Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 151 to 160 of 160

Thread: Interesting Discussions Regarding the MRA Race Series

  1. #151
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    380
    as one of the "both endurance races" guys, i generally like the direction of this discussion (see previous comments), but the most recent proposal more than doubles entry fees for endurance only guys and that could be tough to swallow. that being said though, how about something pretty close to $100 for any first race, and then $90 for next etc, but give a slight break to those of us who race both endurance races, so if we do 2 our second endurance race is say $60. I know, Bart, same question, why should endurance guys get a break? Only because this is what the class is and has been since it's inception, a value product. Even if the reasons that endurance exists have changed since it was started, it still represents a different product than sprints...if endurance was so great then everybody would race it, but look at chris's grid...nov and am classes typically have as many racers or more...remember the endurance races are 2 classes combined for each race, that's why they are bigger grids.

    i've said this before in my previous comments that absolutely, endurance pricing has been too cheap and needs to get more in line with the other classes, but don't break out backs by raising our fees by over 100%. i love endurance and it's the reason i race...and i'll continue to do both back to back no matter what if i can afford it, even if sprints were cheaper. and what i've proposed is only giving a small break to those of us who race both (only a half dozen or so) and it still represents an over 50% increase in revenues from endurance racers, and that's not insignificant while still being good for endurance racers and reasonable for sprint racers.

    in number form:

    $40 increase for single race endurance racers = approx $2500 (~40 endurance entries total) revenue increase per race = $17,500 increase in revenue annually. add in the few of us who race a second endurance, you get an extra $360 a weekend and $2520 annually, so by this structure, just endurance racers alone will add $20,000 in revenue to the club if we keep the endurance entry numbers the same.

  2. #152
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    273
    This would mean you could add another 30 minute race for $40, or add a 14 minute sprint race for $60? If anything I think it should be the other way, not only is that more logical but it will encourage people to run sprint races and maybe increase the pathetic grid sizes in some of our classes. I know endurance has always been a "cheap" race, BUT like we've been discussing, its only cheap if that's one of your 2 or less races for the weekend. And this is one of the best ways for the clubs to make up its costs every race weekend. I guarantee we will lose a lot more racers by increasing sprint race costs than endurance...
    Pete Tabor
    MRA #599
    --------------------------
    Fun Center Cycles
    Sol Performance
    Speedin' Motorsports

  3. #153
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    seventh circle of board hell
    Posts
    1,100
    Endurance was not a cheap race when we started it, it was a race you signed up for after your sprints and it cost more than adding a sprint because it was a longer race. So please stop thinking endurance is a value class because thats not what it was supposed to be, it has morphed into a value class by mistake and we need to correct that.
    Is endurance a different race than sprints yes but by no means does that mean it should be cheaper, some lilke the rush of sprints some endurance but it is still track time and both should be charged the same.
    Some will say well now I will do a trackday instead but for me it is just not the same as a race and will never be a good substitute for a race.
    I like the proposed ideas above because it is fair to all and we may see better grids in the sprints.

  4. #154
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartman
    Endurance was not a cheap race when we started it, it was a race you signed up for after your sprints and it cost more than adding a sprint because it was a longer race. So please stop thinking endurance is a value class because thats not what it was supposed to be, it has morphed into a value class by mistake and we need to correct that.
    Is endurance a different race than sprints yes but by no means does that mean it should be cheaper, some lilke the rush of sprints some endurance but it is still track time and both should be charged the same.
    Some will say well now I will do a trackday instead but for me it is just not the same as a race and will never be a good substitute for a race.
    I like the proposed ideas above because it is fair to all and we may see better grids in the sprints.
    =D> =D> =D> Well said Bartman

  5. #155
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    380
    bart, i guess i was either misinformed or simply read past posts incorrectly in assuming that endurance was always a cheaper race to enter than the others. as far as "thinking" it was a value class, it's not about thinking it, it simply was (is) because it has in the last few years been cheaper to race endurance than sprints.

    i do think though if suddenly endurance is priced up the same as all the rest of the sprints, the club is going to lose a lot of endurance entries. not mine necessarily, but if the club is trying to figure out how to increase revenue and increase the numbers of racers, increasing the price of endurance to equal of sprints will not likely have the effect that the board is looking for, which is to increase revenue. but then again, maybe it does, i don't know. but if the increase in price is offset by a decrease in racers, then the club comes out the same and the revenue problem is not solved. what i proposed was what i thought was a good balance between raising revenue and also getting endurance close to the price of sprints, while not suddenly raising one group of racers fees by double or more. and again, the rough numbers i proposed have the potential of adding $20k in revenue to the club while still hopefully keeping endurance racers in the fold.

    i guess the question to the board is this, and the answer should dictate the cost to race endurance: simply, does the board want endurance to be priced the same as all the other races, or does the board want to leave it as a slightly less expensive option to sprints? if the board wants it to be priced in line with the other races like you think it should be, than by all means, this discussion is mute and the board should just raise the fees.

