GPS rally computers

Quote
Not Trolling
Wanting to own a RallySafe unit is like wanting to own the ground your service spot is on during a rally. It is a proprietary piece of equipment that needs to work on a specific online application. If you own the box (moreso if the sanctioning body owns 60 of the boxes) then you are absolutely tied to the whims of the provider no matter what they do with ongoing operating costs. If you rent, you can look at other options (or threaten to) because you can walk away without ending up with a lot of expensive capital tied up in now useless gear.

at the end of the day, this comes down to many people do not want to spend the extra money because that extra money doesn't appreciably increase safety over current operations, or perhaps better enhancing current methods. Rally here is the states really isn't in the shape to shove 150 to 200 fees per event on people. Especially regional events, regional competitors, and generally anything regional. National guys have always seemed okay with paying more to receive little, but they do not make up the core of the community.

If this can be make to NOT increase the cost per event at say, a one time expense of owning the install kit. Then perhaps that is a decent compromise. While the argument that if they can pay for it, they could have made the events cheaper is valid, it would approach a compromise.

---

First Rally: 2010 First RallyX: 2004 (a bunch)
Driver (0), Co-Driver (7)
Organizer (3), Volunteer (3)
Cars Built (2.5), Engines Blown (2) Cages Built (0) # of rotations (3.5)
Last Updated, Apr 9, 2023

blah blah politics on stuff that doesn't mean shit to most of us regional competitors but gets the fuss pots knickers in a twist... Grant how much for the box of wires?


Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2016 03:15PM by DexterVW.

Quote
Gravity Fed
at the end of the day, this comes down to many people do not want to spend the extra money because that extra money doesn't appreciably increase safety over current operations, or perhaps better enhancing current methods.

Except that... once people run with the system they generally end up supporting its use, even at an increased cost. This was certainly the case in the post event survey done of PFR competitors, and the results reflected the global experience seen when adopting the system in other countries.

90% of the drivers who responded to the PFR survey (which had a 70% response or drivers) said they would be happy with an increased cost to the competitor of $100. (PFR's increase of entry fee was $100.) 70% of responding drivers would be happy at =$200.

Before anyone starts pointing at 'rich drivers vs. poor drivers' being the split here... it wasn't. Several of the absolute shoestring budget teams said they would happily pay $200 to have the system on event.

Having run events with Rallysafe and many more without... I am now very reluctant to run events without it again.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

by the same statement, there are many people who are blatantly not in favor of buying for it at the previously discussed amounts.

---

First Rally: 2010 First RallyX: 2004 (a bunch)
Driver (0), Co-Driver (7)
Organizer (3), Volunteer (3)
Cars Built (2.5), Engines Blown (2) Cages Built (0) # of rotations (3.5)
Last Updated, Apr 9, 2023

Quote
Gravity Fed
by the same statement, there are many people who are blatantly not in favor of buying for it at the previously discussed amounts.

Generally speaking, those are people who haven't competed (or organized) using the system.
Yes, there are always a few who will be against it at any price, but I have seen people turn from 'no way' before having it in the car to 'need to have this' after running with it. And that has been a trend repeated around the globe - so you can't accuse me of only looking in my back yard.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
Not Trolling

Quote
Gravity Fed
by the same statement, there are many people who are blatantly not in favor of buying for it at the previously discussed amounts.

Generally speaking, those are people who haven't competed (or organized) using the system.
Yes, there are always a few who will be against it at any price, but I have seen people turn from 'no way' before having it in the car to 'need to have this' after running with it. And that has been a trend repeated around the globe - so you can't accuse me of only looking in my back yard.

No argung that many, indeed most boys are easily distracted by shiny objects...
random piccie from anywhere in the world today..


And every one of them goes from meh to have to have this...

Hardly an argument for.

---

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
...very one of them goes from meh to have to have this...
Hardly an argument for.

Good think that isn't my argument for... :-|

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
Not Trolling
Several of the absolute shoestring budget teams said they would happily pay $200 to have the system on event.

