rally NEEDS fierce cars again

Pheonix101 puts it well.

While the drivers, well some of them, have undeniable skill it's not something you can really observe as a punter. The Group B days you had guys heel toeing etc... You could see that the intensity level just to drive one was massive, let alone go fast.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the TT is gaining popularity. it's OF the people. It's driven BY the fans. It's a pure adrenalin rush for the casual observer. You don't have to be educated to understand it.... for rally you kinda have to be. And that goes for 99% of motorsport nowadays. It's like one big identity crisis. As technology improves we see more and more spectators being alienated. Look what nonsense F1 has had to create to keep up public interest... and that's the #1 motorsport in the world.

Don't leave out the cost factor. Group B cars were quite expensive, mainly because they built comparatively few cars.

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.

Well none of my neighbours wives (or the husbands for that matter) drive around in 350bhp road cars

Pheonix101 puts it well.
While the drivers, well some of them, have undeniable skill it's not something you can really observe as a punter. The Group B days you had guys heel toeing etc... You could see that the intensity level just to drive one was massive, let alone go fast.

I see your point.
Not much sign of driving skill here.
Come to think of it, just about any of my neighbours cars could cover this stage faster too!

Just a typical spin to the shops for my aunt Mary.....

Edited by kosmic33, 10 February 2013 - 21:42.

Don't leave out the cost factor. Group B cars were quite expensive, mainly because they built comparatively few cars.

This does not make sense.
The 200 homologation specials cost a fortune to produce but the real expense was in running the cars and trying to make them and keep them reliable.
If fact, the factors that I claimed would make Group B type cars suicidally fast now were the main costs back in the day because of their inferiority - tyres lasted 1 stage, suspension routinely failed, brake discs and pads struggled to last 1 loop of stages, turbos were replaced at least once a day (every service on a ford escort cosworth!!!). A friend has a couple of Group B cars and they still struggle to make them anything like reliable!

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!

Making a blanket statement like "it does not work!" is pointless, and it undermines the entire argument. Whether or not homologation specials work has everything to do with the quantity that must be built, the need to earn road-going certification (or lack of road-going certification), and the number of modifications allowable after homologation.

For instance, the homologation quantity for many Group R cars is the same as Group A. The difference is that the rulebook allows liberal modifications to the track, suspension geometry, and four-wheel-drive conversions. The manufacturers do not have to include these modifications on a stock, road-certified machine; therefore, road-going homologation specials are not built. However, modification rules are designed such that the race cars can be sold on the open market, which means the race cars basically function as homologation specials, unlike the WRC cars of the past.

The currency rules are designed to be very friendly to the manufacturers to maximize their participation. It is not inconceivable that a small number of manufacturers will want to reclaim the sport for themselves. By clipping the 4wd modifications from the rulebook, a small group of 3 or 4 could easily seize control of WRC, and homologation specials would be a reality. I do not necessarily see this situation playing out in the near future, but I hope everyone understands the futility of a generalization, like "it does not work".

Those cars are fierce, even Kimi couldnt jump in and run away with it.

Making a blanket statement like "it does not work!" is pointless, and it undermines the entire argument. Whether or not homologation specials work has everything to do with the quantity that must be built, the need to earn road-going certification (or lack of road-going certification), and the number of modifications allowable after homologation.

For instance, the homologation quantity for many Group R cars is the same as Group A. The difference is that the rulebook allows liberal modifications to the track, suspension geometry, and four-wheel-drive conversions. The manufacturers do not have to include these modifications on a stock, road-certified machine; therefore, road-going homologation specials are not built.

You do realise you just described World Rally Cars as they have been rallied since the demise of Group A???

It doesn't matter what forum it is, this kind of discussion always crops up.

Most of the time it's from the general Motorsport fan, and not the Rally followers.
Go to a live WRC event, and I can assure you that the spectacle is fantastic. The sheer speed and commitment of the top boys is awesome! What is needed are another few more Manufacturers and seats for more top drivers; imagine having 10-15 Factory seats, it would be great.

However, this spectacle doesn't seem to be translating very well to the general sports/Motorsports fan. And, they are the people the sport needs. The answer, well, I'm not sure. Ideally, you'd have more power than grip, but is that what the Manufacturers want?
Should the sport be more road relevant? That would mean small capacity turbo charged engines, with 2WD.

GroupB and Homologation specials are not coming back, so please, no talk of them.

