And also change cars to new models midseason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Printable View
And also change cars to new models midseason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Very sad days for the WRC and the rally fans. 2017-2019 was a great era I am afraid we won't see again unless something changes fundamentally.
It is a pity that no manufacturers are interested in WRC, while Formula E (with no fans at all) has 12 teams and almost all major car manufacturers...
I guess the world is changing but FIA and promoter MUST do something to attract manufacturers or else the product is going to die.
Well, I think homolgation rules will mean they can't do it mid-season, but probably easier to do during a homologation cycle (which is usually 3-5 years)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vahula
Currently the only demand for WRC manus is to use the chassis of a mass production model; they don’t have to build special homologation cars like in Gr.N/A days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Most likely, with frame space chassis the FIA will still demand some link with mass production models (name, shape) in order to keep GT manus out of the WRC.
Might be a daft question, but why would the GT manus not be welcome?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
Even that is a problem recently. For example Subaru or Mitsubishi, which used to be traditional rally brands, have no suitable car in their portfolio. With the new rules they can join. This issue will only grow with the time due to the development in automotive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
Same name and similar shape is clearly required but the size can be scaled under certain tolerances. Basically the same what already works very well in Dakar. It means that for example Subaru can take Impreza and scale its shape down and build a space-frame proto car looking like Impreza.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
They can enter as in R-GT models...
R-GT is bound to fail to attract manufacturer teams because of the position of the R-GT cars on the rally ladder. The GT manufacturers are not here to fight for the crumbs left after WRC manufacturers. They are the premium brands on the market and it has no logic for them to join a level bellow brands like Hyundai. There is zero marketing value in that (quite the opposite).Quote:
Originally Posted by deephouse
For me these -17 cars were a big mistake. They are too expensive and too hard to get for privateers and the lack of competition is really bothering me.Quote:
Originally Posted by bomber21
Yes, we had the big 3 competing, but we should have at least 10 drivers able to drive for the win. 1 crash and R5 driver has points.
For me that's not the way to do it.
I still like the idea of R5 being the top class. We could have 3 championships going on.
1 for drivers
1 for teams with 2 cars
and 1 for manus with 3 or 5 cars getting manu points. That way manus had to support at least 2 or maybe even 3 teams.
Imagine five current manus (Ford, Skoda, Citroen, Hyundai and VW) in R5 and multiply that with 4 or 6.
There's your top drivers!
They arent`t bothered, beacuse their slogans say " EV" or "hybrid". And competition would be like now most likely.
Manufacturers doesn´t want R5 as main class so it doesn´t matter what you want...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
I know that cos none of the manus ask me nothing :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pantealex
Surely you haven't seen the WRC'17 car in person? There's no way I'd have traded the last three years for three years of R5s instead. What's to say there would have been more manufacturers anyway? Skoda were there with the R5 regardless, with works drivers. You'd have traded out around ten WRC supercars each season for what, 15 or so top line works R5 entries? While R5 are pretty good when being driven flat out by the best drivers, but as a spectacle they're nothing compared to the WRC'17 cars. There's even still a gap between the R5 and the older WRC cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
As for the bit in bold, what makes you think we'd have had more/different drivers ABLE win if the top class was R5? Who has had more potential to win a WRC round than the drivers already winning in WRCars?
That's not to say that I'd be against a modified R5 class in future to replace the WRCars, at least with larger air restrictor and a small, standardised (box ticking) hybrid system for the purposes of marketing. If that were possible.
If the aim is to kill the R5 for the privateers than making it the top level class is a good idea... otherwise, figure.
I've seen them, but don't like the F1-like wings. Prefered the -16 rule that you could turn R5 to WRC and vise versa. Again for me it's not the tech but the competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by the sniper
And I don't like the fact that the new generation WRC-cars don't have to resemble any production car, but again that's just me.
I also know that i can't achieve anything with this post, but just want to give my opinion.
