Cost survey summary released

[tortfeaser]

Rally.com.au just posted this:

Report Into Cost Of Rallying Released

Article By: Official Release

Posted: Tuesday, 24 August

The Australian Rally Commission (ARCom) has recently conducted an investigation into the costs of rallying in Australia, with particular focus on potential cost saving at all levels of Australian rallying.

ARCom appointed a three-person Working Group with representatives of all levels of competition – Club, State and National. This research was perceived as imperative to the future of the sport, and competitors at al levels were provided with an opportunity to give constructive suggestions for cost saving measures.

Chairman of the Australian Rally Commission Garry Connelly said “Motorsport is expensive, for competitors and organisers, and the issue of cost reduction is not something that can be easily resolved – it requires communication and cooperation form all groups to affect changes to the existing operation of the sport”.

The Working Group has now finalised their report, and now seeks feedback from interested parties on the proposals they have put forward. Any constructive comments on these proposals can be sent to costreview@rally.com.au

The report isn't available. A summary is, at http://www.rally.com.au/images/conte...%20Summary.pdf

The summary is bollocks. I sent this to costreview@rally.com.au

I note the review summary is available from www.rally.com.au This summary is entirely unsatisfactory - I can't believe the only consistent point for club level competitors was to allow only 2wd cars.

Can you please email me the entire report?

And got this bounce

- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
ryanlahiff@iprimus.com.au; Failed; 5.2.2 (mailbox full)

Remote MTA cpms01.int.iprimus.net.au: SMTP diagnostic: 552 RCPT TO:<ryanlahiff@iprimus.com.au> Mailbox disk quota exceeded

Nice one ARCom/CAMS/Ryan

[Jme]

I've had it since February or March ...... email me a postal address Tort and I'll send it on.

... or maybe I'll just hand out copies at PSR... .... before the "conduct policy" comes into being.

I was outspoken about this survey before it was even released, it was always going to be a joke- and it is.

Garry Conelly said that this was going to "leave no stone unturned" ..... check out the ARCom propaganda around Xmas time as proof. It's now August and all we have is another useless document....

[Jme]

Actually I just read the summary......

Club and State Level ????

I must have been handed a different copy, cause there is none of that considered in the proposal I have on my desk at work. Much of it is news to me.... and I've read the original proposal many times.... the pages are numbered ....

Maybe that's the reason for the 6 month delay in it being released...... I can fully understand ARCom not wanting to go to the Australian Rallying Public with the ARC only tripe the working committee served up?

What's the story there? Col? Garry? Penny?

[TKM]

I just read the summary too, what a joke. I can't believe their priorities for Club and State level are aimed at reducing running cost of vehicles. Many people already run lost cost 2WD vehicles and still struggle to compete regularly. How about looking and licence fees, entry fees and insurance cost. I never have had much faith in ARCom, they’re only concerned with the elite level of the sport and couldn’t give a damn about the grass roots. If the future of the sport is left to ARCom there will be no future as there will be no one left to move up to their precious ARC.

What we really need is a competitor’s association to represent our level of the sport so that we are not constantly left out of the loop and misrepresented by an organisation that couldn’t care less about us.

Oh, and I bet you that the leading 2WD competitors are spending more on their vehicles than I am on my (cheap) turbo 4WD. It's all relative.

Mark

[Miss]

This is definitely something that we need to move on, guys.

They're asking for our input, let's give it to them. The more responses they get saying "no race suits, lower entry fees" and so on, as well as comments like 'my 4wd is cheaper to run than some 2wds" they'll have no excuse for forking us over.

[Spac]

I hate to say it, but there are SOME decent ideas in the ARC side of things - at the very least, they're recognising that EVERYTHING adds up (getting there, staying there, having to stay there for longer, etc) and that some of the things that make the big boys feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves are just making life difficult for lower budget competitors.
It does worry me that the proposals are all so black-and-white... RoC would have been a lot bigger drama and more expensive if we'd been forced to use the rally car for recce. Starting that point with "Allow" would be a lot better, IMHO...

Here's an idea that I'll float, for us club and state level types, regarding entry fees:
What if there was a form of 'insurance' for the club if an event got washed out?

We all know that is an rally falls on its bum, it really hits the club hard financially, but similarly, if an event runs with a good field then the club makes a pretty impressive amount of money. So entry fees are usually set at a balanced level where it is worth the risk for the club (and the CoC feels it is worth his/her time!), AND what competitors are prepared to pay...

If the risk element was reduced, would clubs make an effort to lower their entry fees, and thereby encourage larger fields?
I think that the answer would be yes, but I'll admit to a (large) degree of ignorance on the issues...

