In the past we had driver's battles. Now, it's all about technology and money. That's wrong
Printable View
In the past we had driver's battles. Now, it's all about technology and money. That's wrong
Like said here, the "original" WRC-concept was good, it allowed many manufacturers in. But unfortunately the reg's were loosened year by year and it made the concept much too complicated and expensive.
Now the current teams are against changes to bring the cars back to simpler versions. Why? Because they have created and invested i these high-tech. systems and don't wan't to throw them into dustbin and allow others to become competitive.
The FIA should take full control of the things and make big changes befor it all dies
So the teams are happy to see an uncompetetive championship die a slow death because of their selfishness. I agree the FIA need to order them to use simpler cars, though they're no better than useless.
Manufacturers always were a problem in motorsport. They are selfish and usual have a tendency to complicate the simple things.
Fórmula 1 is an example, but F1 as a man that look very carefull to the comercial aspect of the bussiness, and can put all over the world a poor spectacle as it was the pinacle of competition and fight on track. F1 is a pinacle of technology, but is far from being the best in emotion that is what interest to the audiences. Manufacturers are in F1, but Berni Ecclestone is the one who decide the path to follow.
WRC had the bad luck of being the poor parent inside FIA, because was the only competition that could had reached the F1 level in terms of visibility. As F1 is the protected competition, the WRC was sent to a lower level. The creation of ISC was a fiasco, because David Richards never had really interest in WRC, the interest was only the money, and the money could be earn outside WRC. This explain why we see so few efforts to promote and develop WRC, in oposite to what Ecclestine made in F1.
The problems of WRC are only two: High costs and low spectacle. very advanced technologies cost a lot of money and didn't increased the show. With so poor spectacle the audiences came down and the manufacturers went away to other disciplines less expensives and more visible.
We need to look back, see what made the golden years of WRC and try to adapt it to the new reallity and new times, but mantaining the essence of rallying. Definitively the present format don't reflect that so it must be changed.
can i just say its not the end of wrc its the beginning of a bloody bad wrc.... so no end perhaps an end to the amazing last decades of the wrc but the beginning of a un-wanted sport! (though i still want it around!)
Daniel Carlsson will only take the startramp in Sardine, and probarly also in Greece and Finland, to avoid kronos from paying a heavy fine to the FIA and being kicked out of the MT championship.
double post
Some would say that international rallying has never been so competitive since the times when people could buy competitive cars (specifically Escorts) cheaply and run them on a relative shoestring. This would be an idea, except for the extent to which manufacturers are seen as crucial to the success of a championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM
Of course (as I suggested earlier) it's better to have more manufacturers than less, but they aren't the be-all-and-end-all. When you have too many, it is inevitable that not all will experience success and that this leads to some pulling out. The history of British Touring Car racing, for those that know it, makes this clear. It becomes unjustifiable for manufacturers who aren't doing well to continue.
Manufacturers are not the solution for success. I wrote in my post that sometimes they are a problem. If you look at IRC, a competition that can't be compared to WRC because is new, you see many cars and many drivers. Maybe could be a good ideia to look why IRC as so many cars on the first year.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Sorry, I wasn't saying that you were giving that view. I was agreeing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM