Not interested...

[Mathew Boorman]

Hmmm just thinking out loud.

Marcus, why does the separate series based on Schedule R part sound so bloody sensible? By competitor conscensus declare PRC dead, change/create amenable series' to define their own classes based on Schedule R and let ARCOM catch up in their own time. ACT and Excel series could probably switch pretty easily. After all, 'everyone' knows and agrees on some of what is wrong with PRC, but just disagree on how far it should go.

'Everyone' would probably agree too:
- schedule R plus:
- Anything Australian Delivered (need some criteria to avoid 'specials')
- Over 10 years old can have inlet/exhaust freedoms
- composite panels of equal weight to originals
- imports that are equivalent to aus delivered stuff.
- classes RWD, FWD, AWD, Novice.


More controversial (and a diversion I guess)
- dump/merge ACT clubman/silver/goldcup to be class based.
- make Nav series independant of driver registration.
- want more classes... count open 2WD diffs as only 1 driven wheel.

So, why not?

[Miss]

Originally Posted by Mathew Boorman

More controversial (and a diversion I guess)
- dump/merge ACT clubman/silver/goldcup to be class based.
- make Nav series independant of driver registration.

Just to clarify...

The ACT/class based idea would work fine at the moment with a high amount of Series registrants. Look at the number of people who registered in 2003 and you mightn't be so quick to suggest that.

The nav-dependent-on-driver-regoed came about in 2002 after (the short story) I had a dummyspit about a nav registering for ACT clubman for the last round of 2001 (NatCap) and then jumping in with a driver who'd have been Goldcup. Of course he (the nav) for the points and the trophy for that round. It was completely legitimate, no bending rules, but hardly fair competition. Consequently, the Clubman registered nav (me) who ran with a Clubman registered driver missed out on valuable points but fortunately it made no difference to the overall series result. So I got on the committee and had that clause added.

If that clause was removed, I have no doubt that at least a couple of people would capitalise on the omission purely for the sheepstations.

A couple of years later, rumours flew about one registered crew paying non-registered crews (with top 5 finishing records) to register for the last round. This was apparently in order to block another competitor from getting a top three position in the series for that round, in order to defend a third competitor's chance at getting second in the Series that year.

That's how the clause about "must register before x-number of rounds" came about.

It's silly really, that we have to include clauses like that in order to keep everyone honest. But time has shown that if we don't, people will use loopholes to their advantage to get those sheepstations.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mathew Boorman

Hmmm just thinking out loud.

Marcus, why does the separate series based on Schedule R part sound so bloody sensible? By competitor conscensus declare PRC dead, change/create amenable series' to define their own classes based on Schedule R and let ARCOM catch up in their own time. ACT and Excel series could probably switch pretty easily. After all, 'everyone' knows and agrees on some of what is wrong with PRC, but just disagree on how far it should go.

'Everyone' would probably agree too:
- schedule R plus:
- Anything Australian Delivered (need some criteria to avoid 'specials')
- Over 10 years old can have inlet/exhaust freedoms
- composite panels of equal weight to originals
- imports that are equivalent to aus delivered stuff.
- classes RWD, FWD, AWD, Novice.

So, why not?

Personally, I dont see the point of composites and I would say avoid that. Whiffs of what was wrong with Group G.

I personally dont think PRC is dead, yes I wouldnt mind a few more freedoms, it would make life easier for everyone, especially in older cars. What I do think is bizarre is the tight eligibility rules that deny quite good cars and also the madness that is minimum weight for big capacity cars. I think specifically addressing those points would go a long way to more fun. And as I believe, pace noted events are more fun and also (getting back to Fro's question) not just more involving for the other side of the cabin, more of a challenge to the driver in that your not reading the road and guessing what is ahead, you know and can be more committed - I find this to be more fun myself. It allows me to drive with confidence and also.... I reckon the roads then appear smoother. Because you know where the crap is, you can drive around it if it's possible instead of "OOOF What the hell?!?!"

And of course there are absolutly no "errors in the road book" complaints, less B&W at directors as a result.

And as I mentioned before, newcomers to the sport are usually introduced to the sport by TV or Playstation and pace notes are foremost in those mediums. Blind rallying is a foreign concept to them and I think is well... not sexy for want of a better term.

There are issues, I would be foolish not to recognise that. But pace note events done well do have a willing audience and arent that mystical. We got the gist pretty quick.

