WRC mainclass from 2027

[WRCStan]

what? i could swear i read that builders needed to have some kinda of manufacturer 'agreement' and that the body pannels needed to be more or less like an actual road car. i think NOT having to follow that is even better. i remember thinking "ahh but then they arent going to find manufacturers willing to autorize them to build cars". good news imo haha

There was talk of bodywork tuners having to associate with a WRC27 chassis manufacturer and this is when there was talk of production engines. That 'association' makes some sense because whatever the bodywork, the car underneath would legally be the chassis manufacturer's car and parts and servicing would obviously be associated with it.

But they replaced that with constructors and partial homologations and it seems the production engine requirement has gone. Which makes a lot more sense, Toyota are not going to be selling rolling chasses and allowing others to put their own designs onto what will always be a Toyota car - I think we can rule that out. It'll more likely be the Project Ones who do that, if they choose to, but if they still required a Project One chassis to have a production engine block they aren't solving the problem of being tied to unwilling production manufacturers. Getting those relationships, agreements and involvement between the tuners and engine suppliers is a pretty big obstruction to participation, it's just a dumb idea.

At no point did anyone's car have to look like a manufacturer's mass produced road car. It was always allowing bespoke designs that look like they belong to the 'road car genre' rather than looking like a crosskart, buggy, formula ford, pick up truck... Everything is looking good for the minute.

[Kenneth]

Dont all Constructors have to sell these new cars (chassis) to anyone who wants one ? So wont everyone just buy the Toyota to get the best and not bother with some shed-built private one ?

Yeah exactly. Is Toyota the fastest of the pack? So just buy it from them, because Toyota is required to sell them.

Also again, this is non-existent problem. How is someone with their own team able to compete against Toksport in WRC2? That's literaly the same thing.

[Kenneth]

Not without hearing from Lancia or Ford legal department. So, no.

Yeah no lmao. Did anyone making Rally2-kit heard anything from Skoda or Suzuki or Dacia legal department? Did Overdrive in Dakar heard anything from Toyota's legal department? Did anyone of the tens of tuners in UK heard from Ford's legal department because they build a car that shares only a chassis with Escort Mk2? No lol.

It's simply allowed to use design of brands. Idk if FIA have some kind of agreements with car makers, but that's not an issue of the tuners.

[Fast Eddie WRC]

How is Rally2 or anything else different?

The new cars will all be the same (maximum) price, Rally2 cars vary.

Plus they've been made with the Manufacturer, not from scratch by a private concern.

[WRCStan]

Yeah no lmao. Did anyone making Rally2-kit heard anything from Skoda or Suzuki or Dacia legal department? Did Overdrive in Dakar heard anything from Toyota's legal department? Did anyone of the tens of tuners in UK heard from Ford's legal department because they build a car that shares only a chassis with Escort Mk2? No lol.

No because those Rally2-kits were Skodas and Suzukis in paperwork. Overdrive are in collaboration with Toyota. Those Escort chasses are Ford chasses. If you rock up to WRC with a Kenneth WRC27 that looks like a Ford Escort lookalike and you didn't get Ford approval - you are breaking IP law. If you did get Ford approval, why didn't you just build a Ford instead of a Kenneth? Harry's question included the words independent and lookalike, suggesting no collaboration. You can't just put another makers name on your product that looks like theirs. Absolutely No and absolute poppycock that there's anything simple about skirting any of that.

[focus206]

"Why take this away from rallying? 1% is already very little... why go to 0%?"

Because letting 99% go to 100% and redefining the word is much better than clinging on to something that barely exists.

Yeah, I don't agree.
I say "We've come to 99%, that's enough, it's time to stop and at least keep the bare minimum of this core aspect of rallying"
You say "We've come to 99%, let's just go to 100% but still call it rallying"

I shudder to imagine what this sport will become if no one ever draws a line and accepts every change in the name of adapting to the times. Maybe not SxS and bikes, but maybe all similar looking Extreme E-like protos that nobody cares about...