rally NEEDS fierce cars again

Rally will continue to die a slow death until it has cars that looks, sound, and go like this again. Until then, people will continue to not be sufficiently interested in it. After it gets that kind of excitement back, it would become huge again. These things like drifting, gymkana, etc have the thing that rally is missing, and it's about all they have. Combine the "awesomeness" of power and sound of these other cars with what rally already has, and I'm convinced it would see a whole other order of magnitude of success.

I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to make it just as safe as it is now with more careful event organization. There would be more money for that kind of thing, and of course car safety itself is lightyears ahead of where it was during Group B.

Needs FTA or at least accessible coverage for World Rally to survive!

Rally will continue to die a slow death until it has cars that looks, sound, and go like this again. Until then, people will continue to not be sufficiently interested in it. After it gets that kind of excitement back, it would become huge again. These things like drifting, gymkana, etc have the thing that rally is missing, and it's about all they have. Combine the "awesomeness" of power and sound of these other cars with what rally already has, and I'm convinced it would see a whole other order of magnitude of success.

I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to make it just as safe as it is now with more careful event organization. There would be more money for that kind of thing, and of course car safety itself is lightyears ahead of where it was during Group B.

No, cars do not need to go like Group-B cars dead. There was a very good reason the class was put to a halt, folks grew tired of dead drivers.


I think they need to raise the max hp to 350, and try their hardest to get manufactures to join in. Imagine, Merc, Porsche, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, and Rolls Royce out there going for it!

That is like saying that F1 cars should only have a couple hundred horsepower because some drivers died in the 80s.

There is a thing called technology which has transformed safety. And you otherwise seem to basically agree with me. The way to get more manufacturers is by it being more popular. A lot of these things are circular. One thing that is not circular is that everyone would like it if the cars looked, sounded, and went like Group B did. It would only take a couple hundred more hp. I see no reason why they would have to be dangerous.

That is like saying that F1 cars should only have a couple hundred horsepower because some drivers died in the 80s.

There is a thing called technology which has transformed safety. And you otherwise seem to basically agree with me. The way to get more manufacturers is by it being more popular. A lot of these things are circular. One thing that is not circular is that everyone would like it if the cars looked, sounded, and went like Group B did. It would only take a couple hundred more hp. I see no reason why they would have to be dangerous.

F1 cars have a significantly lower amount of hp than they did in the 1980. Also you can't make the comparison, F1 can be made safer as it is on a closed course, ie course design. Rally by its nature can't really be made safer, as it's still run out in the woods, with a lot of stuff to hit.

WRC just needs more drivers in fast cars, a couple of more car makes, decent on-line real-time viewing experience and better coverage on TV both in terms of quality of material and in terms of national broadcasters carrying rally programming. Having a couple of good and charismatic drivers from Germany and UK wouldn't hurt either, nor would a certain formula one star from Finland.

I just stopped watching the time trial stage from the Swedish Rally, and the in-car shots were awesome. Having twice the horsepower would make zero difference to the viewing experience in my opinion - what would help is if the cars were more standard and cheap enough for many more semi-factory teams to have a shot of being competitive. The number of WRC entries in Sweden is already a big step in the right direction and really encouraging. Loeb won't have it as easy as he did in Monte.

Don't get me wrong - I loved to stand in the rain watching the group B monsters flash, whine and bang by when I was a kid, but it just broke my heart when Henry died.

I think they need to raise the max hp to 350, and try their hardest to get manufactures to join in. Imagine, Merc, Porsche, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, and Rolls Royce out there going for it!

wat

wat

No, cars do not need to go like Group-B cars dead. There was a very good reason the class was put to a halt, folks grew tired of dead drivers.


I think they need to raise the max hp to 350, and try their hardest to get manufactures to join in. Imagine, Merc, Porsche, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, and Rolls Royce out there going for it!

Modern rally cars are much quicker than the older ones. They corner at far higher speeds. Safety is the difference not just hp number.

It's true rally has become dull to watch and thus viewing figures are through the floor. Something has to change.

I think it would be exciting to have some of the GT cars adapted to rallying, like the latest Porsche 911 or something.