The only thing I would prescribe for current top-level rally cars is more ludicrous bodywork. It doesn't have to be aerodynamically beneficial, but bigger wings and wider cars with massive flared arches that create the 'look' of the Group B era would be a much better visual draw for spectators and tv audiences than currently.

No-one except rallying/motorsport enthusiasts can find anything really interesting to say about the aesthetics of current WRC cars. They're small hatchbacks with mild aero packages and a slightly wider track. Now even as a hot hatch lover I'm not enamoured with these cars, but I am a big fan of the larger cars of yesteryear like the old Impreza coupe, the Celica etc.

Look how DTM cars, whilst still looking related to their 'parent' cars, are wildly exaggerated in style to give the visual look of a mean, fire-spitting racing car. A WRC rally car could be given the same treatment and look fantastic kicking up gravel in the forests of Finland, because it would look so crazy! It would look like the builder of that car has done something amazing to it to make it that fast, and that is mostly the key to watching rallying IMO. The visual experience.

Incidentally, I went to my very first rally this weekend, the Wyedean in Gloucestershire, and I was blown away by how good a day out it was! Having only been confined to circuits before, where you're separated from the action by fences etc. it was amazing to be so close to some truly breathtaking driving. Dial up the visual exaggeration on the cars and it would be even better!

the homolgation specials where something to dream and lust over and admire the sillyness of them. they where great , mostly horrible cars for the owners, but for everyone else

the modern cars just dont capture the imagination like the old ones did, even middle era wrc rules cars. maybe allow badass styling of the bodywork? and i prefered the larger 4 door cars

I haven't seen anyone here say that Group B needs to be brought back. However, I do think if WRC cars had more similar sound and power then they would be more popular than they are now. THe lower popularity now isn't a coincidence. They sound like insects and they don't even have appreciably more power than sporty models of economy cars average joe can buy at their local car shop. The people want cars with power like this. They click on videos tens of millions of times in order to see them. But then they look at rally and aren't the least bit interested.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Isle of Man TT has continued to grow and get commercially stronger in recent years. It has the Group B status thing going on. It's is quite literally borderline insanity. it's mad fast and mad dangerous, which is commercially a very sellable product to the average sports fan. OK it's not the superbowl, but the TT shouldn't be anything other than a weird fringe event no one cares about because people die. The fact it is so popular speaks volumes about the appetite of motorsport fans.

While I would completely reject the concept of making rallying 'more dangerous' to attract more viewers, but the total lack 'on edgeness' in WRC has meant it's not a very sellable product. And in motorsports where you have no car to car racing the only thing you can sell is what the TT is doing. And I don't think anyone would condone WRC going in that direction.

Can WRC respond? I am not sure. F1 started to lose it's danger thing, but responded with making it a freak show of racing. Silly tyres and stupid overtaking aids. And in all intents and purposes it's worked, commercially speaking at least. And that's really only because F1 enjoys this mythical elite status. if most people realised the truth about F1 they might not tune in.

The difficulty is that motorsport was once sold on the basis it was fast, sexy, mental and dangerous. it doesn't enjoy that same status any more, hence why we are seeing a scrambling of ideas to solve problems. Also WRC has lost a large chunk of its 'uniqueness' to the drifting scene and Ken Block vids. WRC isn't the place to go watch cars go sideways anymore.

This isn't just a problem for WRC, it's a problem for all motorsport trying to sell itself as a product to spectators.

Edited by rhukkas, 11 February 2013 - 00:49.

You do realise you just described World Rally Cars as they have been rallied since the demise of Group A???

No. I thought a fairy waved her magic wand over the Group A homologation specials and they disappeared.

Production racing has about a dozen concepts that give a series its identity. You've got to keep them straight. The new WRC rules are not more like Group A b/c they are allowed to modify the car for 4wd and displacement/induction. As you point out, those mods are not part of Group A. The new WRC regulations are moving closer to Group A b/c the FIA have expressed a desire to make the rally cars more similar to their road-going counterparts (S2000), and they've expressed a desire to make the racing modifications more 'production' by adding an modifying kit regulations.

I think one problem is the lack of epic rallies like the Safari. (I know that the Safari rally cannot be brought back, just an example) We need more variety between surfaces, weather and challenges for the driver.

Edited by BigCHrome, 11 February 2013 - 00:57.

No. I thought a fairy waved her magic wand over the Group A homologation specials and they disappeared.

