breton wrote:3) Drop Thunderhill in the Summer - no harm in dropping out one month off the schedule if we make it up elsewhere, especially if we move a more compressed schedules (e.g. 3 rather than 4 weeks between events - with a Summer break). We could easily stretch the schedule to late October (NASA has two events at Sonoma in late Oct/Nov). This could alleviate the issue where the workers are over-loaded supporting Pro events in the Summer as well.
4) Get our time back at Sears /Sonoma raceway. NASA seems to have no problem getting dates there running 6 weekends there in 2012. In the ideal world a nine-weekend format (3 at each track) in both 2 and 3-day formats could be a draw with the right scheduling and mix of formats (including National/Rational),
5) Scheduling - if we going to keep racers in-region and draw from out-of-region, we need to better coordinate, especially within the Division and with SoCal, since they are our biggest pool of "discretionary" racers outside of the region.
As a current board member, I love reading all of these ideas! This is the kind of stuff that would be awesome to get sent to the board. While we have SRF drivers on the board, it's hard to parse out suggestions from discussion on a forum (even when bullet pointed). You can use our feedback form anytime to provide input:
http://feedback.sfsrscca.org (I created this form earlier this year and it has been distributed in various channels but I just added the short URL for it; hopefully easier for us to all remember and use).
Just two things I wanted to touch on to take into consideration for your feedback:
SchedulingThe calendaring process for SFR is like the world's hardest puzzle. First we get Pro dates from Laguna and Sears. They change every year. Without our workers, we wouldn't get loud days @ Laguna and entry fees would be substantially higher. Then we get our regional dates from Laguna. For the last two years since I've been on the board, we've been trying to get a second date from Sears. The catch is that many car clubs run the same weekends every year so as our schedule changes, it's very, very hard for the track to find us a free weekend that also fits into the calendar. Now, with those dates, we then plug in the Thunderhill dates we want while trying to account for the following:
* Prevent the workers from having back-to-back weekends
* Spread out the events to be roughly 4 weeks apart.
* Don't start too early or end too late when rain is a factor. Because drivers receive a full refund if they don't turn a wheel, usually 30%+ of our racers abandon ship if the forecast looks bad which results in significant losses. We do have margin built into our budget but it isn't "profit" per se: we use it to do things like replace emergency trucks when they get old (which we had to do twice this year) and ensure we have well-equipped crews and smoothly run events.
Keep in mind that even when we're not supporting a pro race (like IRL or WTCC at Sears), Pro dates eliminate *weeks* of availability from the track. Moto GP, between preparation, event and clean up removes an entire month in the middle of the summer from Laguna IIRC.
When you factor in all of these constraints, the calendar almost sets itself. We don't have the expected flexibility when juggling three different racetracks and the extensive pro schedule of the Bay Area.
We do look at Cal Club and Oregon's schedules and
if we have the choice, we always choose to avoid a conflict - that is better for both regions. Unfortunately, only a couple of events per year can be shifted without fouling everything else up. I worked with Ceci earlier this year from Cal Club - they felt we weren't considering their race schedule while setting our dates. I sent her our planning calendar and she wrote back understanding what we're faced with.
This is considerably easier for Cal Club and Oregon who run fewer events, do not have the same Pro support schedule and run at tracks with less demand. Mike builds a calendar that shows all of the constraints with color coding and it's bloody depressing to realize that we have very limited control as each requirement is applied.
NASA bases their schedule mostly around Sears and that gives them much greater flexibility to get available dates. And while they have lots of Sears dates, they don't run at Laguna.
None of this is to say, "Poor us!" We get to race at three world-class tracks year in and year out, we're the only non-pro group with loud race days at Laguna and we enjoy California weather. It's pretty sweet, but also a bit complicated.
Entry Costs / Rewards Moneybreton wrote:2) Incent those drivers doing the minimum to maintain their licenses to come out more often. For example, let's have a random drawing across all drivers that pulls out some real money rather than tricking out $100 rewards throughout a bunch of run groups. Put in a couple of big prizes (e.g. $1,000) and then some "incentive to play" prizes (like half the entry fee for the next event).
6) Entry cost - take some of the "incentive" money to subsidize the ever increasing entry prices. We need to end up with a balanced budget but that does not mean that every weekend needs to turn a profit.
7) Do something different to build the driver pool - TTE/HPDE in NASA are their financial underpinnings and they have no competition from SCCA. TTE is a good compromise that would fit the SCCA model (it's essentially the Solo I class that was abandoned years ago) to offer race-prepared cars a no-contact opportunity for track time, while immersing them in the racing experience. If we run a a double race weekend in two days, then let's fill up a 3rd day with additional driving/racing groups from outside the "family" (ala Porsche Club, BMW Club, "track day" cars, etc.). Throw in a one-day driving school periodically. We have some great "salespeople" in SCCA; we need to draw some "new blood" to the group
Entry fees did go up, but they went up for the first time in 3 years. The fees were held low as long as possible but car counts dropped with the economy and costs went up. I do not believe the economy is to blame for the entirety of the SCCA nor the Regions woes, but I don't think anyone disagrees that disposable income hobbies like racing took a big hit with the recession.
Some of the ideas here are contradictory - with the asphalt rental at Sears running ~$26k/day, adding more Sears dates to our schedule would only put further budget pressure on entry fees. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get another Sears date, but all of these issues are connected and when you push in one direction, you may inadvertently pull in another.
As noted earlier in the thread, the $100 drawings are Thunderhill Rewards money which comes in the form of a dividend from the track. I voted against the drawings as I don't think random money from the sky changes people's behavior but I also don't think $100 makes a difference to a racer's budget. It's nice, but it doesn't change whether or not you will prep the car, tow and commit a weekend to have some fun. It also doesn't change, for the majority of drivers who run 2 weekends or less a year with us, whether or not they are going to come out. But neither does a $25 cheaper entry fee (which is what it would amount to roughly if spread across all the events).
My opinion is the dividend should be used to make our program more exciting and more visible. We want to have the racing program with the best bang for the buck, not the cheapest entry fees. The Sonoma Sprints is one example of that - the double Rational format and branded event turned out the most cars we've seen in 5 years.
I hate entry fees as much as anyone - I was hoping when elected I would find there was a secret refund program for the board members since we donate as many as 30 hours a month. Sadly, our pay was tripled and it's still $0.
I can tell you from my position working with car clubs across the country at MotorsportReg.com: costs are going up on all fronts from track rentals, to insurance, to ambulance, to food, to fuel, etc. Inflation is a fact of life. I can only state from my two years of experience but the board works ultra-hard to save money wherever possible so we can continue all of the great benefits we have while keeping entry fees affordable.
I appreciate all of the thoughtful input here so far, you SRF guys are pretty smart.
Please do feel free to "drone on" using the feedback form at any time about anything. Cheers,
Brian
SM #12
SFR Board Member
PS - Jerry, agreed re: the website. If re-elected, that's on my to do list next year. It's way overdue. That's one of those things our "profit" will help pay for.
GregCirillo's Profile
dave's Website
