Would you still go to Fort Macleod if it wasn't required for the championship?

[Reijo]

Actually you know something else we could do (that they did in San Diego and LA), is separate the groups into two days within the day.

e.g. 1/2 of the entries would run only in the morning and the other 1/2 would run only in the afternoon.  This would shorten the day for everyone.

There are some issues here ... It is an advantage to run on a cleaner track in the afternoon.  Weather can play a factor with rain etc. Some people want to run all day (LA/SD used to do X-runs ... e.g. you paid for two entrie.

Potentially we could do this at YYC also ...  It is nice to have shorter days.

Something to consider.

[Type_Yarr]

This past Saturday may have been a bit better had we not run into those timing issues/reruns too. We learned (maybe had to re-learn) that the right side USB port is not reliable, receiver line of sight, etc. Still not enough to have a normal lunch break and finish though.

Taking a quick look at the 2016-2017 event results, generally when there's more than ~40 entrants Ft. Macleod has ended up with a late lunch and late finish, regardless of start time.

I agree with Reijo that we should consider shortening the overall course times to match the number of entrants at Ft Macleod. The apron offers around 20-25 second overlap, but historically it's been used to extend the course length rather than maximize the number of runs. I know it used to be a selling feature of Ft. Macleod that the course length and speeds were more similar to national level courses, but maybe we need to take a closer look at managing the event schedule for up to 60 drivers. If fewer show up we can always get more runs in. Quicker setup/tear down. Win-win.

We could also look at running 3 runs groups with no break if we are at 60 entrants, but that gets tricky to maintain a 5min gap, classing, etc.

[Type_Yarr]

I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.

If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?

One thing to consider would be the potential to further entice the YYC-only crowd (those that already never go to Fort Macleod, and maybe only come to Calgary a handful of times each season). Knowing that they could qualify for the season's championship by only competing in Calgary might push local attendance higher. Those that only come 3-5 times a year, may push to reach the minimum 7 events if the championship is on the table.

One thing that was noted in the meetings when this year's schedule was being planned, we seemed to have saturated the YYC-only demand with too many events in late 2016 and through 2017. The attendance seemed to spread out between the events rather than stay steady or increase. I think that may have contributed to this past Saturday's good turnout, there was pent up demand for an event, regardless of venue.

[94boosted]

You guys are talking about a slightly different question than the one I asked.

I agree that it's important that the club take measures to ensure that we continue to have access to the Fort Macleod lot in the future. I agree that Fort Macleod gives us useful practice on high-speed elements which aren't really feasible on the YYC lot. And I expect that, if we waived the requirement to attend Fort Macleod events, fewer people would go.

I would personally probably attend fewer Fort Macleod events if the requirement was waived, as they're long days, and the weather is often punishing. I'm not arguing (at this time) that we should waive the requirement, though. Instead, I figured I'd post this poll to see how much waiving the requirement would reduce attendance. We can't really have an informed decision about Fort Macleod without knowing this.

It's possible that there would be enough attendance to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events if the requirement was waived. There are some people from Lethbridge and southern Alberta for whom Fort Macleod is the most convenient site, some people like the venue on its own merits, and some people just want all the seat time they can get. If we're able to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events without the requirement, I'd argue that we should waive the requirement, so that the people who most enjoy and/or benefit from the events the most would fund the site's lifeline, instead of forcing people who might not otherwise go to do so. Right now the poll results suggest that we'd still have enough attendance even if the requirement was waived.

If waiving the requirement meant that there wasn't enough attendance to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events, I figure there would be two options. The first option, which has been the default up until now, would be to keep the championship requirement. The second option, which I don't know has been discussed, would be to waive the requirement anyway, accept that some Fort Macleod events would be run at a loss, but continue to run them anyway as a strategic investment. I think that option's worth considering.

One last thing: I posted this in the SASC Events forum, but someone moved it to the private Member Discussion forum. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, and thus that there's some motivation to keep the discussion quiet. Having said that, keep in mind that having it in a private forum means that casual attendees won't have a chance to weigh in, so the poll results will be skewed.

What the polls show vs. what would actually happen are two different things, however we could take a vote on this at the AGM to see what the majority of members would like to do in terms of events at FM.

