WRC 2009 12 Rounds

[euskalteam]

World Motor Sport Council Decisions at FIA.com


Seems that somebody starts to think in the benefit of the champioship. With less rallyes, maybe 3 cars per team..... I'm dreaming?? :bounce:

[Josti]

Good news :)

[jparker]

That's good news, hope that means longer routes.
Also, from FIA's press release.


For the rest of the 2007 season, it is reiterated that World Rally events cannot be run without an efficient safety tracking system in place, as deemed by the FIA.

[1LM1]

Well it's about time.
Good decision.

[Corny]

it's almost too good to believe

[bt52b]

Backward step. Reduce costs but not the number of rallies. Less rallies, less media, less sponsors?

[Roy]

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/June/270607-01.html

From 2009, there will be 12 events in the FIA World Rally Championship. A detailed regulation around this decision will be examined by the FIA World Rally Championship Commission and presented to the WMSC in October.

Great! Reduce cost!


From 2012, it was agreed in principle that world rally cars will be four-wheel drive and turbo-charged, based on mass-produced Group N and S2000 specification cars. Cost reducing measures will also be introduced.

Interesting... We will see what happens then...


For the rest of the 2007 season, it is reiterated that World Rally events cannot be run without an efficient safety tracking system in place, as deemed by the FIA.

This is in because ISC wants money for this(?)

[alleskids]

I though that there was already a safety tracking system on the rally cars. It was introduced in Rally Australia after the crash of Colin McRae in Corsica, in 2001 ?

[Tomski]

I though that there was already a safety tracking system on the rally cars. It was introduced in Rally Australia after the crash of Colin McRae in Corsica, in 2001 ?


I think you'll find the requirement for the remainder of the 2007 is more to do with a dispute between the event organisers and ISC involving money.

No suprises there then............

[White Sauron]

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/June/270607-01.html



From 2012, it was agreed in principle that world rally cars will be four-wheel drive and turbo-charged, based on mass-produced Group N and S2000 specification cars.


So... Except for the S2000 rule, no difference between current cars and future ones?

[Woodeye]

Backward step. Reduce costs but not the number of rallies. Less rallies, less media, less sponsors?

Somehow I tend to think like this also. Less everything.

Sometimes the best way to cut costs is to get more income.

[jonkka]

So... Except for the S2000 rule, no difference between current cars and future ones?

WRCars are out so I reckon it's a major change.

[Woodeye]

WRCars are out so I reckon it's a major change.

And that's another step to wrong direction. I don't want to see lawnmovers in Neste Rally... :(

[DonJippo]

WRCars are out so I reckon it's a major change.
From where do you get that one...it specifically says on the press release that from 2012 world rally cars will be four-wheel drive and turbo-charged, based on mass-produced Group N and S2000 specification cars.

[MJW]

From where do you get that one...it specifically says on the press release that from 2012 world rally cars will be four-wheel drive and turbo-charged, based on mass-produced Group N and S2000 specification cars.
This was quoted about 6 weeks ago with the Vision 2012, its designed that WRC cars will be the pinnacle, but can be downgraded to regional or national spec, Group N or S2000 format.

[MJW]

It will be interesting how these 12 rallies are selected. There was talk earlier this year that Sweden & Norway diluted each others number of visitors, and I guess Ireland and Wales Rally GB could experience the same thing this year. Maybe "paired events could alternate each year, also it makes sense for Australia and NZ to alternate each year to reduce travel costs for teams. Somehow I cant see Monte being dropped as it does offer a glamourous location to start a season and along with RAC (Wales GB) is one of the original famous rallies left since Safari was dropped. Wales GB is another event that offers something different especially with thereturn to night stages this year and its almost certain "difficult weather making for an unique challenge" maybe these 2 events could bookend the season and be permanent fixtures. Finland is another event that is unique for its speeds and jumps. Personally I would not miss the hot Mediteranean garvel events, except Acropolis, another "history event". Argentina is another event that offers something different, Mina Clavero, Condor etc, especially if there is snow.I guess there will be a lot of dealing to be done before now and October. Perhaps organisers will now scramble to make their event unique after years of trying to be exactly like every other event in the championship.

[DonJippo]

I guess there will be a lot of dealing to be done before now and October.

I'm sure there will be...24 events want to be on the calendar and there is room only for 12...

[grugsticles]

I for one am relieved about only having 12 events. Surely there must be a huge financial saving for the teams in logistics alone in not haivng to organise 4 less rallies alone.

The burning question is, who will get the nod and who will get the flick?
I tend to think the rallies that get a lot of spectator support will hold thier place in the WRC calender.
I simply cant see the FIA dumping Wales GB, Monte Carlo, Finland or Argentina... Portugal as well maybe. The turn out to those rally's is enough to keep them in the championship alone.
The remaining rallies should offer more of a variety of surfaces rather than the gravel championship we seem to have now (or is that just how I see things?).

[N.O.T]

12 events was a good move.....10 would be even better. i think they should enforce this rule from 2008.

[jonkka]

From where do you get that one...it specifically says on the press release that from 2012 world rally cars will be four-wheel drive and turbo-charged, based on mass-produced Group N and S2000 specification cars.

WRCars as they stand now, are not based on GrN cars. Even if they are still called World Rally Cars in future, if they are homologated in Group N instead of Group A we'll be in world of hurt. Specifially, I fear that basing future WRCars on mass-produced Group N cars, the easy way of building custom-made top-notch rally car will be blocked and we are back in problems that original Group A had.

[White Sauron]

WRCars are out so I reckon it's a major change.

Why WRC cars are out? There's no word about it. I think the diffrence is that now the WRC cars are built on the base of ANY serial car, anbd after 2012 only N-group or S2000 homologated cars can be used... No? I mean no worries for Subaru with their WRX version but Citroen will have put into massproduction a 4WD C4 to be able to compete in the championship. Am I right? So, WRC will still be here, just the base for them will change? But this will mean LESS manufcaturers, cause companies will hardly ever produce a 4WD version only for contestin in WRC if they don't need this version in the market.

[DonJippo]

Why WRC cars are out? There's no word about it. I think the diffrence is that now the WRC cars are built on the base of ANY serial car, anbd after 2012 only N-group or S2000 homologated cars can be used... No? I mean no worries for Subaru with their WRX version but Citroen will have put into massproduction a 4WD C4 to be able to compete in the championship. Am I right? So, WRC will still be here, just the base for them will change? But this will mean LESS manufcaturers, cause companies will hardly ever produce a 4WD version only for contestin in WRC if they don't need this version in the market.

S2000 does not have to be based on 4-wheel drive car and you can base your WRC on S2000 homogolated car.

[MJW]

Why WRC cars are out? There's no word about it. I think the diffrence is that now the WRC cars are built on the base of ANY serial car, anbd after 2012 only N-group or S2000 homologated cars can be used... No? I mean no worries for Subaru with their WRX version but Citroen will have put into massproduction a 4WD C4 to be able to compete in the championship. Am I right? So, WRC will still be here, just the base for them will change? But this will mean LESS manufcaturers, cause companies will hardly ever produce a 4WD version only for contestin in WRC if they don't need this version in the market.

The difficulty will come if S2000 remain as normally aspirated S2000 cars. If they have a two tier system with wrc being the top for use on wrc rallies then these cars can be downgraded to national or regional cars by taking off various "kit" parts - that is what vioson 2012 proposed. Assume Citroen have a S2000T car based on a C4 then they could homologate kit parts for wrc events. There will be other cost savings introduced, hopefully these will allow for events to roam further away from teh service park. Financially and environmentally it makes no sense to drive 100km back to re-group/service after 3 stages especially when you consider costs of Shell WRC fuel and the thirst of these cars. Better to send a diesel engined van to remote service location and fit in more stage kilometres.

[curry]

Alternating of events like Sweden/Norway & Australia/New Zealand sounds great on paper but I'm not sure how it would work with the organisers and the sponsors. Maybe some rallies will not sign up for alternate years, this is a definite possibility if the rally is government funded like Perth was - bottom line is governments would rather spend there money on a annual event, hence more promotion of the city/country.