I've always found our concept of shoestring differs.

Your concept of shoestring does not have an adverse effect on a competitor if the price increases $200. My concept does.

There are plenty of people who do not want RallySafe. A "majority" ie > 50%? No, I don't think so.

Of course, PFR was an easy event to use, as it made the minimum 30 entries to make the $175-$200cdn/event fee structure even possible. Tell that to the eastern events who are getting 10 cars out to their regionals. I'd love to see the financials for Kananaskis, pretty sure a company with a vested interest in RallySafe stepped in, not that that would be disclosed. Hmmmmmmm.

"A trend around the globe". What a generic, shit statement. NOBODY GETS A CHOICE ONCE ITS BROUGHT IN. Of course the trend is "wide spread adoption" or "wanting it" when its forced on the competitor whether they like it or not. Christ almighty Keith

This is literally the entire conversation with you for the past 4 years:



Not to mention there are so many direct conflicts of interest in RallySafe its staggering. The "real" numbers, all from an event with a very strong field with decent $$$ except for a few people, is MAYBE, at most, 70% of the drivers who responded wanted it. Probably more like 65%. Hardly a staggering majority considering how well off the field was. Of course, the poll was written to have any answer except one show rallysafe in a positive light, and even the negative was worded in such a way to vastly mistate what people thought of the system.

Its typical bullshit, propaganda 101. The amount of people that I've chatted with that see right through it is hilarious, people approach and message me about how absurd the whole thing is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2016 09:57PM by dreamsofjvl.

Oh, and this one, for the fact that the situations quoted that rallysafe saves people from are so remotely unlikely and/or uncommon:



Take a safety course Keith. They teach you how to assess a situation for safety.

Dayum Vokes, I like this new approach you're taking..
You've figured out that Morison does not use language to elucidate things, he uses langauge to conceal.. Justy one example is the utter, total bullshit he has used here quoting all these percentages when he certainly MUST have at his finger tips the actual NUMBERS and could have, if he was a moral person said Well 11 outta 22 or 15 out of 18 or 3 out of 6..
That shows something more tangible than 70% said..

I just did a survey and 167% of all the respondents in both Alberta and Quebec said, and I quote" "Fuck that shit"...and 140% of those also said "And the horse he rode in on"..
Amazing percentages isn't it.

keep it up Adam.

---

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.

Adam: You're so full of shit it is tough to know where to start.
The costing of rallysafe isn't an 'event by event' thing, but looks at the three events collectively. AS YOU KNOW, it was based on averaging 33 units (IIRC) billed at each event, and it looks like we'll average 30. That means I'm out of pocket a bit, but Nameless Performance has said they will come in to help protect me from a significant personal loss.
A full accounting of the three events is being made available to the regions and events in the name of transparency.

When it comes to 'shoestring budget' teams, what I was saying is that in general teams I thought would not support the cost did. In fact, only two drivers of the 26 who responded said no.

As for the rest of your post... what can I say.
You accuse me of having a conflict of interest and hiding a vested interest in a system that has cost me more in time and effort to examine, and one that I have no intentions of making money off of. (beyond maybe covering costs of running it at events and helping other organsiers learn how to use it on their own.)

John: If I had posted raw numbers you'd have accused me of being deceptive by not showing percentages. You'll take umbrage with anything I say, but that doesn't bother me because you're you and that's fine. But... for shits and giggles:
I could easily have said that of 37 drivers, 2 responded 'no,' but while accurate, that doesn't reflect that only 26 responded. (Presumably the rest didn't have a strong enough opinion)
So:
37 teams asked, 26 drivers responded, 23 co-drivers.
19 Drivers said yes at $200 (The amount asked)
A few volunteered they'd be OK at $100, bringing that up to 23.

Regardless, I always find percentages are more meaningful when interpreting data.

I know google is tough for you, but I also did say 70% of the drivers responded to the survey AND which event the survey was for...

