The World (Rallying) According to Juha Kankkunen

[Hartusvuori]

I don't think Juha is talking about 2 week long rallies, rather 2 weeks being the time from leaving home base until returning.
When you take in travel, set up, testing, shakedown, recce etc... that's probably about the length of a 4 day rally.

To clarify, that was exactly what he was thinking. If there would be four recce days, like he suggests, rallies couldn't be ran in the current one-week form. Two weeks or so from the day the teams arrive to the day they leave. Actual rally wouldn't be two weeks of course.

[bluuford]

Looking the "Money, Money, Money" thread, two weeks format actually sounds very interesting.

Well, imagine such kind of schedule. You arrive on Monday and then you set up all the service park. Then on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday there will be the first part of the recce. At that time you can do all kind of promotional work as well.

On Friday and Saturday there will be several testing tracks provided for all competitors, so, everybody can fine tune their cars according to the local conditions (There is no need to travel to Spain or Sardegna to do the test in similar conditions). At the same time spectators can already follow the fast cars and teams can do some promotional work as well.

Currently, teams are coming to Finland something like month before the rally and then they do some testing there and travel back to their base and then again travel to Finland one month later. Same story with the Sweden and some other countries.

So, now the cars are set up perfectly and then on Sunday there will be some kind of qualification stage that determines the starting order. That means spectators can follow the cars on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

At the beginning of next week drivers get day off on Monday and the teams have time to prepare their cars. On Tuesday drivers can do the final pass of the recce to see it for the last time. And rally itself can start from Wednesday or Thursday and continue until Sunday.

It sounds actually quite cost effective. You can test on the same place where the rally will be held, you dont need to do two separate trips, that saves the cost. At the same time teams have much more time to do promotional works.

If the rally has several service parks, then there is enough time to move whole stuff to the other side of the country (no need to flexi service anymore) and get even more attention from different spectators and do your PR work for different people.

That means two full weeks of work in one country and then some relaxing time for drivers and etc.

By allowing several service parks you should not worry about the problem if there are enough suitable roads available as well and rally will be much bigger event for the country. Imagine rally Finland in two separate locations? or Rally Sweden and Norway merged in one event? Or rally Italy covering Sardegna and something on the mainland as well. Or Rally GB starting in Scotland and ending in Wales? Or Acropolis rally covering its northern and southern locations both? Or Rally Germany in Trier and near to some other cities further north? or why not even merged with Yrpes?

I think that some radical thinking can give us a lot of good ideas. Some of them or ofcourse total crap but some of them are still brilliant. We should think out from the frames and not to try and fix things inside the frames.

[N.O.T]

To clarify, that was exactly what he was thinking. If there would be four recce days, like he suggests, rallies couldn't be ran in the current one-week form. Two weeks or so from the day the teams arrive to the day they leave. Actual rally wouldn't be two weeks of course.

yes this makes sense...

but again 2 weeks is a bit much i think....especially since most rallies have around 9-12 stages that need to be driven for notes and usually most of the stages are not new thus drivers already have notes for.

[Hartusvuori]

but again 2 weeks is a bit much i think....especially since most rallies have around 9-12 stages that need to be driven for notes and usually most of the stages are not new thus drivers already have notes for.

This is exactly why there should be more recce days. Of course Loeb, Solberg and likes with year of experience from WRC can handle recce in two days very well, but it leaves the newcomers with huge disadvantage. If everyone would get a chance to do more than 2 recce runs, it would balance the situation. Of course the more experienced drivers would still gain from their experience, that's okey of course, but they would get better opposition from the newcomers. And that would make rallies more interesting. I'd like to add to Kankkunen's list that there should be three seats to every factory team like it used to be. Getting some local heroes in top spec cars would be warmly welcomed.

In this light Ogier's performance in NZ was phenomenal. Do teams share pacenote information? I guess they do to some extent at least, and perhaps Ogier is getting some valid tips from his also French mentor Mr. Loeb.

And to Bluuford: Good post!

[bluuford]

I think that most important thing that comes together with 3 cars teams is the more intensive fight. At the moment both drivers in the teams are talking that they have to keep their eye on manufacturer champ and cannot take risks. I think that it was the partial reason why Hirvonen lost the title last year. Every time when Jari crashed he had strict orders to bring the car home safely. It happened in many occasions. But with third car you can allow at least one driver in your team to fight as much as the driver dears.
That would be good for spectators and the whole sport.

[cosmicpanda]

- 10 WRC events should be enough. That would cut costs dramatically.
- If WRC event proves to be not of the WRC quality, there's no point keeping it in the calender.
- WRC and IRC series must be combined. It won't be easy, he says, but it's important to get more makes in to the series.

