The new FIA WRC-car concept 2017

[Rallyper]

I guess it´s time for a special topic for the new formula WRC cars which should be decided by FIA quite soon.

4WD or 2WD? NA or turbos? Production cars or limited series?

[Mirek]

Just my 5 cents...

4WD or 2WD - it will stay 4WD in my opinion.

NA or turbos - sure turbos, naturally aspirated engines have been disappearing from production, I think that for example VAG in Europe produces only three naturally aspirated engines - 1.0 I3, 1.2 I3 and 3.6 VR6 and even those may disappear in close future.

Production or limited series - in my opinion the concept will stay same with current WRC/S2000/R5 with a kit car based on a stock car which has otherwise little common with the result; it's definitely the cheapest and easiest way for car manufacturers.

I think there will be some sorts of energy-saving systems implemented whether in a form of KERS known from F1 or something else. It's also likely there may be no anti-lag as it is known now, again purely because of ecologic aspects. I don't say I like that but I see it as inevitable.

[Maui J.]

I’ve once written in this forum that factory approved homologated is restricting this sport.
It is obvious that there are very few drivers who can compete at the very top level due to expense or lack of available factory seats.

So here’s an idea. Have three championships. One for drivers, one for manufacturers, and one for teams with non-homologated cars that run to the same spec as the factory teams but without the factory ok.

To make this work the specs of the future WRC cars would need to be lowered, below R5 in my opinion to make it cost efficient., backyard workshops don’t have the big budgets for R&D and testing as VW.
This way we could see interesting cars appearing from all corners of the globe, running to the same specs as the official WRC cars but without the ‘officialdom’ of homologation.

Here in NZ in the national championship, which has been long dominated by the presence on Imprezas and Evos, we are just starting to see homebuilt 4WD Turbos appearing in the Championship. Firstly it was Emma Gilmour’s Suzuki Swift. Add to that Hawkswood’s Mazda 2, and soon the Peugeot 208 rocket ship of Alex Kelsey.

In Argentina with the Maxi class, and in Australia with them running Quad bikes (No thanks!). Local championships are widened their horizons to keep there championships healthy, but at the same time are drifting further away from the FIA approved format. Remembering both countries hold a WRC event but how few locals actually have valid cars to run in them?

So to summarise, if the new FIA WRC formula could be lower spec and be both approved for factories and tuners/backyards builds to compete on equal footing on the WRC stages we may see some growth once again.

Plus the interest from factories if a homebuild is doing well on the stages could be rewarded with financial and technical assistance.

[Mirek]

You are right about the homologations but unfortunately I don't see FIA changing this in near future. Maybe if the experiment with RGT was successful... but it has been 1,5 years since non-homologated GT cars are allowed in FIA rally events but we have seen one single car in Rallye Monte Carlo and that's all. I'm afraid FIA will use this fail as a justification to keep only homologated cars.

[AdvEvo]

Rgt is far to expensive also.

Gt3 is also expensive to buy and run.

[Mirek]

RGT by rules is defined as almost stock car without need for homologation. How can You create reasonably cheaper formula than that? Nobody says You must use Porsche...

[MJW]

I agree with Mirek on the engine issue, the days of N/A 2.0 OR 2.5 (the much loved in the UK and Ireland) Millington Diamond type engines are gone, in a few years time 1.6l will be considered a large capacity, the future common engine will probably be 3 cylinder 1000cc forced induction with other energy recovery.
Also consider that by 2020 with all emissions and other restrictions it will be difficult for a rally car to be on the public highway, already in France rally cars are not road registered and have their competition number instead of tradional number plates.
My feeling is that the future will be R5 4WD 1.6t - having said that I fear the formula wont solve the issues - of specatcle / noise etc.
Fundamentally I think the balance between power and grip of the current cars is too perfect, I would like to retain the current power level in a 2WD car or give a 4WD car more power, it shouldnt be hard, Citroen have got 50 or 60 bhp more out of the rally engine in the C Elysee WTCC car.
I also quite like the way the new WTCC cars look with wings splitters and body kits.

Please consider these facts in the debate.

[AndyRAC]

I fear more of the same. I’m not sure that’s what the WRC needs. I agree with DR – cars need to look and sound spectacular. The current cars are ‘production based’, but are really prototypes, so why not go the whole way and make proper prototypes? Problem is they cost.
As MJW correctly said, the cars will not solve the problem; they simply don’t have the ‘X Factor’.

It would be nice to start with a blank sheet of paper and ask all interested Manufacturers what would it need for them to join the WRC.

[Mirek]

I think that generally too much weight is placed on technical rules for cars. In my opinion there shall be much more discussion about calendar, about the form of each event etc. For example in my opinion the standardized format was a wrong step. Rallying from its nature brings variety (in surfaces, scenery, people). It shall make maximum use from the variety while it's the opposite in reality. That's why I would suggest to give organizers the biggest possible freedom. If one wants to run the event over the whole country why not? If other wants to have for example a complete night leg why not? There's no need for 13 events in calendar. If there is just 8 but really big events it would be better. By really big I mean that such event shall ideally be No.1 sporting event in the country in the time. That's the case for Monte Carlo, for Argentina or Finland. The other thing is off course media promotion which has been quite horrible in last years.

Everybody speaks about WRC being too expensive but in my opinion far more important is what it offers. If You make the best steaks around people come and pay for it and nobody asks why it is more expensive than McDonald.

[AndyRAC]

Nail on head there Mirek!!

[makinen_fan]

Totally agree with you Mirek, but unfortunately I cant see this happening (at least not in the near future). They have tried too desperately to force the sport to grow and destroyed its own nature during the last 1 1/2 decade. I too agree that a step backwards may be the wiser choice, and the car technical regulations do not really matter after all if the sporting side is right

[AndyRAC]

I find it ironic that person most responsible for the current WRC, (DR) has now decided that it’s not working, and that we should go back to its roots. The ‘clover-leaf’/ 9-5 format was to enable TV to produce nightly reports. With current technology you can have more expansive routes – butt do organisers, teams, etc really want this?

[Eli]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114063

[Rally Power]

I think that generally too much weight is placed on technical rules for cars. In my opinion there shall be much more discussion about calendar, about the form of each event etc. For example in my opinion the standardized format was a wrong step. Rallying from its nature brings variety (in surfaces, scenery, people). It shall make maximum use from the variety while it's the opposite in reality. That's why I would suggest to give organizers the biggest possible freedom. If one wants to run the event over the whole country why not? If other wants to have for example a complete night leg why not? There's no need for 13 events in calendar. If there is just 8 but really big events it would be better. By really big I mean that such event shall ideally be No.1 sporting event in the country in the time. That's the case for Monte Carlo, for Argentina or Finland. The other thing is off course media promotion which has been quite horrible in last years.


Totally agree. I've wrote a very similar post a few days ago.

We can always be talking about the need for new and exciting cars, but current 1.6T WRC cars have only 3 and a half years! Somehow it's like wishing to replace our girlfriend just because we keep looking for a sexier girl...not very mature!

Gr. 4 was the top category for 10 years, Gr. A was also there for 10 years, WRC 2.0 for 14 years and Gr. B was the unfortunate exception in this stability record (only 4 years), as we all know.

Our forum mate 'giu tutto' made this sharp observation:
"When lot of people are interested about the product, the media and the money will be there also. And when there is lot of people, media and money, the manufacturers will be there also, for sure".

This is really what we all (from hardcore fans like us to the FIA guys) should be looking to: the essence of the 'rally product'!

Is this essence mainly linked with the type of car or the driver profile or even the manufacturer status? Probably not; maybe it has more to do with the outstanding level of human challenge that a rally course can provide.

If we ease the level of this challenge, turning it into a sort of ‘day at the office effort’, will certainly have find a way to alienate the rally product. That’s what we've been steadily doing for the last two decades!

[Eli]

http://www.irallylive.com/ir_news.htm?00006759&10

[Jack4688`]

The current cars are ‘production based’, but are really prototypes, so why not go the whole way and make proper prototypes?

I agree, that would make the cars so much more interesting - even if every other technical aspect of the cars were the same. The biggest issue I have, as a fan, of the current cars (not necessarily the rulebook) is that there isn't enough variety in the bodyshape. We used to have 3door hatchbacks, 5 door hatchbacks, 5 door fastbacks (Octavia WRC), 3 door coupes (Celica), 2 door coupes (1997 Impreza) and 4 door saloons, though not all at the same time

[dimviii]

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/5669495011.jpg

[AndyRAC]

No thanks!! End of.

[giù tutto!]

On the other hand rally is like horse racing or sailing; there is a skill, a tool and circumstance. Of course very skilful driver will do miracles even with lawn mower, but it’s sounds little bit weird to say, that there’s no matter about the technical rules at the top level of rally. How on earth the sporting side will be alright, if the most skilful drivers prefer to choose some other motorsport and we will get only the driver with the thickest wallet to the rally?

There was a time, when FIA and manufacturers had the best steaks in town, but they became too greedy. They thought that people will come again, no matter who make the steaks. They took new chefs, because everybody wanted to be a famous chef at the famous restaurant. They even found out that people would like to pay, if they only got a chance to be the chef. It was a horrible mistake. There was only one wise restaurant, a French kitchen, which decided to take the best chef only, no compromises...

When the customers are gone, it takes lot of time and work to get them back. In that point it's good to remember, what was "the thing", why they had come there before.

[dimviii]

No thanks!! End of.

why? is so simple!

[focus206]

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/5669495011.jpg

oh dear Lord...

[OldF]

A R5+ would be nice but it seems the R5s have some reliability problems, at least in the beginning.

Imo we don’t need at least yet any hybrids which would make the cars more expensive and heavier. Last Monday there was an article in a newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat) about Japanese manufacturers and two universities working together to develop a diesel engine with 30% less carbon dioxide emissions until 2020. At the end of the article was a mention about a survey made by Fuji Kenzai Group. By that survey 89% of the cars would still use a combustion engine in 2030.

There’s been suggestions also for prototypes (which in fact they already are, except the body shell) in this thread but at least I like to recognize the make by the look. How is it with the panel materials (cheap ones) for prototypes these days? How safe are they in case of fire?

Coupe / GT (not some “super” GTs like Porsche, Ferrari etc.) models would be refreshing and distinctive from these “family” road cars which are base for the WRC cars. I remember in the 60s when the BMC drivers usually drove with Minis but now and then with an Austin Healey.

[Jack4688`]

You've made me think of another up-in-the-clouds dream situation: 2 different cars that each manufacturer must homologate - one event VW could compete with two Polos, the next two Sciroccos and then another event split depending on which driver preferred which car. But I am not insane and know nothing like that will ever happen!

Bigger cars please, then hopefully more diverse body shapes. AMG A45 WRC would be a nice size car:

[Rally Power]

When the customers are gone, it takes lot of time and work to get them back. In that point it's good to remember, what was "the thing", why they had come there before.

To me “the thing” was rally adventurous side with challenging routes and extreme schedules.

Taking the ‘Rallye de Portugal’ example, back in the 70’s and the 80’s we had a rally course spreading at almost all of the country, with long (up to 14 hours) hard legs using day and night diversified stages, on all sorts of gravel and tarmac roads.

This highly demanding layout created an exciting atmosphere (sometimes a little bit out of control…) with a massive attachment from the Portuguese people - schools and business simply shut down at rally day!

Above all, there was a genuine devotion to the driving heroes and a huge acclamation of their ‘over human’ capacities. This is why nowadays Alen and Mouton still are more famous than Gronholm or Loeb!

Maybe we can’t go back to those days*, some would suggest they’re economically impractical (at the sometime we see the VIP areas and motorhomes growing in ‘pharaonic’ style), but we should clearly recognize that the ‘9 to 5 clover leaf format’ modern rallyes can’t simply produce public attachment, and, by consequence, general media appropriate coverage.

So, what can we expect from future? Unfortunately Tod’s intention on reviving the endurance rally spirit seems to have disappeared. In his place we'll probably have Capito's shootout scheme that'll definitely convert WRC into a sprint, x-games lookalike, series, mocking on a rich 40 years old history…


*We could reinvent it by using multinational rallyes, enlarging and spreading the Sweden/Norway example. Instead of 13 anonymous events, we could have 8 or 9 highly recognized rallyes, a sort of ‘mini dakars’, which would easily get media attention.

[janvanvurpa]

To me “the thing” was rally adventurous side with challenging routes and extreme schedules.

Taking the ‘Rallye de Portugal’ example, back in the 70’s and the 80’s we had a rally course spreading at almost all of the country, with long (up to 14 hours) hard legs using day and night diversified stages, on all sorts of gravel and tarmac roads.

This highly demanding layout created an exciting atmosphere (sometimes a little bit out of control…) with a massive attachment from the Portuguese people - schools and business simply shut down at rally day!

Above all, there was a genuine devotion to the driving heroes and a huge acclamation of their ‘over human’ capacities. This is why nowadays Alen and Mouton still are more famous than Gronholm or Loeb!

Maybe we can’t go back to those days*, some would suggest they’re economically impractical (at the sometime we see the VIP areas and motorhomes growing in ‘pharaonic’ style), but we should clearly recognize that the ‘9 to 5 clover leaf format’ modern rallyes can’t simply produce public attachment, and, by consequence, general media appropriate coverage.

So, what can we expect from future? Unfortunately Tod’s intention on reviving the endurance rally spirit seems to have disappeared. In his place we'll probably have Capito's shootout scheme that'll definitely convert WRC into a sprint, x-games lookalike, series, mocking on a rich 40 years old history…


*We could reinvent it by using multinational rallyes, enlarging and spreading the Sweden/Norway example. Instead of 13 anonymous events, we could have 8 or 9 highly recognized rallyes, a sort of ‘mini dakars’, which would easily get media attention.


Plus one. Thumbs up.
So sad to see a great sport ruined by such people.. From a truly exiting country wide adventure to just another little show of little cars virtually no different than boring circuit racers.
From something we could dream of doing to just another product where we are supposed to "consume" it.
Screw Capito..
Best possible headine: Capito Kaput

[Zeakiwi]

I have been a rally fan for over 30 years, but I do not like the way the sport has gone in the past few years.
good line motorsport vehicles are usually spaceframe - dakar, dtm, nascar. Australian supercar, nzst, nz-tlx, trophy truck etc.
I think wrc should be spaceframe to a uniform spec - like nascar. The emphasis should be on crew and efficient powertrains. Spaceframe is supposedly less difficult to repair after crashes.
http://www.mrx.co.nz/#!mrx-builds/c158d (NZ - tlx on jig )

http://youtu.be/mjU__B6Oaes (Nascar robot weld) use a robot to turn them out.

http://news.motorsport.org.nz/achieving-parity-in-the-tlx-v8-field/ (get engine parity to level the playing field)

Fia financial auditor to keep on eye on the books.

Balance the the carbon footprint - the wrc forest, use biofuels.

[Lundefaret]

I have been a rally fan for over 30 years, but I do not like the way the sport has gone in the past few years.
good line motorsport vehicles are usually spaceframe - dakar, dtm, nascar. Australian supercar, nzst, nz-tlx, trophy truck etc.
I think wrc should be spaceframe to a uniform spec - like nascar. The emphasis should be on crew and efficient powertrains. Spaceframe is supposedly less difficult to repair after crashes.
http://www.mrx.co.nz/#!mrx-builds/c158d (NZ - tlx on jig )

http://youtu.be/mjU__B6Oaes (Nascar robot weld) use a robot to turn them out.

http://news.motorsport.org.nz/achieving-parity-in-the-tlx-v8-field/ (get engine parity to level the playing field)

Fia financial auditor to keep on eye on the books.

Balance the the carbon footprint - the wrc forest, use biofuels.


Rallycross Supercars seems to offer a good combination off "bang for the buck".

Cheaper cars with a bigger difference between grip level and horsepower (less grip, more power) and a more sensual experience regarding sight, sound and smell, could be a way forward.

Spaceframes is cheap to manufacture and run, and would offer a very flexible alternative.

This would also make the playing field more even, beqause things like suspension travel etc would all be the same. Then You could decide how many of the components that should be "open", like dampers, gearbox, engine, diffs etc. And one could also do like in V8 Supercars where You could have an unbranded alternative to those who was not able or willing to develop their own components like an engine.

This seems to be the way a lot of series are heading, and it might be a reason for that;)

9 Years of Loeb supremacy has, togheter with bad promotion, done that the value of the TV-rights and the whole WRC-series has fallen quit dramatically. With more manufacturers, more drivers, stiffer competition, and more sight and sound, we can turn this around. But there are big positives happening, lets not forget that. Volkwsagen, Hyundai, maybe Toyota etc.

Also the fact that Hyundai is opperating like the factory teams of old, testing out multiple drivers etc, is also a BIG contribution to the sport. So good things are happening! :)

The things You mention about balancing the carbon footprint are also very important. To have the teams buy forest in ex Brazil, and call it "The WRC Forest" would be a very good idea, this should be done right now.

[Rallyper]

If the factories made bodyshells available for anyone interested the cars might be cheap even without spaceframed cars. Of course in both cases the look of the cars would be as the original model from the brand.

[Mirek]

I don't share the opinion that a way forward is in making cars basically same aside their look. In fact I don't like that at all. By that motorsport looses one of its fundamentals which is the engineering genius. Already the existing rules are making all cars basically same. The size, layout, main functional things, all operates same way in all WRC cars. The differences are in particular details but in nothing major. That's exactly opposite to how it used to be in the past. Mini bringing small nimble FWD to victory, Audi bringing 4WD or semi-automatic gearbox, Lancia bringing mid-engine RWD or two-level supercharging, Peugeot bringing mid-engine 4WD... all that and much more would never happen if the rules fix all cars in the same scheme.

[focus206]

I don't share the opinion that a way forward is in making cars basically same aside their look. In fact I don't like that at all. By that motorsport looses one of its fundamentals which is the engineering genius. Already the existing rules are making all cars basically same. The size, layout, main functional things, all operates same way in all WRC cars. The differences are in particular details but in nothing major. That's exactly opposite to how it used to be in the past. Mini bringing small nimble FWD to victory, Audi bringing 4WD or semi-automatic gearbox, Lancia bringing mid-engine RWD or two-level supercharging, Peugeot bringing mid-engine 4WD... all that and much more would never happen if the rules fix all cars in the same scheme.

+1, completely agree with Mirek. In fact, I would hate a silhouette formula. Unfortunately that diversity of engineering solutions we had in the past, now we don't have anymore and cars are much more similar to each other, but I think it would be extremely boring to have cars all the same except the look. Diversity is a reason why I like to follow national championships, I like to see S2000 vs N4 vs 2WD and others...

[AndyRAC]

Motorsport needs diversity - which is one if the things I love about the WEC. Audi, Toyota, Porsche and now Nissan will all have something different as a solution to the question. The WRC like F1, WTCC doesn't have this; all WRCars have a 1.6T engine with 4WD...... I know technology is expensive - but this is a World Championship - if the returns are better then it's possibly worth it. Which again returns us to the promotion problem.

[Lundefaret]

Motorsport needs diversity - which is one if the things I love about the WEC. Audi, Toyota, Porsche and now Nissan will all have something different as a solution to the question. The WRC like F1, WTCC doesn't have this; all WRCars have a 1.6T engine with 4WD...... I know technology is expensive - but this is a World Championship - if the returns are better then it's possibly worth it. Which again returns us to the promotion problem.

To achieve this one could go down a completly different route, and that is to give the teams a more difficult objective.
The problem with the lack of diversity is due to the high level of grip, with the 4WD, suspension travel, and tires, wich ends up with a situation where You have to take away more and more of the "bang" (Power.)

Alt 1)
- Rear wheel drive.
- Limited suspension travel.
- No rules for the engine. Only weight/hp/Nm
- Spaceframe of own fabrication
- No rules for aerodynamics. Only make a square, ex from 30 cm in front of the car, 10 cm to the side, 30 cm from the top, and a no go zone from the windscreen to the end of the hood.
- Limited top speed

Alt 2)
- Four wheel drive.
- Limited suspension travel.
- No rules for the engine. Only weight/hp/Nm
- Spaceframe of own fabrication
- No rules for aerodynamics. Only make a square, ex from 30 cm in front of the car, 10 cm to the side, 30 cm from the top, and a no go zone from the windscreen to the end of the hood.
- Very hard tires with narrow grooves to limit grip.
- Limited top speed

Here we could see pure prototypes, and a lot of different approaches to find the right formula.

ie. If You take away grip, You can ad a lot of power, aerodynamics, etc etc.

[skarderud]

If we thinking about environment, maybe the way of thinking should be favoring 1.0t engine since you can have lower weight, vs heavier car and 2.0t?
You have a certain amount of km's to drive with a certain amount of fuel. With lesser grip, aerodynamics like today, half the suspensiontravel, more sound, more sideways, more environment thinking and so on, maybe the package would fit public and media better?

[Fast Eddie WRC]

Rallying only became massively popular with the general public in the 1980's with the advent of Group B.

The only way it can do this again is with more spectacular 'supercars', not just shopping cars with stickers on.

Rallycross RX is going to overtake WRC rallying for TV and being popular with the public unless it competes using more exciting better looking cars.

I still follow rallying because I have loved it since Group B... but I dont expect many new young fans to do the same with the current cars.

[janvanvurpa]

Rallying only became massively popular with the general public in the 1980's with the advent of Group B.



Sorry, that's nonsense. It was popular in the days before---for example we had even heard of rally all the way over in the USA. We knew names of the drivers, we knew the cars---some of us even dug into crap like what final drive and gearbox ratios they used...we knew events...it came in different media---magazines and books and TV even and we could see BIG crowds in the woods in the background...

Perhaps you might be more accurate to say "I became a BIG fan when I saw the GpB cars"

[Mirek]

You are right. Actually here in Eastern block we had almost zero B12 cars as 99% of stock cars were built to be cheap small-engine ones with the only exception being limousines for government officials but rallying was still hugely popular sport here, definitely more than now (at least in Czechoslovakia), the same was before gr.B era. One of the reason is that rallying here in that time was really a motorsport for everybody, it was very cheap with large government support. There was a system of "leagues" where the base level was competing with almost stock cars and every advance to next level was allowed only for the successful ones.

[janvanvurpa]

You are right. Actually here in Eastern block we had almost zero B12 cars as 99% of stock cars were built to be cheap small-engine ones with the only exception being limousines for government officials but rallying was still hugely popular sport here, definitely more than now (at least in Czechoslovakia), the same was before gr.B era. One of the reason is that rallying here in that time was really a motorsport for everybody, it was very cheap with large government support. There was a system of "leagues" where the base level was competing with almost stock cars and every advance to next level was allowed only for the successful ones.


I was just explaining to a young guy---and showing him actual results of the Skodas back in "the bad ol days" *of the 'old regime" (how do you guys refer to that time?), and told him about a crazy Russian I met who came from near Leningrad and how in summer they would have short sprint-y rallys sometimes on a Thursday night (I think Thursday is Payday---maybe they were trying to give guys to do other than get totally drunk? Who knows) rally and he said "We have 320 cars entered. 95% were Lada but a few others, even a couple Skoda--they were GOOD! but most Lada home modified...but still 320!!!! and everybody has 5-7 friends and it was BIG show"

He went on to tell me of the methods used to get heads and carbs and shocks from Italy via extremely "un-official" means..

I had a good friend here in Seattle who was Polish and who told me about rally in Poland "in the bad ol' days"...VERY popular....and no Group B cars..and how there was big upswing when Group A came along..
And in all these there always was some government support.....even in Sweden where I spent a long time cities and counties gave support in the form of land and loan of equipment and even money direct to the motor-clubs..


All Power to the Motor-clubs!



* the guy was shocked to see how John Haugland did in 130 Super Estelle against GpB supercars!

[Zeakiwi]

Brundza and a few others from behind the iron curtain competed on the 1000 lakes, acropolis and sweden with ladas and moskvitch, The Ladas even took part in NZ. http://tinyurl.com/lhuzoaa
The Russian rally championship events limited numbers.
There is a skoda entered in this year's Silver Fern Rally.


Homolgation - How much does it cost a manufacturer to homologate a car for World Rallycross against the homologation cost of WRC ? Saab and Audi are in Rallycross but would be very unlikely to have an official car in WRC.

[makinen_fan]

Some news by Autosport on the planned changes for 2017
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115101

To me if this concept gets the go-ahead it will bring some more interest into the sport. Although the big question is whether the manufacturers will like it to spend money on completely new concepts

[Eli]

If they let them have any engine they like and move to the d segment why did they bother with ristricting the engine capacity to 1.6 supermini????

[rallyfiend]

If they let them have any engine they like and move to the d segment why did they bother with ristricting the engine capacity to 1.6 supermini????

That concept was based on the 'World Engine' concept. It wasn't just about WRC, but also Touring Cars, F2, F3 etc etc etc.

[Jack4688`]

Modern D-segment cars just wouldn't work. Remember how ridiculous the Audi 200 quattro looked as a rally car? I think the Subaru Legacy RS was about the limit of how big a rally car that still looks good can go.

[stefanvv]

Modern D-segment cars just wouldn't work. Remember how ridiculous the Audi 200 quattro looked as a rally car? I think the Subaru Legacy RS was about the limit of how big a rally car that still looks good can go.

hehe, still won 1-2 Safari '87 hasn't it. Some people believe other measures like tyres & suspension would make more spectacle, why not bigger cars?

[Jack4688`]

I like the idea of bigger cars and the plan to add more variety but cars that big will just look ridiculous

[Jack4688`]

Modern day equivalent :D

[RICARDO75]

Someone put LSD in water during meetings of the FIA. Toyota is working on Yaris, Hyundai on the new i20 and now they want to put competing the Passat, DS5, Mondeo, i40 and Avensis?

[Gregor-y]

They would be fun to watch; though maybe not with 1.6L.

[Franky]

Why not C-segment cars?

[RICARDO75]

B-segment cars was a good bet because, are the ones who sell more and are more agile than those of segment C, that are much larger than they were before. If something must change in the WRC, I think it's the start order rule.

[Mirek]

Someone put LSD in water during meetings of the FIA. Toyota is working on Yaris, Hyundai on the new i20 and now they want to put competing the Passat, DS5, Mondeo, i40 and Avensis?

D segment is complete craziness. All those cars are around 4,8 meters long. C segment... why not.

[Lundefaret]

Some news by Autosport on the planned changes for 2017
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115101

To me if this concept gets the go-ahead it will bring some more interest into the sport. Although the big question is whether the manufacturers will like it to spend money on completely new concepts

I did not dare in my mind to hope for something so progressive. I like it - A LOT!!! Bigger differences car and engine vise is a huge step in the correct direction IMO.
If they follow up by limiting suspension travel and tires, I will be happy:)

[Mirek]

I did not dare in my mind to hope for something so progressive. I like it - A LOT!!! Bigger differences car and engine vise is a huge step in the correct direction IMO.
If they follow up by limiting suspension travel and tires, I will be happy:)

Fuel-flow controlled power is a good idea but D-segment cars is stupid IMHO. Those cars are way too big, around 4,8 meters.

[AndyRAC]

You would hope we would see some variety; so a mix of car sizes, engines, etc

However, it's not just the cars that need sorting; sort the events out, and drop the 'shoot out' garbage......

[stefanvv]

in which segment Celica was?

[stefanvv]

Modern day equivalent :D

no, it isn't, this is much larger. btw the biggest problem of 200 wasn't its length, but the heavy front.

[Mirek]

in which segment Celica was?

Celica wasn't exactly related to these general segments. However even if it was it would not be relevant for today because cars are "growing with their owners" from generation to generation. Today's typical segment B car Polo is as big as typical segment C car Golf in its first generation. Octavia I was 4,5 meters long, Octavia III is almost 4,7 meters therefore bigger than most of segment D cars from 20 years a go etc.

[Jack4688`]

The 100/200 became the A6, the A7 is just a 5-door 'fastback' version of it. So that image which I happened upon on google is close enough for me

[OldF]

You would hope we would see some variety; so a mix of car sizes, engines, etc

However, it's not just the cars that need sorting; sort the events out, and drop the 'shoot out' garbage......

That’s my opinion too. If the manufacturer can choose which kind of engine to use, why not the model. There could be some problems with the weight though. Can even a C-segment car reach the 1200 kg weight?

[stefanvv]

The 100/200 became the A6, the A7 is just a 5-door 'fastback' version of it. So that image which I happened upon on google is close enough for me

According to wikipedia d segmet audis are a4-a5 the most. As Mirek said, these classifications evolve in time. I see nothing wrong with a4 rally version.

[Mirek]

Can even a C-segment car reach the 1200 kg weight?

Depends on the rules and base model. With recent WRC rules it is certainly difficult but not impossible. When the main trend in car industry was safety cars got pretty heavy but now when all is about fuel consumption and emissions the trend reversed with new cars being reasonably lighter then their predecessors. Especially VW cars on MQB platform are very light. For example Octavia III is approximately 100 kg lighter although it's a lot bigger than second generation (for example 1.6 TDI model has 1280 kg including driver - for a car of 4,7 meters; petrol versions are naturally even lighter).

[Rally Power]

D segment is complete craziness. All those cars are around 4,8 meters long. C segment... why not.

Up to D-Segment doesn't mean large cars will be mandatory, simply that there will be a wider choice of models available.

Controlled fuel flow will certainly bring hybrid systems to the WRC, reflecting the global automotive move towards environmental friendly technologies.

[Rally Power]

You would hope we would see some variety; so a mix of car sizes, engines, etc

However, it's not just the cars that need sorting; sort the events out, and drop the 'shoot out' garbage......

Totally agree. The championship structure needs to be reformed respecting the sport traditional values. Less events but more wider and challenging rallys in order to bring back the endurance spirit that made rallying a respectable sport!

[Mirek]

Up to D-Segment doesn't mean large cars will be mandatory, simply that there will be a wider choice of models available.

Maybe You didn't get what I meant. Nobody sane would choose D-segment car if he can choose smaller one. So if it's C or D than everybody will go for C. Simple as that.


Controlled fuel flow will certainly bring hybrid systems to the WRC, reflecting the global automotive move towards environmental friendly technologies.

As I stated in some previous threads the hybrids are not safe for WRC. On circuits there are no spectators touching the cars and marshals know that they must not touch the cars when warning light is on. It's risky to bring hybrids to a competition where bunch of drunk people can push half-destroyed car out of a water splash.

Also the hybrids are extremely complex and costly therefore unsuitable for privateers. Only if FIA and RBMH want WRC to be only for manufacturers...

[Rally Power]

As I stated in some previous threads the hybrids are not safe for WRC. On circuits there are no spectators touching the cars and marshals know that they must not touch the cars when warning light is on. It's risky to bring hybrids to a competition where bunch of drunk people can push half-destroyed car out of a water splash.

Also the hybrids are extremely complex and costly therefore unsuitable for privateers. Only if FIA and RBMH want WRC to be only for manufacturers...

You can write it down: hybrid systems will be used in WRC from 2017!

Security and cost problems about these system will be minimized, because this is not a technical question but a political issue, and FIA is showing (wisely IMO) that environmental concern it's a priority in today and future motorsport.

[RICARDO75]

I worked at Opel and had training on the Opel Ampera. Mirek is right in saying that they are dangerous. Even a mechanic runs many dangers to work on this type of cars

[MJW]

My guess is that segment C cars wil be the most common (maybe that Merc A Class photoshop / mock up that's been on the internet for months) I also think that FIA and manufacturers will push for Hybrid, Citroen did an excercise with a Hybrid C4 some years ago where they would use battery poer for road sections and ICE for stage mode. IF this happens, and I am not convinced, you can guarantee that these cars will be extremely expensive and 'works only' privateers will have to chosse theR5 route. - Thats if WRC survives to 2017.

[Mirek]

You can write it down: hybrid systems will be used in WRC from 2017!

I'm afraid You are right.


Security and cost problems about these system will be minimized, because this is not a technical question but a political issue, and FIA is showing (wisely IMO) that environmental concern it's a priority in today and future motorsport.

It IS a technical issue. How can You guarantee that the high voltage won't harm anybody when the car may be touched by any spectator or children while being seriously damaged, wet etc.?

And it also IS an issue of cost. It's not only politics. Even if the cars are given for free it is extremely difficult (and therefore costly) to maintain them.

[Co-driven]

As Mirek said, the use of hybrid technology on rallies can be really dangerous.
If you can, take a look at Racecar Engineering's last issue, on the Nissan Zeod on Le Mans article.

They had a huge investment in teaching everyone involved in the project how to deal with it.

[OldF]

I also consider hybrid cars dangerous for rallying. What I found was that Toyota Prius use 650 V AC for the motor and the batteries has 201,6 V DC. DC voltage is even worse than AC because DC goes all the time in same direction and it is more difficult to get loose from tensional part. AC voltage change direction all the time and is zero several time in a second depending on the frequency.

If a car has rolled and the wiring or some other tensional part touch the body-shell but the car landed on the wheels, everything is still OK (no sparks). But if somebody touch the body-shell that is tensional and the human body is well grounded = goodbye :burn:. If a human body is well grounded depend much on the conditions (dry / wet / clothes / shoes). The current doesn’t have to be high before it cause severe damages to the human body, so be careful when using electrical equipment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock

[janvanvurpa]

I also consider hybrid cars dangerous for rallying. What I found was that Toyota Prius use 650 V AC for the motor and the batteries has 201,6 V DC. DC voltage is even worse than AC because DC goes all the time in same direction and it is more difficult to get loose from tensional part. AC voltage change direction all the time and is zero several time in a second depending on the frequency.

If a car has rolled and the wiring or some other tensional part touch the body-shell but the car landed on the wheels, everything is still OK (no sparks). But if somebody touch the body-shell that is tensional and the human body is well grounded = goodbye :burn:. If a human body is well grounded depend much on the conditions (dry / wet / clothes / shoes). The current doesn’t have to be high before it cause severe damages to the human body, so be careful when using electrical equipment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock

And that's just getting roasted from electricity... I have often wondered what happens when the battery case shatters and soaks everybody with acid like this:


It's one thing if crew melts. They're highly paid to drive and they know the risks but if we melt 5-8 speccies and a few officials so there's just pools of bloody paska with some flat brim Red Bull hats floating in it people will get upset possibly..

And what about the enviroment---every crash becomes a toxic waste dump...
A dead zone for ever...

Such potential danger... Not worth the risk..

[OldF]

They're highly paid to drive and they know the risks but if we melt 5-8 speccies and a few officials so there's just pools of bloody paska with some flat brim Red Bull hats floating in it people will get upset possibly..

A suitable amount of electric chock could also have a viagra effect.:D

[Brother John]

If this is the future of cars for WRC ???.......... it will be nice for classic cars rallys and rallycross championship. :-).
Then I say Goodbye to WRC............................................... ..........!!!

[OldF]

Let’s use this old thread for the commenting the 2017 technical regulations.


http://www.fia.com/news/new-regulations-coming-2017-world-rally-car

The 2017 regulations see enhancements to the engine, and the visual impact created by an all-new aerodynamic package will dramatically enrich the spectacle of these cars and provide far greater diversity. The 1.6 litre turbo engine is retained but the power will be increased up to the level of the WTCC race cars. The diameter of the turbo restrictor will be increased from 33mm to 36mm while the turbo pressure remains at a maximum 2.5b absolute. The minimum weight of the car has also been reduced by 25 kilograms.
Greater freedom will also be afforded with the aerodynamics, setting this World Rally Car aside from many of its recent predecessors. A free zone defined around the bodyshell of the production car could see a front bumper overhang by an additional 60mm, potentially also with additional aero devices ahead of the front wheels, while the rear overhang can be increased by an extra 30mm. Bigger door sills will also be permitted. The fixed rear wing can be dramatically increased in size and while the rear diffuser will have maximum permitted dimensions, the shape will be free and may protrude up to 50mm from the rear bumper. The WRC car will be issued from a production car from which the overall homologated length must be greater than or equal to 3.9 metres, potentially adding further opportunities for manufacturers.