What makes things like drift, gymkana, and drag racing so popular is the AWE-INSPIRING cars. Sure, the current WRC cars may be as fast as the old cars because they handle better. But the general public doesn't care about them because they are feeble compared to cars you see every day on the street. They are not awe-inspiring. They are locked down and handicapped like kiddie cars. Awe-inspiring is all relative to what you see on the street. Back in the day, an Audisport Quattro was a monster compared to anything on the street. Same with drift, gymkhana, drag racing cars. The people want to see monsters.

If rally cars had 500hp with modern-day handling + modern-day technology, they could be safe while drawing the crowds that other kinds of racing do. In their current form they are not exciting enough to succeed. There is a reason why rally was more popular in the past. That reason is that the cars aren't exciting anymore. They sound like yard-care machines and have the horsepower of mid-price family cars. That doesn't excite the average person enough. It's like if you were to make a movie about superheros (e.g. X-Men), but with strength and weight limits whereby the strongest superhero was roughly comparable to a good badminton player. It would be like having a Miss Universe contest with the contestants required to be no more than average in looks. Yes, you and I like it the way it is because we are connoisseurs (much like pageant connoissuers would still enjoy pageants even with restrictions to only average physical beauty), but sports need broader appeal than that to succeed.

Edited by 2ms, 07 February 2013 - 23:29.

Don't today's WRC cars go faster than Group B's anyway?

Besides, didn't most Group B cars have LESS horspower than today's WRC cars?

Edited by Morbus, 07 February 2013 - 23:44.

Yes, hugely.

And no, hugely.

I think it would be exciting to have some of the GT cars adapted to rallying, like the latest Porsche 911 or something.

There is a GT-class already. Aston Martin, Lotus and Porsche are often seen there. Not allowed to drive World Champ. Events though.

What makes things like drift, gymkana, and drag racing so popular is the AWE-INSPIRING cars. Sure, the current WRC cars may be as fast as the old cars because they handle better. But the general public doesn't care about them because they are feeble compared to cars you see every day on the street. They are not awe-inspiring. They are locked down and handicapped like kiddie cars. Awe-inspiring is all relative to what you see on the street. Back in the day, an Audisport Quattro was a monster compared to anything on the street. Same with drift, gymkhana, drag racing cars. The people want to see monsters.

If rally cars had 500hp with modern-day handling + modern-day technology, they could be safe while drawing the crowds that other kinds of racing do. In their current form they are not exciting enough to succeed. There is a reason why rally was more popular in the past. That reason is that the cars aren't exciting anymore. They sound like yard-care machines and have the horsepower of mid-price family cars. That doesn't excite the average person enough. It's like if you were to make a movie about superheros (e.g. X-Men), but with strength and weight limits whereby the strongest superhero was roughly comparable to a good badminton player. It would be like having a Miss Universe contest with the contestants required to be no more than average in looks. Yes, you and I like it the way it is because we are connoisseurs (much like pageant connoissuers would still enjoy pageants even with restrictions to only average physical beauty), but sports need broader appeal than that to succeed.

They are not inspiring, because they as based on boring cars. You are not able to go to a shop and buy a Citroën DS3 with 4x4 and over 300HP. But you were able to buy Escort Cossies, Imprezas, Lancers that was more in the rally style.

I have no idea what kind of mid-price family cars that are in your country. But the WRC cars does have over 300HP, and they've had that for years. They've always claimed that the last gen. of WRC cars never had more than 300HP's, but reports say that it was closer to 350-375HP's. The new cars have a bit less, but they are also quite a bit lighter.

You wouldn't get much more style with more horsepower.

Don't today's WRC cars go faster than Group B's anyway?

Besides, didn't most Group B cars have LESS horspower than today's WRC cars?

The WRC cars today are faster, they are better in every aspect. However, they have a bit less horsepower.



Personally I think the problem with WRC today, is that it isn't challenging enough. The Rally Monte was challenging. Then all complained. Monte had a stages at night, Acropolis will have it. But that's a rarity. Rally sweden used to have the second they at night only. Rally Safari was long and more enduro-type. Some rallies was long, very long, challenging. Long stages, days that started before sunrise, and ended after the sun had gone down. The drivers looked amazing, when wrestling the stages.
Now, all rallies are somewhat the same. Short "sprint" style rallies. It often looks "easy". I think that's honestly more down to how the rallies are, not the cars. The cars had less HP, and was a lot slower in the 90's, but it was more amazing, it looked harder, thougher.
That's what I think is needed.

