How would YOU "save" Rallying in N.A.?

Shenan Wrote:
> All rules should be oriented to keeping costs
> down. The cost to competitors should be the
> primary, overriding concern for any sanctioning
> body, with some exceptions for safety, when there
> are truly effective things that can be done to
> reduce real and likely risks. The second main
> concern of sanctioning bodies should be to keep
> competition as tight as possible.

Cost should be a concern of the sanctioning body, but there is little (at least in my experience for my rallies) that NRS could change that would affect my event budgets. Literally, I can think of about 2 percent of the event budget that is controlled by my sanctioning body. Dunno what it is for other bodies. And the entry fee is usually only 10 to 20 percent of the full event cost for the entrant. So we're talking about 0.2 to 0.1 percent of the event cost to the entrant.

If I had a choice between spending 20 hours trying to reduce 1 percent of the budget by half, or looking for new roads, which would you rather I do with my limited time? Seriously, I might figure out how to save you five bucks here!

Now things like road fees, and most other expenses for an event, have much more to do with local conditions, and nothing to do with the sanctioning body.

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Anders Green Wrote:
> Potential future organizers, if you would like
> sample event budgets, please call me up and
> discuss your rally plans.

For those of you in the Puget Sound area, the planning meeting for Wild West should be starting fairly soon. If you want to come and apply your cost-saving ideas, here is your chance. Just show up and volunteer to help.

alan

randyzimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cake and beer do not work for me.
>
> edit - add...
> (I don't eat a lot of cake)

I like cupcakes better than cake personally.

---

Grant Hughes

There were cupcakes in that picture? Damn, must've missed 'em. Time to go back and check again. :-)

---

-Brian

tipo158 Wrote:
> Do you really think that you can stay below the
> radar of the people who don't want rallies? Do
> you know what it takes to get permission to use
> the roads that rallies are held on? Just that
> process exposes the event to politicians and
> activists.

Yes, I do believe that you can, to a certain extent. If you have less people trampling the forests and less fast and furious types tearing up around the area of the event, you will attract less attention, and possibly avoid crossing a threshold of an event becoming a major nuisance to some. I could probably think of various other scenarios where keeping a lower profile would invite less threats to the the survival of events, all other things being equal (everything legal).

> A properly run rally is not subject to unwanted
> attention from politicians, activists, etc.
> because it is safely run and brings benefit (such
> as economic benefit) to the community and the
> community welcomes the rally. If the community is
> not interested in the rally, it doesn't take many
> vocal opponents to shut it down. If the community
> is behind the rally, it does.

True, but don't forget that the main thrust of my argument was regarding costs. High-end expensive promotion on TV, magazines, etc:

a. incurs more expenses for the sanctioning body
b. so far appears to show little positive results in terms of bringing more grassroots competitors out, and has not made a series sponsor appear either.
c. ends up making folks think that US rallying has hit the big time. Yay, let's charge them higher road use fees, more for this and that service, etc. I have no proof of this, but it seems logical to me.

Call me crazy, but I've long been on the Jens camp on this issue.

---

-----------------------------
http://www.max-attack.com

Anders Green Wrote:

> Cost should be a concern of the sanctioning body,
> but there is little (at least in my experience for
> my rallies) that NRS could change that would
> affect my event budgets. Literally, I can think of
> about 2 percent of the event budget that is
> controlled by my sanctioning body. Dunno what it
> is for other bodies. And the entry fee is usually
> only 10 to 20 percent of the full event cost for
> the entrant. So we're talking about 0.2 to 0.1
> percent of the event cost to the entrant.

Anders, I didn't exactly have the organizer in mind when I wrote that. Only in an indirect fashion I guess. I meant that everything should be done to reduce costs to the competitor. If that means reducing costs to the organizer so it will be passed to the competitor, then great. I wasn't addressing the current brouhaha over entry fees, but the larger trend.

There are many things that a sanctioning body could do to reduce costs to competitors, mainly in the rules. For instance, don't mandate expensive safety equipment that almost no other national rally sanctioning body in the world mandates, i.e. HANS.