Now as for a maybe pace noted series, format like the Shakedown would be excellent altho the Irish and NZ idea of organiser supplied notes with no recon floats my boat too. I like the idea of recon tho for those that want to do it.

And to be honest in the pace noted events you dont have to use the notes, you can go blind if you want. No one is stopping that.

Rolled into it tho as it's outside of a CAMS series, a more relaxed car eligibility list, but keeping to the requirements of CAMS for safety and car preparation. So if people want to run a sports car or a car otherwise ineligible for PRC then why not? As long as it complies with the Schedule - does the schedule say you must have a log book? If not I would seriously look at requiring a CAMS logbook as well. Required legal road registration of course and also run it under CAMS permit. I mean, lets be legit about all of this.

Openness about how the series is run with decent promotion, an open rule book and also communication to competitiors and involvement from the competitors in how the events are run and the rule book. Organisers / rule makers to be held accountible, which seems to be another bitch we have about ARCOM and CAMS.

Say 4-5 events.

Would it work? Would CAMS get offended? Would people care? I dont know but within the outline and addressing some specific problems I would bet that it can work and could stand a chance to work - being competitor focused and competitor driven would go a long way to it working.

(And as well, throw in Beginners type entry at the back of the field to help get new blood in)

Anyway, my ramble over with, I got a rally car to fix :/ - pity lack fo cash, the other competitor whine cant be fixed except if someon gave us all a million bucks to go racing.

[Mathew Boorman]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Personally, I dont see the point of composites

Simply cheaper panels for some cars. Thats why the weight is to stay the same, although might be hard to enforce.

Originally Posted by Marcus

madness that is minimum weight for big capacity cars.

Yup forgot that one.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Rolled into it tho as it's outside of a CAMS series, a more relaxed car eligibility list, but keeping to the requirements of CAMS for safety and car preparation.

I believe Schedule R will, as it should, still have the exact same safety requirements, log book and all that. And events still 100% CAMS sanctioned. ALL is in place, all it needs is the SERIES and EVENTS to agreed on a different set of classes. In fact this is what ACT and Excel series do anyway, except that their regs now expressly restrict it to PRC/GrpN!

Originally Posted by Marcus

Would it work? Would CAMS get offended? Would people care? I dont know but within the outline and addressing some specific problems I would bet that it can work and could stand a chance to work - being competitor focused and competitor driven would go a long way to it working.

Well it would be better if it was done at ARCOM level, but the only advantage would be for cross border competitors.

(And as well, throw in Beginners type entry at the back of the field to help get new blood in)


So now:
- schedule R plus:
- Anything Australian Delivered (need some criteria to avoid 'specials')
- Over 10 years old can have inlet/exhaust freedoms
- composite panels of equal weight to originals
- imports that are equivalent to aus delivered stuff.
- classes RWD, FWD, AWD, Novice.
- minimum weight = as delievered weight - say 10%

[Ric Cary]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Personally, I dont see the point of composites and I would say avoid that. Whiffs of what was wrong with Group G.

Oh you will! especially when you try and buy a replacement VR4rs bonnet or some other rare piece of Kit thats made from unobtainium and priced accordingly
as long as the Bit looks the same and the car weighs the same and its not a structural panel so gaurds, bonnets, boots and bumpers my opinion is it should be ok

[Pickstock Rally Team]

Personnally, from where rallying is here in SA at the moment, i feel that there is always the need to go towards pace notes, so that more people can step up to ARC. We have a great state rally series, all events are pacenoted and are finally getting more than 20 cars turn up to the start, altough are series hasnt even started yet, hence why Lisi and myself are coming over your way to get some bum in seat time.
If you feel the need to go towards pace notes, there is always the extra cost's that we have found that go towards it, not just for the competing crews, but as organisers, we need more officials that will man the entry and exit of our forests so can stop hoons mucking about in there.
At the moment, there are a lot of rumours going around to who is actually going to come over here this year and compete, and there have been a lot of ex factory cars and top ARC privateers looking at running. As it is, we have at least 10 crews that could run for state champion in there current cars, but if all these ex factory cars and privateers start competing, we will be lucky to make it into the top 10.

[Matt Dyne]

It's not hard for organisers to say that vehicle eligibility is Schedule R only.

It's harder for series points to be allocated to them...but that's only a small change in the series regs.

