Neste Oil Rally Finland route revealed!

[Woodeye]

http://www.nesteoilrallyfinland.fi/en/14371.html

There you go. Quite remarcably changes since the last year. Personally I'm happy that Ehikki is on again. It's near my folks summer cottage, so... :beer:

:D

[PuddleJumper]

Looks pretty good to me. Bring it on! :D

[DonJippo]

1-3-4-1

[J4MIE]

Looks good. Will book my flights in a few weeks I think.

[A.F.F.]

Does anyone have experience of Palsankylä and Kaipolanvuori ?

[Viktory]

1-3-4-1

Right on :up:

More precisely:
Thu.
SSS1 Killeri
Fri.
SS4
SS7
SS10
Sat.
SS12
SS15
SS17
SS19
Sun.
one of those three.

Won't it be a bit of a squeeze for the Ehikki stage though? Only 2 hours and 9 minutes between the runs. Safety cars and helicopters have to fit in there as well.

[Woodeye]

Does anyone have experience of Palsankylä and Kaipolanvuori ?

If I'm not completely wrong, it has been used as a test stage in past. I remember at least Peugeot and Ford driving there in the past.

[Tomi]

If I'm not completely wrong, it has been used as a test stage in past. I remember at least Peugeot and Ford driving there in the past.

Yes Ford was there last summer, Kaipolanvuori a fast nice stage, easy to get there and good spots.

[janneppi]

Heh, ss13 is almost withing a bicycle distance from where i live, now there's a plan. :)

[Iskald]

Does anyone have experience of Palsankylä and Kaipolanvuori ?

Oh, yes indeed! Palsankylä was run as SS6 in 2000, and I have done it. I can`t really say I remember a lot, but I have found my old pace notes and the comments for the stage is "interesting". It was (in 2000) a 13,9 km stage and as a heading on the front page of the notes I have written "Lunatic SS; narrow and quite bad road, some very big jumps. No flat out driving on this stage!"

From the notes I can see that there is a combination of jumps ending with a very big one at appr. 12 kms. After the jumps there is a junction at km 12.32, and this could mean that the point is possible to reach for spectators.

[A.F.F.]

Cheers Puupää, Tomi and Iskald :up:

I like the fact AKK listened to fans in this one and renewed the route. Jolly good job.

[Iskald]

Cheers Puupää, Tomi and Iskald :up:

I like the fact AKK listened to fans in this one and renewed the route. Jolly good job.

Interesting also to see that Ouninpohja is back in all its glory with 33 km. It will surely be the fastest stage ever in the WRC. Last time it was run as a whole stage it must have had an average of above 130 km/h. I`m actually a bit curious how FIA will react to this, because speeds reportedly gave concerns for FIA safety delegates before they decided to run the stages in two halves.

[Tomi]

Interesting also to see that Ouninpohja is back in all its glory with 33 km. It will surely be the fastest stage ever in the WRC. Last time it was run as a whole stage it must have had an average of above 130 km/h. I`m actually a bit curious how FIA will react to this, because speeds reportedly gave concerns for FIA safety delegates before they decided to run the stages in two halves.

Yes, this is really good news, now the stage has back its true nature.

[Woodeye]

Yes, this is really good news, now the stage has back its true nature.

True, good news. We'll just have to hope that everyone stays on the road. If someone crashes badly, there's no doubt that the stage will be judged to be too speedy and unsafe.

[DonJippo]

True, good news. We'll just have to hope that everyone stays on the road. If someone crashes badly, there's no doubt that the stage will be judged to be too speedy and unsafe.

Drivers crashed even in the short format don't think long format changes anything in that aspect.

[Brother John]

"Lunatic SS; narrow and quite bad road, some very big jumps. No flat out driving on this stage!"

Exact wat we need! At last they have seen in Norway WHAT THEY MUST DO to make rally and the championship nice again! :s mokin:

Narrow roads bring down the speed, now victory for Loeb!!! :laugh:

[Viktory]

Palsankylä was used in SS20 in 2003, km 12.76-25.46. http://www.nesteoilrallyfinland.fi/attachements/2007-03-01T14-06-41253.pdf

[cosmicpanda]

I don't like the way they have such a short Leg three. Other than that, it looks great. :)

[Helstar]

Interesting also to see that Ouninpohja is back in all its glory with 33 km.
Wow "THE STAGE" is back ... great ! Time to beat Solberg 2004 record :)

[PuddleJumper]

Wow "THE STAGE" is back ... great ! Time to beat Solberg 2004 record :)
I reckon Mikko will be up for giving that a try. :D

[meverkko]

True, good news. We'll just have to hope that everyone stays on the road. If someone crashes badly, there's no doubt that the stage will be judged to be too speedy and unsafe.

Well, to be honest. In my opinion, average speed has nothing to do with the safety level of a stage. It is the character of the stage and the surroundings that make the safety level be good or bad. Maybe top speed or cornering speed would be more important. And specially in places where you shouldn´t go of road. It would be really easy to reduce the average speed at Ouninpohja, building shikanes all over the place. Would it make it safer, no. Would it destroy the character of the stage, yes.

130km/h used to be a limit for top speeds, but now FIA removed the limit as you must know. Now the choise is on the organiser and FIA delegates to decide. Am I right?

