Mazda and CAMS events

[Jme]

Originally Posted by Rallyray

There was a bit of a works ride for a up and comer to which a young fella won. His name escapes me but drove a 1200 excitedly...

Michael Long... he got 4th at Myall and 3rd at Natcap in his Liberty. Ran strong at the Bay behind the locals as well.

C'mon Ray... you've gotta know who Longy is! Quality steerer who Mazda maybe should consider again.

I don't know what's up with Mazda, but Manufacturers will always come and go and suit themselves. They should be treated with respect... for sure... but no more than any competitor.

[Rallyray]

Michael Long... Thats it.

[Col Trinder]

OK... Just so I refreshed my own recollection of the sequence of events I have had a conversation today with one of the two people that have first hand knowledge of the entire conversation that took place with Alan Horsely from Mazda at Rally Tasmania two years ago. This is the 'little chat' Ray wrongly refers to me having taken part in.

The real reasons Mazda chose not to compete in the ARC is something that is known only to them. They have chosen tarmac rallying as more suited to their budget. I believe from other conversations I have had with Mr Horsely is that he wants the Showroom class to be premier category for rallying in Australia so that they have a fair chance at winning it outright. The showroom regulations were drafted in consultation with a number of players, including Mazda. The fact that they have not chosen that path is something I can't answer for them.

What I do know is that Mazda were never asked to contribute any manufacturers fee (at that time there was a contract in place with Toyota)
as a condition of them participating in the ARC and in any case once the Toyota contract expired that model for funding TV production for the ARC was dropped.

If there are other versions of this set of facts I am certainly unaware of them.

[Rallyray]

Originally Posted by Col Trinder

This is the 'little chat' Ray wrongly refers to me having taken part in.

I did say ARCom/Col... Not solely yourself. So who spoke to Mr Horsely?

Originally Posted by Col Trinder

What I do know is that Mazda were never asked to contribute any manufacturers fee (at that time there was a contract in place with Toyota)as a condition of them participating in the ARC and in any case once the Toyota contract expired that model for funding TV production for the ARC was dropped.

Whats wrong with this sentence Col...

If Mazda wants to run their Mazda 2 in a clubbie event then thats good for the sport. Its another car out there.

If Mazda wants to have a different journo in the car for each event then that is also good for the sport.

Whats not good is forcing a manufacturer to solely compete in the ARC when the car they choose to run is more suited to clubman/state based events.

[bob moore]

This is rubbish.

Originally Posted by Rallyray

So who spoke to Mr Horsely?

Who cares? Seriously, who cares? A question was asked. The question has been answered. Why drag it out? What are you going to ask when you discover it was Fred Nerk who spoke to Mr Horsley (please note correct spelling.) When did the conversation take place? Where did it take place? Can it be confirmed by an independent waiter? How can you trust the waiter is really independent? Or that he's really a waiter?

Originally Posted by Rallyray

If Mazda wants to run their Mazda 2 in a clubbie event then thats good for the sport. Its another car out there.

If Mazda wants to have a different journo in the car for each event then that is also good for the sport.

Whats not good is forcing a manufacturer to solely compete in the ARC when the car they choose to run is more suited to clubman/state based events.

Seems logical. So your point is? If you've got evidence that something nefarious has happened, put it up. Or shut up.

If you're expecting Col Trinder to somehow condemn himself, especially for something unspecified, I suspect you're going to have a very long wait.

Originally Posted by Rallyray

Whats wrong with this sentence ...

"Rallyray

Has apparently lost the plot"

Use of the word "apparently"

[Swill]

Bobs on the money here.

Ray stop this talking in tongues BS and spit what you think you know? spell it out clear and simple and you might regain so respect around here

[Rallyray]

Cue Col to come along and give you praise...

Originally Posted by bob moore

If you've got evidence that something nefarious has happened, put it up. Or shut up.

Why? So it can be denied? You can't get a straight answer out of him anyway so I'll continue to publicly raise the BS decisions by them.

Originally Posted by bob moore

Use of the word "apparently"

Get in Line... You'll have plenty of people to talk to.

Its funny you know. You talk about how great the sport was, what it used to be like but yet you stand by with your hands in your pockets while it spirals to the ground.

[robert inall]

Ray, love you like a brother, but mate, put up or...well you know the rest.
A number of people seem to try make a point on here by not making their point, just going around and around like a merry go round does wear people out.

Not knocking you for sticking your neck out, but if your gunna do it, then do it, more power to you.

[Marcus]

a) Okay so Mazda were never asked to pay anything. First concern is answered unless there is evidence to the contrary

b) Mazda did ask to have the rules changed but they were knocked back. That's another concern answered as it has been pointed out competitors really dont like manufacturers trying to change things to suit themselves

c) Only real concern was if Mazda was asked to only compete in ARC.


So umm......... I am failing to see the issue or why it's soemthing to be worked up about?

Cue Col to come along and give you praise...

Ray, now that was really uncalled for. You know well most people here have no alliegience to CAMS or to ARCom and are the biggest critics.

I really am struggling to see the issue after Col's after. So if you have contrary information, please post.

[bob moore]

Let's go back to square one (Ray, that means your original post)

Originally Posted by Rallyray

Can ARCOM/Col please tell the clubman and state level competitors why we haven't seen any factory Mazda's at a CAMS event since you had your little chat with them????

Ignoring the fact that there's no evidence that the clubman and state level competitors have asked you to raise this question in the first place, why are you asking ARCOM/Col*?

Presumably Mazda owns the cars. Presumably Mazda decides which events they'd like to run their cars in. So why not ask Mazda why they haven't run their cars in CAMS events recently? Go to the horses mouth so to speak. Like your avatar.

Let us know how you go.




* this is what is called a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

[Spac]

What Ray is alluding to, is the rumour that ARCom told Mazda that any Mazda supported car would HAVE to compete in the ARC.
Basically "Manufacturers belong only in the ARC", when apparently Mazda specifically wanted to put their time and money into non-ARC stuff.

Of course, this is all rich fertiliser for the conspiracy theorists, and certainly appears to fit into the supposed "ARCom only cares about the ARC" paradigm.

While I have my suspicions, I have no idea if the story is true or not - but I do notice that Col's post skirts around that issue.

And Ray: What they said. If you're so sure you're correct, then post up why you're so sure. If you're just listening to the persistant, wide-spread rumour then you need to be a lot less bullish in your approach.

[DaveTrees]

Originally Posted by bob moore

Who cares? Seriously, who cares?

The elder statesman speaks the truth ....

[Factor]

You have to remember that this isn't conspiracy theory - its somewhere on here in black and white. There was a decision by ARCOM that manufacturers would be required to contribute to the ARC fund even if they only wanted to run say a state series, this wasn't apparently designed to prevent the evil subaru people from winning theNSW championship whilst ignoring the ARC and not throwing money in the TV pot.

The facts are clear - Mazda had been participating in various events until one sunny afternoon when Ben Rainsford went to them at an event and made a clear statement about their need to pay the RAllycorp levy. I have a statement from a person who was standing in earshot of the Horsley /rainsford conversation. I trust my source. I don't trust Cols source.

And before anyone asks - I didn't put Ray up to this and he didn't ask me anything about this before he posted his original post in this thread. When challenged about his facts however he did PM me and ask what if anything I knew. The above is what I know.

They havent apparently seen fit to operate at CAMS events since. Been busy at Targa and the like though.

So what Ray is saying is that the we had some people who were building cars and running young drivers and supporting club and statelevel events, RAllycorp decided to heavy them, and they no longer support those events.

I think that is a shame.

I think its a real shame that some here dont think that driving competitors away from our sport is counterproductive.

As for Cols comments about showroom class. You really think Mazda or anyone else are going to want to run a showroom class MPS 3 against (back then) Group N (p) stuff!!! (or as I like to call them - Group G for rich people).

As for asking mazda - well thats okay but why cant we ask for CAMS/Rallycorp/ARCOMs side of the story?

[Rallyray]

Originally Posted by Spac

What Ray is alluding to, is the rumour that Rainsford told Mazda that any Mazda supported car would HAVE to compete in the ARC.
Basically "Manufacturers belong only in the ARC", when apparently Mazda specifically wanted to put their time and money into non-ARC stuff.

Yep, and would have to pay a manufacturer premium on that. Horsley declined and have not been seen since.

Who cares? Numerous people.

The key point is that we have a manufacturer who thinks that rallying is the right investment for their product. They haven't come along and tried to rort the system. They employ local businesses to build the car and then offer a talented junior an opportunity to have a full works ride.

They then chuck a motoring journalist into the car for an event. This journalist gives the sport/BMSC a massive rap. Happy days for everyone.

And what do we do then? We hit them up for cash, enforce and instigate rules to ban them from competing in clubman/state events.

We have events which struggle to attract entries and we turn people away?

[Factor]

Anyway - All power to ARCOM - they are clearly doing a wonderful job. Good luck to it and all who sail in it.