My feeling is that Monte, Sweden (assuming they can keep there snow), Argentina, Finland, New Zealand, Japan & Wales are certainties. I don't think you will see any more than 4 out 12 events being fly aways (outside Europe), so events like Jordan, Australia, Mexico & Asia are going to find it tough. Also how many tarmac events will we get, 4? So does that mean Monte, Germany, Spain & France are in?

All interesting questions.

I'm not hopefully of them getting the right balance.

Curry

[jparker]

Alternating of events like Sweden/Norway & Australia/New Zealand sounds great on paper but I'm not sure how it would work with the organisers and the sponsors. Maybe some rallies will not sign up for alternate years, this is a definite possibility if the rally is government funded like Perth was - bottom line is governments would rather spend there money on a annual event, hence more promotion of the city/country.

My feeling is that Monte, Sweden (assuming they can keep there snow), Argentina, Finland, New Zealand, Japan & Wales are certainties. I don't think you will see any more than 4 out 12 events being fly aways (outside Europe), so events like Jordan, Australia, Mexico & Asia are going to find it tough. Also how many tarmac events will we get, 4? So does that mean Monte, Germany, Spain & France are in?

All interesting questions.

I'm not hopefully of them getting the right balance.

Curry

Maybe the time for two separate (gravel/snow and tarmac) WRC has arrived, with the option for rich teams to compete in both?

[bowler]

I think you'll find the requirement for the remainder of the 2007 is more to do with a dispute between the event organisers and ISC involving money.

No suprises there then............

There is no dispute between the organisers and ISC

[pino]

Great decision, hopefully this will encourage more Team to enter the WRC :D Anyway these are the events that should (in my opinion) stay in the Champ :

Montecarlo
Sweden
Argentina
Portugal
Sardinia/Sanremo
Acropolis
Finland
Corsica
Wales
NewZeland
Australia
Japan

on the bench :p :


Norway
Safari
Spain
Mexico
Irland
Cyprus
Sanremo/Sardinia

[AndyRAC]

Cutting the number of rounds is a sensible decision, don't know why it tool them so long to realise this. The big problem is which events are in/out. Personally I'd have Monte, Acropolis, 1000 Lakes, GB as permament events, as these are 'classic' events, even though they're not as good as they were. The rest can alternate, not popular I know, but needs must. Also I'd allow mixed surface events,i.e San Remo.
Hopefully these new cars will be cheaper, and there will be more of them.

[A.F.F.]

And that's another step to wrong direction. I don't want to see lawnmovers in Neste Rally... :(


Let's just hope there will be Neste Ralli...

However, I personally like very much this news. 12 rallies in the calendar is brilliant thing :up:

[pino]

Ups i forgot...and let's have 2 snow-events every 2 years :s mokin: :D

[AndyRAC]

Ups i forgot...and let's have 2 snow-events every 2 years :s mokin: :D

And 1 snow event every year. Be interesting to see how they manage/manoeuvere which events.

[pino]

And 1 snow event every year. Be interesting to see how they manage/manoeuvere which events.

Sweden or Norway, or they can switch event every year ;) It doesn't matter for me, I will visit them anyway :D

[hari]

According to this article http://www.ireland.com/sports/other/2007/0627/1182943143513.html
it should be 24 events alternated every two years in the 12 rounds championship.

So no need to drop any round and still some place for 3-4 new rounds.

[DonJippo]

12 rallies in the calendar is brilliant thing

Why it is brilliant thing? Why less events is better?

[A.F.F.]

Why it is brilliant thing? Why less events is better?


Hopefully there is quality over quantity. Keep drivers motivated. The rate of rallies burn them out pretty soon, as you may have seen from some of our champions. Keep fans motivated. Maybe more time for focusing the problems inside the team, or the car. Hopefully better rallies.

I don't mind waiting at all. Tell you the truth, rally every other weekend partly lost my interest. I hate to say but I was somewhat of bored this spring and it had nothing to do with Citroen+Loeb domination. I just didn't find enough interest on those rallyes.

:mark:

[JAM]

12 events was a good move.....10 would be even better. i think they should enforce this rule from 2008.

I bet 5 rallyes a year is better. It reduces de the costs to a half. A World championship doesn't need ti visisit so many countries. Is enogh if you se MC and Corsica as one country. :dozey:

[Peugeot206WRC]

And that's another step to wrong direction. I don't want to see lawnmovers in Neste Rally... :(

I dont think there will be any big difference on the WRCars today and in the future.
Some small changes always come, but it will be like having a Punto S2000 shell on the C4, or whatever.
Or if there would be a S2000 model of every WRCars we got today.

Thats how I understood it, not that the WRCars will be like some S2000/GrN car in performance.
That would be wrong :)

[JAM]

Hopefully there is quality over quantity. Keep drivers motivated. The rate of rallies burn them out pretty soon, as you may have seen from some of our champions. Keep fans motivated. Maybe more time for focusing the problems inside the team, or the car. Hopefully better rallies.

I don't mind waiting at all. Tell you the truth, rally every other weekend partly lost my interest. I hate to say but I was somewhat of bored this spring and it had nothing to do with Citroen+Loeb domination. I just didn't find enough interest on those rallyes.

:mark:

I don't agree with you, less rallyes could mean more time to focusing the problems, wich could mean spend the same amount of money without return. At least in a rally the investment as visible efect. With this i mean that less 4 rallyes doesn't mean a less on the budget of teams, it means more money directed to development and less to rallying.

Let's imagine a budget with 50% for development and tests and 50% to rallyes, now you'll have 62.5% to D&T and 37.5% to rallying. Isn't rallying the thing that gives ROI? Yes it is, but is the smaller part of the budget.

To thionk that a reduce of rallyes is a budget cutter, is wrong, the money goes to other areas, the areas that eat big amount of money and don't bring real value to the rallying: Tests and development.

But we have another problem, with the quality that we see on the choose of the rallyes to go to WRC callender, with only 12 places available, we will have problems about the choosen rallyes. As usual good rallyes wil stay out and unisnteresting rallyes will go in. With 16 events we have a "war" between the rallyes, with only 12 we will have a bigger war, and don't think that the WRC will be the winner after all this.

We need to reduce costs, and the new rule about the cars is really good, that is a rule made with the brains on the right place. The very sofisiticated WRC cars almost kiled the WRC, but this problem resolution is not as simple as it seems.

As bt52b wrote, less rallyes less media coverage and less spectator interest, and as i think the money spent will be the same, that is a bad decision that wil leaves us nowhere.

[A.F.F.]

The media coverage has always been poor. And no matter what they do, it will always be poor. So no point bringing that up.

We don't know what happens in the cabinets do we? I have a feeling there are plans for those rallyes missing the spot after 2009. Not sure though what plans but I'm pretty sure they won't be not used.

There might be different series for different rallyes.

There also might be a rotation between the rallyes. Imagine the good points on that. Somewhat new stages every year. Suddenly the adnvantage of experience is decreased and the newcomers start almost from the same level to the rallyes.

What comes to the costs. What can you say. Rich teams will always beat the poor ones.

But the point was that I like the plan with less rallyes.

[JAM]

There also might be a rotation between the rallyes. Imagine the good points on that. Somewhat new stages every year. Suddenly the adnvantage of experience is decreased and the newcomers start almost from the same level to the rallyes.

What comes to the costs. What can you say. Rich teams will always beat the poor ones.

But the point was that I like the plan with less rallyes.

The rotation system scares me, i think 2007 is the first tiome that rotation was good, because 3 rallyes with small interst (at elast two of them) were excluded to put 3 execelent rallyes (i think Ireland will be a excelent rally) on the callendar. But as a good decision from FIA is not usual, they back to the old bad decisiions, and these 3 excelent rallyes will not be on 2008 callendar. The rotation system is good if well done, when done as FIA does, scares me because the WRC usually end loosing, not winning.

If you like a plan with less rallyes, i like a plan with more rallyes to give more visibility to rallying and give more space to have godo ecvents, new events and mantains the one that are old and important and are part of the history. With 12 rallyes and so many interested countries, i don't see much space to do that.

