WRC Testing

[stefanvv]

Evo's are boring to watch. Period.
Only few chosen ones can drive evo's flamboyant and fast.

So it depends on the driver. Well, isn't it the same with the new wrc cars?

[cali]

So it depends on the driver. Well, isn't it the same with the new wrc cars?

Flamboyant usually is not fast.

Sent from my ONE E1003 using Tapatalk

[stefanvv]

Flamboyant usually is not fast.

Sent from my ONE E1003 using Tapatalk

Usually...

[Mirek]

In Evo IX times there could be much better than S1, but this is irrelevant.

No, that's perfectly relevant because it's the principle question. Can boring car be faster? The answer is yes. Simple as that. It's irrelevant which years You put in to the equation.

That was just one example of many to illustrate the reality. This weekend there was a Formula Student race in Most including my Alma Mater and guess what - the fastest cars were painful to watch and impossible to listen as they were... electric.

Have You ever experienced the feeling when You watch the time and ralize that the thing which looks and sounds like a trolleybus has just done 0-100 km/h in 3,5 secs? That's so weird but it's good to realize that perception of speed is nothing but accurate.

So it depends on the driver. Well, isn't it the same with the new wrc cars?

Have You ever been to any WRC event? Have You ever watched PWRC after the WRC field? It's sooo huge difference that it hurts.

Also we had here in CZ a period of Evo cup - up to 50 Evos per event (really) but You could count the spectacular ones on fingers of one hand. In those days people stopped going to watch rallies and they started to return only with S2000 (very slowly at the beginning). One would say 50 Evos are worth watching but they were not.

Usually...

At least on apshalt it's nearly a rule.

[stefanvv]

No, that's perfectly relevant because it's the principle question. Can boring car be faster? The answer is yes. Simple as that. It's irrelevant which years You put in to the equation.

No it is irrelevant, because times and technology are different. We may enjoy Quattro times forever but the are gone, forever. You're mixing the contexts.

That was just one example of many to illustrate the reality. This weekend there was a Formula Student race in Most including my Alma Mater and guess what - the fastest cars were painful to watch and impossible to listen as they were... electric.

Here I can agree, electric cars are not exciting for a race, especially for a rally, but this is the reality isn't it? Petrol will disappear one day and it is dangerous for the ecology, it is just natural.

Have You ever been to any WRC event? Have You ever watched PWRC after the WRC field? It's sooo huge difference that it hurts

Actually no, but if You ask me whether I would watch Ostberg/Bertelli in wrc rather than Lukyanuk in Evo, guess what the answer is.

At least on apshalt it's nearly a rule.

I don't care about these rules. If there is a driver ho can make it spectacular (and fast) I would enjoy it.

After all do You really believe current starting order is making wrc more spectacular? It may sound irrelevant to the discussion, but isn't it the reality in what is good and what is not (for someone in particular).
As far as I understand You believe simpler cars (as in current) are more spectacular than car to do You half the job? Really?

[seb_sh]

just to add my 2c: speed is only a part of the equation; yes a fast car is better than a slow car, speed is impressive. However it also matters how that car behaves, if it is like on rails it's less spectacular than sliding and seeing tilting/rolling as it goes through a corner, leaving tyre marks on the road and other things like that. It's also a question of comparison, at the moment the WRC's are not that much faster than R5s to be impressive, they are noticeably faster but not impressively faster. For example the difference between early 2000s WRC and N4 was more impressive from several points of view.

About Evos and S1: Evos are boring on asphalt I think no one can argue; the ones that are not boring are in fact 'slow' but spectacular. The S1 due to it's technology level had it's peak performance at a place it was also spectacular. The noise, the acceleration, the body roll due to softer suspension compared to now and a bit of sliding made it spectacular to watch, unpredictable, almost out of control. Evos look like they are struggling on asphalt even if they are in fact, faster. That's the difference, how they make that speed.

It's a similar situation in F1 with the speed but also with the noise argument. Current F1 cars are very efficient and have a lot of power from electric motors. They are faster than GP2 or Porsche Supercup but at the track, in person, those (GP2 and PC) are sometimes more or at least equally spectacular to watch as the F1 cars. I'm not comparing F1 to WRC here i'm just saying how you get the speed is important to the perceived spectacle for the spectator.

[Mirek]

No it is irrelevant, because times and technology are different. We may enjoy Quattro times forever but the are gone, forever. You're mixing the contexts.

It's perfectly relevant. You can take plenty of other examples. Fast =/= spectacular and vice versa.

Here I can agree, electric cars are not exciting for a race, especially for a rally, but this is the reality isn't it?

Just like the pecpetion of speed and the fact that fast =/= spectacular.

Petrol will disappear one day and it is dangerous for the ecology, it is just natural.

That's obviously not the point.

Actually no, but if You ask me whether I would watch Ostberg/Bertelli in wrc rather than Lukyanuk in Evo, guess what the answer is.

Again You don't get the point. Do You prefer if Bertelli drives WRC or Evo? The driver is what is irrelevant when speaking about car. I don't know how to make You understand.

I don't care about these rules. If there is a driver ho can make it spectacular (and fast) I would enjoy it.

Again You don't understand and again same example. Would You prefer the same driver to drive Evo or WRC?

After all do You really believe current starting order is making wrc more spectacular? It may sound irrelevant to the discussion, but isn't it the reality in what is good and what is not.

You are right. It is irrelevant because we speak about cars.

As far as I understand You believe simpler cars (as in current) are more spectacular than car to do You half the job? Really?

No, You asked how can a faster car be less spectacular and I try again and again to explain that it can be and very often is.

[stefanvv]

just to add my 2c: speed is only a part of the equation; yes a fast car is better than a slow car, speed is impressive. However it also matters how that car behaves, if it is like on rails it's less spectacular than sliding and seeing tilting/rolling as it goes through a corner, leaving tyre marks on the road and other things like that. It's also a question of comparison, at the moment the WRC's are not that much faster than R5s to be impressive, they are noticeably faster but not impressively faster.

You know there is the difference in spectators thing. Some enjoy sideways, some enjoy speed, I'm from the latter. But You're right, when I was watching erc rally years ago, common people are more thrilled by some (stupid) sideway action by some driver, than the winner of the event.

[stefanvv]

.....

Mirek, when I watch Ogier driving current wrc car and testing '17 Polo I found more spectacular the latter, is it really surprising? I know there can be aspects of spectacular, but for a genuine rally fan, is it really the slower and simpler car what matters?

[Mirek]

Mirek, when I watch Ogier driving current wrc car and testing '17 Polo I found more spectacular the latter, is it really surprising? I know there can be aspects of spectacular, but for a genuine rally fan, is it really the slower and simpler car what matters?

Again and for the last time...

How could a faster car be boring?

I asnwered this statement and nothing else.