2017 Liqui Moly Bathurst 12 hour: Feb 3-5

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by one five five

The ridiculous roundabout way of ordering campsites this year doesn't deserve a knock ??

Or is this just another way in another thread for you to have an attack on the same poster again?

Discuss the failure in process, not use the occasion as an opportunity to knock the promoter

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

read the whole post including the quote to get your answer

I have and am still unsure of any alleged conspiracy theory. Could you elaborate?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Discuss the failure in process, not use the occasion as an opportunity to knock the promoter

Isn't the promoter ultimately responsible for the failure in process?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I have and am still unsure of any alleged conspiracy theory. Could you elaborate?

"It helps the promoter sell the rights of a control tyre - potentially the influence of a new promoter looking for an increased return. Michelin has been part of the event for many years and now boxed out. That is disappointing."

Clearly Scudds post shows that its not the promoter looking for an increased return as was suggested by the anti v8s poster

Thus the conspiracy theory was blown

Anyway, i dont care about tyres, Looking forward to awesome cars and some top drivers

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Clearly Scudds post shows that its not the promoter looking for an increased return as was suggested by the anti v8s poster

Thus the conspiracy theory was blown

Michelin has been boxed out by the move to a control tyre? The same way as Dunlop, Bridgestone, Yokohama, Hankook. Has it not?

Not sure that's a conspiracy theory nor has anything been blown out of the water?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Michelin has been boxed out by the move to a control tyre? Has it not?

Not sure that's a conspiracy theory nor has anything been blown out of the water?

Ignored my point and created a strawman. weak as

"potentially the influence of a new promoter looking for an increased return." Conspiracy theory blown

Just man up and admit your conspiracy theory was wrong, or stay silent

[D.R.T.]

Does the move to a control tyre not create an increased return for the promoter - SRO and V8SC?

Where is the conspiracy?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Does the move to a control tyre not create an increased return for the promoter - SRO and V8SC?

You're the one making the assertion that it does - otherwise this is called begging the question:

Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

[D.R.T.]

Fair enough - that is an assertion from myself.

I would be keen though to see a move to a control tyre supplier 'not' resulting in an increased return for the promoter.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I would be keen though to see a move to a control tyre supplier 'not' resulting in an increased return for the promoter.

Your pedantic dancing around the accusation you are making is hilarious. There is still "not" any evidence that what you are claiming is actually true.

Ordinarily I would say that if someone tenders for exclusive supply, then they are normally screwed to the wall in order to gain the exclusivity and the competitors therefore get a better deal in the process.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Your pedantic dancing around the accusation you are making is hilarious. There is still "not" any evidence that what you are claiming is actually true.

Just to clarify - are you suggesting that there is no evidence of the move to a control supplier? Or that there is an increased return for the promoter as a result of the move to a control supplier?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Or that there is an increased return for the promoter as a result of the move to a control supplier?

I'm waiting for your evidence of the above. It is not up to me to provide evidence to refute the claims YOU are making.

I would suggest that most people would agree that the aim of control supply agreements is to deliver a lower price to competitors through increasing volumes through one supplier, not to deliver a profit to organisers.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

I would suggest that most people would agree that the aim of control supply agreements is to deliver a lower price to competitors through increasing volumes through one supplier, not to deliver a profit to organisers.

You are kidding surely?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

You are kidding surely?

No, I am not, and don't call me Shirley.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by one five five

You are kidding surely?

You are kidding arent you to even ask that question?

Conspiracy theory is blown. Move on

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

You are kidding surely?

In actual seriousness could you enlighten us to a series where the category management profiteered on controlled supply components?

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by Mixer

I would suggest that most people would agree that the aim of control supply agreements is to deliver a lower price to competitors through increasing volumes through one supplier, not to deliver a profit to organisers.

most people?

Does Bernie not profit from the exclusivity deal with Pirelli? Or Bridgsetone before that?

Do promoters not sign exclusivity deals with TV networks, airlines, fuel companies etc for commercial gain? Why are tyres any different?

Where competitors complaining about the cost of tyres that were putting teams participation at risk that forced the promoter to step in and sign a deal with a single manufacturer .............….………… No

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

most people?

Does Bernie not profit from the exclusivity deal with Pirelli? Or Bridgsetone before that?

Do promoters not sign exclusivity deals with TV networks, airlines, fuel companies etc for commercial gain? Why are tyres any different?

Where competitors complaining about the cost of tyres that were putting teams participation at risk that forced the promoter to step in and sign a deal with a single manufacturer .............….………… No

you are making really broad comments to hide the fact that this is unlikely to be the case with the 12 hour promoter

Admit you are wrong or be quiet

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Do promoters not sign exclusivity deals with TV networks, airlines, fuel companies etc for commercial gain? Why are tyres any different?

I specifically mentioned controlled components. TV networks, airlines etc are not relevant to the point I was making. TV and advertising delivers funds that allow the race to run and pay prize money and does not increase competitors cost, as you are trying to allude.

Controlling mechanical components including tyres is meant to a) reduce cost by reducing competitive variables that may cause teams with more money to test things that teams with less money might not be able to. And b) by making a control supplier bid for a large, predictable amount of business, lower supply prices on a fixed specification of product is the aim of a control supply agreement.

As part of a successful tender bid a supplier may by default or choice become an advertising partner to promote their brand at and during the event, which at the day is why they go racing. The assertion you are trying to make however, that the promoter of the B12hr has chosen a sole tyre supplier so they can increase prices to competitors and pocket the difference, has no basis in fact.

All of the "arguments" you make are begging the question. There are no facts to any of them.

[D.R.T.]

With zero benefit or financial gain to the promoter - is that you are suggesting Mixer?

Pirelli doesn't pay Bernie anything for the right to supply 100% of tyres.

Dunlop (or whoever supply the 5 litre cars today) don't pay anything for the right to supply 100% of the tyres?

[bludvl_x19]

Originally Posted by Mixer

In actual seriousness could you enlighten us to a series where the category management profiteered on controlled supply components?

Aussie Racing Cars, back in the day when Phil owned and ran the series.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

With zero benefit or financial gain to the promoter - is that you are suggesting Mixer?

You are the one who has made the accusation that this IS for financial gain by the promoter, so the anus is on your shoulders to show that is true.

Originally Posted by bludvl_x19

Aussie Racing Cars, back in the day when Phil owned and ran the series.

<citation needed>

Also: Promoter of the B12hr isn't a manufacturer of anything. Comparing apples to pears.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by Mixer

You are the one who has made the accusation that this IS for financial gain by the promoter, so the anus is on your shoulders to show that is true.

I take it you mean onus...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by rich07

I take it you mean onus...

Yeah sorry, typo...

[Bcarr6]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Yeah sorry, typo...

This conversation went south quick... Ha!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk