cosmicpanda
14th February 2011, 00:03
Rally Jordan 2008 and Rally Finland 2010 are the only WRC events that I can recall where the final leg was the longest, and Rally Finland was run to an atypical two leg format. In Finland tactics didn't matter but in Jordan they did, thanks to the heavy gravel on the stages.
Now, regardless of whether the top ten are reversed or not, I would think that a longer final leg means more excitement, even should there be significant time gaps by the end of leg two. However, it's tricky to have a long final leg as often rallies finish in the afternoon (I recall there was a rule stating that this had to be so, I can't remember if it still is), and this limits the amount of time available for driving.
With today's system of the leader being first on the road, a short final leg reduces the impact of tactics at the end of leg two, as it would minimise the effect of road sweeping. However, even when rallies were still run with reversed top tens (all this does, in my opinion, is shift the tactics to the drivers fighting in tenth), rallies tended to favour short final legs. Take Argentina 2006, when the final leg consisted of one run over El Condor, one run over Mina Clavero, and two superspecials for an epic total leg distance of 41.30 km. That's an extreme example but it's not unusual for a final leg to have only two repeated stages as opposed to three or four repeated stages found on other legs, and for the usual leg three length to be around 60 - 90 km as opposed to the 120 - 140 km averages on the first two legs. Interestingly, though, there also seems to be a trend of having 'interesting' final legs that feature classic stages like El Condor, Col de Turini or Whaanga Coast. At the very least, there tends to be at least a long stage, or a loop of stages run without a service break.
So I ask the forum: do you prefer a shorter final leg that minimises the effects of tactics and possibly features the most famous stages of the rally, or do you prefer a longer leg that means that the results have more potential to change by the end of the day?
Now, regardless of whether the top ten are reversed or not, I would think that a longer final leg means more excitement, even should there be significant time gaps by the end of leg two. However, it's tricky to have a long final leg as often rallies finish in the afternoon (I recall there was a rule stating that this had to be so, I can't remember if it still is), and this limits the amount of time available for driving.
With today's system of the leader being first on the road, a short final leg reduces the impact of tactics at the end of leg two, as it would minimise the effect of road sweeping. However, even when rallies were still run with reversed top tens (all this does, in my opinion, is shift the tactics to the drivers fighting in tenth), rallies tended to favour short final legs. Take Argentina 2006, when the final leg consisted of one run over El Condor, one run over Mina Clavero, and two superspecials for an epic total leg distance of 41.30 km. That's an extreme example but it's not unusual for a final leg to have only two repeated stages as opposed to three or four repeated stages found on other legs, and for the usual leg three length to be around 60 - 90 km as opposed to the 120 - 140 km averages on the first two legs. Interestingly, though, there also seems to be a trend of having 'interesting' final legs that feature classic stages like El Condor, Col de Turini or Whaanga Coast. At the very least, there tends to be at least a long stage, or a loop of stages run without a service break.
So I ask the forum: do you prefer a shorter final leg that minimises the effects of tactics and possibly features the most famous stages of the rally, or do you prefer a longer leg that means that the results have more potential to change by the end of the day?