Mazda and CAMS events

[Dweller]

Is any of this helping us to retain / regain our forest recources all this crap will be moot when we no longer have a place to play.



I used to have a wheel barrow but I left it full of ****e and it rusted out.

[smee]

Do we need manufacturers ?????

Ray, are you, or were you, hoping that your fully hectic super mad driver skillz were going to be enough for a manufacturer to say "Jeebus, he's a good driver. With his skillz, and our (insert car of choice) we could set him up and he could win the WRC”. Sounds more like sour grapes that you were not chosen to have a run when they were out there, and that you are trying to lay blame on someone for your lost opportunity...

If our sport was strong enough, (built from club grassroots) then maybe it would attract companies looking to promote something locally. Currently the ARC is the playground for people with plenty of (perceived) Money.

“I” do not think manufacturers are the supposed Golden Child savior people are suckered into the light to believe.

The only current cars to be competitive would be an STi WRX or an EVO. Both of whose manufacturers no longer have teams competing in the pinnacle of our sport the WRC. And those cars that do compete, are so far removed from the vehicles we see on the road (like V8's) it is laughable. And I enjoy the WRC.
If a manufacturer wants in, then they would need a car capable of winning events outright. Not really Mazda 2 territory is it in this story. It’s not about putting money up so they can have a play midfield. Being an also ran does not portray a good image, so they opt out. It is in some cases about appealing to some parts of the community and doing one offs to gain that wheels / Motor story. The Mazda 2 is not the first time Mazda have built up a small car for motorsport. A 121 bubble car was built a while ago and run, as were a number of them for a track series.
Companies like SEAT, Fiat, Citroen, Ford, Skoda whom have factory supported teams in the JWRC and WRC/S2000 do not sell a shed load of cars in this country. To actively start up a rally team, and then try and leverage results from it for the local market does not make good marketing sense. These companies can take images from their overseas brethren and get more value for their advertising dollar. Look at what Suzuki has done, and again, they no longer run in the WRC.

I, like others are sick of people trying to blame someone else for the supposed demise of the sport.
It is all cyclical. If we were to fix everything we could today and start on the path to a buoyant and healthy ARC / State / Clubman rally community it will be 5 years before we see a good return. It is not going to come back like the flick of a switch.

I’ll get back to my coding and document specification writing now.
I can hear you all now......

[Griffo]

Originally Posted by smee

Do we need manufacturers ?????

Ray, are you, or were you, hoping that your fully hectic super mad driver skillz were going to be enough for a manufacturer to say "Jeebus, he's a good driver. With his skillz, and our (insert car of choice) we could set him up and he could win the WRC”. Sounds more like sour grapes that you were not chosen to have a run when they were out there, and that you are trying to lay blame on someone for your lost opportunity...

If our sport was strong enough, (built from club grassroots) then maybe it would attract companies looking to promote something locally. Currently the ARC is the playground for people with plenty of (perceived) Money.

“I” do not think manufacturers are the supposed Golden Child savior people are suckered into the light to believe.

The only current cars to be competitive would be an STi WRX or an EVO. Both of whose manufacturers no longer have teams competing in the pinnacle of our sport the WRC. And those cars that do compete, are so far removed from the vehicles we see on the road (like V8's) it is laughable. And I enjoy the WRC.
If a manufacturer wants in, then they would need a car capable of winning events outright. Not really Mazda 2 territory is it in this story. It’s not about putting money up so they can have a play midfield. Being an also ran does not portray a good image, so they opt out.
Companies like SEAT, Fiat, Citroen, Ford, Skoda whom have factory supported teams in the JWRC and WRC/S2000 do not sell a shed load of cars in this country. To actively start up a rally team, and then try and leverage results from it for the local market does not make good marketing sense. These companies can take images from their overseas brethren and get more value for their advertising dollar. Look at what Suzuki has done, and again, they no longer run in the WRC.

I, like others are sick of people trying to blame someone else for the supposed demise of the sport.
It is all cyclical. If we were to fix everything we could today and start on the path to a buoyant and healthy ARC / State / Clubman rally community it will be 5 years before we see a good return. It is not going to come back like the flick of a switch.

