To Jost Capito: Regarding the layout of the WRC

Dear Mr Capito

I have met You only once - at the launch of the Ford Focus ST at Le Catsellet - where You told me that the ST was a dolphin and an RS the shark.
There where a lot of journalists present over a number of days, so I dont expect You to remember me, but I remember being impressed by Your detailed knowledge of motorsports regarding to drivers, classes, different disiplines, etc. Even tough I had read up on Your vey impressive CV, wich You are building on at this very moment.

I understand that there are some challenging times getting to an agreement regarding the set up/lay out of the WRC, especially in context of the TV broadcasts.
I will present an idea to a layout wich I think could please both parties, and make rallying a greater spectacle for the TV audience and the fans in general.

Concept:
Split each rally in two seperate parts.

Part one: Endurance
This is the rally proper. Multiple stages. Hard. Tough. Long. Day. Night. Etc.
Points given out.
On TV: Summary each day/evening.

Part two: SuperStage
One stage run as a seperate event with seperate points.
The SuperStage is run as the only stage on the last day of the rally.
The SuperStage should facilitate for a lot of spectators, and be made in to an event of its own (like the Fafe etc)
On TV: Start with summary of the rally proper with Best Of moments. And then some feature stuff, live from the Service Park, etc. Then Live stage, with split times etc.

Bonus: With the physics engine of the Richard Burns Rally as a starting point, an online rally game is developed called "WRC Superstage" (it must be a simulator, not an arcade). Here the rally fans can compete in real time on the SuperStage, with big prizes etc. (Online competing in real time is an old idea from the times of David Richards, but have never come to fruition.)

That's not actually a bad suggestion - but, you've used that word which brings shivers to WRC top brass. The 'E' word......
Whisper it..... Endurance. And anyway, define Endurance. In my view, any event with 500km+ of special stages is endurance. Surely there is room for 2-3 Endurance events in a 12-13 round series?

I've also seen a suggestion to follow the example of FiS Cross Country ski-ing; I'm not sure that would work. But it would be better than this 'shoot out' concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

That's not actually a bad suggestion - but, you've used that word which brings shivers to WRC top brass. The 'E' word......
Whisper it..... Endurance. And anyway, define Endurance. In my view, any event with 500km+ of special stages is endurance. Surely there is room for 2-3 Endurance events in a 12-13 round series?

I've also seen a suggestion to follow the example of FiS Cross Country ski-ing; I'm not sure that would work. But it would be better than this 'shoot out' concept.

---

The "Endurance" part can be done with great flexibility offered to the rally organisers. There would be no problem letting the Automobile Club of Monaco have a Monte Carlo rally as they would like (with night stages etc), and have one SuperStage (the Col de Turini springs to mind.)

For the TV-crew this would simplify the live part of the rally.

I think it's easier to broadcast the rally live as it has been done with Rally France, than to make a full blown live broadcast with several on ground cameras on a stage as long as Col de Turini.

Good idea. Much better than the proposed one, which should be in garbage already. Some ifs - which of course can be solved: 1) Same car in both events? (Could be a cost if the teams need to have spare cars for their drivers being able to start if they crash day one. 2) Counting bodyshells and engines for the whole season (rules that was -don´t know if they is still present) in the second section?

If not mentioned: The second section should of course let the drivers do a couple of rounds on stage before the real test. All for the spectators.

Herregud...Or Garry Hud.

So say Häckki Hälarna drives 500km and wins traditional SSs and gets 15 poäng.

Then Rex Karrs who bought his ride for 6 million euros and flipped on SS2, and SS10 has his skillful mechanics slam it back together and he wins the TV Special....are you suggesting he also gets 15 oöng?

Shirley you cannot be serious.

PS how do you have so much self control? Not one word of swearing! Not even asking if he was passed out drunk, or if he had been bought..

Such self control..

You're a better man than me, Gunga Din.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lundefaret

Split each rally in two seperate parts.

Part one: Endurance
This is the rally proper. Multiple stages. Hard. Tough. Long. Day. Night. Etc.
Points given out.
On TV: Summary each day/evening.

Part two: SuperStage
One stage run as a seperate event with seperate points.
The SuperStage is run as the only stage on the last day of the rally.
The SuperStage should facilitate for a lot of spectators, and be made in to an event of its own (like the Fafe etc)
On TV: Start with summary of the rally proper with Best Of moments. And then some feature stuff, live from the Service Park, etc. Then Live stage, with split times etc.

---

This is very similar to IRC Golden stage concept which was successfully used at the end of 2010 and 2011 season (I think). Thanks to Eurosport we know this idea works so why not. Definitely better than the stupid proposal for decisive stage!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

I think it's easier to broadcast the rally live as it has been done with Rally France, than to make a full blown live broadcast with several on ground cameras on a stage as long as Col de Turini.

---

Don't know about RedBull Media but Eurosport way of covering Tour de France and ERC/IRC events (when they are live) is technically done in absolutely same way.

Yes points scoring is an issue. But one stage in a parallell rally event together with an ordinary endurance rally is one way to go if WRC should talk to even bigger amounts of spectators.

Why does WRC need any change? For me the sport, as it is, is perfect. The main problem FIA should work on is not the "content", the problem is the "package". Capito wants to make WRC a TV-event, in my opinion this is not possible, it's not F1. It can be a great TV sport, in the way Eurosport did with IRC (remember Monte Carlo). But that requires some effort. In stead of destroying our sport by changing the fundamentals, the promotor should work on its job! I remember the time on this forum where everyone complained there "still" was no promotor for WRC. Now we have a promotor for more than a year, nothing has changed...

Maybe You are right. One could wonder why such an enormously popular event like Dakar is not held on 9000 one kilometer long spectator stages from which 8999 are qualification rounds for the last decisive battle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommeke_B

Why does WRC need any change? For me the sport, as it is, is perfect. The main problem FIA should work on is not the "content", the problem is the "package". Capito wants to make WRC a TV-event, in my opinion this is not possible, it's not F1. It can be a great TV sport, in the way Eurosport did with IRC (remember Monte Carlo). But that requires some effort. In stead of destroying our sport by changing the fundamentals, the promotor should work on its job! I remember the time on this forum where everyone complained there "still" was no promotor for WRC. Now we have a promotor for more than a year, nothing has changed...

---

I'd agree. The only thing that needs to change is the promotion - it's been pretty much nothing. It seems all promoters want to do is put it on 'Pay TV', and that is their job done.

I saw plenty of tweets today from various RedBull accounts about the WingsForLife World Run event - why don't they do similar when there is a WRC event?

They need to pull their finger out and get promoting; the 'new' WRC website is still rubbish.... Simply not good enough.

Or formula one making the last lap fastest time the winner...

To be honest. WRC as today isn´t the same as for 10-20 years ago. The time doesn´t stand still. Neither the development, nor media or spectators. Today so may other sports are competitiors to rallying. Changes should be done, more in the way the promotor shows the events. But it costs money and they seems not have any to develop.

So many thing can be done in this area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommeke_B

Why does WRC need any change? For me the sport, as it is, is perfect. The main problem FIA should work on is not the "content", the problem is the "package". Capito wants to make WRC a TV-event, in my opinion this is not possible, it's not F1. It can be a great TV sport, in the way Eurosport did with IRC (remember Monte Carlo). But that requires some effort. In stead of destroying our sport by changing the fundamentals, the promotor should work on its job! I remember the time on this forum where everyone complained there "still" was no promotor for WRC. Now we have a promotor for more than a year, nothing has changed...

---

Agree, content is perfect, package is none existing in some rallies but that is promoter problem. Somehow Eurosport managed to bring the best of WRC even without live/power stages. If Redbull media can't cope with it maybe they shouldn't do it.

I'm not a fan of changing the format at all, and really despise the idea of the final stage shootout. If there is to be a compromise then this may work;

At the end of the penultimate stage, the overall deficits are divided by 5. i.e. if for example;

1. Ogier
2. Latvala +3.5
3. Hirvonen +10.0
4. Meeke +15.5
5. Ostberg +38.5

Going into the final stage the times would become;

1.Ogier
2. Latvala +0.7
3. Hirvonen +2.0
4. Meeke +3.1
5. Osberg +7.7

The final stage will be run twice and they will be the only stages run on the last day. The top 20 will run in reverse. They will be +20Km each ( +40Km in total), live on TV, full of fans. It means a driver who has dropped a minute in the previous 2 days can still win as they only have 12s to make up.

It was used in X Games Rally in 2006, I thought it was a stupid idea at the time, but it did make the final stage exciting and I'd much prefer that to the final stage shootout.

One thing that worries me in the shootout, is for example if 2nd and 3rd place crash out, will the 4th placed car only get 3rd as that was the car that they were competing against? Does 2nd still keep 2nd? Or is it a DNF? So much CAN happen on a final stage, lets not ruin that, but we can enhance the excitement.

^ the final stage shootout doesn't reward the best driver who has build up a lead throughout the event. This format does give the leader an advantage going into the final 2 stages, plus it gives the driver in 3rd/5th/7th etc a chance to gain places, whereas in the shootout all they can do is loose points!

Just imagine, 2 stages and 40km to run, with the top 5 split by 10s, all live on TV. Now that does sound exciting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doon

One thing that worries me in the shootout, is for example if 2nd and 3rd place crash out, will the 4th placed car only get 3rd as that was the car that they were competing against? Does 2nd still keep 2nd? Or is it a DNF? So much CAN happen on a final stage, lets not ruin that, but we can enhance the excitement.

---

This is the least of my worries. I agree that a lot can happen in the last stage but with the current format, 3 points does not worth risking 15 points to push the VWs for stage win. But if it kept as a separate event (as someone proposed above) I think most of the drivers will be keen to push more and have some more action going on (for those that want crashes drama etc).

But whatever the format, their coverage would suck and be just as boring as it is at the moment. Personally I find it better to hear the radio than watching their TV coverage, there is no passion in their commentary in contrast with Colin Clark that transfers the stage atmosphere as it happens. Viewing the stage in mexico live I just wanted Paul King to shut up because the only thing he cared to comment was how far they were jumping and if they were flat on the jump. And who is that woman doing the end of stage interviews? She has no clue what is going on.
Also they really have to work hard on their camera positioning and the selected spots they choose and the overall review format. Is there any other sport in the world where fans prefer watching amateur youtube videos than the official coverage of the promoter...?

When they solve these things among others (see website, timing, twitter updates) and understand what is special about our sport, then they can start fiddling with the format.

This idea is better than the final stage shoot out, nice one, all though change for changes sake?

We could also consider a v8 super car format

So each event is a round and there is a winner of the overall round

More points for the large race winner (in this case a 2 day rally)

Then two smaller races (2 single super special stages (or power stages) on the final day )
Road position dictated by the 2 day rally

Perhaps half the points of the 2 day rally/race for each of the sss stages/races.

Seems wrong to use the word race in rally...but you get the idea...

god i just heard his interview with Collin, he's such an idiot,what a stupid and complicated idea, when will he realize that the Internet is the way forward!!!!! i mean look at rallycross -Online f***ing live!!! streaming!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

I've also seen a suggestion to follow the example of FiS Cross Country ski-ing; I'm not sure that would work. But it would be better than this 'shoot out' concept.

---

And what would that be? Please enlighten us :D

I come from a medium size country with a population so scarce the words "neighbour" and "city", in their general European understanding, really are not relevant.
In this country we are absolutly mad about sports. Since the climate is off the kind that only apeals to the true enusiast of frost bite and the following gangrene, sports involving the word "ski" is on the top of the interest curve.
But we have exceptions to the rule. Number one is soccer. Even tough the green grass is only visible from beneeth the snow every fourth year - or there abouts.
But we also have other exeptions, of a more exeptional nature. Sports that really should not appeal to the general public, atleast not as a TV-sport, but does - beqause of a set of circomstanses (that word cant be spelled corectly?;). Petter Solberg helped bring rallying not only in the newspapers, but on to the front page. But we have even better examples, and the best one, the sport that really takes off on television in Norway right now, is the extremly not entertaining game of Chess!
Yep - Chess is one of the biggest successes in Norway the last couple of years.
Well... Since the sport is not called Chess-skiing, the answer to the question "WHY THE HELL????!!!" must be something else.
Well, in Magnus Carlsen we have the new world champion in chess. This helps. But the young Mr. Carlsen, tough not completly without a sence of houmor, is what You can describe as an (extremly) introvert person. He is not the person to come out of the TV-screen and touch the audience, to put it mildly.
But, VG, wich is the largest newspaper in Norway, and has the largest internet-site, has taken chess under its wings, and made it to something special. Something that reaches far beyond the viewers this sport really desserves, if You only look at what it really consists of. To men sitting downat a table thinking really hard. And making small movements every half hour or so.
Well, how has Norways largest and most tabloid newspaper made this into a viewing frenzy?
Have they done it by dumbing it down? Showing chess "for the masses" by comenting really simple so everybody should understand?
No!
They have done the complete oposite. They have taken the nerd-factor to elleven!
VGs own commentator is a chess fan, this helps, but the real stroke of genious comes from how they have picked their expert commentator.
(Follow this link to see a picture of him: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Olav_Lahlum)
He is a super nerd, in the best possible meaning of the term, and has a genious level of competence and knowledge.