Other examples as mentioned in my original posts: make AWD entry costs higher than 2WD entry costs, and/or make AWD score national only points, no regional. I think of rally as an ecosystem: you need to keep plenty of minnows(sp?) in the water in order for everything to stay healthy. At the rate things are going, rally minnows may be gone soon. Something needs to be done to change this trend.

---

-----------------------------
http://www.max-attack.com

hoche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rally needs both:
>
> Small cheap regionals. One day events for the guy
> that has to work all day Friday and then be back
> home in time to do laundry and get a good night's
> sleep for Monday. Lots of these - 6 to 8 a year at
> least. Cheap cheap cheap - no trophies, no
> banquets, no notes, no frills. Class winners get
> an extra slice of pizza and a bottle of the GOOD
> beer. Car needs to be in good mechanical shape,
> but car lot numbers are fine and who cares if you
> don't have the right backers? The biggest expense
> for competitors should be the tow rig's gas.
>
> Big Blow-Out Events. Fewer of these, maybe 3 a
> year. The Max-Attack Balls-To-The-Wall
> If-I-wad-It-up-I-have-Four-Months-To-Rebuild it
> events. 2 or 3 day event, banquet, nice trophies.
> Stage notes. Maybe recce. Cars should look good.
> Photo ops. Press Stages. Spectators. Yadda yadda.
>
>
>
>
> One of the problems with organizing the former is
> that you need to be in a good geographical
> location relative to your competitors. It's no
> good offering a $200 rally if it costs competitors
> $2000 just to get there. The other thing is that
> those event CAN'T be car-breakers. Once again,
> it's no good offering a $200 rally if everyone
> knows it's going to cost $2000 in repairs.
>
> DooWops is about the most ideal regional event I
> can think of, but I don't think it can be held as
> a standard. It's more of a paragon: Ray's has
> access to resources and close ties to the
> community that other organizers don't (or that
> would take a long time to build up) AND he's got a
> couple of big cities just around the corner to
> draw competitors from.
>
>
>
>


Hey Michel,

The bay area needs a 1 day'er event. How did you guys go about setting up NRR? Are there ANY roads/venues in the Bay Area somewhere for a hill climb or something?

I owe you pm....I'll hit you up on i-club.

---

Jon Burke - KI6LSW
Blog: http://psgrallywrx.blogspot.com/

How we ended up organizing NNR is kind of a long story, requiring several beers. The actual roads have been known to the rally community for a long, long time - the infamous Golden Fleece Rally used them - and events have been held there in an on-again-off-again fashion several decades.

Roads in the Bay Area - I dunno. I know of a bunch of decent candidates, but they invariably have houses nearby. In NorCal in particular, generally the people who live out in the middle of nowhere live there for a reason, and really don't like loud fume-belching vehicles roaring about. There may be some OHV parks nearby, but all the ones I've seen are chewed up enough that they're car-breakers. I suspect that as you go further from the Bay Area, you'll find better places and cities/counties that could use some of the money that an event would bring. However, you'd have to look off the normal commute/vacation corridors.

-michel

---

Self-righteous douche canoe

Shenan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tipo158 Wrote:
> > Do you really think that you can stay below the
> > radar of the people who don't want rallies? Do
> > you know what it takes to get permission to use
> > the roads that rallies are held on? Just that
> > process exposes the event to politicians and
> > activists.
>
> Yes, I do believe that you can, to a certain
> extent. If you have less people trampling the
> forests and less fast and furious types tearing up
> around the area of the event, you will attract
> less attention, and possibly avoid crossing a
> threshold of an event becoming a major nuisance to
> some. I could probably think of various other
> scenarios where keeping a lower profile would
> invite less threats to the the survival of events,
> all other things being equal (everything legal).

The problem is a point that Hoche raised. Out of the people who live out in the sticks, there is always at least one of them that moved there for a reason that is not compatible with a bunch of rally cars tearing through the woods. You can't hide from them.

One or two cars can keep a low profile (but not always). An entire rally cannot keep a low profile. In a small town near the stages, someone is gonna notice the 10 Golfs with rollcages at the local motel.

> ... don't forget that the main thrust of my
> argument was regarding costs. High-end expensive
> promotion on TV, magazines, etc:
>
> a. incurs more expenses for the sanctioning body

True. However, those costs are not being passed on to the competitors now.