With the loss of Ghost Lake as a winter driver training venue our revenue has decreased substantially, we currently have a healthy reserve but expenses keep growing and the club does have some short-medium term ideas for equipment we'd like to acquire (trailer, announcing equipment, pro-solo equipment etc.). It's getting harder to keep things in the black and having to knowingly run events at a loss wouldn't help that.

I find it interesting that we seem aware that there are many reasons people would have to NOT go to FM but still feel it's ok to marginalize the club championship by making it a requirement to incur more costs and more time to do an event. For those that don't feel its miserable, that's totally fine...they'll go without the championship requirement.


I am curious though the reasoning behind the fear the venue would be lost if we weren't there once a month. If they don't like us, having a break or cutting back the events would be a good thing. If they do like us, having us back shouldn't be an issue. Further, even if we feel we need to book the events, the city doesn't care who shows up...less people less noise. Making money at every event is not a requirement. The SASC profits have to be spent on something and subsidizing events to keep a venue is a valid cost. How much $ is in the bank at this time?

We feel that asking people that want to participate in the championship to make the trek down to FM twice between April - October isn't that big of a stretch. The venue isn't ideal, we can't have much overlap and yes it's often windy but 3 years ago it was the best thing we had and chances are that in 1-2 years it will again be the best thing we have.

I don't believe that we'd lose the venue, I believe that if we went down to say one weekend every two months we'd be hard pressed to get back to one weekend per month let alone the two weekends per month we will almost certainly need again in a year or two. We've put in a ton of work over the last few years to try to work with the town of FM to become better users of the site (sound policy, port-a-potties, appreciation day, etc.), we've worked to make it clear to the town that we are respectful of their concerns and we can be good tenants, my fear is that if we come across as having a sort of cavalier we don't really need your venue now but will again in a year or two attitude I don't think it will bode well when we inevitably ask for more dates.

[94boosted]

I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.

If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?

One thing to consider would be the potential to further entice the YYC-only crowd (those that already never go to Fort Macleod, and maybe only come to Calgary a handful of times each season). Knowing that they could qualify for the season's championship by only competing in Calgary might push local attendance higher. Those that only come 3-5 times a year, may push to reach the minimum 7 events if the championship is on the table.

One thing that was noted in the meetings when this year's schedule was being planned, we seemed to have saturated the YYC-only demand with too many events in late 2016 and through 2017. The attendance seemed to spread out between the events rather than stay steady or increase. I think that may have contributed to this past Saturday's good turnout, there was pent up demand for an event, regardless of venue.

Good point Richard, and I'll add that the break-even costs for YYC are substantially higher than they are for FM (think 55 people plus).

[Reijo]

I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.

If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?

I am curious why you have not enjoyed ANY of the FM events.  I have not heard that kind of comment before.  You can PM me if you like if you don't want to discuss here.  I'm curious to know why.

This year we booked 16 events at YYC vs. 12 or so last year exactly for the reasons you mentioned.

Something else I have been mulling about recently is having practice events on Tues./Wed. (usually the best evening for most people) evenings at YYC so people can get more seat time.  These would be open to anyone.  The evening rental rate makes it more palatable ($500 vs. $1500) and viable with less people.

There also seems to be more demand for another RASE school so I'm thinking about that also....fyi.

Note that evenings are getting shorter with daylight ... although there are lights in the lot....so this may not work later in the year.

Reijo

[PedalFaster]

Out-of-the-box idea for maintaining Fort Macleod event counts -- have we talked with the LSCC about co-sanctioning more events? If we bring funding and equipment, and they bring some attendees who might not otherwise attend, perhaps we could maintain the same number of events and similar levels of participation without making the events mandatory for the SASC championship.

[Bitters]

I am curious why you have not enjoyed ANY of the FM events.  I have not heard that kind of comment before.  You can PM me if you like if you don't want to discuss here.  I'm curious to know why.

The risk reward element of the long drives down for potential few runs, marginal weather (both wind and rain) seem worse at FM than at YYC.

I personally feel YYC is a safer venue, as we usually have ample run off room compared to FM where going off the tarmac can lead to more car damage (I've taken both my cars off the pavement at FM now).

Highway driving, while usually okay, also poses potential consequences (took a chunk of asphalt to my hood this season on the way down to FM).

Bring out the tissues for this one, but, I also feel like I've never had a good set of runs at FM (either off pace days, or tons of cones). Obviously, that's on me as a driver, but not putting together a good day in all the times I've been out last year and this year usually leaves me frustrated after a long day to attend the event.

[Cagare]

I voted that I would attend fewer events in Fort MacLeod.

I am on the same page as others, as Saturday I had to be up before 6am, drive down, get 3 runs in and turn around and come back, and if I left after that I would have been home at 4:30pm or so. I stayed to get a few more runs, because well it was Saturday, and if I left after we tore down I could have been home for 7pm. I stopped to eat, because it was late, so I did not get home before my daughter went to bed.

Back in 2015, when all we had was Westerner and Fort MacLeod, I thought nothing of it, because well there wasn't a choice. The YYC lot has been spoiling me since returning this year because I can get up around 7am, and be home for dinner with my family. I can tell you as my kids are growing I am starting to think about the time I don't get to spend with them, and I don't see them at all when I go to Fort MacLeod.

Don't get me wrong, I like the venue at Fort MacLeod for it's differences from the YYC lot, but I will likely only attend 2 events per year there, and if the requirement is taken away. It may happen that I even reconsider that, depending on what is going on at home.

We all have to get up early, that come from out of Town, I would support starting earlier than we do right now if it meant we got a few more runs and got done earlier potentially. Run a tight clock on those events. The other thing that was discussed is practice days, I am more likely to attend a weekend with a practice built into it on Saturday, but I would strongly suggest that those make the most sense early on in the season before other major events, and while the excitement is still there at the start of the season.

Next year, I would like to go to Packwood, Nationals, and events like Top Gun in Montana, maybe Spring Nationals in Lincoln also. With those kinds of trips I want to be strategic in my time away, and my family may join me for a few of those kinds of trips.

[Pat S]

Several complaints are about the venue (commute, weather, whatever), we can't do anything about that but I think we could improve upon running the events more efficiently (any time a car isn't on course is time spent on stuff we're not specifically here for). Just throwing out some ideas of varying feasibility:

I think this starts with getting the course set up completed earlier as there's a lot of people standing around waiting for course walk. I'm not sure what the limiting factor is here, maybe more volunteers on setup?

Make sure the first car leaves the start right at 10:00, I think we started around 10:20 which doesn't seem like much but 20 minutes is a lot of runs.

Switchover time is generally long due to the distance from the turnaround. Everybody would have to work together on this to cut it down (i.e. use 4 seater cars to shuttle and pick up people on the way in). Make sure cars are ready to go too, so you can get to your car hop in and move to grid.

Course design: Could we do something to make more course near where the pits are to lengthen the time on course with two cars running? Ideally, you would want the sweeper to be the midpoint of the course. Moving the pits to the end of the runway might gain some real estate to make this work, but the cable is still there. I'm not very familiar with what goes into course design, it may be too tight to throw another element or a figure 8 in there.

Is there a way to improve on lunch break? If everybody packed a lunch it could be shortened, but does that appeal to everybody or would they rather the break?

Just throwing out some ideas we can build off of.

For my $0.02 on whether or not I would attend more or less events, I would probably attend the same but feel I get better value out of YYC both in dollars and hours when for $10 more on a much shorter day (commuting from Calgary) I can get up to 10 runs vs 5 we got this weekend.

As an aside, attitude goes a long way here too; keep in mind that you're there to have fun and hang out with some people with similar interests, enjoy the time there and remember that the end goal isn't just to rush home at the end of the day.

[94boosted]

Out-of-the-box idea for maintaining Fort Macleod event counts -- have we talked with the LSCC about co-sanctioning more events? If we bring funding and equipment, and they bring some attendees who might not otherwise attend, perhaps we could maintain the same number of events and similar levels of participation without making the events mandatory for the SASC championship.

Definitely something that we can discuss with them and gauge appetite.

