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

Jon Burke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Rather, I'd
> like to discuss the 'spirit' of it and how we
> could do something out of the box to take
> advantage of the obvious corporate interest in
> rally, but still keep its grassroots roots.
>
>
> For example, everyone on here and over on SS.com
> agree's that the easiest cheapest way to get into
> rally is either build or buy a cheap 2wd vehicle,
> spend the bare minmum, and just DO it. Right?
> But what's the incentive? There's no REAL
> incentive other than time to race and smaller
> upfront costs.
>
> With the above example, the INCENTIVE to
> build/buy/race a cheap 2wd vehicle is that you
> will KNOW what your expenses are for each event.
> $600. got it....perfect, thanks! done and done.
> how nice would that be?
>
> now I'm not saying the #'s and tiers and stuff
> that I have up there are right or whatever, but do
> you see my point now? It drives a specific
> behavior that we all know is good for the sport.
>
>
> I REALLY like Mark's idea of a 'Pro'
> class......maybe that's a better delineation
> instead of including financial statements with
> your entry fee. You still get the benefit of
> corporate sponsorship, and the grassroots guys
> still get to play as well.
>
>
> my main point being......people need to start
> thinking outside of the box on stuff like this.
> Something needs to change, I'm not sure what, so
> I'm just throwing ideas out there...but trying to
> continue to do things the way 'they've always been
> done'.....well, what's that definition of
> 'insanity' again?


Jon, Honestly for what it's worth, I can't agree with you more.

Also, I can see how it's beneficial to everyone involved.

I can easily see how something like this would get more people into the sport. I would love to build/buy a cheap 2WD car and join in the fun.. but the costs are pretty daunting, and what's the pay off? Sure it's fun, but so are so many other things. And many of those don't have the risk of turning your car into a big wad.

If an entity is using rally as a means of advertising. Subsidizing the little guys to stomp all over is actually good for them as long as there's more little guys. What can you say the average entered car brings in people? 5 sound fair and on the safe side? Ten more cars, so 50 more people at the event bare minimum. So not only are the big boys stomping a bigger field, there's more people watching it.. so it's a bigger, more watched event and thus a bigger achievement.

One way to price entry would be a formula of "things present"

your car is plastered tip to toe in logos.. that's going to cost you.

you've got anti lag and 3 super trick diffs, that's going to cost you too.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Carl S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I think would be good would be to insitute a
> Team Championship.
> At each event a team designates which cars are
> running for them.
>
> On the higher level of things, say Tanner Foust
> cant make it to a rally because he's off drifting
> that weekend. Rockstar can find another driver to
> fill in his spot. Maybe he does good, maybe he
> impresses VSC enough to have him take Pastrana's
> spot once Pastrana is a wrc champ...
>
> On the more realistic side of things, maybe two
> regional guys "team" up and pool their resources.
> Cut out the redundancy of some service stuff, crew
> stuff, travel, hotels, etc.
>
> Is a two car team more "sellable" to a sponsor?
>
> And my friend just thought up another bonus. Have
> 4 cars on your team, 2 on the east coast/midwest 2
> on the west coast. Then the team can contest the
> whole national series without having to tow across
> country.

