WRC future

"So if this kind of vehicle is becoming the norm, then does a manufacturer stand to gain more benefit from advertising the car as something that can rip along a few roads, over a couple of days, faster than its rival, or would it look better if it dominated it over a (still quick) event that celebrated more of a reliability victory?"

Really someone is still thinking you sell a car for a reason different than advertising?. How many cars are sold because of winning the Dakar? Not that much. How many because is the car of mr.x instagram influencer? Way more. In the end, there's no difference between sprint or endurance, selling-wise. the point is to be on the news, possibly winning. and the general customer doesn't care how the rally is done. it's just a rally winning car.
Then the point goes to generating a big enough audience to be relevant for the markets. How you do? Marketing! Media as prime option, then events. TV and internet. Nothing long is really working nowadays there -not liking it either, but it is how it is-. you have 2 ways then: working on the general or became a very strong niche. they're working on the big numbers because the manufacturers want it. let's face reality: how was rally heritage useful for lancia or fiat/fca in the last decade? zero. not even to save world most known and winning brand. one thing is what we like, or we would like. Another thing is nowadays world. Rally needs lots of money. Rally needs investors. They follow the market. at the moment market demands very fast and very catchy short content. not time for hardcore fans niche. not time to go there. best example '17 cars: not in the spirit of pure rally: too focused on sprint and speed, too aesthetic. they worked for media and non-fans. still not enough to move real things, but starting.
Events: short spectacular things, concert/live events philosophy. Not having people in the woods, having them in a square (stadium?), with food, drink, gadgets and -again- media. You can't sell 100k people in 50 km street. You sell 100k people in a square, let's say end of a power stage maybe? Then brands will give you cash to have their name there. again: not liking it, but it is what it is.
Becoming a strong niche would be great, but you need big money to start, and again that's not the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T16

Car changes needed / event changes needed.

I didn’t nail my flag to the mast and say I’m certain that longer events are the answer.... it’s just a thought.


I’m saying what we have now isn’t.

---

What about ... shorter events ? The 3 days format with 9-12 and 2-5 driving is ridiculous - sounds more like a government employee's job than sports. So is the sunday which is pretty much useless in every rally result-wise. This was made for TV way back then (late 90's) - Nowadays is the age of internet (aka Rally-Live), who cares of a sunday at noon ending ?

Way back then, the tour of corsica was a 24hours events and it was by no means an easy walkover. 1000 Lakes rally was also a 2 days affair and nobody seemd to think it was a walk in the park.

Wouldn't money be saved by shaving of 1 day ? and since stages are mostly the same year after year, coudn't recce be also shortened, at least for the top teams that have been coming to these stages year after year ?

What about the idea of dropping off shakedown ? I now teams would hate it, but we, as fan, may enjoy a bit of unpredictability in the result by having a few surprises if some team would come up with the wrong set-up . One of the big issues of rallyes today is that it is always the same drivers that win - not as bad as F1 but close...

And last bnut not least since i am seldom logged into the forum (but reading everyone's posts vivivdely), can't we get rid of Rally2 (super rally) ? I know manufacturers want exposure for their cars, but this aint' the spirit of rallying. Rallying is about speed on normal road (for which people can easily materialize how incredible these drivers are) but also has the notion of endurance built into it. Not anymore 60's style where drivers would seldom sleep for 4 days, but at least if you break your car, you're out, as simple as that. This may sound a bit oldies (which i am), but if we lose this (and we are close to), we lose the whole perception of rallying for the fan/people - we may as well go rallycross.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T16

Maybe time to flip it on it's head a bit... Let's face it, fast hatch backs are becoming less and less popular because of the fact that people are increasingly likely to think of a fast driver as a dick, for several reasons (environmental and safety mainly.
Their day is done, hence why the championship has acknowledged this and paved the way for more SUV based rally cars.
So if this kind of vehicle is becoming the norm, then does a manufacturer stand to gain more benefit from advertising the car as something that can rip along a few roads, over couple of days, faster than its rival, or would it look better if it dominated it over a (still quick) event that celebrated more of a reliability victory?