And I've seen Group B cars live back in -83, so I am not a newbie with the sports.
Rant over!
RRC and WRC, R5 is totally different.
Think RRC was just a Ford marketing thing, but the group was R5Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmop
Any chance you could make the aero from fiberglass or plastic or would it break too easy?
Ban wind tunnel testing? I guess the computer can calculate it good enough anyway now?
No. They were allowed to compete in one class, soon afer they were banned for their price and speed. RRC Mini (with a different name, S2000 1.6T) and DS3 also exist. In the end there were some bolt-on/off things to be changed, but the car was pretty much a WRC, different rear wing, front bumper, tarmac brakes and smaller restrictor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
It's sure possible. It just needs to be thicker and heavier.Quote:
Originally Posted by SubaruNorway
No. RRC is an M-Sport name for something which is technically S2000 with 1.6T engine. R5 is completely different thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
WRC 2011-2016 were basically up-tuned S2000 (or RRC in case the S2000 had 1.6T engine). The S2000/RRC were reasonably more expensive than the R5 at the peak of their popularity. R5 is a different thing built according to different philosophy (much more stock parts, price caps not only for the whole car but also for the components etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
The combination of regional rally car and world rally car proved to be a wrong thing. Basically mobody was converting the cars from RRC to WRC and back (some did but very rarely) and the only result was that the regional rally cars got way too expensive.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmop
Ok, I'll give up. Let the good times roll with 6 WRC cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Why not keep R5 cars as they are but make WRCar rules R5 based, ie. with upgrades? Make minimum length 4.3m if it brings more manufacturers in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
I’m one of those quite uncomfortable with a growing lack of relation between the road cars and the rally car.
Because it will not work. It was mentioned here already plenty of times. Higher power and torque means that you can forget about using most of the R5 parts. You would end with new rules and different cars anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
For what would be the minimal lenght 4,3 meters good for? For making those cars slower than the R5?
Not daft at all; unfortunately that has been the case since Gr.B extinction (RGT is a deception as the cars aren't allowed to run in a competitive way, like they should).Quote:
Originally Posted by T16
GT's apart, it seems the WRC may soon face a dilemma due to costs escalade: to keep current cars but to limit the length of the calendar and even of the events in order to decrease running costs or to keep the calendar expansion and the events layout but to replace current cars for less expensive (and less exciting) ones. It's a hard choice.
Sorry to disagree again. The issue is not the cost but the value in the current socia-political climate. Simply the manufacturers need to have a reason to invest. It doesn't help if you manage to decrease cost by let's say 20% (that's a lot) if the value is not there. The same applies vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally Power
In other words - would you buy something which you neither need nor want just because it's cheap? Probably not, right?
So you do not remember group B days with only handful of cars and the participation was even more hectic on these days, yet everybody is crying to get these days back. The group A beginning was the same. Go figure how short human memory is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise
Rallying usually have had 2 - 3 teams so this is not something new for this sport. So by your standards rallying has had "good times" on most of it's existence.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
To address the problem you identified that certain manufacturers do not have a car smaller than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
I agree with your point that cheaper does not automatically mean better value, but FIA will have to make damn sure there is strong manufacturer interest in the new rules because as we are seeing now when a manufacturer pulls out it is very hard for privateer teams or drivers to fill the gap.
They say they want to see stronger competition in R5 class to make up the difference. I hope that happens.. in order to help with that the promoter should give that category stronger media coverage.
I don't know where you live but Group B had from 12-16 teams in their era. Group A from 16 down to ''just 5'' and then again rising to incredible 28.Quote:
Originally Posted by cali
How many teams are now? From 5 down to 3 and ZERO privateers!!
Look we just want to see more of them like in old days where there were plenty cars and drivers out there. Don't really care if all of them is privateers just to be there so we could enjoy a little more than just 5 main cars, and the rest of 10 WRC2 cars and 70 R2 entries if we have luck.