[White Sauron]

Well, also with less rallies, gronholm out of the champ and Loeb still in, it may take only 7-8 rallies to call a new champion...((

[AndyRAC]

The rotation system scares me, i think 2007 is the first tiome that rotation was good, because 3 rallyes with small interst (at elast two of them) were excluded to put 3 execelent rallyes (i think Ireland will be a excelent rally) on the callendar. But as a good decision from FIA is not usual, they back to the old bad decisiions, and these 3 excelent rallyes will not be on 2008 callendar. The rotation system is good if well done, when done as FIA does, scares me because the WRC usually end loosing, not winning.

If you like a plan with less rallyes, i like a plan with more rallyes to give more visibility to rallying and give more space to have godo ecvents, new events and mantains the one that are old and important and are part of the history. With 12 rallyes and so many interested countries, i don't see much space to do that.


Regarding the visibility of Rallies, there are 16 rounds at the moment, the visibility is not good. That was the supposed reason for having more Rallies, it hasn't increased, we just have to accept that when it comes to Motorsport the media are interested in F1, and to a lesser extent Moto GP. If we accept that Rallying is never going to get big coverage, then 12 rounds is a sensible option. As there are less rounds, each event can become more of a 'must see' event providing the rules and F1A allow. If each of these events are more spectacular than now, maybe that will generate media interest, rather than the 16 same events we have now, each one is the same as the previous one. Just looking at the difference between Rally GB in SWales and the old RAC countrywide, that used to get huge coverage; TV, Radio, papers. Rally GB gets a few columns in the papers and virtually no Radio, TV on a non Terrestrial station, ITV4, with no special previews or anything.

[janneppi]

With a smaller calendar and cheaper cars we could have more privateers running a full season, nowadays it's pretty darn expensive to haul all the gear around the world. That could surely make for a more interesting season.

[mdesign]

Well, also with less rallies, gronholm out of the champ and Loeb still in, it may take only 7-8 rallies to call a new champion...((
With Gronholm out and less rallys, Loeb could became the first driver to win all the rallys of the season.
I don't really know if a decrease of 25% of the rallys will reduce 25% of the costs. If Tests cost the most of the budget, FIA should focus on reducing them.

[DonJippo]

it's pretty darn expensive to haul all the gear around the world.

It will still be expensive to haul all the gear around the world, calendar does not change that.

[janneppi]

It will still be expensive to haul all the gear around the world, calendar does not change that.
But not as expensive as it is now, unless we ditch all the european events and replace them with trips to the nearby planets. :)

[Priorat]

Some rallys could be fushioned thanks to geograghic proximity converting to 4 days of stages. Examples:

Sweden-Norway
Monte-Carlo-Sanremo(tarmac stages)
Corse-Sardinia (mixed surface event)

[A.F.F.]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mitsubishi say they wanted 12 rally calendar? Smaller calendar could encourage new manufactureres take part WRC, whatever the WRC machinery will be in the future.

[teufel]

It's the best thing if they bring back the 3 car teams aswell :up:

[Ranger]

Sounds like a good plan. Hopefully it is as good in practise as it is in theory for the manufacturers. :up:

[pino]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mitsubishi say they wanted 12 rally calendar? Smaller calendar could encourage new manufactureres take part WRC, whatever the WRC machinery will be in the future.


Never trust what Mitsu says :hmph: ;)

[A.F.F.]

Never trust what Mitsu says :hmph: ;)


Point taken.

Mitsu is indeed like Nissan of the 90's.

[bt52b]

Less rallies = more testing.

The top teams already do more four extra rallies a year worth of testing, why not in events, than hidden away.

[AlfaWRC]

From the spectators point of view it makes it possible to watch all events in a season - that must be the target!!!

My planning activities for 2009 will start soon....

[jonkka]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mitsubishi say they wanted 12 rally calendar?

And FIA allowed them and Skoda to skip a maximum of three rallies in 2006, effectively offering them a calendar of 13 rallies. But what did Mitsu do?

[Josti]

Speaking of Mitsubishi, are they actually planning a return?

[jonkka]

I don't really know if a decrease of 25% of the rallys will reduce 25% of the costs. If Tests cost the most of the budget, FIA should focus on reducing them.

Since travel and competition costs of events do not form entire budget of rally teams, 25 percent reduction in number of rallies does not mean 25 % decrease in budgets. Assuming that fixed costs of personnel, R&D and car preparation make up a half of the budget, such reduction would be only 12.5 percent while taking away 25% of the show. Who'd want that? Budget analyst - always, marketing man - never.

And like someone said, while some teams might reduce their budget by the saved amount, a richer team would just step up their testing and development and be that much further ahead in terms of performance. The rich teams have always called the shots and always will.

[kleisj]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mitsubishi say they wanted 12 rally calendar? Smaller calendar could encourage new manufactureres take part WRC, whatever the WRC machinery will be in the future.

Yeap!!! And also as teufel said this could also help to allow 3 cars per team.

Significant less costs will attract more manufacturers. And ofcourse this will result to a more interesting championship with more drivers and ofcourse more competition.
I hope that they don't make any stupid changes again which will spoil the great news!

[DonJippo]

Yeap!!! And also as teufel said this could also help to allow 3 cars per team.

Why? There really is no point for a manuteam to run more than two cars if only two cars can collect points.

[A.F.F.]

Not unless they will change the rules in order to two best of the team will score points. Like it used to be.

[leno]

What about if all 3 cars collect points???

[koko0703]

Finally FIA realized there are too many events on calender right now. From fans' perspective, I understand people wants to see more rally but I must say I would like to see more rally only if the quality of each rally is good. Unfortunately the current situation is not the case, and I think 12 rounds are better.

Re-introduce longer rally & 3 car teams!!! 12 rounds would be much better than current 16.

[Motorsportfun]

As for the TV Coverage, I think that is already good, but if a Super special stage will be located in every event (or a short in-line-stage, as it happened in Norway) it could be the best.

TV or not TV, a 12 rallies calendar is perfect, because some rounds are in calendar all the years, and the others are rotating, as well as mexico, ireland, jordan, germany (if OMV don't put loads of money on the FIA table), Poland, etc.

[Sulland]

I think FIA is on the right track, both with number of events, and the way they propose the cars are to move in.

There will be a lot more planning and changes made before the rules are final, but this direction of making everything simpler is a smart one, and will keep cost down.

There are so many events to choose from, so in my opinion it makes sense to have events alter btw arranging WRC and IRC rounds, to be keeping knowledge, economy, and staff onboard. The spectators will come anyway.

[Daniel]

I bet 5 rallyes a year is better. It reduces de the costs to a half. A World championship doesn't need ti visisit so many countries. Is enogh if you se MC and Corsica as one country. :dozey:
You always seem to miss out on the bigger picture of the WRC. Sure I'd love to have 52 events and have the WRC going every weekend but it's just not possible. The more events there are the more money gets pumped into just preparing the cars for each event, paying for hotels and so on. If they change the rules to allow 3 car teams then it suddenly becomes more interesting like it wasm earlier this decade where you could go into a rally and any of half a dozen drivers could win an event. If the budgets for the teams stays the same then teams can spend more time on developing the cars and so on and hopefully mount a better attack on the Ford and Citroen domination at the moment :)

I do hope the rules go back to when the top two drivers per team got points :)

[RallyCat909]

But not as expensive as it is now, unless we ditch all the european events and replace them with trips to the nearby planets. :)


Then just add an american rally, that would be pretty much the same thing. :)

[WRCfan]

I see events where they do not follow the true spirit of rally needing to go.

My ideal would have the following rounds included in no particular order

Monte Carlo, Sweden, Tour de Corse, Rally GB, Rally New Zealand, Acropolis, Finland, Catalunya, Argentina, Sardinia, Ireland & Portugal.

In my opinion rallies such as Turkey, Mexico, Germany, Japan don't need to be in the calandar. Germany is a bit boring running around army training grounds, Turkey isn't really a place WRC needs from marketing perspectives compared to the other rounds, Japan is a BORING rally, Mexico is ok although Acropolis has the rough rocky stuff.....

Just my 2 c i know LOADS of ppl will disagree but everyone to their own...

WRCfan

[GigiGalliNo1]

I'll tell you how Japan goes this year.. :) I can't wait lol

[Motorsportfun]

Japan is a BORING rally

Ehm... well... and Subaru & Suzuki? (Is arriving Mitsubishi too...)

