Fiestas are brilliant.....

Quote
HiTempguy
Sure, ok, if we are going to debate semantics, a third party sponsor paid for part of it (I have no details, because I don't need them as you've made sure to point out, and clearly you aren't interested in providing said details because as usual, its all the damn pronoun game with you), the rest is out of RallyWest', RPM, and CARS pocket, which may have changed since I last heard anything about it, because as you made it clear (to reiterate), I have little to no power in dealing with it.

Quite frankly, I don't know a lot more about it that you do and some of it isn't my place to talk about, or make announcements about. Also, I am essentially fully removed from the trial of the system - with the RMR organisers taking the lead on the entire project. I also expect I may not be involved in any future implementation of the system either. (I've recently stepped down from any involvement with the CARS board - and am in the process of transitioning out of the roles.)

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Quote
Anders Green
RallySafe.

This was used by a few cars at LSPR this year.

I can tell you that I was in the sweep truck and we tried to get information about a missing car (that had a RallySafe unit) via net and by 30-40 minutes after they had gone off we still had not received any information that might have been produced by the unit/system. Ten to fifteen minutes after they went off, net noticed and attempted to use the standard "ask the next car if they've seen them" technique.

So as far as that rally, that day, that stage, to med sweep / first sweep, there was no additional benefit provided by the $700 that the racers spent for the system.

It's not a study, just a single example.

Anders

So sounds like more geeky shit which like most shit cooked up by geeks is over-promised and expensive as fuck and fails to do the simplest tasks in the real world..

I can see why its so popular---with geeks impressed with shiny gadgets..

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
john vanlandingham
So sounds like more geeky shit which like most shit cooked up by geeks is over-promised and expensive as fuck and fails to do the simplest tasks in the real world..
I can see why its so popular---with geeks impressed with shiny gadgets..

Yah, which is why it's mandated at stage rally events in Australia, including the regional events, and probably why many DRIVERS who have run events that use the system don't want to run without it. Also, maybe why it is used at the APRC events as well, without issue.

I have no idea what the set-up was at LSPR, but I do know it was only run in a few cars, and was implemented by individuals, not by the event or by Rawwy Amewica. I have no idea if the Clerk of the course or net control was privy to reports from the system, or what the situation in question was. Ultimatley, without knowing how the system was used it is impossible to say where the failure was.

What I do know is that when we had the chance to do a similar test with a few cars in the spring, the system communicated flawlessly and even passed a test it shouldn't have. (All the RF geeks said there was no way the unit would communicate without any antenna connected... it did, relaying through the next car with a unit that passed.)

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Here is what I can't figure out. Why would a company WANT to sponsor paying for RallySafe?
"Well, we thought about sponsoring rally for your great TV coverage but it just doesn't provide the return that we were hoping for."
"Wait, you have the RallySafe system to track cars! How cool, count us in, who do I write the check out to."

Doesn't rally struggle enough to survive. I can't see HOW this would bring additional sponsors. Or is it the mega social media following that comes from RallySafe as everyone is glued to their computers to see how many more minutes David Higgins has put on the field.

I was talking with a MTU graduate that grew up going to LSPR and is building a rally car just last week. Conversation was:
me: "Did you follow any of LSPR last weekend?"
him: "No. Was that last weekend, who won?"
me: "No clue, but I saw pictures and looks like it was super muddy."

And that sums up why Fiesta's are brilliant.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
NoCoast
Here is what I can't figure out. Why would a company WANT to sponsor paying for RallySafe?
"Well, we thought about sponsoring rally for your great TV coverage but it just doesn't provide the return that we were hoping for."
"Wait, you have the RallySafe system to track cars! How cool, count us in, who do I write the check out to."

Oil companies would sponsor what could be considered a safety initiative. Absolutely.

Quote
MattWatson
Oil companies would sponsor what could be considered a safety initiative. Absolutely.

Yup, and several others.

Quote
NoCoast
Here is what I can't figure out. Why would a company WANT to sponsor paying for RallySafe?"

Then you're either not trying, or trying not to.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Thanks for the enlightenment!

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
Morison

Quote
NoCoast
Here is what I can't figure out. Why would a company WANT to sponsor paying for RallySafe?"

Then you're either not trying, or trying not to.

That's a wee bit bitchy. Denver is a VERY different place corporately than Calgary, and has extremely different priorities. I would ask the same thing knowing corporate Denver.

Quote
MattWatson

Quote
Morison

Quote
NoCoast
Here is what I can't figure out. Why would a company WANT to sponsor paying for RallySafe?"

Then you're either not trying, or trying not to.

That's a wee bit bitchy. Denver is a VERY different place corporately than Calgary, and has extremely different priorities. I would ask the same thing knowing corporate Denver.

Corporate welfare sounds sustainable!

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
MattWatson

Oil companies would sponsor what could be considered a safety initiative. Absolutely.

Or, the more likely situation is that the competitor in question has some form of personal in (either by being part of the company itself, or having friends in high places) and convinced them to toss some cash at this. Great writeoff via advertising expenses, helps a friend and/or business partner, everyone wins.

