The FIA has drawn up a raft of proposals aimed at improving the health of rallying, but not all the plans have gone down well with competitors
TOM HOWARD
The World Rally Championship is at a crossroads as it strives for growth – in terms of manufacturers competing and a widening of its fanbase – to realise its potential. When it comes to spectacular motorsport, few can rival what the WRC can deliver. But there is no hiding from the fact that changes are required in technical, sporting and promotion facets, with the top-tier Rally1 entry struggling to reach double figures. And addressing the WRC’s current weaknesses is a complex job.
Assisted by a working group led by FIA deputy president Robert Reid and former WRC team boss David Richards, the FIA has revealed plans for widespread reforms, some of which could come into force next year if ratified by the World Motor Sport Council in June. The sporting proposals, which include allowing organisers to be more flexible with event formats, and the creation of a new FIA team focused on improving promotion, have been met positively. But it’s the FIA’s vision on technical rules that have caused the most ire.
Rally1 cars in their current guise will no longer see out the original 2022-26 homologation window. Instead, the FIA plans to remove the cars’ control hybrid units and bring performance levels towards Rally2 through a reduction in aerodynamics and in the air restrictor. In addition, upgrade kits, costing around €5000, are to be made available to Rally2 cars for those wanting to battle with Rally1 machines. The thinking is to increase the number of competitors that can fight for overall victory. These proposed changes will create a two-year transition period before new Rally1 regulations come into force from 2027. These 330bhp cars will be capped at €400,000 and based around the current Rally1 concept.
It’s the 2025 changes that have upset teams and confused drivers, with most feeling they are too aggressive when the focus should be on ensuring the 2027 rules are a success. It’s understandable why teams feel aggrieved, having committed vast amounts of money to a ruleset that is coming to an end two years earlier than planned. They’ll have to go back to their management boards and explain the situation – and then likely need to ask for more funding to make changes for a two-year transitional period, before further expenditure for 2027. On top of that, the clock is ticking, with June’s confirmation of the rules offering teams six mont