What's wrong with Schedule R?

I've said it before, those IPRA boys have the rules we want as an interim. There's limitations to prevent craziness, but you're allowed to pursue things that in the current regime you're not. Wouldn't take much to amend PRC to reflect that as a start.

Matt

[Mathew Boorman]

Originally Posted by Matt Dyne

Wouldn't take much to amend PRC to reflect that as a start.

You'd think so, but in that case why has it not happened?

[Matt Dyne]

The cynic in me would say that people are concerned if it was opened up that much, then some cars at the top of the game might be threatened (but realistically I think that's unlikely).

Many a conversation has been had regarding the NZ rules...read up on them, they sound heaps interesting, a la the style of Group G. It would be good to get an understanding of their safety record.

[Jme]

Originally Posted by fro

Why? The two pace-noted rallies that I can think of in the last 12 months (Bathurst Clubman and Shakedown) hardly seemed to capture the interest of the masses? They didn't even capture the interest of the "pointy-end" competitors.

I'm anti-pacenote personally, but am genuinely interested in what the motivation is for pace-note at below ARC level. And the answer shouldn't just be "So you can gain experience in pace-noting"...

My motivation towards pacenotes is purely and simply for better, fairer, competition.

I know that people know the course and practise prior to secret rallies. I know that pacenotes are used in secret rallies. I know that there have been people caught in "breach" of the secret rally rules and let go...

Secret rallies don't exist anymore, and I don't like competing against teams who have a major advantage- that doesn't interest me, so the options are 1) cheat 2) lose 3) don't compete at all.

I understand that rallying is also social and builds comradary (sp?) and other fuzzy, warm values... but that's not me, I rally to test my skills, commitment etc, that's what excites me. If I wanted to make friends I would throw a BBQ- I wanna race rally cars and pacenotes are the fairest system I know to do that.

[Bogan]

Originally Posted by Jme

I know that pacenotes are used in secret rallies.

By who?

Originally Posted by Jme

I know that there have been people caught in "breach" of the secret rally rules and let go.

Who?

T.

[craig n]

i always hear about people driving over roads before rallies in N.S.W so probaly won't be many changes if rallies become pacenoted.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mathew Boorman

You'd think so, but in that case why has it not happened?

No one's been game to actually do it and publicise it. And as in the case of the Shakedown where thy actually put on a pace noted event.... will crews come out to support it?

Okay I know the Shakedown had factors like scheduling of other events, but there IS the basis of a popular event type there. It's nto that hard to transplant the idea and extend it to be Schedule R, make an official invite to the Classic guys, publicise and make it competitor friendly.

The thing is someone's going to have to bite the bullet and try it on. We can conclude such events can happen, it could be popular and it could reverse the slide in participation numbers and bring fresh blood into the sport.

Personally I'm in no position to organise such a thing unless event organisers ask me to help as I am frankly on the sport's fringes. But I will put my car up where my mouth is, be it Shakedown 2007 if it ocurs or in similar events if any organiser wants to try it out. And this pace noted event in August, what's the details for that? I want to try that one out.

[fro]

The thing holding back Schedule R is that as soon as you have a CAMS recognised series event, Schedule R cars can't play. And with organisers feeling that they need to part of everything they can to attract entries, Schedule R competition loses out.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by fro

The thing holding back Schedule R is that as soon as you have a CAMS recognised series event, Schedule R cars can't play. And with organisers feeling that they need to part of everything they can to attract entries, Schedule R competition loses out.

When then becomes a circular feedback problem - as a result no competitors do schedule R cars as there's no where to play. And then no organiser does Schedule R as they dont get the entries to make the event worthwhile and then no competitor will do schedule R as there's no where to play and so on, the system feedbacks on itself so there will never be anything.

Unless the feedback is broken of course and that takes promotion and lot of ground work, plus some other factors. Generally I think Fro you got it nailed as competitors in the main now are scarce and organisers need to find sure fire ways to attract them, beign part of a recognised series is the best one.

And with the cost and time of setting up and running an event, you have to be sure your going to get enough competitors to make it worthwhile, so you do need to play it safe. A few things I'm suggesting would require a risk taken and potential failure. If it works, it has good payoff for competitors and organisers. If it doesnt, well... there will be people burnt by the experience.

But I think some competitors and organisers are being burnt by the safe route so there pros and cons to both sides.