I like this idea as well.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

heymagic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Subaru, Michelin, Monster , whomever is not likely
> seeing any serious profit from rally in the
> states. Their participation is part of a larger
> advertising budget. Get the name out in front of
> the public. If you look at just the cost and
> return picture then you have Subaru pulling out of
> the Australian series, Hyundai and Mitsu pulling
> back and so on. Corporate America is the sole
> supporter of millions of Americans. They have
> bazillions invested in research, products,
> manufacturing, safe working conditions, medical
> and retirement, education grants and scholarships,
> civil projects and donations and even shareholder
> benefits. Corporate America has every right to a
> profit as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Now lets talk rally...SRT/ Vermont teams have paid
> employess, earning a living. Vermont actually paid
> for the DooWop dinner 2 years ago. This was an
> event they had nothing to with. Subaru West has
> paid a lot out ( tens of thousands by now )for the
> regional banquets. Every worker,crew, competitor
> and organizer that wants a nice dinner and a place
> to tell lies get's it. Subaru West gives a great
> amount in donations for the worker bags. Subaru
> West is at most events in service cooking
> breakfast and lunch for anyone walking by.
>
> Rally may or may not be too expensive, depends
> soley on individual outlooks. One glaring fact is
> that neither sanctioning bodies nor organizers are
> getting wealthy putting events on. I'll bet
> someone calling square dances makes more than a
> rally organizer. Personally I don't have any extra
> time to beat the bushes ( I'd make time for George
> ) trying to find ways or sponsors to lower an
> individuals costs. If I'm doing a bunch of work to
> increase an events income, maybe that money will
> go to myself and the volunteers.
>
> People need to be responsible for their own
> course. If you can't afford rally then seek
> sponsorship, get an extra job, quit buying $4
> lattees, only run a couple events, forget the
> Championship BS, whether it be regional,
> SouthWestern series or whatever. Points are just a
> hook to entrap people to participate more. Run the
> events you enjoy, skip the others.
>
> Consider how many people have a 27 foot motorhome
> just sitting in the back yard to use on vacation
> once a year...maybe. Cost that out per
> "event"...it's all about what you want to spend
> your income on.
>
> Rally is dangerous, risky, relies soley on
> volunteer help, someone elses land and has never
> been very popular in the states. Jamming the
> people who organize, sanction, sponsor or
> otherwise contribute or support rally is really a
> counter productive waste of time.

I hear your point.

First, I don't agree that Subaru isn't seeing a nice return. If it wasn't for Rally subaru would still be a no never mind you drive a what? brand car.

Other than that, it's not a crazy idea to say willingness to spend $$$ on car to win should at some point translate in spending more $$$ to enter.

Also, most of the road damage is done by the big boys, they have the most chance of winning and get the most attention.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

hudson Wrote:
> I hear your point.
>
> First, I don't agree that Subaru isn't seeing a
> nice return. If it wasn't for Rally subaru would
> still be a no never mind you drive a what? brand
> car.

Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but out here in the PNW there are plenty of happy Subaru owners that know little-to-nothing about rally. A few years ago, every other house is our neighborhood had an Outback.

> Other than that, it's not a crazy idea to say
> willingness to spend $$$ on car to win should at
> some point translate in spending more $$$ to
> enter.

You apparently did not hear Gene's point. Subaru NW region pays significant money in support of regional rally.

> Also, most of the road damage is done by the big
> boys, they have the most chance of winning and get
> the most attention.

Nope. I have worked as road marshal a couple of times. I observed significantly more road damage as a result of high-powered RWD cars.

alan

tipo158 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but out here
> in the PNW there are plenty of happy Subaru owners
> that know little-to-nothing about rally. A few
> years ago, every other house is our neighborhood
> had an Outback.

Well there's two kinds of Subaru owners.. ones who drive Outbacks and ones that have STIs. There's loads of hopped up Subarus here.

>
> > Other than that, it's not a crazy idea to
> say
> > willingness to spend $$$ on car to win should
> at
> > some point translate in spending more $$$ to
> > enter.
>
> You apparently did not hear Gene's point. Subaru
> NW region pays significant money in support of
> regional rally.

No, I understood that. I'm not hating on Subaru. I don't think you can go and blame Subaru.

What I was trying to say is that if you're willing to spend 50k on a car to go thrash in the woods, hopefully you can afford it and definitely have more invested in the ability to go thrash your car in the woods than the fellow who has 10k in his.

I don't think I'm the only one saying more competitors in cheaper cars is the ticket.

> Nope. I have worked as road marshal a couple of
> times. I observed significantly more road damage
> as a result of high-powered RWD cars.

Good point.. I don't know how I missed that. Still I don't see how someone in a 400 hp RWD car (sorry john) shouldn't have to pay more than someone in a 120 hp RWD car.

What I'm trying to say is I think the idea of a structured entrance fee depending on the badassness of your vehicle and sponsorship is sound. Also, this would likely encourage people to get in the sport and hopefully catch the big and build a more badass car.