> b. so far appears to show little positive results
> in terms of bringing more grassroots competitors
> out, and has not made a series sponsor appear
> either.

True on the series sponsor count. I am not sure about the "little positive results in terms of bringing more grassroots competitors out". I think that the interest is there, but the sticker shock keeps people out. Or, they run cars that they can't afford and aren't in the sport long.

I think that if maybe there was more mass media focus on the 2WD competition, there might be more interest in running more affordable 2WD cars. Just a guess.

> c. ends up making folks think that US rallying has
> hit the big time. Yay, let's charge them higher
> road use fees, more for this and that service,
> etc. I have no proof of this, but it seems logical
> to me.

I think that did happen a little bit up here with one landowner, but IIRC it was the general exposure of rally (Colin McRae games and WRC coverage on Speed) that got them thinking that they should charge more.

On the other hand, the exposure can also help reduce some of the organizer costs because the local community is willing to pick up costs because they want the economic benefit of the rally coming to town (for example, Pomeroy). Mass media coverage and "name" participants help with this.

> Call me crazy, but I've long been on the Jens camp
> on this issue.

I think that people who really care about "saving" rally should get involved with an organizing team and help put on a rally or two. It will help to understand why some things are the way they are.

alan

I am seeing lot's of folks including newbies at out local NASA events. The economy sucks and many are scaling back participation but that has nothing to do with how rally is being run.

Yeah, RA seems to have their heads up their collective asses but rally seems to be thriving in spite of that outside of the the RA national series.

I don't need a solid national series to go out and have fun at rallies with friends. Of course I have noo plans to be the next WRC star.

---

Matt Smith

Racing in glorious black and red

My daily life is a Saab story (sold!)

mothra Wrote:
> Yeah, RA seems to have their heads up their
> collective asses but rally seems to be thriving in
> spite of that outside of the the RA national
> series.

Oh, please elaborate. I would like to know how far up my a$$ my head is.

alan




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2008 01:42PM by tipo158.

tipo158 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is a point that Hoche raised. Out of
> the people who live out in the sticks, there is
> always at least one of them that moved there for a
> reason that is not compatible with a bunch of
> rally cars tearing through the woods. You can't
> hide from them.

True.

> One or two cars can keep a low profile (but not
> always). An entire rally cannot keep a low
> profile. In a small town near the stages, someone
> is gonna notice the 10 Golfs with rollcages at the
> local motel.

Anything can keep a lowER profile. It's not a choice between "nothing much happening" and "OMG! RALLYISTS! LOCK THE DOORS!". As with most things, it's a matter of degree. Do you agree that 30 Golfs with rollcages has a different profile and level of inconvenience than Semis, Helicopters, groupies, and fastandfurious wannabes?

> True. However, those costs are not being passed
> on to the competitors now.

True as well, but how long will RA want to fund this?

> True on the series sponsor count. I am not sure
> about the "little positive results in terms of
> bringing more grassroots competitors out". I
> think that the interest is there, but the sticker
> shock keeps people out. Or, they run cars that
> they can't afford and aren't in the sport long.
>
> I think that if maybe there was more mass media
> focus on the 2WD competition, there might be more
> interest in running more affordable 2WD cars.
> Just a guess.

It's a big hill to climb to undo the "I need AWD to be able to rally" mentality. I don't know that 2WD will ever get more interest from the mass media on its own. I think that things could be done to make it obvious that competing in a new AWD car is more expensive in the long run than sticking with a (possibly older) 2WD. Right now it seems like it's the reverse, what with the Subaru contingencies (what will happen if they ever do away with those?). Who knows though, people would still probably pick the more expensive cars beyond their means because they think it's cool.

> I think that did happen a little bit up here with
> one landowner, but IIRC it was the general
> exposure of rally (Colin McRae games and WRC
> coverage on Speed) that got them thinking that
> they should charge more.
>
> On the other hand, the exposure can also help
> reduce some of the organizer costs because the
> local community is willing to pick up costs
> because they want the economic benefit of the
> rally coming to town (for example, Pomeroy). Mass
> media coverage and "name" participants help with
> this.