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
Not Trolling
Adam: You're so full of shit it is tough to know where to start.
The costing of rallysafe isn't an 'event by event' thing, but looks at the three events collectively. AS YOU KNOW, it was based on averaging 33 units (IIRC) billed at each event, and it looks like we'll average 30.

Averages are great when you have outliers to bring up numbers, or extremely small datasets. But one of us must be confused about how averages work. You are expecting an additional 5 entries that aren't listed for Big White? That's great, but that still doesn't get you to the 30 car average.

And it doesn't matter, at the end of the day, the COST is the COST. You are like the car salesman who is trying to use the "four square", oh shit, the person is catching on, but wait! look at this payment, don't worry about the total price! Give me a break.

Oh, and the real numbers come out:

19 Drivers said yes at $200

BASICALLY HALF. HALF OF DRIVERS SPECIFICALLY AT PFR SAID YES. For god's sake man, just give it up already. And it was a national event to boot with a high proportion of well off teams. I like your anecdotal "well poor teams told me" shtick. I'm sure Eric is classified as that lol.

Kananaskis an outlier? Maybe, maybe not. As we discussed at the AGM, its safe to assume if no other event is brought into the region/WCRC for 2017, there will probably be growth.

However, spreading RallySafe to all events this year:

25 for cochrane
37 PFR
35 big white
35 rocky
11 kananaskis

Is only 28.6. So you just admitted that the $175-$200/car range isn't even actually feasible in Western Canada based on 33 cars per event for this season regionally. And good luck with Ontario events or Eastern Canada in general. The national events can barely support a 33 car average field, one bad entry field for an event and its out the window.

Do you not understand that Nameless has a direct conflict of interest in this? If not, I have zero desire to explain to you every little detail of every little thing of why there are issues when it is plain to see. You know this though, its just another crack in the "must have rally safe" argument that you don't want to admit. I already argue about this stuff enough as it is.

Sure, costs may go down, but as we have discussed ad nauseam, the overall cost is the overall cost, with not much savings to be had. Further proof the system has been subsidized, the numbers obscured to make the situation appear much better and more reasonable than it actually is. I guess there is your "word" that RallySafe isn't giving any rate discount whatsoever to you. Considering the amount of coverage and promotion you give them in North America, and you convincing many events to use it, color me surprised that I don't believe you or them. Of course, its handy that comparing costs to anywhere else in the world would be useless, makes it that much harder to figure out whether they are changing rates or not.

So who is full of shit? Don't treat me like I am stupid Keith, I know enough to recognize car salesman tactics and to call a spade a spade. After all is said and done, its going to be $175-$200/car, no matter who is footing the bill. Over time, it may produce cost savings when used to its maximum potential. Maybe. I am doubtful, clearly.

I did find the concept of no controls very interesting. Can't argue against that, and it would majorly cut down costs from volunteers. Of course, that's another debate to be had, the amount events are subsidizing volunteers seems to be getting out of hand.

One final thing, just to reiterate:

The CLUBS and EVENTS serve US, the COMPETITORS. The CLUBS have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible to its membership, as do the events. Something is seriously wrong if an event is overcharging the competitors by $200/event that they can outright subsidize something like rallysafe without raising entry fees. It is CRAP and I refuse to allow that kind of bullshittery to continue if it is the case.

As I have said before, I do not volunteer for myself, or SRTC, or Boris, or or or. I volunteer for the small guys. If its only millionaires out in the woods, like GRC, they can pay for that themselves, I have much better things to do with my time than subsidize them. This isn't a knock against someone being well off, this is a knock against abusing the concept of volunteering.

Adam.
Course cars are 'charged out,' making the average 30.

I have absolutely no clue why you say Nameless has a conflict of interest in this. Enlighten me (here or offline, doesn't matter - I really don't have a clue what you're talking about.)
For the record, I approached them. They were luke-warm but came in with a small amount of support because they wanted to support a competitor safety initiative.