Basically, what I'm thinking, is that with each event permit, the club could CHOOSE to pay an extra amount for 'force majure (sp?) insurance'. If it gets cancelled at the last minute due to rain/drought/alien invasion, then the club can claim back a realistic amount to cover their non-redemable costs. Obviously if they cancel due to insufficient entries, then TFB for them...

And even I disagree with limiting club events to 2WD only. It's one thing to try to exclude late model Evos, but booting the 1600 Familias and RX-Turbos while still allowing King's 200B, my RX-7, or even Bede's 180B is a bit narrow-minded...

I agree that the costs are what's killing club rallying, but the 4WD/2WD divide is a looooonng way down the list of cost pressures.

[tortfeaser]

Got a reply from Penny Swan. Thanks for that Penny:

Hi Marc
I agree, we certainly would like encourage additional feedback but unfortunately that was the only suggestion forwarded regarding cost cutting at Club Level. Of the people that responded many felt that Club Level competition was an affordable aspect of the sport.

We welcome any feedback or suggestions that you may have that would feasibly reduce the cost of rallying at any level. We will be conducting investigation into all suggestions in the hope that some will be adopted and will positively impact on the growth and accessibility of the sport in the future.

We look forward to receiving your thoughts.
Kindest Regards

PENNY SWAN

I'm certain I sent a few suggestions in my reply to the survey, but anyway...

Lets have some suggestions then, for club and state level rallying. Just short dot points. I'll collate them and send them on.

[fro]

Originally Posted by Spac

Basically, what I'm thinking, is that with each event permit, the club could CHOOSE to pay an extra amount for 'force majure (sp?) insurance'. If it gets cancelled at the last minute due to rain/drought/alien invasion, then the club can claim back a realistic amount to cover their non-redemable costs. Obviously if they cancel due to insufficient entries, then TFB for them...

C'mon Spac... do you think that such insurance would any cheaper than the "premium" that clubs put on events now? For events such as the Dell, and the Summer Rallysprint, they run very close to the break-even point.

Yes, the events like NatCap and Caltex make a profit when they run. As you recognise, a portion of that profit is to cover the risk of the event not running, and the costs incurred.

What about the "hidden" costs, like equipment purchases and maintenance. Things like radios, control boards and clocks all need money to be in decent condition, and that money has to come from somewhere.

Look, if there was a form of insurance that was available, I'm sure every event director would look at it bloody closely, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't mroe expensive than the way we do it currently. And it wouldn't have the side benifits for clubs running other events. It'd just be insurer profit.

[Raynman]

I think more additional things they want to do like race suits, the harness expiry thing, manuals for everyone (even if you had 4 competitors in the same house) and the such which are a detriment. I have a hard time telling a prospective nav that it will cost them ~$80-100 just in licenses to try it once, and another $150 if they want to do it again - even without contributing to running costs(those are purely CAMS related).


As an owner of a 4wd non turbo leone I would be a bit put out if they banned club 4wd as this is most definately a club car. But at the same token, at VCRS level at the moment we do have Andrew Pannam entering events in the WRX he ran the ARC in last year.... But a 4wd (in preference to AWD like WRXs, Lancers etc) is a clubman car (I don't have a centre diff!!!)

[tortfeaser]

So here's a couple for club and state rallying.

I'm going with the scattergun approach, putting anything that comes to mind down. I'm not looking for agreement, just ideas!

CAMS directly imposed costs:

* reduce licence fees by moving insurance costs to events to increase user pays or by risk rating licence applicants - if younger, male drivers claim more on CAMS insurance, then younger males should have higher licence fees. May have benefits by reducing start up costs for new entrants to the sport;

* reduce permit fees by separating insurance costs for higher risk events or events with disproportionately high claim rates (tarmac rallies, touring events with competitive elements like the Dutton rallies) from events with low claim rates (gravel rallies).

* make CAMS manual available online; have seperate manuals for different disciplines;

Event entry costs:

* reduce entry fees by bringing together buying groups of organising clubs to purchase services - standardise door numbers, time cards, work deals for CAMS officials accomodation with a hotel chain, fuel suppliers, have a tender for road book and other printing for all state events, tender for comms services for all state events, tender for first aid services, tender for trophies

* (Spac's idea - its a goodun) have a levy on entries for all club or state events for a rainy day fund - reduce entry fees by reducing clubs reliance on self insurance in case of event cancellation

Vehicle running costs:

* limit available fuels to those with RON of less than 99;

* introduce tyre limits - 7 for state events, 5 for club events;

* increase restrictor sizes;

Event competition costs:

* introduce service crew limitations (max of 3 people touching car excluding crew);

* no service outside of service parks (reduce service crew travel costs, no chase crew costs);

* increase competitive distance between services to minimum 70km (refuelling allowed, tyre changes not allowed);