    but the issue before the club is how to best raise revenue, not how to be most "fair" to sprint racers. of course, these are tied together because of the endurance pricing, and again, what i proposed earlier is simply giving endurance guys a minimal break on their second race. my guess is that if all of this was reversed and sprints were historically cheaper, and the club was proposing raising sprint fees by over 100% if you raced 2 sprints, holy shit there would be some uproar. maybe if the goal is also to get endurance priced the same as the other racers, perhaps it could be a phased increase so that next year it goes up by x% and then the next year it goes up a bit more, so that eventually all the races come out about the same.

    but i do want to add that a lot of people seem to equate minutes of track time with cost, so by this logic, endurance should cost twice as much as sprints right? so i think we need to lose the laps per minute argument because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context.

    bottom line again, i think all endurance racers are ok with a pretty significant price increase based on people's response on the forums, but don't put the entire financial burden of increasing revenue on the endurance racers. raise endurance fees by 50% or whatever, raise sprints by $5 or whatever feels right and go for it and see where the chips fall. if endurance entries stay the same, then clearly it was a good decision. if revenue stays flat or doesn't increase as much as it needs to next year, obviously revisiting the issue will be necessary.

  6. #156
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    61

    So far this discussion (which is great) has been about price

    I don't want to hijack this thread. At some point I hope we discuss some of the other approaches to building the MRA. Taking care of the Board members, the faithful racers who make up the core of this club is IMHO the first priority. Getting the incentives right so the club can generate income and not turn away racers is very important. Next, and some folks have already alluded to it, are there ways to increase the number of events each racer signs up for and/or increase the number of new (either new to the event or an out and out newbie) to sign up. Part of this would entail getting SuperStreet riders to get a license and start racing. Each of these internal marketing issues is separate. Newbies might be the easiest since their needs might be easily understood as new racers and reaching out to them might not be too hard. Get them to form a group at race school so each rider knows the name and email and bike class of his fellow classmates are riding. That way they can form a group and begin to attach to the club. Racers who start the racing calendar and then drop out or their interest peters out might be a different proposition all together. Looking at Chris Dale's sheet is very interesting. Some classes lose riders by the second race and never recover eg HWEnd. Some classes lose riders by the second race and do recover eg NGTU. I have no idea what's going on in these and other race classes but I don't think it's all financial or point races. Rider development is a tough thing and I don't think it's the MRA's job to do it but I do think we could do simple things to facilitate it. As I said, I'm not sure this response belongs in this thread but I hope we get around to talking about it.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    395
    2/3 of the poeple that voted in the endurance poll favored a longer, more traditional style endurance race. If this was the trend w/the entire club is it something the board would consider changing for next year?

    I thought make it $125-150 for solo, and $300 or so for team. Maybe the #'s are off a bit, but it addresses the current price structure and would put more $$ back into MRA pocket.
    Luke, Semi-Expert #199
    2010 Ducati 848, 2005 GSXR1000
    STM Suspension, Sol Performance

  8. #158
    Resident T-Bagger Expert T Baggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between here and Elizabeth
    Posts
    5,164
    That's a good start Luke...

    but of the 22 who voted in your poll, only 16 people voted in favor of the change.

    There were 117 total endurance participants (not counting 4 hour only) - 59 people who did 3 or more endurance races this year (43 did 4+, 16 did 3+) - so you have about 10% of the participants votes in favor so far.

    Before we made a significant change such as this we'd need much more solid data from ALL of the endurance participants.

    I'm not against change, I just don't think you change the current structure when 16 of 117 vote yes.
    Tony Baker #21

    Sponsored by:
    Vickery Motorsports, Short Bus Race Team, 406 Racing Michelin, Vortex, PitBull, Driven, Third Bridge Wines, Imodium A-D

  9. #159
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by T Baggins
    That's a good start Luke...

    but of the 22 who voted in your poll, only 16 people voted in favor of the change.

    There were 117 total endurance participants (not counting 4 hour only) - 59 people who did 3 or more endurance races this year (43 did 4+, 16 did 3+) - so you have about 10% of the participants votes in favor so far.

    Before we made a significant change such as this we'd need much more solid data from ALL of the endurance participants.

    I'm not against change, I just don't think you change the current structure when 16 of 117 vote yes.
    yeah, for sure... I just meant if overall (114 entrants) felt the same as the people who use the message board.. I don't expect 16 people to be the date behind a big change... just curious on your thoughts.

    You have any specific thoughts on it?
    Luke, Semi-Expert #199
    2010 Ducati 848, 2005 GSXR1000
    STM Suspension, Sol Performance

  10. #160
    Resident T-Bagger Expert T Baggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between here and Elizabeth
    Posts
    5,164
    My specific thoughts?

    I'm all for doing whatever the members will support in force, that improves our product and increases our cash flow! lol
    Tony Baker #21

    Sponsored by:
    Vickery Motorsports, Short Bus Race Team, 406 Racing Michelin, Vortex, PitBull, Driven, Third Bridge Wines, Imodium A-D

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting interview with Casey Stoner
    By Clarkie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 27th, 2011, 05:54 PM
  2. Interesting
    By Hollywood in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 31st, 2010, 09:20 PM
  3. Interesting telemetry
    By Munch in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 25th, 2009, 05:58 PM
  4. Michelin US Motorcycle Championship Race Series
    By Vanmar Racing in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 13th, 2009, 08:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •