We acquired a new (old and returning to) site that wouldn't us to start
until 10 a.m., putting a crimp in running the 200 plus entrants at day.
Our solution: require SCCA membership. Then when that didn't work
(folks would join that day and run), we required they be card carrying members.
Kinda weird, but it slowed down the flood to a managable amount. New
drivers had to think and plan before they entered. Their level of
commitment and desire seems to be higher. 01 will be a big test to see
if this works.
In the past, we had the members only requirement and quit doing that in
the previous economic turndown....hint, hint. We may have to fall back
to the "open to anyone" method again, but not at the present time. Most
of the new drivers don't even quiver when you mention the membership
dues; shrug, okay, let's go! With costs the way they are in the SF Bay
Area, $65 membership is a drop in the bucket.
--Pat Kelly
Andrew_Bettencourt@Kingston.com wrote:
>
> Been following this thread...with events that run from 150 to 200 drivers
> here in NER - do we WANT more solists? Nationals flirted with a cap,
> ProSolos frequently have waiting lists, and sites are getting smaller and
> increasingly hard to find.
>
> How about figuring out how to run events BETTER, with LESS?
>
> Andy 'as controversial as I get' Bettencourt
>
> "msmith2" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>@autox.team.net on 12/11/2000 08:07:51
> PM
>
> Please respond to "msmith2" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>
>
> Sent by: owner-autox@autox.team.net
>
> To: "Team.net Autocross List" <autox@autox.team.net>
> cc:
>
> Subject: RE: The REAL Issue
>
> >It's clear that SP doesn't currently reflect some of the things that
> >enthusiasts do. Mostly due to enthusiasts having even more options now
> than
> >ever. Should SP be changed to reflect these changes? I'm guessing the
> >current SP competitors would say "no." They did when surveyed a few years
> >ago.
>
> It never did. At least as far as American V8 cars go anyway.... The very
> first thing done to any of those cars upon delivery was a camshaft swap,
> especially the 70's cars. Hello Prepared. For me, that's been the whole
> problem with SP. You can do things in excess of Prepared in some areas, but
> not in excess of stock in others. The areas that were targeted for either
> did not take into account what was commonly being done.
>
> >So, we have STS, STR and SM. Hopefully, they will satisfy the needs of an
> >additional group of people. To me, the bottom line is this. 99% of our
> new
> >entrants start with some car they already had. MAYBE 1% say "I think I'll
> >start autocrossing. What car should I get to do it with?" It's also just
> >about a universal truth that people change cars.
>
> The idea is to attract the cars that have already had a few things done to
> them, the things that would put them in Prepared, or Modified.
>
> >To me the question becomes: IS SM a class in which you start, or a class
> to
> >which you go later? After we answer that question, then and only then can
> >you decide what cars/modifications you allow. If you're trying to attract
> >people by having the class, I think it's a bit narrowly constructed as it
> >stands, by the way...
>
> It can be either, but was designed to be a place to start for interested
> non-members. We lost a LOT of return entrants because of things like
> Eclipses with boost controllers were in EM with a V8-powered tube-frame
> Sprite.
>
> Autocrossing is not popular enough to dictate to an entire cross section of
> younger drivers what they WILL do to their cars IF they want to play with
> us. WE have to do what it takes to attract them AS THEY ARE, because they
> ain't rebuilding their car just to race with us. Largely, that is what Solo
> 2 has done in the past, and why we have the number of classes we have now.
> We get say "we have a class for just about anything", and now, we get to
> mean it.
>
> If you want to get sticky about it, the entire Prepared section was created
> for the sole purpose of giving road racers a place to play (god knows
> nobody
> does that to their street cars). If there ever was a beef about increasing
> the number of classes (by 6) for a minimal return on entries, I'd say THAT
> was a MUCH bigger deal......
>
> Mike CP58
|