Quote Originally Posted by PGlaves View Post
So - bottom line - other than it's a lot of work for the volunteers who do it - what precisely is wrong with the current method of selecting rally sites?

Other than simply spewing my opinions,I can't solve a problem until the specific problem is defined and examined.

Between 1984 and 2004 when I retired, I was employed full time and had limited vacation time and still managed to attend every BMW MOA International Rally except Moodus, CT in 1993 when I had just (weeks before) changed employers and had zero accumulated vacation. Priorities!! Montana, California, Florida, Texas, Vermont, Canada, and every one at locations in between. Since I retired in '04 I've also made them all - but since I'm retired that's almost too easy.

Some sites were better than others. None were horrible. Some sites handled weather problems better than others - which is a factor. My days doing seminars in sheep sheds with 100 degree heat and 100 db exhaust fans were a lot less fun than air conditioned seminar rooms. "Swimming" in the cattle troughs in 102 degree heat at York, PA was memorable but not as much fun as sitting in 85 degree shade in Texas.

In years past I put a priority on nice soft shady camping spots. Today I may well prefer nice, inexpensive motel rooms as a priority. But others will not have the same likes and dislikes that I do, at the micro level.

But back to the original question - what is the problem we are trying to solve?

In the world of logistics (or mechanics!), simplicity is its own reward.

If one always waits for something to be 'broken' before we fix it, we risk much.

Dividing the US into three unifrom geographical areas simplifies the site selection rotation and process, provides a larger pool of resources per region, and expands the number of potential sites-per-region to investigage and select.

It allows for predictability of which year rallies will fall in which regions and still doesn't deprive us of one single acre of Americana to explore.

For me, this is the appeal of the original poster's concept.

As for what else could be fixed, that would open the 'alcohol sales' can of worms along with the arguement for greater rideability (scenery, challenging roads, tourism) at a selected site, vendor attractiveness, a 'consumer-advocacy tent' (including collecting signatures on petitions to BMW NA), etc.

It's a conceptual suggestion that deserves a second look before being too quickly dismissed by the BoD...........I hope.