This - I believe - is the true challenge of Rallying. We need the expert commentators, and the expert angle, to make the sport interesting. We should not think of the audience being stupid, we should smarten up!

I have earlier described rallying as chess at 200 km/h. There are so many factors You can bring forward to make the viewing more interesting.
- Ingeneering
- Tactics
- Driving technique
- Strategy
- Pace notes
- etc

But You should do it the nerd way, not the superficial way. Go deep!
Stage end commentators should know enough to answer the right questions.
The teams should be forced to openness.
The engineers should be interviewed regularly.
The audience should be let in to the deepest aspects, team meetings, etc etc.

And regarding broadcasting, a combination of internett and TV would be the perfect one.

Interview with Capito:

PODCAST! Listen

http://irallylive.com/ir_news.htm?00006922&10

Hördu Lundi-fret!
Here's how I try to explain to icke Nordic peoples about the ''local meanings of introvert and normal and extrovert''

How do you know if you are talking with a normal health typical ________________ (choose Swede, or Norwegian)?

Answer: easy he looks at his feet when he talks to you.

Now how do you know you're talking to "a wild and crazy guy", the life of the party, a attention whore and drama queen--a genuine extrovert?

Answer: EASY!


He looks at your feet when he's talking to you..

And above, your ideas, you have to find at least 3-4 of those extroverts who actually happen to know something..
Finns det verkligen 3 eller 4 ''riktiga extroverts'' som vet nåt i hela Norden?
Jag tror inte det.

Capito is really good manager, nothing more...

Rally need simplifying, not more factors that makes it hard to explain to non-petrolheads.

Classes: wrc 1, wrc 2, wrc 3 as today.

System: you start in Ss1 and end the rally at the last stage. The quickest man wins.
If the car breakes, you are out.
If you go offroad: you are out.
More services than today. Drivers can have team support from a team of mechanics in a van, as it used to be.

Learn from Eurosport/ IRC with live productions as they produced. They were exiting.
Stream them live, 1 hr TV every night. (40 min WRC 1, 15 min WRC 2, 5 min WRC 3)

No double points, no points for the win of the last stage, no other tricks than that the car that wins most rallies during the season becomes world champions.

The key here is streaming over the internet. This is the area they need to put money into.

Make it simple, rather than more intricate than it already is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sulland

Rally need simplifying, not more factors that makes it hard to explain to non-petrolheads.

Classes: wrc 1, wrc 2, wrc 3 as today.

System: you start in Ss1 and end the rally at the last stage. The quickest man wins.
If the car breakes, you are out.
If you go offroad: you are out.
More services than today. Drivers can have team support from a team of mechanics in a van, as it used to be.

Learn from Eurosport/ IRC with live productions as they produced. They were exiting.
Stream them live, 1 hr TV every night. (40 min WRC 1, 15 min WRC 2, 5 min WRC 3)

No double points, no points for the win of the last stage, no other tricks than that the car that wins most rallies during the season becomes world champions.

The key here is streaming over the internet. This is the area they need to put money into.

Make it simple, rather than more intricate than it already is!

---

Exactly. I agree 100% .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sulland

Rally need simplifying, not more factors that makes it hard to explain to non-petrolheads.

Classes: wrc 1, wrc 2, wrc 3 as today.

System: you start in Ss1 and end the rally at the last stage. The quickest man wins.
If the car breakes, you are out.
If you go offroad: you are out.
More services than today. Drivers can have team support from a team of mechanics in a van, as it used to be.


No double points, no points for the win of the last stage, no other tricks than that the car that wins most rallies during the season becomes world champions.

The key here is streaming over the internet. This is the area they need to put money into.

Make it simple, rather than more intricate than it already is!

---

But more drama to come if you can vid mechanics trying to repair car down the road section, which should be allowed in the future. That gives the people more heroes and the media more to review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rallyper

But more drama to come if you can vid mechanics trying to repair car down the road section, which should be allowed in the future. That gives the people more heroes and the media more to review.

