ARC "control tyre" IDEA - Page 5 - Brindabella Motor Sport Club

Kaptainballistik · 08-10-2007, 06:25 PM

Marcus · 08-10-2007, 06:59 PM

Could someone enlighten me why we all just don't fug off to AMSAG and leave Rallycorp, fARCe etc behind to wither into meaningless? Reading this thread has seriously hurt what remaining cells of grey matter I pretend to have.

This really looks and sounds bloody appalling. And I'm wondering, is Rallycorp's books open for examination?

Ric Cary · 08-10-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

This really looks and sounds bloody appalling. And I'm wondering, is Rallycorp's books open for examination?

Nope and neither are CAMS

hev · 08-10-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

And I'm wondering, is Rallycorp's books open for examination?

Oh stop it, my sides are hurting!

But CAMS are, apparently...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAMS Constitution

11. Accounts

True accounts shall be kept of the sums of money received and expended by CAMS and the manner in respect of which such receipt and expenditure takes place and of the property, assets and liabilities of CAMS and subject to any reasonable restrictions as to time and manner of inspecting the same that may be imposed in accordance with this Constitution of CAMS for the time being, shall be open to the inspection of the Members.

Funnily enough, I couldn't find any such Constitution for Rallycorp...

Quote:

Originally Posted by google

Your search - "rallycorp constitution" - did not match any documents.

Coincidence?

But since Rallycorp report to (or is 'licensed by') the AMSC, which is part of CAMS, I wonder if there's any flow on... ??

Marcus · 08-10-2007, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hev

Oh stop it, my sides are hurting!

But CAMS are, apparently...

Funnily enough, I couldn't find any such Constitution for Rallycorp...

Coincidence?

I seeeeeee. Well, that does kinda explain a few things and as well also explains something that I've been puzzling about and as well this whole 'stakeholders' and 'commercial interests' thing.

So what we really have here is that one group of rally people really wanted to take the sport in one direction and try to look after more than just their own interests, while other more commercial groups try and look after just their own and screw the competitors, they have money?

And the number of committees and subgroups hurts my head. I really cant understand the structure in place at all nor whom does what or reports to whom, or whom does the reacharound.

Quite obviously tho, I am completely naive in thinking that CAMS and co are supposed to look after us and growing the sport instead of allowing this compete nonsense to happen. No of course, their job description is to be blind to reality and not accountible to us.

And I add, we're supposed to be the important ones here. Without us, there's no motorsport. Someone seem sto forget that.

BTW, vote 1 Marcus for the seat of ARCom at the federal election. Hey why not, I couldn't screw things up any worse.

Hasbeen · 08-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Thanks Ric for putting EDD'S reply up just proves what i have thought all along CAMS would have to be the most corupt organisation around we are just being screwed bigtime with the big pineapple and i will belive EDD before any of these other corupt ego's.
I thought Fountain might of been a glimer of hope but seem's i was wrong it's just pure corperate crap.
Just his idea with his permit and log book idea they can't even get liecening and officaling right how the hell are they going to get this right.
Us and them still.

tortfeaser · 08-10-2007, 11:01 PM

Ease up on the corruption talk. Edits ahoy.

MikeW · 09-10-2007, 12:23 AM

Who are Rallycorp responsible to? I mean who looks at their performance each year and goes "yep, your doing a good job, keep it up fellas"?

It's obvious that they are not achieving what they set out to do. I mean, can anyone say that have done any of this in the 8 years that they have been around?

Quote:

Rallycorp was formed in 1999 with the prime objective of commercialising and growing the Australian Rally Championship

or what about this?

Quote:

In addition, Rallycorp is committed to the concept of a vibrant and successful championship that can be used as the ‘flagship’ to promote the growth of Australian rallying at all levels.

or this?

Quote:

Increase the media coverage of the ARC

*Bold sections by me but these quotes have been taken from the rallycorp section of www.rally.com.au (http://www.rally.com.au/aboutrallycorp)

I don't know how the Australian Motorsport Commission can continue to give/sell/whatever the licence to promote the Australian Rally Championship anymore.

