficient way to keep costs down, which not only allows to run these cars on customer basis, but also it drew attention of bunch new (or returning) manufacturers. Idk who you think that "amateur driver" is, but if we used WRC analogy again, these are usually drivers without larger achievements, like let's say Munster or Pajari, or in few cases rich gentleman drivers. These are no drivers that are in the car for 5th time.

There is no reason why WRC would need fully in-house works teams like there are now. It can easily work on the similar basis as WEC. Manufacturers could field the cars through private teams like Toksport or Oreca or even make it mandatory to sell cars on customer basis for other private teams that would like to compete in WRC. Again, costs of GT3 racing isn't far from WRC and it's much more expensive than Rally2.

If FIA can effectively keep the costs down (again, WEC were able do to that), WRC could run largely on customer basis, same as it was possible in early 2000s.

---

Ok I think I understand your point better now but you did write customer teams... GT3 is not ACO's category, they just adopted it starting this year, GT3 was created by SRO. By amateur driver I mean Bronze driver, as I guess you know in Sportscars and GT racing all drivers are rated Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze, where Bronze are mostly gentlemen (and women) drivers or amateurs in the sense that they have a different job/income and race for fun, also there are some performance criteria, if you get fast you can get moved up to silver.

Coming back to the teams thing i don't think it's an issue, MSport is like that now, and Toyota kind of started like that with Makinen. I bet if a manufacturer went to Prodrive and said we want to go to WRC that could happen no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

I'm not sure this is valid, they have no problem going to the Dakar and WRC2... I think it's more to due with the WRC not being a good return for the costs.

---

What's a good return?

WRC2, Dakar... invisible to the vast majority... which European manufacturers are there officially and for branding purposes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

What's a good return?

WRC2, Dakar... invisible to the vast majority... which European manufacturers are there officially and for branding purposes?

---

Exposure / money spent. I guess you can compare the viewership and online impressions you get for WRC with other sports and decide where you want to spend your money.

In Dakar there's Audi and Mini, besides non-europeans Toyota and Ford, plus Dacia recently announced they are joining and hired Loeb and Al-Attiyah.

I suppose you know who is in WRC2. If they wanted to avoid that image as you say why would they be there at all? That rationale makes no sense if you look a bit outside the box of WRC.

The reason manufacturer interest in GT3 is so high is, is because it's a buisness case. They make money selling customer cars and get exposure by the odd faux works team or factory driver in one of their customers cars. It's the same as Rally2. Once you push that customer centered product to far up the food chain, manufacturers start to go crazy and the privateers start dying due to cost. Once the customers are gone the manufacturers loose their business case and leave. Just moving to a customer supported format is not valid solution to fix the current problems in rallying in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

Exposure / money spent. I guess you can compare the viewership and online impressions you get for WRC with other sports and decide where you want to spend your money.

---

Why restrict it to sport if you're selling cars? If it was 1% the cost would you advertise on Putin's forehead for global exposure? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

In Dakar there's Audi and Mini, besides non-europeans Toyota and Ford, plus Dacia recently announced they are joining and hired Loeb and Al-Attiyah.

---

Audi are at least electric. Mini and Dacia are in through a team. I don't think imagery of unrecognisable spaceships in a desert landscape matters to them as much as cars that look a little like things we can actually buy on roads we can drive on, as Europeans. But more importantly, there's no big brand promotion, same as Skoda and Citroen in WRC2. They're mainly there only for the function of selling the cars that go rallying, not consumer road cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

Why restrict it to sport if you're selling cars? If it was 1% the cost would you advertise on Putin's forehead for global exposure? No.



Audi are at least electric. Mini and Dacia are in through a team. I don't think imagery of unrecognisable spaceships in a desert landscape matters to them as much as cars that look a little like things we can actually buy on roads we can drive on, as Europeans. But more importantly, there's no big brand promotion, same as Skoda and Citroen in WRC2. They're mainly there only for the function of selling the cars that go rallying, not consumer road cars.

---

Dacia will be full works supported, branding and whatever you want, but Prodrive will build and run the cars.

Maybe that kind of proves the point of what other people are saying that maybe the WRC needs to re evaluate what they want to be and maybe full works teams is not the way forward.

There are various opinions and examples in this thread and I think no one is fully right or wrong. Some are pointing to examples where the customer model works, on the other hand becher tells about TCR where WTCR failed but he is a bit wrong because the category itself is quite ok with a ton of national and regional series with decent grids, but he is also right because if that same scenario happens for rally then WRC dies and we just have ERC and national series. But it could also end up like GT3 where it's everywhere and doing well.