Your 'half the drivers specifically said yes' is just as dishonest as if I had said 'only two of the drivers specifically said no.' While fundamentally true, it it ignores the fact that nearly a third didn't respond at all.

I'll stop treating you like you're stupid if you stop acting like you're stupid. You had a perfect opportunity to raise the issue of RallySafe at western Canadian events at the RallyWest AGM and you stayed silent. That, if anywhere, was the proper venue for this discussion.

The clubs have a responsibility to their members, not the competitors. Event organisers are (or should be) accountable to the clubs, not the competitors. The suggestion that events should be run at break-even every time shows you don't understand club dynamics, how not-for-profits need to operate to be sustainable, or how events like this NEED to be budgeted so the events themselves are sustainable even with poor entries. Good turn-outs, in turn, allow events to build reserves that can back-stop new initiatives and/or allow for growth in other areas. (For some time in the CSCC, rally surpluses supported losses in other disciplines - and it has been the other way around as well)

You accuse me of being deceptive when talking about the eventual cost of the system because we can't really nail that down. I've explained this to you countless times before, but maybe this time it will stick.
The cost will depend a LOT on if we can land a basic set of units in north america for a long period of time. By this I mean can we actually import several dozen units for a couple of years rather than bringing them in under a bond and sending them back and forth to events across the world. That alone would impact the end costs dramatically. (if we're sharing with other events in other countries we're talking air freight costs, not slow boat costs.) If units are 'parked' here and not being used, then there is either lost revenue from not using them at other events, or increased capital cost for RallySafe in building more units to cover events they could be used at.
There are other factors as well, such as how many temp install kits are used, how much of the server side work are we able to do locally, and so-on.

My near evangelical zeal regarding RallySafe isn't about making money or lining anyone's pockets with embarassing riches. It is about trying to reach the critical mass of events needed to make this as affordable as possible for the teams by having as many events on board as we can get.

My interest in the system comes both as an organiser and as a competitor.

As an organiser I KNOW the system can save stage milage from being cut/dropped, help me turn-around stages quicker, allow me to put chicanes where they add safety, not just where we can staff them, and that we'll get alerted with good information when bad things start to happen. And when bad things do start to happen, we WILL be way ahead of the curve in our response time, and will be able to be more informed about how we need to respond.
As a very real world example, the Gem-Falcon stage we're running next weekend is 32km long, and the hairpins regularly claim cars during the event. The next radio point is about 2km later, and there is about another 18 km of stage after the radio point.
If a car stuffs in there, and there are places where the car could disappear completely, the normal process we have in place would take about 20 minutes for us to get the first indication of if you are off and OK, or off and not visible and that we have to start looking for you.

As a competitor, I've been in situations where it would have made me significantly safer, and while I survived without injury, I was certainly at a higher risk than I'd like to be. There are times where I've been in a car that stuffed into a snowbank to avoid another team on stage, and there are times I've been held-up by slower cars AND where we've held up faster cars.
As a competitor who's used RallySafe, I've seen it allow us to pass cars without changing our pace AT ALL. I've seen warnings from cars that are off and ok many times when the crew was just getting out of the car, and waving us on.
I've also been in an event where the car ahead of us on stage disappeared, and was some 200' down an embankment. I have friends who were so far off the road that sweep had cleared the stage before they managed their way back to the road... and nobody recognized they were missing.

These aren't hypotheticals, these aren't 'one off' situations, they are real world considerations.They are also all situations that RallySafe can effectively mitigate.

In many ways I agree that the 'compensation' for our volunteers is generous - perhaps too muchs so - but without them (and really I'm very much a volunteer as well) there wouldn't be rallies at all. Making sure they feel appreciated and that they are not out of pocket too much is the least we can do.

Anyway... I have to get back to getting stuff ready for Big White...