Production racing has about a dozen concepts that give a series its identity. You've got to keep them straight. The new WRC rules are not more like Group A b/c they are allowed to modify the car for 4wd and displacement/induction. As you point out, those mods are not part of Group A. The new WRC regulations are moving closer to Group A b/c the FIA have expressed a desire to make the rally cars more similar to their road-going counterparts (S2000), and they've expressed a desire to make the racing modifications more 'production' by adding an modifying kit regulations.

How is an s2000 more like its road-going counterpart?
WRC has bigger wings but other than that they are essentially identical to WRC's
WRC's however use 1.6 turbos - just like road cars.
S2000's use 2L N/A engines - not like road cars.

And yes the group a homologation specials have disappeared.
And no an Evo 10 does not count - they're about 200kgs too heavy to be classed as a special

I think one problem is the lack of epic rallies like the Safari. (I know that the Safari rally cannot be brought back, just an example) We need more variety between surfaces, weather and challenges for the driver.

How's that going to boost demand for rally. Safari is dull. Yay... cars going slowly through sand.

I am just highlighting that the market you're trying to attract is watching supercross, or nitro circus or whatever. Guys doing amazing things on motorised vehicles. To appreciate rally you have to be really into it, and there isn't THAT many people into it. WRC might have to go all F1 and add some gimmicks.... YUCK I know... but you have to suspend your own prejudices. For example, watch an F1 race from the early 2000s. Everyone is driving light cars at full chat for a GP distance... it's great to watch.... but only a few people. WRC is in a similar position. Sure it's great to watch but its dull for most people. That's the reality.

I think one problem is the lack of epic rallies like the Safari. (I know that the Safari rally cannot be brought back, just an example) We need more variety between surfaces, weather and challenges for the driver.

Definitely.

The Safari was a proper challenge.

The series is probably a bit poorer for the absence of classic tarmac events like Corsica and San Remo too.

Definitely.

The Safari was a proper challenge.

The series is probably a bit poorer for the absence of classic tarmac events like Corsica and San Remo too.

I don't see how the safari will bring in new viewers to WRC. Probably turn more people off than on.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Isle of Man TT has continued to grow and get commercially stronger in recent years. It has the Group B status thing going on.

The TT is like LeMans. It is a legendary event on a track with mythical status in a place with mythical status. The TT has danger going for it, but so does all motorcycle racing on public roads. The other events do not enjoy nearly the same levels of patronage as the TT. The IOM GP does not get nearly the same attention as the TT. Unlike Group B, TT bikes are common place in racing, and they have similar output to stock machines. The brand is much more complicated than exposure to danger or outrageous performance.

The TT spectacle is built almost entirely on rider skill and the significance of the challenge (via the venue). Ken Block claims that Gymkhana is founded on the same principle. Group B was founded on driver skill. F1 was founded on driver skill. Basically every racing series is founded on pushing the envelope of human performance and adaptability. Naturally, the faster and more powerful the vehicle, the more difficult it is to control.

Somewhere in the 1990s, we stopped expecting the driver to control the machine, and we left it up to the engineers. The engineers would control throttle inputs. The engine components and the tires would be designed to work with the computers. The engineers would control weight distribution and grip with suspension technology. The engineers would smooth the steering inputs by tuning feedback. The engineers would shift the gears and operate the clutch. The engineers would make sure the brakes didn't lock.

When the novelty of new technology wore off and the money ran out, racing began a rapid downward descent. Marketing innovation and pantomime theater are only temporary solutions. Even in NASCAR, where they maintained driver control, but rigged the races with competition yellows and pack racing, and filled the media with manufactured corporate hype; the theater is running out of steam.

Rallying would be popular again if you could buy road-going versions of the cars, as you could in the heydey of Group A. The 'frankenstein' WRC cars like those initially run by Toyota, and then by Peugeot, Renault, and Citroen have almost nothing in common with road cars.

Best years of rally imo were 1990 to about 2001. When Toyota and Ford were allowed to start rallying cars that werent subject to homologation regs, Mitsubishi and (to an extent) Subaru lost interest.

1.6 or 2L, 4WD, turbo. Based on a road car, with a roadgoing 1.6 or 2L 4WD turbo version being available from your local dealer. Still the winning ticket.

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.

bingo

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.

And no one would watch it, because no one will really give a rat's arse which 'silhouette' machine wins, because they cant buy something comparable from the local showroom.

'Win on Sunday, sell on Monday' still applies.

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.

It used to be 5000, but they could sell them anywhere in the world and certainly did so. Mitsubishi used to sell as many Evos as they could produce.