Just mandate RWD.

Solved.

Rallying has been under the era of Loeb domination until this year but I don't think that's the reason that people are turned off by it, I think people are right in saying that the cars are uninteresting. The drivers have a fantastic amount of skill, but they are doing it in ds3's and fiestas and whatever else I couldn't care about. And it isn't promoted well. Where can I watch rallying on fta these days? By all accounts I have no idea.

Rallying has been under the era of Loeb domination until this year but I don't think that's the reason that people are turned off by it, I think people are right in saying that the cars are uninteresting. The drivers have a fantastic amount of skill, but they are doing it in ds3's and fiestas and whatever else I couldn't care about. And it isn't promoted well. Where can I watch rallying on fta these days? By all accounts I have no idea.

I know I said RWD, but I saw some footage of Colin McRae in his Impreza the other day, and he was spectacular enough. But that might have been mainly him. And the GpB cars weren't dull.

On the other hand, RWD would keep it spectacular while keeping speeds (slightly) under control. And the cars would look better too.

As for keeping the cars road-relevant for marketing, the manufacturers can sod off. Nobody cares who wins now, so it couldn't be any worse.

Edit to say - there are bits of rallying on various free Sky channels, but you need Sky. And you need a TV licence. I don't really accept the concept of FTA in the UK.

Edited by oetzi, 08 February 2013 - 00:33.

Personally I think the problem with WRC today, is that it isn't challenging enough. The Rally Monte was challenging. Then all complained. Monte had a stages at night, Acropolis will have it. But that's a rarity. Rally sweden used to have the second they at night only. Rally Safari was long and more enduro-type. Some rallies was long, very long, challenging. Long stages, days that started before sunrise, and ended after the sun had gone down. The drivers looked amazing, when wrestling the stages.
Now, all rallies are somewhat the same. Short "sprint" style rallies. It often looks "easy". I think that's honestly more down to how the rallies are, not the cars. The cars had less HP, and was a lot slower in the 90's, but it was more amazing, it looked harder, thougher.
That's what I think is needed.

I think 90s rally survived in the wake of Group B. By the time we get to the late 00s the Group B is nothing but a distant memory for a different generation. Certainly the Mcrae era helped boost popularity through sheer force of personality.

I think motorsport is general is having a bit of an identity crisis. What really is it for, especially in the modern era? It has very little relevance anymore as a technological development aid. WRC especially. the 80s proved it could be a truly spectacular sporting event. The Group B era really was something else. The cars looked and sounded amazing. As a punter all you want from spectating rally is spectacular cars that look amazing to drive. As soon as a motorsport loses it's spectator appeal the business model changes from keeping the spectators happy (via great cars and real pro-drivers) to keeping the drivers (who are fast becoming customers) happy. Unfortunately the drivers don't really want to be driving round in crazy mental cars, they on the whole want comfort and ease. That's why WRC is pretty appalling to watch. It's not a spectator sport anymore.

If you want spectators back it needs to be spectacular... (and that doesn't mean uber-dangerous btw)

If you want spectators back it needs to be spectacular

200 horses, severe diet, RWD. Sorted.

I say that, but I'd go to a 1985 stage tomorrow.

Rally will continue to die a slow death until it has cars that looks, sound, and go like this again. Until then, people will continue to not be sufficiently interested in it. After it gets that kind of excitement back, it would become huge again. These things like drifting, gymkana, etc have the thing that rally is missing, and it's about all they have. Combine the "awesomeness" of power and sound of these other cars with what rally already has, and I'm convinced it would see a whole other order of magnitude of success.

I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to make it just as safe as it is now with more careful event organization. There would be more money for that kind of thing, and of course car safety itself is lightyears ahead of where it was during Group B.

For once, we may have a reason to be hopeful. The days of 600hp killer-B's can't return; however, rally could return to an era with interesting engines and better noises by switching from air-restrictors to fuel-flow-restriction. LMP1 and F1 will be switching to FFL in 2014. If successful, it could be adopted by a wide variety of series.

