Let me assure you, the Subaru Rim of the World Rally presented by Autosport Engineering is not going away. We'll have to wait and see how things pan out for working with the brand new Rally America championship. Regardless, Rim has big plans for the future as we head into our 22 consecutive running.
"Further, Niday told me that there?s already a roadblock to resurrecting the 2004 ProRally schedule in 2005.
?The vast majority of the organizers are behind us, with one exception. It appears Rim of the World Rally (north of Los Angeles) will not be with us,? Niday told me. ?They handed us a nine-page document this afternoon with a number of exceptions from the operations manual. Certainly, we aren?t prepared to grant those exceptions, especially without an insurance carrier in place."
It seems a bit pre-emptive to declare they won't be with the series based on something that happened the same day.
JB and Doug, please tell us you're going to aim higher than the SCCA did. This type of quote in the press (blaming the other guy) does not seem very positive for the sport.
The nadir of reformation is here, in these statements, right now.
Either everyone stops the pi*sing contest before it happens or we can all splinter off and try again in the U.S.A. in a few years/ decades.
"You can include my rally but" ... Fer Chrisakes! work the details out in private . Get the damn rally on the calender and stop being so provincial. Be happy you can still do it, with the support of the people who care to watch or enter, against all odds, in the U.S.A.
Just my .02, edit to remove statement made in fustration.
SCCA Member, soon to be RA Member
Looks like I might need to be a CARS member soon.
You could educate us by specifically detailing the exceptions you've requested. Name calling about egos doesn't help us understand the issues of contention. There's even a chance that talking about other people's egos could diminish your own credibility. How about taking the high road and providing real facts? It might be something fun to try.
I think we all need to check our egos at the door, mine included. There's no name calling going on so please don't read that into my statement. I already said it's fair to all concerned to keep our discussions private. You'd only be hearing my side of the story anyway.
We obviously have some different concerns than some of our fellow organizers. We are under no obligation to commit ours event until we are comfortable that we can live up to the commitment. If we can find common ground things will work out in time. If not, there's a lot more important things in the world to worry about. What about those Red Sox?
I'm confused. Why would one sanctioning body (Rally America) purchase insurance from another sanctioning body (NASA)? Aren't insurance rates based on the profile of the sanctioning body? And if the events in question are Rally America events, how could NASA's insurance rates and conditions be applicable unless run under NASA rules and regulations?
Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate to get insurance settled months before Sno*Drift given that the organizers have to spend time and money putting together an event that could be cancelled if a last minute insurance deal is not put together?
I'm sure JB was misquoted in that piece, so I'm curious what was really said.
>Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate to get insurance
>settled months before Sno*Drift given that the organizers
>have to spend time and money putting together an event that
>could be cancelled if a last minute insurance deal is not
Maybe because there weren't months between this all being initiated (SCCA dropping the ball) and the date for Sno*Drift? x(
I was not goning to jump up and down about insurance prior to S*D comment, but I think its safe to say S*D will make a decision about Insurance sometime in December or earlier. I'd be more comfortable with outlines of our choices prior to Thanksgiving.
We absolutely plan to host the event and we will not wait until the day before the event to make such important decisions.
>I'm sure JB was misquoted in that piece, so I'm curious what
>was really said.
I talked to JB this weekend. He basically said he was misquoted and what he said was on the line of "If we don't have insurance lined up, the events can always discuss things with another sanctioning body such as NASA if they wish to."
Who said anything about Supplemental Regulations? I think the document full of conditions is definitely NOT the supps, as some of the conditions would likely not be something that the competitor needs to know...but rather issues relating to organizers and sanctioning bodies alone.
Stop rolling your eyes, Anders.
I do wish and hope the differences can be worked out, but if they can't, they can't.