Not that my opinion counts...but I think the start time is
of paramount importance to getting started right. Starting
at 9:45 to 9:50am is what started everything. I, for
one, also don't want to have to get there at 8am to drive
in group 8 and work in 6. If I am in the afternoon groups
I want to get there at 11 or so, change tires, register
and tech...and then compete and get 4 runs during the
summer. Some people drive a long way..and when you only
get 3 runs (or less)...it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.
What about starting at 8:30am? And yes, I will volunteer
for my share of early morning set-ups if this comes to being.
I am an earlybird so I have no problem with helping at this
earlier time.
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.
Steve
CSP #147
Craig Boyle wrote:
>
> Rex: I hear that the local Golf club is going to cut
> the course down to 12 holes rather than 18, so they
> can accomodate more people :-)
>
> I'm not fundamentally against 3 runs - I would prefer
> 4 of course. But I do think we should have control
> over our events.
>
> Follow this line of reasoning Rex, tell me where you
> disagree:
>
> Time required for an event is made up of the following
> factors (in no order) :
>
> 1) Number of runs
> 2) Numbers of entrants
> 3) Overlap
> 4) Change overs/lunch/drivers meetings/reruns etc.
>
> Agree so far?
>
> Not much can be done improve 3) and 4). 25 seconds is
> a bout it and "stuff happens" sometimes that slows an
> event. SFR is as good as it gets for a regional
> operation.
>
> OK?
>
> Modifying time (more/less runs/people etc.) required
> for any one of these will affect event duration.
>
> OK?
>
> Currently, we control all variables except the number
> of entrants. See a light-bulb?
>
> OK?
>
> We know a super event chair can get maybe 275-300 cars
> through in a day.
>
> OK?
>
> On the same page?
>
> Now if we cut to 3 runs we will be able to get 275
> cars through. Problem solved?? I think not...
>
> OK?
>
> Parkinson's law is at work. It'll soon become known
> that you don't have to wait around as long as you used
> to to run an SCCA event. We'll start to get fields of
> 400, not 275. This logic is why more people show in
> the morning - they know they'll get all their runs.
> It's the same logic that means anytime a new freeway
> is built it's good for a few months and then gets
> jammed with traffic. Perversely, the people that got
> screwed were those that waited the longest and were in
> the smallest run groups. It'll be 5/2002 and we'll be
> having the same discussion about 2 runs, not 3.
>
> OK?
>
> So do we then cut to two runs? one run?
>
> No! - it's better to take control of what we can't
> control now. The one variable that's missing is number
> of entrants.
>
> OK?
>
> Almost every other facet of life: Golf courses, Ikea,
> tennis courts, airplanes, stadiums or whatever limit
> the number of people.
>
> OK?
>
> Limiting the number of entrants ensures that we will
> never have this discussion again as we'll have control
> over how long an event takes. Isn't that what we need?
>
> OK?
>
> Craig
>
> --- Rex Tener <rex_tener@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > At 01:59 PM 5/22/2000 -0700, Craig Boyle wrote:
> > >WHY NOT THREE RUNS: - Because runs aren't the
> > problem:
> > >A three run limit *does not address the problem*.
> > What
> > >determines the length of an event?:
> >
> > Runs are absolutely the problem. We should be
> > running three runs at all
> > events and fun runs when time permits.
> >
> > It is sort of amazing that three years later we
> > still are talking about
> > this issue when the solution is so easy and obvious.
> > No special
> > procedures, no change to our current format, it just
> > works.
> >
> > Oh well,
> >
> > --
> > Rex Tener
> > rex_tener@yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > http://im.yahoo.com
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
|