2003-08-11 

This is lucidity?

This explains very well what the hell is wrong with SCCA and why
performance rallying ranks behind lawn mower racing in public awareness. 

It explains why teams struggle to pay the bills, why SCCA cannot attract
and retain major sponsors and why there isn't even a full slate of Pro
Rallies.

Pro Rally turns 30 years old next year. Lets look at the record:

* Pro Rally today is less safe than it was 30 years ago. Enough said, I
* won't belabor this.

* In 1974, Pro Rally had TWO major sponsors. In 2003, it has none.

* Entry fees for Pro Rally -- adjusted for inflation -- are higher today
* than 1974.

* Cost of fielding a car -- at any level -- today is higher today,
* adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1974.

* A sizable reason that car prep today is more expensive has to do with
* absolutely insane SCCA rules. For example, it is against blood
* transfusion policy at every major hospital to perform a transfusion
* without blood typing. So why the hell does a rule exist that teams have
* to have their blood type on their helmet? A far more rational rule
* would be to require at least one member of the crew to have first aid
* certification. That might actually save someone's life. But that's a
* rational safety rule, not the stupid one that exists.

* Contingency programs in place in 1974 made it possible for some/many
* teams cover all or nearly all, of their expenses. We finished 15th on
* Sunriser and between the Cooper Tire money, stage sponsorship (yeah we
* had that back then too), and Marchel money, we actually made about $5
* on the rally. 

* There were 11 Pro Rallies in 1974. POR would make it 12, but it was an
* FIA event not Pro event. Today there are 8 -- Pike's Peak is not a Pro
* Rally no matter what it is called.

* Several Pro Rallies actually had their own sponsorship, awarded prize
* money and didn't put organizers deeply in debt. Does any Pro Rally in
* 2003 actually have a major sponsor -- i.e. a naming rights sponsor? --
* award significant prize money or not live hand-to-mouth? 

* A count in Performance Rally for events scheduled for 1975, shows
* approximately 150 performance rallies in the United States and Canada.
* Today, there are about half that scheduled. The suspension of Club
* Rally means there will be even fewer. 

* Car & Driver fielded a its own rally team in the mid-70s. Motor Trend,
* Road & Track, Four Wheeler, Peterson's Off Road and numerous others
* routinely covered Pro Rally. Today, Pro Rally coverage is so remarkable
* it spawns a whole thread here when a magazine writes about it. 

* The 1974 economy was significantly worse -- remember the Arab oil
* embargo and 25% interest rates -- than the 2003 economy. 

I can keep on flogging this dead horse if you want, I'm just getting
warmed up. I may have the results around someplace, but I'm quite willing
to bet that the average number of entries in 1974 was significantly
higher than 2003.

Back in 1975, Bob Hourihan (if you don't know who Bob Hourihan is, I'm
sure Doug Woods can elaborate) wrote this about the SCCA and its lack of
support for the 1974 POR organizers: "Everyone seemed to think that
American streets were paved with gold while in actuality the basic thread
was a rather tatty twine called the run-around." 

At what point does real lucidity set in and and someone say: "you know,
we've really screwed up the marketing of this sport; we've really screwed
up the competition; and we really haven't done a very good job with what
ought to be an extremely popular sport."

This is a sport that NASCAR drivers even admit to watching. And it can't
get an audience?

Ya think it might have something to with the thought process that puts
together a really, really dumb public relations policy that restricts
media coverage and then calls such a move "lucid"?

Eric Anderson
www.rallyalmanac.com