If they use the LMP1 fuel-flow-restriction rules, the manufacturers could use a wider variety of engine formats. I think the FIA would probably cap displacement at 1.6L, but engines, like BMW's 1.5L 3-cylinder, would still be legal. VW could run a 1.4T, since that's what they sell. Peak horsepower would probably be reduced slightly to 300hp, but it wouldn't matter b/c thermal efficiency would improve over time (boosting hp), and the cars would have much wider spread of power.

Ditching the air restrictors should help improve the engine note. I'd also be ecstatic if they went back to dog-leg 5-speeds. The rapid fire sequential boxes don't interest me.

Edited by phoenix101, 08 February 2013 - 01:14.

I think 90s rally survived in the wake of Group B. By the time we get to the late 00s the Group B is nothing but a distant memory for a different generation. Certainly the Mcrae era helped boost popularity through sheer force of personality.

I think motorsport is general is having a bit of an identity crisis. What really is it for, especially in the modern era? It has very little relevance anymore as a technological development aid. WRC especially. the 80s proved it could be a truly spectacular sporting event. The Group B era really was something else. The cars looked and sounded amazing. As a punter all you want from spectating rally is spectacular cars that look amazing to drive. As soon as a motorsport loses it's spectator appeal the business model changes from keeping the spectators happy (via great cars and real pro-drivers) to keeping the drivers (who are fast becoming customers) happy. Unfortunately the drivers don't really want to be driving round in crazy mental cars, they on the whole want comfort and ease. That's why WRC is pretty appalling to watch. It's not a spectator sport anymore.

If you want spectators back it needs to be spectacular... (and that doesn't mean uber-dangerous btw)

The spectacular part of racing is the driving. Racing went to hell when the manufacturers started controlling the throttle, braking, and shifting for the driver. In all forms of motorsport, other than long-distance prototype racing, which has never really been about visually spectacular driving skills, driving aids need to be banned. No more traction control, ABS, e-diffs, adaptive throttle maps, semi-auto paddles or gear-banging dogboxes.

Racing is about the relationship between man and machine. It's not about looking fly in your racing-suit while the techies drive the car by proxy.

Dropping S2000 format as a base for new WRC was a mistake in my opinion. Just pure atmosphere of hearing that high sprung wail of NA engine made my mind when I heard them for the first time (not live). Today we have these turbo machines that are so dull, booo-boooo-baaaa-wastegateflutter-booo-baaaaa... Does not excite viewer or rally fans at all. With NA format you could clearly hear when driver had the balls to go flatout over particular crest or corner, instead of just stamping on throttle,braking slightly and waiting for the diff to do the trick.

Why couldn't we have mechanical diffs, manual gearbox and S2000 engines, how come that could be more costly than current format that we have? We could have all those early S2000 cars on current calendar for sure.

I know that Group B format isnt never for us again, it is just too costly. I did not have the opportunity to share excitment or thrills of being there on the forrest of 80's era and I do envy you the fans that could live that moment and time.

Today we have WRC at the top, new turbo cars trying to beat S2000 cars and **** loads of classes below those. Why can't we go to the lower steps and call that WRC? Lets forget current WRC formula and let the competitors (multiple instead of just two) decide if they would like to spend 500k to million per car for WRC.

Im out, steaming my hatred towards current format.

What makes things like drift, gymkana, and drag racing so popular is the AWE-INSPIRING cars.

These disciplines aren't nearly as popular as rallying. We regularly lose rally stages because there are too many spectators (and usually in the wrong places). The average major rally (not even necessarily a WRC round) will have as many spectators on any one stage than drift events have in total.

If there was any TV coverage of WRC, we could SEE how popular it still is...

the cars just kept getting smaller (or based on smaller models) and more tedious, one driver would by default win most events + title, the tyres and cars became ever more drive straight to be fast, and made for tv formatting ruined the sense of adventure.

watch baja style, or rally raid.

trophy trucks are 800hp, rwd, ~1meter suspension travel monsters. only significant performance limiter is a 4 speed gearbox and a solid rear axle.

They are not inspiring, because they as based on boring cars. You are not able to go to a shop and buy a Citroën DS3 with 4x4 and over 300HP. But you were able to buy Escort Cossies, Imprezas, Lancers that was more in the rally style.