Having three national works teams involved in the championship, is so difficult to see Japan out of the WRC!! :D

[SubaruNorway]

i think japan is pretty fun atleast on Richard Burns Rally :D

[leno]

less numbers of rally means less spectators and less spectators means less advertisement and less advertisement means less money!!!

So i think with less numbers of rally they didnt just lower the price but also they will get less money!

for me this is not the solution :( ;( :hmph:

[Roy]

less numbers of rally means less spectators and less spectators means less advertisement and less advertisement means less money!!!

So i think with less numbers of rally they didnt just lower the price but also they will get less money!

for me this is not the solution :( ;( :hmph:

I don't think that it is a right view. I see it different
Less rallies = cheaper Championship = more 'amateur'teams/'factory'teams = more te time = more spectators = more!

[A.F.F.]

I agree with FocusChampion.

Whatever good did increasing rallyes do to WRC finacially ???? Back to the basics boys and girls. The direction is good :up:

[AndyRAC]

I agree with FocusChampion.

Whatever good did increasing rallyes do to WRC finacially ???? Back to the basics boys and girls. The direction is good :up:

I quite agree, look at the 16 rounds and compare with when there was 10-12-14 rounds. You have to say it has got worse, simply with the expense at all these Rallies. I'm all in favour of 12 rounds, and hopefully less expensive cars, interesting Rallies, more Privateers. That's the way to get more interest from the fans, TV, papers!

[leno]

ok we will see i just think FIA should find another solution to get more money in the sport

[L5->R5/CR]

I agree with FocusChampion.

Whatever good did increasing rallyes do to WRC finacially ???? Back to the basics boys and girls. The direction is good :up:



I agree and disagree.

A better selection of rallies, with more competition and less repitition is good.

Fewer more sanitized rallies is a whole lot worse.

In the end, fewer events means less rallies to be covered, means less photos, fewer TV broadcasts, and overall less opportunities for the cars to be seen. It also means that teams can spend more on testing and on developing the car since they have XYZ budget already. In terms of helping teams fewer events only helps the privateers or the bigger teams with small budgets.

BUT the benefits of a smaller WRC only come in if there is better management of the commercial side. If the TV package improves and more people watch it there is more commercial value per event. More commercial value per event means less overall events for the same value (which will eventually translate to pressure for more events yet again).

Less quantity is only better when the remaining amount is of a higher quality, and that is something that only time will tell (and the WRC with only 6 gravel events out of 12 with 4 all tarmac possible makes me sad).

[DonJippo]

I agree and disagree.

A better selection of rallies, with more competition and less repitition is good.

Fewer more sanitized rallies is a whole lot worse.

In the end, fewer events means less rallies to be covered, means less photos, fewer TV broadcasts, and overall less opportunities for the cars to be seen. It also means that teams can spend more on testing and on developing the car since they have XYZ budget already. In terms of helping teams fewer events only helps the privateers or the bigger teams with small budgets.

BUT the benefits of a smaller WRC only come in if there is better management of the commercial side. If the TV package improves and more people watch it there is more commercial value per event. More commercial value per event means less overall events for the same value (which will eventually translate to pressure for more events yet again).

Less quantity is only better when the remaining amount is of a higher quality, and that is something that only time will tell (and the WRC with only 6 gravel events out of 12 with 4 all tarmac possible makes me sad).

:up: I agree, less is not necessarily better.

[cosmicpanda]

I hope it will mean an increase in the number of competitive kilometres covered. Not to thousands like they had in the '80s, but at least 450 km. That's three full days of rallying plus night stages.

[Woodeye]

From Finnish point of view, looking really good.

Chairman of AKK-motorsports, Kari O. Sohlberg says in Ilta-Sanomat Veikkaaja that Rally Finland will be one of the rallies that won't be in the calender on 2009 or 2010. It seems that the calender is going to be decided on 26th of Oct. in FIA meeting.

So great that we are going to have only 12 rallies. And luckily we will also get rid of the WRC -cars. There will be much to see when watching group N in Rally Turkey.

:mad:

[SubaruNorway]

Are you kiding me, the most popular rally won't be on the calender, why?

[Woodeye]

Are you kiding me, the most popular rally won't be on the calender, why?

Hey, it's the cost savings that matter. It's a common joy. Let's all enjoy it.

I really would like to see someone who supports dropping Rally Finland, even if it's only one year.

[janneppi]

If were going to start rotating rallies, I would prefer having three rallies linked together and two of them would run each year, that would give two consecutive years of rallying and only one year break in three years time.
And yes, Finland would be in that pool, with Monte and other "big" rallies.
That would give 18 rallies somewhat good chances of surviving economically.

[N.O.T]

I doubt that Rally Finland will be excluded...i don't think they are THAT stupid.

[Woodeye]

They ARE that stupid, thrust me.

[DonJippo]

I doubt that Rally Finland will be excluded...i don't think they are THAT stupid.

Proposal is that there will be 24 WRC events, each one being run every other year to have 12 round calendar starting from 2009. Finland will be dropped from 2010 calendar, new candidates to the calendar are countries such as Russia, China and India. Final decision will be done 26th of October in FIA World council meeting.

[Woodeye]

Again, totally from Finnish point of view: That proposal is a huge pile of **it.

Every other year!? :mad:

[Miika]

Proposal is that there will be 24 WRC events, each one being run every other year to have 12 round calendar starting from 2009. Finland will be dropped from 2010 calendar, new candidates to the calendar are countries such as Russia, China and India. Final decision will be done 26th of October in FIA World council meeting.

If that really happens then I think the Finnish saying lopun alkua ("the beginning of the end") would be in place..

[Tomi]

Yes it's true what Jippo is saying, they did try a simular thing earlier and it did not go so well, with this time it will be the same.

[Roy]

A rotation plan is ok, but there must be a feeling of tradition.
Monaco, Greece, Finland and Wales belong in the championship. I hope at least two of them compare in one year.

[AndyRAC]

Whilst not popular, rotation is probably the only way to go. Personally I'd exampt Monte, Acropolis,1000 Lakes, Rally GB from rotation, they are/were the classics and should run every year. Look what happened in 1996, no Monte Carlo or RAC, what kind of a season was that?
12 rounds is the way to go if the WRC is to remain, at the moment it 's not looking good, costs have got to come down, more manufacturers are needed, at the moment ant sensible manufacturer wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, they aren't going to get anything out of it.

[N.O.T]

I am not against rotation.....i just think that we must have a solid backbone of 6-7 events which remain constant due to their character and since they don't show any signs of bad organisation they should be untouched and have a rotation of the remaining 5-6 events.

What i like about the roation system is that new stages and challenges are introduced...i mean in most of the events nowadays the drivers just refresh their notes since almost all stages have been run at least 20 times the last few years

[Motorsportfun]

From my point of view the rotation system is crucial, for the nation who would be added to the calendar as well as the manufacturers and the federation.

The only thing it could be a shame is the dropping of important rallies as Monaco, Sweden, Italy, Acropolis or Finland to accept rallies with no spectators and loads of money. I think Jordan or Abu Dhabi.........

[Erki]

They ARE that stupid, thrust me.

I DO resist, oh yes I do... :)

[jacko]

Backward step. Reduce costs but not the number of rallies. Less rallies, less media, less sponsors?

Fully agree here, for the manufacturers it isn't attractive to have only 12 rounds instead of the 16 nowadays. The same teams decided a few years ago for 2 more rounds, only with 2 cars'. People who think teams will now enter 3 cars are really blind. personally i find 16 rounds with 2 cars each manufacturer still better than 12 with (what people believe) 3 cars. It's really a step back and i trully believe "we" will lose some team because of the less promotion/ interseting in the WRC. The solution this year is really good to have back 2 back rally's like Sweden& norway, the overseas rally's, the hard gravel rounds in Europe in the first half of the season and the tarmac rounds in the second half. With this the IRC will be smiling, they smiling because the interest will growing a lot and for sure more manufacturers will start in the IRC. IRC has now Peugeot and Fiat, Skoda will come, VW has already (in private hands) a car, Toyota has a car and Honda is already involving more and more in this direction too.
WRC must cut cost, but to cut 4 rounds it's another bad decision taken by the FIA.. Why F1 has interseting to building up to 20 rounds?? Same with MotoGP?? The more rounds the more publicity, for the cost this isn't the biggist issue.. We will see if this is really happening for 2009...

