Printable View
Gazoo likely will, they're too invested. 'Toyota' are in every motorsport somehow from top to bottom. Not sure if going to F1 has to detract from the funding elsewhere especially when rally should be profit making.
Anyone thinking manufacturers are coming and who likes to talk about road relevancy still has to explain what the WRC relevancy of what's going on with road cars and net zero is. Same with the production engine lark.
I don't think Toyota would want to fully take over the F1 team until they'll be able to use their own engine, which would be possible from 2030, if they would commit to it this year, but that could possibly be last year of hybrid engines. So more realistic is 2031.
But I don't think Toyota would withdraw from WRC, they can't really use the facility or much of the workers for F1. Maybe their budget would be cut, but that also shouldn't be much issue with soft budget cap and return of commercial aspect of selling the cars.
Toyota (GR) are clearly committed with confirming they're already building a WRC27 Car. And why wouldn't they when they've been so successful and dominating with Rally1 ?
But they do have to sell these cars (or chassis?) to whoever wants one, so privateers/teams should be able to compete with them on the same level.
As for other and new Manufacturers, it's a tough one. Not only do they need to see a ROI and sell their cars, but they also face trying to beat the might of Toyota.
What if the new promoter is Gazoo? Any possibility for that?
Sent fra min SM-S901B via Tapatalk
That would be conflict of interest, I suppose. In RedBull case as it is right now, they don't have their own team on WRC like there is in F1, but as long as I know they don't own F1 promoter.
Aparently at least 10 Tuners already have shown interest in joining WRC from 2027. So - the interest is there, lets wait and see what happens.
https://4rati.lv/rallijs/rallijs-pas...YvktPIMs43HZpg
Who knows what is the reality. What exactly it is "shown interest"? It means they have asked for details of regulations? I know one team who has asked for details, but I am sure they will never build car on this level...Quote:
Originally Posted by Negaiss
WRC27 marks a hard-headed gamble to stabilise rallying’s future.
By Steve Jones (Rallying UK)
The WRC27 regulations are less a renaissance than a strategic recalibration, designed to preserve competitive viability in the absence of guaranteed manufacturer commitment. While the framework offers hope through inclusivity and cost realism, it also introduces new vulnerabilities that will test governance, commercial strength and the championship’s long-term relevance.
Since the publication of the WRC27 regulations, I have been a consistent and vocal supporter of the direction taken. That position has not been universally popular, but it is one I hold with conviction. The World Rally Championship stands at a critical juncture, and for the first time in several years there is clear evidence of a governing body willing to confront the sport’s structural problems rather than merely manage its decline.
The FIA’s response has been bold, pragmatic and - crucially - rooted in realism. Faced with shifting manufacturer priorities, escalating costs and an increasingly fragile competitive ecosystem, the chosen path represents a genuine attempt to future-proof the championship. I believe this direction is fundamentally sound, and that it has a credible chance of succeeding.
That said, no regulatory reset of this magnitude comes without risk. It is essential to look beyond the headline optimism and examine the potential downsides: the second- and third-order effects, and the unintended consequences that may only become apparent once the regulations move from paper to the Service Park. As 2027 approaches, those considerations deserve serious and dispassionate scrutiny.
What follows are some of the key issues that warrant attention:
1. Shift in power dynamics within the WRC Service Park
If tuners become numerically dominant, influence may shift away from manufacturers towards smaller constructors and the FIA itself. Over time, this could reshape technical governance, sporting priorities, and even calendar decisions, favouring cost containment over innovation.
2. Secondary market distortion
The requirement to produce cars for customer teams (10 per year) may lead to oversupply if sporting demand does not materialise. This could depress resale values, undermine tuner balance sheets, and discourage future entrants once early financial realities become visible.
3. Long-term brand disengagement
If manufacturers perceive the WRC as increasingly detached from road-car relevance, the championship risks drifting further from OEM strategies focused on electric vehicles, software, and new mobility ideas such as connectivity, autonomy, sustainability. This could entrench a cycle where regulations are written around manufacturer absence rather than to attract them back.
4. Promoter leverage inversion
The FIA suggest tuner interest strengthens the hand of a future promoter. The longer-term effect may be the opposite: a promoter inheriting a fragmented field of small constructors may face weaker collective bargaining power with broadcasters, sponsors, and host events.
5. Short-term credibility risk
If several highly publicised tuner projects collapse before homologation, the WRC27 regulations could quickly acquire a reputation for being theoretically attractive but practically unviable. That reputational damage would be immediate and difficult to reverse.
6. Cost escalation through compliance
While framed as inclusive, the homologation obligations (minimum production volumes, customer supply) may quietly drive costs higher than anticipated. Smaller tuners may underestimate these burdens, leading to financial distress or mid-cycle withdrawals.
7. Talent and resource dilution
A proliferation of small constructors could thin the pool of experienced engineers, suppliers, and rally-specific expertise. In the short term this looks like growth; in the longer term it risks reducing overall technical quality and reliability across the grid.
8. Regulatory lock-in
If the tuner model becomes entrenched, future regulation cycles may be constrained by their needs, making it harder to pivot towards technologies or formats that would attract major manufacturers later. The sport could inadvertently design itself into a corner.
WRC27 is widely presented as a renaissance built on inclusivity and renewed interest. A more critical reading suggests something subtler is at play: a strategic recalibration that trades some degree of traditional manufacturer centrality for competitive stability and broader participation. Whether that compromise ultimately reinvigorates the championship or merely arrests further decline will depend far less on the headline number of interested tuners, and far more on the effectiveness of governance, promotion and long-term commercial strategy.
Having said all of that, I remain genuinely optimistic about WRC27. Rallying has always evolved through periods of disruption, and its greatest eras have often emerged from moments of uncertainty rather than comfort.
As great writer and speaker Alan Watts so succinctly put it:
“The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.”
Take your partners...
I wish they’d call these potential new entries ‘constructors’ rather than ‘tuners’
To me a tuner is someone fitting some cheap aftermarket accessories to a road car.
If I wanted the thoughts of AI, I've already written them.