Although I understand the point on introducing so called WRC2 Pro, I think it just make things more complicated and a sport already difficult to understand from the casual person don't need more complexity.
Printable View
Although I understand the point on introducing so called WRC2 Pro, I think it just make things more complicated and a sport already difficult to understand from the casual person don't need more complexity.
I don't think the average casual fan cares about WRC2.
The biggest issue the WRC have is they will now have to separate out the classes on the TV coverage. A solid 15 seconds for each will be fine I'm sure...
In all seriousness, maybe with this formalised pro WRC2 those manufacturers could band together to ensure some better coverage. I'd love to watch a 30min dedicated WRC2 edit on YouTube or even WRC+.
A distincton between manus and privateers in WRC2 make sense but it could be done in a simple way, through a privateer cup inside WRC2 (a bit like ERC28 on the ERC).
What bothers me the most is the possibility (it’s still unclear) of this new WRC2 Pro to use R5+ cars; that would be a real threat to R5 balance around the world, as some regional or national series could also be tempted to use them alongside normal spec R5’s. Instead of having a handful of crews fighting for the win in the national events, we could have those being disputed only by a couple of favourites, as when WRC’s were allowed.
Hmm, but then how do you define a manufacturer entry? The Citroen R5s are run by PH Sport and the Hyundai by BRC (I think), even Katsura and Arai are not run by a works team but are they true privateers?
The FIA release talks about attracting privateers and national champions, but isn’t this what ERC is for?
I think they should think more about the whole ladder and prize system.
I hope not too, but then why have they only mentioned current spec cars use in the WRC2 privateer series? Besides, the Fabia tested in Portugal a couple of weeks ago didn’t look/sound as a current spec R5.
From the FIA PR:
“Building on the success of the R5 car, a new WRC 2 Pro Championship for Drivers, Co-Drivers and Manufacturers will be created as a platform for registered R5 manufacturers.
The same specification R5 car will continue to be used in the FIA WRC 2 Championship. This championship will be solely for private entrants, with the intention being to attract more drivers from national and regional championships.”
I bet there will be some things making it more interesting to enter as manufacturer in WRC2. Such as place in service, more tyres, priority on recce, shakedown and starting position, tv coverage, ...
That's a valid argument regarding the privateer title (assuming a fair split between works and private entries can be obtained). Not saying I would disagree about the view as such, but my concern is, what integrity the privateer title will have, if it's served for drivers not fighting for top positions in their own class (another assumption that the rumored R5+ won't happen - I'm not supporting that either though)? I.e. (I) the title could easily become somewhat artificial in the eyes of many. I.e. (II) the title wouldn't have the legitimacy that an official FIA/WRC title should have. I.e. (III) would someone truly be interested in a title fight between Pieniazek and Andolfi this year?
Anyway, whatever the title(s) are the R5 drivers will be fighting for in 2019, let's just hope the class will remain as relevant as it has been to this day. And with the new Polo and the obvious resurrection of Citroen together with the challenged reign of terror of Skoda, there's no reason to expect anything else.
I agree, but if there was some new rules for R5 wouldn’t they have told us by now?
Back to the main subject, is Skoda domination really putting anyone off WRC2 at the moment, or is barrier mainly cost? Perhaps the privateer championship should only be contested on let’s say six European WRC events? With WRC2 Pro following same scoring rules as the main WRC competition maybe.
Like they told everything else, the rules, driver lineups, new manufacturer entry. I'm just surprised that calendar get out so early.
All live feature was introduced just before the start of the 2018 season right. So they could be quiet about new rules too and only manufacturers know about them (if the rumours are correct).
I think you read too much into it.
The same specification R5 car ("as mentioned in the paragraph above concerning new WRC-2 pro") will continue to be used in the FIA WRC 2 Championship.
Thats my interpretation. Same cars for sure.
There is nothing new about it. Except Monte Carlo all other events +/- fit inside 350 km already.
There is nothing implicating different rules for WRC2 Pro. You understand it wrong as pointed out by tc10a.
All cases I named are completely clear because those were entered under the manufacturer's name. There is probably no other way how to distiguish them but is that even important? The WRC2 Pro will be for sure much more prestigious and it doesn't make much sense for a manufacturer to use a hidden entry to win the privateer title.
WRC is not ERC. If I want to take part in WRC it means I want to be in WRC. Simple as that.
Such cup would probably didn't attract many competitors. You need to give them something worth fighting for and the WC title is that. Some obscure cup trophy is not.
Still no round in Eastern Europe. Crowds of spectators clearly doesn't make a difference for a sport that is rapidly loosing popularity.
Great job FIA! Couple more years and there will be no WRC.
Time will tell.