As I said before, we are getting lost in the details. Taking just one element to "fix" things will not work. Instead someone has to see the whole picture, and importantly talk to manufacturers and then decide on a plan and vision for the sport moving forward. That's why I previously gave Ratel as an example, he knew the competitors, he knew the customers, he knew the manufacturers, he knew the audience and he knew the lessons and made something quite successful.

All opinions and examples are very welcome. I don't mind the details or one element at a time, I'm here to learn, build and rebuild my opinion as new information arises. This subject isn't being wrapped up for years.

Ratel, might have fixed the championship but there wasn't underlying concerns with the discipline of circuit racing. Sounds like organisation control rather than having vision of what competitors do when they arrive. I think that'll be in the conversations the rally working group will be having.

I might be wrong on Dacia, I just don't get it and won't until it happens. It just screams of a repeat of Mini in WRC. If W2RC shifts rules to volume production association something is definitely up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

Why restrict it to sport if you're selling cars? If it was 1% the cost would you advertise on Putin's forehead for global exposure? No.

---

I think a lot of people would like to advertise on putin's head. There is a whole world outside of europe and the usa that doesn't see russia as their eternal enemy. If you want to attract 3th world customers, putin would be a good advertisement platform.

For the wrc it is kinda the same. Why change the sport to cater to people who don't watch it and will hate it anyway, whatever you do. Going electric and chasing away most of the petrolheads that make up your fans, will not make the green fundamentalists into your new fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

I think a lot of people would like to advertise on putin's head. There is a whole world outside of europe and the usa that doesn't see russia as their eternal enemy. If you want to attract 3th world customers, putin would be a good advertisement platform.

For the wrc it is kinda the same. Why change the sport to cater to people who don't watch it and will hate it anyway, whatever you do. Going electric and chasing away most of the petrolheads that make up your fans, will not make the green fundamentalists into your new fans.

---

Electric motorsport does not seem to be the path forward.

Formula E has struggled to become anything other than a business platform. It's fanbase is limited and it's really struggling. It must have the most volatile calendar world motorsport has ever seen. It seems to burn every location it goes to because no one cares.

Extreme E is a fringe motorsport at BEST. EVen the top motorsport publications don't even report on it.

ETCR folded like a deck of cards, and took the unborn E-GT series with it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rallyfiend

Electric motorsport does not seem to be the path forward.

Formula E has struggled to become anything other than a business platform. It's fanbase is limited and it's really struggling. It must have the most volatile calendar world motorsport has ever seen. It seems to burn every location it goes to because no one cares.

Extreme E is a fringe motorsport at BEST. EVen the top motorsport publications don't even report on it.

ETCR folded like a deck of cards, and took the unborn E-GT series with it....

---

on the other side, a motorsport with a big generic and not really competent fanbase (mostly because of fan service/audience building -like netflix show-) introduced hybrid and changes regulation at will with not much fuss.

Going back to WRC2 as mainclass is not by far as big step they had to take in 1986 to 1987. From Group B to Group A. Big change of the material.

And absolutely no affect on fanbase.

So louder Rally2 and maybe +50 hp. cars would make a perfect combination for WRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rallyfiend

Electric motorsport does not seem to be the path forward.

---

Surely electric motorsport must have its own path forward? Aping traditional motorsport is doing it no favours.

E-GT is just retarded. FIA need to rewrite Appendix J too with some modern definitions of cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rallyper

Going back to WRC2 as mainclass is not by far as big step they had to take in 1986 to 1987. From Group B to Group A. Big change of the material.

And absolutely no affect on fanbase.

So louder Rally2 and maybe +50 hp. cars would make a perfect combination for WRC.

---

I completely disagree that more power will make Rally2 instantly more interesting. They are already pushing 300bhp which should be more than enough. The issue (if any is perceived) with current rally cars, and has been for some years, is the suspension travel (and possibly the advancement of sophisticated suspension geometry?) which makes the cars more 'planted'. i.e. the tyre is spending more time in contact with the road surface, therefore less time that the car is sliding or the driver has to do something more aggressive to get the best out of the car.

