Privateers ARC? (was: Tas ARC 2005)

[Factor]

41 entries in total - 28 ARC entries - and some people think the sport is in good shape.

[Jme]

Maybe next year hold it on bitumen and invite Peter Brock to have a run in a Monaro- if that fails just combine it with a heap of clubman and novice series to boost entries.

Seriously- it's just too expensive. One of the reasons my old man's 4 round nominated series proposal was knocked back was because of concerns that WA and TAS would be poorly supported. It didn't take Einstein to work out that the entries would be poor anyway, just look at the history of how many genuine privateers have contested the entire series in the past 5 years. The only way to get a bigger field is to entice more privateers to run the series, and while ever it's a 100K plus, 6 round series, chasing factory cars.... it won't happen. It's a matter of time "cost" as well as financial "cost".

If we had a "privateers class" with cost restrictions such as PULP, tyre limits, service crew number limits, cheap testing (how can Roser do it for $50 and ARC 10 times that!!!) etc-and only 4 rounds out of the 6.... I think you'd get more entries at all events. Maybe an extra 6 or 8 I'd guess.

Situations like Paul Batten's highlight how difficult the logistics of the ARC are... sure it's great to fit into TV schedules to avoid the V8's- but it leaves competitors who crash/fail in Qld about 2 weekends to prepare the car for Tassie (cause it's on the boat on Sunday) in the middle of missing a heap of days from work. I bet even Subaru were pushing time, and look at the resources they have at their disposal.

If they want more competitors, they need to be more competitor friendly. Simple.

[smee]

Originally Posted by Jme

cheap testing (how can Roser do it for $50 and ARC 10 times that!!!)
If they want more competitors, they need to be more competitor friendly. Simple.

Link it in with the regs and no need for ambulance or other safety paraphenalia.
I don't like how you are directed in the ARC or associated rounds to use one, and only one FIV team. There are more than a few with good quals around the place whom are cheaper than the directed mob.

Fuel idea would be good for privateers. The tyre thing would see some teams have to spend more money. A few run second hand tyres with success.

[beanpole]

Maybe pump fuel too, at some point in the near future?



Kev

[Jme]

Originally Posted by smee

Fuel idea would be good for privateers. The tyre thing would see some teams have to spend more money. A few run second hand tyres with success.

Wouldn't HAVE to spend more money.... just stops some people throwing a heap of tyres at the car.

RoC is a great example Smee. How many Dunlop's did the Mazda take? We used 24... and I think JS was chasing us to the Dunlop truck!!! Gary loved it.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by smee

I don't like how you are directed in the ARC or associated rounds to use one, and only one FIV team. There are more than a few with good quals around the place whom are cheaper than the directed mob.

Happy to be corrected, but arn't the FIV being paid for, by a sponsor - Hence most likely to become a contractual arrangment?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Jme

Wouldn't HAVE to spend more money.... just stops some people throwing a heap of tyres at the car.

RoC is a great example Smee. How many Dunlop's did the Mazda take? We used 24... and I think JS was chasing us to the Dunlop truck!!! Gary loved it.

Jamie - my concern with tyre rules is it might save a waelthy team a minor percentage of their budget and cost a poor crew more money - for example a number of crews I know use second hand tyres from "up market teams" Should those up market teams have less tryres available they will use the ones they have more as in the second hand tyres will be a lot more second hand). This would result in less tyres available to "poor" crews - if you follow my reasoning.

[Jme]

Originally Posted by Factor

Jamie - my concern with tyre rules is it might save a waelthy team a minor percentage of their budget and cost a poor crew more money - for example a number of crews I know use second hand tyres from "up market teams" Should those up market teams have less tryres available they will use the ones they have more as in the second hand tyres will be a lot more second hand). This would result in less tyres available to "poor" crews - if you follow my reasoning.

Fair point.... it's a tricky one- but I guess it's all in relation to the number of competitors. Just because a limit in brought in doesn't mean that tyre suppliers will sell less tyres... they may sell more if the number of competitors in the series increase.

The "Robin Hood" theory on second-hand tyres is somewhat true, but to say it's a minor expense to a wealthy team isn't 100% correct- still need the money upfront.... in fact- the second-hand tyre market was almost the reason why we use so many tyres ...... I can flog them off afterwards (for good money) and in real terms they are cheaper to us than the guys buying them second-hand. All our tyres from RoC were sold before Bathurst- in fact we ran out!!! Could have sold more.

To bring my ramblings back together .... it's supply and demand. The more competitors buying new tyres and the second-hand price will drop. I'd argue if there were 30 ARC competitors doing 4 privateer rounds with a 12 tyre limit - second-hand tyres would be cheaper.

All in all though- it's these type of arguments (however intelligent and relevant) that will stop the ARC privateers series changing. It's too hard to get rally people to agree, cause quite simply everyone has there own agenda. ARCom, competitors (and there are various levels), fuel suppliers, tyre suppliers etc will all push there claims and it will end up going nowhere..... and entry numbers will stay low.

