Rally Review, February 1967

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Who’s Champion ?

Championships in International Rallying are rapidly becoming more and more farcically meaningless. The Federation Internationale de l’Automobile not only seem able to bend rules to suit their own, or perhaps someone else’s, moods but seem to forget which way they bent a particular rule the previous time.

One prime example of this comes from the 1966 Tulip Rally. To compensate for the fact that the rally is just a round of hill-climbs the organisers run a large number of classes by cylinder capacity. Now, the F.I.A. fairly naturally took the final results and amalgamated the three classes m, n, o — up to 750 c.c., 751-850 c.c., and 851-1,000 c.c., respectively (the championship class is 0-1,000 c.c.), thus giving Sobieslaw Zasada seven points for a class win, whereas before he would have scored nothing since there were only six starters in his class and there must be ten starters to score any points at all. Fair enough. But, the F.I.A. didn’t add the 1,000 -1,300-c.c. and 1,301-1,600-c.c. classes together to give the championship class of I,001-1,600 c.c. If they had then outright winner Rauno Aaltonen would gain seven points; but perhaps they felt that his nine from first overall was enough!

Still, we must let sleeping dogs lie; we’ve got our three rally champions, for whatever that’s worth, but how can a manufacturer advertise that one of his drivers is European Rally Champion (small print Group I, 2 or 3)? It’s worthless, for if you asked a man in the street he might remember Rauno Aaltonen as Champion in 1965 but he’ll not know who’s who this year. In fact, Gunther Klass for Porsche amassed nearly the total of the other two. The most amazingly pathetic fact is that we’re burdened with the same ridiculous situation this year—to save mathematical headaches I’m off to buy a 1401!

This whole nonsense of three Groups arose from the French “concern” for the private owner. At the beginning of 1966 they hailed the fact that everyone could go rallying in perfectly standard motor cars (it couldn’t be the fact that Citroen at that time had ready and prepared the most powerful Group I cars, could it ?), and that theoretically the private owner would be on the same footing as the works. All rubbish, for servicing and thorough preparation count more as main contributions to success, neither of which the shoestring motorist can possibly afford. Also, why is it that only two of the three groups count for points on any one event ? This fact prevented Citroen from competing in the Acropolis, it being held for cars of Groups 2 and 3 only. Why not let all Groups count ? To take it to its bitter and illogical conclusion we’ll finally end up with 11 champions, one for each of the set classes.

The next thing wrong with the championship is the scoring. Firstly, class points are only scored if there are ten or more starters in that class. Returning to my earlier point about not amalgamating the two classes on the Tulip we have the ridiculous situation of Aaltonen scoring 9 points for his outright win, while second overall Vic Elford scores 6 points for that and 7 for his 1,301-1,600-c.c. class win, thus making 13 points! If rightfully administered it should have read Aaltonen 16, Elford 12, which is much more realistic. Therefore, points for class wins should be scaled accordingly if there are less than ten starters. Still on scoring, we have the fact that the best seven scores count, out of seventeen rallies, but worse still all events count the same, whether one wins a gruelling Alpine in the face of Europe’s toughest opposition, or the Polish with only five works cars present, you get nine points. Some method of grading rallies not by their severity so much but by the amount of opposition should be introduced. Perhaps this could be done by according the best drivers and works teams a certain weighting, the total of which would act as a coefficient to be applied to the points gained on the event. However, this would need some careful thinking out

We also have the peculiar situation where a national motor club, the R.A.C., organises the World Rally Trophy —this is for manufacturers, but can the public tell the difference after some crafty large print/small print advertising—while the world body just runs a European championship! Comparing it to racing it’s rather like the A.D.A.C. running Formula One!

Let’s have a Group 5 out-and-out World Rally Championship, Choose the ten toughest rallies, including the Australian Starlight; let each rally have a special category just for the World contenders and anything goes. Manufacturers could then put up one or two of their best drivers and we might at last have something in rallying which the public understand and can follow. Not only that, but the cars could then become real mobile test-beds and the trade and manufacturers might well be persuaded to back rallying to more like Formula One.

Manufacturers don’t spend money for nothing, they want results, success and, above all, publicity. So give them something clear and definite, not just the unanswerable question … who’s champion ?

— A. E. A. K.

You may also like

Related products