* make deals with fuel suppliers;

Vehicle costs:

* base safety item requirements on rigorous risk analysis - no FIA suits, belts, seats, cages etc if not justified on risk management grounds;

* free up vehicle modifications allowed - for example, inlet and exhaust freedoms on recent cars allows power gains otherwise acheived with more costly fuels;

* introduce component life requirements - seal gearboxes, turbos, engines with a number - component must do 3 events;

* facilitate group buys for common components - terratrips, terraphones, helmets, belts, seats;

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by tortfeaser

* introduce component life requirements - seal gearboxes, turbos, engines with a number - component must do 3 events;

I know you said that these are just ideas, but I have to disagree with this one. What happens to the poor bast@ard who kills his gearbox/turbo/engine in the first event - does he/she have to enter the next two knowing that the car can't be driven anywhere and waste entry fees? Or do they have to sit out 2 events even though they could have fixed the [insert broken part here] and competed with the new part?

I think this idea is probably unworkable, but it is JMO of course.

[Ben Wilson]

Just out of curiosity, how will removing restrictors make things cheaper?

[Spac]

*Minimising entry fees - by whatever means (see previous post for one suggestion).

*Making sub-outright state championships regional, rather than state-wide (ref: NSW Novice vs CM-S & CM-N. Novice is easier to win, but both Clubman championships have more active participants due to the distance related costs of copmeting at Coffs Harbour etc).

*Less onerous vehicle eligibility rules. New millenium political correctness notwithstanding, a return to (a form of) the age-old 'run what ya brung' formula will reduce financial burden on competitors (no need for the Tom Lunneys and Karl Arhenfelds to buy dedicated race seats, etc).

*Definately no F#$king driving suits.

*Reduced licence costs... I'd suggest that ALL levels of licences should cost a token amount, simply to cover admin costs, and that the insurance should be part of the event entry. This would mean that competitors will pay for the risk they actually pose, and the 'twice a year' guys will pay a representative amount for the insurance they actually use.
Basically, user pays without any of the usual 'gleaning' by the administrators of the system...
I know this partly contradicts my first point, but it'd be OK if you could acheive one of these points successfully.




Finally, I'd suggest that if we could work out a way to drop the level of competitiveness a notch or two, it would be enormously beneficial to the sport. Look at how tight the field at any event is, compared to three or four years ago - the fast guys are just as fast, but the 'slow' guys are a lot faster. This speed has come at a cost - both the direct and obvious cost of tyres and improved cars and all the rest, and the less obvious cost of pressuring the tail-enders to either 'lift their game' or drop out.

We're all partially responsible for this trend, and I have no idea how to reverse it (which is why it is not one of my asterix points), but something need to be done.
This is largely a product of the extra hurdles CAMS have posed in the last few years: Increased entry fees,
increased licence costs (inc cost of the CAMS manual),
much more difficult to obtain a licence,
much more expensive to build a car (FIA rollcages etc),
FIA harnesses (yes, I know this isn't entirely CAMS' fault),
sports cars vs touring cars,
no CAMS manual on line, etc etc.

The deeply offensive code of conduct looms large as another pointless, moronic, and unnessacary hurdle.

KISS - make life easy for people and they will come. The rest of the world imposes more and more hurdles on rallying, so CAMS/ARCom should be doing everything within their power to REDUCE the hurdles they impose, not try to keep pace with the rest of the world...

[Bede]

Originally Posted by tortfeaser

* limit available fuels to those with RON of less than 99...

I'm not sure about this one.

What happens when Caltex introduce their 100 RON PULP next year (the rumour is that they are sick of Shell and BP getting most of the 'Premium' Unleaded sales...)???

[Spac]

Obviously it's bad to do work while typing a post, because everyone gets in first and says what you said...

1. Fro, I wasn't talking about employing a dedicated insurer! I was thinking of a state-by-state 'slush fund'. Keeping it local would hopefully prevent the temptation of rorting the system (if you rip it off, you'll know the people that are f#$ked up by your actions).

And if something like SRS or BitB or Dell are assured of not making a loss, then this will ease the burden on Caltex and NatCap to make money to cover those other events (as well as themselves).
I guess you're trying to say that it would increase the SRS entry by a small amount, but if it simeltanously reduced the Caltex or NatCap entry by a greater amount, then we're in front.

2. Ben, the idea is: Restrictor + Elf = No restrictor + true pump fuel (in terms of power production).


And another point from me:
*No bluddy Elf. At least in 2WDs and/or at sub-state level events. I know this is a problem for the people who do both all levels of events, but...


Edit: Hey, look at that - I just bridged the gap between Marc's and Bede's points on fuel without even meaning to.