Rally Discussion and Bar Talk Thread

[Rallyper]

can you please keep that f1 talk for when you meet with your girlfriends at tea time ???

Nobody cares in here what a bunch of women and feminized men fans in team hats think or bother with...

damn kid... get your life sorted !!!!!!

You shouldn´t flare up like that.

I got what he meant. Probably did you too. No harm in that state.

[the sniper]

No!! How many motorsport fans are aware (or interested) of the WRC?
The Promoter still has to do miles more - and it has to be FREE coverage. All LIVE is good and getting better, but it's for the die hards. We had an absolutely barnstormer of a finish yesterday - it SHOULD have been the main motorsport story from the weekend. But guess what - it's all about the snoozefest in Canada.

It'd be interesting to know, at least roughly, how many paid subscribers All Live actually has. It's great and getting better, with a long way to go, but look alone at how many of the hardcore here don't/won't actually pay for it. I can't imagine the subscriber numbers are that big and I'd be amazed if the income from that covers the cost of producing it, so surely the promoter and manufacturers should consider the benefits of just providing it for free and distributing it more widely, rather than just on the own website. You could still keep WRC+ as a paid element with maps and the on board/TV/All Live video archive.

[N.O.T]

You shouldn´t flare up like that.

I got what he meant. Probably did you too. No harm in that state.

trust me if you let the brits taken over by their autism they will turn this forum into an F1 discussion... they are pathetic.

you have to strike them down early... they are bottom feeders when it comes to Motorsport... they only care about F1.

[stefanvv]

It'd be interesting to know, at least roughly, how many paid subscribers All Live actually has. It's great and getting better, with a long way to go, but look alone at how many of the hardcore here don't/won't actually pay for it. I can't imagine the subscriber numbers are that big and I'd be amazed if the income from that covers the cost of producing it, so surely the promoter and manufacturers should consider the benefits of just providing it for free and distributing it more widely, rather than just on the own website. You could still keep WRC+ as a paid element with maps and the on board/TV/All Live video archive.

They don't give promocodes anymore, so I would guess they did they job advertizing the service and the subscribers has increased. But it's only assumption. I personally had year subscription and I'm happy with it.

[journeyman racer]

Why is F1 considered the pinnacle of motorsport again?

If nothing else, the cars will always be faster/better than everything else. It's a designated class to be the best.

but why would any normal person prefer F1 to WRC anymore?

F1 is a staple motorsport series, and transcends the boundary of hardened motorsport fans.

So is it just a matter of time before motorsport fans come over to WRC? Does the promoter have to do more to market the series? Or do most people just not have the patience to follow a rally for 3 days? I think it's the marketing, but that's just me.

The vast majority are not going to choose WRC over F1. Relative to F1, it's less practical to follow, less historical and cultural significance. A promoter may improve the state of rallies and the series overall. But as far as taking over the popularity of F1, it'll merely be the equivalent a a hamster in a wheel.

Going back to the first question. The good news is that F1 is not the pinnacle of motorsport, it's the pinnacle of car racing, and one of two pinnacles of 4 wheel motorsport. There's two core "motorsports", tarmac track and off-road. Tarmac track is supposed to replicate driving on public roads, and everything falls in line under F1.

WRC is not held on a tarmac track, and is the pinnacle of off-road motorsport. It's not better or worse than F1, but a different discipline. It's equal as a premier motorsport competition.

Idk how everyone else will react to this, but that's how I see it. I take my views of motorsport pretty seriously as a fan. I look forward to any derision of my opinion.

[NickRally]

If nothing else, the cars will always be faster/better than everything else. It's a designated class to be the best.



F1 is a staple motorsport series, and transcends the boundary of hardened motorsport fans.



The vast majority are not going to choose WRC over F1. Relative to F1, it's less practical to follow, less historical and cultural significance. A promoter may improve the state of rallies and the series overall. But as far as taking over the popularity of F1, it'll merely be the equivalent a a hamster in a wheel.

Going back to the first question. The good news is that F1 is not the pinnacle of motorsport, it's the pinnacle of car racing, and one of two pinnacles of 4 wheel motorsport. There's two core "motorsports", tarmac track and off-road. Tarmac track is supposed to replicate driving on public roads, and everything falls in line under F1.