If you think of it in another way with the 2-3min gaps you have now you don't normally have time to watch much more than the 8-10 WRC cars if you want to see more than two stages a day, so if there were more cars you would end up watching fewer stages especially on Saturday and Sunday when you want to wait for the fastest drivers and you won't see more cars anyway.
There's not really space for more cars on TV than what it is right now either.
GroupB had 10-15 teams, if you count cars like Ascona 400
The main 4WD cars were around 5-8, sometimes 2
It's because they show Qassimi for like 15 minutes and then all others for 30 secs max and 3 drivers rotating
I meant the highlights showsQuote:
Originally Posted by deephouse
A car based on the R5 rules being so large would likely be slower than the R5. It makes little sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
Why the hell should it matter what the manufacturers want?Quote:
Originally Posted by pantealex
They should not have any saying in the future of rally as a sport. The car is just a tool. FIA need to focus on getting the top level broader with many possible winners, and that youngsters see a real possibility to reach the top class.
They pay for it. Motorsport is different to "normal" sports in a way that it's half marketing. That's why even the televising people have their say in the rules and arrangement of the stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Wait, what does "team" mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by deephouse
At first it was a contest between Audi, Lancia and Opel. Then Opel left and Peugeot joined, RWD cars started getting obsolete. Toyota and Nissan were all the time there around, but were competitible only in African rallies. Even in 1986 with Metro, Ford and Citroen joining in, didn't change the fact that it was a Lancia vs Peugeot contest (after Audi pulled out).
Teams not capable of winning have been also around in the eras of Group A (Nissan, Mazda) and WRC (Seat, Skoda). For some people it's just important to see the number of main class cars on the stages, no matter if they can win or not. For me it's more about the sporting aspect.
We just had a rare era from 2017 to 2019 with four main teams competing quite equally with each other, all capable of winning rallies (M-Sport were very close to winning Corsica in 2019)
Are you for real? Sorry but this is the dumbest thing I have read here in years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
If you don't listen the manufacturers they leave. When they leave the sponsors leave. When the sponsors leave even the privateers are fucked because there is no money to spend. You just killed the sport. Congratulations.
You just threw some random numbers in?Quote:
Originally Posted by deephouse
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
This isn't about going cheap; it's about controlling costs and avoid their escalation because costs do matter in motorsport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Instead of a rhetorical question I'll give you a proper example: in 2011 Peugeot leaved the WEC/LM, a high valued series for them, due to increasing costs (notably the first Hybrid regs); they moved to the Dakar and later to the WRX and now they're getting back to WEC/LM because the revised Hybrid regs are quite less expensive than before: https://media.groupe-psa.com/en/psa-...ampionship-wec
Actually, WEC/LM recent history is a lesson on cost escalation effects; from 4 manus in 2015, Toyota was the only one left from 2018 onward. Most moved to the less expensive FE, certainly a series with an increasing value but still far from WEC/LM global reputation. This piece was written after Porsche WEC pull out and it's not hard to see how simillar the WRC scene is starting to look: https://www.motortrend.com/news/pors...ula-e-program/
P.S.: people tend to forget, but during the WRC 2L final period, with only two manus left and one clearly dominating, the FIA spent several years hearing the manus but they could never agree on new rules. At some point Mosley, then FIA president, even suggested returning to RWD cars!; finally, a few monthes after Todt was elected new president, the FIA ended the discussions and went for smaller and less expensive WRC cars, the first 1.6L generation. Like then, I wouldn't be surprised if the FIA ends imposing 2022 regs without manus agreement.
The dilemma when talking to manus while making the rules is always the same...
a) listen to the 2-3 manus that are in the series at the moment to make them stay
or
b) listen more to those interested in joining (but then you need firm commitment at some point)
The manus already in the series are very likely to want as few changes as possible so that they have a development advantage and can re-use as much of their existing cars as possible. The manus interested in joining will likely want the opposite.