You keep saying that everyone wants it Keith, but that is far from the truth. The truth is, everyone wants it, no one wants to pay for it/feels it is worth paying for.

As I've been telling everyone else, it is either a safety initiative or it is not, which makes competitor buy-in irrelavent, which is why RMR is wasting money on rallysafe. Rallysafe either works or not, there is no need to test it if it is for safety. What RMR is trying to do is to convince competitors they want rallysafe, which will cause those with louder voices and money to drown out those with little money.

Nobody can prove to me rallysafe makes rallying safer, so I don't support it. It has the ability to make rally safer, but as Anders pointed out (and is the case no matter what), if there are humans involved, time/money/effort should be spent on making THEM better. The technology is only as good as the operator.

Quote
HiTempguy

Quote
MattWatson

Oil companies would sponsor what could be considered a safety initiative. Absolutely.

Or, the more likely situation is that the competitor in question has some form of personal in (either by being part of the company itself, or having friends in high places) and convinced them to toss some cash at this. Great writeoff via advertising expenses, helps a friend and/or business partner, everyone wins.

You keep saying that everyone wants it Keith, but that is far from the truth. The truth is, everyone wants it, no one wants to pay for it/feels it is worth paying for.

As I've been telling everyone else, it is either a safety initiative or it is not, which makes competitor buy-in irrelavent, which is why RMR is wasting money on rallysafe. Rallysafe either works or not, there is no need to test it if it is for safety. What RMR is trying to do is to convince competitors they want rallysafe, which will cause those with louder voices and money to drown out those with little money.

Nobody can prove to me rallysafe makes rallying safer, so I don't support it. It has the ability to make rally safer, but as Anders pointed out (and is the case no matter what), if there are humans involved, time/money/effort should be spent on making THEM better. The technology is only as good as the operator.

Goddam kid you keep it up.
Only way it could make it SAFER is if controlls the gas and the wheel...so maybe that's the ultimate goal; some techy nerd-fucks play Richard Burns rally---with real cars...

Where's the reset?

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
NoCoast

Quote
MattWatson

Quote
Morison

Quote
NoCoast
Here is what I can't figure out. Why would a company WANT to sponsor paying for RallySafe?"

Then you're either not trying, or trying not to.

That's a wee bit bitchy. Denver is a VERY different place corporately than Calgary, and has extremely different priorities. I would ask the same thing knowing corporate Denver.

Corporate welfare sounds sustainable!

Someone's gotta have a Colorado business or political connection to Sinclair Gas Co. Or ConocoPhillips
It would be worth a try to get them to sponsor

I thought no way if it raises entry cost. I looked at it at LSPR also. All the other options it is capable of i think is cool. Plus the safety end of it.

I think sponsors will step up on this. It seems if its a safety thing people are more apt to put there name on it. I supply the rallisafe for these fools in the woods!

I know personaly if rallisafe was made manditory and it is $150 per event I could get the $600 for the 4 rallies a year from a sponsor likely my mother. Just from the piece of mind she can look on line miles away and know Im safe.

My gut says that RA will cut half of the first 20 subies discount from Subaru and apply the funding to pay for rallisafe. 10 cars at $150 and 10 cars at $250= $4000 40 average entries thats extra $100 per car with out raising entry fees. Also all the guys who dont drive a Subaru can feel good about the free Rallisafe they get from Subaru!

---

First rally 2013
Rally car type AWD subaru
Total rallies as driver 6
Total rally cars built 2
Total rally cars caged 3
Total rally cars repaired from offs 4
Total years racing exp other then rally 19 yrs
Like 31motorsports on FB!
Check out 31motor sales on ebay for used Subaru parts

Well shit, if it's sponsoring a SAFETY thing, why didn't we have them buy us all Hans devices?

---

Grant Hughes

Companies such as Humana or Cancer Treatment Centers of America spend lots of money advertising each year. Americas Best, Sears, Lee jeans etc. It would be hard to look around a home and not see a product that doesn't have some sort of advertising budget...Charmin, Kleenex, Windex.

It is easier to 'sell' an item to a sponsor than a mystery donation. We can sell the cost of the volunteer banquet much easier than just requesting $5k for the general fund. Same with competitors, get a sponsor to pay for a specific item..entry fee, tires, RallySafe and not a general handout.

BUT..I think it is more of a novelty that a necessity. I can see organizer or competitors getting stuck with the brunt of the cost sooner or later. Radio communications are always waiting for an opportunity to screw someone over. Iron content in the surrounding hills, trees, rain, sunspots. The Feds dithering with GPS tracking that particular day. Then you still have the actual issue of getting to an injured competitor or getting them out of the woods to medical. I believe the was an unofficial medic onscene when Marker crashed, JV says a nurse was onscene when Rosemary crashed. What could RallySafe do different in those instances? although it may be better than having competitors blatantly drive by an off with injured people standing in the roadway...