I'm probably biased bur for me the best superspecial-sorf-of is Barum Rally city stage.
Printable View
I'm probably biased bur for me the best superspecial-sorf-of is Barum Rally city stage.
I think you've already answered the question. It can go lower, and they're not interested; or if they are, they're doing a bad job of showing it. About 20 years ago there was an article in either Autosport/MNews or one of the Rally magazines (which no longer exist). And it laid out what it takes to host a WRC event; I think the main requirement nowadays is a big bag of £$£$£$£$Quote:
Originally Posted by the sniper
If you compare to other global motorsport series, then the WRC has changed the most, and by a lot. Over the last 10-15-20+ years:
F1 is still basically the same; qualifying is now a 1 day event, which has been tweaked a few times. No more 'warm up' on race day, followed by an approx 90 mins race, as then.
MotoGP - Rebranded in early 2000, keeping the 3 classes with MotoGP (formerly 500cc) the headline act. Again qualifying has been tweaked, but Sunday see the main race still at approx 45 mins.
(The Dutch TT at Assen, traditionally held on the Saturday has only recently moved to Sunday)
WRC - I won't go into details, but it's basically a different sport from 20-25 year ago.
I was open minded about Rally Monza, but I didn't think it was great; the circuit stages were far too 'gimmicky' and stop/start with too many chicanes, etc I could just about accept that type of 'one off' event if the 'classic' events were allowed to return to their proper format; running Monte from Tuesday - Friday night, for example. And there's no chance of that......well not in the WRC.
I can see a 'WRC Rallysprint' series using various race circuits, and the outlying roads to be used for events, now that could work; imagine an event at the Nordschleife? - but as part of the supposed pinnacle of rallysport? Not for me.
No, the basic principles have remained unchanged from the 60's. The biggest change is that you can now restart in the rally (since early 00's) and you can get extra points from the power stage (since 2011). Yes, the events have become shorter, you don't get to service between every stage, you don't drive overnight, but the sport hasn't changed that much. In fact, the biggest change for rallying as a sport occurred in the early 60's (?) when special stages took over other driving tests, and the events weren't consisting anymore mostly of long road sections.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
I wouldn't be worried about the likes of Monza. It's perfect for the COVID-era because you can control the spectators or run it easily with no spectators, but once we go to the normal, we should go back to normal rallies with normal stages. However, the drivers and teams have been dangerously positive about the shortened itineraries of the rallies...
Also, I could see some synergy and benefits at arranging the service park at a place like Monza, where you can get the VIP spectators and arrange a show stage and other program for them there with easy access, but the championships should be decided on proper roads and super special should only make up a small amount of a rally's route.
I don't understand how people see Monza resembling rallycross. I mean, in rallycross you drive against other cars on the same track, it's a different type of sport to driving against the clock. Similarly, the Monza stages were mostly very narrow and the service roads bumpy, whereas rallycross is driven on wide and smooth, albeit twisty circuits.
What I liked about the Monza stages was that there was no donuts, ramp jumps, loops or same segments driven in many directions within one stage. Also the varying surfaces made it tricky, especially on tarmac tyres and suspension.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
I agree that there's a lot to improve in most super specials of the season, but then again, the most important thing is to just get the rally cars where there are people, and the stage doesn't matter so much.
I've always loved Harju as a super special, it has some proper drivable corners, a long tradition, and no artificial elements. I also liked very much the super special in Estonia. I'm fond of street stages when they use the actual natural corners of the street, not the barriers and donuts they usually put there. Twin-car rallycross stages are also usually decent in driving terms, because you can get proper drivable corners and long slides going on.
That's also the main worry for me, much more than having a bit more SSS-like stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
We went from events with 300-320 km over 3 or 4 days to suddenly having events with 220 km over 2.... and everyone thinks it's "great".
Result is that one small issue/problem and you have no chance to ever catch up, especially on events with small gaps like Estonia/Finland.
Well, all rallies this year had at least 3 days, even Estonia who had only SSS1 on Friday (Turkey had two real stages).Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
Also, still in 2018 the maximum length was 400 km and rallies like Monte and Argentina made their routes closer to that. So we're close to halving the event length...
