Split Times in Cars

[olschl]

I did a quick search on the forum and couldn't seem to find a definitive answer to the question, "why do they provide split times to the cars?". As many have stated, it seems fairly obvious that removing split times from the cars would really enhance the racing so why has that not been done?

[Allar]

then their team will show how much to slowdown on the stage, one guy goes on stage with numberboard.

Like here: Gronholm gets angry - New Zealand 2001 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JChdGgV2Cm4)

i think last 20k have to split free in the end of the 1leg and 2leg.

[olschl]

With all of the in-car cameras, it seems like it would be pretty easy to police cheating on the stage. That along with strict enforcement of penalties for those caught cheating would seem to be enough to discourage title contenders from taking a chance. When were splits first fed to the cars and what was the rationale for doing so? Surely it was anticipated that having splits in the cars would lead to tactics.

[tfp]

How would they punish the drivers that use tactics? If they get a time penalty, it could almost act as an advantage for the drivers, like Loeb in argentina.
It is a problem that needs some thought though!

[Juha_Koo]

Tactics shouldn't be eliminated from this sport. They are part of rallying. But it's obvious that the current start position rule is not working well. It will change next year.

I don't see problem with splits in the car. It's funny because everybody is always talking about how splits are used to play tactics. Actually split times have never been used in tactics... Only the complete stage times - which are from timekeeping. ;) If text-format radio messages would be banned, the teams would radio the same data (=target time) in verbal form to the crew over radio. Not to forget that banning the splits would make WRC's investments in split technology totally useless and make following of the rally very difficult.

[Rallyper]

Tactics shouldn't be eliminated from this sport. They are part of rallying. But it's obvious that the current start position rule is not working well. It will change next year.

I don't see problem with splits in the car. It's funny because everybody is always talking about how splits are used to play tactics. Actually split times have never been used in tactics... Only the complete stage times - which are from timekeeping. ;) If text-format radio messages would be banned, the teams would radio the same data (=target time) in verbal form to the crew over radio. Not to forget that banning the splits would make WRC's investments in split technology totally useless and make following of the rally very difficult.

+1 You made a thoughtable reply there.

[DonJippo]

With all of the in-car cameras, it seems like it would be pretty easy to police cheating on the stage.

Who has time to check in-car footage from all cars on all stages? In Finland they had what 120+ cars on entrylist and 22 stages that is 2240 footage to check or as driving time for winner was 2:40 so it would mean there is over 360 hours of footage to go through during the weekend...

[Mirek]

I agree with You guys. Banning splits seems to be nice idea but it's too difficult for meaningful realization. Teams will always find a way to get them to the crew.

[Livewireshock]

Even in days of old, split times were shown by team members on road side boards that were radioed through from other people on the stage with stop watches. So even a complete in-car communication and split times telemetry ban would not be effective as there is always another way to 'skin the cat'. Rules are have always be made and changed over the years and teams have always maximised the ways they could bend, stretch or create an advantage from them. Tactics have always been involved in the sport, just that the nature of those tactics have evolved as the rules and regulations have changed. No matter what the governing body does, the competitor will seek out what ever chance they have to win.

[cosmicpanda]

Ideally, splits would be banned to cars, and teams would make a gentlemen's agreement not to indicate splits to their drivers on the stages.

Splits allow the top drivers, when they're not first on the road, to control the pace of the rally too well. This discourages them from pushing and is boring because instead of setting up final-day fights (unless you're Loeb and in Finland), it benefits the driver in front and allows them to use their running position to maintain a lead over the rest of the field.

[Livewireshock]

Ideally, splits would be banned to cars, and teams would make a gentlemen's agreement not to indicate splits to their drivers on the stages.

Splits allow the top drivers, when they're not first on the road, to control the pace of the rally too well. This discourages them from pushing and is boring because instead of setting up final-day fights (unless you're Loeb and in Finland), it benefits the driver in front and allows them to use their running position to maintain a lead over the rest of the field.

