Thoughts on the 2004 Worlds and Media Exclusivity
10-31-2004, 04:12 PM
#92
Originally posted by Rick Hohwart
The simple fact is that this track was not capable of running a race of this caliber.
There was an option for the ROAR bloc to pass on the event and have it go to the next in line (Europe) which probably would have been the best decision. .
The simple fact is that this track was not capable of running a race of this caliber.
There was an option for the ROAR bloc to pass on the event and have it go to the next in line (Europe) which probably would have been the best decision. .
I disagree and honestly, find offense that this statement was made.... Full Throttle was an excellent choice for this event.... too bad several hurricanes found the location a good resting spot as well.
Before any criticism is done - please, consider what these folks have gone through in order to make this event "hurricane evidence free"??????
This track submitted a bid to IFMAR and the track was researched by IFMAR representatives along with ROAR on road electric class committee members and was found to have the ability...
To pass the event to EFRA would have not happened. There was no reason at the time - October of 2003 when the track was selected - to even think this track could not provide the excellent management they had proven several times before with ROAR and non ROAR events.
10-31-2004, 04:12 PM
#93
Based on some new information, I need to correct some of the things I posted above. What I did post was based only on what actually happened at the track. There is more to the story.
Let me get my thoughts organized.
Let me get my thoughts organized.
10-31-2004, 04:18 PM
#94
Originally posted by futureal
JKA: What would be an example of exclusivity being a good idea? I am certainly open to changing my opinion given the right evidence, I just can't think of such a situation myself.
JKA: What would be an example of exclusivity being a good idea? I am certainly open to changing my opinion given the right evidence, I just can't think of such a situation myself.
************************************************
This entire discussion has ballooned out of proportion, just as any internet forum frequenter should have expected.
EVERYONE of the following quotes are either completely false or gross exaggerations of the intended issue for discussion.
Originally posted by Runin Ronin
Do they think they will make more money by not allowing other media to publish their images and not allow writers to publish their stories?
Do they think they will make more money by not allowing other media to publish their images and not allow writers to publish their stories?
Originally posted by DerekB
...if a magazine or website can't beat another to the public than NO organization or person should try and help....
...if a magazine or website can't beat another to the public than NO organization or person should try and help....
Originally posted by SpeediePHATT
And how in the H&*% did a track so ill prepared, get a world title race? What does IFMAR do just show up the day of the race to see if there is really a track there?
And how in the H&*% did a track so ill prepared, get a world title race? What does IFMAR do just show up the day of the race to see if there is really a track there?
Originally posted by CGR
Its like these people intentially want to keep the industry from growing.
Its like these people intentially want to keep the industry from growing.
Originally posted by slowhand
…cannot accept "deliberate" efforts of stopping the information flow.
…cannot accept "deliberate" efforts of stopping the information flow.
Originally posted by pheyhoe
and RC Driver did this thinking "oh great we get all the results before everybody else" but then when it came round to it either could not be bothered to do so or did not have the technology,
and RC Driver did this thinking "oh great we get all the results before everybody else" but then when it came round to it either could not be bothered to do so or did not have the technology,
Originally posted by picco007
IFMAR, RC Driver, and FTS has just taken a step back. They in no way help to promote the sport.
IFMAR, RC Driver, and FTS has just taken a step back. They in no way help to promote the sport.
**************************************************
All of the following quotes are absurd knee jerk reactions that could be just as damaging to the growth of our sport ….
Originally posted by TCR
I'm all for a boycott of rc driver
I'm all for a boycott of rc driver
Originally posted by KE4PJO
I don't buy a lot of magazines, but I do know which one I won't buy.
I don't buy a lot of magazines, but I do know which one I won't buy.
Originally posted by Proteus
I'm glad I don't subscribe to RC Driver.
I'm glad I don't subscribe to RC Driver.
Originally posted by EAMotorsports
Funny I just got a subscription renewal email yesterday..... I responded to them and told them where they could stick if after their actions at the worlds that cost fellow RC racers live results and cost the other magazine's alot of money because they werent told of this exclusive.
Funny I just got a subscription renewal email yesterday..... I responded to them and told them where they could stick if after their actions at the worlds that cost fellow RC racers live results and cost the other magazine's alot of money because they werent told of this exclusive.
This was only from the 1st page of the thread! Don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their individual opinion, but I think in this situation some of these newfound opinions (especially towards RCDriver) were elicited by a misunderstanding.
I don’t think futureal intended this sort of sentiment about the issue. It is without doubt just as damaging as delayed results.
10-31-2004, 04:18 PM
#95
R/C Tech Founder
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Pozer
Mike, I've followed your work for a while and find you to be a straight shooter, so I trust that you're calling it the best you can. I guess the question that I still have is, were the results ever denied for the reasons mentioned by futureal?
Mike, I've followed your work for a while and find you to be a straight shooter, so I trust that you're calling it the best you can. I guess the question that I still have is, were the results ever denied for the reasons mentioned by futureal?
10-31-2004, 04:21 PM
#96
Originally posted by Dawn Sanchez
I disagree and honestly, find offense that this statement was made.... Full Throttle was an excellent choice for this event.... too bad several hurricanes found the location a good resting spot as well.
Before any criticism is done - please, consider what these folks have gone through in order to make this event "hurricane evidence free"??????
This track submitted a bid to IFMAR and the track was researched by IFMAR representatives along with ROAR on road electric class committee members and was found to have the ability...
To pass the event to EFRA would have not happened. There was no reason at the time - October of 2003 when the track was selected - to even think this track could not provide the excellent management they had proven several times before with ROAR and non ROAR events.
I disagree and honestly, find offense that this statement was made.... Full Throttle was an excellent choice for this event.... too bad several hurricanes found the location a good resting spot as well.