[DonJippo]

The only thing it could be a shame is the dropping of important rallies as Monaco, Sweden, Italy, Acropolis or Finland to accept rallies with no spectators and loads of money. I think Jordan or Abu Dhabi.........

Yes lot of people at FIA are saying we need events in new emerging big market areas...I some how fail to see Jordan and Abu Dhabi as such... :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Perhaps people are getting money to bring these boring desert events in the WRC :)

[MikeD]

Proposal is that there will be 24 WRC events, each one being run every other year to have 12 round calendar starting from 2009. Finland will be dropped from 2010 calendar, new candidates to the calendar are countries such as Russia, China and India. Final decision will be done 26th of October in FIA World council meeting.

I have to admit, I love the idea. But perhaps FIA should save 3 or 4 classics on the calender every year and let 8-9 rotate.

I think Monaco, Tour de Corse and NORF should be permanent on the calendar.

[RS]

Why don't they just chose 12 decent events instead of rotating between 24 mostly mediocre ones?

[AndyRAC]

Perhaps people are getting money to bring these boring desert events in the WRC :)

Let's not go down that road, please! F1 has been ruined by the highest bidder getting races at the expense of proper races. So in the future Finland, Acropolis, Wales, Monte all get axed in favour of Mid/Far Eastern events.

[Priorat]

7 true rallys: Monte-Carlo, Sweden,Tour de Corse, Safari, Acropolis, 1000 Lakes, and RAC Rally starting on Sunday and with four or five days of proper stages and 15 points to the winner. Every one of these rallys would give the manufacturers the same exposure as the Dakar Rally.
The other 17 rallys with actual format and every team choosing 5 of them or more, so every manufacturer could go to his favourite market.

[Tomi]

They rank events every year, why not drop events with lousy arrangements, that would encourage others to improve too, permanent calender would be better too, the arrangements are not so easy to make.

[Woodeye]

Let's not go down that road, please! F1 has been ruined by the highest bidder getting races at the expense of proper races. So in the future Finland, Acropolis, Wales, Monte all get axed in favour of Mid/Far Eastern events.

That's exactly the way that the FIA would want to go. As far as I can see, FIA is only interested getting income. I'm sure that they don't care if comes from Finland or Saudi Arabia. Whoever has the biggest bid will host the rally.

It's called capitalism.

[curry]

AndyRAC & Woodeye are spot on, its all about three words:

MONEY MONEY MONEY

It doesn't take a genius to word out that With Abu Dhabi sponsoring Ford, there will be a Middle Eastern event next year.

Forget all the sentiment and emotion, WRC is a business and they are in to make money.

Unfortunately I'm not confident of a great calender for next year.

Curry

[AndyRAC]

I'm not naive, yes money has to be made, but there is also the sporting side. Just look at the WRC since they tried to make it more 'professional' - they've sold it's soul to the highest bidder. And it's now in a mess.

[A.F.F.]

I'm not against smaller calendar at all and what comes to rotating rallyes, I saw it as "must to happen".

But now I fear FIA took a too big bite. Chancing machinery at the same time with less rallyes to get use to them will turn this idea against itself :(

That means will be seeing a lot of rules chancing in the future. :mark:

[Livewireshock]

You all seem to forget that it is a more COMPACT calendar that they are looking for too. So the Monte, Sweden or other snow events will have to start in March at the earliest. Only viable snow events would have to be in the southern hemishpere to fit with that thinking. Unless we race around Greenland.

Otherwise the intended 8 month season would cease in August.

In some sense, I think the FIA idea of rotation would be one year in the WRC & the second year in the IRC or vice versa. So the traditional rallies will be there every year but will change championship.

Thus a two tiered system of champonships would exist. Closer tie in with regional FIA championships would occur in the slack year.

[COD]

I hope that IF this 12 round series becomes a reality, they also bring back the best 2/3 rule for Manufacturer points.

[GigiGalliNo1]

And safari :p

[jonkka]

That's exactly the way that the FIA would want to go. As far as I can see, FIA is only interested getting income. I'm sure that they don't care if comes from Finland or Saudi Arabia. Whoever has the biggest bid will host the rally.

It's called capitalism.

Yet, FIA is a federation, not a corporation.

[jonkka]

You all seem to forget that it is a more COMPACT calendar that they are looking for too. (snip) Otherwise the intended 8 month season would cease in August.

Is that a fact or just a figment of your imagination? I do not see why a more compact calendar would be good. Currently there is almost two months of winter break and two months of summer break so calendar already is 8 months. That is good so that teams and drivers do get some time at home too but to extend that.. nay.

One of the reasons why WRC is so much better than F1 is the calendar, there is rallying all the time. I'd hate to spend half of the year with no events and the other half drenched in them.


Thus a two tiered system of champonships would exist. Closer tie in with regional FIA championships would occur in the slack year.

In principle, two tiered championship is a good idea. But in practice, does it work? For the teams and drivers there already is a sort of step-up route via JWRC/PWRC with the added benefit that practices, events and conditions encountered there are the same that exist in WRC too. The downside currently is the expense with one start required in overseas (for European competitors) or Euro-centrism (for non-European competitors).

The two tiered championship if envisaged as "WRC plus regionals" (like what F3000 is to F1) does not interest anyone. Or, rather, very few. Regional championships are for people who themselves compete and their immediate relatives plus some extreme hard-core fans.

[jonkka]

I hope that IF this 12 round series becomes a reality, they also bring back the best 2/3 rule for Manufacturer points.

Huh? First cut expenses by dropping four events and then increase those with an extra car? It's like selling your car to get money but spending it to hire a car.

[DonJippo]

Yet, FIA is a federation, not a corporation.

Yes but as any other international sporting federation it is very keen on making money...

[jonkka]

That was my point, FIA should be non-profit organization and yet... :eek:

[Livewireshock]

Effectively there will be 24 rallies a year now. Which is not such a bad thing.

12 in the WRC

12 in the IRC

First a rally will be part of one championship, then the other. Effectively this rotation system means that no rally will stop with a year out.

Also by not setting aside 'classic' events, I can see how the IRC could rise in stature when it is their turn to compete at the Monte or Finland.

I can follow & make sense of this from FIA. I just can not see it working 100% well. Who would sponsor & support a rally when it's status varies from year to year. It would make more sense to have three years on & then three years off, in this sense, constant commercial support can be maintained.

[AndyRAC]

I think they should keep the 'classic' events, how can you have a WRC season without Monte, 1000 Lakes, Acropolis or GB. I remember 1996, with no Monte or RAC, wasn't a good season, and both those events weren't as good as they could've been.

[Livewireshock]

The moot point is if the Monte or RallyGB et al. would be good as an IRC event?

Those classic events will still run. Just not with the same cars.

But with the WRC scaling back closer to S2000, how would the average public differentiate between the two championships. Might lead to alot of confusion.

The other danger is that after anyone makes a list of 'classic' events, there is no room for any other European country to be included. With 6 to 8 European rounds, we all could fill those rounds with classic events. But countries with a huge rallying fanbase, (Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Czech Republic & others) will forever be shut out by an exclusive untouchable club of the Monte, RallyGB, Sweden, Acropolis, Tour de Corse & Finland.

At least one event must be held in each regional FIA championship area. One event in the Middle East, one in Africa, one in the Asia Pacific, one in North America & one in South America. If the FIA fails to do this, then the WRC becomes just a glorified European championship that the rest of the world would soon come to disregard. It still leaves half of the championship in Europe.

We often poke fun at the USA for making great pomp & ceremony over their homebrew sports, like Nascar & NFL etc, that have little relevance outside of their country. The WRC would suffer the same fate if the prejudice continues that only Europe deserves to host rallies.

It is a WORLD championship, the world deserves to share in hosting it.

[Livewireshock]

Is that a fact or just a figment of your imagination?