This guy gets it. We might as well be watching dune buggies for all the relevance the current WRC cars have to modern road cars. Remember the Evo, the Legacy/WRX, the Intergrale, the Celica, the Cosworth, the Quattro? You could watch em on gravel on Saturday/Sunday and buy one on Monday. Now, JCW Mini and the uber-money Golf aside, you'd have to pay for a car to be fabricated to get even close to the same experience you got from a Delta or a Cossie/Celica, etc.

They are not inspiring, because they as based on boring cars. You are not able to go to a shop and buy a Citroën DS3 with 4x4 and over 300HP. But you were able to buy Escort Cossies, Imprezas, Lancers that was more in the rally style.

This guy gets it. We might as well be watching dune buggies for all the relevance the current WRC cars have to modern road cars. Remember the Evo, the Legacy/WRX, the Intergrale, the Celica, the Cosworth, the Quattro? You could watch em on gravel on Saturday/Sunday and buy one on Monday. Now, JCW Mini and the uber-money Golf aside, you'd have to pay for a car to be fabricated to get even close to the same experience you got from a Delta or a Cossie/Celica, etc.

This guy gets it. We might as well be watching dune buggies for all the relevance the current WRC cars have to modern road cars. Remember the Evo, the Legacy/WRX, the Intergrale, the Celica, the Cosworth, the Quattro? You could watch em on gravel on Saturday/Sunday and buy one on Monday. Now, JCW Mini and the uber-money Golf aside, you'd have to pay for a car to be fabricated to get even close to the same experience you got from a Delta or a Cossie/Celica, etc.

Totally agree. I used to love the Group A regulations. Watch souped up versions of the homologation specials on the weekend, drive the road version during the week. Marketing worked on me. I've owned two GT4s and two Evos.

The silliest thing was they changed to the WRCars to reduce costs for manufacturers to enter the sport. How much have PSA spent over the last 10 years to dominate the sport?

Couldn't care less about the current cars because I can't buy one.

Edited by BCM, 08 February 2013 - 23:37.

The problem with group A was that it was huge gamble for the car companies to make a large number of the civilian versions and it would be an even bigger gamble now with the ever increasing number of safety and emissions regs for passenger cars. Some were commercial successes, most weren't even back then. Rally is no longer the marketing platform it once was, so I doubt any car company would participate with those rules in today's economy.

My ideal WRC would allow building of a competitive WRC machine from any suitably sized car in half a year with further testing largely a waste of money in terms of increasing pace. All cars would be mechanically largely identical with very limited electronics and only a couple of approved suppliers for every go-faster part. Only bodies and hence also roll cages would differ, with high enough min weight to allow many kinds of body types. Tyres and crew sizes would be limited too. Drivers would make the difference.

The cars are plenty fast enough, but they just look too small. I personally would have preferred the next size up (i.e. the previous generation), as the current just remind me of small city roundabouts (sorry). I guess, 20 years ago, this might have worked for me, but now, my preferences seem to gravitate towards 'can my kids fit in the back plus luggage' :-) since I would consider buying a souped up version as a daily driver (the Focus was perfect for my needs right now).

To me, what the WRC needs are more competitive numbers - at least 4-5 different brands with drivers to match that can win on any given rally. This year, it's a good start, and a real pity Loeb is not racing full time, since it looks like VW means the business. Since Hyundai seems to be on it's way, all it needs is a Japanese manufacturer, and they pretty much have the entire car industry covered.

I know this may sound harsh but i blame the recent downfall of WRC on Loeb. The guy is either to damm good or his competitors just aren't good enough. Domination in a sport never produces excitement or new fans. WRC in the UK is suffering because of lack of top placed British driver and a lack of easily accessible coverage. I would be hard placed to know where WRC is now on TV and when.

Rallying doesn't need fierce cars, it needs accessibility and money to survive.

I remember going to the Wales rally years ago and loving it compared to visiting GPs it is on another level that should shame most F1 promoters.

If I wanted to watch Fiestas and Polos, I'll pop up tesco.

The cars the star. And there is no star.

They need to make the cars look lively to drive.

So much technology in the car they look like they are on rails. And its boring.

Get some decent media coverage and you are done. The cars sound good, the driving is spectacular and the setting is stunning for most events. They need a full-DS internet live stream asap, as least as long as there iot sufficent TV coverage available.

If I wanted to watch Fiestas and Polos, I'll pop up tesco.

The cars the star. And there is no star.

