Rally Italia Sardegna '16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Maybe because he is good? Look, Ogier managed to win his very first WRC stage in his his very first 4WD outing on the first stage of the event (Sweet Lamb 2008)! Before he only drove two seasons in French 206XS cup and one season in JWRC. Nothing else. It may look unbelievable but it's true. That stage was even icy mud if I remmeber so even one of the hardest conditions what You can imagine.

About Your old cars. You can take also opposite examples. For example Belgian Didier Vanwijnsberghe. He is bloody fast with Escort Mk.II but even after two seasons he didn't manage to drive Fabia S2000 faster than his Escort so he sold it and continues with the Escort. There are more similar examples. The point is that it's perfectly irrelevant how fast somebody would be with 40 years old car. It's about how fast they are now.

---

From what I have read of Loeb he grew up driving on muddy, and snowy roads--with crap tires...Here in North America--although on a vastly different scale some of the guys up in Quebec in Canada are shockingly (relatively) fast on snow and especially ice (no studs then)...that's what they drive on 6 months of the year. and of course they are all absolute lunatics whenever they drive anywhere.

And true confessions when I was building that nice Ford Sierra Cosworth 4x4 that sits over <-------there next to my beloved old Saab I often wondered how results would go...what i wondered was "was I at my limit? Would I have higher Overall results? I had done some 3rd and 4th and 5th Overall with an ancient --but light and built bigger engineand freer spec than old WRC spec Saab----logically it sure seemed like I should go faster (and tests seemed to back that up) or was that speed what I could do?"

I only use Escort because as Paddon showed so well it is a simple car that has no real vices and is capable of an outright win even against a whole field of turbo 4wd cars.. It is FAST....if driven right.
Still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danon

http://s5.postimg.org/n9sh4cpfr/mirek.jpg

---

Dear Danon, You don't need to show me that again. I can read and I am sure You can do that too. So please read the whole text again. The penalty is not for the weight but for the shape. The weight difference is there written most likely only to show that it was irrelevant.

Had the document something to do with wrong weight, it must have contained exact values and their respective tolerances to be valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefanvv

Hmm, I'm not saying he knows exactly how much seconds will lose for 6km, that's impossible. Be he surely can judge his pace well enough.... If he knows how many secs/km, it is enough information for 6, 60 or 600 kms....

---

Tell me how much I have to slow down to loose 10 seconds on 600 km? I know how to loose 10 seconds on 6 km but I'm quite sure that nobody ever walking on this planet could know how much to slow down to loose 10 seconds on 600 km.

Just count those s/km for 6, 60 and 600 km and compare the result. I hope You then understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itix

50 000€? O_O

...for some bloody windows?
Has rolex released a spring collection of watches and the heads of the FIA decided they wanted some of that cake? ...the hell?

---

One of their cigars weigh more... http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/foru...cigar-weights/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Tell me how much I have to slow down to loose 10 seconds on 600 km? I know how to loose 10 seconds on 6 km but I'm quite sure that nobody ever walking on this planet could know how much to slow down to loose 10 seconds on 600 km.

Just count those s/km for 6, 60 and 600 km and compare the result. I hope You then understand.

---

If You want to be that precise then a spin on a corner will do the job. But I guess it doesn't matter if it is 10, 20 or 30 seconds for 600 kms regulating the pace.
On the contrary how do You know how You'll loose 10 seconds for 6km by pure pace, of course the chance is higher than for 600kms but it'll never happen because You're not super-human. It'll always be +- some seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Dear Danon, You don't need to show me that again. I can read and I am sure You can do that too. So please read the whole text again. The penalty is not for the weight but for the shape. The weight difference is there written most likely only to show that it was irrelevant.

---

If weight makes no difference it won't be mentioned in the Stewards Decision.

The devil is in the details - dear bohemian comrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefanvv

If You want to be that precise then a spin on a corner will do the job. But I guess it doesn't matter if it is 10, 20 or 30 seconds for 600 kms regulating the pace.
On the contrary how do You know how You'll loose 10 seconds for 6km by pure pace, of course the chance is higher than for 600kms but it'll never happen because You're not super-human. It'll always be +- some seconds.

---

Stefan, please... think about it again. That's complete nonsense what You say. Yes, You can do a spin and loose 10 seconds but the key is from which value do You need to loose it - that's not Your time but time of Your opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danon

If weight makes no difference it won't be mentioned in the Stewards Decision.

The devil is in the details - dear bohemian comrade.

---

Please read that text again because You are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Please read that text again because You are wrong.

---

Read it I did.
Wrong I am not.
Grams mentioned I saw.
Long live the Empire VW.
It smells politics (change rules).
Money talks.

Grams do matter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirek

Stefan, please... think about it again. That's complete nonsense what You say. Yes, You can do a spin and loose 10 seconds but the key is from which value do You need to loose it - that's not Your time but time of Your opponent.

---

Ok, I'm not talking about opponent's time, just one's own one. For sure there is more precise info with split times and engineers with computers will tell You on the radio to stop for N secs before the stage end.
But if You know before the stage You have to lose min 20 secs for a 30 km stage, probably You'll know what pace will be enough to lose them. Mikkelsen had to lose today by few seconds, but lost 18+ for 6km. Isn't that odd for such a short stage, yet these were enough for his purpose.

Are we debating which is the best way to deliberately loose time on a stage now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EightGear

Are we debating which is the best way to deliberately loose time on a stage now?

---

Of course. And as far as I see, Mirek is trying to show that it is not so easy to predict how much time you need to loose not to be first on the road next day, if there are no splits. Especially on longer stages, where you cannot predict, how fast are your rivals (because they can use tactics also)...