---

Big parts of what makes this sport so interseting is not made a point of on TV/ in media.

- Engineering
- Team
- Mechanics
- Recce
- Driving Technique
- Strategy
- Etc

One should take all these factors an think of ways to make them as spectacular for TV as possible.

Logistically Rallying can be compared to Special Soldiers goin to war behind enemy lines.
You have a big supporting team of engineers, mechanics, team personel, logistics people, catering etc etc, that is there to support two or three special forces teams, that are planning an attack behind enemy lines.
If they have problems, the supporting team needs to react, and help them.

Remote service is one very dramatic factor that should, if viable, be put back in to the sport.
There where problems with the teams having to race with the trucks, making it unsafe etc, but it could be done in a more orderly fashion.

To se two pair of mechanics feet from under a rally car on the side of the road, working desperatly with tools and parts out from a small van, is very "rally". And I think You need factors like this to balance it against the big service aerea that has now rissen as a result of the Micke Mouse layout of the modern rallies.

There are so many aspects that make rallying interesting, and so many heroes in the sport on top of the drivers, that there should be a lot to pick and chose from to make good television/internet broadcasts.

From www.autosport.com


The World Rally Championship will definitely undergo significant format changes for 2015, senior figures have confirmed to AUTOSPORT.

As outlined previously, the option most likely to be selected for the revamp is the final-stage shootout system favoured by Volkswagen team principal Jost Capito.

That plan has gathered support since evolutions were made following criticism from within the sport.

The new version of the format will offer points at the end of each day and a performance weighting in the shootout to reward being fastest throughout the rally.

If, for example, the driver in first place heading into the decider has been a tenth of a second per mile faster across the whole event than the driver in second place, then they will take that advantage multiplied by the stage distance into the shootout. So, if the final test was 10 miles, the quicker driver would start with a one-second time advantage.

A source told AUTOSPORT: "We understand there was a lot of resistance to this plan, which is why we have worked hard to evolve it and to answer a lot of the criticisms.

"This plan involves the least amount of format change for the rally organisers.

"The format will remain as it is now: a ceremonial and maybe a superspecial on Thursday night, then normal days Friday and Saturday and a shorter day on Sunday.

"There are a couple of options, but this is the one people are going for.

"It will be discussed more in the next couple of months, with probably a few more refinements made - it will then be signed-off at September World [Motorsport] Council."

SCEPTICAL TEAMS BEING WON OVER

M-Sport team principal Malcolm Wilson admitted he had been sceptical at the start, but could see the benefit now.

"It's going in the right direction now," he said. "There are some other people who have to agree with it, but I think we're getting there.

"The teams are all working on how the points would theoretically be working and how it would be affecting the championship."

Hyundai's Michel Nandan echoed those sentiments, with the caveat that WRC Promoter must have a market for what is a made-for-television spectacle.

"I think this is a good proposal, it can improve the show and make it more easy to present to television," said Nandan.

"Still, we need to do some more simulations to be done to make sure you are not giving too much to the very fast drivers.

"This can make it more attractive - we want the cars close together and fighting - and we need to know we can sell the television."

I think the idea could work - but *only* if it is implemented properly. And for that to happen, the final-stage shootout would have to replace the Power Stage and have no impact on the overall event points.

I have no objection to awarding points at the end of each day. I think it rewards consistency without penalising drivers who are forced out, especially if the circumstances of their retirement are beyond their control. The Australian Rally Championship does exactly this without issue.

But in order for the shootout to work, it would have to be run *after* the final day's points are awarded so that it has no impact on those points. Instead, it would replace the current Power Stage format as a source of bonus points. To have it decide the final points standings undermines everything that came before it.

If the latest suggestion is really what WRC 2015 onwards is about - I'm done. The only 'performance weighting' that should take place is the car that crosses the last special stage with the lowest overall time wins.

That suggestion is total crap - it completely over complicates things. How will they possibly attract a bigger audience? why the obsession with easier to present on TV when the promoter and FIA can't even sort good coverage now - it's so boring to watch a highlights package, assuming one is actually broadcast on your TV channels.

So you take a system that has been working for a long time, and change it. you do this because the organisation that has been running the show for years has not been able to sell the product well enough, and get in a promotor.
Impressive, not!

For a long time Fia has neglected Rally, now they are desperate to make it the new milkcow, when F1 are loosing popularity.