I’ll get back to my coding and document specification writing now.
I can hear you all now......

I got the feeling that Ray was more p'ed off that the stupid loop holes Arcom had written into the rules allowed them to dictate where a manufacturer could play. Has nothing to do with Ray wanting a factory Mazda drive in the ARC. Ray is talking about what Mazda were achieving at grass roots level with Longy & some journo driving the car & how for some reason it has ceased... Mazda were lifting the profile of grass roots stuff & it seems some political crap has played a part in them going to Tarmac.

[Rallyray]

Originally Posted by smee

Do we need manufacturers ?????

No, we need competitors no matter what they bring.

Originally Posted by smee

Ray, are you, or were you, hoping that your fully hectic super mad driver skillz were going to be enough for a manufacturer to say "Jeebus, he's a good driver. With his skillz, and our (insert car of choice) we could set him up and he could win the WRC”. Sounds more like sour grapes that you were not chosen to have a run when they were out there, and that you are trying to lay blame on someone for your lost opportunity...

You couldn't be further from the truth Smee. If its an attempt to bait me then you better wind it in now cause it won't happen.

I found it exciting that a international manufacturer chose ACT business to build its cars and to contest in events based in Canberra.

I found it exciting that junior talent was given an opportunity to have a works ride. I didn't even apply so I don't know what your on about...

I found it exciting that a national journalist gave our sport and your club a huge wrap. I wish I could find the story now... I'll go through my mags.

Its quite simple really.

[Rallyray]

Originally Posted by Griffo

I got the feeling that Ray was more p'ed off that the stupid loop holes Arcom had written into the rules allowed them to dictate where a manufacturer could play. Has nothing to do with Ray wanting a factory Mazda drive in the ARC. Ray is talking about what Mazda were achieving at grass roots level with Longy & some journo driving the car & how for some reason it has ceased... Mazda were lifting the profile of grass roots stuff & it seems some political crap has played a part in them going to Tarmac.

A- Friggin- Men...

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Griffo

.... Ray is talking about what Mazda were achieving at grass roots level with Longy & some journo driving the car & how for some reason it has ceased... Mazda were lifting the profile of grass roots stuff & it seems some political crap has played a part in them going away from CAMS.

Quoted for truth, with a small 'fix'.

The real shame about Mazda's departure from CAMS gravel rallying, is that they actually had realistic goals - they were trying to gain exposure by doing something other than winning outright, and they were doing it in a manner the gained (and deserved) the respect of ALL competitors.
As such, they weren't going to be stung by their own lack of success, like Ford was. It was a really good marketing strategy for both Mazda and rallying - and yet the body that exists to look after rallying's commercial aspects (unwittingly?) f#$ked it up...

Closing the gate after the horse has bolted, doesn't help - especially when it bolted because you p155ed it off.

[Swill]

Or maybe Mazda bolted because they got there moneys worth out of the free advertising they got out of the Wheels/Motor story. Its not like it a Mazda 2 is going to be compeditive at anything and Mazda knew this. They spent small coin and got a gig wrap. No doubt is was cheaper than a full page advert in a national paper. Saying Mazda has something to do with the delcine on grass roots rallying is drawing a fairly long straw. They shot off to the Tar because you can watch it on TV, not a about an apparent conversation 3 years ago

[bob moore]

Originally Posted by smee

I, like others are sick of people trying to blame someone else for the supposed demise of the sport.

Let me sign up to that


However, you started off with a very interesting question:

Originally Posted by smee

Do we need manufacturers ?????

I think the answer is "yes."

And "having manufacturers" doesn't necessarily correlate with having them participate at the highest levels of rallying, i.e. the ARC.

Arguably, Hyundai's support for the Excel series has turned out to be just as valuable to Australian rallying as, say, Mitsubishi's Ralliart operation. As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected) any club-level Fred can get discounted parts from Hyundai if they are registered. You don't need mega-dollars (VR4 headgasket, anyone?) to spend at the company shop.