With a wider car and active central differential imo there’s a lot to develop on the car before 2017 season.

[OldF]

This is how the width will change for the Polo.

https://twitter.com/fernischumi


PAAVO (https://twitter.com/PanteAlex) retweeted
Iván Fernández ‏@fernischumi (https://twitter.com/fernischumi)10h10 hours ago (https://twitter.com/fernischumi/status/621221104036769792)
No aparecen ni la mitad de cambios que se esperan para 2017 pero bueno... algo es algo. #WRC (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WRC?src=hash)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ8FTCWWgAAUHdA.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ8FSsBWEAA_9Qe.jpg

[Arnold Triyudho Wardono]

That would be good at tarmac event, but how about in gravel/snow..?

[Mirek]

I'm really curious if they will use the whole width limit. 1875 mm is IMHO very impractical for some events with very narrow roads. We had here in the past some Peugeots 306 Maxi (circa 1850 mm) and despite them having traction control they were really struggling to keep wheels on the road on events like Barum where some roads are barely wider than the car.

Anyway I personally share the opinion of somebody else from previous discussion - restrictor change is ok but the modifications of aero package and active diffs are counter productive. I don't know for what it is good to have extremely fast cars which go like on rails (on asphalt at least) and look therfore slower than they are. I also agree with the opinion that it would be better to reduce aero kit and suspension travel.

[makinen_fan]

I also share the opinion that aero changes and active diffs will deter the show. The power boost is welcomed but combined with the other two changes will make the cars just faster, not more spectacular or more difficult to handle.

The one thing that I would like to see is somehow to restrict suspension development, limit travel, dampers or something along these lines, to make cars move around more, like they use to in the 90s.

[Simmi]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but does anyone think these new changes have come off the back of the recent success/rejuvenation of rallycross? I'd be amazed if that wasn't tabled as part of the discussion. It seems like a bit of a reaction to perceived WRX plus points.

[Sulland]

This one looks more as a WTCC or DTM car.
Why is FIA doing this?


This is how the width will change for the Polo.

https://twitter.com/fernischumi


PAAVO (https://twitter.com/PanteAlex) retweeted
Iván Fernández ‏@fernischumi (https://twitter.com/fernischumi)10h10 hours ago (https://twitter.com/fernischumi/status/621221104036769792)
No aparecen ni la mitad de cambios que se esperan para 2017 pero bueno... algo es algo. #WRC (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WRC?src=hash)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ8FTCWWgAAUHdA.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ8FSsBWEAA_9Qe.jpg

[Mirek]

Because RedBull wants it. Possibly the carmakers too as they were involved in the process.

[stefanvv]

This one looks more as a WTCC or DTM car.
Why is FIA doing this?

Back to the roots?!? Attracting more people (including manufacturers) to the sport?!? Someone mentioned WRC already have attracted enough manufacturers for now. But weren't Toyota waiting for '17 regulations to come in?!? Perhaps VW will also commit to longer involvement beyond '19?!?

[Rally Power]

These changes are very similar to those implemented in WTCC last year. They made TC1 cars more aggressive and powerful, without a significant raise of development and running costs.

The main difference, and problem, in these WRC new regs is the return of active diffs. WRC2.0T cars had highly costly transmission systems that required a level of technical sophistication difficult to achieved. WRC1.6T will steadily reach that level, probably making even harder for other manus to break VW dominance...

[Arnold Triyudho Wardono]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but does anyone think these new changes have come off the back of the recent success/rejuvenation of rallycross? I'd be amazed if that wasn't tabled as part of the discussion. It seems like a bit of a reaction to perceived WRX plus points.
Not really. Even 2014-current Marklund's Polo shares the same bodykit as WRC counterpart. (2013 spec was based from WRC proto)
And M-Sport Fiesta is basically WRC with engine steroid.

[Jack4688`]

I think they're doing it because clearly no one within the FIA who makes technical decisions knows what they're doing.

I read in Autosport today that the justification for the electronically control centre diffs was that it makes it easier to set the cars up and would result in less need for testing. However anything that pillock David Evans writes for Autosport/Motorsport News is usually a load of dross written with a crayon.

[janvanvurpa]

I think they're doing it because clearly no one within the FIA who makes technical decisions knows what they're doing.

I read in Autosport today that the justification for the electronically control centre diffs was that it makes it easier to set the cars up and would result in less need for testing. However anything that pillock David Evans writes for Autosport/Motorsport News is usually a load of dross written with a crayon.

That and it seems they also lack any memory longer than the last Press release for Immediate Release.

[tommeke_B]

The main difference, and problem, in these WRC new regs is the return of active diffs. WRC2.0T cars had highly costly transmission systems that required a level of technical sophistication difficult to achieved. WRC1.6T will steadily reach that level, probably making even harder for other manus to break VW dominance...

On the other hand, Ford and Citroën already have a lot (something like 10 years?) of experience with the active differentials in competition, while VW doesn't.

[Mirek]

That's not true. VW took people from other teams and they naturally brought their know how with them. You can't say F-X Demaison has no experience with active diffs. Can You? ;)

[tommeke_B]

That's not true. VW took people from other teams and they naturally brought their know how with them. You can't say F-X Demaison has no experience with active diffs. Can You? ;)
True that a lot of knowledge is there, but still I think that Ford and Citroën have some basis to build on that VW doesn't have (yet). We'll have to wait and see... :)

[Lundefaret]

Personally I think these new regulations is the wrong way to go. The cars are getting even faster in the corners, even more dependent on aerodynamics, and more dangerous, and not more exiting to watch.

What we need is:
- More exiting to watch (wich means more than a body kit).
- Less corner speed (safety)
- More and better sound

This can easily be achieved by:
- Regulated damper travel
- Passive diffs (as now)
- Regulated aerodynamics
- Higher revs (bigger restrictors)

High horespower is not a problem, but high downforce and long damper travel is.
Cars needs to look fast, and that is not achieved by ironing out every bump, jump, or crest.
See this video to know what I mean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LX0FbST_zo

This looks and sounds fast! (But is MUCH slower than todays WRC cars)

I fear this development will end in disaster. In an event like Poland, or other evenst with poor spectator magament, a car even faster in the corners could spell disaster.

Also for the drivers a car You can go "flat" with over every bump takes away the need too feel the road, where You must slow down, etc.

Hmmm... I really wonder what is the logic behind these desicions, as I dont see any clear sign of it. It is well meaning, and talented people behind descisions like these, but I just dont see it.

[Jack4688`]

Off topic but I never understood why Juha Kankkunen preferred his pace notes in English, even with a Finnish co-driver!

At about 0:33 the car goes over a small dip and the front-right wheel is in clear air for a split second. Very small detail to notice but that's the kind of thing that makes the cars look more spectacular going through a stage.

It makes me think of a Citroen with hydragas suspension: https://youtu.be/Yl6EYKRdfu4 In the context of this video the Citroen looks hilarious but let's face it, it's making less of a display than the Mercedes, Audi and FIAT on those bumps

[OldF]

Off topic but I never understood why Juha Kankkunen preferred his pace notes in English, even with a Finnish co-driver!

Earlier in his career and for so many years he had English speaking co-drivers so he was so used to listen to English notes so he preferred English even with a Finnish co-drivers.

[OldF]

I read in Autosport today that the justification for the electronically control centre diffs was that it makes it easier to set the cars up and would result in less need for testing. However anything that pillock David Evans writes for Autosport/Motorsport News is usually a load of dross written with a crayon.

If the guy is talking about overall setup for a car, an active central differential will help (I assume) but if talking only about the central differential it’s a lot easier to make setups to the current “central differential”.;)

[danon]

Audi quattro Group B Concept - https://www.behance.net/gallery/Audi-quattro-Group-B-Concept/11725175



https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/d872aa79b63a63e8239a393573617a46.jpg

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/a267b71c36a3bd5c26e04d5ceee4515b.jpg

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/2d783f3188a548ccb3481e7462988146.jpg

[Eli]

Audi quattro Group B Concept - https://www.behance.net/gallery/Audi-quattro-Group-B-Concept/11725175



https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/d872aa79b63a63e8239a393573617a46.jpg

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/a267b71c36a3bd5c26e04d5ceee4515b.jpg

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/2d783f3188a548ccb3481e7462988146.jpg

now this should replace the polo!!!! if only....

[stefanvv]

This is actually based on Pikes Peak S1, but still a nice idea....

[Fast Eddie WRC]

Focus RS 2017

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CK7HZBbWIAEXKS0.jpg:large

[tommeke_B]

Nice concept that's not going to happen. The new Focus RS is a 5-door car, also the Fiesta has the perfect basis for a WRC.

[giu canbera]

Audi quattro Group B Concept - https://www.behance.net/gallery/Audi-quattro-Group-B-Concept/11725175



https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/d872aa79b63a63e8239a393573617a46.jpg

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/a267b71c36a3bd5c26e04d5ceee4515b.jpg

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/11725175/hd/2d783f3188a548ccb3481e7462988146.jpg

JESUS F* CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!
I REALLY HOPE to see things like that in 2017

[sollitt]

I sincerely hope not. Sports cars ... yes, but once rally cars lose their connection to everyday transport the sport will lose all relevance and the majority of it's following.

[pantealex]

I sincerely hope not. Sports cars ... yes, but once rally cars lose their connection to everyday transport the sport will lose all relevance and the majority of it's following.

Wrong!

Think cars like 037, delta S4, RS 200, quattro, celica. Those were not "everyday transport" and people were following...

[sollitt]

Not wrong. Generally Group B cars were derivatives of cars people could either buy or associate with. They looked like cars (S4 excepted), not like some futuristic plastic toy.

[Mirek]

Not really. Those cars were built only in homologation series of 200 pieces which had nearly nothing common with the original stock "name holder". The few pieces from homologation series not being used for competition were a lot more rare cars than the most expensive Ferrari or Lamborgini cars of the time.

For example Peugeot 205 T16 had a lot less common with stock 205 (the basic mass produced variant) than Fiesta WRC with stock Fiesta. The later share at least the bodyshell

[janvanvurpa]

I sincerely hope not. Sports cars ... yes, but once rally cars lose their connection to everyday transport the sport will lose all relevance and the majority of it's following.


That happened both during the Group B era...205 having just the headlights and grille and sharing nothing else including being a much much larger car (around 99+ inches wheelbase vs sub 96" on the road car..Metro shared nothing, RS200 used Sierra glass and dash and a few other parts but nothing really meaningful) and with the introduction of the World Rally Car
subset of Group A rules..

Cow's out of the barn long ago..

And probably explains a large degree of the fall in participation and viewership.

Those absurd looking child's drawings caricatures just above look ridiculous to me.. But then again I am not a 14 year old boys who plays video games. Which IS the "target demographic".

[janvanvurpa]

Wrong!

Think cars like 037, delta S4, RS 200, quattro, celica. Those were not "everyday transport" and people were following...


You could however buy one of the 200 base models and it was---somehow---"street legal".
And I've seen some on the road..

[sollitt]

For example Peugeot 205 T16 had a lot less common with stock 205 (the basic mass produced variant) than Fiesta WRC with stock Fiesta. The later share at least the bodyshellDidn't matter how much it had in common with the road going version at all. Fact was it could be identified as an off shoot from the road going car.

[sollitt]

You could however buy one of the 200 base models and it was---somehow---"street legal".
And I've seen some on the road..
Exactly the point.

[Mirek]

Didn't matter how much it had in common with the road going version at all. Fact was it could be identified as an off shoot from the road going car.

I don't agree with You, often they didn't share even the shape.

This is how Delta S4 looked and below is how stock Delta looked...

http://www.zmphoto.it/forum/foto/16577/900/b079d6fc0d14dca2d6679eac6237d58b_delta------rally.jpg
http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/52606/delta%2003.jpg


Exactly the point.

50-100 pieces for the whole Globe. Really nice of them. It's hardly more difficult to buy WRC car and drive it to supermarket...

[Grundo Farb]

I don't agree with You, often they didn't share even the shape.

This is how Delta S4 looked and below is how stock Delta looked...

http://www.zmphoto.it/forum/foto/16577/900/b079d6fc0d14dca2d6679eac6237d58b_delta------rally.jpg
http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/52606/delta%2003.jpg



50-100 pieces for the whole Globe. Really nice of them. It's hardly more difficult to buy WRC car and drive it to supermarket...

I will see your lancia example and raise you this one:

728

[Lundefaret]

It would have been better if the R5 and WRC cars were built around a space frame, like in the Group B-era, or like Peugeots Pikes Peak winner.
A space frame is "easy" to modify, so You can change the wheelbase, track with etc, whitout making a whole new car, and You can also change the bodywork, whitout building a whole new car.
This is how they do it in American motorsport (Nascar, Dragracing etc). Its potentially a huge cost saver to do it like this.

[Mirek]

I agree with that.

[skarderud]

In swedish stcc/tta, they use a french car, solution-F. Just fit your wished chassis, then race.
Everyone has the same point of stand, the best driver/team winns.
Maybe not interresting for VW, but lots of other teams, like m-sport, prodrive, tmr, bozian, and smaller teams like adapta and weavers would be on it with a small support from a car-manufacturer.

[janvanvurpa]

It would have been better if the R5 and WRC cars were built around a space frame, like in the Group B-era, or like Peugeots Pikes Peak winner.
A space frame is "easy" to modify, so You can change the wheelbase, track with etc, whitout making a whole new car, and You can also change the bodywork, whitout building a whole new car.
This is how they do it in American motorsport (Nascar, Dragracing etc). Its potentially a huge cost saver to do it like this.

Oddly enough since we agree on so much else, I disagree...
You know i work with steel things for 405 years now, light tube constructions and I live here where rally is a very sad joke and Circle track is KING..
And yeah the costs of CIRCLE track tube structures are amazingly cheap---and many are completely done in China now so the price is unusually low---

And the choices of hubs and uprights and links and brakes and all kinds of parts are crazy cheap..

But whole cars are still expensive....and they are extremely crude things..
But mainly it is the strength of the modern type INTEGRATED cage and shell is more than the sum of the strength of the cage and the shell separately...

The cars are enormously stronger and they are much safer that tube things

[denkimi]

Oddly enough since we agree on so much else, I disagree...
You know i work with steel things for 405 years now, light tube constructions and I live here where rally is a very sad joke and Circle track is KING..
And yeah the costs of CIRCLE track tube structures are amazingly cheap---and many are completely done in China now so the price is unusually low---

And the choices of hubs and uprights and links and brakes and all kinds of parts are crazy cheap..

But whole cars are still expensive....and they are extremely crude things..
But mainly it is the strength of the modern type INTEGRATED cage and shell is more than the sum of the strength of the cage and the shell separately...

The cars are enormously stronger and they are much safer that tube things

you can make your tube-chassis as strong or safe as you wish. f1 doesn't have a shell either.

[janvanvurpa]

you can make your tube-chassis as strong or safe as you wish. f1 doesn't have a shell either.
Of course.. at a cost..

and as Competition boss for Citroen said way back in the Clio days "we complained bitterly when we first had to make Group a cars... Then one of our guys pointed out that we make efforts to make road cars strong and safe, isn't kind of pointless to throw away all that effort? Add to it."

[sollitt]

I don't agree with You, often they didn't share even the shape.

This is how Delta S4 looked and below is how stock Delta looked...

http://www.zmphoto.it/forum/foto/16577/900/b079d6fc0d14dca2d6679eac6237d58b_delta------rally.jpg
http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/52606/delta%2003.jpg



You cannot see similarity between the road car and rally car?

[danon]

None! - Except the name.

[N.O.T]

None! - Except the name.

then you should have your eyes checked... the only difference are the added plastic aero parts at the back and front.

[Mirek]

You cannot see similarity between the road car and rally car?

The point is that both technically and visually there is a lot more difference between stock Delta and gr.B Delta than between any stock recent car and it's WRC version and that will most likely stay unchanged even with 2017 rules.

[giu canbera]

I sincerely hope not. Sports cars ... yes, but once rally cars lose their connection to everyday transport the sport will lose all relevance and the majority of it's following.

Hmm.. you're right... but I'd rather have the street cars with rear wings, air intakes, aerodynamic pieces instead of a WRC car more likely to its road relevant.....

[danon]

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Alfa-Romeo-Giulietta-WRC-with-2017-new-regolament-549742586

http://img09.deviantart.net/f0dd/i/2015/210/d/d/alfa_romeo_giulietta_wrc_with_2017_new_regolament_ by_renxo93-d93aw3e.jpg

[skarderud]

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Alfa-Romeo-Giulietta-WRC-with-2017-new-regolament-549742586

http://img09.deviantart.net/f0dd/i/2015/210/d/d/alfa_romeo_giulietta_wrc_with_2017_new_regolament_ by_renxo93-d93aw3e.jpg
Yes please, but its probably more real that Saab built a new wrcar:)

[danon]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1f/41/52/1f4152cdf0545ea74860c1fb901b60a5.jpg

[N.O.T]

useless imaginary photoshops... all of them.

[stefanvv]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1f/41/52/1f4152cdf0545ea74860c1fb901b60a5.jpg

Perfect car for Nikolay Zlatkov

[danon]

http://s5.postimg.org/lpvtkkqbr/JML_AUDI_JUMP_FIN.jpg

[N.O.T]

are you producing all these useless photoshops of garbage or you are searching for them on the interwebs and posting them ?

[ToughMac]

The thought of one of these hitting the stages gives me goosebumps! The old group B Audi Quattro is as popular in the minds of people today as it ever was!

[giu canbera]

Cool "fan concepts", eh?
I saw someone complaining that the 2017 new car will have to much grip and people want less grip to see the cars going sideways.... but... the cars will be faster, thats awesome. ANd c'moon.. Theres no such thing as "no sideways" in Rally... they will always have dirt on their wheels to make them go sideways!

[Rollo]

are you producing all these useless photoshops of garbage or you are searching for them on the interwebs and posting them ?

We need a Chevrolet Cruze Coupe... with mad photoshop skillz.

http://i.imgur.com/z03TiMR.jpg

Cool should always be a consideration because deep down, everyone is still 10 years old and wants posters on their wall.