"Hey why don't we put a cage in that car and go rally it, sure it's a POS with no power and open diff, but we can enter for next to nothing and it will be good shits and giggles."

Just my 2 cents.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Visualizing myself in a sanctioning bodies shoes trying to build a "pro" series for a moment....

The biggest flaw I see is if the cost of competing in the "pro" class are so high then the class shrinks down to 4-6 cars (Travis, Ken, MJ, Tanner, Mirra, Bartram, Sorenson). This decreases the value of a win to the point that those 4-6 can't find sponsors and either go away or compete as amateurs again. If that happened then we are right where we are now.

Rally is a small enough sport in the US that those 4-6 need to rest of us back there in the same scoring series to show that they were x out of 50 as opposed to x out of 6. Imagine going to a nascar event that had 6 nextel cars running out in front of 50 cars from the local dirt track Friday night races. Wait that's what rally has now.

---

Matt Smith

Racing in glorious black and red

My daily life is a Saab story (sold!)

Rich Smith Wrote:
> I'm gonna hafta take issue with you on this one.
> Corporate sponsors are not in Rally as a hobby,
> they're in it for profit. Hobby rallyists
> (Competitors or Volunteers) should not subsidise
> their Profits. Nobody has yet made the case that
> isn't taking place.
>
> Rich Smith


Rich,

Please forgive me, but I am amazed at this statement. Event sponsors at any level for an event or a car/team view sponsoship as a cost, not a profit activity. Only business based rally teams are in it for profit, unless you count RA trying to turn their activites into at least a break-even enterprise. To the sponsor, it will hopefully help overall profits but the sponsorship is a pure cost.

I can guarantee you that at least some events/series are not in the situation of having anyone subsidize 'corporate profits'. RWV has no sponsors beyond a few small businesses. They give small amounts for 2 reasons:
- They hope that it will help business, but the rally exposure is somewhat small so that is debatable
- They love racing and rallying and want to help in some way.

The reality at our event level is that the few sponsors we have subsidize the event budget, and help keep entry fees down a bit and hopefuly help us do things like meals for volunteers, contributions to supporting VFD's, etc.

I cannot fathom why this is not crystal clear to everyone, and why I read overly simplistic and idealogically based statements like above. I can only think that your statement was not meant broadly but was aimed at the RA national struture, which IMO is at least far better conceived plan of implementing the 'Vision Plan' advocated by Mr Spitzner. (And this is not a slam agasint RA; I simply work at rally organizing to help a participation sport, not as an advertising business.)

There were many who saw where this was going right up front back when all that 'pyramid' talk started under SCCA, and I'll give credit to many who did something about it to start more independent events and series'. All this 're-inventing' may be new to some, but it has been going on for years. Good suggestions are well and good, but before criticizing, the guys complaining would help themsleves and everyone concerened to put forth the effrot to learn some history of those who have carried the sport for years.

Mark B.

I can't remember the last Sube promotion featuring a rally car. Like Alan mentioned , the vast majority of Subes in the NW are Outbacks, Foresters likely 2nd. Subsaru developed the AWD car in the 80's and swithced to AWD in the 90s. Early Subes were actaully terrible rally cars to say the least. . While the Sti is a noticable car the boy racer crowd still favors Mustangs and Hondas in big numbers. Either way, Subarus support ofr national and regional is unmatched by any other entity. I for one am very thankful to have them.

The road damage issue and adjusting cost has some merit but a few flaws. If a 400 hp RWD car enters and DNFs on the first transit what then ? With the turbo restrictor the normal Mitsu/Sube power is from 250 to 315 hp at the wheels. Depends on boost and tuning and a certain amount of dyno differences. So how do we draw the line on that issue ? I'd guess that driver style makes a bigger difference. Tanner is the definition of smooth, Block is very aggresive and brutal. Both are fun to watch though ! Hard braking by any car does a fair amnount of damage also.

I remeber being at the back of the pack in the old days . There were only a couple three AWD cars then. The roads were miserable at the stage starts. I think less damage is actually done now.