WRC is not held on a tarmac track, and is the pinnacle of off-road motorsport. It's not better or worse than F1, but a different discipline. It's equal as a premier motorsport competition.

Idk how everyone else will react to this, but that's how I see it. I take my views of motorsport pretty seriously as a fan. I look forward to any derision of my opinion.

Journeyman racer, if you don’t mind me asking, how old are you? The reason I am asking is that you were probably not there in 1986 – WRC displaced F1 from the so called pinnacle of motorsport, I know as I was there. It didn’t last long, but only because F1 had Mr Ecclestone, who is the real reason F1 today is what it is. If he fancied WRC, or any other form of motorsport for that matter, then that is what would have been the “pinnacle” today.

I know people will jump saying the 1986 story couldn’t have and didn’t last long due to the fatalities, so change was needed – that is correct, but not the way the WRC was dealt with, i.e. banning the cars that made it great. When in the 1960’s, the fatalities in F1 were coming every other week, they didn’t ban the cars and turned to “production” models, they improved the safety of the cars that made F1 special. It could have happened in WRC, but there was no one to defend its corner.

[AnttiL]

would any normal person prefer F1 to WRC anymore?

Its format suits casual spectating better. If you go on location, just go to the circuit and spend the afternoon there, you're home for the evening. If you choose to watch it on TV, just tune in on a Sunday afternoon, it takes only a couple of hours to see the podium. Meanwhile, rallying takes more effort. You need to follow three days of competitive action and go to the woods and switch stages to see the cars more than once. For the casual spectator the power stage might be enough, but it could be boring when usually the positions are already decided. In this sense, F1 is closer to big sports like soccer or ice hockey. Better for casual spectating.

But I might be the wrong person to answer, I hardly follow any other sports than rallying.

[sonnybobiche]

But take a sport like baseball, for example, which consists of 3hr+ games played each day between the same two teams in a best-of-three series, or in the postseason when it's best-of-five or even best-of-seven games. Tens of millions of people watch the MLB World Series every year, and that can easily go to a full 7 games, each game at least 3 hours, so you're talking 21+ hours of baseball in a week or two in order to determine an overall winner.

Now, granted, there's more of a sense of finality to each game as it ends that same day, but it's the series results that count. Anyway, all I'm saying is that if people are willing to watch 3 hours of baseball every day for 3 days, and then do it again the next week, and again, and again, for months and months, it can't be the case that people simply don't have attention spans anymore.

Whenever the "intelligent" people who are in charge of motorsports lament that kids these days with their ipods and internet just don't have the attention span to watch a long race, I think they're making excuses for their stupid boring series that they regulated to death. If attention spans were the problem, wouldn't rallycross be the most popular form of motorsport ever? Who watches rallycross?

[AndyRAC]

Whenever the "intelligent" people who are in charge of motorsports lament that kids these days with their ipods and internet just don't have the attention span to watch a long race, I think they're making excuses for their stupid boring series that they regulated to death. If attention spans were the problem, wouldn't rallycross be the most popular form of motorsport ever? Who watches rallycross?

You make a good point. The series bosses, (and I especially mean the WRC) try and justify their decisions, yet the evidence doesn't necessarily support it.

This weekend sees probably the biggest motorsport event of the whole year; and it's not 2 hours, nor 3, 4, 5 or 6 hours. It's twice round the clock = 24 Hours. Similarly, last month saw another massive 24 Hour race at the Nurburgring; next month sees another one at Spa. We also have extremely popular 12 Hour races at Sebring, Bathurst, etc Even the Dakar, which is 2 weeks long is pretty popular.

I'd argue that the WRC doesn't have one stand-out event; and could do with maybe 1 or 2 such events, i;e make the Monte a proper 'Event', different from the other WRC events; for example, say run it from Tuesday - Friday night.

[sollitt]

... The reason I am asking is that you were probably not there in 1986 – WRC displaced F1 from the so called pinnacle of motorsport ...

WRC has never displaced F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport. Not in 1986 with Group B. Not in 1995 with Colin McRae. Never. And it never will.