I’ve mentioned a cup but it could be called championship or whatever; what I’m trying to say is that there’s no need for a total split in current WRC2 and privateers should still run inside the main series, while having a special competition for them (exactly like E28 inside ERC, which is far from being obscure).
I would agree in this statement. Tsjekkia or Poland would be good.
Japan with maybe two manufacurers would also be good.
I would like to see a rally in North America as well.
Maybe FIA need to revisit the rotation plan
https://www.motorsportforums.com/sho...mp-Max-Moseley
But it is hard to be able to keep a organiser staff in place if they are not in business every year.
How much money is left for organizers on the bottom line, anything?
‘Still’ no round. What a silly comment.
There was a round just last year.
Remember how well that was managed?
For the sake of geography no, there wasn't.
Neither ie Eastern Europe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ctbook.svg.png
This is very much off topic and I apologize to everyone but this picture is so interesting... Putting apart the geographical side your reply and your image show how much different we see ourselves (in Europe at least).
For example, from my perspective (Italy), eastern Europe is everything east of Vien and Berlin and south of Scandinavia. Hell even baltic republics are east Europe for us. The only exception is Greece, Greece is not east but Albania and Macedonia (or should we say north macedonia soon?) are!
I think this is due mainly from the iron courtain which has divided the continent for half a century. Your image is something like a Subregion map of Europe right? Well I can say that it does not show how Europe is perceived by a lot of its inhabitants.
From that point of view instead, your country together with Poland and others is part of "middeleurope" the "Mitteleuropa" which actually has strongest root in the history.
What I also notice is the green for Italy and Greece but I was sure that from other Europe countries we were also in the same club as Spain, Portugal, maybe even France as southern Europe states.
I'm sure that other guys see that even different. That's nice and bad at the same time.
Well, history didn't take just 50 years of iron curtain existence. Central Europe is historically connected mostly with the existence of Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire or Polish-Lithuanian principality and with the fact that these areas were mostly catholic or protestant but not orthodox like most of the Eastern Europe.
PS Just out of curiosity I live 150 km to the west of Vienna, 500 km to the west of Helsinki and 250 km to the west of Taranto.
"Eastern Europe" is such a complex definition that I wouldn't blame anyone for counting Poland or Czech Republic in. It's probably used just as often to merge certain countries into each other than it is for geographical definition.
I thought there had been a decent amount of people in Turkey but after watching the onboards there can't have been more than 2-500 people pr stage apart from city and start of powerstage. That's too little for a country that already had a WRC fanbase from previous years.
Yes but merged on which base? Central European countries have different alphabet, different religions and different culture than Russia, Ukraine, Belarus etc. and the history is not much connected (well, the Polish is - with never ending wars with with their eastern neighbours). We were part of the Warshaw pact for fifty years but that's nearly all out of the last thousand years or so. Now we are all in EU so by the same logic we shall be called Western Europe which is obviously also a nonsense.
Mirek,dont listen what said Allez and AL as something strange.Same thinking for what is East/West Europe is for Greeks too.
As AL said its because the iron curtain countries,all these countries where ''east'' for us.Not correct gegraphically,but its like that at peoples thinking,not all people,but at least for these had lived at these times.
Well I'm Italian as well but I don't share that view, I guess because I've always looked at the continent with a geographical eye. Hell, some people think Europe ends at the Russian border instead of the Ural Mountains.
But yes, many people here see Italy as South or even West Europe, then if you mention Slovenia they say it's East Europe. Then you make them notice that with that view there would be no Central Europe and that East Europe would be two/three times as big as Western Europe.
I guess the "political (outdated) map" is still influencial, but we have to consider that countries are shaped in many different ways so you cannot always place one in a definite region. For example, I've always thought of Poland as Central-East Europe, because it's quite a "large" country.
And I consider a good part of Italy as part as the Mittle Europa, also because of its history... if you look at the Mitropa Rally Cup, they have always multiple rounds in Italy, mainly in North-East but also more South in Casentino.
Well, I also apologise for the OT :D
That's the same as the definition in the UK. Czech Republic is described as Eastern Europe along with Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Austria is 100% Western European though....:eek:
They clearly reference former politics rather than geography.
(UK is a pretty fucked up country though)
I was in Turkey on September. On the Marmaris city stage there were MYRIADS of people. Endless crowd. But in the mountains I saw mostly European fans. In Cicekli we were almost alone. Some policemen in the entrance of the stage were impressed to see us and asked “Who sent you here”?? In Ula I saw mostly Europeans drinking beers and in Datca some Finnish and Estonian people. Service park was so empty the first days you could have discussion with the drivers.
I want Rally Turkey to be in the calendar but Turkish fans need to go to the mountains.