I don't think we can just charge one guy more than another just because he has more money or sponsorship. Washington used to charge car tabs ( road use)by the value of the car. A Ferrari cost a huge amount, a Hyundai next to nothing in comparison. Most Ferraris put on very few actual miles compared to most econo boxes. They already paid more sales tax on purchase. Hardly equitable, and no longer done. We really have to avoid basing fees on income, no caste type class systems...although some guys might like having a world rally blue dot on their forehead...ya never know.

A "pro" clas might be good. Charge them more money, ok. I suspect anticipation of a return ( prize money ) would then raise it's head. That would end up being a push. Really the top guys cost us not much more effort or money. They do bring in good publicity, signing autographs, visiting Childrens Hospital,extr hand me down tires for pace and sweep, excitement to fans and workers alike.

Rally really needs some new organizing blood. Someone who isn't burned out, old , tired, already committed to other events. Someone with fresh ideas, new contacts, willing to organize a C1 and maybe just break even. That person sure isn't me, nor most of the current organizers I know. Some of you new guys with new visions need to step up. It's easy ( not really) but can be done.

hudson Wrote:
>
> What I'm trying to say is I think the idea of a
> structured entrance fee depending on the
> badassness of your vehicle and sponsorship is
> sound. Also, this would likely encourage people
> to get in the sport and hopefully catch the big
> and build a more badass car.

I disagree on HP level being the criteria for any structured entry fee. How about the guy/gal who wants to rally on the cheap by building a V8 pickup? That's a budget effort wiht moderate to high HP.

Since I am getting pissed at the apparent lack of willingness of many here to spend any effort at learning any US rally history, here is some history on this topic:
In the 70's and 80's it was not uncommon for some US rally events to have tiered entry fee. My first completed event was '78 Sunriser 400; the entry was $100 for amateur entrants, and $200 for sponsored entrants. At that time, it was also not unusual for some events to offer a lower entry fee for the 1 or 2 lowest seeded entrants; typically 15-20% less. This continued until the mid-80's when the Pro Rally rules were changed, and the SCCA ruled that all entry fees would be the same for all entrants. I don't know the reasons behind that change.

For that '78 Sunriser, there were only handful of sponsored entrants out of the 70-80 total, so it only made small dent in overall event income. If the entry fees were equalized, then the extra $$ lost from the doubled entry fee for the sponsored entrants, spread over everybody, would have raised the non-sponsored entrant's entry fees by $10-12.

Since the number of really pro US rally teams out there is very small, don't fool yourselves into thinking that doubling their entry fees will result in some great bonanza of decreased fees for everyone else. It would take raising those pro entry fees by 5x or 10x to make any real difference. The only real benefit of doubling pro team entry fees IMO is to make a few folks feel better.

I would be more in favor of reviving the graduated fee struture if the lower fees went to new competitors in their first 3 events.

Mark B.

starion887 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree on HP level being the criteria for any
> structured entry fee. How about the guy/gal who
> wants to rally on the cheap by building a V8
> pickup? That's a budget effort wiht moderate to
> high HP.

True

> Since I am getting pissed at the apparent lack of
> willingness of many here to spend any effort at
> learning any US rally history, here is some
> history on this topic:

I apologize for my ignorance.

> I would be more in favor of reviving the graduated
> fee struture if the lower fees went to new
> competitors in their first 3 events.

Now that's a good idea!

It's just as a potential new rally guy.. the whole thing is about as scary as marriage (seriously).

Huge upfront costs & sacrifices all on the idea that both myself and my friends (that I would have to rope into the whole thing) are really going to enjoy this and all the work and money is going to be worth it.

