Rex: I hear that the local Golf club is going to cut
the course down to 12 holes rather than 18, so they
can accomodate more people :-)
I'm not fundamentally against 3 runs - I would prefer
4 of course. But I do think we should have control
over our events.
Follow this line of reasoning Rex, tell me where you
disagree:
Time required for an event is made up of the following
factors (in no order) :
1) Number of runs
2) Numbers of entrants
3) Overlap
4) Change overs/lunch/drivers meetings/reruns etc.
Agree so far?
Not much can be done improve 3) and 4). 25 seconds is
a bout it and "stuff happens" sometimes that slows an
event. SFR is as good as it gets for a regional
operation.
OK?
Modifying time (more/less runs/people etc.) required
for any one of these will affect event duration.
OK?
Currently, we control all variables except the number
of entrants. See a light-bulb?
OK?
We know a super event chair can get maybe 275-300 cars
through in a day.
OK?
On the same page?
Now if we cut to 3 runs we will be able to get 275
cars through. Problem solved?? I think not...
OK?
Parkinson's law is at work. It'll soon become known
that you don't have to wait around as long as you used
to to run an SCCA event. We'll start to get fields of
400, not 275. This logic is why more people show in
the morning - they know they'll get all their runs.
It's the same logic that means anytime a new freeway
is built it's good for a few months and then gets
jammed with traffic. Perversely, the people that got
screwed were those that waited the longest and were in
the smallest run groups. It'll be 5/2002 and we'll be
having the same discussion about 2 runs, not 3.
OK?
So do we then cut to two runs? one run?
No! - it's better to take control of what we can't
control now. The one variable that's missing is number
of entrants.
OK?
Almost every other facet of life: Golf courses, Ikea,
tennis courts, airplanes, stadiums or whatever limit
the number of people.
OK?
Limiting the number of entrants ensures that we will
never have this discussion again as we'll have control
over how long an event takes. Isn't that what we need?
OK?
Craig
--- Rex Tener <rex_tener@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At 01:59 PM 5/22/2000 -0700, Craig Boyle wrote:
> >WHY NOT THREE RUNS: - Because runs aren't the
> problem:
> >A three run limit *does not address the problem*.
> What
> >determines the length of an event?:
>
> Runs are absolutely the problem. We should be
> running three runs at all
> events and fun runs when time permits.
>
> It is sort of amazing that three years later we
> still are talking about
> this issue when the solution is so easy and obvious.
> No special
> procedures, no change to our current format, it just
> works.
>
> Oh well,
>
> --
> Rex Tener
> rex_tener@yahoo.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
|