In the process they are killing off the essence of Rally.
For some time they have made all rallies more or less A4, length, concept and so on. The only thing that changes is the thing the wheels meet on the ground; gravel, asphalt or snow.
No freedom left for organizers.

The tech rules used to be made so that private tuners could make and run their own car, and numbers were large.
No freedom for private teams.

The prize for participating is skyrocketing.
These days local drivers can not afford to run their local WRC round. It has become too expensive. Numbers are down, and organizers loose money.
Why;
Fia has put up the price the organizers pay them to be allowed to run a rally.

Result: everyone loose!
If this mismanagemt had happened in a private business, it would had beed bancrupt by now.

We see the same story with IOC doing the Olympics, FIFA doing the World Cup, and others.
The original target of the organisation changes.

Where the target used to be to support the organizers and athletes to do as best they can, it is now to earn as much money as possible.

The old men running these organisations, have never been democratically elected, but got the job by nod of comerades.
They try to sit as long as possible, and suck as much money as possible out of everyone, so their luxury can increase.


Thank you Bernie Ecclestone for leading the way. You have inspired many men!

Rally has always been the ugly duckling of motorsport, not adapting - lets see if it can hold off another attack. But this time it looks grimm!!

The beancounters are starting to get Rally into the same streamlined format as the rest of the circuit racing world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lundefaret

But we also have other exeptions, of a more exeptional nature. Sports that really should not appeal to the general public, atleast not as a TV-sport, but does - beqause of a set of circomstanses (that word cant be spelled corectly?;). Petter Solberg helped bring rallying not only in the newspapers, but on to the front page. But we have even better examples, and the best one, the sport that really takes off on television in Norway right now, is the extremly not entertaining game of Chess!
Yep - Chess is one of the biggest successes in Norway the last couple of years.
Well... Since the sport is not called Chess-skiing, the answer to the question "WHY THE HELL????!!!" must be something else.
Well, in Magnus Carlsen we have the new world champion in chess. This helps. But the young Mr. Carlsen, tough not completly without a sence of houmor, is what You can describe as an (extremly) introvert person. He is not the person to come out of the TV-screen and touch the audience, to put it mildly.
But, VG, wich is the largest newspaper in Norway, and has the largest internet-site, has taken chess under its wings, and made it to something special. Something that reaches far beyond the viewers this sport really desserves, if You only look at what it really consists of. To men sitting downat a table thinking really hard. And making small movements every half hour or so.
Well, how has Norways largest and most tabloid newspaper made this into a viewing frenzy?
Have they done it by dumbing it down? Showing chess "for the masses" by comenting really simple so everybody should understand?
No!
They have done the complete oposite. They have taken the nerd-factor to elleven!
VGs own commentator is a chess fan, this helps, but the real stroke of genious comes from how they have picked their expert commentator.
(Follow this link to see a picture of him: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Olav_Lahlum)
He is a super nerd, in the best possible meaning of the term, and has a genious level of competence and knowledge.

---

This is a good post from you, so much truth. To add to this here is an article describing how they are making football ("Soccer") popular in the United States. They do it just the way you state here, playing to the die-hard fans instead of the casual idiots. In the US of course basically everyone is ignorant about football yet they made it happen without changing any rules of the game. WRC promotors should take notes.
http://worldcup.usatoday.com/2014/06...ore-world-cup/

The Major League Soccer started in 1996 from absolutely nothing. Today it has a 90 million tv contract and 20000 spectators on average for each of its 20 clubs. A great achievement for a league that is not in the top10 most important football leagues worldwide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

This is a good post from you, so much truth. To add to this here is an article describing how they are making football ("Soccer") popular in the United States. They do it just the way you state here, playing to the die-hard fans instead of the casual idiots. In the US of course basically everyone is ignorant about football yet they made it happen without changing any rules of the game. WRC promotors should take notes.
http://worldcup.usatoday.com/2014/06...ore-world-cup/

The Major League Soccer started in 1996 from absolutely nothing. Today it has a 90 million tv contract and 20000 spectators on average for each of its 20 clubs. A great achievement for a league that is not in the top10 most important football leagues worldwide.

---

A very good article!

read page 70-71 from Capitos interview. Some had a right guess...
http://digital.motorsportmonday.com/...0-86d82eb2141e

Malcolm Wilson has the best idea when it comes to the future of the WRC. Have R5´s with bigger restrictors. (And my say would be limit suspension travel, aerodynamics, and tire widths.)
Almost the same pace, but on 40% of the cost.

