S2000 & Group N, The future of rallying? - Page 4

cut the b.s.

Originally Posted by Leon
If we consider Formula 1 then propably the answer to attract more manufacturers lays on the value of the WRC for the manufacturers in terms of promotion and return on their investment and not lets say the costs or the number of events. In F1 only one team/manufacture wins every year but we do not see the other manufactures who loose consistently leaving the series because the association of a manufacturer with f1 is more valuable than the win of a championship.

my opinion.

It would appear Toyota share your opinion

AndyRAC

At the moment the promotion of the WRC isn't good, can't say I've seen many adverts from Ford promoting their 2006/07 Manufacturers success. TV and media coverage is pathetic, well in UK it is.

AndyRAC

Originally Posted by cut the b.s.
It would appear Toyota share your opinion

Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.

L5->R5/CR

Originally Posted by AndyRAC
While I know what you mean, I think there's a greater chance of more Manufacturers coming in and joining if the cars are cheaper and easier to produce, obviously there's no guarantee, but the current situation is no good. Something had to be done, it's a case of wait and see

Lets not kid ourselves though.

Every WRC formula change has been to allow manufacturers to either A) enter due to an obstacle or B) show case a level/type of technology.

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

Cutting the costs of the WRC is a fools errand if they think it will bring in more teams/make more teams competitive. Ultimately spending money does not equate to success but at the same time teams that have more money will be able to pursue competitive advantages that other teams cannot.

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

c4

Citroen are backing S2000 according to Autosport. Sources state they see formula as workable. Xavier Mestelan-Pinon seems less enthused:
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/...exclusive.html

A.F.F.

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR
Lets not kid ourselves though.

Every WRC formula change has been to allow manufacturers to either A) enter due to an obstacle or B) show case a level/type of technology.

It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

Cutting the costs of the WRC is a fools errand if they think it will bring in more teams/make more teams competitive. Ultimately spending money does not equate to success but at the same time teams that have more money will be able to pursue competitive advantages that other teams cannot.

The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

This is probably all true, but there's one minor thing coming with the change of rules. For one little moment, the table is clean for everybody. Pretty much like with group-A.

BDunnell

A very good post, L5->R5/CR. A few points from me...

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR
It is inevitable that after a few years of whatever the change becomes that teams will start spending more while other teams feel the costs are too high/ the return on their investment is too low.

If a team has the budget to spend $65 million a year, does anyone honestly think that if there are meaningful regulations that limit costs so that same team only has to spend say $55 million a year that they will give back the other $10 million and not use it to look for a competitive advantage?

I feel that restricting the amounts of money that teams/manufacturers can spend on any form of motorsport is pointless and unenforceable. There will always be 'haves and have-nots'. However, it is surely within the power of the FIA, via the technical regulations and their enforcement, to retain a more level playing field than has previously been the case?

I say this with my mind on Group A again. A.F.F.'s last post refers to the table having been 'clean for everybody' when Group A rules were adopted in 1987. That season was really excellent, as far as I'm concerned, yet what happened? Gradually, the front-running cars drifted away from the original concept of Group A, to the point where the World Rally Car rules were deemed necessary. Of course, it was a natural progression as knowledge and technology developed, but nonetheless I would be very interested to find out whether every rule of Group A was upheld with absolute strictness by the FIA. S2000 rules would seem to offer less scope for such development, and I don't have a problem with this, because to me the technological exercise is far less important than the quality of competition between drivers on the special stage (or racetrack).

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR
The way forward for the WRC is not to just change the formula of the cars or reduce the number of events. While reduced costs will permit smaller teams to enter it doesn't mean the quality of the entrants or of the rallying will go up. Instead the way forward is to once again make the WRC valuable and a good investment for teams.

Teams will be willing to spend/secure the funding for any level of budget that is required as long as there is a corresponding value to said budget that makes securing that funding possible. It is backwards to work on lowering the amount of money needed instead of increasing the amount of value offered. S2000, WRCar, S2000+, Group N4, or whatever they come up with might be part of the solution but they won't be the solution in their own right and understanding/embracing that is key to moving forward for the WRC.

All very true, but there are so many different ideas as to how to make that extra progression, and about what is best for the WRC, that it's difficult to know where to start!

M5

Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.

