Rally Discussion and Bar Talk Thread

[sonnybobiche]

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.

My impression (because I wasn't following it then) was that this used to be Safari.

[AnttiL]

My impression (because I wasn't following it then) was that this used to be Safari.

No, quite contrary to that, Safari was more of a specialist event with not even all teams and drivers taking part, instead using specialist drivers who would not then do the rest of the rounds at all (like Waldegård in 1990 or Ian Duncan). Maybe the car manufacturers felt like it was an important event to show off for car endurance, but us fans were more interested in fights for seconds (we didn't do timing in tenths back then).

I would say Monte and RAC, maybe also 1000 Lakes and Portugal had a special status already in the 80's 90's which made up a good entry list and good media coverage. And I think those events have still held up their status, despite name changes and route shrinks.

Meanwhile, I never really found appreciation for the 24h track races or rally raids in my young days when I followed motorsports more vastly, but again, maybe that's just me.

[AnttiL]

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.

It's not a familiar concept to me, but I know the ice hockey and soccer playoffs and final games are the most popular sport events around here, and people love the tension that builds up during the tournament and every match could end their favourite team's tournament, kind of like a rally driver could end their rally on any stage. But still, that's only a couple of hours of intense following in a day. Watching a soccer game equals time wise to watching two stages of All Live coverage.

[AnttiL]

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.

Why would removing weekend driving make it a "proper" "event"?

[NickRally]

I would say Monte and RAC, maybe also 1000 Lakes and Portugal had a special status already in the 80's 90's which made up a good entry list and good media coverage.

I would agree with this.

[journeyman racer]

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.

I'm 37. Idk in what context WRC would've replaced F1. It doesn't matter in the sense that it still would've been the premier car racing class. From the history I know of, I'm led to believe that in the 60ssportscar racing had an more clout due to the smaller F1 cars and smaller fields.

I'm not sure how much influence Ecclestone had? I think it's more that he made the most of the popularity of motor racing which was always there. Failure to make it commercially powerful would be akin to the premier league failing to be popular in England.

Fair enough if you guys are passionate about Rallying. Despite being a premier motorsport competition, it's not perfect. You can't deny F1 it's place at the top, even if it's not alone. The cars are much more powerful which in itself legitimises it, and has the complication of traffic. Being able to deal with traffic is part of being a great driver.

Not only does Rallying not have traffic, but is essentially a touring car that can handle the off road. Touring car racing has always been a couple of steps down from F1. But Rallying has the difficult conditions to drive in and the lack of repetition circuit racing has.

It's certainly not inferior to F1, it's just it's never going to take the sunshine away from F1

[N.O.T]

I'm 37. Idk in what context WRC would've replaced F1. It doesn't matter in the sense that it still would've been the premier car racing class. From the history I know of, I'm led to believe that in the 60ssportscar racing had an more clout due to the smaller F1 cars and smaller fields.

I'm not sure how much influence Ecclestone had? I think it's more that he made the most of the popularity of motor racing which was always there. Failure to make it commercially powerful would be akin to the premier league failing to be popular in England.

Fair enough if you guys are passionate about Rallying. Despite being a premier motorsport competition, it's not perfect. You can't deny F1 it's place at the top, even if it's not alone. The cars are much more powerful which in itself legitimises it, and has the complication of traffic. Being able to deal with traffic is part of being a great driver.

Not only does Rallying not have traffic, but is essentially a touring car that can handle the off road. Touring car racing has always been a couple of steps down from F1. But Rallying has the difficult conditions to drive in and the lack of repetition circuit racing has.

It's certainly not inferior to F1, it's just it's never going to take the sunshine away from F1

Thank for your input prison colony...

now go bother with what hand lotion your ladyboy f1 drivers use after the race....

[Tarmop]

Well, traffic sucks everywhere, especially f1 kind of traffic, where there is no opportunity to pass others.

[journeyman racer]

Thank for your input prison colony...

now go bother with what hand lotion your ladyboy f1 drivers use after the race....

Lotion has ran out. Ladyboy F1 drivers have used it all on your arse.

[Rallyper]

I'm 37. Idk in what context WRC would've replaced F1. It doesn't matter in the sense that it still would've been the premier car racing class. From the history I know of, I'm led to believe that in the 60ssportscar racing had an more clout due to the smaller F1 cars and smaller fields.

I'm not sure how much influence Ecclestone had? I think it's more that he made the most of the popularity of motor racing which was always there. Failure to make it commercially powerful would be akin to the premier league failing to be popular in England.

Fair enough if you guys are passionate about Rallying. Despite being a premier motorsport competition, it's not perfect. You can't deny F1 it's place at the top, even if it's not alone. The cars are much more powerful which in itself legitimises it, and has the complication of traffic. Being able to deal with traffic is part of being a great driver.

Not only does Rallying not have traffic, but is essentially a touring car that can handle the off road. Touring car racing has always been a couple of steps down from F1. But Rallying has the difficult conditions to drive in and the lack of repetition circuit racing has.

It's certainly not inferior to F1, it's just it's never going to take the sunshine away from F1

I don´t see why you should bather sit in a bar full of rallyfans arguing in favour of F1 racing? As been said it´s waist of time.

What was the question in the first place? Ahhh, never mind. Why not just stick to the F1 forums?