.... oh and I've delibrately not mentioned WRC spec tyres. Can't run a WRC spec component in a GpA/PRC car (fastest bulletin ever issued!!)- but factory teams are able to run a WRC spec tyre on a GpN car....ooops... I doesn't make sense. It's also this style of hypocracy that prevents many competitors being there IMO. The ARC already lacks a sense of "even-handedness" between the factory cars and the privateers , so we may as well seperate the two completely in an attempt to boost entry numbers.

[Ric Cary]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Happy to be corrected, but arn't the FIV being paid for, by a sponsor - Hence most likely to become a contractual arrangment?

"Hello Mr Elf Fuel I'd like to buy 200ltrs"
" are you running ARC"
"No"
" thats $4.00 a litre please"
" And if I was running ARC?"
" That would be $4.50 a litre"

Now thats "sponsorship"

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Jme

.... oh and I've delibrately not mentioned WRC spec tyres. Can't run a WRC spec component in a GpA/PRC car (fastest bulletin ever issued!!)- but factory teams are able to run a WRC spec tyre on a GpN car....ooops... I doesn't make sense. It's also this style of hypocracy that prevents many competitors being there IMO. The ARC already lacks a sense of "even-handedness" between the factory cars and the privateers , so we may as well seperate the two completely in an attempt to boost entry numbers.

I think you will find that tyres are not homologated, so apart from not being allowed to run studs or mousse inserts, they are free. The problem with running WRCar spec parts is that they have only been homologated for WRCars, not Group A cars.

[Jme]

Originally Posted by Glen

I think you will find that tyres are not homologated, so apart from not being allowed to run studs or mousse inserts, they are free. The problem with running WRCar spec parts is that they have only been homologated for WRCars, not Group A cars.

Yeah, I'd worked that out. I'm guessing your responding to the "doesn't make sense" comment. It's more "doesn't make sense from a sporting viewpoint" rather than a technical viewpoint.

[Jme]

Just read about the Toyota diffs.... and Ashtons remarks about sporting parity.

That's the exact reason why WRC tyres should be binned. Sporting parity should exist between the manufacturers and the privateers- not just between the manufacturers.

[msgofast]

Originally Posted by Jme

he Sporting parity should exist between the manufacturers and the privateers- not just between the manufacturers.

How do you get "parity" when privateers run pump fuel and factory teams run elf or equal?

Going on what your old man wanted being that private teams to run pump fuel.

[Jme]

A 4 round nominated series (out of a possible 7) with the final being double points at the last round was Dad's suggestion... PRC and GpN eligible. Rules the same.

No mention of fuel.

The problem was that everyone wanted to add there piece to it- and it became unworkable I guess.

An additional 10 point plan including Unleaded fuel was from the privateers entrants group.

At the moment there should be attempts to keep a "sporting parity" between the privateers and the factory cars because they are operating under the same championship.

If addition rules were added to comply with the privateers class then obviously this wouldn't be relevant.

At the moment to win the privateers championship requires huge resources. We need to break that down to get entry numbers, and the best way to do that is by lowering the time and money needed to contest the series. That is my conclusion/assumption whatever, and the 4 round series has been based on that.

There will be further proposals aimed at ARCom... anyone is able to have there say. Just PM me and I'll see that it gets through to the privateers ENTRANTS group. I think it's important that it's an entrants group cause they are the guys spending the money.

I went to one meeting to take notes and the money those 4 blokes had spent on rallying collectively was monsterous...... millions plus, and they are all "well off" people, so when they talk about unleaded and tyre limits etc, I'm convinced it's aimed at fostering the sport, rather than an individual or teams position in our sport.

It's through this group that we will get change I feel.... I hope.

[Jme]

You know what- this thread is a perfect example of what is holding the privateers series back IMO.

Someone says "where are the entries?"

Someone suggests why the entries aren't there and offers a reason and alternative.

Then it starts....

Factor says tyre limits don't help the clubby guys get cheaper tyres. Sorry mate. Lets consider the privateers first just for know. Will tyre limits help will entry numbers and a more competitive privateers series???

Glen (Weston??? I'm assuming- could be wrong) throws in a technical point about tyres not being homologated. Yeah it's off topic, but highlights the manufacturer side of the arguement. He could have easily pointed out that privateers can't buy them, and that they are faster- but he chose to point out an homologation point.

and Southy adds a point about fuel..... will unleaded get more entries/provide for a better series? It's definately got cost in it's favour, and if your man can't tune on it- then PM and I'll give you the number of someone who can.

Who's next? What's next? Come on- I want more of this. I would never have thought of the second-hand tyre market, but now I'm prepared with a comeback ....lol

Let's hear how it should be done?? How do we get the privateers series better, cause I reckon it's 100% agreed that it can/should be better than it is now.