I've also read on other forums this notion of the tyres 'have too much grip, they need less grippy tyres'. Again, I don't buy into this. Surely shit tyres will just cause the cars to handle like pigs and just understeer? I also wonder how much effect the diffs have to play in this. There have been discussions on this forum over the years of certain regulations stipulating 'no centre diff'. To me this is engineering nonsense - 'no centre diff' means no four-wheel-drive. It's either locked 1:1 ratio (no way that is what is being used without dreadful tyre wear and horrible handling characteristics), open (what I suspect is truly meant by 'no centre diff'), limited-slip (torque-sensing, viscous etc.), or electronically controlled 'active diff'. I know that even Rally2s have LSDs (correct me if I'm wrong), but not in the centre?

To me, the perfect 'Rally2+' would be:

• No change in bodywork/spoilers - not necessary unless you want to appeal to 10-year old boys
• 0.5mm increase in restrictor size - only to appease those who say they should have more power, not too much as to increase stresses and service costs/reduce service intervals. Again correct me if I'm wrongly assuming this will not still cause the problems noted. Rally2 would need to be downgraded by 0.5mm to keep that gap.
• Reduced suspension travel - this would need to be carefully researched to find out what the sweet spot is to stop the cars appearing to be glued to the road then stipulated in regulations, same would have to be for downgraded Rally2s.
• Non-active, LSD centre-diffs - this is not new and expensive technology, my perception is it will increase on-throttle adjustability in slippery circumstances. Again, correct me if I'm way off here.
• 6-speed gearboxes - why were 5-speed boxes introduced in the first place? I heard George Donaldson (99% sure it was him) on a podcast ask that same question, it seems to have been made to no positive affect at all. Surely having more gears gets the best out of your engine anyway? Sequential actuation also is the least road-relevant method of changing gears, just go back to paddle shifters, these boxes were proven and reliable for a long time in the previous two generations of 1.6L World Rally Cars. For Rally2 I'd love to see H-pattern (still relevant in sports cars today) make a return, but this is just a pipe dream. It would at least be another performance differentiator between Rally2 and Rally1/Rally2+.

I know a lot of this is never going to happen - I think if Rally2+ did become a thing perhaps the best compromise would be go back to 6-speed gearboxes and a modest increase in power i.e. 1mm difference between restrictor sizes. I'm sure there would also be arguments of 'you can't downgrade the spec of Rally2s, there's too much of them out there on the market', but the same thing happened in the mid-90s with the downgrade in size of turbo restrictors on Group A8 cars. If you wanted to enter an international rally in an A8 car you had to comply, old spec cars could still be used in national rallies if the local ASN deemed so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKSjbg

There have been discussions on this forum over the years of certain regulations stipulating 'no centre diff'. To me this is engineering nonsense - 'no centre diff' means no four-wheel-drive. It's either locked 1:1 ratio (no way that is what is being used without dreadful tyre wear and horrible handling characteristics), open (what I suspect is truly meant by 'no centre diff'), limited-slip (torque-sensing, viscous etc.), or electronically controlled 'active diff'. I know that even Rally2s have LSDs (correct me if I'm wrong), but not in the centre?

---

Man, where have you been in past two decades? 90% of all 4WD rally cars produced since 2007 (first one to be Peugeot 207 S2000) have had no center differential. Most of S2000, all R5, all Rally2, all RRC, all WRC 2011. And yes, they do use 1:1 torque split for all the time except when they pull the handbrake for which there is a release clutch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKSjbg

To me, the perfect 'Rally2+' would be:

[LIST][*]0.5mm increase in restrictor size - only to appease those who say they should have more power, not too much as to increase stresses and service costs/reduce service intervals. Again correct me if I'm wrongly assuming this will not still cause the problems noted. Rally2 would need to be downgraded by 0.5mm to keep that gap.

---

0,5 mm will add roughly 3% of power. Completely useless modification which nobody will notice. It's just an extra cost with zero benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKSjbg

Reduced suspension travel - this would need to be carefully researched to find out what the sweet spot is to stop the cars appearing to be glued to the road then stipulated in regulations, same would have to be for downgraded Rally2s.

---

The suspension travel is also a major safety feature. Why do you think we have had by far most deadly accidents with 4WD gr.N cars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKSjbg

Non-active, LSD centre-diffs - this is not new and expensive technology, my perception is it will increase on-throttle adjustability in slippery circumstances. Again, correct me if I'm way off here.

---

Welcome to 2005 and the initial S2000 regulations. Do you know what the clever heads in Peugeot found back then and what other teams immediately copied? They found that the mechanical central LSD brings close to zero benefits in handling over having no center diff at all and only consumes power via friction. Nearly all following S2000 cars had no center diff. The R5, Rally2, RRC and WRC 2011 followed suit. The center diff returned only when the active one was allowed again in 2017.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKSjbg

6-speed gearboxes - why were 5-speed boxes introduced in the first place? I heard George Donaldson (99% sure it was him) on a podcast ask that same question, it seems to have been made to no positive affect at all. Surely having more gears gets the best out of your engine anyway? Sequential actuation also is the least road-relevant method of changing gears, just go back to paddle shifters, these boxes were proven and reliable for a long time in the previous two generations of 1.6L World Rally Cars. For Rally2 I'd love to see H-pattern (still relevant in sports cars today) make a return, but this is just a pipe dream. It would at least be another performance differentiator between Rally2 and Rally1/Rally2+.

---

Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. Let's start with an explanation what sequential gearbox means. As the name suggests with such gearbox the gears can be changed only one by one in a sequence. It doesn't matter if you do that by paddles or by a stick, by hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics or steel wires.

Six gears over five. First let me tell you that all WRC cars (with the only exception probably being the 2011 ones) have so wide power band that even 5-speed gearbox is enough to keep you driving in the ideal rpms. More gears mean more mass, more innertia, more parts, more complexity, higher price. The 2.0 WRC cars with super high turbo boost could use even 4-speed gearbox (and P307 actually did). The reason for using more gears in a WRC cars is basically only reliability because the steps from one gear to another are smaller and the gear shifting is therefore smoother. Anyway there are no mechanical problems with the current 5-speed geaboxes, so why going for 6-speed? For spectators such change don't matter, far majority of them won't notice anything.

Mirek, try not to get so offended that someone other than you does not know what you know and is merely putting out suggestions. This is after all meant to be a friendly exchange of ideas between like-minded motorsport fans, nothing serious. We are not the FIA working group so anything discussed here has no bearing on it at all.

I do however appreciate the knowledge you have shared here, it is all interesting information to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Man, where have you been in past two decades? 90% of all 4WD rally cars produced since 2007 (first one to be Peugeot 207 S2000) have had no center differential. Most of S2000, all R5, all Rally2, all RRC, all WRC 2011. And yes, they do use 1:1 torque split for all the time except when they pull the handbrake for which there is a release clutch.

---

I genuinely find this bizarre to get my head round, but also fascinating info to find out. My understanding of a locked diff (sorry, it’s still a diff if it’s splitting torque) is that when turning corners the front/rear speed difference, as well as the left/right speed difference of the wheels would create unwanted slippage to the point of wheels ‘skipping’. It’s been a long time since my university days learning about powertrains and I wasn’t paying much attention back then clearly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

0,5 mm will add roughly 3% of power. Completely useless modification which nobody will notice. It's just an extra cost with zero benefit.

---

Best to just leave it be as I thought then, I don’t even have an issue with outright speed of Rally2s anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

The suspension travel is also a major safety feature. Why do you think we have had by far most deadly accidents with 4WD gr.N cars?

---

You assume that it is common knowledge that most deadly rally accidents are by 4WD Group N cars? I would like to see evidence of this being the case and the reason for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Welcome to 2005 and the initial S2000 regulations. Do you know what the clever heads in Peugeot found back then and what other teams immediately copied? They found that the mechanical central LSD brings close to zero benefits in handling over having no center diff at all and only consumes power via friction. Nearly all following S2000 cars had no center diff. The R5, Rally2, RRC and WRC 2011 followed suit. The center diff returned only when the active one was allowed again in 2017.

---

Funnily enough I’ve never worked at Peugeot Sport so no, I didn’t know this. Again it’s fascinating to find out that info, not widely available or reported to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. Let's start with an explanation what sequential gearbox means. As the name suggests with such gearbox the gears can be changed only one by one in a sequence. It doesn't matter if you do that by paddles or by a stick, by hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics or steel wires.

---

Never said I did. Never claimed to be an expert. And yes I know what a sequential gearbox means, colloquially a stick operated sequential gearbox is referred to as a sequential gearbox and a paddle operated sequential gearbox referred to as a paddle shift - even though a paddle shift may also refer to an epicyclic gearbox or some form of automated manual gearbox with paddle shifters. But don’t let that stop you from getting up on your high-horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Six gears over five. First let me tell you that all WRC cars (with the only exception probably being the 2011 ones) have so wide power band that even 5-speed gearbox is enough to keep you driving in the ideal rpms. More gears mean more mass, more innertia, more parts, more complexity, higher price. The 2.0 WRC cars with super high turbo boost could use even 4-speed gearbox (and P307 actually did). The reason for using more gears in a WRC cars is basically only reliability because the steps from one gear to another are smaller and the gear shifting is therefore smoother. Anyway there are no mechanical problems with the current 5-speed geaboxes, so why going for 6-speed? For spectators such change don't matter, far majority of them won't notice anything.

