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.