[Dr Dave]

If part of the issue with FM is ensuring the facility is rented often enough by the club to keep the city happy. I would be more than willing to organize a test and tune, practice day (or two) next year for club members. With my B-Mod whenever I make any changes I have to go to a solo race to find out if the change was positive, at a solo race there are very limited changes I can make to the car (time constrained), if I made a change at home and it was negative the whole solo race day accomplishes very little for me. Last Friday was worth more than 6 solo race days in setting up my car, not to mention the driving practice. Plus being able to scrub in a set of A-92 Avon’s. I looked into renting Castrol and Wetaskiwin and they would be more than three times the price of FM, for only a couple of hours, on my budget there’s no way.
With a small number of test and tuners say 6-12, the only the question would be how much profit would the club want? The club’s timing equip, and pylons would be used so the club deserves something.
Lastly, last Saturday was brutally hot and standing out there watching cones for a couple of hours was not pleasant, fortunately I was watching car’s racing so it was enjoyable in its own way. I’m curious if it would be allowable at a 2 or man station, for the person manning the radio to be a little bit further back and be allowed to sit in a lawn chair, the station members could take turns. My feet were really hurting by the end, mind you I am getting up there in age. I don’t think this would work at YYC as you are pretty close to the action and there’s no place to back away to, unlike FM. Not a big deal, just a curious thought.
#forthegloryofFMod

[Reijo]

I am curious why you have not enjoyed ANY of the FM events.  I have not heard that kind of comment before.  You can PM me if you like if you don't want to discuss here.  I'm curious to know why.

The risk reward element of the long drives down for potential few runs, marginal weather (both wind and rain) seem worse at FM than at YYC.

I personally feel YYC is a safer venue, as we usually have ample run off room compared to FM where going off the tarmac can lead to more car damage (I've taken both my cars off the pavement at FM now).

Highway driving, while usually okay, also poses potential consequences (took a chunk of asphalt to my hood this season on the way down to FM).

Bring out the tissues for this one, but, I also feel like I've never had a good set of runs at FM (either off pace days, or tons of cones). Obviously, that's on me as a driver, but not putting together a good day in all the times I've been out last year and this year usually leaves me frustrated after a long day to attend the event.

Boy, that sounds like a whole lot of bad luck! 

In all the years I drove between Calgary and Lethbridge (lived down there for over 5 years), I once hit a couple of partridge with my car ... broke the metal grill in my '70 Chev on my way back from skiing at Lake Louise and one of them lodged inside the grill ... only incident.

As for rain?  Typically they get almost 30% less rain than Calgary and when it rains it does not last long typically.  So perhaps more bad luck/timing? 

However, it is certainly windier down there especially during chinooks due to the Crowsnest corridor which acts like a big tunnel.

Reijo

[Wayne Dyck]

At this point in time, 9 events into the 14 event Championship, I feel it's inappropriate for the SASC to even consider a change to this season's attendance requirements. That's a decision to be made pre-season, or at this year's AGM for next season.

My personal opinion is that it's too the club's detriment to marginalize attendance at Fort Macleod and risk losing it. A venue lost historically is never recovered.

Also my opinion that this year's Fort Macleod events have been below SASC standards. We can't do anything about the weather, but organizationally we must improve.
- First car out 10:00 sharp, means drivers meeting 9:30 sharp
- 40-50 sec course designs only

This weekend...
- First car out 10:26
- +80 sec course average
- ~4 hrs to complete 3 runs each
If...
- First car out @ 10:00
- ~40 sec course
- 3 morning runs completed @ ~12:00
- ~60 min lunch break
- 3 afternoon runs completed @ ~3:00
- Course cleanup, on the road by ~4:00
- Home by ~6:00

It's not rocket science!!

[Midnightsky]

At this point in time, 9 events into the 14 event Championship, I feel it's inappropriate for the SASC to even consider a change to this season's attendance requirements. That's a decision to be made pre-season, or at this year's AGM for next season.

My personal opinion is that it's too the club's detriment to marginalize attendance at Fort Macleod and risk losing it. A venue lost historically is never recovered.

Also my opinion that this year's Fort Macleod events have been below SASC standards. We can't do anything about the weather, but organizationally we must improve.
- First car out 10:00 sharp, means drivers meeting 9:30 sharp
- 40-50 sec course designs only

This weekend...
- First car out 10:26
- +80 sec course average
- ~4 hrs to complete 3 runs each
If...
- First car out @ 10:00
- ~40 sec course
- 3 morning runs completed @ ~12:00
- ~60 min lunch break
- 3 afternoon runs completed @ ~3:00
- Course cleanup, on the road by ~4:00
- Home by ~6:00

It's not rocket science!!

Maybe save the longer courses for practice events and put a cap on the number of entries allowed for said longer courses.