That would mean a lot more drivers - and teams, both private and factory - could enter the WRC.
More drivers in competitive cars is far more important than shootouts etc.

Look at Supercars in Rallycross - semi-private teams with spectacular cars, and a lot of drivers. And above all else: MORE POWER THAN GRIP

Ogier would still win, but he could be challenged on a more regular basis from more drivers than Latvala, and a few others on a few other occasions.
A three car, or even a four car team rule where the two best score Championship points, would get more specialists, and more young drivers to get a chance for a drive.

The classes in the WRC should be:
4WD
2WD (R2)
Junior (R2 max 29 years)
Make a seperate TV/Web/ package of also the lower classes (2WD, and Junior combined), to get more audience, and use this as a billboard for the WRC proper.

And build up a strong ERC, to be a real feeder series for both drivers and teams.
Set the total number of events low, maybe 7 rallies. 1 snow, 3 gravel, 3 tarmac.
This way the ERC-teams can do the full series on a sustainable budget, and national level can do most of these events on a "normal" budget, whit out it clashing with to many national events.
Have these classes:
4WD
2WD (R2)
Junior (R2 max 29 years)
And cut the age limit on the Junior ERC deal, call it ERC 2WD and ERC 4WD.

R5 is a big success, and there is already a lot of cars present. If these cheaply could be run as WRC-cars (bigger restrictors), there are a lot of cars out there.
R2 is a big success, with a huge number of cars. Build on that both in the ERC and the WRC.
R3 Maybe more relevant on a national level?

Quote:

---

More drivers in competitive cars is far more important than shootouts etc.

Look at Supercars in Rallycross - semi-private teams with spectacular cars, and a lot of drivers. And above all else: MORE POWER THAN GRIP

Ogier would still win, but he could be challenged on a more regular basis from more drivers than Latvala, and a few others on a few other occasions.
A three car, or even a four car team rule where the two best score Championship points, would get more specialists, and more young drivers to get a chance for a drive.

---

Well said, I fully agree :up:

Another issue for the WRC is the class structure.....still!

Can anyone give me a valid reason for having both WRC3 and Junior WRC? The same drivers and cars are currently leading both championships.

Why not have WRC3 as the old PWRC, but only allow 4wd production cars, R4. Then DS3 R3's can be JWRC only.

Better still, why not scrap WRC2, WRC3 etc.... and keep it simple;

WRC
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1

It becomes quite confusing when you explain to the none enthusiast, 'WRC2 consists of R5 cars, which can be RCC, R5, or S2000, but WRC3 consists of R4, R3 and R2 cars, but the R3 cars are also the JWRC cars'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doon

Can anyone give me a valid reason for having both WRC3 and Junior WRC?

---

WRC3 no limit on the car make and JWRC is basically a cup championship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

WRC3 no limit on the car make and JWRC is basically a cup championship

---

Yes, but why both when the majority of the WRC3 cars are DS3 R3's that are running in the JWRC. If you look at the championship standing for both, they are very similar, drivers/cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doon

Another issue for the WRC is the class structure.....still!

Can anyone give me a valid reason for having both WRC3 and Junior WRC? The same drivers and cars are currently leading both championships.

Why not have WRC3 as the old PWRC, but only allow 4wd production cars, R4. Then DS3 R3's can be JWRC only.

Better still, why not scrap WRC2, WRC3 etc.... and keep it simple;

WRC
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1

It becomes quite confusing when you explain to the none enthusiast, 'WRC2 consists of R5 cars, which can be RCC, R5, or S2000, but WRC3 consists of R4, R3 and R2 cars, but the R3 cars are also the JWRC cars'.

---

I consider myself just a bit more informed than a normal schmuck off the street, active in rally as driver for 10 years, manufacturing parts for rally cars for 25..

And I really have no idea what "Dubya Arsey 2" and Dubya Arsey 3, OR R5-R4-R3 whatever..
mean

The morons which cam up with this, probably non participants---are too dumb to think that the name OUGHT to say SOMETHING about what the one car is vs the other car..
"This is a 1300 Gp X car, but that one over there is a 2 liter ___ class one."

R4? What the hell does that tell me? Nothing. How is it different from a R5? Is A R1 the Highest, ya know?
Numbah ONE!
Morons