If the swede had not had his dream of F1, and TOYOTA had stayed in Rally I am pretty sure they had had better publicity and sold more cars (that hopefully is their aim) than they do spending most, and getting nowhere !!!

Maybe next year !! (without Schumacher Jr !!!)

Tip off: Send a couple old WRC engineers to help out in the development of the Auris, and play both horses !!

c4

[quote=BDunnell;401887].
I say this with my mind on Group A again. A.F.F.'s last post refers to the table having been 'clean for everybody' when Group A rules were adopted in 1987. That season was really excellent, as far as I'm concerned, yet what happened? Gradually, the front-running cars drifted away from the original concept of Group A, to the point where the World Rally Car rules

Unfortnately 1987 was not excellent imo, rules suited Lancia who were way ahead on development and no one else had a chance that year. FISA's decision with group A was knee jerk and political (remember Peugeot tried to sue FISA for banning group B), but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

BDunnell

Originally Posted by c4
Unfortnately 1987 was not excellent imo, rules suited Lancia who were way ahead on development and no one else had a chance that year.

I think some of the most entertaining rallies of the last 20 years took place in 1987. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Swedish, Portuguese, 1000 Lakes and RAC rallies that year were really quite outstanding, highly competitive affairs — and Portugal, in my view, witnessed one of the outstanding WRC performances of all time thanks to Jean Ragnotti. What I would give to see a bit of that magic again in the championship.

Lancia deserved to win in 1987, because it wasn't as if other manufacturers couldn't have done the same. Mazda tried, and had long enough to prepare, but simply didn't do as good a job. Others either went with what they had, or thought they could get away without spending a lot on development. It worked for the likes of Renault and Ford in 1987, but no longer than that.

Originally Posted by c4
FISA's decision with group A was knee jerk and political (remember Peugeot tried to sue FISA for banning group B), but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

I think there is such a range of views regarding the banning of Group B that it will be impossible to resolve the matter here. Suffice to say, I think the circumstances in 1986 were so exceptional that on that occasion FISA can be forgiven for a knee-jerk reaction, and I hope those circumstances never arise again as part of the authorities' deliberations on the technical regulations.

L5->R5/CR

Originally Posted by BDunnell
I feel that restricting the amounts of money that teams/manufacturers can spend on any form of motorsport is pointless and unenforceable. There will always be 'haves and have-nots'. However, it is surely within the power of the FIA, via the technical regulations and their enforcement, to retain a more level playing field than has previously been the case?

How do yo limit costs more?

The cars arguably only consume maybe 10-20% of the budget, tops. The rest of the costs come from running events and the tangibles, like hospitality staff, testing, weather crews, and so on.

If you restrict testing, more affluent teams will build private test tracks and facilities and spend money building different roads and surfaces to mimic rallies at their bases.

If you restrict tires, teams will spend more money on tire testing and weather and stage conditions staff to perfect their tire choice.

If you restrict the mechanics teams will just put more time and effort (and money) in to designing their cars to be easier to work on.

At some point the rules have to accept that money will be spent, you can't stop it.

A.F.F.

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR
How do yo limit costs more?

The cars arguably only consume maybe 10-20% of the budget, tops. The rest of the costs come from running events and the tangibles, like hospitality staff, testing, weather crews, and so on.

If you restrict testing, more affluent teams will build private test tracks and facilities and spend money building different roads and surfaces to mimic rallies at their bases.

If you restrict tires, teams will spend more money on tire testing and weather and stage conditions staff to perfect their tire choice.

If you restrict the mechanics teams will just put more time and effort (and money) in to designing their cars to be easier to work on.

At some point the rules have to accept that money will be spent, you can't stop it.

I personally don't think it's a matter of spending money. I think it's a matter of worth spending money. A manufacturer joining now, like Suzuki, has a serious lead to catch from the two top contendors, Ford and Citroen. Their budget is way up there, not to mention their development of the car and the team. I can understand why WRC doesn't sound very appealing to new factory.

What I meant with the clean table was that I hope it'll encourages new manufacturers to join in as they supposely don't feel the gap too big. And, more importantly, should they have success, they'll stick to rallying and surprise surprise, are willing to spend more money. Now there's absolutely no point.

Fiat chose another strategy and they're heading to much criticized IRC with two car team with promising young driver(s)

. They are at least getting publicity their money's worth.