[giu canbera]

740

Using PAINT, not Photoshop (heheh)... But I'd like to see more aero pieces for more downforce and less drag

IDK how to post them BIG... just click on it

[Mirek]

But I'd like to see more aero pieces for more downforce and less drag

Can You tell me how can You increase downforce and decrease drag in the same time? :)

[Allyc85]

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Alfa-Romeo-Giulietta-WRC-with-2017-new-regolament-549742586

http://img09.deviantart.net/f0dd/i/2015/210/d/d/alfa_romeo_giulietta_wrc_with_2017_new_regolament_ by_renxo93-d93aw3e.jpg

I know it's never going to happen, but that is bloomin' stunning!

[lewalcindor]

Can You tell me how can You increase downforce and decrease drag in the same time? :)

Use a vacuum, like in the Chaparral 2J. :)

http://www.sportscars.tv/Newfiles/2J%20Chaparral.html

[Zeakiwi]

We need a Chevrolet Cruze Coupe... with mad photoshop skillz.


Cool should always be a consideration because deep down, everyone is still 10 years old and wants posters on their wall.
There is a spaceframe Cruze in NZ - made as an endurance circuit racer.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mitchell-Race-Xtreme/178316328664?sk=timeline&ref=page_internal

[Mirek]

Use a vacuum, like in the Chaparral 2J. :)

Hehe, 1:0 for You :p

[Lundefaret]

Oddly enough since we agree on so much else, I disagree...
You know i work with steel things for 405 years now, light tube constructions and I live here where rally is a very sad joke and Circle track is KING..
And yeah the costs of CIRCLE track tube structures are amazingly cheap---and many are completely done in China now so the price is unusually low---

And the choices of hubs and uprights and links and brakes and all kinds of parts are crazy cheap..

But whole cars are still expensive....and they are extremely crude things..
But mainly it is the strength of the modern type INTEGRATED cage and shell is more than the sum of the strength of the cage and the shell separately...

The cars are enormously stronger and they are much safer that tube things

Cost: How can a whole tube cars be expensive when all the parts are cheap?

Strength: A rallycar is a "tube ting" already, in that it has almost all its strength from the roll cage. Easily spotted in a crash, when only the roll cage is left. And judging from how they survive the huge crashes, NASCARs are quit strong.

Cost of repair: A rallycar (R2/R3/R5/WRC) is way to expensive to repair after a crash. This is because the roll cage is an integral part of the body, making the repairs very advanced compared to just taking the body off, putting the cage in a jig, and changing what is bent.

Compared to top level racing in Europe, NASCAR-type cars are incredibly cheap, and an extremely good value for money. That is why this type of American circle track racing is a much better business case than all of European motorsport. The return on investment for the sponsors are much greater. Why? The cars are MUCH cheaper. The cars are MUCH cheaper to run. Television broadcasting of the races are on another level. There are a lot more races.

Compare the prices of a new, or slightly used NASCAR-type car to European top level racing: LMP1, WRC, F1, or even WTCC. The European engineer driven motorsport is hugely expensive, and totally reliant on manufacturers to cover the bills. The sponsor money required to run even the lower feeder classes is enormous, and thats why we see so few really talented drivers coming up trough the ranks, even in WRC to challenge Ogier.

In the USA a huge number of drivers and teams get paid to come and race. Tell that to a European rally- or race car driver, and he won't belive You.

If we should build more excitement in the WRC it doesn't help with a car that is a few millimeters wider. A WRC-car should be so "cheap" to build and run that it would be such a good return on investment for the sponsors that it would be unwise to stay away.

Does it need to be a space frame chassis?
- It would be easier if every manufacturer had to start from one specified chassis, with a limited amount of modification.
- But it could also be done by making the R5-cars the WRC starting point, and have more powerful engines.

Should there also be other cost caps? Yes!
- All major components should have a cost cap, and also be made available for sale.
- Schock absorbers, gear boxes, diffs etc.
- Engines should also have a cost cap, and should also be able to buy for private teams.
- If there are discovered any changes between "factory" parts and the parts offered for sale, it should be heavily fined.
- The engine should be of a smarter/cheaper format to reach the performance goal. If You want to have 400hp and 800Nm, there is a lot of cheaper (and better sounding) ways to achieve that, than start from a 1,6 liter turbo engine with a restrictor.

Safety:
- The aerodynamics and damper travel should be limited for safety reasons, with the added benefit of the cars becoming more spectacular to watch.

This way we would have a lot more cars, and the teams would need to get their hans on real talent (not pay drivers), which again would lead to stronger competition, which in turn would lead to a much greater spectacle being a lot more interesting for TV, which then again would result in better sqedualing and more air time and higher payments from the TV-channels for the broadcasting rights. This would turn a negative spiral to a positive spiral. Which we need!

[tommeke_B]

@Lundefaret, great theory! But as long as all decisions are being pushed by the manufacturers, things are not going to change in that direction...

[Lundefaret]

@Lundefaret, great theory! But as long as all decisions are being pushed by the manufacturers, things are not going to change in that direction...

I know.....

[Lundefaret]

From NASCAR: An impressive 130 of all Fortune 500 companies are NASCAR sponsors.

From NASCAR/Margolis: At Hendrick Motorsports, which employs 500 people, sponsors are estimated to cover 65 to 70 percent of all infrastructure costs. The rest is paid for by race winnings and other endorsement deals.

Some NASCAR 2015 stats.
There are 18 official teams.
70 drivers have entered one or more of the 21 races so far.
11 racers have netted a victory.
23 drivers has been Top 5.
45 different drivers have been Top 10.


Lets make a dream WRC scenario:

10 "official" teams.
4 cars pr team. (Total of 40 "official" WRC cars)
2 "main drivers" pr team.
The 2 other cars available for specialist drivers (Tarmac/Gravel/Snow)
10 "private" teams with 1-4 cars pr team. (total of 10-40 "private" WRC cars)

Cost of WRC car: Cost capped to 200.000 Eur.

Safety:
- Strong spaceframe.
- Limited aerodynamics.
- Limited damper travel.
- Sentral seating.
- If needed for safety: RWD.

Engine/performance:
Cost capped engine: 30.000 Eur.
Min 5 rallies pr engine.
500 hp
600 Nm
1000 kg


(Or just use World Rallycross Cars)

[Zeakiwi]

The space frame rallycross lites made in Turkey at still expensive.
https://youtu.be/mjU__B6Oaes (Nascar robot welding tube car).
Maybe the Australian 'answer' of UTVs in rallies for less expensive 'current' vehicles. Certainly engine capacity is similar e.g Brendan Reeves R2 Fiesta ecoboost vs a Polaris RZR turbo

[Barreis]

From NASCAR: An impressive 130 of all Fortune 500 companies are NASCAR sponsors.

From NASCAR/Margolis: At Hendrick Motorsports, which employs 500 people, sponsors are estimated to cover 65 to 70 percent of all infrastructure costs. The rest is paid for by race winnings and other endorsement deals.

Some NASCAR 2015 stats.
There are 18 official teams.
70 drivers have entered one or more of the 21 races so far.
11 racers have netted a victory.
23 drivers has been Top 5.
45 different drivers have been Top 10.


Lets make a dream WRC scenario:

10 "official" teams.
4 cars pr team. (Total of 40 "official" WRC cars)
2 "main drivers" pr team.
The 2 other cars available for specialist drivers (Tarmac/Gravel/Snow)
10 "private" teams with 1-4 cars pr team. (total of 10-40 "private" WRC cars)

Cost of WRC car: Cost capped to 200.000 Eur.

Safety:
- Strong spaceframe.
- Limited aerodynamics.
- Limited damper travel.
- Sentral seating.
- If needed for safety: RWD.

Engine/performance:
Cost capped engine: 30.000 Eur.
Min 5 rallies pr engine.
500 hp
600 Nm
1000 kg


(Or just use World Rallycross Cars)

This will never pass (that cheap) 'cos guys like Wilson (and Richards in the past) must make some money...

[lewalcindor]

Hehe, 1:0 for You :p

Haha, well, I don't think the boxy rear end of Chaparral reduced much drag to be honest. :)

[Lundefaret]

Haha, well, I don't think the boxy rear end of Chaparral reduced much drag to be honest. :)

A boxy rear end (clean cuts) is actually a quite good way to not get more drag than necessary. The worst is having a "tail" that is has more than about 12 degrees slant, that will cause stalling and generate lift.
The Charparall is also pushing air in to the wake of the car, from the underside, wich also has a positive effect on the drag.
The "worst" thing with the Chaparral is its big frontal area.

[Lundefaret]

The space frame rallycross lites made in Turkey at still expensive.
https://youtu.be/mjU__B6Oaes (Nascar robot welding tube car).
Maybe the Australian 'answer' of UTVs in rallies for less expensive 'current' vehicles. Certainly engine capacity is similar e.g Brendan Reeves R2 Fiesta ecoboost vs a Polaris RZR turbo

The Lites are a very god point, tough I dont agree that they are expensive.
The Lites are made quite cheap in Turkey, and sold with a very good profit.
A similar solution could have worked very well in rallying.

The last price for a Lite I heard was 185.000 Dollar, which is about 170.000 Eur (remember, a very good profit).
Thats the same price as a NASCAR, and an R5 rallycar.
And the Lites are comparably very easy and cheap to run. And it could be made even easier and cheaper.
And it would be easy to scale them up, making a WRC-car.

- The good thing with a Lite is very cheap/easy to change broken body parts.
- Internal chock absorbers, so if You take of a corner You only brake cheap metal stuff, not expensive suspension parts.
- Standardized production, making the cars cheaper to produce.
- A space frame construction making it easier to change out bruken parts, and cheaper and easier to change a whole chassis if needed.

----

UTVs are perfect for rallying (I have a Polaris RZR 800 XP4 my self), and the new RZR Turbo with 144 hp is much faster than an R2 rallycar.
They can also run on much poorer roads, making it much easier to find roads to rally on.
And they could make rallying quite watchable. I have been a driving instructor for Polaris at the Norwegian launch of the RZR1000 (not turbo), and ran on a big motocross track, jumping extremely high and far, with no problems regarding the suspension - and we were running a standard set up.
I have had my RZR for two years, and it has been extremely cheap to run (fuel, oil, oil filter). Nothing has broken (it has even rolled a couple of times), until I tore off one of the rear wheels last time I was out (I live on a forestry farm with A LOT of good rally roads for the RZR), and even that is costing pennies to repair compared to a "normal" rally car.
So a UTV based rally series would be very good :)

[skarderud]

The main problem is the manufacturers. They dont want any other to build cars, so they can do whatever they want and suits them.
Maybe to ban manufacturers, and easier/cheaper buildt cars is the only way to get a decent championship again?

[danon]

http://s5.postimg.org/e5ojhgojr/Polo_R_WRC_2017_FIN_9.jpg

[OldF]

The car concept for 2017 is ok for me except the increase in aero downforce. More power and aggressiveness is what I welcome. The sound is quite OK but what I like to see is the aggressiveness of cars out of a corner like in the days of group B cars.

How about some global regulations with drawings, material definitions and measurements of parts that can be fabricated locally with any need of any homologation, only a passport from the local ASN.

The engine could be an engine big enough without any need of any high tuning. What I’ve read for example the BMW M3 used in Finnish F-Cup aren’t much tuned because about 300 hp is enough in the cup. My personal favourite would be a 2,5 – 3,0 litre V6 engine.

The transmission could be same or similar to what is used with the Maxi Rally cars. Well, the only options probably are Subaru or Mitsubishi or is there any other options?

This kind of formula would of course never get an approval from the manufacturers and never have a global championship but same kind of cars with their drivers could compete with each other and the performance of drivers could be evaluated in different parts of the world compared to the WRC or WRC2 drivers to find some new talents.

[giu canbera]

Some really good intetrsting talk here and just like in other series, manufacturers ego are "damaging" racing. But theres some people saying that we r close to the day manufacturers will turn to electric engines only and leave racing to garage companies that will be only interested in "build this engine/car under that specification, sell it and have a good day. Next week we see you to buy something to replace broken parts if needed".

[danon]

WRC 2017...

http://www.diariomotor.com/competicion/imagenes/2015/05/wrc-2017-extreme-1.jpg

http://www.diariomotor.com/competicion/imagenes/2015/05/wrc-2017-extreme-3.jpg

http://www.diariomotor.com/competicion/imagenes/2015/05/wrc-2017-extreme-4.jpg

[N.O.T]

useless photoshops for kids...

[stefanvv]

VW and Ford look great, Citroen is like a smashed frog, Yaris just looks weird....

[Jack4688`]

They all look about 5% different from this year, so nothing to get excited about. I read in this week's Motorsports News that Markku Alen said:


"At the moment you take away the sponsors names from the cars and they all look the same. The new regulation is coming in 2017 and we have all been waiting for 30 years. In Group B we have S4, Audi, RS200, everything looking and sounding different."

There has been a lot of reference to Group B for some reason from various people and then this statement from Alen. I'm sorry but they will look different when you compare the 2016 cars to the 2017 cars but this isn't major changes we're talking about. All the 2017 cars will look just as similar to each other as the current ones do and sound broadly similar.

I'm sure someone like Jarmo Mahonen (correct me if I'm wrong) said that these regulations will provide much more variation but, again, I don't see it. Unless the FIA haven't told us some pertinent detail in order to shock the fans come 2017 Rallye Monte Carlo they will still be B-Segment cars featuring some bodywork appendages and large diameter wheels.

Don't get me wrong they may be great to watch and the best compromise between keeping costs down, keeping the manufacturers interested and giving something extra to keep the fans interested but I wish they'd stop trying to make out that this is something that it's not.

THIS IS NOT A NEW GROUP B. IT IS WRC 2017

[itix]

Cost: How can a whole tube cars be expensive when all the parts are cheap?

Strength: A rallycar is a "tube ting" already, in that it has almost all its strength from the roll cage. Easily spotted in a crash, when only the roll cage is left. And judging from how they survive the huge crashes, NASCARs are quit strong.

Cost of repair: A rallycar (R2/R3/R5/WRC) is way to expensive to repair after a crash. This is because the roll cage is an integral part of the body, making the repairs very advanced compared to just taking the body off, putting the cage in a jig, and changing what is bent.

Compared to top level racing in Europe, NASCAR-type cars are incredibly cheap, and an extremely good value for money. That is why this type of American circle track racing is a much better business case than all of European motorsport. The return on investment for the sponsors are much greater. Why? The cars are MUCH cheaper. The cars are MUCH cheaper to run. Television broadcasting of the races are on another level. There are a lot more races.

Compare the prices of a new, or slightly used NASCAR-type car to European top level racing: LMP1, WRC, F1, or even WTCC. The European engineer driven motorsport is hugely expensive, and totally reliant on manufacturers to cover the bills. The sponsor money required to run even the lower feeder classes is enormous, and thats why we see so few really talented drivers coming up trough the ranks, even in WRC to challenge Ogier.

In the USA a huge number of drivers and teams get paid to come and race. Tell that to a European rally- or race car driver, and he won't belive You.

If we should build more excitement in the WRC it doesn't help with a car that is a few millimeters wider. A WRC-car should be so "cheap" to build and run that it would be such a good return on investment for the sponsors that it would be unwise to stay away.

Does it need to be a space frame chassis?
- It would be easier if every manufacturer had to start from one specified chassis, with a limited amount of modification.
- But it could also be done by making the R5-cars the WRC starting point, and have more powerful engines.

Should there also be other cost caps? Yes!
- All major components should have a cost cap, and also be made available for sale.
- Schock absorbers, gear boxes, diffs etc.
- Engines should also have a cost cap, and should also be able to buy for private teams.
- If there are discovered any changes between "factory" parts and the parts offered for sale, it should be heavily fined.
- The engine should be of a smarter/cheaper format to reach the performance goal. If You want to have 400hp and 800Nm, there is a lot of cheaper (and better sounding) ways to achieve that, than start from a 1,6 liter turbo engine with a restrictor.

Safety:
- The aerodynamics and damper travel should be limited for safety reasons, with the added benefit of the cars becoming more spectacular to watch.

This way we would have a lot more cars, and the teams would need to get their hans on real talent (not pay drivers), which again would lead to stronger competition, which in turn would lead to a much greater spectacle being a lot more interesting for TV, which then again would result in better sqedualing and more air time and higher payments from the TV-channels for the broadcasting rights. This would turn a negative spiral to a positive spiral. Which we need!

I get that space frame cars would probably be cheaper, but we are forgetting where rallying come from... rallying started with a road car body shell that got faster and faster as people started modifying said shells. Top level rallying will lose all it's contact with its grass roots if we went space frame. The fact that we have top level rallying together with national events where you can see the same body shell compete in two different categories and know that both comes from the same production line means that you still retain some level of connection with the real world. Rally cars have to be road registerable after all.

Also I think your magic cure-all cost formula will be ruined by competition pretty soon anyway. Like someone said, it will will probably be more cost efficient with an evolution of the regs rather than a revolution. I am sure the manufacturers would agree with me on that if they would read this.

I could agree in cost cap for components. There you are on to something. More engine power is seriously not a bad thing... I don't know if the aerodynamics are going to make a huge difference, we will see. The parts are so damn flexible anyway that i doubt that they generate much downforce. When I first read the regs and saw the mockup done by wrc promoter, I thought it would look ridiculous but now I am not so sure.

If the cars look anything like the mockups in this thread and around the interwebs they are going to be great! The Polo should start testing in winter so I am sure we will see pictures emerging pretty soon.

I think they reg changes are largely positive although I agree with what others are saying about the active center diff making a reappearance... That I don't believe in. It is going to favor set ups that will have the cars straighter through the corners which is something we want to strive away from (plus the cost issue).

[Arnold Triyudho Wardono]

useless photoshops for kids...
I wish you'll able to say that to the artists..:heh:

BTW, why Fiesta has Focus RS face..??

[Fast Eddie WRC]

They all look about 5% different from this year, so nothing to get excited about. I read in this week's Motorsports News that Markku Alen said:



There has been a lot of reference to Group B for some reason from various people and then this statement from Alen. I'm sorry but they will look different when you compare the 2016 cars to the 2017 cars but this isn't major changes we're talking about. All the 2017 cars will look just as similar to each other as the current ones do and sound broadly similar.