If you ignore, for a moment, the various things that have gone wrong for Australian rallying, and focus instead on the things that have gone right, then the Excels are one of the highlights. A crummy old ****box that everyone used to turn up their snouts at has turned out to be a weapon. A weapon that a lot of club-level punters can afford, not just to buy/build but also to run. And you don't often see a driver climb out of an Excel at the end of a stage and say "I wish I was in something else."

To Hyundai's credit they got behind the Excel series, long after Excels went out of production, and despite the fact Excels caused Hyundai considerable embarrassment when they were in production (front suspension failure). Hyundai might well have decided to stay well clear of anything that could remind the public of that embarrassing part of their history. Instead, they've been very supportive, and it's been very much to the advantage of grass-roots rallying.

Several years ago, Toyota's support of the Corolla series was another example. In an era when people were fairly unadventurous in considering alternative modern rally cars to EvoRexs, the Corolla series caused quite a few people to take another look at a car they'd crossed off their list. It's a pity Sam Brand's video didn't get more exposure at the time.

So, ignoring completely the reasons for Mazda's decision not to continue participating in their Mazda 2s, I think the fact that the Mazda 2s are no longer around is disappointing. They would have caused a few more people to say "I wonder if I should have a go in a modern car?" at a time when the Australian rally car fleet is "classic" in everything but compliance with the relevant regulations. Especially at a time when new car values fall through the floor in their first three years, thus making a "new" (i.e. 4-year-old) car a realistic financial proposition.

Obviously there is a big risk for a privateer in being the first to try a new car with no rally pedigree - been there, done that! (Galant). However the fact that Mazda were prepared to take that risk, and prove their car had potential, reinforces the value that manufacturers can provide, and hence why we need them.

Even though Mazda is no longer running those cars, they've made an important point, and saved a privateer the financial risk of deciding whether a Mazda 2 could be a useful tool. I'd be pretty confident that you wouldn't have to do much digging to find out what are the proven spring rates, shockers, brake pad material, etc. And we all have access to the guy who built their cages.

So: the bottom line is that manufacturers can be very useful, even to club-level punters. Yes, we club-level punters do need them, to do what Hyundai, Toyota and Mazda have already done. But not to provide a one-in-a-brazillion chance of a works drive.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Swill

Saying Mazda has something to do with the delcine on grass roots rallying is drawing a fairly long straw.

Who said that?

The car got built, but was only used a handful of times. Their cost per event must have been significant, even allowing for a lot of discounts in exchange for publicity. And the talk had been about cycling it through the media and up-and-comers' hands - but that ended abruptly about the same time as the rumoured conversation.

It was obviously never intended to be an outright competitive car - they'd have built a 3 or a 6 if they'd had dellusions of winning, and they'd have put proven drivers in the seat.

Has Mazda been seen at a CAMS-sanctioned tarmac rally since?

[MattC]

Originally Posted by Spac

.

Has Mazda been seen at a CAMS-sanctioned tarmac rally since?

Are there any left?

[Dave Kelly]

WTF is going on? Normally sensible people seem to want to keep flogging what is a VERY dead horse

Yeah sure, it seems reasonably certain that Mazda got spooked by a now redundant requirement (the money one) and went away. Its done... that can't change.. unless someone has a De Lorean or Tardis that they'd care to use to go back and change history.

Please folks.. why can't we be pleased that the requirement that did seemingly turn Mazda off is now not there, so now in 2010, the path is much less politically problematic were a manufacturer seeking to do a similar thing to what Mazda tried a few years back?

It just seems so pointless playing the blame game of "what happened when and by who" when its all so well and truly over. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, there are a whole heap of things done by all sorts of people and Commissions etc that have proven to be somewhat disastrous in terms of the development and sustainability of our sport. Things though HAVE NOW changed for the better (or at least it appears so), and so I will have one last crack at pleeeeeading.... can't we let this crapping on about "whose fault the past is" go? .... And instead see what individually and/or collectively WE might do NOW in 2010 and beyond to help make things better and find/champion the positives that are indeed happening?

FWIW the turn around for me came when I saw members of ARCom actively challenging the completely short sighted (and rather ill advised) approach of the Board over the NZ Escorts issue. (Hmmm, as I understand it Singapore Escorts are much more in favour amongst some in the higher levels at East Malvern.. and so a proposal that way may well have borne fruit earlier? )).

