Interesting Discussions Regarding the MRA Race Series

[T Baggins]

I have retitled this discussion thread and moved the 2012 Race Schedule to it's own new thread. It seemed more appropriate to me to have the input and discussions be distinctly separate from the Official Published Season Schedule page.

As you read down, you will find lots of interesting info and suggestions, as well as some posts from me which are animated and perhaps even outwardly defensive... This is primarily because, while we desperately need interest and participation in the molding of the MRA, I find it incredibly frustrating and irritating that people establish and then defend positions regarding the direction or management of the club without any factual basis or information.

Please understand the business model and learn the facts before you put a bunch of effort suggesting "what the MRA should do". We churn approximately $280,000 - $340,000 in and out of the club each year. This is a real, legitimate business - not a bake sale. We can't simply impose changes because someone "thinks it would be great if..." to do so might very well put us out of business.

Running the MRA is a full-time commitment from a board of 11 who work very hard to ensure the success of the organization. Indeed I often work harder at my "MRA job" than I do my "real job" - because the MRA is much more difficult to manage. We on the Board are quite intelligent and competent, and many of us have high-level jobs outside of the MRA - we are not simply "willing volunteers", we are actually "qualified" to run the MRA or even other, much bigger companies.

The MRA is built around a very unique business model, which gets harder and harder to succeed at with every passing year - primarily because of two things:

1) The cost to put the events on continues to go up

2) The numbers of participants, and dollars spent per participant continue to go down

We are constantly working to address these issues, and have had considerable success in doing so the last two years. We're far from where we want to be, but we have good data and we have a game plan to get us there. The next generation of Board Members is about to get a taste of what it really takes to pull this off, and I hope they bring the same amount of enthusiasm and work-ethic to the Board as their predecessors.

There have been thousands and thousands of hours put into the current configuration of the MRA since we converted it to a two-day race schedule. It has been tweaked and modified slightly every year since then - and has been massively reworked and restructured since 2009 - which quite honestly is the ONLY reason the MRA still exists today.

Making changes to the MRA business model is neither simple nor clear-cut in most cases. There is always a down-side to any change we might make, so determining whether the pro's outweigh the con's adequately is paramount in each decision, even down to the actual order of races on the raceday schedule. We don't just toss this stuff out there, it is expertly crafted to assure maximum enjoyment of the racers and maximum financial benefit to the organization.

As you participate in this discussion, please let this be my request...

Understand that making changes to the structure of the MRA is not like deciding whether the boy scout troop should "hike today and swim tomorrow", or "swim today and hike tomorrow". It's more like "if we do this, we'll lose our insurance" or "if we do that, the club will go bankrupt", but "if we do this, we'll add $24,000 to the coffers" and "if we do that we can bring in new racers". The stakes are much higher than you could possibly imagine, and each of us on the Board have a fiduciary (and ultimately PERSONAL) responsibility to ensure the success of the MRA.

Ask questions, get facts (our books are OPEN to all members), collect data - and THEN make suggestions if you believe your idea still has merit. Merit = has benefit to BOTH the riders and the organization, as one can't survive without the other.

Cheers!

[jeff healy]

great idea having the last round as a double points round!! Force people to save some $$ to defend their championships and get them out for the last round!

[T Baggins]

great idea having the last round as a double points round!! Force people to save some $$ to defend their championships and get them out for the last round!

And if a guy is say, 10 points out at the end of the year... he's thinking "I might as well not go, the other guy always beats me anyway" - but now that it's double points... literally anything can happen. :)

[mkdiehl]

.....unless that is your worst track.....then you lose double the points.

Tony, this isn't retribution for last weekend is it?

I guess i better get faster down there.....

it is actually a good idea....unfortunately.

[evomach]

It seems the main motivation for double points at PPIR is to increase attendance and more importantly cover the expenses of the weekend. I think a better solution would be to award "Bonus Points" (say 25 points) to every racer in each class he registers and pays for. Then allow the actual racing to decide placements with the same reward and penalty as every other round the racer attends instead of for ex. dropping from 1st to 7th on the last weekend of the season when you take a rock to the radiator in your 1st race and lose 72 points in every other race you miss that day.

I personally don't see how this or the double points will help attendance much at PPIR since the people in points battles are showing up anyway and the other people who aren't showing up don't care whether they lose 36 or 72 points - especially at the last race of the season.

[DarkKnight]

It seems the main motivation for double points at PPIR is to increase attendance and more importantly cover the expenses of the weekend. I think a better solution would be to award "Bonus Points" (say 25 points) to every racer in each class he registers and pays for. Then allow the actual racing to decide placements with the same reward and penalty as every other round the racer attends instead of for ex. dropping from 1st to 7th on the last weekend of the season when you take a rock to the radiator in your 1st race and lose 72 points in every other race you miss that day.

I personally don't see how this or the double points will help attendance much at PPIR since the people in points battles are showing up anyway and the other people who aren't showing up don't care whether they lose 36 or 72 points - especially at the last race of the season.

So you potentially receive 25 points for registering / paying for a class and not actually racing?

[loujr]

Woohooo for more pueblo!!!!!

[gsnyder828]

Woohooo for more pueblo!!!!!

+1 - especially post repave.

[evomach]

So you potentially receive 25 points for registering / paying for a class and not actually racing?

Yes, but they still get 0/36 points for the race(s).

1) They Pay and Race: They get 25 pts + Race Points

2) They Only Pay: They get 25 points and only lose the race points so they are penalized exactly as anyone else at any other round of the season

3) They don't pay: they get 0 race points and also miss out on 25 additional points available for supporting the club in covering the costs for PPIR which indirectly affects whether races at the other venues can be held

Really if the board has decided that PPIR is going to be a round and they anticipate losing money that round I think they should add a fee to each racer license and/or each race round registration to subsidize the cost of the PPIR then if they end up covering cost or making money they can apply the surplus and adjust the fees accordingly in following seasons until the fees are no longer necessary.

In response, I suspect the club members would:
- pay the fees, continue to not attend, & chalk it up to racing costs
- increase attendance to alleviate the need for the fees
- make it clear to the board they have no desire to race PPIR and ask it removed from future schedules or nominate/vote in board members who's views of racing/not racing at PPIR are inline with theirs

Anyway, I am just speculating on the reasoning why PPIR is double points. I could be way off. If I race MRA next season, I will race PPIR as part of the schedule and I will take the points however they are awarded. I am just pointing out that I can see the double points as possibly imploding some of the loyal racers' seasons in the final round after grinding out all year and all they can do at that point is sit around being bitter all offseason about how they "got screwed" at PPIR. At the same time, it doesn't really do much if anything to motivate the people who weren't coming anyway to want to come.

[oldtimer]

Woohooo for more pueblo!!!!!

+1 - especially post repave.


+2 Can't wait to ride that track with smooth pavement! It's going to be fast. :shock:

[T Baggins]

The issue is not PPIR it is that the late rounds are poorly attended. Maybe bonus points makes more sense... I just hate to see the last few rounds hemorrhage money

[evomach]

Completely understandable, but now I can't resist bringing this up. Especially when looking at it from a late round club finances issue it really seems to make since to:

Make Rd 6 @ HPR a combined MRA/UTSBA round (managed by & full proceeds going to MRA). With the extra income from racers coming in from Utah for this round it should offest the possible late season drop in Co racer attendance. It could also entice some of the Co racers who may have skipped the round to actually come out in order to race it up having some different competion in town.

Make Rd 7 @ MMP Full Track a combined MRA/UTSBA (managed by & full proceeds going to UTSBA). Since the round would be held by UTSBA there would be no negative financial impact to the MRA especially if there is currently a decent chance of losing money at the final round(s). This would of course also help the UTSBA by bringing in racers for the Full Track configuration which is the most expensive configuration to run.

Based on the talk and expected turnout for the upcoming full track round it appears that there is decent interest by the racers to race there. I think if it were an official MRA round and people had longer to plan on the round, the turn out would be much higher. The extra travel cost isn't so much when going in groups. I know with Kory (and Oscar?) doing tires at both places there would be additional trailer space available to transport some bikes. Also, I kind of anticipate "racer broke" coming into play a little. Often it seems racers are too broke when it comes to do the same old they've done a few times or when they're buying consumables like tires etc.., but then all of a sudden you through a little different, more interesting or exciting option at them and all of a sudden they come up with some funds :-)

Anyway, I know this type of co-op has been considered in the past, but I guess I just felt like stirring things up(maybe reading too many of Aaron's posts). With the club looking to remedy year end funding issues it could be a good time to give it another look.

[T Baggins]

We only had something like 61 racers attend all 7 rounds - out of almost 200 licensed racers. That tells me that the rest simply can't afford a full schedule, or for whatever reason they don't feel compelled to attend all the rounds. (life, kids, vacation, other interests, etc...?)

Pueblo and PPIR were both about equally attended early in the season, so again I reiterate that I don't believe this is a PPIR issue specifically. I still think it's an end of year issue.

Even though everyone LOVED Hastings (at least before it got bumpy) - AND it was a double-header, so double points implications if you didn't go - we had record low turnouts the last year we ran an event there even though it was round 2-3 of the season.

If we had even 40 racers attend a 2012 travel date at Miller, I'd be totally amazed. We can't even get 1/2 of our racers to travel to Pueblo ('cause it's too far and they have to pay hotel....) - how that would be better for a Miller date is beyond me?

[jeff healy]

I agree that I don't think we would ever be able to get a big showing at Miller. It is fun to go over there for a round or 2 when possible but the expense is waaayy more. Even with the enthusiasm that we are having with the trip this weekend (which is way better than it has been in the past due to the fact that there is no rd 8) I would be surprised if there will be 20 people from the MRA there. I agree that it would be fun to have a combined event but I just don't see a way to make it a feasible option :(

[Munch]

Just to toss out another schedule idea for discussion.

Has there been given any thought to Saturday practice and Sunday racing? When I registered for the UtahSBA MOM series I was amazed to find that their schedule really worked out well (not only for myself but others who are going this week). I found I was able to register for 5 races, with none of them being back to back. Probably more than luck than anything, but it's something that stood out to me immediately.

Seems like they have fewer classes (obviously as they race in a single day). I'll be interested to see the size of their grids.

From a personal experience my races fell on Sunday this year. I'd run Sat am practice, then not want to sit around to run endurance. I'd bail for the afternoon and come back on Sunday to race.

I'd be more inclined to run the races if they were all in a single day.

[T Baggins]

Has there been given any thought to Saturday practice and Sunday racing?

The idea has been passed around. Which day of classes do you propose we eliminate? :wink: There would be no financial benefit to the club, from an event cost perspective anyway...

USBA's entry fees are much higher than ours, AND you have to pay extra for practice - which is how they are able to afford to practice sat and race sun. If we doubled the cost to participate, most certainly we could cut the number of races - and we'd need to because we'd lose probably half of our racers in the process...

Considerable effort has gone into making our schedule such that (unless you're Shannon Moham) you have very little chance of running back-to-back races. We put SS on Saturday and SB on Sunday so people aren't frantically trying to switch out wheels and tires throughout the day. Additionally, you can run between 2 - 4 races each day (almost regardless of which bike you ride) so you have the option to race ONLY one day or the other... and many racers take advantage of that. If practice was one day and racing the other - then ALL of our riders would have to attend both days. Which would increase the cost for many...

[Munch]

If I'm out on Friday (practice before the event) and give the track my $150, and give the MRA my $250 for the weekend racing, I spend $400.

If I skip Friday, and practice Saturday, and race Sunday, and give all my $400 to the club, I spend $400 either way.

I'd rather give then extra $150 to the club, and save myself a day.

Personally, I'd eliminate the 250 cheater class, errr 250 Production class. :wink: Kidding, I don't know how to handle the many classes we have. I'm just in favor of larger grids. I don't know if a single day of racing would result in larger grids.

[evomach]

If we had even 40 racers attend a 2012 travel date at Miller, I'd be totally amazed. We can't even get 1/2 of our racers to travel to Pueblo ('cause it's too far and they have to pay hotel....) - how that would be better for a Miller date is beyond me?

I understand you've determined it's likely a general end of year issue as opposed to an issue with a specific track. Using MMP as Rd7 was based on it being the last round of the season not in order to replace PPIR

The fact that you estimate only getting 61 racers to a local last round or maybe 40 racers to an MMP last round actually is the reason I suggested MMP would be a better option for the MRA. You would be losing money at your local last round because about 140 of the 200 licensed racers do not show. By making your last round at MMP the MRA would be providing a top tier venue for the small number of "full season" racers to race and complete their season, but the MRA would not be in a position to lose money since all the track rental, insurance, etc.. would be the UtSBA's responsiblity. At the same time, the UtSBA would be more than happy to receive an extra 40 racers to race and help cover THEIR expenses for putting on the round

By having the UtSBA reciprocate and make your rd6 HPR round a MoM rd as well, you will see additional racers to add income for that rd. So the final 2 rds should result in an overall profit for the MRA as opposed the expected losses based on current participation. That leaves you with only the first 5 rds to worry about building/keeping attendance.

I understand there already being an issue of people not going to PPIR, Pueblo, Hastings due to travel, but I think a good majority of the people who DO attend those rounds would also make the trip to MMP if it were on the schedule. The one's who weren't\aren't going to the other 3 tracks are already lost revenue anyway. I also think that by doing the combined rds you have potential to see a small increase at some of the other hpr rounds if UtSBA members decide to race in order to prepare for the official utsba rd.

On a separate note: The race fees for MoM are actually inline with the MRA fees. It cost me $205 to race 3 races with MoM. It cost me $220(pre reg) to race 3 races with MRA. Additional races seem to cost the same too except MoM has 1 race @$30 before $20/ea for additionals at both clubs. The difference is Sat practice which is currently $125 for MoM, but that is for basically a full trackday of practice vs the couple short sessions with MRA.

[oldtimer]

Miller IS an awesome track, and no doubt the whole club would love an opportunity to race it. We drove over last year and ran the East track with the USBA just for fun. Great club, great folks! However it was a REALLY EXPENSIVE weekend.

You were throwing out cost numbers, maybe your experience racing at Miller this year has been cheaper than ours was last year. Here's what we paid when we went to Miller--

2 racers, we drove our truck out towing our trailer
Friday track day, put on by MMP: six 20 minute sessions = $230/rider
Saturday morning practice, charged separately from race entry fees, exactly the same as the MRA's = $125/rider
4 sprint races = $235/rider
We had to pay the reciprocity fee last year, they may be waiving that now = $25/rider
And finally we didn't pre-enter, so we had to pay the late fee = $25/rider

Grand total of $1280 in riding fees, or $640/racer.

For us that was a pricey weekend to start with, on top of the cost of diesel to tow out to Utah and back (yikes) = another large expense beyond what it costs to race in state. We didn't rent a garage, we don't go out to eat on race weekends, and we don't pay for a hotel because we stay in our trailer. That saved us money over what many people will have to pay to travel out of state.