I'm sure someone like Jarmo Mahonen (correct me if I'm wrong) said that these regulations will provide much more variation but, again, I don't see it. Unless the FIA haven't told us some pertinent detail in order to shock the fans come 2017 Rallye Monte Carlo they will still be B-Segment cars featuring some bodywork appendages and large diameter wheels.

Don't get me wrong they may be great to watch and the best compromise between keeping costs down, keeping the manufacturers interested and giving something extra to keep the fans interested but I wish they'd stop trying to make out that this is something that it's not.

THIS IS NOT A NEW GROUP B. IT IS WRC 2017

This is true. Group B cars were all so different in design and layout and there were so few rules, only that 200 cars had to be made. Group B is history and its like will not be coming back.

WRC 2017 will just be another evolutionary change with cars just adapted to some new rules. This is normal and good to look forward to, but not the big deal its being made out.

[Mirek]

I wish you'll able to say that to the artists..:heh:

BTW, why Fiesta has Focus RS face..??

Actually it is quite useless since
a) it shows just authors imagination and nothing more
b) doesn't even respect the proposed regulations

[danon]

VW and Ford look great, Citroen is like a smashed frog, Yaris just looks weird....

How about that one... ;)

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/1529839_213046232224645_821444094_o.jpg

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/1597329_213046242224644_7103558_o.jpg

[skarderud]

It should been so nice if they could use cars like Audi TT, vw scirocco, hyundai veloster, etc, instead of the shoppingtrolleys.

[stefanvv]

How about that one... ;)

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/1529839_213046232224645_821444094_o.jpg

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/1597329_213046242224644_7103558_o.jpg

what is that?

[EstWRC]

lol, these pictures get funnier every time.

[danon]

what is that?

Barum tires...

[stefanvv]

no they were fine so far for wrc2017 & Pikes Peak, the last ones I didn't get what they're for....

[danon]

for a change

[Mirek]

It should been so nice if they could use cars like Audi TT, vw scirocco, hyundai veloster, etc, instead of the shoppingtrolleys.

But, but... they can. Each of those cars You named can be homologated as WRC.

[stefanvv]

Barum tires...

Ah, I get it, funny indeed....

[Jack4688`]

But, but... they can. Each of those cars You named can be homologated as WRC.

They can homologate a VW Phaeton too, but they wouldn't

[itix]

The Audi TT should have a short enough wheelbase to work.

Why wouldn't they homologate that? What's the drawback? It seems inherently aerodynamic (to a layman who doesn't know shit about aerodynamics).

I get that Audi probably won't return while vw is in the championship but it sounds realistic to me.

[Rollo]

The Audi TT should have a short enough wheelbase to work.

Why wouldn't they homologate that? What's the drawback? It seems inherently aerodynamic (to a layman who doesn't know shit about aerodynamics).

I get that Audi probably won't return while vw is in the championship but it sounds realistic to me.

WRC regs basically mean that most of the field has a wheelbase of 2,480mm and a width of 1,820mm.
The TT which sits on the MQB platform; which is also what the Audi A3, VW Golf and Skoda Octavia sit on, has a wheelbase of 2,505mm and a width of 1,832mm.

Audi could very easily homologate the TT if they wanted to but I suspect that an Audi rally car is more likely to be either an A3 or an A1 so that they can exploit the Quattro heritage. Besides which, Audi is already playing in sports cars and the DTM. The group is already doing fine.

[itix]

WRC regs basically mean that most of the field has a wheelbase of 2,480mm and a width of 1,820mm.
The TT which sits on the MQB platform; which is also what the Audi A3, VW Golf and Skoda Octavia sit on, has a wheelbase of 2,505mm and a width of 1,832mm.

Audi could very easily homologate the TT if they wanted to but I suspect that an Audi rally car is more likely to be either an A3 or an A1 so that they can exploit the Quattro heritage. Besides which, Audi is already playing in sports cars and the DTM. The group is already doing fine.

Sure, but in '17 they'll be wider so they should be able to fit it to the regs. I get that it is difficult to make that kind of car competitive in rally... or at least that's how it seems to me. I remember reading somewhere that the Celica was very difficult to build to be competitive and that to stay ahead they basically had to resort to the infamous cheat when the restrictors were introduced as they previously had kept ahead via superior engine power. IIRC it had something to do with the rigidity of the body shell or something like that. Correct me if I am wrong.

I thought they had a TT quattro already? Maybe I am wrong... they would certainly have gained fans and following if they did since it would be something different. I genuinely expected Toyota to run the GT-86 rather than the Yaris upon their return for that very reason!

[Mirek]

Guys, don't try to search for more complicated reasons than they actually are. They use Polo because of marketing. All others use B-segment cars and that's why they do so as well.


They can homologate a VW Phaeton too, but they wouldn't

Yes, that's exactly the point. There is nothing in the regulations which would forbid them from using TT or Veloster or whatever for WRC. It's just their own decision to use Polo or i20.

[Jack4688`]

Yes, but isn't it also true that if you're allowed to use a car that is 3900mm long (as per the 2017 regs) and that, for example, you have a B-segment car that is 3950mm long and a C-segment car that is 4250mm long you would use the shorter one for competitive advantage (assuming the marketing bigwigs said either one is as good, you choose)?

I don't know much about the rules in the early 2000s but wasn't the Peugeot 206 seen as having an advantage by being the shortest and therefore more agile? They even had to homologate a 4000mm long version of the road car over the standard 3830mm car. Length has high-speed stability advantages but still Skoda decided to drop the long Octavia for the short Fabia, thought not with much success...

Point being, nowadays you build a WRC car with your smallest regular passenger car available/possible i.e. VW will choose the Polo over the Golf, the Scirocco wouldn't get a second thought and the Up! is ineligible, same goes with Toyota for Yaris, Auris, GT86, Aygo and Hyundai for i20, i30, Veloster, i10.

[Mirek]

True but in my opinion Scirocco isn't worse car to make WRC from than Polo (quite the opposite). For that reason I think that it's about marketing there. Same with new 5D i20 versus i20 coupé (this is what I don't understand at all). Golf, Auris were too big for current regulations, not only by dimension but also due to weight. It was much harder to get in the weight limit with 1.6T cars than with 2.0 WRC which had more free regulations. On the other hand I think that cars like Up! are too small for proper weight distribution and fitting everything in (including the crew).

[Lundefaret]

I get that space frame cars would probably be cheaper, but we are forgetting where rallying come from... rallying started with a road car body shell that got faster and faster as people started modifying said shells. Top level rallying will lose all it's contact with its grass roots if we went space frame. The fact that we have top level rallying together with national events where you can see the same body shell compete in two different categories and know that both comes from the same production line means that you still retain some level of connection with the real world. Rally cars have to be road registerable after all.

Also I think your magic cure-all cost formula will be ruined by competition pretty soon anyway. Like someone said, it will will probably be more cost efficient with an evolution of the regs rather than a revolution. I am sure the manufacturers would agree with me on that if they would read this.

I could agree in cost cap for components. There you are on to something. More engine power is seriously not a bad thing... I don't know if the aerodynamics are going to make a huge difference, we will see. The parts are so damn flexible anyway that i doubt that they generate much downforce. When I first read the regs and saw the mockup done by wrc promoter, I thought it would look ridiculous but now I am not so sure.

If the cars look anything like the mockups in this thread and around the interwebs they are going to be great! The Polo should start testing in winter so I am sure we will see pictures emerging pretty soon.

I think they reg changes are largely positive although I agree with what others are saying about the active center diff making a reappearance... That I don't believe in. It is going to favor set ups that will have the cars straighter through the corners which is something we want to strive away from (plus the cost issue).

Space framed cars were used in Group B to great effect, so it has a history in rallying.

The challenge now is that the cars (WRC, R5 etc) are so highly developed that starting from a standard car is a problem, rather than a benefit.
Long gone are the days of Group A where You had "mildly" modified road cars out on the stages.

A space frame/purpose built rally car (top level, nationally and internationally) could, if combined with cost caps on components, reduce overall cost of running a said car over a season. Crash damage can be made much cheaper (bodywork, internal dampers etc), it would be much cheaper to have different body styles (makes/models), or to make specialized veichles like the RS200, 6R4 etc.
But I know as well as anyone that this will not happen very likely :)

One idea is to take a modern World RX car (rallycross), and test it on a rally stage.
Here You have huge power, "simple" construction, and it would be easy to limit damper travel and aerodynamics.
How would that look on a special stage?

The "changes" that will come in 2017 will make the cars look and go a little more like the original WRC cars, except that their decing/layout will be much more similar than the original WRC cars.


The most cost innefective class now i believe is the R3T-class. A Citroen DS3 R3T costs uppwards of 90.000 Eur, is not much faster than an R2, looks boring, and sounds boring. And all tough it is marvelous to drive (I have had the pleassure of testing one), compare that to a Rallycross Lites car, wich is in the same price range, but with 4WD, a mid mounted engine, and 300 HP.(This is not Citroens fault, its just the regulations.)

[itix]

Yes, but isn't it also true that if you're allowed to use a car that is 3900mm long (as per the 2017 regs) and that, for example, you have a B-segment car that is 3950mm long and a C-segment car that is 4250mm long you would use the shorter one for competitive advantage (assuming the marketing bigwigs said either one is as good, you choose)?

I don't know much about the rules in the early 2000s but wasn't the Peugeot 206 seen as having an advantage by being the shortest and therefore more agile? They even had to homologate a 4000mm long version of the road car over the standard 3830mm car. Length has high-speed stability advantages but still Skoda decided to drop the long Octavia for the short Fabia, thought not with much success...

Point being, nowadays you build a WRC car with your smallest regular passenger car available/possible i.e. VW will choose the Polo over the Golf, the Scirocco wouldn't get a second thought and the Up! is ineligible, same goes with Toyota for Yaris, Auris, GT86, Aygo and Hyundai for i20, i30, Veloster, i10.
The 206 I know something about since it is my favorite WRC car ever.

They wanted to return to rallying but had no suitable car over 4 meters that wasn't due to end production (306 wasn't going to be produced anymore) which was the regs for the world rally at the time. They therefor built the 3800 something millimeter 206 in an extra long extended homologation special that was 4000 and a few mm long.

This gave the Peugeot the shortest wheelbase of all cars which made it agile but nervous. It was also said to be pain in the ass to build for Peugeot sport because they could not fit the engine well (among other things) so they had to run the output to the center diff through a bevel gear.

The short wheel base made it a killer on Tarmac but difficult on rough rallies like acropolis which is why it only won once.

As far as I have understood they ran an engine from a 406 and it went out of homologation in 2004. That coupled with other issues which I don't remember (and pressure from the top) meant that they switched to the butt ugly and horribly failed 307 cc and ultimately ended their participation in rally (I am with Grönholm that they should have stayed with the 206).

I even bought a 206 as soon as I got my licence due to that rally car. Currently on my second one now.

[itix]

Space framed cars were used in Group B to great effect, so it has a history in rallying.

The challenge now is that the cars (WRC, R5 etc) are so highly developed that starting from a standard car is a problem, rather than a benefit.
Long gone are the days of Group A where You had "mildly" modified road cars out on the stages.

A space frame/purpose built rally car (top level, nationally and internationally) could, if combined with cost caps on components, reduce overall cost of running a said car over a season. Crash damage can be made much cheaper (bodywork, internal dampers etc), it would be much cheaper to have different body styles (makes/models), or to make specialized veichles like the RS200, 6R4 etc.
But I know as well as anyone that this will not happen very likely :)

One idea is to take a modern World RX car (rallycross), and test it on a rally stage.
Here You have huge power, "simple" construction, and it would be easy to limit damper travel and aerodynamics.
How would that look on a special stage?

The "changes" that will come in 2017 will make the cars look and go a little more like the original WRC cars, except that their decing/layout will be much more similar than the original WRC cars.


The most cost innefective class now i believe is the R3T-class. A Citroen DS3 R3T costs uppwards of 90.000 Eur, is not much faster than an R2, looks boring, and sounds boring. And all tough it is marvelous to drive (I have had the pleassure of testing one), compare that to a Rallycross Lites car, wich is in the same price range, but with 4WD, a mid mounted engine, and 300 HP.(This is not Citroens fault, its just the regulations.)
I get that it would be cheaper but I am really not a fan of the idea. I don't like the RX cars and I was a fan of the diversity of Group B, but not the space frames or midmounted engines.

To build or buy a customer car as a space frame is slightly more difficult. Smaller teams that run Msports etc would be more dependent on the jig of the mother company in case they crash rather than just straighten the body shell again.

... And it really would distance it from the lower categories. You'd always have amateurs show up in their lower class actual cars that aren't a plastic toy and I don't know about you, but I would feel that those were real cars rather than the space fram thing series it was supporting.

Theoretically, you could take the makings of a wrc or R5 car and stuff or full of showroom interior and you'd have one hell of a shopping car.

In the space fram car, the ikea chairs wouldn't fit for all the scaffolding and the milk would just fall through and never be reachable again.

I feel so much more connected with a car that is actually a body shell than some disused scaffolding...

I agree that your ideas make sense to the wallet and the brain, but it does not to my rally heart.

[Rollo]

I genuinely expected Toyota to run the GT-86 rather than the Yaris upon their return for that very reason!

From what I understand, the ST185 and ST205 Celica GT-Fours were horrible cars for rally work because they were so low slung. I've driven a GT-86 once and it was a very low to the ground car (and a boneshaker). I would hate to be the engineers to work out a different set of geometry needed to raise the ground clearance on the GT-86.

PS: The GT-86 doesn't really deserve that title at all. The Current Corolla is E150 and the GT-86 is not a Corolla. The XP150 Yaris is closer in spirit to AE86 than the Toyobaru is, no matter how good it is.

[Mirek]

As far as I have understood they ran an engine from a 406 and it went out of homologation in 2004. That coupled with other issues which I don't remember (and pressure from the top) meant that they switched to the butt ugly and horribly failed 307 cc and ultimately ended their participation in rally (I am with Grönholm that they should have stayed with the 206).

307 wasn't that bad car like it is remembered. One of the reasons why it failed was switch to Pirelli which had big problems in those times. Remember that 307 WRC became highly successful in the hands if privateers in 2006 and 2007.

[liposh]

Peugeot 307 WRC had very powerful engine. More powerful than Xsara for example (but Xsara was better to setup)

[TWRC]

307 wasn't that bad car like it is remembered. One of the reasons why it failed was switch to Pirelli which had big problems in those times. Remember that 307 WRC became highly successful in the hands if privateers in 2006 and 2007.
Also, given the situation with the drivetrain/gearbox misery, it was almost an overachiever. I think too that if they stayed with Michelin for 2005, they might have been even closer to Citroën than they were.

[Mirek]

At least it has shown PSA that using a gearbox with low number of gears isn't a good idea even if more gears are theoretically redundant. I guess it was one of the reasons why Citroën stayed with 6-speed gearbox even with C4.

[itix]

They should easily have been able to stuff said engine in the 206 the magicians from pipo moteurs should have been able to sort that out, no issues there... If they had stayed with the 206 and the 5 speed they would have had more manufacturers titles.

"I am fed up with this car"
-Grönholm about the 307

Anyway, we are hiking pretty far off topic now hahahaha.

Does anybody think it is likely that Peugeot will return to WRC if PSA mates Citroën give up?

They should (in my hopeful mind) be able to take over since they are the same house and all.

[dodge33cymru]

I was thinking the same about Peugeot, but seeing the hash they've made of the R5 car I am not sure this would be a great time to approach the board and tell them you can build a WRC-winner.

[Lundefaret]

They should easily have been able to stuff said engine in the 206 the magicians from pipo moteurs should have been able to sort that out, no issues there... If they had stayed with the 206 and the 5 speed they would have had more manufacturers titles.

"I am fed up with this car"
-Grönholm about the 307

Anyway, we are hiking pretty far off topic now hahahaha.

Does anybody think it is likely that Peugeot will return to WRC if PSA mates Citroën give up?

They should (in my hopeful mind) be able to take over since they are the same house and all.

Peugeot Sport and Citroën Sport is two separate entities with higher walls between them than You might think.

Its VERY unlikely that Peugeot enters WRC anytime soon, this is because of the poor TV/Media coverage, wich yields low ROI.
They are focussed totally on Dakar, with smaller "privateer" efforts like in RX with Hansen, and one-offs like Pikes Peak.

BTW, the 307 WRC was hampered in the beginning also by a very free spirited central active differential, that was as predictable as a North Korean leader.
The engine was great, and the car was developed to be the fastest privateer WRC car.
But staying with the 206 would have been better, no question.

[Mirek]

I was thinking the same about Peugeot, but seeing the hash they've made of the R5 car I am not sure this would be a great time to approach the board and tell them you can build a WRC-winner.


Peugeot Sport and Citroën Sport is two separate entities with higher walls between them than You might think.

Peugeot Sport and Citroën Racing are more or less one entity. In two months they shall even share same facility in Satory.


Its VERY unlikely that Peugeot enters WRC anytime soon, this is because of the poor TV/Media coverage, wich yields low ROI.

That's not true. Matton presented the results of PSA marketing studies to public just weeks a go. He said literally that in the world of car motorsport there is only F1 upon the WRC level of publicity and popularity and that any other forms of motorsport are way behind. He also expressed that they are very unsatisfied with WTCC. He also said that their partners namely Abu Dhabi very much prefer to stay in WRC.

The question if Peugeot will go to WRC or not is purely about internal politics in PSA and I do expect that Citroën stays there.

[danon]

Peugeot 207 powered by a Formula Renault V6 engine - Next level WRC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMAR9mBFN4c

[giu canbera]

peugeot 207 powered by a formula renault v6 engine - next level wrc - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmar9mbfn4c


woooow!! Damn

[Toyoda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5WALqr9KTw

Its not a 207,

[itix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5WALqr9KTw

Its not a 207,

No it is a space frame with a WRX fibre glass body I think.
Here is another vid about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1blrI7kt6m8
(Thats the one I wanted to share ^)

I have followed that project for a while, it is pretty cool! The dude has dedication in abundance!

