Mazda and CAMS events

[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????

[rallyfiend]

What non-CAMS events have they done?

[fro]

Mount Buller Sprint, Targa Tasmania

[Col Trinder]

Ray as usual you have failed to check your facts. Go away and ask the person whose agenda you are trying to push here then repost your question so everyone knows how wrong you are.

[Factor]

Or on the other hand Col - you could post the facts instead. Seriously - stop playing the man and play the ball, you know what Ray means or intends to convey, he wants to know , I suspect, how you justify pissing off a manufacturer that supports club level motorsport. You really do yourself no good service by picking on poor old Roswell. Just answer the thrust of his question hey.

For the record on non CAMS - how about a couple of Targa Tas events with two and three car teams.

STOP pretending that the very silly - you must donate to our fund rule - has not offended more that one manufacturer. Theres a good chap.

Still waiting for an apology re the armchair comment as well. Seems that your only line of response is one of personal attack. Disappointing really.

[MATNESmotorsports]

Originally Posted by Factor

For the record - how about a couple of Targa Tas events with two and three car teams.

sorry Factor but this is run by AASA these days at a much cheaper rate than CAMS.

Can ARCOM/Col please tell the clubman and state level competitors why we haven't seen any factory teams in the sport for nearly 12 months

MATT

[Factor]

AHEM Matt that was my point, they have done big things at NON CAMS events. I was answering the second poster. - I will edit.

[Spac]

Regardless personal differences, I really think that certain forum members should 'reduce the intensity' when communicating with Col Trinder on these forums.

A valid and interesting question that's posed in a particularly aggressive manner is reduced to simple 'poop stirring'.
And regardless of anything else, you should show other forum members some respect.

The post brought to you by a mix of "Spac, Forum Member" and "Spac, Moderator"...

[Marcus]

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????

I would firstly request a reason why we state and clubbies should care? I'm not sure it's any of our business unless the reasoning why it should be is clear and what effect it has.

Frankly a lot of competitors have thought manufactuers have been poison (not me altho I am of the firm belief they should never be kotowed to) so the absence might be seen as good.

So in the words of Pauline... "Please explain?"

[Kaptainballistik]

I dunno, the Bathurst MPS's look pretty friggin good if I do say so....

[Rallyray]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I would firstly request a reason why we state and clubbies should care? I'm not sure it's any of our business unless the reasoning why it should be is clear and what effect it has.

Frankly a lot of competitors have thought manufactuers have been poison (not me altho I am of the firm belief they should never be kotowed to) so the absence might be seen as good.

So in the words of Pauline... "Please explain?"

Easy. And I can see your point however.

In 2007/8 Mazda built a Mazda 2 in full rally trim and IIRC was placed at a motorshow or two. 'Brindabella Motor Sport Club' on the door plates.

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...

But, the pinnacle of their involvement, IMHO, is when they had a motoring journo drive the car for Natcap. Obviously he praised the car but he done much more than that. He gave the general motoring public a preview of the sport. I wish I could find the story cause it was truley awesome.

Mazda, as a manufacturer, did not try to change rules to compete. They wanted a car, employed local ACT people to build the thing, and ran it and gave the sport awesome coverage at the same time.

We should support this type of involvement not go running to them with our hands out. We should be asking THEM what do we need to do to keep you running in our events!

But ARCOM believes that manufacturers should be in the top category. Why? So they can tax them. There's a whole other thread about this very same topic when Mazda first left the scene.

[Nigel]

Originally Posted by Rallyray

In 2007/8 Mazda built a Mazda 2 in full rally trim and IIRC was placed at a motorshow or two. 'Brindabella Motor Sport Club' on the door plates.

From the net, pre-event report and pics...

Taken 2 Extremes: Mazda2 Extreme Takes on National Capital Rally | The Motor Report: Auto News And Reviews

[Dave Kelly]

I know I have been away from these pages for a while (everyone has to take a holiday sometime ), but isn't the whole argument over [insert manufacturer of your choice here] somewhat counter-intuitive?

One doesn't have to search too far back to find plenty of criticism directed at ARCom/RallyCorp/the ARC/etc for having a direction that seemed aimed solely at trying to appease manufacturers (whilst curiously at the same time using them as some sort of cash cow to prop up some pretty ordinary overall series organisation). Many of us were of the opinion that this approach wasn't particularly good for the sport in an overall sense, and FWIW I still hold that view.

In recent times however ARCom has shown that it is prepared to have more of a "whole sport" approach, and whilst we might not all agree on each aspect of their initiatives and changes, there is no doubt that they are heading mostly in the right direction.

Personally I am really pleased to see that Col has re-engaged with this forum, and whilst comments made in the past (made by MANY of us, including Col.. and of course by me too) we might each regret... I think it is somewhat disingenuous to maintain a rage over something said ages ago... when its now time to move on.

Surely as a community we shouldn't feel the need for a confessional, and rather just be pleased that Col, as the Chair or OUR peak regulatory Commission in ARCom, is back and engaging with us.

Please can we ALL put the past behind us and see what we all can do to build for the future. Messages that are little more than thinly disguised hand grenades don't help, and it seems at least from where I sit, much better to be straightforward in what we ask or seek comment on and be incredibly pleased that Col is back and letting us have some greater insight into the workings and direction that ARCom sees (as well as presumably Col's personal views too)!

OK... I'll step off the soapbox and get back to my self-imposed exile... for the moment at least :insert collective sigh of relief emoticon here:

Cheers and spreading the lurrrve,

Dave

[Marcus]

Ahhhhhhhh...... so this is about the manufactuers "tax" and not allowing anyone with "factory" backing to compete at any event they want.

Thank you for the further explaination and I hope we can be constructive in discussion

I would nevertheless state that while manufacturers may or may not be seen as a good thing, the right to compete in whatever event you want, backed by who you want, in the car you want is exactly one of issues we should be fixing. And I really dont agree that any manufactuer should be hit with a "fee" to compete.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Dave Kelly

I know I have been away from these pages for a while (everyone has to take a holiday sometime ), but isn't the whole argument over [insert manufacturer of your choice here] somewhat counter-intuitive?

One doesn't have to search too far back to find plenty of criticism directed at ARCom/RallyCorp/the ARC/etc for having a direction that seemed aimed solely at trying to appease manufacturers. Many of us were of the opinion that this approach wasn't particularly good for the sport in an overall sense, and FWIW I still hold that view.

A big part of the issue, is ARCom's long-term obsession with "manufacturers".
In the modern context, in production-based categories, the concept of a vehicle manufacturer having some magical advantage over a similarly sized non-vehicle manufacturer sponsor is laughable.
Ford's, LWR's and PBMS' respective efforts (among others') show how true this is.
Similarly, what did Toyota offer to Neal Bates in the last few years, other than money and cheap cars/parts? If Westinghouse or Yamaha had been the team's major sponsor, ARCom would have had a totally different approach? Is that different approach valid?!

So the flawed thinking that drove the privateers away from the ARC, has also driven a significant sponsor away from all of CAMS rallying.