S2000 & Group N, The future of rallying?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

28th December 2007, 12:53
cut the b.s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

If we consider Formula 1 then propably the answer to attract more manufacturers lays on the value of the WRC for the manufacturers in terms of promotion and return on their investment and not lets say the costs or the number of events. In F1 only one team/manufacture wins every year but we do not see the other manufactures who loose consistently leaving the series because the association of a manufacturer with f1 is more valuable than the win of a championship.

my opinion.

It would appear Toyota share your opinion
28th December 2007, 12:54
AndyRAC

At the moment the promotion of the WRC isn't good, can't say I've seen many adverts from Ford promoting their 2006/07 Manufacturers success. TV and media coverage is pathetic, well in UK it is.
28th December 2007, 12:58
AndyRAC

Quote:

Originally Posted by cut the b.s.

It would appear Toyota share your opinion

Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.
28th December 2007, 14:12
L5->R5/CR

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

While I know what you mean, I think there's a greater chance of more Manufacturers coming in and joining if the cars are cheaper and easier to produce, obviously there's no guarantee, but the current situation is no good. Something had to be done, it's a case of wait and see

Lets not kid ourselves though.

Every WRC formula change has been to allow manufacturers to either A) enter due to an obstacle or B) show case a level/type of technology.

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

Cutting the costs of the WRC is a fools errand if they think it will bring in more teams/make more teams competitive. Ultimately spending money does not equate to success but at the same time teams that have more money will be able to pursue competitive advantages that other teams cannot.

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.
28th December 2007, 14:28
c4

Citroen are backing S2000 according to Autosport. Sources state they see formula as workable. Xavier Mestelan-Pinon seems less enthused:
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/...exclusive.html
28th December 2007, 17:35
A.F.F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR

Lets not kid ourselves though.

Every WRC formula change has been to allow manufacturers to either A) enter due to an obstacle or B) show case a level/type of technology.

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

Cutting the costs of the WRC is a fools errand if they think it will bring in more teams/make more teams competitive. Ultimately spending money does not equate to success but at the same time teams that have more money will be able to pursue competitive advantages that other teams cannot.

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

This is probably all true, but there's one minor thing coming with the change of rules. For one little moment, the table is clean for everybody. Pretty much like with group-A.
28th December 2007, 19:43
BDunnell

A very good post, L5->R5/CR. A few points from me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

I feel that restricting the amounts of money that teams/manufacturers can spend on any form of motorsport is pointless and unenforceable. There will always be 'haves and have-nots'. However, it is surely within the power of the FIA, via the technical regulations and their enforcement, to retain a more level playing field than has previously been the case?

I say this with my mind on Group A again. A.F.F.'s last post refers to the table having been 'clean for everybody' when Group A rules were adopted in 1987. That season was really excellent, as far as I'm concerned, yet what happened? Gradually, the front-running cars drifted away from the original concept of Group A, to the point where the World Rally Car rules were deemed necessary. Of course, it was a natural progression as knowledge and technology developed, but nonetheless I would be very interested to find out whether every rule of Group A was upheld with absolute strictness by the FIA. S2000 rules would seem to offer less scope for such development, and I don't have a problem with this, because to me the technological exercise is far less important than the quality of competition between drivers on the special stage (or racetrack).

Quote:

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

All very true, but there are so many different ideas as to how to make that extra progression, and about what is best for the WRC, that it's difficult to know where to start!
28th December 2007, 20:04
M5

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.

If the swede had not had his dream of F1, and TOYOTA had stayed in Rally I am pretty sure they had had better publicity and sold more cars (that hopefully is their aim) than they do spending most, and getting nowhere !!!

Maybe next year !! (without Schumacher Jr !!!)

Tip off: Send a couple old WRC engineers to help out in the development of the Auris, and play both horses !!
28th December 2007, 20:27
c4

[quote="BDunnell"].
I say this with my mind on Group A again. A.F.F.'s last post refers to the table having been 'clean for everybody' when Group A rules were adopted in 1987. That season was really excellent, as far as I'm concerned, yet what happened? Gradually, the front-running cars drifted away from the original concept of Group A, to the point where the World Rally Car rules

Unfortnately 1987 was not excellent imo, rules suited Lancia who were way ahead on development and no one else had a chance that year. FISA's decision with group A was knee jerk and political (remember Peugeot tried to sue FISA for banning group B), but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.
29th December 2007, 00:02
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4

Unfortnately 1987 was not excellent imo, rules suited Lancia who were way ahead on development and no one else had a chance that year.

I think some of the most entertaining rallies of the last 20 years took place in 1987. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Swedish, Portuguese, 1000 Lakes and RAC rallies that year were really quite outstanding, highly competitive affairs — and Portugal, in my view, witnessed one of the outstanding WRC performances of all time thanks to Jean Ragnotti. What I would give to see a bit of that magic again in the championship.

Lancia deserved to win in 1987, because it wasn't as if other manufacturers couldn't have done the same. Mazda tried, and had long enough to prepare, but simply didn't do as good a job. Others either went with what they had, or thought they could get away without spending a lot on development. It worked for the likes of Renault and Ford in 1987, but no longer than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4

FISA's decision with group A was knee jerk and political (remember Peugeot tried to sue FISA for banning group B), but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

I think there is such a range of views regarding the banning of Group B that it will be impossible to resolve the matter here. Suffice to say, I think the circumstances in 1986 were so exceptional that on that occasion FISA can be forgiven for a knee-jerk reaction, and I hope those circumstances never arise again as part of the authorities' deliberations on the technical regulations.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page