Also the title "too fast for the WRC" is hilarious given that he had problems beating S2000-cars in Whangarei.

[Burg]

Also the title "too fast for the WRC" is hilarious given that he had problems beating S2000-cars in Whangarei.

Sure if you think beating Pontus Tidemand by 37 seconds after the first 2 proper stages is problems then you are right.

[itix]

Ah... I must have missed those two stages completely. I followed the times of Tidemand and saw he was behind on the first two and then never saw him again in the top and just assumed he fell in the order. Saw now that he retired on stage 6. My bad! Sorry for that one Alex.

I assume the clutch issue was what kept his time low on SS5.

[Lundefaret]

A perfect modern rallycar:
3,5 V6, 8500 rpm
An interview with Alex Kelsey on his MC2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5WALqr9KTw

[Mirek]

It's not perfect. 3.5 V6 is the last thing what marketing people from car makers want. I would even say that ideas like that make their hair stand.

[AndyRAC]

Very much like the Peugeot Cosworth of Andy Burton. It's perfect from a fan point of view, but as you say, the Manufacturers want 'road relevant' technology - so we get 1.6T engines which sound less than great.

[Burg]

Actually he turned the wrong way at a corner and was stopped for a minute before spectators turned him around. For some reason he was unable to select reverse. I was at the end of stage 5 and he was far quicker than any of the other cars at that point.

[Burg]

It's not perfect. 3.5 V6 is the last thing what marketing people from car makers want. I would even say that ideas like that make their hair stand.
Actually he was briefly sponsored by Peugeot NZ before he dropped them because they were too much of a hassle. And besides, Alex is the manufacturer not Peugeot.

[Mirek]

Alex isn't going to change the world of rallying. You missed the point.

[itix]

Alex isn't going to change the world of rallying. You missed the point.
I don't think he set out to.

He and pretty much everyone else in the NZ1 class seem to do pretty much what they want. Are there even rules in that class? People seem to enter pretty much everything, Block included. Someone named Emma has built a 4WD Suzuki swift (she's some kind of Suzuki dealer in the NZ it seems) etc etc.

Home built madness seem to be the menu

[Mirek]

I was refering to this post: http://www.motorsportforums.com/showthread.php?33969-The-new-FIA-WRC-car-concept-2017&p=1061840&viewfull=1#post1061840

It started with words "A perfect modern rallycar"

It's nothing against Alex or anything happening in NZ. It's purely stating the fact that it's not a perfect modern rallycar as such car is nothing manufacturers want to see and as such it's never going to play any significant role in the world of rallying.

[stefanvv]

it is correct, V6 engines are just not for current b segment cars. C, D segment, but not B. MC2 looks awesome on New Zealand stages, though it is still B segment car (I believe), but the headline seems proper - too fast for WRC. It would be another group B madness for such cars.

[Burg]

Alex made the car because he likes rallying and going fast. He wanted to make something that would get spectators back to the stages and bring back the spirit of group b. In NZ he has definitely achieved that. But you are right about manufacturer interest. This is a one off build and while it would be awesome to see a bunch of these cars in the wrc, it won't happen.

[Toyoda]

Regs a pretty free in NZ rally champ now which has improved it no end as a spectacle.

Alex is not a particularly experienced driver especially with pace notes so once he gets more driving time and reliability with his car i expect he will become unmatched in the NZC as that car is super quick.
He had a pretty sweet Subaru with modded suspension before this car.

He is driving this weekend on the Coromandal rally, best of luck to him for a good result and a reliable run.

[danon]

Strange... the vid I posted has no sound today. Is it only me? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMAR9mBFN4c

[Burg]

Strange... the vid I posted has no sound today. Is it only me? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMAR9mBFN4c

Yep it's only you. Try the volume settings in the YouTube video. I find that sometimes it switches itself to mute.

[danon]

Yep it's only you. Try the volume settings in the YouTube video. I find that sometimes it switches itself to mute.

Done.
Did every possible thing.
Cleared all browsing data too.
Still no sound only on that vid, the rest is - OK.

Strange!!!

Edit: Downloaded the video with sound but no sound playing it on youtube.

[danon]

Sound problem solved - surround system effect settings.

[Jack4688`]

Alex made the car because he likes rallying and going fast. He wanted to make something that would get spectators back to the stages and bring back the spirit of group b. In NZ he has definitely achieved that. But you are right about manufacturer interest. This is a one off build and while it would be awesome to see a bunch of these cars in the wrc, it won't happen.

I like the fact that he said he wanted to create something that doesn't sound boring. This lad has his priorities right! I'm moving to New Zealand within the next 12 months so I will be in a position to see it in the metal :D

[Mirek]

Few people know that there are noise and emission limits for rally cars which every homologated car must follow. That's the main reason why any homologated car will never sound extra loud and exciting (thankfully some are still quite noisy).

[Andre Oliveira]

The formula to sucess is simple: Fire, noise, sideways :)

http://revivalsportscars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Ford-Escort-Cosworth-Rally-Car-flames-sideways.jpg

[Lundefaret]

Few people know that there are noise and emission limits for rally cars which every homologated car must follow. That's the main reason why any homologated car will never sound extra loud and exciting (thankfully some are still quite noisy).

1) The 1,6T format on the basis that it is production relevant is utter BS. Why should the engine be relevant when nothing of the rest of the car is? Have You ever seen the road car basis of a modern rallycar (read: Polo, DS3, Fiesta etc) with 4WD, adjustable McPherson coilovers on each end with HUGE travel, advanced aerodynamics, etc?

A WRC engine serves two purposes, and two only:
1) Propulsion (in generous amounts, i.e. 500hp+)
2) A sound that makes young boys scream in excitement, babys cry, and women throw their nickers at the cars. Its should be loud and sexy. (110db and high revs)

There have been great sounding NA engines, Turbod engines, Compressors engines, turbod AND compressord engines, fours, fives, sixes and eights, Vs, longditudals, and boxers.
The common referrers are high revs (i.e. cut out the restrictors, or at least make them big) and a generous sound system (not sound deadening system).
There is no problem making an engine/exhaust that has a road mode (for homologation) and a stage mode.

[Lundefaret]

The formula to sucess is simple: Fire, noise, sideways :)

http://revivalsportscars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Ford-Escort-Cosworth-Rally-Car-flames-sideways.jpg

Spot on!

[Mirek]

1) The 1,6T format on the basis that it is production relevant is utter BS. Why should the engine be relevant when nothing of the rest of the car is? Have You ever seen the road car basis of a modern rallycar (read: Polo, DS3, Fiesta etc) with 4WD, adjustable McPherson coilovers on each end with HUGE travel, advanced aerodynamics, etc?

Simply because of marketing. 95% of buyers don't have a clue about any technical stuff and they do believe the marketing phrases. Times have changed and nowadays people aren't interested in how stuff works. You need to get away from looking on things by a sight of a rally geek. Guys like You make tiny percentage of car buyers. To understand why the car makers want what they want You need to look on things from their point of view. Fact is that it is the car makers and always will be who have the biggest word in this game. This will not change because You or me want something else.


A WRC engine serves two purposes, and two only:
1) Propulsion (in generous amounts, i.e. 500hp+)
2) A sound that makes young boys scream in excitement, babys cry, and women throw their nickers at the cars. Its should be loud and sexy. (110db and high revs)

There is a valid law which sets the noise and pollution limits for the simple reason that rallying takes place on public roads. And it's not about road sections. The stages pass through villages and towns as well. Especially in the central Europe it is impossible to make the stage without going through a populated areas. As such rallying is fully dependent on tollerance of the non-rally majority. I can imagine You don't face problems with that in Norway but please take into account that it is very very real problem in heavily populated European mainland. It's nothing special when the stage is not allowed to pass somewhere because some locals don't want that. They have various reasons. They think it's noisy, dangerous, they don't like having spectators in front of their house, don't want the road to be closed or whatever. To play on someone else's playground You need to find compromise. There's no other way.


There have been great sounding NA engines, Turbod engines, Compressors engines, turbod AND compressord engines, fours, fives, sixes and eights, Vs, longditudals, and boxers.
The common referrers are high revs (i.e. cut out the restrictors, or at least make them big) and a generous sound system (not sound deadening system).

Yes, of course but what have You tried to say by that?


There is no problem making an engine/exhaust that has a road mode (for homologation) and a stage mode.

As I already said. It's not about road sections. Stages pass through populated areas as well. You can't expect little babies, elderly women or nature-lowing people to understand why rally needs more noise exactly in front of their house on Sunday morning. It's similar like when a techno party comes to Your place. It's something You won't like and understand and it will most likely make You mad. Take into account that there is a lot of poeple who think about rallying in the same way.

[Burg]

The Kelsey MC2 is road legal and has passed noise tests, not sure how, but it did. Although it may not be what car marketers want, the fans love it. And surely that has to count for something.

[Mirek]

Don't get me wrong, I personally do agree with You.

[Lundefaret]

Simply because of marketing. 95% of buyers don't have a clue about any technical stuff and they do believe the marketing phrases. Times have changed and nowadays people aren't interested in how stuff works. You need to get away from looking on things by a sight of a rally geek. Guys like You make tiny percentage of car buyers. To understand why the car makers want what they want You need to look on things from their point of view. Fact is that it is the car makers and always will be who have the biggest word in this game. This will not change because You or me want something else.



There is a valid law which sets the noise and pollution limits for the simple reason that rallying takes place on public roads. And it's not about road sections. The stages pass through villages and towns as well. Especially in the central Europe it is impossible to make the stage without going through a populated areas. As such rallying is fully dependent on tollerance of the non-rally majority. I can imagine You don't face problems with that in Norway but please take into account that it is very very real problem in heavily populated European mainland. It's nothing special when the stage is not allowed to pass somewhere because some locals don't want that. They have various reasons. They think it's noisy, dangerous, they don't like having spectators in front of their house, don't want the road to be closed or whatever. To play on someone else's playground You need to find compromise. There's no other way.



Yes, of course but what have You tried to say by that?



As I already said. It's not about road sections. Stages pass through populated areas as well. You can't expect little babies, elderly women or nature-lowing people to understand why rally needs more noise exactly in front of their house on Sunday morning. It's similar like when a techno party comes to Your place. It's something You won't like and understand and it will most likely make You mad. Take into account that there is a lot of poeple who think about rallying in the same way.

You are forgetting one HUGE aspect. If WRC should be a place for manufacturers to spend their marketing dollars, it has to gather large crowds both on TV and on the stages. If You gather these crowds, You make money for the manufacturer, the TV-rights holders, and the rally organizers, and the locals. Then aspects like sound etc becomes less of an object, because it is created a demand for the show, and vendors bid against each others to be a part of the spectacle.

The WRC has been in a downwards spiral since 2004. And there are multiple reasons. Here are some:
1) The combination of Citroën, Michelin and Loeb was unbeatable, which made the show the worst a show can be: predictable. A quote reads that sport should be a show with an unknown ending.
2) The promotors never delivered on their promises of TV-covarage, including live scheduling etc.
3) The promotors never took full advantage of the great possibilities opened with the boom in rally gaming, making it theoretically possible for them to host rallies for the gamers where they could compete against the real drivers on the same stages in real time. Gaming was bringing rallying out to the masses.
4) The promotor threating dumbing down their communication towards the fans (like the WRC magazine, WRC.com etc) which neither attracts the true fans (because its nothing to learn) and not new fans because the simplified image isn't sexy. Look to NASCAR for a much better way off doing this.
5) Tire breakthroughs, Aerodynamical break troughs with really efficient wings and splitters and undertarys, technical breakthroughs like advanced differentials and driving break troughs made the cars/drivers less spectacular to watch.
6) The rallies them selves becoming Mickey Mouse events that are much more homogeneous, and takes away a lot from the show (running the same stages several times etc, no more night driving), and taking away much of the aspect of bringing rally to the people. All of this contributing to the rally itself covering a much smaller region, which lower the geographical area of positive economical input. Again loosing a lot of political benevolence with again makes the rallies more difficult to host, and the local politicians of the neighboring regions more strict towards noise etc.
7) The cars getting expensive to the extreme, in a combination of lower PR value, making for lower ROI on the marketing money spent, which again results in manufacturers walking out.


If the show is valuable enough cities and communities will even tear down buildings and erect new ones if You tell them to. They will even build new roads. I can promise You that the only reason sound is a "problem" is that WRC is not valuable enough right now as a show.
Compare it to what communities and countries are willing to do to host the Olympic games or the World Soccer Championship.

And the new proposed regulation changes will not change a darn thing. It is anal to the extreme to think that a few millimeters here and an active diff there will make any big difference on the future of rallying.

To hunt down the spirit og the WRC You need to find the legendary stories of the battles between brave men (and a very brave woman) and their monstrous machines. And then create events that are hugely spectacular showing of great feats on all surfaces, in all weathers, in all conditions, in all parts of the globe. This is what rally was built on, and this is what its future should include.

Make each rally a combination of the LeMans 24H, the Dakar, and the Monte Carlo rally. Make them stand out. Taking away events to make each event more distinct and a better show, is better than adding to similar events.
Make it so its easy to tell the incredible stories. Reach out to the fans with social media, TV, and the rally it self, so that they will pass on the great stories.
Make the cars cheaper to build and run, to allow for more manufacturers and more drivers.
Recruit drivers because of talent, not fat wallets.
Take away mechanical grip, take away aerodynamical grip, add power, sound and looks, make the cars beasts that us mere mortals would not be capable of running. Make it visibly matter that the surface changes, not as now where the cars have almost the same grip level wherever they go.
Take Richard Burns rally, modernize it, and make it the official game, and give the fans a possibility of battling the drivers on the Power Stage.
Etc etc.

Rally has with out a doubt been the most exiting and extreme motorsport in the world, its time to make it that again.

[Jack4688`]

Take Richard Burns rally, modernize it, and make it the official game.

Have you played DiRT Rally? Easily the best rallying game since RBR. It just needs time for more content to be available.

[Jack4688`]

I agree with both what Mirek and Lundefaret say, on the one hand there needs to remain some link between what the manufacturers do day to day and some social responsibility but on the other hand the WRC needs to genuinely set pulses racing, not this bullshit about wider arches, longer bumper extensions, larger turbo restrictors and bigger rear wings.

The way I see it the WRC can do two things:

a) remain sensible, as it is now, and with the 2017 rule changes add 5% to the technical package in most areas and hope to keep the manufacturers involved and lose a little of the 'boring'.

b) go risky, very risky, and make the championship absolutely mental, that's the only way it'll be as popular as in the 80s-90s.

I know it's completely unreasonable to expect/hope that they will make the WRC go nuts but in the end it's all about publicity right? I doubt you'd get more publicity than some bonkers 2.5 litre 4/5/6/Rotary engines making orgasmic noise and coming from sports cars by just turning the current ShoppingTrolley+ into ShoppingTrolley++

Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't WRC but they need to take a bigger risk, even if it's just one aspect of the technical rules, to get petrolheads interested again. It's the World Rally Championship, you can't tell me interest from petrolheads isn't important. And by petrolheads I make distinction from car geeks - I consider myself both but being a car geek is just taking interest in the details behind cars and their interesting stories. A petrolhead is what I consider any person who can appreciate something cool about a car, whether it's the way it looks, sounds or belts round a corner - and there are plenty of those type of people in the world.

Maybe the 2017 rule changes will do that, but I'm not convinced. It'll just be maybe a few % better.

[Mirek]

You are forgetting one HUGE aspect. If WRC should be a place for manufacturers to spend their marketing dollars, it has to gather large crowds both on TV and on the stages. If You gather these crowds, You make money for the manufacturer, the TV-rights holders, and the rally organizers, and the locals. Then aspects like sound etc becomes less of an object, because it is created a demand for the show, and vendors bid against each others to be a part of the spectacle.

Dear Lundefaret, You forget the most important thing of all. Rallying is not WRC. WRC is just the pinacle of the sport but rallysport itself is much bigger thing. When You started about "perfect modern rallycar" I thought naturally that You mean something for rallying not for WRC only.


The WRC has been in a downwards spiral since 2004.

It was till few years ago but recently it isn't. Quite the opposite. Currently there are four of five biggest manufacturers in the world comitted in WRC and that has never happen in the history (I have already included Toyota). The times of two manufacturers are long gone. There is healthy support championship WRC2 with a level which has hardly ever any support class seen. Good luck in creating something better. Come on, enjoy the show a little bit and don't waste time on crying about something which will never happen. Or do You simply hate that Ogier and VW rule the show? Yes, they do but that happens. All motorsports have periods when one team rules the others, it's nothing new. Lancias in the early gr.A era, Mitsubishi with Makinen... how about Schumacher in F1, Rossi in MotoGP, Christensen in Le Mans, Peterhansel, Despres or Chagin in Dakar?


And there are multiple reasons. Here are some:
1) The combination of Citroën, Michelin and Loeb was unbeatable, which made the show the worst a show can be: predictable. A quote reads that sport should be a show with an unknown ending.

Or maybe the opposite? In any other sports people buy crazy expensive tickets to see the unbeatable icons. Why shall it be different with WRC than with athletics, boxing, F1, MotoGP, Dakar or skiing?


2) The promotors never delivered on their promises of TV-covarage, including live scheduling etc.

True


3) The promotors never took full advantage of the great possibilities opened with the boom in rally gaming, making it theoretically possible for them to host rallies for the gamers where they could compete against the real drivers on the same stages in real time. Gaming was bringing rallying out to the masses.

Maybe but I think that this point is a little overrated as it would attract mainly teenagers. I don't see thousands of people entering armies because they like playing WoT but maybe I'm wrong.


4) The promotor threating dumbing down their communication towards the fans (like the WRC magazine, WRC.com etc) which neither attracts the true fans (because its nothing to learn) and not new fans because the simplified image isn't sexy. Look to NASCAR for a much better way off doing this.

Well, I have to admit I don't know a single person who at least somehow follows NASCAR (me included). Some of my friends know something about MotoGP, F1 or WRC though. Maybe it's not as You think or maybe central Europe is different than Norway or I don't know.