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!

It does work! Mitsubishi still sells the Evo X more than six years after it was released! Are you telling us there's no demand for that type of car? Of course there is!

WRC rules were framed because Subaru and Mitsubishi were consistently winning the rallies, and Toyota didnt like it. Toyota threatened to withdraw if rules werent relaxed on homologation, but they ended up leaving anyway, eventually.

Edited by NotSoSilentBob, 11 February 2013 - 05:02.

How is an s2000 more like its road-going counterpart?
WRC has bigger wings but other than that they are essentially identical to WRC's
WRC's however use 1.6 turbos - just like road cars.
S2000's use 2L N/A engines - not like road cars.

And yes the group a homologation specials have disappeared.
And no an Evo 10 does not count - they're about 200kgs too heavy to be classed as a special

The S2000 chassis regulations allow fewer modifications. The old rules allowed wheelbase modifications, more freedom for engine relocation and re-orientation, and more liberal chassis modifications like suspension geometry, transmission tunnels, fuel cell relocation, etc. S2000 doesn't allow engine relocation, and I believe reorientation is banned as well with engine support regs, but don't quote me. I also believe that wheelbase modifications are banned, but track is free.

Neither the S2000 engines nor the new 1.6T engines are terribly close to their production counterpart, but the teams don't need to run a 1.6T in the production car. VW doesn't have a 1.6T in the Polo and Chevrolet doesn't run a 1.6T in the Cruze (WTCC S2000).

It used to be 5000, but they could sell them anywhere in the world and certainly did so. Mitsubishi used to sell as many Evos as they could produce.

It was 500 units per year, but I don't remember the total size of the production run. Maybe it was five years at 2500 units. Definitely wasn't 5000 over ten years for the Evolution homologations.

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.

Not sure I agree. Back when Group A was running none of the manufacturers heavily involved were selling their homologation specials into the US. If say Subaru or Mitsubishi were to go again they do sell cars in the US now and with a few well placed ads with people like Ken Block they'd sell the measly 2500 cars they needed in very short order in my opinion.

Personally I don't understand the point of silhouette series. They mean nothing to me. As another poster mentioned above, homologation specials were cars that you could aspire to. Who aspires to own a normal DS3 just because Citroen make a WRC version of it which has zero in common what you can actually buy?

Edited by BCM, 11 February 2013 - 06:00.

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.

Cue Formula 1, 10 years from now...

What killed Group B was dead spectators more than dead drivers. There was often no more than a ribbon between the cars and the spectators even on the outside of the bends. The crowds were also taking reckless risks , standing in the road , and splitting as the cars approached.

If crowd safety could be provided I see no reason not to run it again.
Goodwood Festival of Speed is the place to go to see these cars in action through the forest stage.

It was 500 units per year, but I don't remember the total size of the production run. Maybe it was five years at 2500 units. Definitely wasn't 5000 over ten years for the Evolution homologations.

Perhaps i'm thinking of the production runs, but Mitsubishi definitely released 5000 of each Evo model from the I to the VI, perhaps to the Makinen.

I think from the CT9A VII they became a 'full release' model.

Perhaps i'm thinking of the production runs, but Mitsubishi definitely released 5000 of each Evo model from the I to the VI, perhaps to the Makinen.

I think from the CT9A VII they became a 'full release' model.

You are correct.
The minimum number for homologation is 5000 and has been since the beginning of group a/n

What killed Group B was dead spectators more than dead drivers. There was often no more than a ribbon between the cars and the spectators even on the outside of the bends. The crowds were also taking reckless risks , standing in the road , and splitting as the cars approached.

Nope.
It was the deaths of competitors yhat lead to the banning of group b with the watershed moment being the death of toivonen

These things like drifting, gymkana, etc have the thing that rally is missing, and it's about all they have.

You mean Ken Block driving round in a WRC Fiesta?

You mean Ken Block driving round in a WRC Fiesta?

I think that the technical term is handbraking around car parks like a 16 year old

You mean Ken Block driving round in a WRC Fiesta?

I think that the technical term is handbraking around car parks like a 16 year old

Though, to be fair, as a media production student, the videos are quite interesting.

As a racing/rally fan. They are... well... ye. Not that interesting...

Rallying would be popular again if you could buy road-going versions of the cars, as you could in the heydey of Group A. The 'frankenstein' WRC cars like those initially run by Toyota, and then by Peugeot, Renault, and Citroen have almost nothing in common with road cars.

The problem isn't with WRC, the problem is the car industry. Don't you think these car makers would make roadgoing versions of their rally cars if there only was a market? That market has been filled with Evos and WRXs with less sold every year. Ford was going to make a 4WD Focus, but ended up not doing it. Ford, Skoda and Citroen have all been pretty active in the hot hatch market with FWD versions of their rally cars, but making those models 4WD will only make them so expensive that you end up making a loss as a company.

If WRC mandated homologated civilian versions, all manufacturers apart from Subaru and Mitsubishi would pull out. WRC is already too expensive, so I fail to see the reason in solutions that make it cost more to enter.

To address other posters, any claim that cars are boring today are just a load of BS. The TV coverage could be miles better to bring out the time differentials and where they come from with each driver, but the in-car coverage from 2013 Rally Sweden for instance was amazing with the top-4 constantly on the limit. Everyone went off the road several times including Ogier and Loeb. It's been a couple of years since I last saw WRC and S2000 cars live in Rally Finland, but they're definitely loud, fast and exciting enough in real life with someone good at the wheel. And yes, I've also seen S4 Deltas, Quattros, 037s, Metros, etc. live and up close. Safari was like Dakar and night stages are pointless from every other PoV except in-car - on location you can't see a bloody thing.

WRC just needs one more car make, many more drivers with speed and a personality plus a much better on-line and TV spectator experience.

The problem isn't with WRC, the problem is the car industry. Don't you think these car makers would make roadgoing versions of their rally cars if there only was a market? That market has been filled with Evos and WRXs with less sold every year. Ford was going to make a 4WD Focus, but ended up not doing it. Ford, Skoda and Citroen have all been pretty active in the hot hatch market with FWD versions of their rally cars, but making those models 4WD will only make them so expensive that you end up making a loss as a company.

If WRC mandated homologated civilian versions, all manufacturers apart from Subaru and Mitsubishi would pull out. WRC is already too expensive, so I fail to see the reason in solutions that make it cost more to enter.

To address other posters, any claim that cars are boring today are just a load of BS. The TV coverage could be miles better to bring out the time differentials and where they come from with each driver, but the in-car coverage from 2013 Rally Sweden for instance was amazing with the top-4 constantly on the limit. Everyone went off the road several times including Ogier and Loeb. It's been a couple of years since I last saw WRC and S2000 cars live in Rally Finland, but they're definitely loud, fast and exciting enough in real life with someone good at the wheel. And yes, I've also seen S4 Deltas, Quattros, 037s, Metros, etc. live and up close. Safari was like Dakar and night stages are pointless from every other PoV except in-car - on location you can't see a bloody thing.

WRC just needs one more car make, many more drivers with speed and a personality plus a much better on-line and TV spectator experience.

You are a WRC fan already, and thus are biased. Most people would quickly switch over from rallying nowadays.

A lot of what I see are the issues have been covered here.

The lack of TV coverage is a nightmare. But that only came to be because of falling viewer numbers and excitement.

In my view, the lack of cars identifiable with desirable road models is a huge problem. Citroen C4 or DS3, VW Polo R......who gives a toss? I would say even Ford with the Fiesta but they have the rally heritage (like Subaru, Mitsubishi etc to enter anything and be well supported).

The cars themselves however are still plenty fast enough and noisy enough. But WRC versions of proper Hot Hatches are needed again which won't happen thanks to recession.

The lack of characters in the sport is also a huge drain. As I've said for many years, Loeb's dominance has been bad for the sport (beyond the regular hardcore). Great driver but dull. Gronholm, McRae, Solberg....where are their like now?

I don't know if there is a way back

When people speak about the lack of characters in WRC, do they realise that in F1 that is still a lot worse?

The lack of TV coverage is a nightmare. But that only came to be because of falling viewer numbers and excitement.

To be fair, no channel has ever produced WRC broadcasts one coul deem "good". It's not like no one tried. It's just basically impossible to do good live rally broadcasts.

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

After they've banned active diffs, launch control, fully electronic gearboxes etc? Not really.

BTW I think there were/are 4WD Golfs with around 300 bhp. Granted, there's no Golf in WRc, but still..

To be fair, no channel has ever produced WRC broadcasts one coul deem "good". It's not like no one tried. It's just basically impossible to do good live rally broadcasts.

The alternative is live online streaming, as MotoGP has. Their package is very good, I've signed it twice in 2011 and 2012. And one terrific feature is the access to archive footage. I caught up with a lot of the 2005 250cc season; Stoner, Pedrosa, Lorenzo, De Puniet, Aoyama, Dovizioso, Porto, De Angelis. It was fantastic.

If WRC can do something like that, I'm sure a lot of people will be pleased.

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

The cars the star. And there is no star.

I don't follow. The most successful firebreathing Group B car was based on a Peugeot 205, if only in appearance, and the all conquering Lancia Integrale was based on another 'ordinary' hatchback; you can't base seriously rally cars on Veyrons and Zondas. The crowds and interest back then were huge, so I don't buy that excuse for most people; lot's of racing fans are drawn buy the idea of watching a very high performance version of something familiar, just look at touring cars.

my favourite wrc car was the skoda octavia because it was redicously huge

the lack of big events that where special (safari), repeating stages and taming of events made it pretty dull to me :x

Perhaps they need cars that are fundamentaly undrivable or vastly more difficult.
Say simply take all TC away. Who knows?

my favourite wrc car was the skoda octavia because it was redicously huge

the lack of big events that where special (safari), repeating stages and taming of events made it pretty dull to me :x

That's a good point; I'd forgotten all about the Safari, and seem to recall seeing maps of other rallies in the 80s that 'went' somewhere to more of an extent than today's oft repeated short blasts.

You want huge - remember the Scooby Legacy of the early 90s?

I don't follow. The most successful firebreathing Group B car was based on a Peugeot 205, if only in appearance, and the all conquering Lancia Integrale was based on another 'ordinary' hatchback; you can't base seriously rally cars on Veyrons and Zondas. The crowds and interest back then were huge, so I don't buy that excuse for most people; lot's of racing fans are drawn buy the idea of watching a very high performance version of something familiar, just look at touring cars.

Yes but there were proper fast roadgoing versions of the T16 and the Integrale. And through the years after that, Evo V1, Impreza, Escort Cosworth..... And at the very least the 205 had an iconic GTi for fans to find parallels in.

The touring cars are a different audience imo. But even then at it's very peak had Sierra RS500's to compare with. And later in the Supertouring era, ok they were based on more ordinary saloons but they were full prototypes and a great reference point for family men and their kids to relate to their own road car.

The WRC App was very good, I think it's still being used. But again, the problem is people just stopped caring because they knew that they'd just be checking back to see another Loeb win. I go on other forums and have motorsport loving friends and the apathy is consistent through them all. Some lost track because they couldn't get it on TV, some because of the Loeb dominance, some for both reasons.

There were 200 t16s built x 2 evolutions
So that's 400 worldwide and trust me - they are not fast.....

I think homologation is an outdated concept. If the manufacturers thought they'd make money by selling special WRC editions of their Polos and DS3's then I'm sure they'd do it.

I think homologation is an outdated concept. If the manufacturers thought they'd make money by selling special WRC editions of their Polos and DS3's then I'm sure they'd do it.

Exactly.

If Subaru UK have decided that to stop selling Impreza's what hope has anyone else got of selling 4WD Rally specials

I think homologation is an outdated concept. If the manufacturers thought they'd make money by selling special WRC editions of their Polos and DS3's then I'm sure they'd do it.

Well they underestimate the power and allure of rally-connected road cars. Think of all the Subaru Impreza's you see in the car parks of race circuits around the country. That was basically all from Colin McRae and Prodrive making that car, which Subaru then produced high-performance road versions of, desirable for driving enthusiasts and rallying fans.

What I feel is rallying's problem is that the cars competing currently are not marketed towards the demographic the sport shares with the car market. The DS3 is heavily marketed towards women (in the same sector as the Fiat 500, with lots of customisation and colours). The Fiesta is increasingly being marketed towards females as well. I'm not being sexist here, but rallying and motorsport in general is not that feminine, and if you have cars competing in a series that aims to depict the drivers as brave, high risk-taking supermen whilst driving essentially a pumped up version of their wife's latest fashion accessory (as the DS3, Fiat 500 and others are now heavily marketed as now), there is something that doesn't match up.

Exactly.

If Subaru UK have decided that to stop selling Impreza's what hope has anyone else got of selling 4WD Rally specials

I think that's partly because the current Imprezas (or WRX's as they are officially called now) are naff. No-one wants a new Impreza when there's a massive used market for the older coupe and 4-door saloon cars.

Compare this:



With this:


And then add in the fact that Subaru no longer has a works rally presence, and you can see why they are pulling out of the UK.