That is a noble gesture but the gentlemens' agreement would not last, especially when a possible championship win is at hand. If it not written in the rules or regulations, then someone will eventually do it. In fact, everybody does.

Before the current rules were brought in, the rally was virtually over by Saturday afternoon with Sunday almost not worth bothering about. Yet despite the current fun and games seen on a Friday this year, we have seen some very close and unpredictable finishes on the Sunday including the closest ever finish in WRC history.

Various methods have been tried in the past and not one of them is free from criticism. They all end up being flawed in some way because of the need of the teams to make the most of the situation. There is no perfect remedy for this.

[cosmicpanda]

I know that gentlemen's agreements are only as good as the the worthies who make them, but there's hope; in the hyper-political world of F1, there's a gentlemen's agreement governing a two-week factory shutdown over the summer break.

[N.O.T]

just change the starting order and problem is solved with far fewer resources spent.

[cosmicpanda]

Can you be specific about how you would change it?

[Livewireshock]

I know that gentlemen's agreements are only as good as the the worthies who make them, but there's hope; in the hyper-political world of F1, there's a gentlemen's agreement governing a two-week factory shutdown over the summer break.

The F1 Gentlemens' Agreement about the two-week factory shutdown has more to do with employee contracts and workplace issues according to various European industrial relations laws.

[N.O.T]

Can you be specific about how you would change it?

reverse the starting order for days 1-2-3, use the shakedown so the top crews choose their position after 2-5 runs according to fastest times...so no tactics since running 10th and running 15th isn't much of a problem.

Splits will be used of course just for the drivers to be able to see the pace of their competitors but not for stopping/slowing and playing math games.

[cosmicpanda]

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I didn't enjoy the old days where a driver was able to use his superior start position to, through keeping track of split times, drive just fast enough to maintain a comfortable lead.

Mind you, that was when Loeb started to dominate. Maybe that's why it started to seem a bit monotonous!

[N.O.T]

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I didn't enjoy the old days where a driver was able to use his superior start position to, through keeping track of split times, drive just fast enough to maintain a comfortable lead.

Mind you, that was when Loeb started to dominate. Maybe that's why it started to seem a bit monotonous!

the thing is that all the top drivers had that superior position not just some of them, so its just came to driver skill to maintain the postion they had, if they are so good that that they can handle the competition so easily so be it. Why give a disadvantage to the best guy ?? its unfair and not "sport". Keeping things equal is what sports should be about (very narrow weight classes in boxing for example).

As for Loeb, the guy has dominated for 8 years now, no matter starting orders, car regulations, recce regulations, tyre regulations so i doubt it was the strting order rules that started it.

I like the best man to win, no matter if it is monotonous or not.

[cosmicpanda]

You misunderstand me. I was not criticising the system for causing Loeb to win, nor was I saying anything of the sort. Loeb's wins were of his own making and he deserves all the credit. The effect of them was monotonous, however.

Also, you seem to imply that the current system does not allow the "best man" to win; that's a very flawed argument. Begin by trying to define "best man."

I hope that rallies can somehow be as exciting as they have been these past few years with the new system, but I am a bit pessimistic.

[pete c]

Loeb is the only driver who has been able to win consistently from the front, when all others have used tactics to their advantage.
sorry you think that its monotonous that the best driver has won more often than anyone else, but that is what happens when you are the best.

cheers

ps i;m not even a big Loeb fan,but damn he is good.

[cosmicpanda]

You don't need to commiserate with me if you don't share my feelings. Loeb has used tactics, and been the beneficiary of team orders.

Since Marcus retired (maybe that's why I didn't enjoy Loeb's wins), I have become a Loeb fan. He's done a good job this year.

[olschl]

I appreciate all the responses and the different perspectives brought up, especially those of Juha_Koo and his point on the WRC investment in split-time technology and broadcasting.

[ste898]

While split times are shown too drivers I will treat WRC as a jokes as thats all it is

The drivers just speed up and slow down to beat the other drivers times its pathetic really