So, it has changed; all those points you make are what makes it different. You can score points without doing the full event - and be classified ahead of somebody doing the full event; Loeb 2nd at Monte in 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
Let's make it more simple..
One event consists of three ,,Guanajuato'' style 80km stages and check :D
And the late runners will not drive a single one of them because it will be always canceled for them for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by TypeR
You can't say "it's a different sport". In 99% cases the big points are made by finishing the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Why on earth would they want to do that? Sunday lunchtime power stage on TV in Europe is essential for the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
According to Jarmo Mahonen, in the past Southern European rallies ran during the weekdays so they would actually have less people spectating, because too much spectators was a safety issue, while the UK people had too much TV air time competition from other sports during the weekendsQuote:
Originally Posted by Lancia Stratos
This is a MAJOR difference ! Rallying,aside from speed, has always been about endurance as well (in the sense surviving the environment). Being able to retire, re-start and still be classified is taking all this away ... and does not exist in any other sports. Can a F1 driver that crashed on the first lap can rejoin the race later on ? Nope,and too bad for TV ratings (don't serve me this argument).Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
To my opinion, this whole concept has totally killed the sport. I junderstand manufacturers want the car to be seen, and that it can serve the urpose of testing (given that there is little off-events test days) , but why on earth would you still be granted rewards (points for you and potentially less for your opponents ?)
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
SSS on "natural grounds" (e.g. mickey mouse stages in the old RAC rally, street course , even a race circuit) make sense provided there are'nt too many.
When it's full of cones and hayballs it does not make sense. And honestly speaking, this was the case in Monza. The bad weather thankfully
made them somehow disappear, but would it have been under the sun it would have looked ugly....
and what to say when they cancel half of the real stages because the weather is "bad". Isn't driving in challenging conditions just the essence of rallying ? when they cancel Dakar stages because too much sand or too hot, or the sail races becasue too much wind, do you think people will still listen ? WRC is shooting itself in the foot by trying to make it TV friendly ...
Is it though?? I take anything they say with a pinch of salt. Have they tried a Power stage on a Saturday evening/ night?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancia Stratos
https://www.motorsportforums.com/sho...=1#post1258652Quote:
Originally Posted by djip
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluuford
You could claim there's now more endurance than in the past because you have to be able to run 80 km of stages and up to 200 km of liaison without servicing or changing tyres, other than what you have in the car. In the 80's you had service between every stage, even during the stage if necessary! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by djip
It's extremely rare that you do a restart and end up on drivers' points. The penalty for missing a stage has been increased for this season.
I see an Extreme-E team (Hamilton's X44) has now signed up Loeb.
His famous name now associated with this new series will do a lot to attract more motorsport fans to it.
WRC should have signed him up as an ambassador promoting it as much as possible around the world. But instead he's effectively allowed to do this for their future rivals.
Seeing what is happening with M-Sport, I think everyone should consider R5+, with just a considerably bigger restrictor, a 6-speed transmission and no other modifications from R5.
I love modern WRC cars, they are the best ever to watch, much better even than GrB or Gr4, but if only two manufacturers in whole world can afford them there should be a serious cutting in cost, soon. And the cheapest and faster thing to do is just this: R5+
What is your guess, how much the team budget would change for these "R5+" cars? Let's say the yearly budget is now 100 million euros, how much of that would be reduced with cheaper cars? And how expensive would these "R5+" cars soon be if the manufacturer teams could start tossing money into them with the intention of winning the title (not making profit by selling cars to privateers)Quote:
Originally Posted by scn
Now, think again: could it be possible that there's currently only two manufacturers in the world who are interested in putting any money in supporting a whole WRC team, regardless of the car type?
I do not know the numbers and what percentage of the total cost is the car development. If it is low percentage, then there is no point for a cheaper car. If it is high percentage, then there is. If you can show the actual numbers it would be very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
I just see that there are seven manufacturers with R5 cars and this might be a good reason for attracting them.