Donney

Originally Posted by c4
but ironically the formula levelled out by the early to mid 90s due to being based on mass production cars and technology being simpler.

To me being this the key point of the S2000 formula, which hopefully will level the field again and provide with something like we had in the mentioned early 90's.

L5->R5/CR

Originally Posted by A.F.F.
I personally don't think it's a matter of spending money. I think it's a matter of worth spending money.

We agree here

Originally Posted by A.F.F.
A manufacturer joining now, like Suzuki, has a serious lead to catch from the two top contendors, Ford and Citroen. Their budget is way up there, not to mention their development of the car and the team. I can understand why WRC doesn't sound very appealing to new factory.

What I meant with the clean table was that I hope it'll encourages new manufacturers to join in as they supposely don't feel the gap too big. And, more importantly, should they have success, they'll stick to rallying and surprise surprise, are willing to spend more money. Now there's absolutely no point.

Fiat chose another strategy and they're heading to much criticized IRC with two car team with promising young driver(s)

. They are at least getting publicity their money's worth.

I understand your argument (I don't disagree with it either for whatever that is worth).

I would simply offer this thought.

Would it be doing right by the teams that are heavily committed to rallying to have the rules makers go, new teams want in but you guys have too much of an advantage with your cars so we are going to radically change the technical rules so the new team has a chance as everybody starts from scratch.

Being competitive in a world championship isn't supposed to be easy or cheap, is it fair to make it easier for new teams to be competitive at the expense of the existing teams investment?

Dilek

Here is some news about Skoda..Michael Jernberg's rallycross car like a S2000

but news is swedish..

http://www.skoda.se/page_3376.shtml
http://www.jernberg-motorsport.se/

Mirek Fric [Cze]

Dilek: Rallycross cars are completely different to rally cars. It is only marketing. The car would be probably his old Fabia with new bodyshell (the image is repainted official image of Geneve Blue car).

Dilek

Yes.I know this Mirek Fric[cze]..Only I don't understand the news..And want to share..

A.F.F.

Originally Posted by L5->R5/CR
I would simply offer this thought.

Would it be doing right by the teams that are heavily committed to rallying to have the rules makers go, new teams want in but you guys have too much of an advantage with your cars so we are going to radically change the technical rules so the new team has a chance as everybody starts from scratch.

Being competitive in a world championship isn't supposed to be easy or cheap, is it fair to make it easier for new teams to be competitive at the expense of the existing teams investment?

Exactly. That is the conflict here.

It sounds really unfair and unsportsman-like to the ones like Ford and Citroen now.

But the public wants entertaiment, just like in Colosseum. So, are we ready to throw them to the lions just because we want better and more exciting rallying ???

Damn right we are.

On serious note, the only, even remotely fair way to "clean the table", is to give clear change of rules with long term schedule. I personally don't think there are any good and equal ways to do this. FIA just has to pick the one which is least damaging.

Lousada

Originally Posted by Mirek Fric [Cze]
Dilek: Rallycross cars are completely different to rally cars. It is only marketing. The car would be probably his old Fabia with new bodyshell (the image is repainted official image of Geneve Blue car).

Michael Jernberg always drove Ford. This car will be completely new. For the rest I agree. "Based on the S2000 car", does anything more than a drawing excist for the Skoda Fabia S2000????

Rover V8

Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Shows the worth of competing ( or in Toyota's case not competing) in F1 and finish nearer last than winning in WRC.

but how long will they carry on? Toyota aren't in F1 for the love of the sport, they're in it because their marketing department thinks the investment is worthwhile to help sell Corollas- If they carry on being uncompetitive, how long before some guy in an office in Japan looks at the figures and asks exactly why they're spending enough money to fight a small war to give the world the impression that they're not quite as good as Renault, BMW or whoever is curently beating them at the time?

Right now, the marketing value of F1 is worth the cost- as soon as it stops being- and it will- then there will be manufacturers looking to find somewhere they can spend less money and still get the marketing result they want. If WRC can bring down costs, and make itself more promotable, then it may benefit in the long term. You only need to look at the history of touring cars and sportscar racing over the last 20 years to see how these things turn around- in the late 80's there were half-a-dozen manufacturers in sportscars, and 9 or 10 in the BTCC in the mid-90's- or the manufacturers who've come and gone from the WRC for that matter.

If S2000 brings the depth of competition back, then I'm all for it