Printable View
One or 2 big stages (35+ kms) are ok in every round. it can mix things up.
But when you have more it just ruins the whole rally and turns it into a cruising mode event.
WRC is about speed not about survival and stages with average of 30 km/hr. It is a sport of brave men not little boys like in the old days.
I disagree, to me rally is the ultimate combination of man vs machine and environment, against the clock. That's why I do it (admittedly my rally budget would be less the the coffee budget for one rally for any of the big teams).Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
These days of having utterly reliable cars is BS and makes the most reliable car with the best driver automatically the easy victor, which means the whole thing becomes a procession. Much more like your favourite lady boy event - F1. There is no drama and yes, the fastest guy in the fastest factory car typically wins. And if they end up using Rally2 for some reason they can still score good points overall and have a chance at the power stage as well.
However if you are in a privateer car or a low budget team, as has been said you have no chance to do well as you can't take the same risks and probably can't afford to crash and Rally2. And simply your car may well let you down, so you can't push it as much either. This effectively reduces the chance of bringing in young, committed, good drivers, and giving them an opportunity to do well, on a lower budget.
If the cars were all less reliable or more realistically pushed past their limits more, then I think natural selection would balance things further. Ie yes Seb would still be quick, but the balance of having to manage the health of the car would make the whole rally more even.
And that's not about handicapping the fastest driver, it's more about making it more even against the fastest car/most reliable car, to make it a more even playing field focused on drivers overall skill, not purely their ability to push the most, which is only one aspect of talent, if you get the difference?
I really like the idea of what Finland are doing, with a whole day with no service. This will help find those who can balance speed vs risk. And I still think Loeb would destroy all. But you would find more people fighting with him...
And on that note, I think the current format in some ways hinders finding a challenger to Seb O - as everyone has to push flat out from the beginning as everything is a sprint now, and if you are new and still building to that level, you are far more likely to crash frequently, which soon pisses off sponsors and that is the end to your WRC career without a lot of money behind you. Whereas if you have to balance speed vs risk to the car more, you are more likely to be able to do well.
However I imagine you may well see that NOT as just handicapping the fastest driver...
Mirek - what about making the power stage the one long stage of the event, ie has to be over 40km? That would mean people have to push and there is the incentive to do well on a long stage and not Rally2 it. And still without splits you don't know where you sit, so you don't know if you are going hard enough versus everyone else. So you take more risks.
Personally I like driving longer stages, they are more of a challenge on the car and driver, you again have to balance speed vs risk to the car. And you get tired, 30+mins of driving balls out is bloody hard work, so more likely to make a mistake too!
Of course from a TV perspective it would in some ways make for a better spectacle, as you could potentially have 6-7 cars on stage at once, so can compare split times and you will always have lots of cars moving to include in the footage. And then the drama is more likely to be caught when things go wrong?
I should probably mention that I also do some Endurance racing, so I guess I am biased!
so you prefer the winner to be decided by factor either than driving...
very interesting logic... i will name it the "An underachiever who wants a piece of the pie without trying" logic.
I don't think current WRC cars are ultimately reliable at the moment.
What about mixing all this all year long?
Why there isn't rallys that are really more sprint focused and others more endurance focused?
Every rally should have his own identity and bring something different in the championship. We can't say rally is all about speed or is all about endurance, I think that is more a personal opinion, or a personal liking. Rally is the mix of the two and I think would be good to have some of them concetrating more on speed and other on endurance, or other again in a 50-50 between them.
But IMO none of them should be like this one in Corsica for the reasons already explained in this thread.
Completely agree. I also think the endurance aspect on some occasions is overestimated and probably understood the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by AL14
I figured you would miss my point. I want a fairer playing field, so we can see who else has the talent, but not necessarily the money/equipment to keep up with Seb O. Or ideally I would like Loeb to come back. But I can't see that happening!Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
I think the sport is quite fair as it is apart form some rich/famous nobodies filling the lower ranks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkvy
but at the top i think it is quite fair...
A bit like the Olympic Games ?Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
Perhaps Munkuy's point was that every one irrespective of dollar value or skill level should not be denied the opportunity to complete with a compliant vehicle.
Who or what the spectator or keyboard warrior choses to watch or follow is their choice too.