Obviously I don't have the numbers, but we can think about all the costs in running a WRC team, which are not depending on the car type: salaries (especially drivers), fuel, tyres, flights, cargo, accomodations, insurances, service park equipment, team headquarters, arranging test days etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by scn
Think about this again. Most of the models are already quite old, why would they want to promote these models now? Also, teams like Citroen and Skoda just ended their manufacturer teams a year ago and VW ended all its motorsport activities just a couple of weeks back. That would leave us again with Toyota, Hyundai, M-Sport and Proton as an oddball team with fewer resources and little chances to compete with them.Quote:
I just see that there are seven manufacturers with R5 cars and this might be a good reason for attracting them.
As for attracting new manufacturers, you need to think what gives them value. Do they want to market small ICE cars or maybe bigger models with hybrid?
also r5 is much more a "direct" market than wrc, that is mainly "promotional".
most of r5 manufacturer just sell the car without having an official team. that's also quite always the model for regional championships, where private teams wins the title and manus can claim their brand title as well.
i think it's not so automatic that making r5 top category will bring this manus to official involvement. probably it is more likely the opposite as in wrc2/3 already happens.
Ok, and if so; what should the + consist of?Quote:
Originally Posted by scn
It's looking that way. And in other news, another series, the WEC gains yet another manufacturer.......Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...lmdh-prototype
He said it in the post. Bigger restrictor and 6-speed transmission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
and that is after Audi also announced it would be re-entering WECQuote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
And with hybrids aswell. So maybe the problem is not the cars!Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
And what is it that every manufacturer talks about in their WEC/IMSA program announcements? They talk not about the series, but about their classic endurance events, Le Mans, Daytona, Sebring...Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
The last time manufacturers were joining the WRC in the early 2010s, the WRC was all about talking up longer events, returning to endurance... That lasted, what, a few years, before people realised it was too much like hard work?
If there's an announcement from a manufacturer re-joining the WRC, I doubt it'll sing the virtues of taking on a quick sprint around a small bit of Croatia. Though there won't be many classics left to mention.
+1 you make a story with history. Even the greedy promoters of F1 understand that you must keep the iconic events that relate to the past,and which can get average Joe's interest if properly marketed. Then you can wrap around new events, new ideas to cash in.Quote:
Originally Posted by the sniper
In our WRC world, this means MonteCarlo, Sweden, 1000 Lakes (and the name is important, not just dull "rally finland"), safari (even if very different), maybe Acropolis, RAC ...and then all the "old regulars" and new events, eventually rotating.
And please each with its own character : "extended" framework for some and short sprints for others - endurance on some, sheer speed on others, etc ... Rallying is about diversity, drivers able to compete everywhere, in every season, just like what people encounter in their driving life. Not the boring, always the same, 3-days, 2x3 stages, 9 to noon, 2 to 4 framework.
This would create a story that maybe PR guys would love to tell.
sorry, my miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
need new glasses....
Good luck with pushing for a car which will not finish a single WRC event without mechanical problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by scn
For reliable car with larger restrictor you need also stronger gearbox, clutch, differentials, driveshafts, propshaft and possibly also rear axle release clutch. New driveshafts may require new wheelhubs and uprights and... your engine may likely need redesign as well because it's not optimized for higher power and torque.
... And we're back with 500k+ cars with no electricity/hybrid but with less aero than we have no. Would that mean more manufacturers? well no.
Also WRC car is a lot safer than R5, add that to the cost and we're back with WRC budget.
They say that these current cars are too expensive for privateers to run, but still we had a pretty high amount of private WRC2017 entries this year.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...78UmzP/pubhtml
The number by year
2017 - 13
2018 - 4
2019 - 10
2020 - 13
and 2020 had only 7 rallies, others had 13.
Gus privateer?
Loubet and Veiby used Hyundai’s customer car, with their own fundings. However, Katsuta is paid by the factory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth
What M-Sport does is blurring the lines because they are both a world rally team and a rally car rental service.
Interesting podcast:
https://dirtfish.com/rally/wrc/podca...n-future-hold/
Really good points brought out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
The debate was started in the 'Rally Bar' thread but it makes sense to bring it here: Should private tuners be allowed to homologate WRC cars in the future, once WRC cars will stop being based in production models? Wouldn't privately funded WRC cars help to boost the series, always short of manus teams? Is there any valid reason to keep the WRC as a manus monopoly, unlike most of the top motorsport series?
When everybody is talking about the need to evolve the sport, it's extraordinary how private tuners potential role in Rally keeps being forgotten.