
Originally Posted by
lewalcindor
I think you're taking it too literally. No, rally drivers can't physically see what the other drivers are doing like you can in circuit racing (the nearby other drivers, anyway). But the drivers can still have a good idea of what their opponents are doing through the splits, through the info that his team relays via radio, and through background info on their opponents' strengths and tendencies. You're still "seeing" what the other drivers are doing and thinking about (like when they are about to go on the attack, for example).
And though rallying (and all auto racing, let's be honest) is theoretically about driving as fast as possible and getting your best time, the drivers clearly can't go on maximum attack all the time. You mentioned one reason yourself: tire management. Mikko Hirvonen could very well be as fast as Ogier or Loeb if tire management were not an issue. But it is, so his driving style tends to wear down on the tires before they can be changed at service.
Another factor is each driver's specific endurance level, that is, how long he can sustain driving at his maximum ability. One driver may a bit slower than another driver at their respective maximum, but if the first driver is able to sustain his attack longer than the other driver, he can use that to his advantage. If the two drivers are separated by just a few seconds, the first driver can put more pressure on the second driver by driving to his maximum, which then forces the second driver is to go close to his maximum to keep up (or keep his lead). But after a while, the first driver is still driving fine at his maximum, but the second driver starts to make a few mistakes here and there because he's starting to lose concentration. Eventually, the second driver may make a big mistake and crash or spin out. When the first driver hears of the crash over the radio, he can then dial back his driving to a safer and more sustainable level.
Likewise, the drivers' individual abilities on different surfaces plays into the team and driver choosing when to attack, and when to "cruise" and try to limit mistakes.
Another factor is the driver's position in a rally. If the leader has a decent lead, he will try to preserve that lead for the win, and that usually means "cruising" by driving at a fast enough speed to maintain the lead, but not so fast as as to increase the risk of making a mistake. If the driver in second is within striking distance to the leader, he will then attempt to attack when he can while trying to limit his mistakes when he can. But if the leader has too large of a lead to overcome, then the second place driver will also "cruise" and try to maintain his pace for a second place finish.
And finally, there's championship points. If every rally was a race by itself with no effect on an overall championship, then the drivers should go all out and drive to their maximum abilities (within reason). But as it is, winning a rally is a nice prize, but the drivers and teams are mostly fighting for points to earn the bigger prize at the end. Going all out may allow you to win and earn the most points for a particular rally, but it may also lead to a crash and retirement and net you zero points. So in essence, the points race is another chess game that's being played over the course of a season.
So call it a chess game or whatever you would like (I would call it a game of risk management), but rally drivers and teams are indeed playing it. And the same goes for any auto racing type that's not an outright sprint. There's a reason that circuit drivers don't put up the same lap times during a race as they do in qualifying or time attacks, and it's not just because there are other cars on the track.
So... I cant say 3rd place was particularly impressive by Evans. To be well off his teammate from the very start and to finish behind young Max McRae was pretty poor. He even dropped behind him for a...
2025 British & Irish...