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
Not Trolling

John: If I had posted raw numbers you'd have accused me of being deceptive by not showing percentages. You'll take umbrage with anything I say, but that doesn't bother me because you're you and that's fine. But... for shits and giggles:
I could easily have said that of 37 drivers, 2 responded 'no,' but while accurate, that doesn't reflect that only 26 responded. (Presumably the rest didn't have a strong enough opinion)
So:
37 teams asked, 26 drivers responded, 23 co-drivers.
19 Drivers said yes at $200 (The amount asked)
A few volunteered they'd be OK at $100, bringing that up to 23.

Regardless, I always find percentages are more meaningful when interpreting data.
.

Morison, don't wriggle and squirm, you always 'craft' your "information" in intentionally decpttive ways... You think that only Keith Morison in all the intra-webs is the only person capable of doing percentages? No, bullshit, you always bullshit.. Always.
And whooptie doo that you find percentages more useful.. They are one thing, but anybody HONEST knows that 75% can be arrived at a lot of ways, but 3 out of 4 is just about useless because of sample size..

The main thing is you intentionally obfuscate, make noise and intentionally ignore that safety beings in the minds of people involved...
And that currently neither Canada or any of the various US organisation do anything about the HEAPS of people who
do not display triangles correctly
do not display OK sign corrctly
who do not stop when no OK sign is displayed.

THOSE rules and those violations is the FIRST line of defense--well aside from stressing "There is no point to kill or maim anybody for this our fun little passtime---drive better.
And those rules cost ZERO dollars per car per event to hammer into peoples heads...

Cost nothing but some butt-hurt people who think the triangle, OK sign and Stop if you see no OK rules are for the other guys cause they're in a "serious" fight..

Some smart guy once said something about the simplest solution having the highest probability of being correct..paraphrasing Mr Obvious, you need not explain it.
.I know who it was so shut the fuck up with your mansplaining all the time.

Simplest solution is internalisation of existing rules FIRST instead of a new, expensive, open checkbook technological soultion EXTERNAL of the people who even now "don't notice" things now.

Until you explain by what mechanism that allegedly inattentive or "too wound up" people who currently "don't see" triangles and OKs out there where they should have all the will focused, are going to SUDDENLY pay attention to some thing in the car, then its just more of what you do so well: flogging the log. Poundin the pudding, jerkin the gherkin.

---

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
The main thing is you intentionally obfuscate, make noise and intentionally ignore that safety beings in the minds of people involved...
And that currently neither Canada or any of the various US organisation do anything about the HEAPS of people who
do not display triangles correctly
do not display OK sign corrctly
who do not stop when no OK sign is displayed.

CARS has a rule that gives a 10 minute penalty AND a $500 fine for not following the triangle rules... the problem is that the vast majority of the violations happen out of sight of any officials and I have yet to have a team write paper on another team for not showing a triangle.
The rule and the penalties make a strong point about how seriously the issue is, but the fact of the matter is that it is nearly unenforceable.

Quote
john vanlandingham
THOSE rules and those violations is the FIRST line of defense--well aside from stressing "There is no point to kill or maim anybody for this our fun little passtime---drive better.
And those rules cost ZERO dollars per car per event to hammer into peoples heads...
Cost nothing but some butt-hurt people who think the triangle, OK sign and Stop if you see no OK rules are for the other guys cause they're in a "serious" fight..

You clearly haven't been to one of my driver meetings... or any driver meeting in Canada recently for that matter.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Until you explain by what mechanism that allegedly inattentive or "too wound up" people who currently "don't see" triangles and OKs out there where they should have all the will focused, are going to SUDDENLY pay attention to some thing in the car, then...

I suppose you're right. A screen that lights up in bright colours in your periphial vision is so much less of a distration that a triangle on the side of the road that may have been knocked over by flying gravel (seen lots) or been obliterated by the previous car because it was 'in the line.' It is also so incredibly more difficult to see that screen than it is the triangle that is still in the car that is on its roof, hidden in the ditch. (been there just a couple years ago, seen it lots)

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022