Everything else about the racing itself is basically as good as ever. The difference is that the cars are little economy machines powered by remote control airplane engines (and sound like). Average joe (i.e. the general populace) watches car racing to see awesome cars. It may not be 100% of it but it is at least 50%. Currently, the cars seem pathetic to average joe. Therefore, he is not excited and couldn't be bothered to watch. Therefore there is not much market. Therefore there is not a business case for showing the races widely. Therefore even fewer people even get to taste the sport. It's a giant prescription for failure. In today's market, a sport cannot survive operating at 70% of its potential. They need to get awe-inspiring cars back or it's just going to be more slow death.

So much technology in the car they look like they are on rails. And its boring.

And yet you're watching F1 ?

And yet you're watching F1 ?

To be honest I think that the majority of people posting here haven't even watched a rally in the last couple of years.

If they had they would realise that the modern cars do not drive as if on rails, are exciting to watch and sound good.......

To be honest I think that the majority of people posting here haven't even watched a rally in the last couple of years.

If they had they would realise that the modern cars do not drive as if on rails, are exciting to watch and sound good.......

Having seen these new-spec WRC in person a couple of times I think they don't lack either excitement or sound. There are problems with rallying but cars are not one of them.

Edited by skywing, 10 February 2013 - 16:04.

Modern WRC cars are certainly the state of the allowed art and personally I think they look great on the tracks even if they lack the fancy central diff.

Edited by H2H, 10 February 2013 - 16:55.

Having seen these new-spec WRC in person a couple of times I think they don't lack either excitement or sound. There are problems with rallying but cars are not one of them.

I know.

Dreaming of a return to Group B or even Group A is just that - Dreaming
The main reason those cars were exciting to watch was because the suspension didnt work, the tyres were crap, the diffs were ineffective & they didnt turn in. In short, all they had was power. The teams arent going to forget everything they've learned in the last 20 years. The Group A cars that replaced Group B may have had less than half the power of a Group B car but it took less than 12 months to start covering the same stages faster.
As I said in a previous thread like this one - A Group B car in proper period spec - 1985 tyres/suspension/gearbox/diffs/ECU etc, would be slower over a stage than a modern day R2 car (Like those used in the WRC Academy).
Group B levels of power would be suicidal for the drivers and spectators, although maybe not for people that dont go to watch rallies but just watch the odd youtube video and post on the Autosport Forum.

It would be a bit like F1 running to 1977 rules now........

Just to be clear. I am not saying that I think the trick to rally being more popular/successful would be for the cars to achieve faster times. I am saying that the trick to it being more successful would be for the cars to be more awe-inspiring.

Things like this should be the greatest marketing in the history of autosport. Put a solid enough driver in a little car with 4wd and 650hp, and average joe is spell-bound, clicking on it 40 million+ times. To him, there's nothing else like it in the world. 0-60 in 1.8 seconds. That's insane to average joe. Five times as much power as his own car -- it's from an alternate reality. A car like that seems like is unstoppable, exploding with power, you can throw it into any kind of disaster and it just claws out and keeps goings. Tens of millions of people are clicking away to see these kinds of cars. But when the clip is over, there's nothing else but old Group B videos. WRC is a complete joke in comparison (to average joe). Average joe knows people himself with cars that would blow the doors off a WRC car in any of the mainstream performance measures. Yes WRC drivers are the best in the world and WRC is awesome to you and me. But for average joe the star is the car and to him WRC is impotent.

We can be elitists and keep telling ourselves that we know the truth which is that WRC and all our other favorite racing is the greatest in the world. But meanwhile our lunches get eaten by Nascar, drag racing, etc. I just don't see why WRC should do without the thing that makes all these others sports so popular. We should be showing them how much better their sports could be with more technology and better drivers. Instead, we're dying ascetics.

I know.

Dreaming of a return to Group B or even Group A is just that - Dreaming

Why is Group A impossible? If anything, the FIA are moving closer to Group A with each series of rules changes. If the FIA require the manufacturers to build 1500 (or whatever the Group A homologation quantity) 4wd homologation specials, we'd basically have Group A racing again.

Why is Group A impossible? If anything, the FIA are moving closer to Group A with each series of rules changes. If the FIA require the manufacturers to build 1500 (or whatever the Group A homologation quantity) 4wd homologation specials, we'd basically have Group A racing again.