No, it is not my imagination. It is not my wish either. The FIA has been widely reported to be championing the notion of an 8 month season. Why? I do not know. It makes little sense to me.



In principle, two tiered championship is a good idea. But in practice, does it work? For the teams and drivers there already is a sort of step-up route via JWRC/PWRC with the added benefit that practices, events and conditions encountered there are the same that exist in WRC too. The downside currently is the expense with one start required in overseas (for European competitors) or Euro-centrism (for non-European competitors).

The two tiered championship if envisaged as "WRC plus regionals" (like what F3000 is to F1) does not interest anyone. Or, rather, very few. Regional championships are for people who themselves compete and their immediate relatives plus some extreme hard-core fans.

The IRC is not about the Regionals. But I agree they are looking at setting up a GP2 to F1 scenario (F3000 has been disbanded for a while which shows how much people take notice of it). It will be an alternative to the JWRC/PCWRC. Plus they will be running the same events as the WRC, just in their off years. LOL

The "WRC plus regionals" is the current status quo. But that does not work for there is little chance for anyone to step up from regional championships to the WRC/JWRC/PCWRC because of a lack of an event in their local region. It is also why top national competitors do not want to rise up to Regional competition because it does not lead up further up the ladder.

If there is a chance to compete locally in an IRC or WRC with in a Regional area, it will inspire the local competitors to take that next step & seek out that higher level. It will make the Regional championship worth competing in. It would clarify the rungs on the ladder more clearly.

[jonkka]

At least one event must be held in each regional FIA championship area. One event in the Middle East, one in Africa, one in the Asia Pacific, one in North America & one in South America. If the FIA fails to do this, then the WRC becomes just a glorified European championship that the rest of the world would soon come to disregard. It still leaves half of the championship in Europe.

The eurocentricism of FIA WRC has been the problem and current calendar, which eliminated three non-European events and replaced them with european ones didn't help. Admittedly, Cyprus and Turkey weren't that exotic and Australia's fall was it's own fault but anyway. We haven't had African event since 2002 and the only Middle-Eastern event was Turkey for four runs.

I do agree fully with you, a minimum of one event per FIA regionals would be a good target and really make it World Championship.

[jonkka]

The FIA has been widely reported to be championing the notion of an 8 month season.

As I noted, the championship calendar already is a bit over 8 months in a year so it stands to reason that they are looking for eight consecutive months ie. four month off-season, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to change. And that is what I do oppose. I want to enjoy rallying 12 months a year but understand that drivers and teams need their holidays too. Fine, let them have two two-month breaks as they now have, but not one four month. Yack.

[AndyRAC]

So if they want 8 consecutive months with a 4 month off season, that could be interesting. So for example Nov -Feb no Rallying. Season starts in March with Monte and ends in October with Wales. Mmmm, not keen on that. Or have I misunderstood everything?

[Josti]

So if they want 8 consecutive months with a 4 month off season, that could be interesting. So for example Nov -Feb no Rallying. Season starts in March with Monte and ends in October with Wales. Mmmm, not keen on that. Or have I misunderstood everything?

Well, it's not 8 months aqurate. They begin at the end of January, after almost a 2 month break, then they end at the beginning of June and start again exactly two months later in August, so you can say it's a 8 month calender.

[AndyRAC]

So is it 8 months consecutive or 8 months in total with two 2 month breaks? There seem to be different opinions, though knowing the F1A, I doubt they know.

[Simmi]

Just read through this whole thread in one go. What a mess it really is. If untangled properly then it could be the best thing that's happened in a long time. You just fear the FIA will continue to tangle it until the scissors have to come out. The solution is in there somewhere I just feel for Mr Chandler because it is not always easy to see.

It makes sense to go back to less rounds, get everyone on board and if it begins to prosper then chance a couple more rounds if the money and interest is there. It may well become like F1 but at least I know F1 will be around in the future. Money sloshing around in the WRC wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, even if we had to endure an Abu Dhabi event.

Rotating events is a complete minefield. The alternative of running the IRC is all well and good, but unless the IRC was absolutely on my doorstep I would not go and watch it. Let alone jet off around the world like people on this forum do. The IRC in Finland would honestly make me shed a tear, and I'm not even Finnish.

I suppose all we can say is to remember its not called Vision 2012 for nothing. A lot can happen in that time. Will there still be snow in Sweden in 2012? I think we'd all take a few years in the rough again if we knew rallying would come out of the other side stronger and booming again. Maybe in five years it will be...

[A.F.F.]

They won't be driving in Finland if not WRC, period.

IRC is still a joke to some members to this forum. But if the future will be as it seem to be heading at this point, I honestly believe IRC will be an audience pleasing series, meaning proper drivers and lots of cars.

I don't agree with trading rallyes to an extra driver per team would make it more expensive. Why not quite opposite ??

[jonkka]

I don't agree with trading rallyes to an extra driver per team would make it more expensive. Why not quite opposite ??

How many times do I have to make this point. If you originally have 16 mating opportunities per year, would you trade off four of those to get another mate in the remaining twelve? More often is better than more participants at each occasion, IM(NS)HO, those are also-rans at any rate.

In retrospect, 'haps I should not drink beer at all.

[Doon]

The IRC in Finland would honestly make me shed a tear, and I'm not even Finnish.


Same here! would be FUBAR.

[A.F.F.]

How many times do I have to make this point. If you originally have 16 mating opportunities per year, would you trade off four of those to get another mate in the remaining twelve? More often is better than more participants at each occasion, IM(NS)HO, those are also-rans at any rate.

In retrospect, 'haps I should not drink beer at all.

Niin... mitä järkeä panna vaan vähäsen :rolleyes:

What do you think about if they put on third driver rule how it was first introduced? I don't think the quality suffered then.

[leno]

i still think that 12 rounds will bring less money to wrc!!!
there will be less spectators because nobody wont travel far away only to see rally. if someone will, it wont be new spectator but somone who is watching rally for long time. so there is less oportunity to introduce rally to people who dont know this sport. and there will be also less advertisement coz company wont give so much money to teams for less ralies-harder to see the car.

so i m very pesimistic about 12 rounds :mad:

[BDunnell]

i still think that 12 rounds will bring less money to wrc!!!
there will be less spectators because nobody wont travel far away only to see rally. if someone will, it wont be new spectator but somone who is watching rally for long time. so there is less oportunity to introduce rally to people who dont know this sport. and there will be also less advertisement coz company wont give so much money to teams for less ralies-harder to see the car.

so i m very pesimistic about 12 rounds :mad:

I can understand that argument, but it has been proved not to be true by the British Touring Car Championship. When it cut back to 10 meetings per season (albeit with three races per meeting), many people — myself included — thought that the lack of events would be harmful for those very reasons. However, it hasn't panned out that way, and I think there is a parallel there for the WRC. If the TV coverage is made good, and the championship attracts good entries, the popular support will follow.

However, I hate the idea of losing any (more) of the 'traditional' events, and would also say that there now exists the opportunity to bring back something of the old challenge of the WRC. I'm convinced, for example, that having compact events has been harmful not just to the challenge of the championship as a whole but also the ability of people from all over the UK, Italy, Sweden, or wherever to see the series. This can't be good, except logistically and in terms of costs. Two big things, I know!

[A.F.F.]

We used to have twelve rounds. For what I recall, the competition was better then.

If things continue as they are, WRC will slowly die. Young promising drivers who have the talent but no money are the bottom of the ****ing food chain right now. Since when was the last time we got new REALLY promising driver to the rallying scene and I mean resultwise ??

I just can't cry about the missing rallyes if we get better rallyes for change with more and hopefully better drivers in the future. :mark:

But this is of course my personal opinion.

[BDunnell]

Young promising drivers who have the talent but no money are the bottom of the ****ing food chain right now. Since when was the last time we got new REALLY promising driver to the rallying scene and I mean resultwise ??

I agree. There are few recent (I mean in the last five years or so) additions to the top WRC teams who, with respect to them, will be remembered in times to come like a Sainz, Kankkunen, McRae, Mikkola, Röhrl, Blomqvist, to name but six...

[leno]

If the TV coverage is made good, and the championship attracts good entries, the popular support will follow.


very true, there should be more rally on tv

[Addicted]

How many teams stopped their WRC program because it is too expensive to do 16 rounds? Skoda, Mitsu, Seat, Hyundai, Peugeot.

