Alex Korovkine wrote on 12/17/4 at 10:06:26:


Yes Alex, thanks for pointing that out. I did know that and was thinking of including it in my note, but missed it. These guys were apparantly experienced competitors, volunteers and spectators. They knew what they were doing, yet found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It all boils down to money.

A performance rally is not a 100% controlled situation, so no one can guarantee that a spectator or innocent bystander won't get hurt. That means insurance rates are going to be high, and that means rally organizers are going to need to raise more money to break even at an event.

SCCA apparently decided that the costs (insurance and security) would soon outweigh their potential income (sponsorship, media revenues, entry fees and possibly spectator fees). So they got out if the game.

Their new format creates a controlled environment for spectators as no one can unknowingly walk out of the woods onto the course, so insurance rates will be lower; and they can generate more revenue because the format is spectator and media friendly. They can broadcast the whole event (every rollover and collision) with a small number of cameras and the spectators can see all or most of the track. Spectators also see the cars pass numerous times. The organizers can charge all spectators because there is no way to seek into unofficial viewing areas, as there is with most rallies.

I suspect that if real performance rallying is to continue in North America it will have to eventually move to more remote locations or to locations were we can control the entire course.

After the two spectators were killed at Ski Sawmill, and then the Lovell and Freeman accident, it was a big issue.  A co-driver had been killed at Ski Sawmill just a year or two before.

The Lovell/Freeman accident was a real hard one(both personally and publicity wise) for the sport to sustain.  They were great guys that are sorely missed, but the most difficult part for me is that they were two of the most professional crew in a factory built and serviced equipment.  When that accident happened, it sent a shudder through all crews around the world.  It seems that we could always talk away other accidents and come up with a plausible reason, but with their accident we all knew it can happen to any of us at any time.  

The nature of rallying in ths US is that it's not only hard to insure now, but it's very difficult to market.  You need a creative marketing firm(which I think Rally America now has), quality events with all the other quality issues to go with them(quality competitors, workers, fans etc.).  Most Americans aren't active fans like the Canadians.  They'd rather see the satellite feed than go out to the stage and watch.

The sport of rally will never cease to exist, but there are things that we can do to make the sport safer and more marketable at the same time.  

As a team, we've been fairly early adopters of crew safety items, like the HANS device and side head restraint seats, roll cage improvements among others.  We definitely want to make it to the next rally, no matter what happens on the stage!  

FWIW, some of the most dangerous spectator situations I've had have been in Canada.  I love to rally with you all, so don't take that comment the wrong way.  Pat crashed at Charlevoix a couple of years ago because of a spectator on his line.  Check out of Perce Neige video from 2003 to see guys on the inside of two linked corners(it's in slow-mo in the middle someplace).  We entered a hot stage at Charlevoix with spectators walking out BOTH sides, no who seemed worried enough to move.

Anyway, we'll continue to strive for improvements in our driving, our car and our team.  We'll leave the marketing up to the specialists, and hope that all the North American series can sustain themselves.  We wouldn't konw what to do if we didn't have a place to play!  

Hope to see some of you at the AGM!

Cheers!  John

C. Hamm wrote on 12/28/4 at 11:34:11:


My point exactly.  The implicit statement in the original post said to me that if people didn't like the costs, then they are not real rally enthusiasts and should take up another hobby.  I wanted to point out that those who are involved with the "commercialization" of rallying are doing so because they are real rally enthusiasts and want the sport to prosper.  Some of those who try to draw more sponsorship into rallying (the top-flight competitors) are currently spending enormous amounts of money out of their own pockets.  I thought the post would be insulting to some because the poster suggested that they were not true enthusiasts even though they are doing a lot to help the sport grow.

Costs keep rising and I don't really think many teams can afford significant hikes in entry fees.  That leaves sponsorship as the best (only?) way to keep costs to competitors at current or reduced levels.  If we just say "Screw them, if they can't afford to pay, they shouldn't play" then the sport will die a quick death.


Quote:


Well said, but ultimately it's the competitors' chequebooks that keep this sport alive.  If we can alleviate the financial burden on competitors we can open up the sport to more people.


On the bright side, 2005 is looking like it will be a good year despite the off-season controversies.  Subaru is back on board with the OPRC and it sounds like there will be a pile of new performance rally teams in Ontario.  We are getting tremendous interest from Quebec teams, too.  Here's hoping for a great season!

luv2drift makes good points imo.  As much as we ALL love rallying, and ALL want to see it flourish, when you are "in the moment," it is for yourself.  I see some of Alan's points, too.

As far as roads go, they are mostly "free" but you need to fix road damage, but there is less road damage from the lower powered cars, though they pay the same road damage levee as the monster cars that do all the ripping up.  Furthermore, the guys on a smaller budget need to run behind on the torn up roads behind the more monied guys.  Insurance is always an unavoidable cost concern.

I agree that while it is fantastic to have sponsors for an event (I had some for Lanark and am grateful to them) it DOES raise the level of effort and the level of expectation from the competitors.  As far as the pureness of the rallying goes, you do not need sponsors.  They are there to offer competitors and the organiser some well appreciated perks, and to advertise their fine products.  No shame in any of it.  But, I wouldn't want my event to be cancelled because I lost a sponsor.  Good, accurate route notes, safe, insured, and great road choice or devilish instructions on a navvie, and it is pure rallying.

I am just as happy, or more happy if I see 40 P1-P3, some P4, cars getting flogged hard out there, by budget teams, at each event, or regional, than to see the 12-15 teams we get now.  I mean, as a marshal, I want to see some action for all that driving, time and expense I go through to help out!  The most fun I had at GCFR was seeing if Matt Follett would finish in the car that looking worse for wear, and he did.  He just kept smiling, and driving, and they made it.  It was great fun in P1.  No pretense there.  Good honest, budget rallying.  Fast ? Nope, but fun!!  That's dedication.

It's really great to see interest from Quebec, but I fail to see how it promotes lower cost to expect a regional team to run at Baie.  The towing costs are more than some percentage increase in entry fees.  I won't even marshal there unless I plan on staying for some vaction.  Way to far away for me, and I'm not towing.  I hear it's a great event, however.

There's an idea. East vs. west. Each side of the country could have it's own series, and then we could meet in the middle somewhere for one final national rally. Maybe Thunder Bay could play host.

Thinking big. If it was scheduled right, and organized exceedingly well, it could eventually become the WRC Rally Canada event, as well.

Hey, I agree with both of you.  Mark it down on your calendars.

The top teams are my "heros" too, but if I was "god" and had to choose between a few big cars, and a smattering of P classes at each regional, or a ton of P class entries, I'll go with the latter.  In Europe they have no issues with running big series with small displacement cars.  I agree, though, the big teams bring the sex-appeal to the sport, and they are awesome to watch!

On the Baie issue, you could be right.  Maybe it will work out well for all parties.  I'm into that if it happens.  I give credit for trying it out.