ANYTHING that made the initial commitment easier to swallow would be a good thing in my opinion.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

starion887 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hudson Wrote:
> >
> > What I'm trying to say is I think the idea of
> a
> > structured entrance fee depending on the
> > badassness of your vehicle and sponsorship
> is
> > sound. Also, this would likely encourage
> people
> > to get in the sport and hopefully catch the
> big
> > and build a more badass car.
>
> I disagree on HP level being the criteria for any
> structured entry fee. How about the guy/gal who
> wants to rally on the cheap by building a V8
> pickup? That's a budget effort wiht moderate to
> high HP.
>
> Since I am getting pissed at the apparent lack of
> willingness of many here to spend any effort at
> learning any US rally history, here is some
> history on this topic:
> In the 70's and 80's it was not uncommon for some
> US rally events to have tiered entry fee. My first
> completed event was '78 Sunriser 400; the entry
> was $100 for amateur entrants, and $200 for
> sponsored entrants. At that time, it was also not
> unusual for some events to offer a lower entry fee
> for the 1 or 2 lowest seeded entrants; typically
> 15-20% less. This continued until the mid-80's
> when the Pro Rally rules were changed, and the
> SCCA ruled that all entry fees would be the same
> for all entrants. I don't know the reasons behind
> that change.
>
> For that '78 Sunriser, there were only handful of
> sponsored entrants out of the 70-80 total, so it
> only made small dent in overall event income. If
> the entry fees were equalized, then the extra $$
> lost from the doubled entry fee for the sponsored
> entrants, spread over everybody, would have raised
> the non-sponsored entrant's entry fees by $10-12.
>
> Since the number of really pro US rally teams out
> there is very small, don't fool yourselves into
> thinking that doubling their entry fees will
> result in some great bonanza of decreased fees for
> everyone else. It would take raising those pro
> entry fees by 5x or 10x to make any real
> difference. The only real benefit of doubling pro
> team entry fees IMO is to make a few folks feel
> better.
>
> I would be more in favor of reviving the graduated
> fee struture if the lower fees went to new
> competitors in their first 3 events.
>
> Mark B.
>
>
>
>

Thanks Mark, I did not know that either.

so to clarify a few things more. I didn't really specify, but I guess my comments are mainly for RA. again, not a 'dig' on RA, but RA seems to be getting all the press and that's where the big boys play. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not fully immersed in the sport from every angle.

NASA events (at least in CA) just seem to have a numbers problem...we just need more people competing, pretty simple. A basic fee structure like the one Mark just mentioned I *think* would be a possible improvement. but you never know. Honestly, I think most of the NASA events in the SW (ie the CRS events) are priced pretty well.


Regarding corp sponsors making money/profit off of these events....yes, its certainly not a 'money making' scenario, but there is definitely a very powerful and intrinsic value to it all. I mean, why does ANY car company race? Its more of a branding thing, which is something that cannot be bought and does not happen in the span of a 60 second TV commercial.

No, I have not seen a single subaru TV commercial featuring rally....but yet, the Subaru brand is very different today from the Subaru brand of 1985. (Ohhhh, its a SUBARU!)


I REALLY LIKE the fact that I can build a car and go enter it in an RA event and get my name in the line-up behind TP and all those guys. That they will let me play with the big boys no matter how much I know I'm gonna get my ass handed to me. NO OTHER sport will let me do that today. Someday I will get to say, "I went there, and I did that, and I raced with the big boys, and I did it with my own two hands and hard work."

So I DON'T want to see that aspect change, and maybe we're all just being paranoid and it won't change, and maybe I'm being a jackass suggesting that we charge Monster and Redbull more money so TP and those guys can 'keep rallying with us'(or 'we can keep rallying with them')

Maybe I'm being completely fucking ridiculous.

but yet....here we are, in a thread titled 'how would YOU save rallying in NA?'.

---

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

You guys must have missed the commercial for the new STI:




I'd say theres a fare bit of US Rally exposure in that.

Jon Burke Wrote:
>
> I REALLY LIKE the fact that I can build a car and
> go enter it in an RA event and get my name in the
> line-up behind TP and all those guys. That they
> will let me play with the big boys no matter how
> much I know I'm gonna get my ass handed to me. NO
> OTHER sport will let me do that today. Someday I
> will get to say, "I went there, and I did that,
> and I raced with the big boys, and I did it with
> my own two hands and hard work."
>
> So I DON'T want to see that aspect change, and
> maybe we're all just being paranoid and it won't
> change, and maybe I'm being a jackass suggesting
> that we charge Monster and Redbull more money so
> TP and those guys can 'keep rallying with us'(or
> 'we can keep rallying with them')
>
> Maybe I'm being completely fucking ridiculous.

