And who this very talanted mechanic? And what name car have?Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
Printable View
And who this very talanted mechanic? And what name car have?Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanvv
Only time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by KKS
I thought he was Italian! I noticed it on the app too but thought it was an errorQuote:
Originally Posted by Andre Oliveira
It was news to me that guys who sit in cars with power steering and paddle shift--some say they have AC --are athletes..Sportsman yes, drivers and co-divers yes..But athletes???Quote:
Originally Posted by EstWRC
It was news to me, everybody agrees they are SUPERB athletes...
Hyundai??Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Oliveira
That's a gross oversimplification of what forces and stresses a competitive WRC crew deal with over the course of a rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Just because you don't understand it and have never experienced going that quickly in a car, doesn't mean others aren't experiencing stress and forces that require them to train and be conditioned in the same way any other top-level athlete would.
First welcome aboard Noob.Quote:
Originally Posted by OHL
No idea who you are but you certainly send a vibe of certainty bordering on arrogance in your assumption that "just because I don't understand it AND have never experienced going that quickly in a car"...
Well well well.......HUGE presumption..
My own 2 rally cars certainly aren't anywhere near as quick as WRC cars....but the one I rallied for 10 years does go pretty fast fairly quickly, about 105 mph or, since like so many you hide behind who you are and where you are because of misguided paranoia or fear, if you're metric 170 klm/hr...
so you are right in the "in a car" part....
But I did spend a significant and important part of my life in motorsports on things that were/are about as quick in acceleration either zero to XX or in time to speed..
And I rode these things on surfaces many times muddier, rockier, grassier, dustier and did it 2 to 4 times a week and raced 4-6 times a month----eventually good enough to earn quite good money.. 2 or 3 times the national average salary per month...
As every even extreme key-boarded-fan boi knows, serious frequent--(sometimes over night pack and drive 300km to the next event) calls for extremely good leg strength, and ling capacity as well as stress from environment and tactical decisions, mental toughness, near imperviousness to pain...Finishing events with 2-3 freshly broken fingers was firly commonplace..
If you are such a guy that you can say with deifinitiveness that "I have no idea", surely you must know about the strength and endurance in carrying out a largely physical motorsport, so I will assume you just momentarily forgot..
Somehow, I have a a big curiosity what your name is and what sort of racing did you do and at what levels...
I think this is a question of definition, and I dont know how relevant it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by OHL
Every top driver in the WRC is in very good physical shape, and they need to be to help them be mentally fit enough to have the same reactions, clear thinking, mastering of stress etc, on the end of an event as on the start.
The forces encountered in a WRC car, especially on tarmac, but also on rutted gravel, are unquestionably great (as displayed by non-rally people given rides in these circumstances often having physical reactions afterwards), but in contrast to an athletic sport, like running 5.000 meters, you can be the fastest driver even if your competitors are in better physical shape than you.
In several countries there are these "best of the best" TV-shows where top athletes from different disciplines meet. In Britain there have often been F1-drivers winning these contests. So again, a question about definition.
But great sportsmen they are, this we can all agree on :)
No, they can have WRC2 points without entering Portugal (ie. not all of DMack WRC2 prize winners are doing Portugal),Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmi
but they canīt replace Portugal (or Germany/Wales) with any other rally, so maximum number of events without Portugal is 6.
Cool thank you! That's interesting. So in theory you could miss one mandatory round like Portugal and still win the championship from your other six rallies. You just don't have as much margin for error without the 7th round/drop score.Quote:
Originally Posted by pantealex
Is Mikkelsen eventual WRC program linked with Nasser codriver talk to L’Equipe? According to @planetemarcus Baumel mentioned something about a possible return to WRC (GB and AUS), but that seems a bit too late for Mikkelsen. Still, Nasser is a Toyota Gazoo (and Red Bull) driver in Rally Raid, so a sort of Toyota’s B team, with one car for him and another to Mikkelsen (or to Lappi, if Mikkelsen gets his work’s seat) seems to be a logical speculation…or not.
#WRC @matthieubaumel speaks on live @lequipe21 maybe returns with Al-Attiyah in GB + Australia
Ogier wants tech issues sorted after "stressful" Rally France
https://www.motorsport.com/wrc/news/...france-892355/
am i right in assuming that each driver has been using the same car since the beginning of the season?
if so, isn't it likely that the hydraulic and electrical problems are a result of wear?
anyway i'm pretty confident they'll be able to adress the issues before the start of argentina.
btw i saw in the corsica thread that you were really frustrated with the all the technical problems tanak encountered during the tour de corse.
look at it this way: corsica is his weakest hunting ground, he was already pushed out of contention due to his crash and if you have to have mechanical issues (which you do in rallying), you better have them all there and then when everything else has already failed as well. the law of averages says he will have a couple of smooth events laying ahead of him.
According to ewrc.com all M-Sport and Hyundai drivers have used the same chassis on all rounds so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watson
Toyota appears to be switching between chassis #1 and #2 on one round and #3 and #4 on the other, etc.
Citroen used 2 different chassis in Sweden, the rest of the events they used the same chassis.
Of course we don't know if that is valid information, they could easily transfer big parts or systems from one chassis to another, etc.
interesting, thanks!
I'm hearing very unreliable rumours about Mikkelsen replacing Hanninen at Toyota.
But according to what I'm reading here they don't seem too much improbable...
Mikkelsen has his own thread... please use for his rumours.Quote:
Originally Posted by AL14
So we shouldn't use news & rumours thread if we want to talk about rumours? Sounds strange for me...
Of course but AM is a bit of a special case and people dont want to miss the latest info if it's mixed in with all the other stories...Quote:
Originally Posted by AL14
Sorry, I don't want to continue this pointless discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
It is probable that they are using the same car (chassis) from the begining of the season, but the material is replaced between the rallyes, for sure. So, the problems are not related with that kind of wearing issue that you point.
Have to say I completely agree with Penasse here around manufacturer points:
http://www.rallysportmag.com.au/home...rs-in-2017-wrc
Still score points with two but don't allow drivers to take points they didn't earn.
I actually thought it was already like this, I agree as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmi
I agree as well!
Well, having 3rd car playing role is not that bad. It adds additional level of competition. I don't see it as unfair.
I actually disagree, I like it the way it is
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Me too. Penasse's idea is nonsense. You get 3 shots at 2 scoring spots. Your 3rd placed competitor doesn't score points for manufacturer and doesnT block others points. That's exactly as it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by er88
I on the contrary, also agree with Penasse and can`t see any nonsense. TDC for example...Paddon finished the whole event and didn`t score points (I`m ok with that two car rule, so Neuville and Sordo took the points) but rally2 driver Tänak finished 11th, but took 6th place points. For what? IMHO 7th place (7th best RC1 car) would have been more honest.
I would like to correct my statement, because I misunderstand the article. I think blocking the points is more fair, and it does add additional level of competition. Not only that, I think WRC2 cars should also block points, because with 10 WRC cars on average, they will score points even after restartin next day after retirement.
It was like now in the past, I do not see any reason for changes. We do not change all the things all the time when something is not as we like. World is unfair to someone anyway. Next they find some other things unfair? I like when the things are stable. Keep the rules as they are, it is nice competition right now. No need to add extra confusion and changes. Rules are the same for everyone. At the end of the day, one loses in one event other loses in other event. DO NOT TOUCH THE RULES! ;)
It depends on how far back you're talking about # Bluuford #, when you say it's been like that in previous times.
Normally I agree that one should not change the rules too often, and it should be very good reason to do it too.
But all that "can" give more drivers the opportunity to drive at the highest level, I welcome. If Penasse get his will, it "may" mean that teams are giving more chances for new drivers in their third car.
Why: Because it is important to try to prevent the other teams in taking team points.
Everyone wants bend rules for himself, and use what strong sides they have, last year we had VW and Capito complaining about running order and Citroen with Meeke, now Hyundai want changes. Hyundai have best balance in team, best average pace among team members, so it would be easy win in team's championship for Hyundai. It would be same nonsense if Malcolm start talking about 1 driver to score points for manufacturer.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report...e-stage-speeds has anyone seen this?
"If a slow average speed means a safer rally, then Corsica must be the safest rally around, except it's not."
Very good point. The most important thing is to not have spectators in dangerous places.
I'd argue the current manufacturers point-scoring system is far more confusing. Anyone that has tried to tot up the points themselves after the final stage of an event knows it is not the work of a moment to get the correct totals. It's not going to have any ground-breaking or damaging effect on the championship. It just encourages closer competition and battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluuford
Funny fact is that Difference between Ford and Hyundai would have been 2 points bigger as Hyundai would have lost 4 points, M-Sport 2 points. Actually, current rule keeps the points differences smaller. If we would take another option, that third car is blocking points then Ford would have 2 points less, Hyundai 4 points less, Toyota 5 points less and Citroen 11 points less, this is exactly the current standigs and when you take those points off, total differences will be bigger. So, this rule is to keep points tabel more close
I will summarize your long description in 4 words - actual version is better :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bluuford
I think the discussion is about what point system is better, not the results it produces. If one team is better than other, it will win no matter what the scoring is. I don't think Hyundai are complaining about point scores in comparison with Ford. It was just an example.
IMO when making a rule you need to look at the consequences and effects and compare with the intention.
In this case the actual rule means closer competition in the manufacturer standings and for me that is by far the strongest argument in this discussion.
You understand clearly not the consequence of what I previously wrote. The intention to nominate three cars but that only the two best take points, is getting closer competition. That's good.
But if one also blocked other teams from championship points by having a highly placed third car, teams are being pressured to have as good drivers as possible in the third car (I'm not sure, but maybe).
I think and I repeat "think" this could mean that more drivers can be given a chance at the highest level.
Maybe asphalt specialists get a chance in asphalt races and gravel ........................ etc.
And I repeat, everything that could cause more drivers (new and old) gets a chance to show themselves at the highest level, I welcome.