5) Tire breakthroughs, Aerodynamical break troughs with really efficient wings and splitters and undertarys, technical breakthroughs like advanced differentials and driving break troughs made the cars/drivers less spectacular to watch.

True, however current WRC cars are filled with a lot of old-stylish (I would even say ancient) stuff such as no center diffs, simple clutchpack LSDs etc. Maybe it's just me but I don't see anything wrong with the spectacle current WRC cars bring. It was worse with previous generation of cars with more hi-tech stuff.


6) The rallies them selves becoming Mickey Mouse events that are much more homogeneous, and takes away a lot from the show (running the same stages several times etc, no more night driving), and taking away much of the aspect of bringing rally to the people. All of this contributing to the rally itself covering a much smaller region, which lower the geographical area of positive economical input. Again loosing a lot of political benevolence with again makes the rallies more difficult to host, and the local politicians of the neighboring regions more strict towards noise etc.

It's not 80' anymore. Population and especially traffic density is on entirely different level. You can do 1000 km long rally in Argentina, of course but in Germany or France? Hardly. But I do agree with the point that the events shall bring more diversity.


7) The cars getting expensive to the extreme, in a combination of lower PR value, making for lower ROI on the marketing money spent, which again results in manufacturers walking out.

Totally not true. WRC cars were more expensive 10 years a go (even in nominal numbers) and no manufacturers are walking away. In fact there are three new manufacturers in the sport and accidentally they are the two biggest in the world (VW and Toyota) and the fifth biggest and fastest growing in the world (Hyundai).


If the show is valuable enough cities and communities will even tear down buildings and erect new ones if You tell them to. They will even build new roads. I can promise You that the only reason sound is a "problem" is that WRC is not valuable enough right now as a show.
Compare it to what communities and countries are willing to do to host the Olympic games or the World Soccer Championship.

You can dream about rallying being something comparable to Olympic games but that's all You can do. Maybe You shall turn Your eyes back on the earth instead.

[Mirek]

And the new proposed regulation changes will not change a darn thing. It is anal to the extreme to think that a few millimeters here and an active diff there will make any big difference on the future of rallying.

Agree with that. I don't like the new regulations either.


To hunt down the spirit og the WRC You need to find the legendary stories of the battles between brave men (and a very brave woman) and their monstrous machines. And then create events that are hugely spectacular showing of great feats on all surfaces, in all weathers, in all conditions, in all parts of the globe. This is what rally was built on, and this is what its future should include.

I somehow don't believe it works for 21st century people.


Make each rally a combination of the LeMans 24H, the Dakar, and the Monte Carlo rally. Make them stand out. Taking away events to make each event more distinct and a better show, is better than adding to similar events.
Make it so its easy to tell the incredible stories. Reach out to the fans with social media, TV, and the rally it self, so that they will pass on the great stories.

Yeah, that sounds nice. It's harder to make it reality though.


Make the cars cheaper to build and run, to allow for more manufacturers and more drivers.

Please not again. You contradict Yourself. You can do whatever regulations but it will be always crazy expensive when the manufacturers will be involved. Why? Simply because they put in what it worth and the bigger the image of WRC is the more they spend. That's simple rule. The fact that VW spends something like 150 million Euros per WRC season shall tell You already that WRC has some value. Much bigger than what You think (at least it looks like that from Your posts).


Recruit drivers because of talent, not fat wallets.

A simple question... what connects Loeb, Ogier, Sordo, Neuville or Meeke? They came from talent-searching competitions such as French Peugeot cup, Belgian Fiesta Trophy and all of them did JWRC. You can't buy talent. None of the official manufacturer drivers in WRC is there due to his money. They are there because they can drive better than others. Please don't tell me that Loeb or Ogier were rich boys who bought their titles.


Take away mechanical grip, take away aerodynamical grip, add power, sound and looks, make the cars beasts that us mere mortals would not be capable of running. Make it visibly matter that the surface changes, not as now where the cars have almost the same grip level wherever they go.

I can see a lot of sideways action on current WRC events. I would say a lot more than in gr.A era where the cars were even unable to make a handbrake turn and despite that people somehow remember them as something extremely spectacular (just few days a go I watched a live TV stage from Portugal 94 and the only proper sideways driver there was Emil Triner with the little Favorit F2).


Take Richard Burns rally, modernize it, and make it the official game, and give the fans a possibility of battling the drivers on the Power Stage.

I have been an admin of rbronlineracing.cz for many years and I do agree that it's the best rally game ever. Still I know that the developer of RBR went bankrupt for a reason that nobody was buying the game because it was too difficult for majority of gamers. And it's also a reason why I don't play it anymore (for six years now) as I simply don't have time to test every day to be still beaten by some 12 years old boys by minutes...


Rally has with out a doubt been the most exiting and extreme motorsport in the world, its time to make it that again.

A little bit too big words. There are a lot more extreme kinds of motorsport and I strongly hope WRC will not go their way.

This incredible wall of text has 10385 characters. I think it's time to stop. Have a good night and please don't be angry if I don't answer anymore. It takes too much time and I have to do something else too...

[AndyRAC]

Have to say, Mirek has explained why we have the cars we have extremely well; the manufacturers pay for the show, they get what they want, sadly.

But, I do think what Lundefaret says is spot on. A WRC round should be a huge 'event'; not what we have had for the last 15 years - identikit events that are the same year after year. But, that is an old story, and teams, manufacturers & the promoter seem to prefer the status quo.

[stefanvv]

You are forgetting one HUGE aspect. If WRC should be a place for manufacturers to spend their marketing dollars, it has to gather large crowds both on TV and on the stages. If You gather these crowds, You make money for the manufacturer, the TV-rights holders, and the rally organizers, and the locals. Then aspects like sound etc becomes less of an object, because it is created a demand for the show, and vendors bid against each others to be a part of the spectacle.

The WRC has been in a downwards spiral since 2004. And there are multiple reasons. Here are some:
1) The combination of Citroën, Michelin and Loeb was unbeatable, which made the show the worst a show can be: predictable. A quote reads that sport should be a show with an unknown ending.
2) The promotors never delivered on their promises of TV-covarage, including live scheduling etc.
3) The promotors never took full advantage of the great possibilities opened with the boom in rally gaming, making it theoretically possible for them to host rallies for the gamers where they could compete against the real drivers on the same stages in real time. Gaming was bringing rallying out to the masses.
4) The promotor threating dumbing down their communication towards the fans (like the WRC magazine, WRC.com etc) which neither attracts the true fans (because its nothing to learn) and not new fans because the simplified image isn't sexy. Look to NASCAR for a much better way off doing this.
5) Tire breakthroughs, Aerodynamical break troughs with really efficient wings and splitters and undertarys, technical breakthroughs like advanced differentials and driving break troughs made the cars/drivers less spectacular to watch.
6) The rallies them selves becoming Mickey Mouse events that are much more homogeneous, and takes away a lot from the show (running the same stages several times etc, no more night driving), and taking away much of the aspect of bringing rally to the people. All of this contributing to the rally itself covering a much smaller region, which lower the geographical area of positive economical input. Again loosing a lot of political benevolence with again makes the rallies more difficult to host, and the local politicians of the neighboring regions more strict towards noise etc.
7) The cars getting expensive to the extreme, in a combination of lower PR value, making for lower ROI on the marketing money spent, which again results in manufacturers walking out.


If the show is valuable enough cities and communities will even tear down buildings and erect new ones if You tell them to. They will even build new roads. I can promise You that the only reason sound is a "problem" is that WRC is not valuable enough right now as a show.
Compare it to what communities and countries are willing to do to host the Olympic games or the World Soccer Championship.

And the new proposed regulation changes will not change a darn thing. It is anal to the extreme to think that a few millimeters here and an active diff there will make any big difference on the future of rallying.

To hunt down the spirit og the WRC You need to find the legendary stories of the battles between brave men (and a very brave woman) and their monstrous machines. And then create events that are hugely spectacular showing of great feats on all surfaces, in all weathers, in all conditions, in all parts of the globe. This is what rally was built on, and this is what its future should include.

Make each rally a combination of the LeMans 24H, the Dakar, and the Monte Carlo rally. Make them stand out. Taking away events to make each event more distinct and a better show, is better than adding to similar events.
Make it so its easy to tell the incredible stories. Reach out to the fans with social media, TV, and the rally it self, so that they will pass on the great stories.
Make the cars cheaper to build and run, to allow for more manufacturers and more drivers.
Recruit drivers because of talent, not fat wallets.
Take away mechanical grip, take away aerodynamical grip, add power, sound and looks, make the cars beasts that us mere mortals would not be capable of running. Make it visibly matter that the surface changes, not as now where the cars have almost the same grip level wherever they go.
Take Richard Burns rally, modernize it, and make it the official game, and give the fans a possibility of battling the drivers on the Power Stage.
Etc etc.

Rally has with out a doubt been the most exiting and extreme motorsport in the world, its time to make it that again.

As much as I like to agree with You, this sounds just a nice fairy tale. The real world is more like Mirek opposed to. There have been talks few years for 17' changes as some kind of revolution in the Rally sport, but appears as more like an slight upgrade to the current Rally cars. So I understand the disappointment, but as soon manufacturers are happy with it, so we should supposed to be. And recently WRC can be considered as manufacturers friendly, so we should be happy about this diversity. I also think like You in the way things should go, though some of technical aspects are a bit too much for me. Rally cars should be close to road cars in nature, but that appears to be too expensive for really high level tech. So the current cars I consider as a compromise between spectacle, rally geniality and costs.

Lets see what happens in 17' and what "upgrades" will finally be approved.

Returning back to Group B days, I really liked what AUDI had done with their cars, just tuned road Quattro road cars without any revolutionary construction changes as in 206, S4, MG. Group S eventually would change this though, but it never happened.

[Lundefaret]

To make rallying great, we need to dream. Great stuff is founded on dreams.

Today it does not matter if the WRC goes to China or Argentina, Finland or Greece, there will be more similarities than differences, and the sense of adventure has gone.

The Rally Monte Carlo is maybe the best example. It is ruined, but it could be made great again (it was on its way during the IRC days).
Not that many years ago it started from starting points across Europe. Even in Oslo, Norway. They all gathered in France, and ran the rally in the alps around Monaco. It was night stages, more days, the drivers needed to endure a harder work out, again making them seem like bigger heroes.

Today such a layout for Monaco would be 100% doable (it is still done in the Historic, which I have had the pleassure to attend as a codriver).
It would be great for bringing rally to the people, and would fit hand in glove with social media.
Every check point in Europe would be host of larger or smaller events, and the Return On Investment in regards to marketing would be great. You would have a lot of press in national, regional and local media, which have several benefits. 1) Media exposure. 2) Creating a demand in the public of wanting to know more about the event, including results, etc. Increasing the value of the event, and the sport all the way.

Each rally should be looked at in the same way. How can we make the best possible event/show out of this?
And each rally should have its own character. A totally similar German and French event is a no go. And all rallies dont need to be 1000KM, but some should.

To make this feasible, one needs to take the total responsibility of the event away from the local organizer, and set up a WRC orginazing team that works with the locals in a whole other fashion then now.

Take Rally China as an example.
This could be a great rally for China and the WRC. This could and should be The Great Oriental Adventure.
To make this happen one can not rely on local organization achieving above their experience and competence in a test event. One have to have a large team from the promotor that does the organizing, this have to be experienced rally organizers that are of the same calibre as the ones that made the 1970 London to Mexico happen, and also a "concept staff" making the event the best adventure it could be.
If that is in place, then one off course need a very good dialogue with the locals, so that everything is in order with the local communities etc.
Then one could start to brain storm. What about a jump over the Great Wall Of China, what about etc etc.

Today arranging a WRC rally is made very difficult because one are so reliant on local forces both in organizing and financing. This makes it unnecessarily difficult to "think big".


Then a few points to Mirek: I am a great admirer of both Loeb and Ogier, and know their history quit well. Talking about the expense of WRC-cars, I was referring to the times when everthing was active etc. (But i still would like to see more cost cuts to modern rallycars, or more bang for the buck)

[danon]

To make rallying great, we need to dream. Great stuff is founded on dreams.

http://s5.postimg.org/a6gt8kitj/dudu.jpg

Imagination is the beginning of creation.
You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.

World Rally Car 2025

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/1522440_219375838258351_1359338095_o.jpg

[Rally Power]

Today it does not matter if the WRC goes to China or Argentina, Finland or Greece, there will be more similarities than differences, and the sense of adventure has gone.

This is a recurrent debate in the forum and many of us were expecting that Mr. Todt should be able to resurrect WRC adventurous side. But it seems he has failled...so now we're stuck on this sport identity crisis, the perfect environment for Red Bull show off promoters ruin it once for all.

Of course the "each one for itself" spirit of the FIA members (and event organizers) doesn't help in order to find a proper solution, that is in front of us since the early days of rally: transnational events!

We could easily reshape the marathon spirit of the old classics (the Monte, the Alpine Coupe, the Liege-Sofia-Liege, etc) developing close to the border rallys, like it has been timidly attempted in the Swedish rally with the use of Norwegian stages.

Instead of 13 or 14 almost sprint look-alike courses, it would be feasible to organize 8 to 10 full week long (up to 600 ss kms with a day halt) rallys, pairing transnational similar events. A Monte using French and Italian roads, a Scandinavian rally in Sweden and Norway snowy forests, a Baltic rally between Finland and Estonia (or Russia), a proper UK rally, from Wales to Scotland, a Iberia Rally, with north Portuguese and Galiza gravel and tarmac stages, etc, etc., and larger overseas events in Australia, Argentina (with an excursion to Brasil), China and one well promoted North American rally (USA/Canada) replacing Mexico and profiting from the local RX exposure, would certanly revitalize WRC, providing a bright future to the sport!

[Rally Power]

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/1522440_219375838258351_1359338095_o.jpg

Looks great Danon, but I think Fiat is already testing a car for 2017: https://youtu.be/EfdSOhU-i1Y?t=47

[danon]

Looks great Danon, but I think Fiat is already testing a car for 2017: https://youtu.be/EfdSOhU-i1Y?t=47

Cool... is it Gigi Galli behind the wheel ;)

[Lundefaret]

We could easily reshape the marathon spirit of the old classics (the Monte, the Alpine Coupe, the Liege-Sofia-Liege, etc) developing close to the border rallys, like it has been timidly attempted in the Swedish rally with the use of Norwegian stages.

Instead of 13 or 14 almost sprint look-alike courses, it would be feasible to organize 8 to 10 full week long (up to 600 ss kms with a day halt) rallys, pairing transnational similar events. A Monte using French and Italian roads, a Scandinavian rally in Sweden and Norway snowy forests, a Baltic rally between Finland and Estonia (or Russia), a proper UK rally, from Wales to Scotland, a Iberia Rally, with north Portuguese and Galiza gravel and tarmac stages, etc, etc., and larger overseas events in Australia, Argentina (with an excursion to Brasil), China and one well promoted North American rally (USA/Canada) replacing Mexico and profiting from the local RX exposure, would certanly revitalize WRC, providing a bright future to the sport!

Totally agree, and this is what I am talking about!

The best bit: Its better economics for everyone involved:
- Lower logistics cost
- More media prescense at each venue.
- The extended time would allow more people to interact, both in national, regional and local media, and on social media, and out on the event.
- More localities can "split" the bill and shear the income. The longer time The Show is set in one region, the more money it creates locally and regionally.
(Covering larger geographical areas have huge impact, and rallying is the only motorsport that can do this, so this should be set as a Core Value, and be exploited to the fullest)

If this should work the promotor needs to rethink the way to do bussiness, and the works teams should rethink how they use their money.

The promotor needs to:
- Understand "the Spirit Of Rallying."
- Have a large organizational team (also recruiting some locals if needed/possible). This can bring the rally to new places and countries.
- Make large investments in media equipment, making live stages (as Eurosport did in the Monte IRC, but more) the norm.
- Make a better Web-based fan centre.
- Take advantage of the great possibilities from gaming.

The FIA needs to:
- Understand "the Spirit Of Rallying."
- Make new regulations taking in account: safety, looks, sound, cost, and cost of the organizer.
- Make a budgetary cost cap.
- Make the feeders series so cheap that real talents can get up the ladder.
- Work with national motorsport associations doing a copy of Autos de Jounes in A LOT of countries do discover talents.

The Works teams needs to:
- Understand "the Spirit Of Rallying."
- Spend money also in the feeders series, like the ERC.
- Spend money in national series. Its the "masses" that makes the pointed end sharper. A very easy way to do this is arranging local rally cups. A works team in rallying should be acquired to develop a Cup car with a maximal cost of about 15.000-20.000 Eur (Opel Adam Cup is a perfect example), and commit to spending X amount of Eur on a series (prize money etc).

[Sulland]

As I see this there are two different wishes for the future of the rally sport that meets.

One camp see that the manufacurer and promotor influence, that has gotten it as they want it with FIA in the latter years.
This goes both on cars and on format of rallies.

The others would like more freedom. Both on cars and difference of the rallies.

Rally has traditionally been the maverick of motorsport. Happening in the coutryside, either in a dark forrest on gravel or snow, or a narrow asphalt road. Cars have been made in garages, or by small teams.
FIA was all about racing, mostly F1. Bernie turned that into a money machine.

Then someone saw possibilities of doing the same thing with rally, but lost some of the magic in the process. It has become too industrial and streamlined.

How can we shape the future so both camps will be satisfied?

[Jack4688`]

I think what you are all looking for (and I would agree here) is a separate 'World Endurance Rally Championship'. I don't think the WRC is going to offer what some of us hardcore fans want anytime soon and it would be foolish to think that FIA/World Rally Commission/WRC Promoter are going to make the wholesale changes needed for that to happen in the near future.

Likewise a spin-off of the WRC isn't going to happen, nor a full blown R-GT World Championship with works Porsche 911s, Ferrari 488 GTBs, Lotus Exige-Ss, etc etc etc

[Rally Power]

I don't think the WRC is going to offer what some of us hardcore fans want anytime soon and it would be foolish to think that FIA/World Rally Commission/WRC Promoter are going to make the wholesale changes needed for that to happen in the near future.