The main reason the board has decided against traveling, at this time, is because it's an extra burden on the membership financially. If members can't afford a travel round and know they're going to be cut out of points, and out of any hope of finishing well in their class, it starts to discourage them from making all the rounds anyway. Downward spiral. When riders have more $ the plan is to look at travel rounds again. Just not at this time. The club discussed this last year and can talk it through again at the next general meeting. :)

In the meantime, any member who's financially able can go out to Miller and have a blast. Just like the gang going out this weekend--good luck guys!

[T Baggins]

The fact that you estimate only getting 61 racers to a local last round or maybe 40 racers to an MMP last round actually is the reason I suggested MMP would be a better option for the MRA.

Maybe I wasn't completely clear in my post regarding numbers.

We've only had 61 riders attend ALL rounds.

Our worst attendance was PPIR, final round. We had approx 105 (waiting on final # from Lisa after adds, cancels, walk-ups, etc). Typically we have 125 - 155 riders at each round.

Given the continuing financial downturn in Colorado, and no relief in sight - it makes no sense to me whatsoever to "force" our members to travel to stay in the points chase. The purpose of cutting to 7 rounds next year (all local) is to ensure that our guys have a better chance of attending all (or most) of the rounds. For those who are already strapped, there's no way they'll go to Miller - and so we've just completely demolished their chance at a top finishing position - and so they may blow off other rounds as well.

I'm all for traveling to race with other clubs, but it should be at the riders discretion - not mandatory.

[Scored51]

On a separate note: The race fees for MoM are actually inline with the MRA fees. It cost me $205 to race 3 races with MoM. It cost me $220(pre reg) to race 3 races with MRA. Additional races seem to cost the same too except MoM has 1 race @$30 before $20/ea for additionals at both clubs. The difference is Sat practice which is currently $125 for MoM, but that is for basically a full trackday of practice vs the couple short sessions with MRA.

This is not actually the case. For any given rider on Saturday there is a total of 65 minutes of track time THEN and additional 35 minutes on Sunday which is included with the race registration. (Note: if anyone still has a detailed raceday schedule, please feel free to correct me on my totals.) By the numbers posted in this thread that is actually more practice time than a full lapping day Miller, and is not an additional $125 fee to the race registration. So in these examples there is actually more track time with the MRA and is only 2/3 of the cost. Not quite Tony's claim of half, but enough to get anyone thinking about it.

Assuming the USBA sprints are the same length as the MRA's, roughly the same track time as the three sprints you signed up for with the USBA can be had with one regularly scheduled MRA endurance with aforementioned practices included. With the MRA's 2011 price structure, this makes race registration with the USBA more than 4 times the cost of the MRA for the same amount of track time.

[oldtimer]

Seems like they have fewer classes (obviously as they race in a single day). I'll be interested to see the size of their grids.


Unfortunately the USBA is having the same problem that we've had, shrinking participation. When we were out last year my biggest class was AmU with around 15 bikes, some of my classes had 5 bikes on the grid. I was told this year that the USBA is getting around 60 riders total on a race weekend. Utah has less population so they have a smaller local racer community to draw from.

However they have a different cost structure than we do--Miller subsidizes their expenses to keep that club open.

[evomach]

Tony: I know that your biggest oppositoin to traveling rounds is looking out for the membership and trying to keep racing as affordable as possible for as many racers as possible. That is why I was talking strictly from the prespective of financial benefit to the club. You mentioned the club was struggling at year end and I was only making a suggestion for a possible solution to eliminate that issue.

Wyeth: Again I understand a travelling round is more expensive, but my point is cost difference is mainly in the travel (which can be optimized), not the racing so I just want to point out a couple things on your numbers:

The Friday Track day is 135 1/2 day or 199 Full. This is similar to the cost of the HPR Friday Lapping Day 100 & 150 ( I think)

Sat practice is $125 this year (was $75 last year when you came). This is extra cost vs MRA if you chose to practice Sat. Sun practice is included because that is the race day in MoM. If you race endurance there is some free endurance practice included on Sat.

Sprint Race costs are essentially the same

Reciprocity is waived this year - the same a MRA. Last year reciprocity was waived at the same point in the season by both clubs. From what I remember both clubs were trying to protect against racers racing full time for points and contingency without buying a license so they charged reciprocity for the first part of the season.

Walk-Up fees still there and I belive the MRA does a similar thing

Chris:

I'm not totally sure what you are saying, but first both clubs have the same amount of Sun practice available included in the race fees. MRA has 3 about 15-min sessions included on Sat. MoM has almost a full trackday of 20 min sesssions on Sat for $125. If you race endurance you have an endurance practice included. Whether you agree with the $125 fee or not, you definitely get more practice time at the MoM round in exchange for the cost.

I don't know what your getting at with racing endurance vs sprints, but MRA has 30 min endurance for $80, MoM has 90 min endurance for $50 (team captain only) + a normal race fee based on the number of races you do. You can substitue endurance racing for sprint races (or the MoM practice) to get more/cheaper track time at either club.

Every club spends time coming up with sytems and fee structures that they decide will work best for their situation. I'm not trying to point out either club being better than the other. I think both have come up with systems that work well and are fair. I saw that Tony thought the racing at MMP was way more money so I wanted to clarify that while way more is relative to the individual perspective the race costs are pretty close between the two.

I'm really not trying to push you guys to race MMP. As I said before, I decided to suggest a solution that although would cost the racers more, it would isolate the club from the potetnial end of year losses it's trying to resolve. I can understand Tony's point of forcing racers to travel in order to effectively compete in a full season.

Anyway, I'll stop harrassing you now.

[Clarkie]

You are forgetting the fuel cost for the trip there and back (yes it can be shared between riders if they truck/trailer-pool), but you are also forgetting about the 2 nights in hotels. I dont believe MMP allows camping at the track and hotels in the area arent that cheap.

The idea of shared rounds in a great one, but in this economy it is unrealistic to expect people to spend a lot more money than they had already planned to spend on extra gas money and hotels. There arent any end of year prizes or cash awards to make it worth the extra cost for the racer to have to spend the extra money.

If the MRA and USBA created an interclub championship that was in addition to the MRA and USBA championships it may work, but you cant penalize a racer for not being able to make an 1100 mile return trip to another state. Create a series within two seperate series where you list 2-3 rounds from each of the clubs meetings, the riders who have the funds to do 2-3 "out of state" races as well as their own are elligible for the Championship.

Heck charge some sort of token fee that does directly into the end of year prizemoney/trophies and give it all back at the end of the year, but dont try and combine the clubs.

[oldtimer]

Anyway, I'll stop harrassing you now.

Don't worry you're not harrassing anyone, it's a valid discussion. :)

What you may not know is we went through this last year, and even did a survey of the club regarding travel rounds, and it's too expensive for the majority of our members--at this time.

The board is trying to increase the number of racers/event, and the number of entries/racer. One reason guys drop out of classes as the season progresses is they fall behind in points. One reason guys stay IN classes is they're in the hunt for where ever they hoped to finish in the championship. We're trying to make it easier for riders to stay engaged for the whole season, and staying local fits that plan in today's economy.

[benfoxmra95]

but you cant penalize a racer for not being able to make an 1100 mile return trip to another state.


Why not?

it's not a penalty. it's just the way things work out. I'd like to go to work all the Grand am races but their schedule directly conflicts the AMA's, it's just how it goes in life. Some people can make stuff happen and some cannot.

The MRA has been practicing basically the same business model for many many years, Cater to the locals who can barely afford racing, don't make them travel, and listen to them complain about superbike motors...

The MRA has always put so much emphasis on a championship series trophy that you get at the end of the year. Only a few are able to obtain this trophy goal regardless of circumstances and money. I see the club as only catering to those who are championship points orientated racers and not the weekend warriors. There's not enough championship points chasers to solely support the club so why not try to bring in more people who'll only do a few weekends. I'd rather have 30 extra racers doing 5 weekends than 10 die hards doing them all.

the AMA tried something drastically different, so different that some of factories left, but now are coming back. and if you have seen an AMA race lately, you've seen some of the closest best racing you've ever seen in decades. my point is, not to do things like the AMA, but sometimes making changes may seem like a bad idea at first, but can lead to better things in the future.

[Clarkie]

A few years ago, or hopefully in a few years, sure go for it but right now with numbers dwindling and cost being a big factor in it, I dont think it is fiscally responsible for the club to basically force (for lack of a better word) racers to travel 1100 miles if they want to compete for the championship.

I totally agree with the MRA being a SBK club, even I am surprised at how many big bore 600's there are when the racer who owns the bike is conviced more power will make them a better rider.

[benfoxmra95]

last point of opinion here, The MRA can continue to practice the same routines and sit around and wait the the economy to come back to it (which in my opinion won't happen for at least another 10 years if you read the newspapers daily) or it can try a new business model that fits the current economy.

I'd like to see a rule change for:

spec fuel (like sunoco 260 gtx)can be had from the HPR pumps or other fuel dealers
fuel testing is not a hard task to do at the track, the rules and tech guy has plenty of time for this, i know, i saw him laying out in a lounge chair at PPIR last weekend. :wink:

I'd like to see a schedule change for:

Races only on sunday, sat is practice only all day. (this eliminates the 3 day race weekend riding on friday) so people can work on fridays and not feel like their effed if they don't ride on friday.

[DOUBLE A]

Thumbs up: What Sexy Ben said! :lol:

[Bartman]

Fuel testing is more problematic than most people think, aside from doing a specific gravity test what more could be tested at the track and we both know there are ways around that. Also I don't want to force people to buy more expensive fuel than pump which is what most are running now. So if we did a spec fuel of any kind it would have to be cheaper than 8 bucks a gallon and yes I was in a lounge chair but I was still sick and getting over it so your lucky my ass was still there. :D
As to travel races it has been made clear over the years that our members just will not go with enough numbers to make it work and now it is even worse, going out of state as a club would be devastating for sure and we simply cannot take a really big hit and survive.

[T Baggins]

Ben, to suggest that we've just sat back and waited for things to turn around is not only inaccurate - but a tad bit insulting.

We've completely restructured the particulars of the club operations, saving the MRA approx $50,000 per year over previous years for two years running.

We've converted the MRA to a 501 C7 NON-PROFIT organization, which means we can actually operate profitably and carry money over from year to year. This has never been accomplished in the 30+ years the MRA has been around.

We've added SuperStreet which has been wildly successful, not only in average attendance but in converting people to "licensed racers" and in bringing in spectators.

We've added three new classes in 2011, all of which were very well attended, and indeed in the top 10 of all classes in overall attendance - not to mention brought in racers which are now filling "other" grids as well.

We absolutely cater to weekend warriors as well, with many people doing ONLY Endurance races, or ONLY racing EITHER Saturday OR Sunday. What we're trying to do is fine tune it such that the riders who can only do partial seasons have multiple options, which are local, and don't cost a metric shit ton of money to attend. This, imo, is the best thing we can do to cater to the once-in-a-whiler's.

Previously we catered primarily to the Top 20 or so ROR guys (ROR O and ROR U), a practice which nearly bankrupted the MRA. If we had continued with the Purse levels of previous years the MRA would have basically ZERO money in the bank right now, and at this time last year.

I want to clarify, again, that the MRA is NOT STRUGGLING financially. Some of the events were losers financially, and it appeared very clear that an 8th Round would have also been a loss. So rather than put ourselves in a position where we WERE struggling - we opted to end the season early. This is not something we've had the insight, data, or ability to plan for in the past. This is what some would call "good business management", which apparently is being misinterpreted as "struggling". Can't win for trying with this crowd, apparently... If we had started 2011 with the intent of running only a 7 Round Season - everyone would have thought this year went PERFECTLY...

We consistently have among the biggest grids, best turnout, most specators and highest level racing of any "similar" club in the nation. Why would we want to significantly change the way our club operates?

For every example that has been thrown out for consideration, I can show you a club that is doing exactly that - and failing... How many clubs are struggling financially right now? How many have failed outright in the last few years? I get calls and e-mails from other clubs throughout the season (and even this week) asking "how did you do this, and how did you do that" and "how can we have the same success as you guys did with such and such class or program". Superstreet is being copied around the nation, 250 Prod is being copied around the nation, etc, etc, etc.

The MRA has plenty of money RIGHT NOW to:

Pay out all our remaining 2011 expenses
Pay for the Banquet facility
Pay for the trophies and photos for the banquet
Pay for the deposits for the track rentals for 2012
Pay for our first quarterly installment of insurance for 2012
Pay for all the little incidental crap, supplies, maintenance, etc, etc, etc, that come up during the off season

In years past, and on several occasions, we've had to borrow money from members or Board Members just to put on the banquet or pay the deposits and insurance to get the season started. I'd say that our current situation is quite good, and something that we should all be proud of.

As for the Practice Saturday, Race Sunday suggestions. Before anyone else jumps on that bandwagon - I would request that you START with the actual COST to run an event, and then work it backwards from there. You'll see that what you'll have to do is raise prices, cut more than half the classes, punt 1/3 of the racers (or force them to buy bikes which are conforming) and still have NO financial benefit to either the racer or the club.

Specualting on how much better this would be or that would be is great, but unless you have any basis for your argument - you are simply daydreaming.

[dragos13]

Ben, to suggest that we've just sat back and waited for things to turn around is not only inaccurate - but a tad bit insulting.

We've completely restructured the particulars of the club operations, saving the MRA approx $50,000 per year over previous years for two years running.

We've converted the MRA to a 501 C7 NON-PROFIT organization, which means we can actually operate profitably and carry money over from year to year. This has never been accomplished in the 30+ years the MRA has been around.

We've added SuperStreet which has been wildly successful, not only in average attendance but in converting people to "licensed racers" and in bringing in spectators.

We've added three new classes in 2011, all of which were very well attended, and indeed in the top 10 of all classes in overall attendance - not to mention brought in racers which are now filling "other" grids as well.

We absolutely cater to weekend warriors as well, with many people doing ONLY Endurance races, or ONLY racing EITHER Saturday OR Sunday. What we're trying to do is fine tune it such that the riders who can only do partial seasons have multiple options, which are local, and don't cost a metric shit ton of money to attend. This, imo, is the best thing we can do to cater to the once-in-a-whiler's.

Previously we catered primarily to the Top 20 or so ROR guys (ROR O and ROR U), a practice which nearly bankrupted the MRA. If we had continued with the Purse levels of previous years the MRA would have basically ZERO money in the bank right now, and at this time last year.

I want to clarify, again, that the MRA is NOT STRUGGLING financially. Some of the events were losers financially, and it appeared very clear that an 8th Round would have also been a loss. So rather than put ourselves in a position where we WERE struggling - we opted to end the season early. This is not something we've had the insight, data, or ability to plan for in the past. This is what some would call "good business management", which apparently is being misinterpreted as "struggling". Can't win for trying with this crowd, apparently... If we had started 2011 with the intent of running only a 7 Round Season - everyone would have thought this year went PERFECTLY...

We consistently have among the biggest grids, best turnout, most specators and highest level racing of any "similar" club in the nation. Why would we want to significantly change the way our club operates?