Before any criticism is done - please, consider what these folks have gone through in order to make this event "hurricane evidence free"??????
This track submitted a bid to IFMAR and the track was researched by IFMAR representatives along with ROAR on road electric class committee members and was found to have the ability...
To pass the event to EFRA would have not happened. There was no reason at the time - October of 2003 when the track was selected - to even think this track could not provide the excellent management they had proven several times before with ROAR and non ROAR events.
When the Worlds are in the US they are very poorly run (with the exception of Detroit 91) and highly unorganized. If it were up to me I would never allow the Worlds in the U.S. unless a European club was brought in to run it.
10-31-2004, 04:23 PM
#97
So let me get this straight
Futureal
Am I to understand that no one has posted any results on the web due to this debacle with RC Driver? If I'm missing something here, please put a link. I paid FTS $2500 bucks to co-sponsor the event. You'd think they'd post something by now.
Thanks for sending guys to cover the event. Sorry to hear they were given a rough time.
FM
Am I to understand that no one has posted any results on the web due to this debacle with RC Driver? If I'm missing something here, please put a link. I paid FTS $2500 bucks to co-sponsor the event. You'd think they'd post something by now.
Thanks for sending guys to cover the event. Sorry to hear they were given a rough time.
FM
10-31-2004, 04:24 PM
#98
Apparently there was some kind of prior agreement, where one magazine was to get the results before anyone else. As I see it, that was completely wrong. The track belongs to the club, and they can limit access to various things as they see fit (location of banners, photo access, video access, etc.). However, the computer results "belong" to IFMAR, and I do not believe that any club running the event has the ability to offer those results to any one magazine or press outlet before the others.
If that is what this topic is about, the complaints are valid.
In reality though, what actually happened at the track, none of the above applied, as there was no computer data to provide to anyone, regardless of whether they were supposed to get it early or late. That's what I experienced at the track, and that's what prompted my comments up above. Apparently there is more involved than I knew about, and I completely agree with the topic of this item, that race data should be provided to ALL members of the press at the same time, with NO exclusivity agreements.
I'm sorry I got off on the wrong track here - I only commented based on what I saw and was told, and what actually happened in front of me.
If that is what this topic is about, the complaints are valid.
In reality though, what actually happened at the track, none of the above applied, as there was no computer data to provide to anyone, regardless of whether they were supposed to get it early or late. That's what I experienced at the track, and that's what prompted my comments up above. Apparently there is more involved than I knew about, and I completely agree with the topic of this item, that race data should be provided to ALL members of the press at the same time, with NO exclusivity agreements.
I'm sorry I got off on the wrong track here - I only commented based on what I saw and was told, and what actually happened in front of me.
10-31-2004, 04:29 PM
#101
FMW, the link was posted this afternoon. The data (lap times and all) has been "up" since then.
Jarrod sent me the data, and I posted the link on SGRID, here, and on RC Car Action's BBS.
Jarrod sent me the data, and I posted the link on SGRID, here, and on RC Car Action's BBS.
10-31-2004, 04:30 PM
#102
R/C Tech Founder
Thread Starter
Alright, I am going to close this thread under pressure from, among others, RC Driver, who apparently feel that I am out of bounds by reporting THE TRUTH about what happened on my own site.
Additionally, I never posted anything negative about RC Driver other than this agreement they supposedly had, and what my guys were told at the track. You will not find one bad comment from me about RC Driver or any other publication anywhere on this site.
Still, it is a correct belief that this kind of argument is not good for anybody; not for me, not for Driver, not for IFMAR, and so on and so forth. To those who were ripping on RC Driver, as I said earlier, go back and re-read the first post of this thread and you'll see where the problem really lies.
My real hope is that somebody somewhere will learn from this. How should an event be handled? Here's a simple, novel idea:
1) Race Director calls the race
2) Race Official(s) review the results immediately after the race
3) Corrections are made to a digital file by a Race Media Rep
4) Media Rep then turns to media present, posts the result, and copies file to any and all who would like it
5) Wash, rinse, repeat!
This, of course, requires one extra person, but this is the Worlds! The Worlds! A race review should take no more than 2-3 minutes by the officials. Any penalties can be quickly assessed, and any missed laps can be easily checked (although, missed laps at a Worlds event? Are you joking?)
With a system like that, everybody is happy. The drivers are happy because they always know where they are their competition stand. The media is happy because covering the event just became a hundred times easier. The public is happy because they can see the events unfold practically in real time on the internet.
It's so easy, and yet somehow it is made so difficult.
Additionally, I never posted anything negative about RC Driver other than this agreement they supposedly had, and what my guys were told at the track. You will not find one bad comment from me about RC Driver or any other publication anywhere on this site.
Still, it is a correct belief that this kind of argument is not good for anybody; not for me, not for Driver, not for IFMAR, and so on and so forth. To those who were ripping on RC Driver, as I said earlier, go back and re-read the first post of this thread and you'll see where the problem really lies.
My real hope is that somebody somewhere will learn from this. How should an event be handled? Here's a simple, novel idea:
1) Race Director calls the race
2) Race Official(s) review the results immediately after the race
3) Corrections are made to a digital file by a Race Media Rep
4) Media Rep then turns to media present, posts the result, and copies file to any and all who would like it
5) Wash, rinse, repeat!
This, of course, requires one extra person, but this is the Worlds! The Worlds! A race review should take no more than 2-3 minutes by the officials. Any penalties can be quickly assessed, and any missed laps can be easily checked (although, missed laps at a Worlds event? Are you joking?)
With a system like that, everybody is happy. The drivers are happy because they always know where they are their competition stand. The media is happy because covering the event just became a hundred times easier. The public is happy because they can see the events unfold practically in real time on the internet.
It's so easy, and yet somehow it is made so difficult.
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