Back on topic though, there has been much more that is positive lately with ARCom and their initiatives, and although there is still a little that seems odd, clunky or curious... mostly things do seem to be on a somewhat better trajectory as far as ARCom goes (as compared to a few years back and beyond).

If the idea of this dredging up the past is to completely alienate those in ARCom that have now seemingly seen things a little "our" way.. and helped make things happen.. then, sure keep up with playing blame politics over events long ago. However, I for one hope that won't be the case and we ALL can let such stuff go.

From posts here it sadly seems I am a little outnumbered in wanting to look forward.. but well, I can only hope I suppose....

Cheers and smiles as always

Dave

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by MattC

Are there any left?

You know, we seriously need to have a group sitdown as competitors, no more BS online and really sort it out for ourselves, because right now I can see an end to CAMS GRAVEL events and we have very little idea how to progress the sport when that happens. Or even try to get the various real stakeholders in one place and to sort **** out - AMSAG isnt the answer as they wont run more than a handful of fulyl subscribed events a year and are happy doign what they do but there's not enough room there for all of us, we're losing the feeders in from other smaller events, we have issues that CAMS clearly isnt solving and honestly this is just getting screwed up and directionless.


It really is time that we all just picked a date, showed up and have one damn good discussion and decide as competitors, organisers, crews and interested parties what the future of OUR sport should be and get our crap organised so that we can run under any of the three ASN's with as little hassle as possible.

And like lets just communicate like adults.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Dave Kelly

... keep up with playing blame politics over events long ago. However, I for one hope that won't be the case and we ALL can let such stuff go.

You're right: While Joe Bloggs killed some friends of mine, he now helps out at the school fete every second year, so its all good...

Personally, I was happy to let it go until Col came back with the whole "ARCom/RallyCarp did nothing to cause this" line, when it is obviously untrue.
For me to swallow the "we're on your side, honest" line, I need to see some humility and acknowledgement that mistakes had been made in the past (learning from our mistakes and all that) - nobody expects any body (or anybody) to do a perfect job and get it right every single time - but if you carry on like your poop don't stink when it obviously does, then its begging for your nose to be rubbed in it....

As Col's response takes the zero humility approach, it says to me that they've going to serve up the same ****-sandwich again, just this time we will order from a menu with more options...

Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard anyone 'significant' within CAMS ever admit to a mistake?
The state we're in makes it clear that they've made plenty of mistakes, but the very best we can epect is a recalcitrant reversal of earlier poor decisions, long after the initial outcry had died down and after the damage has been done.
And this is a huge reason for the amnimosity between the powers that be, and the rest of us.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Spac

Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard anyone 'significant' within CAMS ever admit to a mistake?

When did you hear anyone in a position of authority admit they were wrong / made a mistake.

It just doesn't happen anymore these days.

I wish it were different but welcome to the world we live in.

[fro]

Originally Posted by bob moore

Arguably, Hyundai's support for the Excel series has turned out to be just as valuable to Australian rallying as, say, Mitsubishi's Ralliart operation. As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected) any club-level Fred can get discounted parts from Hyundai if they are registered. You don't need mega-dollars (VR4 headgasket, anyone?) to spend at the company shop.

If you ignore, for a moment, the various things that have gone wrong for Australian rallying, and focus instead on the things that have gone right, then the Excels are one of the highlights. A crummy old ****box that everyone used to turn up their snouts at has turned out to be a weapon. A weapon that a lot of club-level punters can afford, not just to buy/build but also to run. And you don't often see a driver climb out of an Excel at the end of a stage and say "I wish I was in something else."

Hyundai have certainly helped Excel punters across the country, which as you say, makes rallying almost affordable for a selection of punters that likely wouldn't be out there (as much) otherwise.

Hyundai has also offered their cars to promotional efforts, such as getting Ed Ordynski to drive the Excel at Rally of Lithgow, lending some promotional impetus to State and entry-level rallying.

And as you allude to, the Excel has proven itself to be a much better rally car than anyone (including myself) would have given it credit for. They certainly are better than the sum of their parts.