Also note, that the legendary corner near the end of Lankamaa is no longer part of the stage. Isn´t the "new" part in the end the same road that was used at least in 2005 Peurunkaralli when Lankamaa was run in the other direction?

[Iskald]

[quote="meverkko"]Well, to be honest. In my opinion, average speed has nothing to do with the safety level of a stage. It is the character of the stage and the surroundings that make the safety level be good or bad. QUOTE]

True and not true. Character and surroundings is of course important. We have an example in Norway with the quickest stage we are running in our championship. The 30 km stage has a record of 126,8 km/h which is mighty fast for such a long stage on snow. But still the stage has a very good history when it comes to accidents. In 18 years there has been very little serious damage or injury on this stage.

But then again, speed (average or top) has some relevance to safety. High average speed means that top speeds are achieved more often on the stage. It goes without saying that consequences could be far more serious when speeds are high.

Ouninpohja is a stage which demands respect. A few years ago Autosport had a feature on the WRC`s most demanding stages and Ouninpohja came out on top among most drivers. I remember Carlos Sainz saying that to be really fast on Ouninpohja there had to be an element of craziness in your driving....

[Zamppa]

But then again, speed (average or top) has some relevance to safety. High average speed means that top speeds are achieved more often on the stage. It goes without saying that consequences could be far more serious when speeds are high.

High average speed does not necessarily mean higher top speeds. Take roads from Ireland and Finland for comparison. In Ireland there are often very long and very fast straights with speeds up to (and beyond) 200kph, but with very tight 90 degree intersections in between that slow the average speeds down. In the flowing gravel roads of Finland, on the other hand, the corners are much faster and taken at much higher speeds, but since the straights are short in comparison the top speeds don't reach the extreme figures they do at Ireland. In this case Finland has higher average speed but lower top speeds.

The question is which is more dangerous, having constant moderately high speed or have very high speed in short sections. IMO the constant high speed is safer with modern cars.

[meverkko]

But then again, speed (average or top) has some relevance to safety. High average speed means that top speeds are achieved more often on the stage. It goes without saying that consequences could be far more serious when speeds are high.

Ouninpohja is a stage which demands respect. A few years ago Autosport had a feature on the WRC`s most demanding stages and Ouninpohja came out on top among most drivers. I remember Carlos Sainz saying that to be really fast on Ouninpohja there had to be an element of craziness in your driving....

As you said. Some true, some not. I think Zamppa got exactly what I meant.

Average speed.......

Two cars start at the same line, the first drives at 240km/h for lets say 10 minutes, then slows down to 60km/h and continues.

The other car starts at the same time, driving a steady 120km/h.

At some point these two cars meet again, at that point they both have the average speed of 120km/h .
Were these two drivers driving at the same safety level because their average speed is the same?

No, you don´t need to answer, I think I know...

Average speed has some correlation with safety, but you need to know how and why you end up with a certain number. Was it because there was a lot of really slow corners between the straights, was it because there were shikanes in the middle of a straight or was it because there was a number of fast curves and only a few long straights. Ok, with Ouninpohja there are the jumps which add another figure to these calculations..... But then again, every rally has it´s own characters which affect this. Black ice, mud on tarmac, water and so on.

You simply need to know why the average speed is what it is. I think we can agree on this?

But back to the route itself. I warmly welcome more stages run once and not so many stages run twice. If you need to find a stage in Finland that will be in good condition for the repeat, you need to stay on bigger roads. Now we can use some smaller roads also. Also the spectators are spread in a larger area so maybe now you can find a better place to watch the cars. I just know some good spots that are now being run after a few years break...

[COD]

Good changes, especially less repeated stages. But saying that so much is new is a bit overadvertising. Mostly same roads, used in different format than last years is hardly such a big innovation?

[Iskald]

As you said. Some true, some not. I think Zamppa got exactly what I meant.

Average speed.......

Two cars start at the same line, the first drives at 240km/h for lets say 10 minutes, then slows down to 60km/h and continues.

The other car starts at the same time, driving a steady 120km/h.

At some point these two cars meet again, at that point they both have the average speed of 120km/h .
Were these two drivers driving at the same safety level because their average speed is the same?

No, you don´t need to answer, I think I know...

Average speed has some correlation with safety, but you need to know how and why you end up with a certain number. Was it because there was a lot of really slow corners between the straights, was it because there were shikanes in the middle of a straight or was it because there was a number of fast curves and only a few long straights. Ok, with Ouninpohja there are the jumps which add another figure to these calculations..... But then again, every rally has it´s own characters which affect this. Black ice, mud on tarmac, water and so on.

You simply need to know why the average speed is what it is. I think we can agree on this?

...

No need to be patronising, meverrko. I do know someting of speeds in rallying, having rallied as a codriver for 28 years and having sat in WRC and 4WD Group A cars since the mid nineties. My "record" on gravel in a Corolla WRC is 216 km/h. The highest average speed was 131 km/h on a 10 km stage in Estonia. Normally I don`t react to speed, being occupied with pace notes actually gives you a very "dim" wiew of what speeds you are travelling with.
But I like technical and narrow roads better than the superfast and wide stuff.

Actually I remember now what was the theme in the Autosport feature. It was a description of the ten most scary stages in the WRC. And Ouninpohja came out on top. Actually most of the stages mentioned in the feature was very fast stuff. So drivers tend to feel its scarier when stages have a high average. Whether this is a realistic evaluation of safety, is another question,