But the manufacturers don't want to build homologation specials - that was why the wrc rules were originally formulated.
Touring cars gave up on the concept about 30 years ago.
Sports cars over 40 years ago.
It does not work!

Rails, low horsepower... I don't know what kind of rally are you talking about.

Watch this Video!

Just to be clear. I am not saying that I think the trick to rally being more popular/successful would be for the cars to achieve faster times. I am saying that the trick to it being more successful would be for the cars to be more awe-inspiring.

Things like this should be the greatest marketing in the history of autosport. Put a solid enough driver in a little car with 4wd and 650hp, and average joe is spell-bound

Did you even read my post?

Another 300 bhp would be mental. Why not give F1 cars 2000bhp?

And average Joe is probably a bit ******** if he thinks his road car can do this.......

Did you even read my post?

Another 300 bhp would be mental. Why not give F1 cars 2000bhp?

And average Joe is probably a bit ******** if he thinks his road car can do this.......

F1 cars don't need 2000bhp because they already have twice as much bhp as common performance street cars. WRC cars have LESS bhp than common sports cars.

But the manufacturers don't want to build homologation specials - that was why the wrc rules were originally formulated.
Touring cars gave up on the concept about 30 years ago.
Sports cars over 40 years ago.
It does not work!

I don't know that homologation is the answer. I don't know either way. I just think the cars need to be about twice as "awesome" as they are now, and that half of us wouldn't even have ever gotten into rally if it hadn't been for the images that got etched into our brain and into rally culture during the Group B era. Even 25 years later people still think of those crazy machines bristling with wings and emitting sounds from a different galaxy when they think of rally. They don't think of Polos that sound like angry bees puttering around with less bhp than cars that their neighbor's wife drives to the store every day. Fir the record, it's not as if eliminating homologation has been some kind of recipe for success. Look at all the series where they've done that. Has the number that has been successful even matched the number that have gone further down hill?

There is absolutely nothing on the street that will keep up with a WRC car in the environment a WRC car is designed for. Absolutely nothing. Give another 300 hp to WRC cars and you'll see cars flying into trees and off cliffs. You don't need every stage to be Pike's peak...
The WRC cars are already way faster than Group B days significantly. Give them another 300 hp and they'll be averaging ridiculous speeds over the course, recipe for disaster. Just crazy

It's like saying Isle of Man TT bikes don't have enough power. Let's give them another 50 hp...

Who cares about what the average Joe thinks their street car can beat a WRC car... Lol.

WRC cars have 2-3 times the torque of common sports cars. Think about that

Things like this should be the greatest marketing in the history of autosport.

If you listen to Ken Block talk about the Gymkhana series, he says the key to success is emphasizing driver skill, not the car. WRC fails b/c driver skill is not emphasized beyond the stage times, and the cameras cannot capture the tiny nuances that make fast driving skillful. Really, the skill can only be seen in the data, which the teams refuse to share for obvious reasons.

Why is it that 300hp Group A rally cars and 350hp Porsche Cup cars were once spectacular, but now they drone endlessly, without much interest from the general public? The driving has been dumbed-down. The engineers have built incredible components, and the organizers have allowed certain engineering solutions that take the skill out of driving. The modern dual clutch paddles and dog box sequentials basically make driving a two-pedal affair. The suspension and steering has gotten so good that the drivers get very little feedback through the steering wheel, which allows rally drivers to drive with one hand on the wheel and one hand on the shift lever. The well-sorted suspension stops modern race cars from lifting the inside front wheel. In the case of circuit racing, the tracks have been paved to billiard table perfection.

In this environment, the only way to emphasize driver skill is with the sort of pantomime you've referenced--200% more horsepower than the tires can handle and decibel levels that make fighter jets sound like they're whispering at take off. However, WRC is not going to benefit in any measurable way from pantomime drama. In the era of fuel efficiency and respect for the peace and quiet of ordinary citizens, flame-throwing 650hp cars are not particularly good business. WRC will be much better off if the FIA continue restricting technological solutions that dilute the driving skill. Clutchless dogboxes need to be discarded. The tires need to be re-balanced with the power so people can see how much power the cars actually have. Some suspension systems may need to go.

The cars will be more spectacular, and more affordable, which will widen racing's appeal on both counts.