And how many new teams has come to WRC in last five years? Suzuki.

Could it be possible that too many rounds is just too expensive to even start rallying at top level. WRC needs radical changes to get helthy, two teams and two drivers fighting for wins ain`t interesting to spectators, not even for us hardcore fans.

[jonkka]

What do you think about if they put on third driver rule how it was first introduced? I don't think the quality suffered then.

Third driver rule is double edged sword. In manufacturers championship third driver would have relatively little effect, there are so few makes that have a realistic shot at the title at any rate.

But in drivers championship, if teams were able to use third driver (especially as it likely would be rotatable, ie. not a fixed seat for whole season), specialists could be brought in to detract from points of the competitors. While the extra seats would be good on one hand, one-off drives really don't give the prospective third drivers any job security at all. If you look at number three drivers from 2001/2002, only Markko Martin of Ford was able to make a career out of it. All others either were established drivers already or just did not make it out in the end.

So, in one hand 3rd driver would be good but on the other hand it wouldn't make much of an impact. At the moment I think that the most important thing is to concentrate on keeping the series alive and with Suzuki coming in and competition having been resurrected after Loeb's dominance of recent years I think we've seen the low-point. In fact, if one looks toward future and reflects what's best that has been gained from these lean years is the new advent of the private or B-teams. Not since the days of Sutton's Ford Escorts or Jolly Club Lancias have had so many and so competitive non-works teams. I do hope that this will be carried over to championship of tomorrow.

A bit beside of the point but I hope you excuse me.

[jonkka]

and would also say that there now exists the opportunity to bring back something of the old challenge of the WRC.

Elaborate, if you please? What challenge, exactly?

[jonkka]

We used to have twelve rounds. For what I recall, the competition was better then.

At the risk of sounding rude, we used to have a eight round championship too. Colin McRae was crowned as a champion, which he failed to recapture in a longer championship of later years. Less is more in UI design but not in entertainment, coming back to my maxim of "would you rather copulate once a year with 12 virgins or 12 times a day with an old hag"? A stripped championship would be an anti-climax, months and months of waiting for a next rally just to see Loeb to win again? Nah...


Young promising drivers who have the talent but no money are the bottom of the ****ing food chain right now. Since when was the last time we got new REALLY promising driver to the rallying scene and I mean resultwise ??

Young drivers have always and will always be at the other end of pecking order. This is not a Cinderella story, sport is very expensive and unfortunately there is no shortcut to the top.

In fact, if you look at the history of the sport, there has been loads of young hopefuls for each world champion. Even the most brilliant stars of the recent times have had strong backing (what would Colin have been without Jimmy, Tommi was backed by Jouhki, Loeb's familyname is Citroen et cetera). Perhaps only likes of Gronholm (though his father did race), Solberg and Martin are exceptions to this rule. Come to think of this, the wild-card rule in JWRC/PWRC that allows organisers to filter in a couple of hopefuls is the right route to go.

Having said that, the good question is how to encourage the next generation? If we are left with Anthony Warmbolds and Matthew Wilsons, kids with no talent to speak of but loads of money, what will come of the sport? And in that sense I do share the worry you feel.

[BDunnell]

Elaborate, if you please? What challenge, exactly?

More stage mileage, more variety of stages in each event, night stages (though I'm aware that they are making a return), stuff like that.

[BDunnell]

Young drivers have always and will always be at the other end of pecking order. This is not a Cinderella story, sport is very expensive and unfortunately there is no shortcut to the top...

Having said that, the good question is how to encourage the next generation? If we are left with Anthony Warmbolds and Matthew Wilsons, kids with no talent to speak of but loads of money, what will come of the sport? And in that sense I do share the worry you feel.

I think your second point there is the key one. I can't remember a time when so many obviously talented drivers have been left without drives. Of course, pay drivers have been a fact of life in motorsport for a VERY long time indeed, but the WRC has been especially guilty of late of not providing opportunities to many of the deserving.

[jonkka]

How many teams stopped their WRC program because it is too expensive to do 16 rounds? Skoda, Mitsu, Seat, Hyundai, Peugeot.

Gripes! Was "too expensive" just a convenient excuse? I fear it was. In the marketing budget of any of the car manufacturers of the world, WRC programme is just peanuts. Especially if one bears in mind that FIA allowed both Skoda and Mitsu to skip three events of 2006 season, effectively granting them a chance to do 13 event campaign (one less than in 2005).

Is it just co-incidence that ultra-successful teams like Mitsubishi or Peugeot quit after their new car/team didn't perform? Or that Hyundai and Seat pulled the plug after WRC involvement did not turn into a such a joyride their F2 programmes had enjoyed? I have a word for such teams but I refrain from using it publicly.


Could it be possible that too many rounds is just too expensive to even start rallying at top level.

To my knowledge, the introductory rule has not been cancelled. In first year, new team can contest 25%, next year 50% and only in third year are they required to do all events of the championship. The single biggest expense is to build up the team and come up with the new car.

[jonkka]

More stage mileage, more variety of stages in each event, night stages (though I'm aware that they are making a return), stuff like that.

More miles means more expenses. Granted, increase in that department isn't comparable in any sense to getting a new event in so increasing the mileage would be relatively easy way to increase the show without budget problems. I don't favour the return of 1000+km events with four days, three days is good but admittedly the current 360km is getting a little thin. Sundays are really just cruising and have very little to give in the terms of overall competition.

Variety of stages is a bit more difficult. Repeated stages makes life easier for everyone, organisers need less people and less work overall to make the event go ahead, drivers need less recce to ready themselves for the event. Then again, repeated stages makes spectator congestion a real problem and on soft stages increases the retirements inproportionately.

Night stages? I like the idea as a refreshener but one per rally is enough. At night, all you see is darkness, then bright lights and that's it. Night stages make good photos but for live speccies those are nothing to sing about. Unless you're an easily amused kind.

[AndyRAC]

Personally I feel that we have to look backwards to go forwards. 12 rounds is ideal, Jan - June August - Nov. With 24 rounds looking for places rotation seems to be the only way to fit them all in, but the classics must remain every year. What about mixed surface events? San Remo,Catalunya?
Then there is the format of the events; at the moment it's 2 days with not a lot happening on the Sunday. How about starting Thursday late afternoon for 3-4 stages, then Friday and Saturday can be 6-8 stages, followed by Sunday finishing at lunchtime. Increase the mileage to 300-350 miles, maybe a couple of night stages. I know the F1A and teams aren't keen but the events need to be more spread out, at the moment far too compact; I'm not saying go all over the country but I'd allow an overnight halt away from the host town particularly for the 'classic' events. Bring al ittle of the endurance challenge back.
As for the cars, I haven't got a clue; Suzuki seem to be the only new manufacturer entering, were are all the others? Because they're not interested, too expensive to produce, too little promotion tv etc. I know S2000 isn't popular with lots of forum members but if they're the cars the manufacturers are building who are we to argue. I want lots of cars and drivers all fighting for wins, championship. At the moment it's Loeb vs Gronholm. The WRC deserves better than this.

[A.F.F.]

Third driver rule is double edged sword. In manufacturers championship third driver would have relatively little effect, there are so few makes that have a realistic shot at the title at any rate.
That's the thing. We don't have makes enough. Period.



But in drivers championship, if teams were able to use third driver (especially as it likely would be rotatable, ie. not a fixed seat for whole season), specialists could be brought in to detract from points of the competitors. While the extra seats would be good on one hand, one-off drives really don't give the prospective third drivers any job security at all. If you look at number three drivers from 2001/2002, only Markko Martin of Ford was able to make a career out of it. All others either were established drivers already or just did not make it out in the end.

You're right but I blame the system here. There were talented youngsters coming but what happened ? FIA changed the rules. Of course one can say these guys got their chances but all in all, your example; Märtin, Grönholm and Solberg jr are only the last known proofs the system worked ;)




So, in one hand 3rd driver would be good but on the other hand it wouldn't make much of an impact. At the moment I think that the most important thing is to concentrate on keeping the series alive and with Suzuki coming in and competition having been resurrected after Loeb's dominance of recent years I think we've seen the low-point. In fact, if one looks toward future and reflects what's best that has been gained from these lean years is the new advent of the private or B-teams. Not since the days of Sutton's Ford Escorts or Jolly Club Lancias have had so many and so competitive non-works teams. I do hope that this will be carried over to championship of tomorrow.


