The funny (or not so funny) thing about this savings is that just one year a go they introduced brand new much more expensive cars.
Printable View
The funny (or not so funny) thing about this savings is that just one year a go they introduced brand new much more expensive cars.
More muddled thinking - they want to cut costs, but always do it the wrong way.....
Parts are linked through the numbers. For example Car #11 must use the same engine and differential in Sardegna and Turkey. But if the car retires in Sardegna, it can be fitted with fresh parts. Then the team could choose who drives the car #11 with fresh parts. Also, we could assume that Al-Qassimi's driving pace gives more wear and tear to certain parts so it's a good strategy to rotate his driving number.
Another thing related to this was when Mikkelsen joined Hyundai a year ago, he had to do some rallies with Paddon's differential, which didn't suit his driving style.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please :)
Just when you let down your guard and start to think that the sport is heading in the right direction, the central planners decide that what we really need is more of their goddamn stupid ideas.
Economically illiterate Moseley-era schemes.Quote:
These would be applied on January 1, 2019 and include cost saving measures such as reducing the number of mechanics allowed to work on rally cars from 12 to nine for a three car team, and from eight to six for two car teams. There’s also a plan to reduce the number of test days per year from 55 to 42 [...]
Why? Because some guy with more power than brains arbitrarily decided that all rallies everywhere should be around 300km long? As if the problem right now is too many stages.Quote:
and to reduce the maximum permitted special stage distance from the current 500km (which has never been used) to between 300 and 350km.
Again, straight out of the Mosley school of managed decline. WRONG DIRECTION.Quote:
To restrict tactical retirements at the end of a rally in order to fit a different engine for the next event, there are proposed changes as to when a retirement can take place, and the number of engines which can be sealed and available during a season.
OK, now it's like they're trying to ruin the sport. No, seriously. What are they trying to accomplish with this? What effect do they think it will have on the appeal of the sport to no longer see spectacular scenes of broken cars chugging along?Quote:
Another proposed change, following a dramatic incident in Portugal, is that a car must always have four rotating wheels at the start of a stage, effective immediately.
It's just so frustrating to see this keep happening over and over, and the same people always put their hands up in the end and say, "It's no one's fault the sport is struggling! Young people just don't care about racing anymore." No, you don't care about racing anymore.
Point with the more expensive cars was that they should look more spectacular (power+wings) and they added center diff so that they are "safer". Whether they succeeded and whether it was worth the cost is one thing.
Number of test days has no direct positive effect for spectators (well unless you count those few people that get to the test and then spend most of the time waiting for that 1 car to appear), which is why it is different.
Well, testing= development, speed, equal competition idealistically so should have a positive effect.
Exactly. Teams will spend every last bit of money they can get their hands on. If they have money left they will hire an extra engineer to design more aerodynamic rear view mirrors, or to design a lighter battery bracket.
If they really want to cut costs, they need to shorten the rally's. Shakedown on friday, perhaps some special stage at night too. And a full saturday, sunday and the night between. Thats saves money to everyone.
What exactly would save so much money? 50 less SS km?