For every example that has been thrown out for consideration, I can show you a club that is doing exactly that - and failing... How many clubs are struggling financially right now? How many have failed outright in the last few years? I get calls and e-mails from other clubs throughout the season (and even this week) asking "how did you do this, and how did you do that" and "how can we have the same success as you guys did with such and such class or program". Superstreet is being copied around the nation, 250 Prod is being copied around the nation, etc, etc, etc.

The MRA has plenty of money RIGHT NOW to:

Pay out all our remaining 2011 expenses
Pay for the Banquet facility
Pay for the trophies and photos for the banquet
Pay for the deposits for the track rentals for 2012
Pay for our first quarterly installment of insurance for 2012
Pay for all the little incidental crap, supplies, maintenance, etc, etc, etc, that come up during the off season

In years past, and on several occasions, we've had to borrow money from members or Board Members just to put on the banquet or pay the deposits and insurance to get the season started. I'd say that our current situation is quite good, and something that we should all be proud of.

As for the Practice Saturday, Race Sunday suggestions. Before anyone else jumps on that bandwagon - I would request that you START with the actual COST to run an event, and then work it backwards from there. You'll see that what you'll have to do is raise prices, cut more than half the classes, punt 1/3 of the racers (or force them to buy bikes which are conforming) and still have NO financial benefit to either the racer or the club.

Specualting on how much better this would be or that would be is great, but unless you have any basis for your argument - you are simply daydreaming.

=D>

[benfoxmra95]

My apologies, I have been out of the loop for awhile.

I was caught up in the moment drawn in by a statement made that said to me we're not changing because everything is fine.

Here's what I see, an treat this ad if I'm an outsider showing up because I kinda am since I haven't been involved for over two years.

Saturday schedule is really not useful to a person like me as 3 15 min sessions in the morn aren't even enough time to warm the track. And $80 for a 30 min endurance race seems excessive given there's no afternoon practice for it. I though it used to be $50 with a 15 min prac session.?

So what I'm saying is. The mra schedule does not entice me to race at all because Friday practicing is not practical and expensive. And the 3 sessions on sat morn are hardly enough for testing unless you've got a dialed in bike.

I'd liked the mra schedule when I could show up on sat morn be set up by ten and then ride the rest of the day and test. Then race all day sun.

I'd gladly pay $150 on sat to prac all day, instead of $80 to run a 30 min race and not be able to test properly. This would allow a guy to eliminate the costs of Friday alltogether.

So what you may not be losing as much revenue as you think because more people might practice on sat and not Friday (doesn't Friday money go to te track and not Mra?)

Again didn't mean to insult and insinuate you were doing nothing in the past years. I've had many conversations with past board members over the last two years and the general consensus is, everytime the subject comes up, is that you and the current board are doing a better job than we did in the past.

[jmaher]

I like the 2012 schedule and plan on being at all 7 races.

Joe

[T Baggins]

I know you've been out of the loop some Ben, so I took full advantage of telling you "everything you've missed" in one single post. lol

We are constantly changing, and that is why everything is fine. :wink:

$60 for endurance if you sign up in advance. We nuked the endurance specific practice because it was very poorly attended and way more than made up for it with the SuperStreet attendance and revenue.

Endurance guys get to practice Sat (and Sun) AM sessions regardless of if they enter any sprints. So 18 min practice, 18min practice, 15min practice, 30 min endurance race on Saturday for $60 is still a pretty good value, no? Or you can do both races for only $90 - so 110 minutes +/- of track time which is about equal to a track day for 2/3 the cost.

I generally sleep thru morning practice, as it is of little value to me as well - and Friday practice is for cheaters anyway...

Friday practice revenue goes to the track, this is true. Given the cost to rent and staff the track, insurance, etc... the MRA has lost money on every practice day we've done (even when combined with a school AND on a weekend) in the past several years - so that's out for now.

If we ran practice on Saturday for, say, $150 and then did sprints on Sunday with the current pricing model, that would cost $340 per rider (assuming only 2 sprints).

Our current "average" entry fees per rider is about $180. Doubling the cost seems counterproductive at this juncture, and what would we do with all the nonconforming bikes and classes? Most of those grids are consistently bigger than the Supersport and Superbike classes of late.

There's no way we'll come up with a plan that works for "everyone" - this much is obvious... but given the options we have, the cost to run an event, and the myriad of bikes and abilities we're attempting to accommodate - I believe gentle tweaking of the current model makes the most sense.

[benfoxmra95]

so this is the breakdown of "MY" mra weekend at PPIR:

friday prac: $100
saturday endurance and sunday races(3 including ROR):$390

race fuel ($8/gal hpr sunoco): $120 (15 gal)
tires (all used no new tires, valued roughly $200 set): $600 (3 sets)
truck fuel to the track: $75 (i live 40 mins away)
food: $70

no hotel fees: $0 (add in $250 for everyone else)

that's $1600 for the weekend.

I feel this is a fair perspective of how much it costs. maybe even on the low side.

If i were to eliminate friday, I would cut out about $450-$550 of expenses (pretend like Im staying at a hotel)

all the people that run endurance on sunday would still pay the practice fees to ride all day sat and I'd think you'd get more people showing up to ride on sat and that much extra money from them.

now all you have to do nix the endurance races, and move the other races to sunday... :) easy, right?.....

for some reason getting a race weekend to average around $1000 seems like a easier bill to handle than almost double that.



Look.... all im saying is this: I am a very resourceful person, and even doing things on the cheap, I still spent $1600+ dollars to race( granted I signed up late, somewhat purposefully because i knew the club needed money, but i still bitched about how much it cost...). maybe some of these other people out there who aren't so resourceful are spending more than that and it's driving them away? a $2000 race weekend is just not realistic, and there's probably alot of people out there spending close to that, they may not be admitting to it, because they don't look at their credit card statements and just go with it, or maybe they are and saying whoa.... im not showing up because of this.

[Munch]

Another crazy thought, based on working the numbers backwards:

Say you charged $200 for Saturday. This could include 6 hours of practice and a 1.5 hour endurance race.

Then Sunday, for $200, you run all the races you possibly want for $200. Based on schedule of course.

Would it not be possible to get 100 racers each weekend? Thats 40k.

Tweak the numbers if needed, charge $175 on Sat, and $225 on Sunday. Drop the numbers to 90 or increase to 120. Just seems if theres a way to draw the Friday revenue into the MRA account, there's a way to make it work?


From my el cheapo budget (running Friday practice and Sunday 2 sprints):

All assumming 20 min race.

Friday practice: $150 - 4 hours track time
Saturday practice: 55 min practice
Sunday races: $210 - 32 min practice, 2 Races 40 min race time

So $360 for 2 sprint races - 6 hours 5 min of track time over 3 days

Netting the club only $210.

Under the "other" plan:

Sat practice - 3 hours (3 hours fast or 3 hours slow)
Sat endurance 1.5 hour - say 2 man team - 45 min

Sunday: 2 practice sessions - 35 min total
Sunday races: 3 total - 60 min total, or run 4 and get 80 min, or 5 and get the 100...

So $400 for 3 sprints and an endurance race - Which is 5 hours and 20 min of track time over 2 days. Or if you solo the endurance, you're right back to 6 hours 5 min.

Netting the club $400.

[KFinn]

Hey Ben - You know you could save on the amount of tires you use, run cheap pump gas, cut the entry fees in almost half and save a bunch of money on insurance with geico; if you didn't have such a sick bike and rather raced a ninja 250. 00--00

LMAO Just sayin! :) (had to fuel the fire for fun) No disrespect in reality.

[benfoxmra95]

Hey Ben - You know you could save on the amount of tires you use, run cheap pump gas, cut the entry fees in almost half and save a bunch of money on insurance with geico; if you didn't have such a sick bike and rather raced a ninja 250. 00--00

LMAO Just sayin! :) (had to fuel the fire for fun) No disrespect in reality.

none taken, i really don't know what im talking about when it comes to what the club needs... im really out of touch with certain things.

here's some comparison: an ama team spends $50k a weekend for 1 ama round and that's a small team. Yosh, Jordan, and Yamaha could be double that.

[Clarkie]

Larry pays you $45k a weekend? They should really spend more on getting the bike to do around the track faster :D

[DOUBLE A]

Larry pays you $45k a weekend? They should really spend more on getting the bike to do around the track faster :D

No kidding! :lol: Ben gets 5K everytime they cut to commercials and his face is shown! J/K

[T Baggins]

This will be my final post on this topic. Really it's just pissing me off and I'm wasting a bunch of my day trying to convince you that what we are doing IS working...

What you are asking for is not a small tweak, or minor change. This is a massive restructuring which would take considerable time and effort - with absolutely NO assurance that it wouldn't be a total and complete failure. This is not an undertaking that I would support at present.

We have data, facts, proof and money in the bank to show for our efforts. The 2012 Schedule is Set - and unless there are changes to classes or class structure at the Rules Meeting - 2012 race weekend will look EXACTLY like it did in 2011.

Munch,

If the average entry per rider RIGHT NOW is less than $180 - answer me this:

1) Who would accept a 100% rate increase? If the average rider can afford less than $200, how are they gonna pay $400?

2) Which classes do you propose we eliminate so that we can fit all the racing in on Sunday? If we ran 3 wave races, the track would be a disaster and classes would have to be combined which would cause riders to "miss" one of their current races. We already have a small problem with that now... (STU / MVO - Ladies / MVU)

3) How many racers will we lose as a result of the two above?

I believe you guys are assuming that "everyone" runs on Friday practice or at least wants to (really it's more like 20-30 guys - you can confirm with Glenn if you want), and that "everyone" has $400 to spend on entry fees/practice each weekend.

The numbers show that this is not the case. You are attempting to build a program that suits YOUR specific needs and budget. OUR job it to build a program that best suits THE MAJORITY of the members. We have 200 people to please. This might work great for the 30 or so who always practice on Friday - but the other 170 will see it only as a significant fee increase.

You could have the same net effect by doing the following, using the existing schedule:

Practice Saturday 3 Sessions - FREE

Race 2 sprints on Saturday - $190 (use them for "practice" if you wish)

Race both Endurance Races on Saturday - $90 (more practice or as races - your choice)

Practice Sunday 2 Sessions - FREE

Race 5 Sprints on Sunday - $110

Total Cost = $390

Club Nets $390

So if you WANT to pay that much, and WANT to ride that much - there is nothing preventing you from doing exactly that - right now.

To show how your perfect program would be my worst-case program... If we ran the schedule you suggest, I'd probably quit altogether (as a joe-member racer) because:

1) I don't want to practice for 6 hours, I'd much rather race.

2) I don't have any interest at all in endurance racing, as I have no endurance, and don't care to find any.

3) To put together a raceday schedule that fits everything on Sunday, you'd have to eliminate some of the classes I run in. It wouldn't be worth it to me to come out for one or two races on Sunday only.

If someone wants to put together a focus group using real numbers, real data, real entries and specifically poll every member (and get financial commitments from them so the MRA doesn't fall on it's face) - then by all means please do so.

The current system IS working, we ARE succeeding, and there is absolutely NO reason to completely abandon our business model.

Perhaps there are 100 guys out there who would embrace your schedule and fee structure. That's 100 fewer than our current system services. The purpose of the MRA is to provide an opportunity for motorcycle enthusiasts to compete in a safe, fun, fair environment. I believe we are doing that, apparently much better than many other clubs in the US, and have been doing so for over 30 years.

WHEN the MRA Fails - as it appears you guys must think is inevitable because the current schedule doesn't perfectly address your practice and racing needs - you have my blessing to put together whatever program and schedule you deem fit when you create the new racing organization (assuming you are willing to take on the responsibility of running the new entity).

Or, if you feel so strongly and can't wait till then - then by all means, I encourage you to create, fund, insure, and run the "BMRA" (better motorcycle roadracing association). Or at least serve as an MRA Board member so you have even a tiny base knowledge about that which you are so anxious to fix. We have fine tuned the MRA for 3 decades, and that's exactly WHY we continue to succeed.

For now, under my leadership, the MRA will continue to make small and manageable changes to ensure our perpetual success.

[benfoxmra95]

Tony, im not arguing with you, Im not sure if your last post had me balled up in it or not. I conceded that i didn't know what i was talking about on the last page, and merely pointed out some stuff that i noticed as if I was newly walking into racing again, and how it affected my current opinion.

One thing that does grab my attention is, that when you say the average entry fee per rider is $180.

how is this number derived?

for my (simpleton mind) example im using 100 riders

50 riders pay $320 for entries (3 races $240 plus endurance $80)
50 riders pay $150 for entries (1 race only)

$16000 (50 riders paying $320)
$7500 (50 riders paying $150)
-----------
$23500 total, which averages to $235 per rider

what is dragging that number down to $180?

now what im not accounting for is early entrys which I think is $50 cheaper? even still when I subtract $50 from the above numbers it works out to $205 average. Does the superstreet class entry fees bring the average down?


Now looking at the numbers I posted above, it would say to me that it would be more lucrative to try and get racers to race as many races as possible (multiple entries) than it is to cater to the one race entry types? i.e. have more classes that one bike fits into instead of having a bike that only fits in 1 class....

I don't know what the breakdown is right now im just playing with blue sky. but you know what im saying here?

[KFinn]

For a bit of contrast from a budget racer or 'el cheapo'....

I pre-entered in 4 classes = 240
Ran a mix of diesel and alternative free fuel for the truck ~ 15 to 20 in fuel round trip for a weekend.
I ran pump fuel for the bike ~ 37 - 45
I didn't always run Friday practice but most of the time I tried ~ 90-100
I only run take offs and ran 5 rounds on one front tire so about 65 -130 in rears each weekend depending on how much I could milk them for.
Food = 120
Lodging = Free since I towed a camper to the track
Waste dump 5 - 10
Power spot 70

around 647 to 735 per weekend in contrast to a 1600.

Last year was even cheaper as I used a set of tires for just under half the season. I slept on an air mattress in the bed of my truck out in the open, I chipped in on fuel to share a generator for tire warmers, I race 3 races and never did the friday practice. I typically got away for under 400 per weekend all said and done.

[T Baggins]

We take the total amount of entries, in dollars, and divide it by the number of racers entered.

HPR round 6 there was a total of $22,810 in entries
There were 125 paid entries

That's $182.48

We don't count SuperStreet entries in the race entry income category.

I don't have the exact breakdown of how many spent how much, in what classes.. (but I can get that given some time...) but I can tell you that many do just endurance, that drags down the average horribly. Many others do just two or three races ($190 - $220).

Very very few riders spend $320 in entry fees. You'd have to do 4 sprints and both endurance, or 8 sprints to spend that kind of money. Only Shannon Moham runs that many classes...

For almost "any" bike you could possibly want to race, there are at least 4 opportunities per weekend to race said bike. Many bikes are eligible for 7 races or more... Pick a bike, and a skill level - then look at all the classes you can run in - you'll see.

There is no lack of opportunity to spend money, or classes to race in.

There is a lack of money to spend.

What I'm bent about is that we ARE running a program that is both successful and profitable; and for most people (though apparently not all people) enjoyable. What in the world would cause anyone to suggest that we completely discard what we're doing and try something that is not well thought out, or at all based in fact or reality is beyond me.

Maybe Apple should pitch the IPhone altogether and offer just a tablet, because some people prefer the larger screen of a tablet?