---

With exception of the 2011 ones? So surely the Rally2s also don’t have a big enough power band for 5-speed? The 307 was the ONLY one to make use of a 4-speed box and its fair to say that didn’t turn out well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

If WRC wants to attract more people it needs a better story.

Spot on!

So to conclude, in my opinion there really first needs to be some fundamental things decided before you go into details. The important thing is to capture the essence of rally and preserve that and then find a format and presentation that works for a larger audience.

---

When Red Bull took over the series, they invested a lot of efforts to tell an "epic story" and it worked very well, since they got a global TV distribution which was impressive, compared to today's figures. Just remember how Tanak's dive into the Mexican lake got viral basically everywhere!!

Now, you can tell everyone how funny and entertaining Serderidis is in the service park, but no one is going to listen to it. We desperately need to bring back the early '00 "duels" and to do so you need similar, more affordable cars that will give the chance to have 4-cars works teams that will bring lots of young and expert drivers, all hungry for victory.

Imagine having Tanak, Rovanpera, Oliver Solberg, Neuville, Mikkelsen, Katsuta, Solans, Kajetanovic, etc.... all battling for the top-spot until the last stage with similar cars! It would mean a lot of drama, plot-twists on TV, some smile and everyone showing their character. It would be epic and super-interesting for the broadcasters.

But, again, everyone is talking about points, more expensive cars, etc.

You know what? Without a story well "sold" by the WRC Promoter (which right now I have to say is doing quite a poor job on all POV to say the least), you can even bring back Group B cars with Ari Vatanen and Michele Mouton and nobody would care anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by typhoon

When Red Bull took over the series, they invested a lot of efforts to tell an "epic story" and it worked very well, since they got a global TV distribution which was impressive, compared to today's figures. Just remember how Tanak's dive into the Mexican lake got viral basically everywhere!!

Now, you can tell everyone how funny and entertaining Serderidis is in the service park, but no one is going to listen to it. We desperately need to bring back the early '00 "duels" and to do so you need similar, more affordable cars that will give the chance to have 4-cars works teams that will bring lots of young and expert drivers, all hungry for victory.

Imagine having Tanak, Rovanpera, Oliver Solberg, Neuville, Mikkelsen, Katsuta, Solans, Kajetanovic, etc.... all battling for the top-spot until the last stage with similar cars! It would mean a lot of drama, plot-twists on TV, some smile and everyone showing their character. It would be epic and super-interesting for the broadcasters.

But, again, everyone is talking about points, more expensive cars, etc.

You know what? Without a story well "sold" by the WRC Promoter (which right now I have to say is doing quite a poor job on all POV to say the least), you can even bring back Group B cars with Ari Vatanen and Michele Mouton and nobody would care anyway.

---

agreed. the only thing i cannot really get is how a more affordable car will make tanak and solans or kjetanovic on the same level.
can't see how the suggested "rally2+" will make the new category more competitive...i think the same 5 people will battle for the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyler

agreed. the only thing i cannot really get is how a more affordable car will make tanak and solans or kjetanovic on the same level.
can't see how the suggested "rally2+" will make the new category more competitive...i think the same 5 people will battle for the win.

---

Basically you can have the top-5 as always battling for the win, but having closer battles for a podium finish or points. This would be drama all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by typhoon

Basically you can have the top-5 as always battling for the win, but having closer battles for a podium finish or points. This would be drama all around.

---

i don't buy it. i think it's more a hope than a real possibility. the ten "rally1 orbit" drivers will stay on the top ten basically, a couple of replacements maybe, 'cause a skoda driver will beat munster, other than that i really don't see drivers outside rally1 orbit competing for podiums but would be glad to be proven wrong.

However, no matter the details (and I think Mirek explained it well) consesus still might be that Rally2(+) cars very well indeed could be the new WRC era.

Benefits:
Better competition
More teams
More top drivers
Lower costs
Same excitement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rallyper

However, no matter the details (and I think Mirek explained it well) consesus still might be that Rally2(+) cars very well indeed could be the new WRC era.

