Wrc+

When CDs came along vinyl started to die off then streaming came along and music was available 24/7 without having to clean the record or put the disc in the machine. Now vinyl is in big demand again for the warmth of the sound and yes a bit of nostalgia for some.

Rallying for me is best consumed like vinyl, you have to make an effort and then sit back and enjoy the best bits. I dont need splits to peak my interest I'm happy to wait and watch a highlights report as long as it was like back in the day when filmed by BHP and fronted by Mark James and not Desborough/BeccsyWeksy. I'm usually out watching/taking part in motorsport on a weekend so havent got time to sit by the computer and just see in car videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PLuto

During last ERC rounds, in the service area I have heard many times, that rally radio was better than All Live...

---

I bet you can't tell me one driver or team manager in the ERC service park who has said that.

TV exposure or radio coverage? Mmmmm......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

What's to be gained from scrapping it? Itineraries were always long days for crews and mechanics, isn't that part of the game? And what's really different? Top 15 cars don't overlap?

---

'Long days' in the 'good old days' at least meant decent mileage. Now we've got the 'clover leaf' format (despite which, we're seeing an increasing number of events not running midday services on some days), all double-used stages, long delays (especially on gravel rallies with 3 or 4 minute gaps) between one stage finishing and another starting for Rally1 cars, and taking 12 hours to cover 120 competitive km. All to suit an All Live format. Do away with that, and how much more interesting could itineraries be? How many more opportunities for interesting things to happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

Consider this: alllive is not the flagship entertainment package we think of it. The cameras and reporters are there anyway to gather everything for the purpose of highlights and TV live stages, and those on the car are for stewards and safety surveillance in Rally HQ. It's their jobs to stay on top of everything even without all live, so broadcasting live is squeezing extra value, is easy and monetisable.

---

So, let the stage-side cameras continue to serve that purpose. No problem for me. It's not like the shots we get from them are ever really that interesting / capture anything dramatic happening. You've seen one Rally1 car sliding around a medium-speed corner, you've seen them all. Most interesting external footage comes from 'fan cam' on social media. Let the onboard cameras continue to be broadcast live. Absolutely fine. But manipulating itineraries and event formats to be able to show that stuff live just does not make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

It was never aimed at being watched all the way through from start to finish by subscribers, there's no prizes for doing that and there are off buttons. So if you're asking yourself "why am I watching?", turn it off once in a while maybe? Typically, rallies get less entertaining as it progresses, so cut Sunday's stages out for a start and catch up on the powerstage. That once-in-fifty-rallies event where the rally leader bins it by mistake on a Sunday really ain't worth it to say you saw it LIVE! Second step is go further when there isn't a race on, stick just to the live TV stages on Saturday, then maybe also Friday. Suddenly the commentators and stage ends aren't repetitive but informative.

---

I'm not asking myself that. I don't sit glued to the screen all weekend, often it's just on in the background, but I like to know what's going on, and in the now-absence of rally radio, it's the only option. What I'm asking is, does it offer us - and indeed the sport - anything that justifies the impact broadcasting All Live has on itineraries?

If your suggestion to make something (that only takes place once a month) seem more interesting is for me to just consume less of it, that tells me there's an issue with some part of the product, not my ability to feel excited by things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WRCStan

I didn't bother with Saturday at all for Estonia after gauging from the Friday leaderboard, scrolled though the chat here to see if there was much to catch up on. No, lol. But you betcha though, when a Loeb v Ogier at Monte comes along you'll be wishing you could see it (all) instead of listening to a chap on the radio speculating and hypothesising.

---

We get the speculating and hypothesising (more often than not incorrectly) with All Live anyway!

By all means, keep Sunday as an 'all live' day. That's the day the greater number of people have completely free anyway, and generally it needs to be a shorter day to enable teams to pack up. But I'll ask again - what does the sport gain from having Fridays and Saturdays broadcast live in their entirety, that justifies the dull, over-long itineraries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ouvreur

'Long days' in the 'good old days' at least meant decent mileage. Now we've got the 'clover leaf' format (despite which, we're seeing an increasing number of events not running midday services on some days), all double-used stages, long delays (especially on gravel rallies with 3 or 4 minute gaps) between one stage finishing and another starting for Rally1 cars, and taking 12 hours to cover 120 competitive km. All to suit an All Live format. Do away with that, and how much more interesting could itineraries be? How many more opportunities for interesting things to happen?

...

But I'll ask again - what does the sport gain from having Fridays and Saturdays broadcast live in their entirety, that justifies the dull, over-long itineraries?

---

I think you're using AllLive as a scapegoat here for why rallies don't look like they were 30,40,50 years ago.

All Live came out like 15 years after clover leaf format. And the only thing All Live has dictated for event itineraries is that stages don't overlap and that there can be only four normal stages in a loop. I remember in 2017 rallies like Sardegna or Catalunya (especially the gravel stages) were like this. First stage at 10 AM, second stage at 10:45, third stage at 11:30. It's all over in two hours for the top drivers. Then you wait for five hours for the service break and then again two intense hours. I think it's a lot better now with the stages spread out.

I personally love to follow every moment of All Live, maybe even a bit too much. I get a terrible FOMO if I miss out a stage and just read the results. It feels like always all the drama happens when I'm not watching live. But it's difficult to find the time and sometimes I just have to make a compromise with myself. At least All Live can be paused and buffered, radio could be not.

As for rallies being longer, nowadays I just get people complaining that nothing is happening after Saturday.

The most terrible duo is Becs + Ben. I can assure watching live footage in a pub with random viewer commenting would be more exciting. Sorry to say, but they know shit. They say what they see, like literally. Becs is in this for years and she doesn't know basics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Portimao

The most terrible duo is Becs + Ben. I can assure watching live footage in a pub with random viewer commenting would be more exciting. Sorry to say, but they know shit. They say what they see, like literally. Becs is in this for years and she doesn't know basics.

---

She's there twenty years and all we hear is, 'they finished the stage for us' and reading times that we can know on the screen. Another thing that grinds my gears, is that they try to sugar coat everything, someone has been making mistakes for 4 rallies in a row: "he's been a bit unlucky" or my favourite: "title race not over yet?" when Thierry has literally yet to won a rally this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PLuto

During last ERC rounds, in the service area I have heard many times, that rally radio was better than All Live...

---

There is absolutely no way this can be true. C'mon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lancia Stratos

I bet you can't tell me one driver or team manager in the ERC service park who has said that.

TV exposure or radio coverage? Mmmmm......

---

Not every driver wants/needs exposure, and it sounds reasonable that somebody might not want to pay huge entry fees just to be put in the position of providing value to somebody else's profits for no reward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eli

She's there twenty years and all we hear is, 'they finished the stage for us' and reading times that we can know on the screen. Another thing that grinds my gears, is that they try to sugar coat everything, someone has been making mistakes for 4 rallies in a row: "he's been a bit unlucky" or my favourite: "title race not over yet?" when Thierry has literally yet to won a rally this year.

---

I don't think there's a problem with the people in the first place, but the style of commentary they use. And then we can ask whether that's their personal decision or something that has been ordered from above. Remember how Colin Clark said he wanted to go to Dirtfish to be more free to voice his opinions. Maybe this very polite, void of jargon style of commentary is asked by the WRC Promoter? Me as a rally geek would prefer a more analytic style, more rally professionalism, and that's what I get when there is a driver co-commentating.