Track access for some groups at Pacific Raceways

Bill Bonsell said:
.....There were over 50 cars total for the event......
Click to expand...

While it's a beginning, I don't think that number of entry's pays the bills. Especially when you consider they pay their workers. How many did they have per corner (1 maybe). And how well trained are they or, are they from a Temps Company? Did they have two ambulances? What about wreckers and push trucks?
 
Wow lots of opinions here.

First let me say when I saw the schedule for this race I thought 3 track sessions for a single entry......1 session on Saturday....really?

Well guess what IRDC tried something different and like my Father used to say " two things float to the top, cream and......

This schedule sure ain't cream.

So do I punish IRDC by staying home.......No way I am going racing and so should everyone else!

Now for a bit of simple economics:

1. If you do not cover your costs you either raise your prices, find alternate sources of revenue, or go out of business.

2. There is a limited amount of track time

3. There are a limited number of customers (racers)

These are facts.

ICSCC as a whole has embraced the concept of multiple race entries and Special Races as sources of additional revenue. The cost is less track time for our primary source of income the single entry racer. The benefit is lower entry fees for our primary source of income the single entry racer.

Ok so far?

Multiple race entries require sufficient time between run groups to turn the cars arround. Combine 3&6 and this goes away, along with some of the revenue it generates both in the form of second entries and primary 3&6 entries.....end of story.

Life and economics are not fair!

Is it fair that second entries are discounted? Or is it an economic necessity to keep single entry costs down?

Is it fair that NWMS is the only club that has offered Special Races for OW racers and all other groups offer only to closed wheel racers, or is it just an economic reality?

OW drivers are complaining:

No a single entry driver that has no opportunity under the current regulations to double enter, or enter a Special Race has started a thread pointing out the inequities of his situation.
 
Richard Broadhead said:
While it's a beginning, I don't think that number of entry's pays the bills. Especially when you consider they pay their workers. How many did they have per corner (1 maybe). And how well trained are they or, are they from a Temps Company? Did they have two ambulances? What about wreckers and push trucks?
Click to expand...

So most corners had 1 turn worker but others like 2, 4, 8, 9 had 2 workers and they had someone at turn 1. They had 2 tow trucks, they do hot tows and a set of flags for hot tows and we had one of them during our session. there were 2 ambulances (not sure if both were there all the time).

Some of the turn workers were ones that ICSCC uses, some I have never seen before, some were from North Cal. Most of the NASA staff was from North Cal.

Staging was done before the access road, with limited number of entries this was possible but would not work otherwise (as they did not have the hot pits or lower staging area staffed), so the hot pits was to come back into pits an go back out

I'm sure NASA has subsidized the start of NASA in the NW
 
Last edited:
FFRSpec72 said:
.....Staging was done before the access road, with limited number of entries this was possible but would not work otherwise (as they did not have the hot pits or lower staging area staffed), so the hot pits was to come back into pits an go back out.....
Click to expand...

Sounds like it was run more like a Proformance lapping day then a 'race' especially with only 10 actual race cars entered.
 
RB is correct 50 cars would not pay the bills. So it is simply a matter of how long NASA is willing to lose money in an attempt to gain market share, some of which will come from ICSCC.

NASA is a business means that at some point in time they plan to make money. To do that they either need to significantly increase the number of entries at their events and/or increase their fees. As their entries increase, the track time will decrease because they will be forced to run more groups.

The take always are they got 40 HPDE cars and demonstrated a more efficient way of getting cars on and off the track.

As clubs both ICSCC and SCCA are in the business of bringing their racers the safest racing, open to all groups of cars at a near break even (read lowest cost). Club margins are razor thin.......2 or three entries can make the difference between being in the black or in the red. At NWMS if we lose say 10 entries we are in trouble, big time, we lose 20 and we are done, so if an organization comes in and is willing to operate at a lose and they by doing so they sink us......well it is not a good thing, and I am pretty sure that driving clubs out of business will not result in better events.
 
Hi Bill - no I don't treat anyone who makes decisions about where to spend their disposable income a traitor - this is America and I absolutely endorse your right to free market capitalism with no hard feelings. Hope you don't think this is picking on you becasue I don't mean it as a negative but I think a statement that you made in your post needs to be explored a little just so we all understand the terms we are slinging around. You wrote:

If NASA's entry to the Northwest helps drive Conference, and even SCCA, to offer more value, then isn't that a good thing for everyone? And one more thing, I keep hearing the mentioning of NASA being a "business". Well what the H does that actually mean. It implies that I am a customer and I would think the "business" would strive to provide me a very good product. And isn't that what being successful is all about.

There is a very important distinction contained there that I want to make sure everyone understands.

A "FOR PROFIT BUSINESS" (NASA) operates with the intention of collecting more money than they invest producing their "product" (in this case a motorsports event). That money is then divided between the investors as a profitable return on their investment. They get signals from the market as to whether they are doing what their customers want that are measured in how profitable their products are. If they are losing money it indicates that their customers are not sufficiently interested in the product they are producing so they need to revise it to increase interest or suffer failure as a business. THis typically comes in the form of a loss of their investment along with a track record that would discourage new investors from participating.

A "NOT FOR PROFIT CLUB" (ICSCC) is a group of people that gets together with the intention of producing a "product" they want to consume that is specifically tailored to their own specific needs. Market signals as a clear direction for future strategy are typically not required because the people who are making the decisions on the product are also the consumers of the product so those things should be perfectly aligned. It's a group of people pooling their money so they can buy something that they would likely be unable to purchase alone. For the most part the "NOT FOR PROFIT CLUB" model is less expensive than the "FOR PROFIT BUSINESS" model because profit needs to be a substantial percentage of the cost to the consumer to make any "for profit" business work in the long term.

So this is seemingly the hardest thing for us to say and the hardest thing for those who are unhappy to hear and understand: If you as a club member are not helping make sure the decisions made are aligned with your desired outcome it is not the fault of those who have volunteered to take responsibility in your absence. Anyone abdicating the responsibility of being involved in decisions is considered to be in agreement with whatever decisions are eventually made otherwise it would be literally impossible to get anything done. It's a case of get involved or be prepared to be happy with what somebody else did for you. We beg for more widespread member involvement and actively seek input from outside of the ranks of those who toil selflessly to make it possible for the majority of members to just write a check and go racing, but we rarely get it until someone is upset about a decision we agonized over months before. I've personally spent HUNDREDS of hours taking more responsibility than I really wanted trying to make decisions intended to please the membership. Most of the time we read the needs of the majority correctly and everyone is relatively happy. Occasionally we misread the will of the club as a whole and it inspires some or all of the club to find their voice and tell us we've missed the mark.

The punchline? No, you are not a customer. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure it is a good "product" just as much as it is ours. I don't know who you think has a profit motive for giving you what you want, because none of us who are tasked with making and implimenting these decisions are paid a single stinking penny. We aren't a business that is competing for your patronage, we are YOUR REPRESENTATIVES striving to spend YOUR MONEY in YOUR CLUBS to produce YOUR EVENTS. By urging a "FOR PROFIT BUSINESS" to compete with the clubs you are suggesting that you want them to compete with YOU. YOU are a stakeholder and investor in your member club and in Conference. Decisions are not made in a vacuum - we WANT club input during the decision phase. This topic is getting a few hot comments on the forum but there were probably 6 or 7 people at our General meeting who weren't already a part of the group who have to be there for our Board meetings. LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE CLUB MEMBERSHIP ARE FORCED TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE OTHER 90+. Luckily, that 10% tend to be smart and passionate people who do a great job of stating much of what has been discussed here in a calm, professional, and reasoned manner - I want to say thank you to those people because their input is vital. I even want to thank those who post here for taking the time to let us know what you are thinking - whether it is positive or negative.

A last thought and one of the biggest reasons a "FOR PROFIT BUSINESS" like NASA is different than a "NOT FOR PROFIT CLUB" like IRDC. To be taken seriously a real business must make plans and appropriate investments intended to continually grow market share and profitability. If your club suffers low entries and monetary losses they will eventually stop hosting events because there is no profit motive involved to make investors endure continued monetary losses. When the Clubs and Conference are forced to reduce or cease operation due to low participation it is a signal for a business like NASA to start raising their prices in the face of reduced competition which in turn raises their profitablilty. That will be good for their investors who want to maximize their profitability but bad for amateur racers in the region. Once you control the supply, the price is what the market will bear. Some of you certainly remember some college macroeconomics and the supply and demand curve. There is a point at which price and overall units sold maximizes profit and that point is pretty much never at maximum number sold and/or lowest possible price. Don't fool yourself - NASA wouldn't even consider running OW groups at their current level of participation in a for profit business model unless they could be run in the same groups as CW.

Again, no offense Bill you and I have always gotten along well and I hope that continues - appreciate your comments, I just think you might be missing an important aspect of club membership.
 
Last edited:
And just to pursue one of the points Rick's made: In a for-profit business, the OW numbers we've seen over the past several years (regardless of which side they factor into a cause/effect analysis) would've meant G3 and G6 would've gotten combined long ago, if both not actually eliminated completely. Between the not-for-profit nature of the clubs in Conference and the fact that so many in leadership positions (both at club and ICSCC levels) have been actively ensuring that OW racers have a place to compete in Conference, there is still hope for OW in the NW.

(Please not I'm NOT saying OW racers should be happy they have anything at all and shut up. We need more OW cars at an amateur level around here.)
 
You are correct Steve....NASA is living proof.

I will now put my historian hat on and relate a bit of history........many years ago NWR SCCA used to have regional races at PR ....SIR back then.....they looked at participation levels of sports racers and formula cars and decided that if they ran restricted regional with run groups for just IT, SS, Production and GT cars they could offer a better product to their racers and their success would be a given.........didn't work out that way. Somebody forgot that they either had to raise the price or find more race cars to make up for the lost SR and formula revenue. They ended up in Bremerton for regionals.

Same principles apply today. If you change the game by either eliminating, or combining race groups or even by just eliminating a track session there is a real risk that a loss of revenue will occur.......so you either need to magically make more cars appear or raise prices/cut costs.
 
OW is making a slow but steady come back, and that issue was shelfed until 2014 by the E-board, so no need to hash that out at this point in a new season.
I don't like Nasa- at all- so 50 cars for their first event makes me very happy. They do pay their workers, and traditonally have one person per corner, which is ridiculous, especially with large race groups. How do you handle comm and respond to an incident, with no back-up? Sounds pretty amateurish to me.
As far as the mess this coming week-end, I will bite my tongue and say nothing...
 
I'm heading out of town tomorrow, to Laguna Seca actually, but wanted to just respond to what Rick is saying. I will miss this weekends Pacific event, and yes, I would be there if I were in town with a lot of Pacific practice under my belt. And Rick, you certainly get the awards for longest posts. You are an active participant as few are. I have generally been active in most organizations I have been with...be it a condo association, a car club or whatever. And yes, 10% or less, do 90% of the work. Always seems to be that way. And I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

When Walmart and Home Depot moved into our little sleepy town of Poulsbo, all the merchants including the little hardware store and all the local businesses downtown were sure they were going to be driven out of business. Or at the very least see a significant drop off in sales. Well, it's been several years now and the hardware store is still doing great and the specialty stores that line Front Street on the water seem to be carrying on. They have made some changes perhaps. Focused a bit more on the customer experience, etc....but the point is they adapted and might actually be in a better position today because their world changed a bit and they had to adapt somewhat...to become better!

Whether NASA becomes successful in the Northwest is a wait and see matter. And being a franchise business they probably have a pretty good business plan and no doubt have had some success to continue operating for the past 20 years. And as a business, they provide a product. We racers, and the many HPDE drivers they market to, are their customers. If customers like the product they will buy it. If not, NASA will fold up it's tent and move on. But, it's a free country and drivers will decide on any given event they put forth, whether they wish to purchase or not. But, they do fill a void to some extent. Their base customers are the lappers. In NORCAL they have huge entry numbers, upwards of 300 or more and they offer open passing everywhere in their HPDE4 level. They somehow make it all work and that's good for them. And they have a pretty healthy group of racers, but alas no OW racers so I understand how Wes feels for instance.

But Rick, you are mistaken to infer that I view myself as a customer of Conference. I understand I am a member of Conference not a customer. I still make decisions as to which events to enter, but I also understand I have as much voice as the next guy in determining how this club works. I am free to be involved, if only on this forum, and I can propose changes if I can garner enough support. That is the great thing about a member driven organization...don't like something, change the rules. Or get involved. Over the past three years one of the most consistent themes on this forum (and it is sad how few of our members actually post) has been the schedule. Racing time to be precise. Honestly, if NASA's presence here results in all the clubs coming together to improve the "traditional" single entry format, hey that's great.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I have thoroughly enjoyed every single Conference event I have entered since mid 2010! If I choose to enter a NASA event close to home, as some of our fellow Conference members did last week, it does not mean I prefer one over the other as some seem to want to imply. It is simply another opportunity available to me. To race closer to home. To better ration the money I have available. Heck, if I had tons of money I would race every chance I got...maybe even tow to California...or heck, why not all the way across country! Always wanted to race Daytona!!

Have a successful, safe and dry race weekend.

Bill-
 
Bill - Thanks for the positive post, wanted to make sure you understood the "you" kind of referred to everyone, not you specifically. Last thing I want to do is alienate ANY participant - we strive to be welcoming to all. I'm just feeling passionate about protecting club racing in the Northwest which is something I have invested a foolish amount of time and energy in and even that level of involvement is DWARFED by the efforts some of the real unsung heros.
 
Can we, should we, start a new thread about brainstorming race schedule ideas. This thread has derailed a couple times but it seems like the elephant in the room (bigger than the OW gorilla in the room) is the "race-time-per-dollar" argument.

I will start new thread, because it allows to procrastinate from getting real work done. :)
 
Bill

When I was a kid our family owned the Ideal Drug Store in Ashland, Oregon. My parents, my sister and I all worked hard, especially my father (11 to 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week, closed Christmas and Easter). A large discount chain with pharmacy moved in and took 25 % of our cash flow, because they were prepared to operate at a loss to take market share and they only stocked high volume items ( does this sound familiar). We survived, made less money and the sale value of the business was reduced just when my parents were ready to retire. Instead they got to work for several more years......." to become better ! " was not how my parents would have described the experience. Just because the doors are still open does not mean a business is doing great......unless the market somehow expanded they are probably working harder for less......problem is with club racing is that we are already at harder for less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top