---

:crazy:

Yeah, if you just skip over the details that it's already been ruled out by the current manufacturers, no new manufacturers have asked for it, and carbon ICE without hybrid has been ruled out by the FIA; it could just be the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

:crazy:

Yeah, if you just skip over the details that it's already been ruled out by the current manufacturers, no new manufacturers have asked for it, and carbon ICE without hybrid has been ruled out by the FIA; it could just be the future.

---

I think he was referring to the actual technical details of the Rally2+ or whatever. Even so what you say is right but what if MSport finally runs out of money and Hyundai decides they'd rather build a hydrogen powered Le Mans car, does Toyota build 6 cars, paint 3 blue and say it's Toyota vs Subaru WRC?

No matter the type of cars, privateers will never have an equal chance against the manufacturer backed. The difference may not be very big, but there will always be a difference due to budgets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

I think he was referring to the actual technical details of the Rally2+ or whatever. Even so what you say is right but what if MSport finally runs out of money and Hyundai decides they'd rather build a hydrogen powered Le Mans car, does Toyota build 6 cars, paint 3 blue and say it's Toyota vs Subaru WRC?

---

Maybe then will FIA & promoter finally start making some proper changes instead of creating working groups & pissing around with points system while patting themselves on the back

True, but you absolutely need to give them a chance. They have no chance now and that has been the case since 2017 with a few exceptions (Loubet 2021 and Ostberg 2017).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

what if MSport finally runs out of money and Hyundai decides they'd rather build a hydrogen powered Le Mans car, does Toyota build 6 cars, paint 3 blue and say it's Toyota vs Subaru WRC?

---

Unless an alternative to M-Sport can be found, and the Promoter/series hadn't gone bust which led to M-Sport withdrawal, then yes. This isn't my desired future, it's what would/could happen playing if with other current known knows.

FIA could ignore/renege on it's own rules. Maybe MBS asked DE to write that slamming piece about Rally2 should be top class as part of such a uturn, or maybe DE is just delusional. Maybe Rally1, or even life itself, is too expensive for the Promoter and FIA have to step in as emergency promoter, possibly then all rules go out the window. But we're talking long term planning not short term fix for disaster planning.

Imo Hyundai are going anyway. 10 years already is a long stint. M-Sport, Toyota, Subaru sounds pretty doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walach

Maybe then will FIA & promoter finally start making some proper changes instead of creating working groups & pissing around with points system while patting themselves on the back

---

Let them sit down together at least so they can agree on some changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macebig

True, but you absolutely need to give them a chance. They have no chance now and that has been the case since 2017 with a few exceptions (Loubet 2021 and Ostberg 2017).

---

You say that like it's a problem. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rallyper

Going back to WRC2 as mainclass is not by far as big step they had to take in 1986 to 1987. From Group B to Group A. Big change of the material.

And absolutely no affect on fanbase.

So louder Rally2 and maybe +50 hp. cars would make a perfect combination for WRC.

---

So that would bring us back (basically) to 2011. Maybe with less aero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

You say that like it's a problem. ;)

---

It definitely is. You need privateers/young talents/local stars to be able to take the big guys. It has been a staple of WRC for decades. Losing it, is hurting the sport big time.

the point someone made about having "stories to tell" was spot on. My favorite rally season EVER was the 2019 ERC season, with Ingram winning the title and 2020 with Solberg vs Lukyanuk. Such great characters, so many awesome one-off entries WINNING the races (especially 2019, where basically ALL the races were won by these one-offs).
THAT was fun to watch, and Eurosport had those 45 min highlights of the weekend. THAT was perfect... Rally2s only... almost SKODAS only tbh haha

Just look at what Red Bull was doing when they took over the championship commercial rights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2WGddzQoXw

This small story screams a "Drive to Survive" episode and can be sold to every Average Joe around the world and bring you a lot of popularity. Nothing compared to the 2 minutes videos uploaded in 2023, which honestly nobody care about.

Just working on "telling the story" it would already help A LOT the whole championship for its survival. Having more close competition with lower budgets, this would bring the whole WRC to the old glory days. Hopefully the right decisions will be made soon by the Working Group!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

:crazy:

Yeah, if you just skip over the details that it's already been ruled out by the current manufacturers, no new manufacturers have asked for it, and carbon ICE without hybrid has been ruled out by the FIA; it could just be the future.

---

Well, I meant details on this forum. Rally2 manufacturers could decide details better than us (except from reading our wishes...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

does Toyota build 6 cars, paint 3 blue and say it's Toyota vs Subaru WRC?

---

Having all the best drivers in equal cars doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. If they could run another 14 of the same that would be even better.