No not at all. You are talking about a dream and a passion, it does not have to make logical sense!

But I will re-iterate a story that I have probably made a lot of folks sick with its retelling: My dad took me to my first NASCAR race at Martinsville, in spring '63; I was 9 and really ate it up. He took me to several more races over the next few years, all in the 60's. There were 6-8 really top cars, some good cars, and the rest of the field filled with guys like most of us on this forum. In '67, at Asheville-Weaverville, there were 10-12 top cars and then the same graduated field. By the mid 70's there were fewer guys like us, running cars they built in their garage, and by the early 80's these guys were all elminated.

The warning is that if you want to run with the big dogs and the sport takes off, then you had better try to build a pro team now, and forget the joy-of-rally and adventure aspects of the sport and make it a pure business. Those amateur/hobby types who wish to run with the big boys will NOT survive IMO if it takes off.

I've been through the exercise of trying to make this rally sport a part time business, in the early and mid 80's I was not really a dedicated business person then, so it did not go anywhere. I readily learned it was my hobby, not my living. The pure amateur/hobby side or all racing forms and the pure advertising business aspect rarely ever really mix successfuly. The cost struture of a business is so much higher.

So, Jon, have your fun running with TP, but, my advice for most is that you better had put your dedication behind the participation sport advocates, no matter the sanctioning body or what. For most of us, that is what it will be: a hobby. I think this is the core thrust of this thread: get away from the high-dollar pro deal, and get back to good ole basic rally for the pure joy of the sport.

Regards,
Mark B.

"So, Jon, have your fun running with TP, but, my advice for most is that you better had put your dedication behind the participation sport advocates, no matter the sanctioning body or what. For most of us, that is what it will be: a hobby. I think this is the core thrust of this thread: get away from the high-dollar pro deal, and get back to good ole basic rally for the pure joy of the sport. "

absolutely, and I get that and can see how the sport could get to the same point NASCAR did like you said I hope it doesn't come to that...and if it does, I certainly won't try to keep up. Hopefully I'll have run my one RA event so I can say ' been there, done that' and then stick with local CRS events....I'll be happy as a clam.

BUT, it would be nice to find a good middle ground to keep that from happening and keep everyone happy. Maybe we're already there and we don't even know it. HANS devices have dropped in prices already.....NorCal picked up an event this year (NNR.....so annoyed I had to miss it at the last minute) and hopefully that will be around next year too. For a NASA rally beginner's stand point on the West coast, I honestly hope things just stay the same for the next 2 years.

---

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

Mark, you didn't forget that NASCAR isn't only the Sprint series. They have every thing down to local tracks and small dollar racers. Kind of an apples and oranges comparison. As long as there is racing, there will be a spot for the little guy. Whether it is bracket racing,stock cars, NASA/SCCA/Conference roaad racing, karts, Formula V or Ford, RallyX, tough trucks and so on. There will always be a place for the "little guys". After all we lopsidedly out number the big guys several thousand to one.

Don't forget Casey Kahne and Greg Biffle are local Washington boys. Derrick Cope and Chad Little also. They absolutely didn't start in Sprint Cup cars.

20 years ago we had 2 guys who normally won, Buffum or Millen. Usually Buffum. We had no divisional series. Nothing much happened in Canada, at least on the west side. I won overall the last Canadian event I ran. Now we have Pinker, Pastrana, Block, ACP, Lageman(sp), Foust, L'Estage, Richard all capable of winning on any given day. Also some very fast Irish guys from the East coast in USRC. We have 2 sanctioning bodies, several championships, decent regional programs, better tires, better cars, better suspension. We have great regional competition where a modest Rabbit or radical Volvo can go heads up with AWD turbo cars. It just isn't all doom and gloom. Certainly we have some challenges and adjustments ahead, but we'll keep rallying until the last road is gated.