Silly Season 2022

[AnttiL]

The initial argument was that putting Rovanpera full time in 3rd car lost them manu title in 2020. That stands.
Using Mikkelsen in that seat or using him only for some rallies while Rovanpera drove in an extra car would have given them much better chance.

IMO it's quite hard to argue that Rovanpera's development would go slower if he wasn't nominated on some rallies as long as he would start them. Car availability doesn't seem to be a problem at Toyota (ref Lappi in Finland, Latvala last year). So it was only a question of money and management choice.

It’s different resource-wise to rent a car in one-off event than to have an extra car in all rounds. Personnel, spare parts, chassis service capacity in garage, test days…not just money.

But if Katsuta wasn’t in fourth car, maybe they would have slotted Kalle there. But maybe the third seat would have gone to Latvala or Meeke?

[er88]

Moot point in a way as Toyota were never hiring Mikkelsen anyway, because the team simply don't rate him (they overlooked him at the end of 2016 for JML, kept Hanninen who had a shocking 1st half of 2017 while Mikkelsen was a free agent, and now again they've not shown any interest for next year and opted for Lappi instead). Kalle was a must sign, and he needed pushed into a fulltime seat to learn and adapt to the pressures and levels required. (And in a covid year, with less events and seat time, plus Evans Monza mistake and Ogier dropped pts..., running Kalle a full season wasn't solely why they lost the title as has been mentioned).

[denkimi]

Is this argument still for real? 5 points difference and this was ONLY because it was Rovanperä as 3rd driver? It can be f*cking whatever. Tiny mistake by whoever which cost position. Some puncture. For Ogier or Evans as well. Over season 5 point win is a bit question of luck already.

Punctures are not a choice, just like crashes or mechanical failures. But drivers are.

Ogier and Evans were one and two in the championship. So without the 3th driver being able to score points, they would have easily taken the title.

However you put it, had they chosen to take a different more proven 3th driver, they would most likely have won the title.

It was not some unforseeable issue, it was a deliberate choice. A choice that was predictably bad considering what the competition did.
And it cost them the title.
Not because Rovanperä did bad, but because he was up to way too good drivers.

[mknight]

2020 Driver Points:
Rovanpera 80
Hyundai's Third 91

Kalle did pretty well vs the Hyundai Third considering they were on their favourite events and with better road positions.

Driver points are not the same as manu points.
In manu points Rovanpera had 37 vs 85 (I think), posted just a few pages back.

All the people posting how it was so close...yes it was, cause Ogier and Evans were 1-2 in champs and Evans had massive performance increase.

Anyway this shouldn't be a history thread. Even though it's interesting to see how people can't remember one year back.

[mknight]

But if Katsuta wasn’t in fourth car, maybe they would have slotted Kalle there. But maybe the third seat would have gone to Latvala or Meeke?

Latvala and Meeke lost them the title the year before, by finishing behind both Evans and Mikkelsen even with 2 more rounds.

[AnttiL]

Latvala and Meeke lost them the title the year before, by finishing behind both Evans and Mikkelsen even with 2 more rounds.

Yes but Adamo was not their team leader. No impulsive decisions.

[AnttiL]

Driver points are not the same as manu points.

And like I've said, there's a more complex scoring system.

As an extreme example, if a team gets 1-2-3's in every rally, first driver wins every event, second driver finishes second and third driver third, the third driver scores 0 manufacturer points during the whole season. Has he performed bad?

And then in another scenario the first and second driver retire every second event so the third driver finishes second in every rally while first and second driver alternate winning the events. Now the third driver scores manufacturer points in every rally although the team score is equal to the first scenario. Did he do any better than in the first scenario?

[seb_sh]

Just for fun, lowest position that Toyota 3rd driver needed to do in each rally so that the team scores more than it did:
1. Monte: Win and beat Neuville, Ogier, Evans, Lappi (Rovanpera 5th)
2. Sweden: 2nd and beat Tanak (Rovanpera 3rd)
3. Mexico: 3rd beat Suninen, Evans (Rovanpera 5th)
4. Estonia: 2nd and beat Breen, Ogier, Evans (Rovanpera 5th)
5. Turkey: 3rd and beat Loeb (Rovanpera 4th)
6. Sardinia: 2nd and beat Neuville, Ogier, Evans (Rovanpera DNF)
7. Monza: 4th and beat Lappi, further was Sordo 3rd (Rovanpera 5th)

not exactly light names

[denkimi]

And like I've said, there's a more complex scoring system.

As an extreme example, if a team gets 1-2-3's in every rally, first driver wins every event, second driver finishes second and third driver third, the third driver scores 0 manufacturer points during the whole season. Has he performed bad?

And then in another scenario the first and second driver retire every second event so the third driver finishes second in every rally while first and second driver alternate winning the events. Now the third driver scores manufacturer points in every rally although the team score is equal to the first scenario. Did he do any better than in the first scenario?

It is indeed a confusing system. The more points the number one and two drivers score, the less points the nr3 can score. But also the less he has to score to secure the title.

[skarderud]

Would it be any point at all for Mikkelsen to rent a WRC from M-sport for Monza?
Can he gain anything?
Lets say he win at Monza, it's still no seats available.

Sent fra min SM-G950F via Tapatalk