---

Erm, if this is the problem, no Motorsport program is the solution... Unless you're talking about the WRC becoming the World Regularity Rally Championship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyler

Then the point goes to generating a big enough audience to be relevant for the markets. How you do? Marketing! Media as prime option, then events. TV and internet. Nothing long is really working nowadays there -not liking it either, but it is how it is-. you have 2 ways then: working on the general or became a very strong niche. they're working on the big numbers because the manufacturers want it. let's face reality: how was rally heritage useful for lancia or fiat/fca in the last decade? zero. not even to save world most known and winning brand. one thing is what we like, or we would like. Another thing is nowadays world. Rally needs lots of money. Rally needs investors. They follow the market. at the moment market demands very fast and very catchy short content. not time for hardcore fans niche. not time to go there. best example '17 cars: not in the spirit of pure rally: too focused on sprint and speed, too aesthetic. they worked for media and non-fans. still not enough to move real things, but starting.
Events: short spectacular things, concert/live events philosophy. Not having people in the woods, having them in a square (stadium?), with food, drink, gadgets and -again- media. You can't sell 100k people in 50 km street. You sell 100k people in a square, let's say end of a power stage maybe? Then brands will give you cash to have their name there. again: not liking it, but it is what it is.
Becoming a strong niche would be great, but you need big money to start, and again that's not the time.

---

How do you explain the success of professional cycling? It does everything that rallying once did, which we're told no longer works as a format...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djip

What about ... shorter events ? The 3 days format with 9-12 and 2-5 driving is ridiculous - sounds more like a government employee's job than sports. So is the sunday which is pretty much useless in every rally result-wise. This was made for TV way back then (late 90's) - Nowadays is the age of internet (aka Rally-Live), who cares of a sunday at noon ending ?

Way back then, the tour of corsica was a 24hours events and it was by no means an easy walkover. 1000 Lakes rally was also a 2 days affair and nobody seemd to think it was a walk in the park.

Wouldn't money be saved by shaving of 1 day ? and since stages are mostly the same year after year, coudn't recce be also shortened, at least for the top teams that have been coming to these stages year after year ?

What about the idea of dropping off shakedown ? I now teams would hate it, but we, as fan, may enjoy a bit of unpredictability in the result by having a few surprises if some team would come up with the wrong set-up . One of the big issues of rallyes today is that it is always the same drivers that win - not as bad as F1 but close...

And last bnut not least since i am seldom logged into the forum (but reading everyone's posts vivivdely), can't we get rid of Rally2 (super rally) ? I know manufacturers want exposure for their cars, but this aint' the spirit of rallying. Rallying is about speed on normal road (for which people can easily materialize how incredible these drivers are) but also has the notion of endurance built into it. Not anymore 60's style where drivers would seldom sleep for 4 days, but at least if you break your car, you're out, as simple as that. This may sound a bit oldies (which i am), but if we lose this (and we are close to), we lose the whole perception of rallying for the fan/people - we may as well go rallycross.

---

Does anybody think a two day rally will be anything other than the current itineraries, maybe with slight longer days, but with no Sunday? We ain't going back to 24hr rallies...

Personally to me these event shortening suggestions just make attending a rally, particularly one abroad or one you have to travel and stay locally (the case with many WRC rallies), far less attractive for spectators. Dropping Shakedown, dropping days, dropping Restarts... Many people will have had to wait all year to see just two days of top flight rallying! Okay, maybe in places like Finland you might get to see 4 stages in a day if you're willing to chase the cars, maybe 8 over two days. In Monte or GB though? You might go from 8 opportunities (including Shakedown) over the course of a four day event to 4 stages over a two day event. For what, the teams saving one night's hotel fees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djip

What about the idea of dropping off shakedown ? I now teams would hate it, but we, as fan, may enjoy a bit of unpredictability in the result by having a few surprises if some team would come up with the wrong set-up . One of the big issues of rallyes today is that it is always the same drivers that win - not as bad as F1 but close...

And last bnut not least since i am seldom logged into the forum (but reading everyone's posts vivivdely), can't we get rid of Rally2 (super rally) ? I know manufacturers want exposure for their cars, but this aint' the spirit of rallying. Rallying is about speed on normal road (for which people can easily materialize how incredible these drivers are) but also has the notion of endurance built into it. Not anymore 60's style where drivers would seldom sleep for 4 days, but at least if you break your car, you're out, as simple as that. This may sound a bit oldies (which i am), but if we lose this (and we are close to), we lose the whole perception of rallying for the fan/people - we may as well go rallycross.

---

Dropping the shakedown wouldn't help the fact that some drivers are better than others. If something, it would just increase the gap because the best drivers also adapt best if the car is not 100% as they want it.

I agree that Rally2 was a weird concept to accept when it was introduced. But it would be cruel for spectators on the last day of the rally seeing only 2-3 top cars. Power stages would also be boring to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the sniper

How do you explain the success of professional cycling? It does everything that rallying once did, which we're told no longer works as a format...

---

Do you mean Tour de France and the likes? It's a very different format than rallying. All the bikes ride at the same time and the first bike is leading the section. It's logical to follow for a casual viewer and doesn't take much time for roads to be closed. Also, even the most expensive road bike sold in the world probably costs only the same as a front bumper of a WRC car.

Cycling world also has its equivalent of rallying, the MTB enduro. There's special stages and liaisons, racing only against the clock. But it's not a popular format...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnttiL

Do you mean Tour de France and the likes? It's a very different format than rallying. All the bikes ride at the same time and the first bike is leading the event. It's logical to follow for a casual viewer and doesn't take much time for roads to be closed. Also, even the most expensive road bike sold in the world probably costs only the same as a front bumper of a WRC car.

Cycling world also has its equivalent of rallying, the MTB enduro. There's special stages and liaisons, racing only against the clock. But it's not a popular format...

---

And mainly is perfect for tv. people can follow only the finish of every stage more or less same time every day, instantly know the winner, and the drama always happens near the finish, mountains are on route to being televised, and almost nothing happens till the end of the stage. following 30mins is enough to get the best easily also as a casual viewer.
on the events side, to spectate live you can see almost everything in 30min, if u don't go near the end of the stage for the show. they use loads of main road and town and village crossing. they gather lots of bystanders just being at home/work or near enough to spend there a couple of hours, not a day and travel a lot. for casual/general fans there's a lot of things happening on the road just before the race but not waiting too much and often also unrelated (car, girls, music). then for hardcore fan they can gather a lot of people near and on the finish line, offering easily food drink gadgets and entertainment along.
also general fans don't have to follow more than one day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnttiL

Do you mean Tour de France and the likes? It's a very different format than rallying. All the bikes ride at the same time and the first bike is leading the event. It's logical to follow for a casual viewer and doesn't take much time for roads to be closed. Also, even the most expensive road bike sold in the world probably costs only the same as a front bumper of a WRC car.

Cycling world also has its equivalent of rallying, the MTB enduro. There's special stages and liaisons, racing only against the clock. But it's not a popular format...

---

But we're led to believe that WRC rallies are too long, people's attention spans are too short nowadays to follow such an event... Yet many tens, even hundreds of thousands of people make the effort to line the routes of major tours to catch just a brief glimpse of these events. Sound familiar? The stages last and are broadcast for hours, for many hours of which very little is happening. Some events are one long day, the Grand Tours go on for WEEKS!

Can you imagine major cycling stage races being as popular as they are now had their formats been standardised and diminished in scope to the extent that most rallies have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the sniper

But we're led to believe that WRC rallies are too long, people's attention spans are too short nowadays to follow such an event... Yet many tens, even hundreds of thousands of people make the effort to line the routes of major tours to catch just a brief glimpse of these events. Sound familiar? The stages last and are broadcast for hours, for many hours of which very little is happening. Some events are one long day, the Grand Tours go on for WEEKS!

