Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by miniwintz
Cycling is more socially acceptable, that's why it gets all the attention from the broadcasters. And if rallying doesn't make efforts into becoming that (i.e. with limited emissions, limited noise, etc.), the situation will not change. The other solution would be to look into alternative broadcasting methods that cost less for the promoters and that are more interesting to the fans and rally amateurs.
This is a very dangerous two-blade sword. Both of those points directly affects spectacle and the second one also safety.
Less emissions - if You remove anti-lag You lower the consumption and emissions by half but You remove a big part of spectacle, anyway something in that direction was done with R5 cars which have different (weaker) anti-lag.
Less noise - noise is part of safety in rallying and its maximum values are actually already regulated. Remember that in rallying people can get on the stage. Noise is an important warning for them that the car is coming. Remember what it's like when you are spectating a rally in a strong wind and a diesel car is coming?
This summer I have been spectating a race of electric formula cars. Believe me that it was boring as hell no matter how fast the cars go. Rallying as a sport is hard to understand for many people and large part of it's audience go to watch rallies because those are spectacular and somewhat crazy. Would You go to spectate a distant (or even a close rally) to watch cars with no sound and going like on rails? I wouldn't, definitely and I wouldn't even watch it on TV.
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
I'm 100% with you, and I'd be surprised to see a fan who isn't. I'm just pointing out what "could" eventually be done to reconciliate mass media with rallying.
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaperzrally
And speak about interesting sport broadcast... What about snooker? That sport(?) has huge live broadcast time on Eurosport and you watching two penguins with sticks, trying to sink some coloured balls for hours.
Yes, you are right. But you have to take into account, that this sport is very easy and cheap in broadcasting. Everything happens at the same place.
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Remember what it's like when you are spectating a rally in a strong wind and a diesel car is coming?
Or a turbocharged Ford..
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Remember what it's like when you are spectating a rally in a strong wind and a diesel car is coming?
Or a turbocharged Ford..
Yeah, on the Pirelli in May Elfyn ran the Fiesta R5, and on the Sunday, it was windy - that car is too quiet!!!
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
As many have commented, one big issue is Cost for total series.
When a team sits down these days to plan 2014, they look at cost of National series, ERC and WRC2/3, and what they get for their budget.
Very few will then end up with that it is better to drive medium size rallies around Europe, in a championship that is still trying to find its form, compared to the WRCircus, when the total cost btw ERC and WRC is not that different.
If they are to make a good reputation, they need to get down to aprox 8 rounds, and 5 counting. Then ERC will be a good alternative to start to get international experience.
I don't agree. WRC2/3 is more expensive than ERC (per event definitely - higher entry fee, more traveling, longer events etc.) and what You get back? Where is any footage from WRC2/3? Where is Your car and result shown? I just checked videos from Alsace on wrc.com and there is none dedicated to supporter championships. PC/2WD and ladies always have at least some short footage in videos from ERC. in WRC You fight somewhere down the field and nobody seems to care about You. In ERC You fight in overall results. No WRC driver doing superally will pass You when You stay on the road.
In my opinion ERC despite some mistakes is much more privateer friendly than WRC. WRC on the other hand is prestigious, that's clear.
We rarely seem to agree Mirek, and that is fine - it creates good debates in here!! :smokin:
But if anyone are able to put aprox figures to a 10 round series in National series, ERC and WRC in a R5. Just the running costs, not buying the car, what will those figures be like?
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by miniwintz
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
The money in cycling is peanuts compared to even Rallying.....
If you look at the big picture, I don't think this is true.
Of course team budget in cycling is nowhere near team budget in rallying, but sponsors are much more keen on financing bicycling (and its broadcasting) than they are for rallying. Despite all the doping scandals, cycling is still a "noble" sport, like athletism, running, etc. Rally cars (in the mind of marketing specialists) produce tons of CO2, destroy our roads and annoy people with their insane engine sounds. Of course it is biased, but we're not here to debate that.
Cycling is more socially acceptable, that's why it gets all the attention from the broadcasters. And if rallying doesn't make efforts into becoming that (i.e. with limited emissions, limited noise, etc.), the situation will not change. The other solution would be to look into alternative broadcasting methods that cost less for the promoters and that are more interesting to the fans and rally amateurs.
This is a fair bit of overreaction. Cycling is not at all considered a noble sport. Ask ordinary people about cycling and you will more often than not hear the word doping in the first sentence. German TV networks even censor cycling races because of all the doping scandals. Thank the lord that that never happened to Motorracing.
How the news media operates is very simple. They ask themselves: 1. is one of our own winning? 2. if we don't broadcast this, would our viewers know it even happened?
The thing with the Tour de France and other cycling races is that they compete over 200 kilometres per day with no laps and no repeat stages. Enormous areas of the country get covered. That in itself makes it newsworthy. Since rallies have adopted the cloverleaf format they are tucked away in some corner of the country. For dumb media reporters it looks like the event is just local. And they don't cover local events because those are not important for their nationwide viewers.
If the Tour de France set up HQ in Paris or some other town and did the same 3 stages for 3 weeks, the race would be dead within two years. Yet in Rally this is somehow acceptable...
And if the rally is suddenly silent and 100% emission free the media still won't report on this. Because they don't think their viewers want to know about rally...
The media needs to understand the storyline of the rally. If they don't understand this they either won't report on it, or they will go by standard formats, like crashes or green psychos.
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
The media needs to understand the storyline of the rally. If they don't understand this they either won't report on it.
That is very true. I agree with you. But normal people do not understand rallying at all. A few years ago I wrote a small atricle for a magazine about IRC. I sent it to the office by e-mail and on the next day I had a phone call from the editor. I don't know how you call such person. He reads all the articles that are about to be published, checks them for errors, shortens them, tunes them, is sometimes something like a censor. Is it a proof-reader? Let's call him an editor. He called me because he couldn't understand a thing about this IRC:
1. He had no idea why IRC even existed. He said that we have WRC for the best drivers in the world and ERC for the best drivers in Europe. So for whom is the IRC?
2. He could not understand why there are certain cars that cannot score points in IRC. If you had FIAT or Peugeot than you could score points. But when you were driving Subaru or Suzuki, then they wouldn't even show you in the TV report. I took me much time to explain him that manufacturers were obliged to pay the organizers in order to be present in the TV show.
3. Then he could not understand why certain drivers were driving Suzukis or Subarus when those cars could not score points.
4. Then he could not understand how it is possible that a Subaru driver wins Safari Rally, but on TV and in the standings they show someone else as a winner.
5. Then he could not understand why there were rallies that didn"t count for the championship (the 8 best results out of 10). Why organize 10 events when only 8 count?
There were also many other questions and all of them were reasonable. After this phone call I realized how many idiotic rules there are in the rally world. What do you think he will publish in his magazine next time? Another report, from a sport that nobody understands or a report from Tour de France?
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarek Z
What do you think he will publish in his magazine next time? Another report, from a sport that nobody understands or a report from Tour de France?
Fair enough... Eurosport Events should simplify the rules of the ERC. Even if this means less rallies in the calendar. Just pick six or seven well established rally as an ERC counter and put a good live tv coverage behind them. I bet there will be six or seven ERC rallies with fantastic entry list and great fight for every single points because more privateer pilots and team working on extra budget for a full ERC campaign. I am not a big fan of the two "halftimes" and also don't like the bonus points...
Re: 2013 Lessons identified
Since ERC joined with IRC it's not only about Eurosport but also about the whole political machinery in FIA which makes the things even more unpredictable.