Unfortunately you're probably right, and in the case of transnational rally's the great obstacle would be the compatibility of the ASN's representatives egos.

But there are viable changes and one of them is to rid of the 9 to 5 ridiculous schedule. WRC rallys have to be more intense and psychical demanding. Drivers must be admired not only for their pure speed ability but also for their strength and endurance capacities.

Sunday morning short leg should be discarded but the 350/400 ss total kms could be maintain. This would mean having Friday and Saturday legs with close to 200 ss kms each and extended schedules (up to 16 hours), using night sections and flexi service areas. It could also be considered to spread the use of different surface legs, like in Catalunyia.

This are realistic and inexpensive ways to revive the traditional rally spirit and generate more media interest and spectating enthusiasm over WRC, for sure more effective and less radical than the shoot out (and God knows what else...) plans from RB promoter team.

[Mirek]

I personally find strange why it's not allowed in WRC to run trully mixed events like Cyprus in IRC/MERC/ERC looked. I found that awesome and way better than the original slow and rough Cyprus everybody remembers from WRC. If it works with low-budget teams from regional championships why shall it be a problem for rich works WRC teams?

[itix]

I also agree that the schedule is stupid...

I know Mads Østberg does not agree with me, but he can say what he wants... He is the complaining type anyway.

Night stages need to return... They did a few seasons ago and then disappeared again, what the hell happened there?

The promoter absolutely need to stop being so damn lazy. It is laughable how little of the current spectacle that gets translated to the TV.

Rallying is unique in the sense that it is not done on a boring track in a populated area where there is potential for the local bored people to walk down to the track and watch something go in circles for two hours. Rallying lives on visiting fantastic locations... That stage they do on top of the volcano in Azores is a perfect example. My desktop background on my work station is a very sideways Craig Breen followed by a helicopter on that stage with a massive drop on either side. I don't care that the logistics is difficult. The modern age with camera drones and phones that shoot better quality video than professional camera equipment from 5 years ago should mean that you don't have to ship 15 helicopters out to an island anymore.

... And since Rallying is such an effort to follow live the promoter really need to do a better effort to get the sport out. You have people paying ridiculous prices to go see formula fancy because ultimately people are lazy and he effort is almost nonexistent. Going many kms between stages to spectate, having to climb mountains and walk through bushes and stuff is an effort most are not willing to do in a day and age when a drivers license is becoming rarer and the population are urbanised.

I don't believe in mega lengthy events... There is the Rally raid series for that (and I don't see much of that so it can't be very easy to promote). People these days have a short attention span, which is why formula boring is doing so well. Those who watch it casually watch the Sunday race, the nerds follow all three days of action.

I think the calendar needs more versatility. Either scrap the Sunday as described above so that we don't interfere with F1, or use the full length of the Sunday and scrap the Friday. Also again, where are the night stages? The drivers need rest, sure but extend the rally into the night and given them more sleep in the mornings at least on one of the days... There can be a service Park party the other day. Nobody likes to party two days in a row anyway.

[stefanvv]

There was night stage at Monte this year and it was live, it was great. Difficult to make it happen broadcasted as most of the time is the complain, but they did it, so probably they're lazy indeed. At least they should do some effort we can watch live onboards on wrc+, in that case I wouldn't miss TV broadcast much.

[AL14]

Live onboards would ruin our lifes. Imagine yourself on sunday afternoon after there days in a row watching a screen all the time, your girlfriend would take an other man that weekend and you will take a whole week to go back to the real world.

[Jack4688`]

There was night stage at Monte this year and it was live, it was great. Difficult to make it happen broadcasted as most of the time is the complain, but they did it, so probably they're lazy indeed. At least they should do some effort we can watch live onboards on wrc+, in that case I wouldn't miss TV broadcast much.

I didn't like it at all. It was almost all helicopter shots, which I am not a fan of, and being in the dark that made you able to see even less. Then there's the perennial problem with the onboards - all I saw was some snow lit up by a headlamp pod, not the driver wrestling with the controls. I remember seeing coverage on youtube of Monte 1991 or '92, something like that, and the opening stage was at night, but because they found a couple spots to take some road-side footage from it was pretty good to see. OK it was only a few minutes of the hour-long round up of the whole rally not an hour's live coverage. I'll stop now as this is massively off topic!

[EightGear]

The event highlights are poor as well. I tried watching the 52 minutes programme today... So much bullsh*tting around, way too many slow-mo shots and barely any interesting stage-side shots.

But most of all: it doens't tell the story of the rally! They just seem to pick some random drivers and tell a bit about them. It may be interesting for the casual viewer, but not for someone who wants to know what has been going on. And I personally can't stand Jon Desborough commentating, but that may well be just me.

[Eli]

. And I personally can't stand Jon Deborough commentating, but that may well be just me.

not just you ;)

[Lundefaret]

A lot of good comments here, and many of them revolve around the same: WRC has lost its "story-line."

The promotors dont tell "The Story", the cars are not "Story-worthy", and there are very few "Storytelling" profiles in the sport. (I hope by God that we dont loose Kris Meeke).

Rohrl in Arganil, the Audi story, Monte Carlos night stages, 2WD vs 4WD in the Kit Car/WRC era, sweat and toil, and so on and so on. The Story needs to be worth telling.

The Cars, The Rallies, The Drivers, The Teams etc etc, the need to represent stopries worth telling.

[AL14]

A lot of good comments here, and many of them revolve around the same: WRC has lost its "story-line."

The promotors dont tell "The Story", the cars are not "Story-worthy", and there are very few "Storytelling" profiles in the sport. (I hope by God that we dont loose Kris Meeke).

Rohrl in Arganil, the Audi story, Monte Carlos night stages, 2WD vs 4WD in the Kit Car/WRC era, sweat and toil, and so on and so on. The Story needs to be worth telling.

The Cars, The Rallies, The Drivers, The Teams etc etc, the need to represent stopries worth telling.

I totally agree with you with the concept of story. Or better with the one of storytelling. We should have a thread about it here because it is a very very important topic so thank you to have introduced it. I think rally's stories (please note, I didn't use the word "history") are the most powerful weapons and opportunities for the sport. They are strong, passionate but especially unique. As you said, the rallys, the cars, the drivers, the teams, and each weekend carry a lot of them and people all over the world would love them.

Said that, stories have a beginning and an end, they evolve, they change. We must take this into consideration too.

[janvanvurpa]

As I see this there are two different wishes for the future of the rally sport that meets.

One camp see that the manufacurer and promotor influence, that has gotten it as they want it with FIA in the latter years.
This goes both on cars and on format of rallies.

The others would like more freedom. Both on cars and difference of the rallies.

Rally has traditionally been the maverick of motorsport. Happening in the coutryside, either in a dark forrest on gravel or snow, or a narrow asphalt road. Cars have been made in garages, or by small teams.
FIA was all about racing, mostly F1. Bernie turned that into a money machine.

Then someone saw possibilities of doing the same thing with rally, but lost some of the magic in the process. It has become too industrial and streamlined.

How can we shape the future so both camps will be satisfied?

Then somebody saw the money one English megalomaniac was making by securing the world wide media rights---and decided he could do the same....."package it for TV" when he just happened to have secured the world wide "media rights"

And its been further and further and further away from the mass appeal since..
What was his name? :rolleyes: Oh! Rave Dichards or sumpin? Once co-drove with a great man I think..

Central to almost all rally's at all levels problems I believe is one thing: TV.
It is the problem.
Even the tiny little 16 car rallys we have here in poor little America are full of guys in Blue Subarus all pontificating on the NECESSITY of TV coverage for their rally "career'....
It is imagine to be the cure--TV's implicit endless money---for everything.

And all the twitter and the dreadful Facebook crap is just a version of the same basic same thing as TV: it is a PASSIVE and "effortless" thing....

And that is what TV wants: passive consumers who evidently will leap up and run out and buy stupid baseball hats with Red Boule and grab "energy drinks" to sustain them long enough for the grueling 15 minute ride to the car dealer to buy a new shiny something that they just saw some weird thing with the same badge doing amazing things on the TV...

And perhaps they're right those that advocate the full 100% passive consumer vision of what rally "means" and if you believe that the consumers can only be "bought" by watching 4-6 guys in half million dollar cars, then a lot of money must come from somewhere...

But it isn't working---just like in USA, a country of 315 million people, the promote the hell out of 1-2 guys ---neither of which could win a Regional event in Sweden, much less a F-cup event in Finland---has failed to draw any interest ---and entries and events continue to fall off a cliff.

Folk har slarvat bort tänken på grunden i jakt efter pengar.

Grunden, or foundation or the base whatever.. That either gone or ignored...


Maybe we are all just supposed to be brainless couch-tomatoes (as my little girls say) and have pavlovian knee jerks responses to whatever is streamed to us and explained to us "this is exciting".

[Jack4688`]

The event highlights are poor as well. I tried watching the 52 minutes programme today... So much bullsh*tting around, way too many slow-mo shots and barely any interesting stage-side shots.

But most of all: it doens't tell the story of the rally! They just seem to pick some random drivers and tell a bit about them. It may be interesting for the casual viewer, but not for someone who wants to know what has been going on. And I personally can't stand Jon Deborough commentating, but that may well be just me.

Yeah he is a pillock. Just as bad as when we have to put up with Carlton Kirby on the British feed of Eurosport's ERC coverage. They both have verbal diarrhoea that their brains tells them is better than a few seconds of silence against whatever nice backdrop of the local landscape is being shown on screen. Desborough's worse though because he thinks he's a comedian.

[Rally Power]

The promotors dont tell "The Story", the cars are not "Story-worthy", and there are very few "Storytelling" profiles in the sport. (I hope by God that we dont loose Kris Meeke).


It's pretty obvious there's a lack of "rally culture" on promoters field, but what's really disappointing is to see high rank FIA representatives like Todt and Mouton, with illustrious rally past, being incapable to reform WRC.

Worse, it was in their watch that Eurosport was discarded to promote WRC and, probably due to VW pressure, RedBull/MediaHouse got the job.

Ok, without VW probably Hyundai, and certainly Toyota, wouldn't follow, but letting a player decide the sport's future will never be the best option, especially when that sport has such a rich and outstanding history.

[Rallyper]

Then somebody saw the money one English megalomaniac was making by securing the world wide media rights---and decided he could do the same....."package it for TV" when he just happened to have secured the world wide "media rights"

And its been further and further and further away from the mass appeal since..
What was his name? :rolleyes: Oh! Rave Dichards or sumpin? Once co-drove with a great man I think..

Central to almost all rally's at all levels problems I believe is one thing: TV.
It is the problem.
Even the tiny little 16 car rallys we have here in poor little America are full of guys in Blue Subarus all pontificating on the NECESSITY of TV coverage for their rally "career'....
It is imagine to be the cure--TV's implicit endless money---for everything.

And all the twitter and the dreadful Facebook crap is just a version of the same basic same thing as TV: it is a PASSIVE and "effortless" thing....

And that is what TV wants: passive consumers who evidently will leap up and run out and buy stupid baseball hats with Red Boule and grab "energy drinks" to sustain them long enough for the grueling 15 minute ride to the car dealer to buy a new shiny something that they just saw some weird thing with the same badge doing amazing things on the TV...

And perhaps they're right those that advocate the full 100% passive consumer vision of what rally "means" and if you believe that the consumers can only be "bought" by watching 4-6 guys in half million dollar cars, then a lot of money must come from somewhere...

But it isn't working---just like in USA, a country of 315 million people, the promote the hell out of 1-2 guys ---neither of which could win a Regional event in Sweden, much less a F-cup event in Finland---has failed to draw any interest ---and entries and events continue to fall off a cliff.

Folk har slarvat bort tänken på grunden i jakt efter pengar.

Grunden, or foundation or the base whatever.. That either gone or ignored...


Maybe we are all just supposed to be brainless couch-tomatoes (as my little girls say) and have pavlovian knee jerks responses to whatever is streamed to us and explained to us "this is exciting".

That explains why Indiana Jones 500 gather so many people watching boring cars going round in circles for half a day? Necessary TV procuction I mean?

How to move on do you think John? Seriously.
(jag sitter på jobbet - nattskift)

[janvanvurpa]

That explains why Indiana Jones 500 gather so many people watching boring cars going round in circles for half a day? Necessary TV procuction I mean?

How to move on do you think John? Seriously.
(jag sitter på jobbet - nattskift)


Stackarn, jobba skift! Usch.

Seriously? come on I can't take it too serious and my major worry is just like I said; grunden, breddan, US (oss inte os)...And the problem is is that everything happens within a context in this case a worldwide social context..We we look at the biggest trends in the world since you and I were snorr-ungar, a couple of things jump out: Globalisation of EVERYTHING!!!!!! (jag menar titta bara här, rally-dårar från hela världen t.om även Norrmän!!---who would have dreamed that? )

and the other is the ever more concentration of everything to one end.....the widening of incomes within countries, between the generally affluent North and the less affluent South and the crushing poverty around the equator.....in other words the triumph of a winner take all marketplace..
You mentioned Iniana Jones 500...better example is NASCAR...how it got a formula in the late 70s and via repetition and promotion got rolling and more or less sucked up the overwhelming majority of corporate sponsorship dollars available in USA.
They get billions and millions of speccies. TV
We get 14 car entries to District rallies.

Football: the highest paid employee of many MANY of our States (delstater) here are football coaches at State Universities...These geezers can get 5-6 million dollars-year.
Get a bucket (i fall du mår illa o måste spy) and look here:
http://sports.newsday.com/long-island/data/college/college-football/coaches-salaries/
TV

Uber Tax: thousands of small taxi operators all accross the world gone and hundreds of thousands of people making poo.....and one guy in Silicon Valley making millionsÖ
Ersatz TV or Smart phone...

Wall Street: Billions made just doing trades. win, lose, draw, still make millions on volume of trades.

So considering the power of TV aka money and the control of it often by ''investors managers'''
How can anything change voluntarily?

Now I have been waving the Röda Fanan for decades (not really but I love the optimism and belief in a better future and love the songs!) but thatäs not going to change conservative money people to re+shape the sport into a sport. Its a ''commodity''....shares are sold on future earings right down to Finnish boys furture earnings as we see over there..you know who..

Thatäs why whgile i may look and watch some of what goes on in WRC---mostly gravel, my only real interest anymore is gräs röttern....Trying to introduce something like F+cup level and quality or GruppH...eller va fan det kallas nu.... introduce it and nurture it in USA and Canada so at least a few guys will be able to make some memories of doing rally............

instead of being mere consumers of some shitty packaged crap.
Jobba försiktik, måste ute o cyckla med frun!

[Rallyper]

Cykla me frun. Kanske man skulle göra det i morgon - jag menar idag.

Maybe they should kind of start all over again with GrA cars with a formula very much more simple from todays WRC cars. Only N/A cars. But oc then all classe should need to be rewritten. And yes too much money in it already.

So let´s wait and see - the 2017 formula will end up in doing circles in a Micky Mouse aren somewhere and it will still be called Rally VM. Let´s hope Finland (NORF) will live though...

[janvanvurpa]

Cykla me frun. Kanske man skulle göra det i morgon - jag menar idag.

Maybe they should kind of start all over again with GrA cars with a formula very much more simple from todays WRC cars. Only N/A cars. But oc then all classe should need to be rewritten. And yes too much money in it already.

So let´s wait and see - the 2017 formula will end up in doing circles in a Micky Mouse aren somewhere and it will still be called Rally VM. Let´s hope Finland (NORF) will live though...

Jo then VM comes to mean Very Mickey

Thousand Lakes forever! (norf! sounds like a dog barking in comic strip--herre gud det va grisar säger i svensk barnböcker!)

[Rallyper]

Jo then VM comes to mean Very Mickey

Thousand Lakes forever! (norf! sounds like a dog barking in comic strip--herre gud det va grisar säger i svensk barnbäcker!)

Nej, inte norf norf, utan nöff nöff :)

[cali]

C'mon guys, PM is for private conversations.

[itix]

And I personally can't stand Jon Deborough commentating, but that may well be just me.


Yeah he is a pillock. Just as bad as when we have to put up with Carlton Kirby on the British feed of Eurosport's ERC coverage. They both have verbal diarrhoea that their brains tells them is better than a few seconds of silence against whatever nice backdrop of the local landscape is being shown on screen. Desborough's worse though because he thinks he's a comedian.

I think that we are thinking about the same person. I tend to mix up Paul King and John Desborough... one if perfectly fine and the other one is an irritable wannabe "commedian" or "poet" or I haven't got a clue *sigh*.
Completely tone- and emotionless too. I have an italian acquaintance that he might be good friends with.



(jag sitter på jobbet - nattskift)


Folk har slarvat bort tänken på grunden i jakt efter pengar.

Grunden, or foundation or the base whatever.. That either gone or ignored...



Cykla me frun. Kanske man skulle göra det i morgon - jag menar idag.

Maybe they should kind of start all over again with GrA cars [...] and it will still be called Rally VM. Let´s hope Finland (NORF) will live though...


Jo then VM comes to mean Very Mickey

Thousand Lakes forever! (norf! sounds like a dog barking in comic strip--herre gud det va grisar säger i svensk barnböcker!)


Nej, inte norf norf, utan nöff nöff :)

I go to bed and wake up to this thread transformed into a perfect display of Swinglish from all corners of the world! What on earth happened here, hahaha? Who brought all the strong liquor? :D

Jag är också på nattskifte, 12h, 7 dagar i veckan, men på torsdag ska jag hem, och inget jobb på en månad!

[HaCo]

VW Testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPuLquedT4c

[Rallyper]

I go to bed and wake up to this thread transformed into a perfect display of Swinglish from all corners of the world! What on earth happened here, hahaha? Who brought all the strong liquor? :D

Jag är också på nattskifte, 12h, 7 dagar i veckan, men på torsdag ska jag hem, och inget jobb på en månad!

Sorry for OT.

No it´s only comics at it´s best. Don´t know if you are familiar with our dear friend John from Seattle (I guess). Talking to him on this forum often comes out with some swedish sentences in the end. No need to be translated to english and I think our norweigan and finnish readers do understand... :)

Working in the North sea?