---

I'm pretty sure rallies would be made longer if someone saw it as an investment worth the return. Also when you talk about cycling, think about how "cheap" it is for an athlete to run for one day longer, compared to a rally driver. Week-long rallies would sure mean the end of privateers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyler

And mainly is perfect for tv. people can follow only the finish of every stage more or less same time every day, instantly know the winner, and the drama always happens near the finish, mountains are on route to being televised, and almost nothing happens till the end of the stage. following 30mins is enough to get the best easily also as a casual viewer.
on the events side, to spectate live you can see almost everything in 30min, if u don't go near the end of the stage for the show.

---

Maybe we should have embraced Jost Capito's suggestion having the power stage decide positions to add more television viewers? But in addition, do it at the end of every day?

Again, you could also play the F1 argument here and say rallies would become popular if they were run in two hours on Sunday afternoon.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm a route enthusiast, I would love the rallies to be longer, but I know that in practice it's not possible today. (I also wouldn't definitely want Jost Capito's idea or a F1 format rally.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djip

What about ... shorter events ? The 3 days format with 9-12 and 2-5 driving is ridiculous - sounds more like a government employee's job than sports. So is the sunday which is pretty much useless in every rally result-wise. This was made for TV way back then (late 90's) - Nowadays is the age of internet (aka Rally-Live), who cares of a sunday at noon ending ?

Wouldn't money be saved by shaving of 1 day ? and since stages are mostly the same year after year, coudn't recce be also shortened, at least for the top teams that have been coming to these stages year after year ?

What about the idea of dropping off shakedown ? I now teams would hate it, but we, as fan, may enjoy a bit of unpredictability in the result by having a few surprises if some team would come up with the wrong set-up . One of the big issues of rallyes today is that it is always the same drivers that win - not as bad as F1 but close...

---

That is my idea too. Make it more compact. Let them drive from friday morning till late at night, and again from saturday morning early till late in the evening. No 5 days of only 4 stages, but 2 days of 10 stages.
Recce can't be shortened, they already have only 2 passes. Shakedown is also not a problem, everyone is there already.

But none of that will make much difference for manufacturers. If we're talking about budgets of tens of millions, a few ten thousands spend on hotels and food isn't the problem.


If you see wat msport can do with their tight budget, money is not really the issue. For a big marque, 40 million dollar means nothing.

Its just that manufacturers do not believe they will get the return on investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djip

And last bnut not least since i am seldom logged into the forum (but reading everyone's posts vivivdely), can't we get rid of Rally2 (super rally) ? I know manufacturers want exposure for their cars, but this aint' the spirit of rallying. Rallying is about speed on normal road (for which people can easily materialize how incredible these drivers are) but also has the notion of endurance built into it. Not anymore 60's style where drivers would seldom sleep for 4 days, but at least if you break your car, you're out, as simple as that. This may sound a bit oldies (which i am), but if we lose this (and we are close to), we lose the whole perception of rallying for the fan/people - we may as well go rallycross.

---

Before the days of rally2 we had flying service. If you could make it to the end of the stage somehow, the mechanics could probably fix it. Nowadays, if you rip a wheel off, the rally is finished since you aren't even allowed to drive on public roads without 4 rotating wheels.

Its either service after every stage, or rally2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

Its just that manufacturers do not believe they will get the return on investment.

---

This is the key thing. What do the manufacturers want to advertise, what do they want to show to the world through a sport?

Sniper:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this:

"Erm, if this is the problem, no Motorsport program is the solution... Unless you're talking about the WRC becoming the World Regularity Rally Championship?"


I was trying to say I wonder if the current format, all about sprint saved over a short period, is the best way of representing what the Manu's want the image of the car to be (versus more of a reliability element).

Good debate by all, by the way.