This is where we see a conflict. I don't think quantity over quality, ( well, expect in my post count ) but I don't find 11 Focuses amusing if three of them can deliver. If and big IF, those privateer team cars carried a driver with realistic chance to deliver or... at least even remotely develop to a driver, it would be good. This year I was standing in a ditch and the gap between Big Boys and the rest of the gang was huuuuuuuge. It was unbelieveble.



At the risk of sounding rude, we used to have a eight round championship too. Colin McRae was crowned as a champion, which he failed to recapture in a longer championship of later years. Less is more in UI design but not in entertainment, coming back to my maxim of "would you rather copulate once a year with 12 virgins or 12 times a day with an old hag"? A stripped championship would be an anti-climax, months and months of waiting for a next rally just to see Loeb to win again? Nah...

I would do fine with 12 rounds. But, that's just me.



Young drivers have always and will always be at the other end of pecking order. This is not a Cinderella story, sport is very expensive and unfortunately there is no shortcut to the top.

In fact, if you look at the history of the sport, there has been loads of young hopefuls for each world champion. Even the most brilliant stars of the recent times have had strong backing (what would Colin have been without Jimmy, Tommi was backed by Jouhki, Loeb's familyname is Citroen et cetera). Perhaps only likes of Gronholm (though his father did race), Solberg and Martin are exceptions to this rule. Come to think of this, the wild-card rule in JWRC/PWRC that allows organisers to filter in a couple of hopefuls is the right route to go.

Having said that, the good question is how to encourage the next generation? If we are left with Anthony Warmbolds and Matthew Wilsons, kids with no talent to speak of but loads of money, what will come of the sport? And in that sense I do share the worry you feel.

This is the big post :up: If young drivers would just find their way to WRC and stay there, I'd say hell yeah, let's drive 20 rallyes per year. But unfortunately it isn't so. Somehow in the past youngsters found either financial backing, more competitive machinery or the car were just plain cheaper. Today it is different. You get an old car with no realistic chance to do well with one shot only. In order to get to the top, you need strong back up, just like in your example.

JWRC isn't the answer, even FIA has noticed that. The good thing is indeed the wild card system you pointed out. I'm sure that after NORF weekend, the name of Jarkko Nikara is much wider spreaded that it used to be in terms of " varikolla kuiskitaan " But that is just one rally and usually the one in their backyard. No chance of getting useful experience of other rallyes. Should they get another chance their facing again the one shot only, do or die.

Then we have Matthew Wilsons etc. Sigh... I have nothing against the guy but having seen him live again.. I don't think that famous five year plan is enough to make him a rally driver.



Then there is the format of the events; at the moment it's 2 days with not a lot happening on the Sunday. How about starting Thursday late afternoon for 3-4 stages, then Friday and Saturday can be 6-8 stages, followed by Sunday finishing at lunchtime. Increase the mileage to 300-350 miles, maybe a couple of night stages.

Unfortunately I don't think that is going to help. The answer IMO is opinion is to change the point scoring per each rally. With current system it wouldn't matter if rallyes were only two days lenght. At some point rallying just stops because it's nothing to gain and all to risk. If the winner would get more points, it would be worth fight for it. Now, the last third of the rally is for cruising. :mark:

[A.F.F.]

Third driver rule is double edged sword. In manufacturers championship third driver would have relatively little effect, there are so few makes that have a realistic shot at the title at any rate.
That's the thing. We don't have makes enough. Period.



But in drivers championship, if teams were able to use third driver (especially as it likely would be rotatable, ie. not a fixed seat for whole season), specialists could be brought in to detract from points of the competitors. While the extra seats would be good on one hand, one-off drives really don't give the prospective third drivers any job security at all. If you look at number three drivers from 2001/2002, only Markko Martin of Ford was able to make a career out of it. All others either were established drivers already or just did not make it out in the end.

You're right but I blame the system here. There were talented youngsters coming but what happened ? FIA changed the rules. Of course one can say these guys got their chances but all in all, your example; Märtin, Grönholm and Solberg jr are only the last known proofs the system worked ;)




So, in one hand 3rd driver would be good but on the other hand it wouldn't make much of an impact. At the moment I think that the most important thing is to concentrate on keeping the series alive and with Suzuki coming in and competition having been resurrected after Loeb's dominance of recent years I think we've seen the low-point. In fact, if one looks toward future and reflects what's best that has been gained from these lean years is the new advent of the private or B-teams. Not since the days of Sutton's Ford Escorts or Jolly Club Lancias have had so many and so competitive non-works teams. I do hope that this will be carried over to championship of tomorrow.


This is where we see a conflict. I don't think quantity over quality, ( well, expect in my post count ) but I don't find 11 Focuses amusing if three of them can deliver. If and big IF, those privateer team cars carried a driver with realistic chance to deliver or... at least even remotely develop to a driver, it would be good. This year I was standing in a ditch and the gap between Big Boys and the rest of the gang was huuuuuuuge. It was unbelieveble.



At the risk of sounding rude, we used to have a eight round championship too. Colin McRae was crowned as a champion, which he failed to recapture in a longer championship of later years. Less is more in UI design but not in entertainment, coming back to my maxim of "would you rather copulate once a year with 12 virgins or 12 times a day with an old hag"? A stripped championship would be an anti-climax, months and months of waiting for a next rally just to see Loeb to win again? Nah...

I would do fine with 12 rounds. But, that's just me.



Young drivers have always and will always be at the other end of pecking order. This is not a Cinderella story, sport is very expensive and unfortunately there is no shortcut to the top.

In fact, if you look at the history of the sport, there has been loads of young hopefuls for each world champion. Even the most brilliant stars of the recent times have had strong backing (what would Colin have been without Jimmy, Tommi was backed by Jouhki, Loeb's familyname is Citroen et cetera). Perhaps only likes of Gronholm (though his father did race), Solberg and Martin are exceptions to this rule. Come to think of this, the wild-card rule in JWRC/PWRC that allows organisers to filter in a couple of hopefuls is the right route to go.

Having said that, the good question is how to encourage the next generation? If we are left with Anthony Warmbolds and Matthew Wilsons, kids with no talent to speak of but loads of money, what will come of the sport? And in that sense I do share the worry you feel.

This is the big post :up: If young drivers would just find their way to WRC and stay there, I'd say hell yeah, let's drive 20 rallyes per year. But unfortunately it isn't so. Somehow in the past youngsters found either financial backing, more competitive machinery or the car were just plain cheaper. Today it is different. You get an old car with no realistic chance to do well with one shot only. In order to get to the top, you need strong back up, just like in your example.

JWRC isn't the answer, even FIA has noticed that. The good thing is indeed the wild card system you pointed out. I'm sure that after NORF weekend, the name of Jarkko Nikara is much wider spreaded that it used to be in terms of " varikolla kuiskitaan " But that is just one rally and usually the one in their backyard. No chance of getting useful experience of other rallyes. Should they get another chance their facing again the one shot only, do or die.

Then we have Matthew Wilsons etc. Sigh... I have nothing against the guy but having seen him live again.. I don't think that famous five year plan is enough to make him a rally driver.



Then there is the format of the events; at the moment it's 2 days with not a lot happening on the Sunday. How about starting Thursday late afternoon for 3-4 stages, then Friday and Saturday can be 6-8 stages, followed by Sunday finishing at lunchtime. Increase the mileage to 300-350 miles, maybe a couple of night stages.

Unfortunately I don't think that is going to help. The answer IMO is opinion is to change the point scoring per each rally. With current system it wouldn't matter if rallyes were only two days lenght. At some point rallying just stops because it's nothing to gain and all to risk. If the winner would get more points, it would be worth fight for it. Now, the last third of the rally is for cruising.

[jonkka]

The answer IMO is opinion is to change the point scoring per each rally.

Aye, current points scoring system really zucks. A win should be rewarded more.