we could have test-n-tune or practice events, as to not increase the number
of events.
i do not agree it is 'fine' to lose people to sac. for one, i would rather
drive 5 minutes to GGF than 75 minutes to sac. also we need to stay
attractive to top talent, otherwise our overall skill level will suffer and
we will all be poorer for it.
remember, the goal is not to exclude people, but to be able to finish our
events before dark. and expect some fun runs. the more people we can
handle in one day, the more money we make, and thus the more likely we will
have money for a permanent site (ha- that makes me laugh though, can we
possibly save money faster than the rate of land inflation?). do we care
about how much money we make?
-james
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weinstock <weinstro@hotmail.com>
>>you may lower attendance, but you will not lose many newbies. more of the
>>serious people will be inclined to drive to sac where you can get 10 runs
>>for less money. one reason i want to drive in SFR is because the high
>>level
>>of competition makes me improve faster.
>>i would prefer to have more events. i am willing to co-chair event(s) to
>>help make this happen.
>>
>>comments?
>
>I'm not suggesting that we increase barriers to entry for any particular
>class of competitor, in order to reduce the turnout. If a newbie is serious
>about autox, and is willing to stick it out, so be it.
>
>Raising the price will pose the same economic question to everyone: do I
run
>here and pay, drive far and pay less, or not compete at all? You have a
>point in that a new competitor will not be aware of the price change, and
>therefore won't have that comparative frame of reference. Anyway, if the
>more serious competitors elect to compete in Sacramento, that's fine, too.
>Some will follow them, and some will be replaced by the dreaded "newbies".
>Note that consumers make the same decision in the Bay area every day with
>respect to housing and commuting.
>
>Increasing the number of autocrosses will have zero effect on attendance at
>any given autocross. Most people are more inclined to pay $25 a pop for 25
>events than $40 for 15 events. If someone has no intention of competing for
>the whole series, then the economic analysis is even simpler. Also, more
>events would make it more difficult for any given participant to win a
>trophy, because you would have to attend more events in the series to
ensure
>your results.
>
>If the idea of higher cost really puts it over the top, we could consider
an
>attendance based discount structure. i.e., attend 12 or more of 14 events,
>get $X refunded; attend 10 or more of 14 events, get $Y refunded; attend
>less than 10 events, get nothing.
>
>Finally, I may be incorrect on this point, but I thought one of the
>constraints is site availability -- I assumed that we are basically running
>the max number of events that we can accomodate, subject to constraints of
>availability of both sites and organizers.
>
>We could also raise other barriers, too. Like clear numbering of cars, etc.
>Enforcing what's in the rule book would be fine. This would have to be
>over-communicated before it is applied, or there will be a hue and cry of
>unfairness.
>
>I like the idea of the automated timing and scoring, BTW. It does offer the
>potential for increasing the number of participants we can handle. However,
>I think we expose ourselves to becoming overly dependent on the technical
>equipment required to support it, training, etc. We should definitely buy a
>supported software product instead of writing our own, for example.
>
>IMHO.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rob
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.com.
>
|