Interesting Discussions Regarding the MRA Race Series

[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???

[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

[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

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest..._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

[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

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest..._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?