[QUOTE=PGlaves;380685]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?[/QUOTE]
In the world of logistics (or [I]mechanics!), [/I][U]simplicity[/U] is its own reward.
If one always waits for something to be 'broken' before we fix it, we risk much.
Dividing the [B]US[/B] 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, [I]this[/I] is the appeal of the original poster's concept.
[B][I]As for what else could be fixed,[/I][/B] 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 [B]BMW NA[/B]), etc.
It's a conceptual suggestion that deserves a second look before being too quickly dismissed by the BoD...........I hope.
Well - unless it has drastically changed in the past few years - the continent is already divided into regions - 5 or 6 - and the rally is rotated between them. Each region has a "target year" - which gets out of whack occasionally when a site can't be found/booked in its proper sequence.
As for finding three venues and then going back - not a bad idea but maybe not the best idea either. It certainly has pluses, but I'd think maybe a rotation among 5 or 6 sites would serve more members better. And that has the added plus that since major venues book 3 to 5 years (or more) out, booking for a 5 site or 6 site rotation would work better. The downside to the membership is that you go back, but miss other good venues/locations.
[QUOTE=PGlaves;380737] And that has the added plus that since major venues book 3 to 5 years (or more) out, booking for a 5 site or 6 site rotation would work better. The downside to the membership is that you go back, but miss other good venues/locations.[/QUOTE]
I think if we had a 5 or 6 site rotation, many would do the rotation once and stop. Rather than spend the dollars and time to ride several thousand miles (round trip) to go to a place that was visited 5 or 6 years ago, many of us would choose a regional or local rally instead. We would save a lot of money and see new things. Many go for the fellowship but I make friends and meet nice people at any rally I attend.