MikeW · 09-10-2007, 12:29 AM

A bit off topic but for interest I found this page on the ACCC website regarding the ELF Fuel thing for the ARC. It has submissions from interested parties including the factory teams.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index...lay/submission

The interesting thing is that this went through the ACCC because making people use one brand of fuel was seen as anti-competitive. I wonder if the same process would happen with the control tyre?

rallyfiend · 09-10-2007, 12:41 AM

The interesting things is how Mr. Ordynski put in a submission on the matter, was an advisor to ARCom at the time, and yet in his email to Ric Cary above, uses it as a piece of ammunition...... Selective memory?

Ric Cary · 09-10-2007, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rallyfiend

The interesting things is how Mr. Ordynski put in a submission on the matter, was an advisor to ARCom at the time, and yet in his email to Ric Cary above, uses it as a piece of ammunition...... Selective memory?

Maybe as an advisor to ARCOM at the time Ed didn't realise that the whole thing was geared around a RallyCorp profit centre. If I remember correctly it was sold as being the funding for the FIV which has subsequently been used to sell other income streams. Its rotten and it needs to stop. as does snipeing from behind a nom de plume

Ric Cary · 09-10-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeW

A bit off topic but for interest I found this page on the ACCC website regarding the ELF Fuel thing for the ARC. It has submissions from interested parties including the factory teams.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index...lay/submission

The interesting thing is that this went through the ACCC because making people use one brand of fuel was seen as anti-competitive. I wonder if the same process would happen with the control tyre?

I don't think making people use one type of fuel was the issue, the process of making people use one type of fuel was the issue no consultation etc etc etc

MikeW · 09-10-2007, 12:14 PM

It's subtle, but I get the difference.

What your saying is that if ARCom (Rallycorp??) go out to tender for a control tyre then the process is ok and the ACCC stay away. If ARCom just select a tyre (as they did with the fuel) then that is another story.

What I found funny was that the factory teams were all happy with the ELF WRF because it was cheaper per litre than the fuel they used before hand but it totally ignored the fact that the non-factory guys were using fuel that was much cheaper than the ELF WRF so it ended up costing them more. ie: the lower teams were subsidising the factory teams when it came to paying for the FIV's.

I can see the same issue with the control tyre. It will be cheaper for the factory teams and more expensive for everyone else.

flat04 · 09-10-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeW

I can see the same issue with the control tyre. It will be cheaper for the factory teams and more expensive for everyone else.

The really annoying part is that it doesn't have to be the case but I'll bet the house it turns out to be the outcome. The result should be it is cheaper for everyone. The factory teams are already signed up so if it is to provide benefit to the sport the control tyre has to be better for the non-factory teams to boost competitor numbers. Do that with cheaper/fewer tyres.

Reducing the number of tyres per heat would be great in terms of having to run harder compound tyres. Might even result in more exciting driving styles for the fans but then it wouldn't be in the tyre suppliers best interest to reduce the number of tyres to be supplied nor the cost of them.

I'm scared for our beloved sport at the moment!!

I can feel a great opportunity being passed by shortly.........

Andrew Gooley
SARC Competitor.

Ric Cary · 09-10-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeW

It's subtle, but I get the difference.
What I found funny was that the factory teams were all happy with the ELF WRF because it was cheaper per litre than the fuel they used before hand but it totally ignored the fact that the non-factory guys were using fuel that was much cheaper than the ELF WRF so it ended up costing them more. ie: the lower teams were subsidising the factory teams when it came to paying for the FIV's.

actually what happened was the ELF deal was sold as a sponsorship that would cover the FIV's then the price came out $1.00 ltr more than you could already buy it for so it was absolutely no sponsorship it was just a straight Rallycorp income stream, even now if ring Elf to buy fuel for general use its $1.00 a ltr cheaper than if you want it for an ARC