Maybe Ducati should pitch the V-Twin and go solely with an 8 cylinder W, because some people don't like the sound of twins?

This is what has me all riled up...

[benfoxmra95]

relax, were just talking, no one has the authority to make changes here.

[Munch]

Tony, I don't think anyone is attacking what the club is doing my any means. Just tossing out ideas and thinking out loud, in the event something makes sense and sticks. If they are not good ideas, then no harm. You response to everything posted is well appreciated, and makes sense. Carry on!

[DOUBLE A]

Calm down everybody please before I am forced to draw negative attention to myself for a few laughs!

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/298435_10150311642257043_616757042_8202133_8868119 48_n.jpg

[Fastt Racing]

I have wanted to post a couple of replies, but Tony kept making all of my points, better than I could've made them for sure. He has all of the data that's back's up my understanding based on my 24 years of racing in a metric shit ton of organizations. RACING IS F-ING EXPENSIVE! People can race a crap ton in the MRA for very little if they are cheap bashterds, or slow, or both cheap & slow (ask Kevin) hehehe. Sorry Kevin, I had to. I ran 5 sprint races, and usually only went out for 2/3 of the Sat & Sun practice sessions in the morning. Practice is boring, racing is fun! Every round cost me exactly:
$260 Race entry online, commiting to MRA racing a week before is cheaper
$10 Safety fund donation
$32 Quality 91 pump fuel for the bike
$48 Averaged fuel cost for the van to all 3 circuits
$91 In rear tires per round
$12 In front tires per round
$42 In Bike Oil & Filter avg per round
$38 In other bike maintenance & repair per round
$244 In end of season engine maintenance and bike replacement cost avg per round
$70 In gear maintenence & replacement cost avg
$39 In food, starvation diet makes you lighter
$0 In lodging

$886 Total racing costs per round to operate a racing season.
$6202 Total season expenses - $595 in contingency = $5607 TOTAL.
Projected total season expenses next year should go up to about $7600. This will be because of slightly more racing and slightly less contingency.
The last asphalt stock car racing season I ran, my sponsors & I spent $44,000 for a 16 night season. (2 practice, 1 heat race, 1 Feature, on Sat night). We spent about 50% of the money the other top 5 guys did.
I spend $8000 a year on snowmobiling to compare.
Yes, this may be why I am currently single!

[T Baggins]

Calm down everybody please before I am forced to draw negative attention to myself for a few laughs!

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/298435_10150311642257043_616757042_8202133_8868119 48_n.jpg

I don't know what's more embarrassing, the uni-brow, the feathered hair-do, or the missing tooth! I think I was early 20's in the pic, at Rich Starks wedding?? or some MRA guy's wedding...

Believe it or not, I was actually considered "good looking" by MRA Standards back then. That's how long I've been around...

[jmaher]

It almost looks like a mullet wanna-be hair style.

Joe

[KFinn]

Dennis, your repair cost would go down considerably if you were a better crasher! :D

[Fastt Racing]

Finne-ginger. I padded that number a little, it included different sprockets, lame bodywork fasteners that came on bike, and all kinds of little b.s. You know how to high side it right, that's for sure. P.S I beat you twice on your free tires you gave me :P hahaha.

[DOUBLE A]

This is awesome! hahahaha

I also did some stuff that most people just look at me like I have 2 heads, & drop their jaw. I wanted to preregister & pay entry fees. Pay Michelin & Dunlop for tires. Buy Sunoco 260x. Sleep in a cargo trailer. Borrow money @ the track for protests & give it right back. Eat NIK 969's granola bars. And coast back into my nieghborhood on fumes. INSTEAD of giving wells fargo $1187.80 every month for my mortgauge, & skip racing. And they didnt like my racing excuse, so now I should probably find somewheres else to store my bike & sleep? :shock: :lol:

[jeff healy]

Yup I bounced a mortgage check this summer as well knowing that it could wait but racing costs could not :) Priorities seemed in line to me :)

[benfoxmra95]

but I can tell you that many do just endurance, that drags down the average horribly.



So would i be correct in saying that someone who comes in to race JUST one endurance race, like you mentioned above, can sign up for $80 and ride 3 prac sessions in the morn and race for 30 min on sat?

if so, this seems unfair to the single sprint race entry people who pay $150 for 1 7-10 lap sprint race on sunday...

maybe the endurance races should cost more so they aren't dragging down the average per rider entry fee?

quite possibly these pesky endurance riders are getting off too cheap when they are just running only the endurance.... :)

[rybo]

First, I want to say that Tony has done an excellent job of spelling out in this thread exactly the kinds of discussions we have on a regular basis in board meetings throughout the year.

This is a challenging time to try to run any operation that relies on people's "disposable" income - especially something as seemingly frivolous as racing motorcycles. We're at a challenging crossroads between

1) The costs to operate a racing series going up exponentially

and

2) The ability of participants and members to pay either staying the same or going down.

Add into that the other costs of racing also going up - when was the last time your engine builder, or race gas pump delivered to you the good news that they were lowering prices this year?

I'm encouraged that the membership cares enough to have some suggestions and opinions on this matter. I'll say that many of the options that have been brought up in this thread have also been brought up in many board meetings this year.

Ben - To answer your question regarding endurance racing - YES! it's the best value in racing. It offers a bunch of track time for minimal dollars. As a result there is a whole contingent of racers that come out only for endurance. These are riders that would likely not show up at all if we didn't have a "value" product to offer to them. So, while their entry drags the "per rider" total down, the question becomes would you rather have those people come and give the club $80 or not come at all? Their race is stuck at the end of the day on Saturday, and in many cases this year was shortened to 20 instead of 30 minutes. This is part of the price they pay for getting the "value" product instead of the sprint races that ran mid-day and went full distance.

To those suggesting a "saturday practice / sunday race" schedule - many of you were not around years ago when we did exactly that. The outcome was a very full sunday schedule that with only minor delays had us leaving the track sometimes well after dusk.

I think the idea of combined rounds with Miller has been adequately covered, but to sum up I'll say that I agree with the notion that traveling rounds are likely to be losing ventures for the MRA.

As a member of the board I realize that I have a distinct perspective on how the club is operating. In the past two years we've taken the club from a place where it was borrowing money and making decisions in "crisis" mode, to a place where there is a moderate reserve (about 1/2 of what is really needed) and decision making that averts crisis by identifying actions that would cause it well before we actually get there.

Keep the ideas coming, but please heed Tony's advice. He's laid out the costs of running a race round for public view - take that number and work backwards - realize that the only way this continues to happen is if we can continue to meet that number year after year, round after round. We have data that clearly shows what the average racer contributes to the revenue number. That number declines as the season wears on, due to less riders showing up and the riders that are showing up doing less racing. I don't believe that the entry fees are the barrier in this case, but rather the other costs of racing - Tires / fuel / bike maintenance, as adding races in our current pricing structure is actually quite inexpensive.

I'll close by saying that keeping this thing going is hard work. I encourage those of you who have the inclination to do so, to run for a board position. If that feels like taking on too much, then please consider volunteering your time to help promote the club at the various events that are scheduled throughout the year. In 2010 spectators were a major part of our revenue, and they gave us an alternate revenue stream that we hadn't been able to use since the 2nd Creek days. Each of those people bring money to the track that we don't have to provide a direct service for - that's a good thing for us. If you can help draw spectators to the track, that only reaps good things for our community.

See you at the next general meeting!

Scott

[Clarkie]

when was the last time your engine builder delivered to you the good news that they were lowering prices this year?

I lowered my prices to about half of what I used to charge when I was building engines in Colorado because of the econmony, or I just showed people how to build their own engines for beer. Building motorcycle race engine aint rocket science so dont let some of the dodgy engine builders convince you it is :lol:

[benfoxmra95]

i was on the board when the the solo endurance races on sat were suggested and implemented, and if i recall is was to drum up some more cash for the club and the entry fees were $50

as the times have changed(5 years later), i think it's time to update the entry fees for the endurance races and raise it to the same $150 as the single race.

or lower the fees for 1 sprint race entry.... but you already covered the "lowering the price" thing.

I think if you laid it out in a professional manner to the endurance racers and said hey, this class gives you more time than a single sprint race and it's not fair to the single sprint racers and we are going to raise the price to $150, I think you'd get a positive response.

I don't think anyone would say screw it, and not show up. and if they did they maybe they're not the types of customers the MRA needs anyways .

maybe a poll thread asking only endurance racers to show if they were showing up or not if the prices raised $70.. to match the $150 of a sprint race

I wouldn't object if it was the only class i was chasing points in. I'd merely think it as something the club needs to survive and happily write the check for the betterment of my club.

another thought: possibly make it $150 if this is the only class youre entering, and make it $100 if you entering this class plus another sprint race on sunday, that way youre not heavily charging the racers who race this class and do sun sprints.

just a estimate, but i roughly get the potential of another $1000-$1400 put into the clubs account per weekend.

[HAMMER]

Ninjas are cheap racing ......

Entrys..240 ( I think ) 4 classes , sat sun practice ..

Gas ( if I remember to use it ) is about 100 total for my pos truck and the ninja ( I run 85 in both )...

Food 50 bucks for water ,meat , fruits, snackx...

I'm in around 400-450 per weekend ....

Not including crashes and the cost of the bike ...

I only used 2 sets of 220$ tires all year actually 3 tires ( used the Same rear all season )


A little more if I run the 125 cause of pre mix gas .. not much tho

And the racing was stress fee and epic battles ....

[T Baggins]

Please everyone look at the opening post as I've attempted to redirect this and suggested some "ground rules" for participation.

The interest is great, and I believe good things could come from this discussion - even if only by educating the membership on how and why we are the way we are...

[gsnyder828]

So would i be correct in saying that someone who comes in to race JUST one endurance race, like you mentioned above, can sign up for $80 and ride 3 prac sessions in the morn and race for 30 min on sat?

if so, this seems unfair to the single sprint race entry people who pay $150 for 1 7-10 lap sprint race on sunday...

maybe the endurance races should cost more so they aren't dragging down the average per rider entry fee?

quite possibly these pesky endurance riders are getting off too cheap when they are just running only the endurance.... :)

I agree 100%. I brought this up in a different post - I think an endurance race should cost no less than a sprint... why would anyone runs 2 sprints when then can run 2 endurance races for much less $$ (assuming they're on a 600 or such)?

[T Baggins]

i was on the board when the the solo endurance races on sat were suggested and implemented, and if i recall is was to drum up some more cash for the club and the entry fees were $50

as the times have changed(5 years later), i think it's time to update the entry fees for the endurance races and raise it to the same $150 as the single race.

We are discussing that very thing on the Board right now. $150 may be too steep of an increase (more than double...) but an increase is in order for sure.

Maybe $75 for the first, $25 for the second so $100 for both?

Or $100 for the first, $50 for the second so $150 for the pair?

Or, if you're doing sprints too, let the endurance fall into the regular price structure? That way you don't get double-dinged on the first race of both... Ultimately this would be a decrease in fees for the guys who are already doing both - but maybe it would encourage guys who aren't doing both to consider it...?

[jmaher]

I understand the need to raise race fees. I race 2 sprints and both endurance every weekend (though that may change depending on how much fees go up). I also know there are a number of people that only run endurance due to cost. If the rates go up too much they may be priced out. IMHO it is better to make a little money rather than no money. I do not want to be priced out of the sport like it appears some were towards the end of the season.
Admittedly I am still somewhat new but I like the current race schedule and fully support it. I also agree with Tony that little changes are better.

Joe

[T Baggins]

Joe, what is your go - no go price for entry fees for the weekend?

Right now you're paying $90 end and $190 sprint - so $280

Is $325 a deal breaker? $300?

Just trying to get an idea...

[spideyrdr]

Or, if you're doing sprints too, let the endurance fall into the regular price structure? That way you don't get double-dinged on the first race of both...

This got a little longer than I expected but here it goes anyway.

Just throwing my hat in the ring to say I love this idea, Tony. I've run nothing but endurance except this last round because adding a single sprint race at $130 tripled my normal fees. I did it this last round as a way of 'helping' the club while finishing my first full year with a NovU race under my belt. I could see me trying to maybe do NovU, NovO, and MWEND next year but that currently would be $130+60+60 if I am not mistaken. That's a 4x increase in entry fees for what amounts to about 2x the number of laps. At least cutting a break for adding endurance to the sprint races would give some motivation to do both instead of one-or-the-other.

Also, let's not lose sight of the purpose of the endurance races from a club perspective as well as a rider perspective. The endurance races have novices and experts on the same grids. I saw very little chance of placing high enough to ever get any money out of it and it isn't going to get me my expert wings. It's experience for me, it's a 'practice session' for several of the experts, and for others it's their entire season. It had far more participation than some of the race classes - there was a grid of, what, 3 riders this past race weekend in one of the races. To me that makes so little sense.

I disagree with an approach that essentially says the club wants to get all riders paying about the same to race any given weekend. I'd liken that to taxing everyone the same dollar amount in order to balance the budget. Some riders only do 1 endurance race, some do Moham-style weekends, and everyone else is somewhere in between.

To get the income up, look at how to get people into MORE races, not just jack up fees on the existing classes. It's a 'value' thing. IMO the endurance races took a ding going into this season when the afternoon practice was eliminated. After finishing the morning practices around 10:30, I sit there for about 5 hours waiting for MWEND. Sure, you need to raise fees for all the races perhaps. But will raising the endurance fees significantly just decrease the value further?

The value of the novice combined practices were also suspect on occasion this year. Some weekends we got a huge number of novices out there, on liter bikes down to two-fiftys, all sorts of skill differentials - and once if not twice the practice session had to be red flagged. I don't consider jockeying with 60 other maniacs for a few laps prior to a red flag to be meaningful practice. I love my race weekends, don't get me wrong, but there were times the $60 endurance fee covers maybe 20-30 minutes of actual practice time and then a 30 minute race - broken up by a 5 hour sit in the sun, rain, and wind. I don't think I was undercharged on those occasions! Yes, I do realize I could hang around on Sunday and practice then too, but it just doesn't fit with my family. Saturdays were for racing, Sundays were for catching up on life. I am to blame for not taking advantage of that, though I am not sure how many practice on Sunday if they don't have a race (I know some do, I genuinely don't know how many).

Next year I would like to do some sprints, for sure, so I won't have as long of a stretch waiting, but even then there are some scheduling issues for some that would make it hard to do multiple races, so are there some opportunities there? I know there has to be an incredible amount of debate about when to schedule things, and looking at the schedule it probably is a good format but maybe there are opportunities there.

Finding out what's keeping someone from doing a 2nd or 3rd or 4th race might reveal a thing or two about perception ('no way could I do NovO then MWEND with only about a 20 minute break'), budgets ('my total budget for the weekend simply can't be over $500 all inclusive - I've got a family to feed - and anything over will keep me sidelined this season'), and time commitments ('I wold love to do NovU and AmU but I can only get to the track on Saturdays'). The economy has changed and the answers to some of these questions might also have changed in the recent years, who knows.

As always, I mean no disrespect toward anyone who keeps this club running. I just wanted to add some opinions and thoughts in order to keep my bench racing skills sharp in the off season.

Cheers,
Jamie

[gsnyder828]

From a pricing perspective, the relevant questions to me are:

1. Why is it ok to charge less for 2 endurance races than 2 sprint races?

(for perspective - I've been around long enough to remember when we started endurance races - 2003 I believe - and why the pricing was set so low. It was a method to bolster the safety fund to buy more air fence. That was it's sole purpose as I recall, and it was priced @ $50/$75 for 2 to get people to participate. This is back when all racing was on Sunday and Sat was practice only, so pricing was an incentive. No one "just" ran endurance back then that I recall)

2. If the price structure changed to level endurance races with sprint races, would the folks who currently only race endurance a) not race at all b) race fewer races c) race the same amount?

Only Option a) would appreciably lose the club $$ - but I think it's unlikely that many folks have built a whole program, with all the investment needed (even a shoestring one) just around entry fees that are <$100. If an extra $50-$100/weekend is going to cause them to completely drop racing as a hobby - then let's call it like it is, they should be putting $$ in their savings account, not racing.

I'm liking the idea of "a race is a race". Let them all drop into the normal pricing structure - that way there's no bias or incentive either way. People can run what they want...

[rforsythe]

I've been doing Endurance because it's cheap, not gonna lie. And to be honest, I stay away from the sprints except when I get an occasional urge to run them just because the "race counter" starts all over if I sign up for one, meaning it's a crapload of money for 7 laps when I just paid $80 for an hour of racing straight through and morning practice.

I don't know the solution so I won't claim to have one, but if lets say two endurance races was $100 and adding some sprint racing (which is really just 7 laps at that point, nothing more) was reasonably priced, I'd run sprints too. As it stands now the cost penalty for a mainly-endurance racer running sprint as well is just kinda steep.

[benfoxmra95]

Any business thats selling a product should be pricing it the same across the board.

I don't think the MRA should be walmart and have a sale on Saturday. I've run my own business for few minutes now, and I've made my most money when I've set a flat rate for everyone, no special exceptions like I used to do. I found that all business's that were my customer sending me work were understanding and adopting similar policies, because they found the few customers that got smoking deals were cutting into the profits and time too much to justify their giving that person a discount.

My view is, cost per race, and how much a rider should a rider pay for race.

The time riders are on the track the money clock is ticking on the ambulance, corner workers, management staff, track rental, insurance....

[T Baggins]

Thanks guys, this is the type of input and banter that is valuable to us...

Dirk Terrell is pulling stats from all the entries this year (and prior years) so we can assign cost data to actual entries and "KNOW" what an increase or change in pricing structure (overall, or just sprint or endurance) will do to revenues.

My gut proposal is (and has been) this:

Add $10 to the first entry on Sprints, so instead of $130, 60, 30, 20 it becomes $140, 60, 30, 20. That equals about $1300 - $1500 per weekend extra revenue.

Add $15 to endurance, so instead of $60, 90 it would be $75, 105. That equals about $700 per weekend extra revenue.

For the year (7 rounds) that's a $15,400 boost.

My fear is that if we make it $140 for endurance instead of the current $60 - that may kill off our endurance-only guys entirely. Endurance brings in $3 - 4K per weekend. We can't afford to lose that, and many of those guys are doing endurance ONLY right now 'cause that's all they can manage - but still want to stay involved and active in the club.

If they can't afford to continue Endurance, then we also lose their license revenue at the beginning of the year - which is the "kitty" we work out of until the season gets going full-swing.

Never an easy answer.

[gsnyder828]

So I'm clear:

Assuming 7 races:

- Sprint only riders' registration fees go up $70 for the season (7x$10).
- Endurance only riders' fees go up $105 for the season (7x$15)
- Sprint & Endurance riders' fees go up $175 for the season. (7x$25)

Do I have that right?

[spideyrdr]

So much hate for the endurance! Sheesh.

How about a different view? I only did this for one race weekend - round 3 - which was early enough in the season that the participation seemed high and may or may not be representative.

Doing really simple math, take each race and the number of competitors and multiply it by the MAXIMUM you could be making assuming early entry was paid. So, $130 for sprints, $60 for endurance races. We run about 20 minutes per sprints so you can run 3 sprint races per hour, and 30 minutes for the endurance (that's a little low because of grid up and cool down but for this analysis 30 minutes is pretty good) so you can run 2 endurance races per hour.

MW and LW run at the same time as do HW and open. Here are the respective 'hourly numbers' from round 3 given these really simple calculations:

(edit: I can't get this table to format properly so my apologizes)

Round 3, Saturday

Race..........#.....Cost..Take...'Per.hour'
NovU..........30....130...3900...11700
NovO..........25....130...3250...9750
F40...........23....130...2990...8970
LWGP..........20....130...2600...7800
MW/LWEnd......48....60....2880...5760
250(Sat)......13....130...1690...5070
MWSS..........13....130...1690...5070
HWSS..........10....130...1300...3900
OSS...........10....130...1300...3900
HW/OpenEnd....31....60....1860...3720

HWSS, OSS, the 250 Sat race, and MWSS all brought in less money 'per hour' than MW/LWEnd based on this simple view. HW/OpenEnd is the lowest for that day, but only barely behind HWSS and OpenSS.

Since a large number of riders only do one of the endurance races not both, the $60 per rider is probably close to the average whereas I would speculate the $130 for sprints is high since most riders do 2, 3, 4 or more sprint races, so those races may average closer to $100 per rider or lower.

Even using that best case cost scenario of $130 per entry in sprint races, MW/LW has heavy participation and brought in more money than 4 other races and HW/Open was only slightly behind 2 classes.

If you were to make endurance cost as much as a sprint, I would guess that participation in the endurance races would drop sharply - why go out there and get my novice ass handed to me by some really fast and sometimes aggressive experts when I literally have nothing to gain? I can't get expert status running it, I can't (realistically) finish high enough to get any contingency money, and it's held so late in the day. I'd drop it in favor of one or two sprint races and actually compete for something meaningful against other novices and be done with my race day hours sooner. Other riders might just opt to stay home all together and just do a track day a couple of times a year.

The short of it is that if the MRA were Walmart, they are making money on the cheap HDTV from the "Endurance" brand because of the volume. Some of the high-end "Sprint" branded TVs do better, some do worse. Overall if they charge the same for "Endurance" and "Sprint" branded TVs they might find their overall bottom line severely hurt. Finally, since some people come for the "Endurance" and also get the "Sprint" it's a loss leader but helps keep people coming in the door.

[T Baggins]

So I'm clear:

Assuming 7 races:

- Sprint only riders' registration fees go up $70 for the season (7x$10).
- Endurance only riders' fees go up $105 for the season (7x$15)
- Sprint & Endurance riders' fees go up $175 for the season. (7x$25)

Do I have that right?

IF that's the direction we go, then yes - you have that right.

Maybe that's not the best solution, but it is "a" possible solution... the data will give us better insight.

That said - if the "bare minimum" budget racer spends $500 per weekend racing - and we cut a round out - then it's nets an overall savings for the season series of $430, $395, or $325.

[rybo]

One of the things I've been thinking about is the transitions we make into the club, this was the reason for SuperStreet.

As tracks and insurance got more expensive it became impossible for the MRA to run a "mid-season" race school. SuperStreet became that school with more than 10 SuperStreet riders from last year's "class" converting to full licenses this year (you were one of them Jamie!)

Now - that rider gets into the club and starts thinking about racing full time: Endurance is a natural stepping stone. A lot of practice and track time for not a lot of money.

What I *think* I know from my personal experience is that racing is more of a lifestyle than a hobby. Those who I know have stuck around for a long time adopted it gradually, in steps and understood the impact it had on their lives. Sarah and I do not go out for fancy dinners, we don't go to movies, we don't go on extravagant vacations - instead we go racing. I'm fortunate that she is supportive of it and that my boys love going to the racetrack.

If we take away the "value" based endurance races do you also take away one of the critical stepping stones? I know the novices I've mentored over the last couple of years have started as endurance riders and later adopted sprint racing - so my own anecdotal experience is that the endurance race is critical to setting the hook and engaging racers in a way that makes them willing to commit more dollars to the sport in the future.

[jeff healy]

I did use the endurance races this year as great practice time on the track in a race enviroment beings that I had not ever been to any of the tracks before but enjoyed the sprint races more (probably because I smoke and can't seem to find time to go to the gym and prepare myself for endurance races) :D but I will say that I would still pay an extra 10 or 20 bucks to do this. On a separate note, possibly opening up other classes to racers by broadening engine restrictions etc may get more people signing up for more races. I would race ST GTU next year as an additional race if I can ride my 848 in that class :)

[JWinter]

I've read 4 pages of this and my head hurts. I am all for going to Miller...If there was a purse offered in each class. Nobody in this economy is going to travel to another state to race for tire money...Sorry to burst the bubble on that idea AND why don't we have 40-60 riders from Utah here racing with us this season? Yeah, they don't have the money either.

Superstreet is a huge success and added value to the club as did the Ninja cup. Building on these successes will be more beneficial than radical scheduling?!

The sollution is simple...Infuse more money into the club. Offer season ending purses along with the trophies in ALL classes, increase ROR payouts, etc.. These changes will attract more riders, more contingency, and more spectators. But none of this is possible without sponsor money. It would be very difficult to attract a sponsor for our series in this economy and the sponsor has to gain something from sponsoring our series. We as a series do not attract a large fan base like the cars do racing in Erie. And if there are fans present then advertisers will want to get involved. I don't know how to attract in a big sponsor so I am not offering a solution, just pointing out a different idea than what has been previously presented.

[gsnyder828]

IF that's the direction we go, then yes - you have that right.

Maybe that's not the best solution, but it is "a" possible solution... the data will give us better insight.

That said - if the "bare minimum" budget racer spends $500 per weekend racing - and we cut a round out - then it's nets an overall savings for the season series of $430, $395, or $325.

I see where your going - but it doesn't feel right to me that those who currently pay the least (@ less than the cost of a track day) get a smaller increase than those who already pay the most (sprint + endurance racers). I'm also not a big fan of having a similar scope increase on sprint only racers - as they already pay the most $$/lap.

How about another suggestion:

1. Increase the first endurance by $30. No additional charge for the 2nd. If my math follows yours, this will be an increase of $210/season for endurance riders. Not bad... and only a 6% increase on the "bare minimum" rider's annual budget. That should net ~$1400/weekend or ~$10k/yr

2. Increase 1st sprint by $5. This minimizes the "double" burden for sprint/endurance riders (since it's only $5 more than the only endurance riders are shouldering) and it helps close the gap between the cost of the 1st sprint and the 1st endurance - making it easier to join them in future years. This would be a $35/season increase on sprint riders (tiny) and should net $600-800/weekend or $4900/yr

That would put us in the ballpark of the same revenue gains you outline above *and* close the gap some between endurance and sprints.

I'm going to pay both fees either way, but I would like to see the gap closed up... or I might just have to start racing endurance only :lol:

[T Baggins]

Now we're talking Geoffrey...

This is what we're looking for - ideas with solutions, that meet the need and are well reasoned out.

I'll move this to the top of my favorites...

[gsnyder828]

One of the things I've been thinking about is the transitions we make into the club, this was the reason for SuperStreet.

As tracks and insurance got more expensive it became impossible for the MRA to run a "mid-season" race school. SuperStreet became that school with more than 10 SuperStreet riders from last year's "class" converting to full licenses this year (you were one of them Jamie!)

Now - that rider gets into the club and starts thinking about racing full time: Endurance is a natural stepping stone. A lot of practice and track time for not a lot of money.

What I *think* I know from my personal experience is that racing is more of a lifestyle than a hobby. Those who I know have stuck around for a long time adopted it gradually, in steps and understood the impact it had on their lives. Sarah and I do not go out for fancy dinners, we don't go to movies, we don't go on extravagant vacations - instead we go racing. I'm fortunate that she is supportive of it and that my boys love going to the racetrack.

If we take away the "value" based endurance races do you also take away one of the critical stepping stones? I know the novices I've mentored over the last couple of years have started as endurance riders and later adopted sprint racing - so my own anecdotal experience is that the endurance race is critical to setting the hook and engaging racers in a way that makes them willing to commit more dollars to the sport in the future.

Rybo - I appreciate this perspective and I think you're right. Not many first year "big spenders" stick around for more than a couple three years... and it took me quite a few years to "make the transition" to running a sustainable/decent program.

That said - even raising prices like I'm suggesting above (primarily on endurance) will still be great value. Running practice and 1 endurance for $90 or 2 endurance for $120 is still less than an HPR track day.

Yeah, you only get a few sessions in the a.m., and yeah you wait around all day - but you're going RACING for less than the cost of a track day.

I still think it's a viable stepping stone.

[gsnyder828]

Now we're talking Geoffrey...

This is what we're looking for - ideas with solutions, that meet the need and are well reasoned out.

I'll move this to the top of my favorites...

Be careful... you can call me G-Off all day long, but start calling me Geoffrey and you might just be stepping on my mother's toes... :shock:

:lol:

[jplracing]

I am one of those endurance only guys and thus felt it was important to chime in.

The reason that I race endurance only is simple..cost. I simply can't not justify spending $180 (in the 2011 season price structure) for 14 laps of racing when I can get 15 laps of racing for $60. I personally don't think there is a better value in any form of motorsports.

Another comment I found interesting was one that Jamie made earlier about waiting 5+ hours between his last practice and his endurance race. I struggle with this as well.

I don't know if this is a good or bad idea, but one that I have been thinking about. Several years ago the MRA used to have Saturday morning practice as a separate entry. From memory the first sprint was $80 then $60 etc.. and endurance was $50. However if you wanted to practice it was a additional $50. At some point the decision was made to just include practice into your first entry. I don't remember why this was done, but remember it being a net wash, so I didn't care.

The MRA also held a riders meeting for people that didn't practice on Saturday morning and arrived later to race the endurance (of course there was also a endurance practice session as well).

What would happen if we went back to this format? Would it appear that the cost of entry was less to a new racer or would it detract from the overall revenue of the weekend by giving people the option of not paying the Saturday practice fee? Would it offer another means of increasing revenue?

My initial thought would be that for the endurance only racer could chose to sign up for practice or not and the long wait would be their choice. If there are a number of people using endurance as practice (for one reason or another) it could potentially offer a larger race grid with greater participation in endurance.


Just a thought and would like to hear what people think of the idea

Joe

[benfoxmra95]

The short of it is that if the MRA were Walmart, they are making money on the cheap HDTV from the "Endurance" brand because of the volume. Some of the high-end "Sprint" branded TVs do better, some do worse. Overall if they charge the same for "Endurance" and "Sprint" branded TVs they might find their overall bottom line severely hurt.

That's not really an accurate analogy.

it costs way less to engineer produce and assemble a low end tv than it does a high end tv....

How bout this analogy if we went off how you are stating the tv's:

Lets say when you are out racing in endurance we pull the corner crew off the track and replace them with less skilled individuals and we take away the ambulance crews truck and give them a dodgy old pickup that may continue to run or not.... so we don't have to pay the corner crew and can save money on the ambulance but still produce the same effect.

It's costs exactly the same to run a endurance race (dollar per minute) than it does a sprint race. there's no getting around that.

you don't walk into to walmart and buy the sony for the same price as the sanyo.... if you could it wouldn't be a sony, even if someone tried to tell me "it's got sony guts" :lol:

[spideyrdr]

It's costs exactly the same to run a endurance race (dollar per minute) than it does a sprint race. there's no getting around that.



You're exactly right. Which is why I showed the MW/LW endurance races make more than than some of sprint races on a per minute basis. Just because the endurance fee is lower doesn't mean it's a huge loss for the club. The $4000-5000 a weekend that comes from endurance is a not insignificant.

[polar x]

I still think you need to lower the cost of entry for those who run both End races so they can then enter the sprints and stay around. Perhaps you do the cost difference for Sat only.. That way the guys who normally run End can run a couple more sprints on Sat and go home. If you dont run BOTH End races on Sat then you pay normal (higher) sprint races for sat and sun. otherwise you leave it the same as before but with the higher rates.

[Teach]

when was the last time your engine builder delivered to you the good news that they were lowering prices this year?

I lowered my prices to about half of what I used to charge when I was building engines in Colorado because of the econmony, or I just showed people how to build their own engines for beer. Building motorcycle race engine aint rocket science so dont let some of the dodgy engine builders convince you it is :lol:

So what kind of beer and how much??? :D

[Bartman]

A case of PBR should do it oh and a bottle of the cheapest whiskey you can find. :lol:

[KFinn]

I thought he'd like Fosters.... you know... Australian for beer! LMAO

Damn Kiwi's get so sensitive. hehe

[Clarkie]

LOL trust me, no one is Aussie touches Forsters, they ship the crap beer and wine to the US :wink: Now VB (if you can find it) is a great beer, storng too :D

[Bartman]

There is also the fact that Clunkie is a Kiwi not a Aussie and used to take great offense at being called a Aussie but he has mellowed a bit. :lol:
What are the good Kiwi beers or other drinks that us ponders don't know about?

[Clarkie]

Here is a list, but I always drank Lion Red, Steinlarger or VB :D

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest/table_2011.asp?title=Best+Beers+of+Australia+and+N ew+Zealand+2011&file=australia_beer_2011.csv

[KFinn]

There is also the fact that Clunkie is a Kiwi not a Aussie yup. that was the whole point of me making the comment. A little ribbing. Because i knew most kiwis hate it. :-) Like calling Nabber Australian.

[Clarkie]

When I was driving around the country from race track to race track in 2000 I used to get asked at places like gas stations where I was from, I could be there 15 miniutes trying to explain where NZ was as a lot of people thought it was near Italy or somewhere. Truck stop employees arent real SMRT :lol: I would just end up saying I was from Aussie as they had heard of it, and the Crocodile Hunter....... as far as they knew he was my cousin :D

[gsnyder828]

Wait... you mean NZ isn't near Italy? :-k

[polar x]

Here is a list, but I always drank Lion Red, Steinlarger or VB :D

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest/table_2011.asp?title=Best+Beers+of+Australia+and+N ew+Zealand+2011&file=australia_beer_2011.csv


WHAT :shock: No Fiji Bitter or Gold???

[nobasin]

before this thread goes off the rails into a beer discussion, being one of only 4 racers to race both mwend and hwend at all 7 races this year, figure i'd chime in on how i think entry fees revenue should fit into the greater financial issues in the club which is sort of what this thread has become about.

i race endurance only because:
(and this is relevant because endurance IS the reason i race, and therefore contribute revenue to the club)

-i like the physical and mental challenge of 30 minute races back to back
-i like the mixed race envrionment with racers of varying speeds...makes things interesting and makes strategy and wits a bit more a part of the racing equation and not just about power.
-good racing; there's always somebody to race with in a 30 minute endurance, you'll either catch somebody or get caught. not always the case in sprints.
-the last couple years previous, there was a lot of crashing in the novice classes and i felt that safer and cleaner racing happened in the endurance classes relative to novu/o. this year seemed to be a much cleaner year in those classes however.
-it is a great value product as yes, you get a lot of racing and track time for a lot less relative to the cost of sprints. this last one is a big one and i know that if my 2 endurance races cost the same as 2 sprints, it would be difficult for me if not impossible to race a full campaign.

tony et al. as far as what i could tolerate in terms of price increases on entry fees, i absolutely agree with the idea of endurance going up but i do think it should stay as a (the only actually) value option for racers because it IS a different product than sprints for many reasons. $30-50 increase in total entry fees for a double endurance racer like me wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, and probably not many others either. but if those fees went up 100-200% as some are suggesting, along with all the other standard annual cost increases in life, there's no way i could continue to race. As far as Ben's comments that business should price their products the same, i'd just argue again it is not the same product. It is however a good product that definitely needs a price adjustment at this time and i certainly would fully support that as all racers of all classes should bear some of the burden of keeping the club financially viable.

personally, i find the endurance races much higher value than the sprints (at least as a novice), but it seems most racers in the club don't feel that way and that's why they don't race the class. for most people they don't like the giant grids of mixed skills and speeds, don't want to or can't afford to burn up another set of tires, they don't want to wait 4-5 hours between their last practice session and their first race of the day, don't want to race with the sun at a low angle at the end of the day, don't want to do a 30 minute race, and/or don't want to do 2 of them back to back with 10 minutes in between. i think most racers (other than those of us who race it all the time) view endurance as an inferior product and in some ways it is depending on your perspective (not mine obviously). but i've heard many people in the club say they would never race endurance or they "hate" endurance for many of the same reasons that i like it. "molly my sister and i fell out..."

I do like the idea of it being incorporated into your class count, so that racers who do sprints don't get penalized if they want to do endurance too. i think that would encourage more racers to add it as an additional class or encourage endurance only racers to sign up for a sprint.

bottom line is that i feel endurance should stay the one and only value option in the club, but it IS currently underpriced and should be part of the equation that keeps the club financially sound, but don't do it to the point of losing racers. i think a lot of endurance only racers do it because it IS a less expensive (and likely the only) option to get out there. as some have already said, some $$ is better than none, and if you jack the shit out of the endurance fees, the club is going to lose a lot of those racers. we simply couldn't afford to be out there. i barely get by as it is, and it is important to me to be able to race a full season and not just hit a few of the races.

[KFinn]

I have been watching this thread for a long time and finally after seeing other perspectives am ready to state my opinion. Slightly modified from my original opinion.

I think Endurance should go up enough to make a good difference to the club as well as make it not such a steal compared to Sprints.

I also think that it should be counted towards your number of races for initial high entry fee. And it should count either direction. If i race sprints and add an endurance later it should be an additional charge of the diff. Or the other way around were if I pay the endurance and decide to add a sprint or two, I shouldn't have to pay the initial 130 (140 proposed).

I also think it should stay a little bit of a value to again help suck new racers into something if they have any reservations or fears about sprints that were previously mentioned.

The question now remains how exactly do the numbers break down to keep the curr end racers and make the curr sprint racers 'feel better' and also not lose more money because we aren't charging the 130 regardless of end race entries.

Make sense or jibberish? I know to some extent this opinion has already been voiced. I am sharing it not to be intended as my new idea but more of a poll or voting of how many people agree with which opinions.

[nobasin]

"The question now remains how exactly do the numbers break down to keep the curr end racers and make the curr sprint racers 'feel better' and also not lose more money because we aren't charging the 130 regardless of end race entries"

i think i understand what kfinn means, but echoing some previous sentiment, financial decisions should not take into account what makes one group of racers "feel better" or another feel bad. making sprint racers feel better doesn't add any revenue to the club, and raising fees so much in any class, not just endurance, that results in lower revenue, doesn't make sense financially. at least in the last 4 years, until this thread, i've never heard a sprint racer complain that the endurance racers are getting off too cheap and i don't think anybody gave a shit until the club started having financial trouble. that being said, i think we've been getting off a bit too cheap, and so yes, good to raise fees appropriately but not so much to lose any racers.

if anything, endurance racers can probably absorb a higher percentage increase because our fees are lower already, so if sprints go up by say 5% or whatever, maybe endurance goes up by 25-30% so that it maximizes the financial gain for the club, but doesn't become prohibitive for racers who can only race on a tight budger. i agree with kfinn that finding that magic number is the key, but feelings and emotions should not be part of that calculation. work for the best balance between retaining as many racers as possible (and attracting new ones) and maximizing the financial benefit for the club. i have no doubt and trust that the current and new board will be successful in finding this balance.

[KFinn]

financial decisions should not take into account what makes one group of racers "feel better" or another feel bad.
True but let me elaborate further at what I encompass fully into 'feel better" - covered in next quote....


making sprint racers feel better doesn't add any revenue to the club, and raising fees so much in any class, not just endurance, that results in lower revenue, doesn't make sense financially. By not only making them 'feel better' at the surface but also feel more willing to enter the other classes (Meaning if you race end only adding Sprint or sprint only adding End) Because the pricing is not so different. One would think you should be able to gain race entries easier. Since this is hard to explain without writing a novel and example may illustrate easier.... If I race Endurance for dirt cheap and want a little more track time and have a tiny bit extra in tires and fuel to use, I would logically want to add one race maybe two. which sprints could be a good option. But today they aren't because the fee adder is so large not only by the dollar per minute on track but also due to the 1st sprint race scale. Therefore, one could speculate that if the cost for track time per minutes is closer to being the same and there isn't a huge 1st sprint race adder fee then you would fill the sprint race grids a little more often during the beginning and middle when funds are available for each racer. Agree that this is a very plausible theory?


at least in the last 4 years, until this thread, i've never heard a sprint racer complain that the endurance racers are getting off too cheap and i don't think anybody gave a shit until the club started having financial trouble. that being said, i think we've been getting off a bit too cheap, and so yes, good to raise fees appropriately but not so much to lose any racers. I think there is a small group that is envious about it but don't make such a stink because of a few different reasons. I would fall into this category. I would love to pay less money for more track time like you endurance guys but because I am a little like Tony and lack physical endurance at race pace and the willingness outside of race weekends to become ultimately fit enough. I choose not to race them much at all.



if anything, endurance racers can probably absorb a higher percentage increase because our fees are lower already, so if sprints go up by say 5% or whatever, maybe endurance goes up by 25-30% so that it maximizes the financial gain for the club, but doesn't become prohibitive for racers who can only race on a tight budger. I agree, they probably can and probably should absorb a higher %.


i have no doubt and trust that the current and new board will be successful in finding this balance.+1 Our board rocks.

[KFinn]

also wanted to add that if endurance racers occasionally enter sprint classes, they may be able to treat it like a fast practice session to break up the several hour gap. And some wouldn't have to worry about the novice bowling as much as some of them would be gridded in back due to points and if they aren't super fast they shouldn't catch the main couple packs. Just a thought.

[nobasin]

also wanted to add that if endurance racers occasionally enter sprint classes, they may be able to treat it like a fast practice session to break up the several hour gap. And some wouldn't have to worry about the novice bowling as much as some of them would be gridded in back due to points and if they aren't super fast they shouldn't catch the main couple packs. Just a thought.

i get what you mean for sure as i thought about signing up for a sprint for jsut this reason with endurance practice eliminated this year. but to your earlier point about the fee schedule, right now that's prohibitively expensive for me which is why i like the idea of making all classes count towards your race count, so if you do 2 sprints and want to end the day with endurance, it's not another arm and leg, and same with the other way around.

as to all your other responses to my comments, all thoughtful and reasonable for sure.

and man, it's hard racing on a tight budger. even harder than on a tight budget. i don't feel right at all when my budger is tight.

did want to just add that if i entered a sprint class to break up the day, it certainly wouldn't be just to practice, i'd be out there trying to beat everybody i could regardless of my points. what's the point of entering a race if you are not going to actually race, right?

[spideyrdr]

Bearing in mind a $15 increase for the first endurance race is a 25% increase over the early entry fee right now, I don't FEEL that's unreasonable. It's $90 over the course of the season for those guys who are only doing one endurance race since the 4 hour has its own pricing. That would probably raise another $1k+ per weekend.

I'm probably reiterating what's already been said here but... When paying, it would be awesome to have the endurance races count as the last sprint. So given the proposed fees Tony laid out on page 4 it it would be:
1 Sprint + 1 endurance = $140 + $60 = $200 (vs. $215)
2 Sprints + 1 endurance = $140 + $60 + $30 = $230 (vs. $275)
1 Sprint + 2 endrances races = $140 + $60 + $30 = $230 (vs. $245)
etc.

The endurance product still represents a 'value' either on its own OR added to a sprint race menu.

[random hero]

Just a few things I'm curious about.....

What's a legit reason Endurance should be discounted entry fee? You get WAY more track time than sprints, yet you pay 70% less.... How does this make sense from a business standpoint. Track time is track time, somehow the formula is 7 laps should cost %250 more than 15-30 laps....... I do both, and would gladly pay $100-150 for endurance, it makes sense, and it's fair... especially for all the people who are paying $300-400 weekend in sprint entries to get the same amount of track time. It's not fair to "tax the rich" who in this case are the people who are paying for sprints, and cater to the people who are paying in the least amount of money into the club.

I don't think raising entry fee's on sprints will solve anything, if anything it will drive more people away. It's expensive as it is now. Think of it this way, your paying $130 for 7 laps.... Imagine stopping @ start/finish and putting $20 each lap in a hat. I personally think raised sprint fee's will mean less bikes on the grid for 2012... Endurance has the biggest grids, and again is on clearance for 1/3 of the cost....

Last.... we have 23 classes, a lot of these classes never saw 10 bikes on the same grid this year. I appreciate the fact some people love to race "odd-ball" machines, or want to win that plaque @ the end of the year, but the entertainment factor is weak, and the fact that we fill up 2 days of races with the majority being lowly attended classes doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm a twins guy, sure it's cool we have 4 twins races.... but it that really necessary? Is it necessary to have classes where we regular entries you can count on 1 hand...... I know everyone wants to be competitive and succeed, but we need to be realistic, are we really pulling new racers in w/these classses that are designed for niche machinery, or are we enticing them to come in and race a class w/4 bikes on the grid? Why not trim some of the fat, and try to grow/combine some of these classes... I would much rather enter a race where I can dice it up w/20 guys, rather than be on the grid w/a handful of people and probably circulate alone for the following 20 minutes...

I truly appreciate our board, and our clubs members... It's a great atmosphere, the people are great... and more than anything I want to see the MRA succeed.

[Scored51]

Just a few things I'm curious about..... we have 23 classes, a lot of these classes never saw 10 bikes on the same grid this year. I appreciate the fact some people love to race "odd-ball" machines, or want to win that plaque...

Luke,

I was curious too, as every time I hear this statement it is made from perspective (of a 600 rider). So I collected the data from our timing computer of every race run in 2011 and threw it into a spreadsheet. After averaging the attendance and ranking all 26 classes, I highlight all those races that didn't see 10 riders. I also created a cutoff line to illustrate those classes that failed to achieve an average of 10 riders for the season. Here are the stats:

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg77/Priority51/AvgRiders-1.jpg

I don't know exactly which "oddball classes" you were suggesting should be cut from the lineup, but here are a few obervations.

- Either way you slice it, cutting out the "less than 10" would cost the club more 400 running entries per year.
- Even Amateur GTO had a race with only 9 bikes circulating.
- Lightweight GP was the 4th most run class in the club. ROR was 7th.
- Colorado Class had a larger field than Middleweight did all year.
- Looking at these numbers, the best odds to be cherry picking would be with a 2002 Ducati 998 or a GSX-R750; not a small niche bike. Being female wouldn't hurt either. :lol:

[Bartman]

One of the things you need to keep in mind for the ODDBALL classes is alot of racers do these classes for one of two reasons,1 they want something different to ride than the norm 2 they don''t want to be in the meatgrinder classes and if we nix these classes I don't believe the majority will buy a 600 and comeback.
In years past they have also been known as Gentlemens classes cause we did not have the uber competitive racers in them and that keeps the recreational racer coming back and having fun.

[T Baggins]

an entry is an entry. If a small displacement twin runs in 4 classes, that's $240 in revenue. If you cut/combine some of those classes then they run only two. That's $190 in revenue. How is that beneficial.. We don't have a lack of daylight, we have a lack of entries per rider and in some cases a lack of entries per class.

By providing riders with more classes they legal/competitive in... they're more likely to enter them.

[JWinter]

I only raced sundays this year due to work (thank god I had that problem) but I noticed something that I thought was weird at HPR until I figured it out...On sunday morning when I arrived at 7:15 the pits would seem fairly full and I would see a fair number of novice bikes in the pits and would see these bikes do morning practice on sunday. But a good few of these bikes would not line up on the grid for sunday, but pack up after morning practice and leave. At first I thought that these riders had a mechanical problem or something came up and they had to leave. But it seemed to happen every weekend out at HPR. Then I put it together...These riders are running saturday practice, an endurance race, then staying and doing sunday morning practice, and leaving. So for $60 these riders are getting five 15 minute practice sessions and a 30 minute race for $60. I come in on sunday and race two sprints and get two 15 minute practice sessions for $180. Hmmm....

So how much money are we potentially losing here? Or better yet how can we gain money. Here is my suggestion:

Leave sprint prices alone...No increases
Leave endurance fees as is with no increases.
Charge a $10 per practice session fee.
Give each rider who pays for saturday practice a blue sticker with the # 1 for round 1 and ect...
Then sunday give each rider that payed for sunday practice a red sticker with the number of the round on it.
So this means saturdays would increase per rider by $30.
This means sundays per rider the increase is $20.
And for people who want to do one endurance race and five practice sessions it would cost $110.

So we make an increase in revenue without any structure changes, no increases in license fees, and the few who found a loop hole can't continue to exploit it.

[Clarkie]

To me, the best value bike with the entry pricing system in the MRA as an expert is to race a 600, sure they arent as cool to ride as some of the bikes out there, isnt as fun to ride as a twin (I miss riding twins!!!) and doesnt spin up like a 1000, but you can race AND BE COMPETITIVE in a LOT of classes. The Dimmick boys and Josh Galster showed the 1000's didnt have a lot on them on their 600's at some tracks 8)

Work out $ per lap to be competitive AND have great racing anywhere on track and you cant go past a 600cc bike. Sure other bikes can enter the same number of classes, but to race with other guys and not watch bigger/faster bike disappear into the distance while you "just do laps" I cant see why people pass up a 600 Supersport bike. No one can race a 600 Supersport bike to it's full potential at the club level, if they could they would be at the big show :wink:

[T Baggins]

Jeff,

We stopped charging for practice some time back for the following reasons:

1) We cut Saturday practice considerably when we moved sprint races over to Saturday (previously Saturday was only Practice and Endurance) so it was difficult to justify a fee for it after that.

2) It was a nightmare keeping track of who paid for practice and who didn't - people had multiple bikes, went out on someone else's bike, or just cheated the system altogether one way or another

3) It just seems cheap and petty to me to charge for practice, as I believe it is a necessary part of the raceday to get people and their equipment up to temperature and up to speed.

Just wanted to let you know the logic behind where we're at right now.

[Bartman]

Way back in the day there was a rule that if you did not make one practice round in the morning you were not allowed to race, idea was not to put someone on the grid who is not mentally or mechanically ready to race.
I agree with this on most levels but not on all I think we just need to charge enduro riders practice if enduro is all they are doing.

[rforsythe]

It may also be hard to tell where the benefits are if you change everything at once. My suggestion, add a bit to endurance fees if that's desired (I think most of us have said we'd understand a cost-of-business increase that wasn't silly huge). Then make the cost to add a sprint race to that a reasonable increase; $140 to essentially add 7 laps to my day is not reasonable, it's retarded. Then see if (a) your endurance grids change at all, and (b) if you get an increase in "crossover" riders adding sprints onto their endurance.

I agree with not charging for practice, and maybe just charging the endurance riders more for the whole package. (Tony, not THAT package.) Make this change too cumbersome/annoying/involved and I think the defection will just get worse, not better.

[polar x]

It may also be hard to tell where the benefits are if you change everything at once. My suggestion, add a bit to endurance fees if that's desired (I think most of us have said we'd understand a cost-of-business increase that wasn't silly huge). Then make the cost to add a sprint race to that a reasonable increase; $140 to essentially add 7 laps to my day is not reasonable, it's retarded. Then see if (a) your endurance grids change at all, and (b) if you get an increase in "crossover" riders adding sprints onto their endurance.

I agree with not charging for practice, and maybe just charging the endurance riders more for the whole package.

BINGO BINGO BINGO

[Fastt Racing]

I though Nabber was South African? hehehe :wink:

[T Baggins]

I think we will definitely look at a more effective "crossover pricing structure" for guys who do both endurance and sprints. No point getting beaten up on the first race twice...

Not sure what that looks like from a programming code perspective - it's easy to "say" what the exception will be -but maybe harder to code it into the system.

[graphite675]

Then make the cost to add a sprint race to that a reasonable increase; $140 to essentially add 7 laps to my day is not reasonable, it's retarded. .

How would you work that though? I run Sprint only and I have to pay $140 for 7 laps? If you drop the price to say $50 to add a Sprint to endurance then I would just sign up for an endurance and then do my Sprints. Would be a lot cheaper then just doing the Sprint. $60+$50 vs. $140+$50 etc. I could get in a endurance and 2 Sprints cheaper then I could sign up for just 2 sprints on ther own.

To make this work you would have to raise the price of the endurance to be more inline with the sprint price then discount additional races?

.

[vort3xr6]

1st endurance $90
2nd endurance $30

Add a sprint race to endurance, +$90

[Bartman]

The way I see it right now enduro does not pay for practice and sprints do, what I think most people are saying is there should be your first race fee that covers your practice and first race no matter whether that is sprint or enduro and then add races as before for a reduced fee per race.

[rforsythe]

Hmm, sort of. I'm saying keep endurance cheaper than your first sprint because it quite simply is the cheaper form of racing a lot of us are drawn to. But don't asspound us for wanting to add a sprint race on top of it too. Endurance can go up somewhat like we've all said, just make adding a sprint onto it at that point something that's reasonable as well.

Let's say the first endurance was $90, which seems to be a price point most of us are comfortable with. Adding a sprint was half the cost of the sprint-only fee of $140, so another $70 (reasonable since we're not getting another set of practice sessions on top of that). That means $160 for one endurance + one sprint. Follow the standard $60/30/20...n additional sprint model from there. I would go for that, and +$70 is more than the $0 extra I pay now because I can't/won't do $140 habitually.

[Bartman]

Why should enduro be any cheaper than a sprint, what rational can you have for this other than thats what you want. I get the fact that money is tight but how can we say you get practice and a 30min race for 90 and in the same breath say to someone else you get practice and 7 laps for 140.
So the question I want to ask is should the MRA subsidize racing or should everyone pay more or less the same for the same product? Should enduro just fall under the same pricing as all other racing, first race is a larger fee to pay for practice and all races added after that cost less the more you do.

[graphite675]

Let's say the first endurance was $90, which seems to be a price point most of us are comfortable with. Adding a sprint was half the cost of the sprint-only fee of $140, so another $70 (reasonable since we're not getting another set of practice sessions on top of that). That means $160 for one endurance + one sprint. Follow the standard $60/30/20...n additional sprint model from there. I would go for that, and +$70 is more than the $0 extra I pay now because I can't/won't do $140 habitually.

But this isn't really fair to the sprint only racers. You would get 2 races for $160 (one of which is a sprint) and the the guy that runs sprint only is going to be paying $40+ dollars more for his 2 races. Why should the sprint racer be penalized for Not doing a endurance race? If this was the case I would probably drop a sprint class next year in favor of the endurance + sprint.

I'm for either keeping endurance it's own "cheap" class and you pay the same as everyone else if you want a sprint, or make all classes equal cost. Flat fee for first race, second, third, etc.

Honestly I would like to see the entry fee lowered across the board next year but I know that won't happen. I think that is the only thing that will bring more people to the grid right now. Raising the cost even a little in this economy is only going to drive more folks away IMO.

.
.

[Bartman]

Lets look at a brief history here, when we started enduro it was a fund raiser to buy airfence and nobody just ran it by itself we all ran sprints and then enduro so no worries. Later it became a class unto itself but you were not allowed in the morning practice unless signed up for sprints and you had a 15 min endro only practice, not enough practiced the enduro only practice so we nixxed it and allowed those few to do the normal practice in the morning. Now we have a boat load of people running enduro only and why not you cannot get cheaper track time but it was never intended to be a only race kind of deal with free practice. It has morphed into something it was not suppose to be and we need to get more in line with what everyone else is paying.

[rforsythe]

Why should the sprint racer be penalized for Not doing a endurance race? If this was the case I would probably drop a sprint class next year in favor of the endurance + sprint.


What's been stopping you from doing it already? Shit, you can do 2 endurance races for less than the price of one sprint now.

People don't do that because there is different energy in a sprint race than endurance that some like more.

And yes endurance has turned into "something different", but is that so bad? It's a big grid draw with some entertaining racing, probably largely due to the fact that it's cheaper.

If you are actually suggesting making it the same price as sprints, then either you're going to make an endurance race $140 which will decrease the grid, or make the first sprint $90 and raise endurance to keep in check with that. Or just recognize that maybe having an interesting class with a different dynamic, that draws racers in for some good clean fun, is not such a bad thing after all.

Yes I want it to stay cheaper, Bart. :lol: That should have been relatively evident by now. But it's not entirely because I am just a cheap bastard. I see some intrinsic and unique value in having it that way.

[T Baggins]

Aside from the fact that I don't have the endurance to race for 30 minutes... I don't see endurance an a "superior product" or "better value".

You practice first thing in the AM, but don't race till the end of the day - and your races are oftentimes shortened because of the mayhem earlier in the day.

You race in a two-wave race where you're constantly interacting with riders who have nothing to gain by "racing" you but don't have the sense to let you by if you're not in their class.

The faster riders lap the slower guys 3+ times in the race, which is precarious at best (for both parties), imo.

If you want to do more than one, you get about 10 minutes to rest in between races.

This, in my mind, is a different sort of value - and appeals to a different sort of rider mindset.

In a perfect world, you would ONLY race against people who have a dog in the fight, and nobody would get lapped (as lappers can either split the leaders if the leaders are polite, or the lappers can get taken out if the leaders are less polite).

I know people wish racing was less expensive, but really, do you really think that really a $10 - $30 increase (using some of the examples given...) in entry fees per weekend will really be the deal breaker for most guys? Really?

That's a total of $70 to $210 for THE ENTIRE YEAR in entry fees, and we're scheduling one fewer round so it should be a net positive for the riders as far as total cash outlay.

Bottom line is we either need more racers at the same fees, or more money from the current racers.

The cost to put the events on are pretty "non-negotiable" and so we have only rider entry fees to rely on for paying the way. Spectators help some, but are the smallest portion of our event income consistently.

[Bartman]

You can do 2 enduros for cheaper than one sprint, this is the core problem for me. It was never intended to be this way and the amount of track time has continued to increase without the increase in fees that should have come along with the track time.
Endurance was intended to be a class added so the price structure reflected that, it assumed you were already running sprints and it cost just a bit more to add a endurance because it was a longer race and that is why it was not just the next class added.
It never should have morphed into a walmart discounted supersized meal off of the dollar menu.
It is different racing than sprints but that does not mean it should be half price, will we loose a few if we charge what the race is worth maybe but we cannot give racing away, the cost of a weekend is not going to go down for the MRA so we need to make sure everyone pulls their own weight.

[graphite675]

I know people wish racing was less expensive, but really, do you really think that really a $10 - $30 increase (using some of the examples given...) in entry fees per weekend will really be the deal breaker for most guys? Really?
.

$10 not a big deal, $30+, I think that will be a deal breaker for some and may prevent new entries, absolutly. Obviously the hardcore racers will continue you will loose some people for sure.

I know it's only $10-$30 increase per weekend but it's not just the racing cost. Add that to daycare cost for my kids just went up by $40 a week. My taxes went up, grocery cost is going up, etc etc. it all adds up to a bigger picture of people having less and less "hobby" money.

I don't claim to be a business man but I would think it is better to lower the price and draw more people. Is it better to charge $200 and have 5 entries or charge $150 and have 10 entries?

.
.

[Bartman]

Only problem is will more people come if we lower fees, we can't know that so we lower fees the same or fewer come and it still costs the same to put on a weekend we are out of buisness in one or two rounds, is there any buisness that is charging less out there?

[Blue Junk]

... is there any buisness that is charging less out there?

Yes, lots. In fact even more than that... Sorry, maybe you weren't serious.

[sheispoison]

I agree with Bart. There's no reason that endurance on it's own should be that cheap. I like the idea of raising the cost a bit for endurance only and maybe lowering it a bit if you couple it with sprints. I'm sure there's a happy medium somewhere in that.
carl

[T Baggins]

I don't claim to be a business man but I would think it is better to lower the price and draw more people. Is it better to charge $200 and have 5 entries or charge $150 and have 10 entries?

In a market where you have an infinite number of potential customers, then yes I think that works. We don't have that luxury, we have a very small, captive clientele.

If we cut the fees by half (for example) then we'd need twice as many racers to sign up just to break even. That will never work when already 75% of the active membership is showing up on average. Even if we cut it by 25% as in your scenario - our best possible return is only slightly more than the discount - and only if it entices EVERYONE to attend ALL races.

We have something like 185 "regular" licensed racers (meaning they race our series primarily, and aren't once a year out of towners...) and our average turnout is about 130+/- riders.

The likelihood of a fee reduction resulting in all the other riders showing up at all the races is small. Not everyone is fully committed to a full season, regardless of cost.

Really what we need is more racers, and more MRA members doing EVERYTHING they can to attract people to our series as spectators, SuperStreet, and ultimately new Racers.

In the meantime, the guys who are hard core are gonna have to step it up if they want to see the MRA continue to succeed.

[graphite675]

Really what we need is more racers, and more MRA members doing EVERYTHING they can to attract people to our series as spectators, SuperStreet, and ultimately new Racers.
.

I guess this is all a catch22?

I will say that most people I see on the street and ask, "hey why not come out and try a race" The general response is "it's too expensive" so is raising entry is only going to put them further away from trying?

I'm just throwing ideas and thoughts out there, I really don't know what the right answer is but I keep thinking raising cost is only going to hurt our numbers?



.

[jmaher]

Initial start up costs (the bike especially) held me up. I think many beginners question if they want to put 4k into something they may turn into scrap or simply not enjoy the sport. I could be wrong, but if $1.5k - 2k bikes were easy to be found, perhaps that might get a few more people out there?
Regarding an earlier comment about endurance being good practice, that may be but for me it is a race that I try as hard at as sprints.

Joe

[random hero]

Random thought.... What about combining the endurance class, and lengthening the race, accompanied by a entry fee increase? I'm not knocking our endurance races... but is 30 min really an endurance race?

I for one am a BIG fan of endurance, from a personal standpoint I'd love to see a shift towards a team or solo style, 60-90 min races. Get some competitive grudges going, smack talking... the fun stuff :) I think it would be sucessfull, who knows. From having a "team" standpoint it would be fun... for the guy who just show up to pay the $60 and do 1 race... maybe that would hurt them. But you might see some of the endurance only guys team up and have even more fun.... just a random thought.

[N1K]

That would be cool and then with the 4 hr. There would probly be more guys run for points this way and you wouldnt have to wonder if your gonna get that ten min. break or not between the two.

If this was not to change how bout you don't get the cheap pricing with out signing up for a sprint . So you would get a 3 pratice session,7 lap sprint and a 30 min endro for less then what it would cost you to run two sprints and now since you've paid the way in to sprints you might as well run another one.

[peteyt328]

I like that idea Luke. I'm sure this was already brought up, but I think the way they did endurance out in Utah was ideal. 1.5 hour race you could do team or solo, $50 charge for the extended track time only paid once per team or individually if you fly solo, then each racer just paid for it as if it were another sprint race. This does 2 things; keeps people from riding 2 days of morning practice and 30 min of race time for half the cost everyone else is paying for a 7 lap sprint race, and makes it affordable for people who are already signed up for 3 or 4 sprint races to add endurance. I have had interest in running endurance in our club but to pay $70 to add that when I could add another sprint race for $20 just isn't worth it. With this structure I could find two team mates, pay $35 total and get 30 minutes of track time. The question is, would this drive some of the people away that only run endurance because its cheap? I think most people that enjoy endurance would continue to run it, plus it would encourage some of these people to register for additional sprint races since they wouldn't be paying $120 to add a single race, but half that. I also think the option to do it as a team makes it more fun and would encourage some people to sign up that normally wouldn't.

This is just my $.02. I know we run things the way we do now for a reason and I'm sure the board members have considered these things before. I also know that some people will probably think this is a terrible idea, but I'm just trying to throw some ideas out. From a riders standpoint this format just seems to make more sense and nobody is getting "free" track time. It seems to me that the change in fees and the increase in entries for people who usually just do sprints would more than make up for any lost entries due to prices.

I would also hope that this may bring in enough extra money to keep the prices on sprint races where they are because we can't continue to raise the prices $10-20 a year. I know it doesn't seem like a lot but when we are paying as much as we do every race weekend, every little bit counts. Everyone keeps wondering why we are losing racers, then we proceed to jack the price up higher to compensate. What if we tried lowering the price as an incentive to bring out all those riders who are sitting on the sidelines ready to race but can't quite convince themselves that $250 is worth two hours of track time for the weekend. I know its a big risk to take as a club, but as an example, if we lowered costs $10 and that got one person to come out and register for 4 races, that would cover the drop in costs for almost 25 racers. If that got 5 people to come out we'd be making a profit. I know its different in Utah since Miller subsidizes the clubs racing, but for the last race they cut the practice fees in half since they were having issues with attendance, and they ended up with a really high turnout and I don't know anyone that didn't ride on Saturday. Was it enough to make up for the drop in costs? I dunno. Just another idea...

[peteyt328]

Wow, that was really long.. sorry!

[Munch]

Lots of good ideas floating, hopefully some stick in the end.

Any thoughts about a bring a friend discount? Make it something like they cannot have raced with the MRA in the last 2-3 years, and they can race for something inexpensive. This might draw some people back in that have the bike and gear, but have been out of it for a bit.

A second idea might be a refer a friend discount. While everyone should of course be promoting the club, but maybe a $50 discount off your license fees or something for every NEW member you get to sign up?

[T Baggins]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

It also addresses the disparity in cost for Endurance as they now pay more than previously, and the sprint guys pay less now than previously - for the first race.

Understand this could backfire in a big way, but I'm willing to consider something like this if it has support.

The average entry per rider is just under $180 for the year, which means many are doing just two sprints, and many are doing just endurance. If we bring up the cost of endurance, and everyone else keeps doing the same - that in and of itself will increase the average. Then if we have sprint guys add endurance cause it's only another $40 ... then that gets them more track time, and the club more money.

***Caution - riding the bikes is the expensive part of all of this... the more track time you have, the higher the cost to keep the bike running. Fuel, tires, maintenance are going to far outweigh the nominal extra cost in entry. So if you have a fixed budget, you're still gonna run out of money at some point - and quite possibly sooner if you add classes. Just sayin...

[peteyt328]

I agree, tires are and will continue to be my biggest expense every weekend. The more I ride, the more rubber I will need!

But you have my vote for that pricing structure, I think that makes more sense and will provide the club a higher net income per weekend.

Also, something I've been preaching for 2 seasons now and will continue doing so; I think we need to move Amateur GTO earlier in the day and it's not just because I race in that class. When I started riding almost every Novice would race both Nov races and both Am races and that is no longer the case. The Am races could potentially be our largest grid with all novices plus a handful of experts. I have talked to 15-20 racers as to why they aren't running Am O and its unanimous, the time is terrible. Now I realize nobody wants to stick around until the last race on Sunday, but the club is taking a much bigger hit having that class at the end of the day than if it were one of the smaller classes. If one of the Am races were before lunch Sunday, and one shortly after I guarantee we would see a big increase in entries for this class. I don't know how to push this any further since its not a rule change but if there's a way let me know.

[jeff healy]

I like the looks of it!

[rybo]

I agree with Tony -

The "too expensive" part of racing isn't just the entry fees.

I went to Miller this past weekend, and aside from being able to stay with friends for the weekend (cheapest) the cheapest part of that trip was the entry fees. I don't think that they alone are the barrier to participation.

Yes, some busineses are lowering their prices, but at what cost? Are they truly cutting into their profit margin, or are they substantially lowering the quality of their product to do so?

If the MRA could cut your entry fees $20 a weekend by hiring one ambulance instead of two, would that be acceptable? Do you think that it would ACTUALLY bring more people out to the track?

What if we cut the number of corner workers in half?

What I'm getting at here is that a small reduction of entry fees is possible, but only at a substaintial cost to the quality of the program.

I agree fully with Tony that reducing the entry fees is unlikely to generate a large increase in the number of racers, the market is already very very small - is $20 less the difference between 100 and 150 racers showing up? I'm pretty sure not.

Interested in really cheap racing? Get a ninja 250. Interested in cheap racing on a 600cc bike? Buy 99 R6, be eligible for a ton of classes and run take offs. Do the math and you're quickly going to discover that either of these two moves will save you more money than a reduction in entry fees ever could.

[gsnyder828]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

It also addresses the disparity in cost for Endurance as they now pay more than previously, and the sprint guys pay less now than previously - for the first race.

Understand this could backfire in a big way, but I'm willing to consider something like this if it has support.

The average entry per rider is just under $180 for the year, which means many are doing just two sprints, and many are doing just endurance. If we bring up the cost of endurance, and everyone else keeps doing the same - that in and of itself will increase the average. Then if we have sprint guys add endurance cause it's only another $40 ... then that gets them more track time, and the club more money.

***Caution - riding the bikes is the expensive part of all of this... the more track time you have, the higher the cost to keep the bike running. Fuel, tires, maintenance are going to far outweigh the nominal extra cost in entry. So if you have a fixed budget, you're still gonna run out of money at some point - and quite possibly sooner if you add classes. Just sayin...

Tony - I like the direction, but wonder if this is too much of a change/gamble at this time.

What would be nice is to see a sensitivity analysis of this and other options (like mine from a few pages ago, your original suggestion and some others) that looks at revenue impacts based on assumptions of net increases/reductions of endurance/sprint racers. Different suggestions may have the same net revenue outcome if participation doesn't change, but may vary wildly if participation does. Understanding the risk reward will certainly enhance the decision process.

Don't know if Dirk is looking at this - but I'd be happy to put that analysis together if he's not.

g

[monument mike]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...
=D>

Interested in really cheap racing? Get a ninja 250. Interested in cheap racing on a 600cc bike? Buy 99 R6, be eligible for a ton of classes and run take offs. Do the math and you're quickly going to discover that either of these two moves will save you more money than a reduction in entry fees ever could.
=D> \:D/

[dirkterrell]

Don't know if Dirk is looking at this - but I'd be happy to put that analysis together if he's not.

g

I am watching.I coach football and when the season is over in a few weeks, I'll be able to really dig into the participation analysis.

[graphite675]

I agree fully with Tony that reducing the entry fees is unlikely to generate a large increase in the number of racers, the market is already very very small - is $20 less the difference between 100 and 150 racers showing up? I'm pretty sure not.

.

I agree that lowering entry fee a little will not bring in Large numbers of riders but I am pretty sure raising the fees will definitely Lower the number of riders. $20 doesn't sound like a lot but every little bit helps. That may be the difference in someone adding a extra class or not?

I like what Tony proposed with the $100/$90/$40 etc. flat fee. It's the same we were paying last year but at least it's not a increase.


.

[JimWilson29]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

It also addresses the disparity in cost for Endurance as they now pay more than previously, and the sprint guys pay less now than previously - for the first race.

Understand this could backfire in a big way, but I'm willing to consider something like this if it has support.

The average entry per rider is just under $180 for the year, which means many are doing just two sprints, and many are doing just endurance. If we bring up the cost of endurance, and everyone else keeps doing the same - that in and of itself will increase the average. Then if we have sprint guys add endurance cause it's only another $40 ... then that gets them more track time, and the club more money.

***Caution - riding the bikes is the expensive part of all of this... the more track time you have, the higher the cost to keep the bike running. Fuel, tires, maintenance are going to far outweigh the nominal extra cost in entry. So if you have a fixed budget, you're still gonna run out of money at some point - and quite possibly sooner if you add classes. Just sayin...

Tony - I like the direction, but wonder if this is too much of a change/gamble at this time.

What would be nice is to see a sensitivity analysis of this and other options (like mine from a few pages ago, your original suggestion and some others) that looks at revenue impacts based on assumptions of net increases/reductions of endurance/sprint racers. Different suggestions may have the same net revenue outcome if participation doesn't change, but may vary wildly if participation does. Understanding the risk reward will certainly enhance the decision process.

Don't know if Dirk is looking at this - but I'd be happy to put that analysis together if he's not.

g

An analysis will give us some results to look at with the current pricing structure but would be unable to show us if those that only enter the endurance races would continue to do so with this proposed pricing change. It might actually take polling the membership or those that only run endurance.

[peteyt328]

I agree that there are cheaper ways to race but not competitively. I'm 6'2" - 200 lbs, I'd be dragging knee(s) on the straight on a 250! I could race a 10 year old bike on crappy tires and maybe do well in modern vintage but get whooped in everything else. I know bike isn't everything but at some point you start sacrificing lap times running crappy equipment, and then I might as well be doing track days. This is why we see so many novices complete their first season then fade away the following year. As you get faster everything becomes more expensive and contingency money is harder to come by. Not saying there is a solution to this but if I can't do well in my races than I will start riding a full day for $150.

[gsnyder828]

An analysis will give us some results to look at with the current pricing structure but would be unable to show us if those that only enter the endurance races would continue to do so with this proposed pricing change. It might actually take polling the membership or those that only run endurance.

Agree 100% - it would not show us *likelihood* of participation variation, as you describe above, but that's not the point of the analysis.

If done correctly, the analysis would allow each suggested pricing structure to be put next to each other and compared based on relative participation rate increases and decreases among rider groups.

The point of the analysis is to look at relative risk of each option. As you suggest - polling might help predict expected behavior (i.e. pricing elasticity), and that would certainly help in making an informed decision.

For example:
2 theoretical pricing structures (A & B) could be developed that drive the same revenue with current participation levels. But one of those, option A, may result in significantly less revenue than option B as participation decreases, while not producing significantly more revenue than B as participation increases. In that case - option A is much riskier than option B.

That's a simplified example... but hopefully that clarifies the intent of what I'm suggesting.

[T Baggins]

And now we're at the crux of the biscuit as Frank Zappa said...

This will show us what it does to revenue if current participation continues but does not predict well the change in revenue if participation changes too.

That's why the price for two sprints is unchanged, as it is the safety net. Endurance is our "upside potential" in this pricing scenario...

My non-official data says most people who do sprints do two, and most people who do endurance (only) do one.

So this is a non-increase for the two sprint guys, and a modest increase for the endurance guys. It promotes cross-participation into the sprints for the endurance guys, and vice versa for the sprint guys. If they can add endurance for $40 maybe they will??

What it doesn't tell us is:

how many will quit endurance at $100 (or will quit doing one of the two endurance - though the new entry fee for one is more than the prior entry for two... so it's still a cash-positive if people drop one)

My gut says 4 people will quit altogether, and two will drop one of the two.

how many will START racing (totally new guys) sprints if they're "only" paying $100 to do just one

My gut says zero people, as they can already do superstreet at this price.

how many sprint guys will add endurance, either as an additional race, or as a good value practice

My gut says 9 people.

how many endurance guys will add sprints now since the hurdle isn't as high to cross-over

My gut says 4 people.

how many sprint racers will drop down to just one race now since it's cheaper than before

My gut says zero, unless they go to endurance as a last-resort value race... and at least they'll be spending $100 now instead of $60, and they'll still have a venue to race in at a lower cost instead of quitting altogether.

[KFinn]

wow, your gut is amazing. Mine only tells me when I am hungry and when I shouldn't have eaten something that I did.

[rybo]

how many will START racing (totally new guys) sprints if they're "only" paying $100 to do just one

My gut says zero people, as they can already do superstreet at this price.



How many superstreet riders will be more willing to make the jump to racing if the cost for one race is the same as superstreet? What if it means that they get additional track time due to practice?

I'm starting to like this idea more and more --

[gsnyder828]

And now we're at the crux of the biscuit as Frank Zappa said...

This will show us what it does to revenue if current participation continues but does not predict well the change in revenue if participation changes too.

<snip lot's of tony's gut>


Tony - no, a sensitivity analysis will predict the change in revenue caused by variances in participation - up and down - for any given pricing structure. That's the point of the analysis...

I must not be explaining it well... but like I said, I'm willing to put it together if needed.