I confess I have trouble with the above points. 10 WRC events is not enough. What can you do with 10 rallies? The 'good' rallies - Monte, Sweden, Norway, Corsica, Catalunya, Italy, Greece, Argentina, Mexico (why not?), Portugal, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Poland, Safari, GB... you get my drift? This is excluding all the IRC rallies that weren't previous WRC, and those rallies that deserve the chance, IMO, to become established and beloved (Mexico has gained some acceptance, but is hardly loved yet) like Turkey, Jordan and Japan. More events = more exposure. WRC won't become better by downsizing.

I understand the argument that more manufacturers are likely to enter if there are fewer events and it is therefore cheaper, but if they are so tight for money surely they wouldn't be able to be successful anyway? Where is the benefit for established teams to beat such people - how much did the WRC (not the lower categories) really benefit from Suzuki and Skoda's respective campaigns?


And does the WRC already not exclude events of non-WRC quality? Look what happened to Cyprus.


But I suppose the other proposed rules I like well enough.

[Allyc85]

Here is Kankkunen to-do -list how to make WRC better:

- 10 WRC events should be enough. That would cut costs dramatically - Good

- Car should look like race cars. He also seems to be very keen on the appearance in general: he'd prefer that rally cars would be driven more with revs than torque. 8000-9000 rpms should make the crowds excited - very good!

- 350 hp engines. 50 hp more on the engine and 50 kg less on the car weight would make the cars better to drive, he thinks- Very good!

- WRC need more private teams like Grifone, Kronos, Jolly Club, Bozian were in the past. Those would mean more seats for the new talents - Good

- Current regulations are built against young drivers. Kankkunen suggests that drivers would be allowed for four recce runs instead of the current
two - 2 is enough to me

WRC events in general could be two weeks long: if there are only 10 events, that'd mean 140 days in a season - Bad! Waay too long and the repair bills would be mad!

- Midday service should be 20 minutes with all repair parts allowed. There's no point with the current remote service rule: it could end the race if the crew isn't carrying the proper repair parts. It's not cost effective - good

- More testing days allowed - very expensive, hasnt he taken note from other forms of motorsport?

- Gravel crews must be allowed. This is a safety issue as well - Good

- No one-concept rallies like in the current situation. Not all rallies should be won going flat out - Bad, I want to see everyone flat out all the time!

- If WRC event proves to be not of the WRC quality, there's no point keeping it in the calender - Fair point!

- WRC and IRC series must be combined. It won't be easy, he says, but it's important to get more makes in to the series - Agreed

- It'd be important to get an Italian make into the WRC, be it Lancia, Fiat or Alfa-Romeo - Why just the italians, we need a big spread of manufacturers!

- Kankkunen believes season 2011 won't see many changes, but in 2012 it could be possible to see 5-7 makes entering the series - we can hope!

[bowler]

recce is a difficult requirement.

Don't forget that the roads that are used for rallies have another purpose, either forest or normal road, and to close them for long periods causes difficulties for the normal users of the roads.

Already a public road will be closed twice for a rally, once for recce and once for the rally. That is a major inconvenience to the residents and road users. Asking them to do it twice is enough, but more may be too much.

The issue with gravel cars is interesting because Juha came from a time when everyone had them, and now they don't. The important thing is not to replace them, but to understand why they have gone. They represent another group of people, and therefore cost in an environment when everybody, including the manufacturers, wants to get costs down. These cars also travel early on the roads, before the roads are closed. They often are involved in incidents because they drive at rally speed in conditions that are not prepared fro fast drives. The option is to close the roads earlier which puts more cost on the organisers, takes up more marshal time, and increases the road closures for residents.

Nice to go back to the past, but not easy to use in the present.

Ogier in NZ just showed that two passes is fine, and there is no need for gravel cars, if the driver is good enough.

[ProRally]

....
Ogier in NZ just showed that two passes is fine, and there is no need for gravel cars, if the driver is good enough.

Hi Bowler, was nice to see you again in NZ.... great event !!

But you name a name here.... IF the driver is good enough, this one seems also to be from a special mold

[bluuford]

recce is a difficult requirement.

Don't forget that the roads that are used for rallies have another purpose, either forest or normal road, and to close them for long periods causes difficulties for the normal users of the roads.

Already a public road will be closed twice for a rally, once for recce and once for the rally. That is a major inconvenience to the residents and road users. Asking them to do it twice is enough, but more may be too much.

I am not sure how it is on the other places but the roads are opened for public use during the recce at least in Estonia and in many other countries as well (actually everywhere I have seen). Recce cars have to keep the traffic rules and drive like normal cars. That should not cause any more problems for locals. Maybe it is even better for the local stores and accommodation owners who can collect their profit twice as long as they did before.