74th PZM Rally Poland

[Rally Power]

I read something and I ask myself, "Is what this person is saying objectively correct or not?" You would all do well to do the same.

Following that fine principle one has to correct you: it wasn’t neither the public nor the bureaucrats fault, Gr.B cars were simply too dangerous.

I’m not in the mood to look for driver’s quotes, but everybody aged enough remembers they all mentioned (at the time or some years later) that driving those cars was a permanent risk.

The ban occurred after Toivonen and Cresto tragic accident in Corsica, which didn’t involve any spectator, because it became obvious the passive and active Gr.B poor safety standards shouldn’t be allowed anymore.

On current cars safety I’ll say what I’ve said a long time ago: these car are great and much safer than the old Gr.B, but the speed increase shouldn’t be taken lightly: spectators control must be a priority and second level drivers shouldn’t be allowed to use them (superlicense mandatory).

A final note: IMO dissonant views are always welcomed, there’s nothing worse than unanimity in a debate, but it’s wrong to confuse free opinion with systematic insult, like the forum troll you’ve mentioned (hopefully not your role model) does.

[AL14]

Too many lines debating over a simple fact. That's too dangerous -> it has not improved over the years -> get out from WRC and hopefully from rally in general.

[AnttiL]

The ban occurred after Toivonen and Cresto tragic accident in Corsica, which didn’t involve any spectator, because it became obvious the passive and active Gr.B poor safety standards shouldn’t be allowed anymore.

Yes. Canceling Group B wasn't only about spectator issues. Of course it's impossible to say if FISA would have decided the same without the Portugal accident, but the accidents of Bettega and Vatanen were still fresh in the memory. The drivers would have wanted to continue with Group B or Group S cars, if they would have taken the hot turbos away or increased the safety in some other way. And actually there were seven driver deaths in WRC events between 1987-1990 but only three since then. And same goes for spectator deaths. The safety has been improved on both sides, although the cars are again faster, now probably faster than ever, but also safer than ever.

[sonnybobiche]

First off I just want to apologize again for the salty language earlier. That was not on.

As for the actual safety issues and the future of rallying, I think that it's a mistake to sacrifice the sport in any way for what we pretend will be a temporary change to get through a rough patch. I think this is a form of managed decline. It's a vicious cycle. Let's say you make things safer, but it requires some sacrifice to the sport. Pushing crowds back, for example, or requiring all four wheels to be on the car, or getting rid of Safari with its open roads. The result is that the sport is a bit safer, but also has fewer fans and fewer eyeballs. So there's less money, less manufacturer interest. Also, the culture around the sport demands ever-increasing safety, so whatever change you made is now the new normal, and anything less than that is seen as outrageously dangerous. For both of those reasons, there's less money to pay outrageous insurance fees. So you have to go even safer. Eventually someone asks, "hey, why should there be any spectators allowed to line the roads at all? Can't we just close the stages to spectators? That's safer!" Or they might suggest something ridiculous, like, say, an average speed limit.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think this road leads to motorsport being saved. Again, it seems like managed decline. The counterexample to all this is the Isle of Man TT, in which multiple competitors die literally every year, and yet the event is as popular as ever (with the crowds, the riders, and the sponsors) and as far as I know there's no issue with insurance.

[rallyfiend]

Name another sport that kills its fans?

Rallying (as whole) does. That's rare.

[AnttiL]

Name another sport that kills its fans?

Rallying (as whole) does. That's rare.

You could get hit by a baseball or a hockey puck or a spectator stand at an arena could collapse.

[macebig]

Are you guys seriously debating on those issues? I think that a heavy vehicle going the opposite direction in a live stage is a common big No, No right? Plus, spectators playing bullfight with rally cars is a another common No, No, don't you think?Ok, I see that for some it may be exciting or spectacular but it will only take one bad luck moment for rallying to be banned. Is it worth it? A few moments of adrenaline for a serious injury/death and significant consequences for the rest of rally fans. Just use your brain, people...

[steve.mandzij]

First off I just want to apologize again for the salty language earlier. That was not on.

As for the actual safety issues and the future of rallying, I think that it's a mistake to sacrifice the sport in any way for what we pretend will be a temporary change to get through a rough patch. I think this is a form of managed decline. It's a vicious cycle. Let's say you make things safer, but it requires some sacrifice to the sport. Pushing crowds back, for example, or requiring all four wheels to be on the car, or getting rid of Safari with its open roads. The result is that the sport is a bit safer, but also has fewer fans and fewer eyeballs. So there's less money, less manufacturer interest. Also, the culture around the sport demands ever-increasing safety, so whatever change you made is now the new normal, and anything less than that is seen as outrageously dangerous. For both of those reasons, there's less money to pay outrageous insurance fees. So you have to go even safer. Eventually someone asks, "hey, why should there be any spectators allowed to line the roads at all? Can't we just close the stages to spectators? That's safer!" Or they might suggest something ridiculous, like, say, an average speed limit.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think this road leads to motorsport being saved. Again, it seems like managed decline. The counterexample to all this is the Isle of Man TT, in which multiple competitors die literally every year, and yet the event is as popular as ever (with the crowds, the riders, and the sponsors) and as far as I know there's no issue with insurance.

It's nice you realized you'd been "hostile"

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[AnttiL]

Pushing crowds back, for example, or requiring all four wheels to be on the car, or getting rid of Safari with its open roads. The result is that the sport is a bit safer, but also has fewer fans and fewer eyeballs. So there's less money, less manufacturer interest.

How do you prove that more safety results in less interest in rallying? The world has changed since the 80's and 90's. Car sales numbers are going down and even brands go bankrupt. Driving is not cool anymore. Furthermore, I don't see anymore those tobacco sponsors who probably brought a lot of money to the sport in the earlier decades.

[ToKu]

Sonnybobiche probably made at least one good point. Rallies are losing fans and media interest (based on my observations)

I do not have statistical data, but is it not rally Poland (along with perhaps very few other rallies) that is not losing fans and media interest? Based on my observations again - crowds of You guys, people from abroad are getting bigger and bigger every year. This year, for the first time in my life, I had a feeling that there are less Poles then foreigners.

As Sonnybobiche wrote earlier, but in other words. Ask yourself guys - What brought You here? Great stages or the opportunity to feel almost like group B emotions?

Safety first and above all attitude won't stop the trend (rallies less popular then before). IMHO there must be some golden medium between safety and lets call it emotions otherwise rallies will be just a niche in 10 to 20 years.