The question here would be do we want to go with the bird in hand or the two birds in the bush? In the end, this is all about opinions - I think one way would work better, and you think another way would work better. The only problem is that there is much more risk involved in trying the big media/promotion route.

> I think that people who really care about "saving"
> rally should get involved with an organizing team
> and help put on a rally or two. It will help to
> understand why some things are the way they are.

I've done it before, in the last Spitzner years (helped my friend with Prescott rally for a couple of years). I was firmly in the "bring the WRC, get rid of the old cars!" camp at that time, but I have since learned better.

---

-----------------------------
http://www.max-attack.com

Anders Green Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Wrote:
> > full disclosure of costs and revenue from the
> event.
>
> Meh.
>
> 1) I don't know how this would "save" anything.


i'm not saying it would save anything but it would help to show people who are concerned about costs where those costs are coming from and give those of us who are looking for the best return for our dollar evidence of that. given a big frills event that costs more versus a no frills event that doesn't cost as much, which would most people choose? i think this reaches to the core of many of the issues that people have currently.

---

-Mark
www.nocoastmotorsports.net

Well, gee. I just spent several hours crunching that for the North Nevada Rally.

Lessee.

$4000 insurance/sanction fees (RA was slightly cheaper, but no RallyMoto)
$2000 road use fee
$ 500 misc legal fees (bonds, application fees, etc)
$1000 for breakfast/reg room fees, which may seem high but it was in exchange for $30 room discount for competitors & workers (approx 50 rooms)
$ 500 portapotties (estimated - haven't gotten the bill yet)
$ xxx routebook printing/binding (dunno yet)
$ 200 misc printing/stationary supplies
$ xxx T-shirts for workers (competitors will have to buy them)
$ xxx Trophies (haven't got the bill yet)

Not included:
$300 scouting trip 1. Two cars + hotel + food
$600 scouting trip 2. Four cars + hotels + food. Radio checks, four ham networks.
$175 scouting trip 3. One car + hotel + food. Routebook.
$175 scouting trip 4. One car + hotel + food. Notes check.
Gas/hotels for the organizers AT the actual event.
Hourly wages for people driving up, spending all day checking stuff, and then driving back.
Hourly wages for people writing routebook, writing supps, emergency plan, etc
Phone bills
Post-event road cleanup
Equipment purchase/rental - rally stuff is free from the CRS. Ham stuff is free from volunteers.
Volunteer time and gas.


You can see that even when setup costs are eaten by us, it's still taking us about $9000 to put on the event. If you throw in all the organizers' out-of-pocket costs, it turns out to be closer to $11K.


-michel

Edit: Oops - I forgot to include sammiches and water for our workers. That's another $300 or so. Could probably cut that down if we could find someone to make them for free. You wanna come out and make lunches? I'd greatly appreciate it.

---

Self-righteous douche canoe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2008 07:09AM by hoche.

Broken record on here. Yes, Rally America and some factions within the USRC have their heads up their asses in the arrogance of their approach. That in order for rally to survive they have to up the bar, increase exposure, make unobtainable upper levels of the sport that require huge personal investments into the sport that no competitor ever expects to get returned, etc. Rather than following the well established precedents set in every other country in the world where rally is huge and successful, which is to start out with a more regional/low level event focus. You get 100-200 competitors per event, build good regional championships, get a few thousand competitors nationwide, and a solid and profitable national championship can grow out of that. The biggest fans are the friends and family of competitors, not the current influx of red bull drinking, fox racing wearing, arrogant douchebags that seem to litter the parc exposes these days. The best way to find sponsors is to have lots of competitors so there is a higher perceived value to the sport, and the sponsors should be locally focused.
That's just one guys opinion though. But we've started focusing on building rally locally here in Colorado and I'd be willing to bet that five years from now we'll have 100+ competitors in the state and events year round. We've already got sponsors for our series and those sponsorships are going back to the competitors to offset entry costs. (Thanks Kevin Hahn for his hard work!) We're working with our organizers to try to encourage the local competitors and add value without adding cost or even reducing cost.

---

Grant Hughes