Printable View
Just had a look at one of the new proposed changes aimed at reducing costs in the WRC.
http://www.rallye-info.com/article.asp?stid=5825
Being penalised a second for every minute you are in service! A bizarre way of achieving lower costs that could potentially create mulitiple new problems.
The article says "discussion points".
Isn't it better to have a chance for the competitors and manufacturers to discuss the proposals before they appear as regulations?
The concept of reducing costs to all parties is very valid in my view. What is not clear yet is a definite path to achieve the reductions.
"The idea is for the manufacturers to develop more durable parts". How is extra development cutting costs?
Okay, this might be just a suggestion open for discussion. But someone thought long about this subject, came up with this and then decided to suggest it so everyone can have a long meeting discussing it. I find that rather shocking.
Personally I don't think it's too bad an idea :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmi
I think it's a good idea. It promotes efficiency... I remember seeing cars in service at rally NZ with nothing happening to them, pretty boring watching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmi
And Malcolm Wilson's shorter than he looks on TV :P:
Hmmmmm....don't think it should be applied..main reasons
1. Mechanics might "rush" things to be able to save time thus making the cars less reliable...or even dangerous
2. There will be a problem with timing.....since crews have specific schedules to follow....if the service finishes the cars would still wait in the area to start at the allocated time
3. Drivers will drive more cautiously on the stages...reducing spectacle...
4. some might just drop out of a rally if they see that they have to spend many minutes fixing a power steering pump or something.
5. the winner of a rally will not be the fastest driver.
Cost-cutting is a good idea, but forcing new development will make costs rise, not fall. I like the idea of controlled transmission parts, and control brakes would be good. Making parts more durable would also be good but developing these more durable parts will be expensive.
This could lower the costs for privateers running WRC cars, but in reality the part prices will most likely go up. Cant see it leading to savings for the teams though, controlled parts could be a good idea
1. Mightn't they do this anyway if there's been a big smash and they're racing to repair the car within the time limit?Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
2. Rallies usually have lots of regroups and things anyway, so why not another one after service? Could be a good time for the media to catch up with the drivers to hear their strategies - whether they're playing safe and spending more time in service, or risking the reliability of their car to save time.
3. They do this on day three anyway.
4. I doubt it. If a driver's willing to restart a rally with half an hour of superally penalties, a few seconds penalty for changing a power steering pump shouldn't be a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenSchwinn
5. Again, superally. Last year in Monte Carlo, Loeb was fastest but Gronholm won. People didn't seem to mind too much.
People seem to mind a lot about SupeRally on the forum. It's just the whole idea of altering someones overall times, giving a bit here, taking some away here. No use fighting for those extra few tenths anymore?
It adds an extra dimension to the sport but is it an extra dimension that it really needs? For one im sure the teams will spend more money on becoming as fast as they can in service, and not only durable but easy to change parts.
But if a driver wants to go on the attack and take four seconds off a driver or something but knows his team wont take as long in service then it sort of dilutes what happens in the stages maybe. I'm undecided but its only an idea up for discussion like that crazy superspecial rally deciding concept not so long ago.
Stupid idea this of pennaltys in service. WRC will be like F1... decided on pits!!!
We want to see the rallyes decided on stages and not on services.
There are thousand of ways of reducing costs without changing the rally format. And by the way, service parks ar not done to spectators views... CosmicPanda if you want action go to the stages and don't ask action os service parks. Service parks are to mantain the cars, nothing more. Wich strange argument to defend the pannaltys in Servoce parks because sometimes they don't have action.... this is worst than i tought.
Very good Point !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM
But wouldn't it be a bit like back to the past kind of thing? I mean, then service was allowed on every roadsection. So this could be that aa over again... getting rid of serviceparks and thus go back closer to "old style" rallying.
JAM's the man! agreed 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM
Quote:
Originally Posted by COD
They talked about do it on service parks. Nothing related with service on the road. Do you think that is possible on the XXI century have again service on the road?!? Are you serious?
I think that would be a very fun thing, but I don't see it happening. Not in the modern, ultra-controlled environment of the FIA WRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM
It's the route they've taken with S2000, with the control transmission, and I think it would be a good idea for them to do the same thing with the WRCars.Quote:
Originally Posted by cut the b.s.
In some places you don't need to necessarily service by the side of the road. Many places like Australia have big open places where a small service can be done. Safely too!
Cool. Let's hope the FIA notices, so we can have less centralised service, which will mean the rallies can radiate further from the base and the special stages won't have to be repeated. Wouldn't that be good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The problem is, the only way to save money is to less events , and thats counter productive to the FIA.
All the cars are built with re-usable, serviceable parts. running them for a set amount of time , then refurbishing over & over is a much cheaper way than running them for multiple events , without rebuild, & ruining them.
As far as brakes & stuff goes, its already supplied by proprietry parts people like AP , Brembo & Alcon, and is all much of a muchness. Not exactley high tech.
As for transmissions, speccing a single unit for S2000 which are all front wheel drive is one thing, doing it for 4WD cars that have to made from 2WD is just not practical , bearing in mind that the Subaru is a totally different animal to the others as far as engine layout goes.
The FIA change back to steel props costs more money than it saves , they are nowhere near as durable , and without a spec material standard, they aren't ant cheaper, especially when you have to bin all the Ti ones.
And as for 'on the road servicing', you'd instantly double the amount of people youd need to take on event before you thought about increased vehicle costs.
The problem is not only security, the problem is also costs. With a TIR truck and one big Van you can have a service park for two cars. But if you would be allowed to have service between all stages, then... let's see, One TIR Truck, 6 big Vans and of course, mechanics and engeneers in enough number to have a service properly done. And of course, you will have to multiply the spares for 3x.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
S2000 is 4WD class, made from 2WD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Fudd
The S2000 cars have 4wd but, granted, they are all homologated from transversely-mounted four-cylinder cars... but for the WRC there could be something, like standard diffs, electronics, brakes, dampers, ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Fudd
They could regulate the number of people allowed on a service team in total, and the number of vehicles/spares.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM
...and the we will have a rally on stages with rallycars and another rally on liasions with the service cars trying to go from one stage to another because the limit of service cars allowed. And will still be an increase in costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBrooke
The only solution is the flexi service.
:up: :up: :up: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM
I have to say that I find it pretty hard to believe that manufacturers are not focusing on durability when making parts to cars. Well, I mean I can imagine Skoda hasn't been doing this and we all can see the results, but I could imagine that Citroen has focused on durability as well as high performance.
I mean I don't think that anyone is making parts that are not meant to last? This sport is just very rough to cars, that's why some of the parts don't tend to last.
The parts last the time you want. If you want they last 1 rally, they are developed to last 1 rally, if you want they last 2 rallyes, they are developed to last 2 rallyes, wich doesn't mean that they can't broke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Parts are developed to have the maximum perfomance inside the durability time that you want.
An example? The engines in F1. You had engines to 3 qualifications laps and engines to 70laps race. The difference? One had 900hp and the other had 750hp to handle a complete race.
There is a relation between the perfomance and durability. Bigger perfomance less durability.
Latest update to this news is in Autosport magazine today, and success-related weight penalties are on the table, similar to touring cars.
So, what do you all think about that??
bad ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by RS
bad idea, smells of desperate measures and while WRC may not be perfect its not bad enough to become WWF on wheelsQuote:
Originally Posted by RS
Success ballast is the worst thing ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
I'm with NOT & JAM here. Silly idea.
Service parks are for servicing. Control points are for timing. There is already a penalty regime for lateness at controls.
I have no problem with it being a discussion point. I'd be very surprised if it were adopted.
It's a stupid idea and it doesn't even do the job properly. In my opinion it makes the racing worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
No idea what effect it would have in rallying but it would either be bad or... well, bad.
An absurd idea. It's pointless in touring cars anyway, at least in Britain, because there have been plenty of times when drivers have won with full ballast. Over time, the teams get their cars to perform better with more weight, negating the effect of ballast on the spectacle (which is limited anyway, not to mention unfair).Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
I don't go in for a lot of the FIA-bashing that one reads in places like this, and we should remember that these are just ideas at this stage, but I do wonder when the realisation will come that further-reaching changes to the technical regulations are needed so that genuinely cheap-to-buy-and-run cars can once again become competitive. As I've said many times before, basic Group A regulations appear to be one answer.
The problem is that not enough manufacturers make a four-wheel-drive car in enough numbers to be homologated for Group A, and have the willingness to compete. Just Mitsubishi and Subaru. Not enough manufacturers are willing to devote the resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As soon as weigth penalties are adopted, rallying will cease to be a sport and will just be a show. The World Rally Championship is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport on the road. But how can you take a championship seriously that punishes success? Any World Championship should be about excellence. Achieving that excellence should not be penalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS
That's the whole point. Two-wheel-drive cars would also be competitive. I think this is what's required to revive the championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBrooke
Citroen was ahed the pinacle of rallying and Sebastien Loeb was excellent on the last 3 years. And we will see if this won't happen in 2007 again.Quote:
Originally Posted by kabouter
Conclusion: WRC is in excelent shape.
I don't know if weight penalties are the better solution, but something must be donne to increase the interest in competition.
On loose surfaces 4wd cars have an inherent advantage over 2wd. The 4wd cars would have to be seriously penalised by weight limits to provide equity.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Spot on. Cost-cutting is good to a certain extent. But if you cut out too much, you get a second-class sport. No one wants to watch a world championship that's (as we say here) ghetto.Quote:
Originally Posted by kabouter
Here's a guideline for the FIA: if a new rule makes people say, "what the hell?!" they should drop it. Success-related weight penalties...really? Dumb as heck.
Time penalties for legitimate service and maintenance? Everyone's right--rallies shouldn't be decided in service. What's the point of driving fast anymore? It's not purist fanaticism. It's just common sense.
Would there really be a cost savings in more durable parts? The teams would have to dedicate money to research and development, all to save a few spare parts. We'll never have indestructible parts that don't need replacing. If the teams could build a whole car with super-durable parts, they would have already. Subaru can't build some parts to last Petter one rally, let alone two or three.