TWS event elimination reason?

[G-Man]

I originally posted this response in the "2004 Schedule" thread in the main forum but did not receive any response, either from Bryan, whose original post is referenced, or from any other current BOD member. It is my hope that by posting it here in the appropriate forum I (and other members who don't understand the base motivation for this very impactive change) might be able to get some input.

Bryan's original post and my response follows:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We had to cut one facility.
We didn't want to cut Oak Hill because we have too much investment in the track.
We didn't want to cut Hallett because it gives the Okies a couple of races.
Obvoiusly we wanted to add an MSR.

TWS was the only option.

I feel your pain, I live only 62 minutes door-to-track.

The other option was to run an 11 race series, but I think we'd all go broke(er) </div></div>Bryan (or any other current BOD member who might care to comment), can you provide some additional clarification so that I might be able to understand what the driving force behind this decision was?

We had to cut one facility.
Exactly what was the reason for this "cut"?

1.Fiscal? I was under the impession that the club was operating very comfortably budget-wise. I understand that track rental and expenses are more at TWS but isn't revenue correspondingly higher as well? Does the CMRA lose money at TWS events? If you have % profitability #'s for race event weekends at each track maybe those could shed some light on the BOD's motivation (if it is actually fiscally based).

2. Calendar? Taking a date away from TWS and adding a date to MSR certainly isn't going to solve that as a problem so I can't see that being the issue.

3. Safety? I think there are those that would disagree that from an endurance standpoint that MSR is safer than TWS. I would also state that the arguments regarding facilites and geographic concerns from South Texas members are spot on.

We didn't want to cut Oak Hill because we have too much investment in the track.
Exactly what is the ROI to keep throwing money into Oak Hill, a track that can't support big bike endurance now and can barely support current sprint grids #'s much less future grids.

We didn't want to cut Hallett because it gives the Okies a couple of races.
So what makes the wishes of the Okies of more concern than the South Texas members? What is the ratio of Okies to members in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Lousiana, etc.?

Obvoiusly we wanted to add an MSR.
Please help me to understand why it's so obvious?

TWS was the only option.
Many of us are trying our best to understand how this is the case. I myself just don't see it that's why I'm hoping to get some additional input.

The other option was to run an 11 race series, but I think we'd all go broke(er)
Did I miss the membership consensus that indicated that there are too many events in a year or that personal financial obligations were keeping competitors away? If financial expenditures are a deterring factor whether you race, the reality is that you picked the wrong hobby and changing tracks isn't going to solve that issue either.

Any insight into the process of making this decision would be greatly appreciated.

[Bryan Norton]

Gordon, I will let some other BoD members chime in here but I will try to best answer your questions.

The main reasoning is that we wanted a third MSR. If we did this and still wanted to run a 10 race series, we would have to eliminate one race at another track. We HAVE run 11 race series in the past, and these were poorly received.
We have had (at times) the best spectator turnout at MSR of any track. We have a friendly track management, an outstanding track layout/surface, good facilities, central location. We have had 55 team endurance grids. The BoD felt the majority of the riders would wish to add a third MSR race.

This track has the best available options for many reasons -
Can accomodate both Big Bike Endurance AND Mini Endurance (TWS does great for big bike but bites for mini)

Facilities are very good (showers, second level viewing, paved roads) It does not have the garages of TWS though.

Centrally Located - I do not have the statistics handy, but our rider base extends from Louisiana to Kansas. Draw a circle around the rider base and you land in Dallas (OK probably a bit south of Dallas)

Track Management friendly to racing - We are welcomed here.

Very good to excellent Spectator turnout - I think lack of promotion has slowed turnout numbers, but in the past we have had outstanding spectator turnouts

Future upgrades - Getting 3 dates next year will hopefully keep us on top. I do not know the status of the track extension plans, but they are supposed to extend the track to 3 miles. Dates are VERY hard to get here.
I hope our members realize that tracks like TWS and MSR fill up EVERY weekend. You can't just walk up to a track and say 'we want to race this weekend and that weekend' and get what you ask, unless you ask EARLY and push.

Fiscal reasons - I think Brooks has mentioned in the newsletter regarding fiscal status. For several years the club operated in the red. We are operating in the black now, but are not making money hand over fist. We are struggling to see how to fund electronic scoring for sprints.

Safety - I'm not going to dwell on it. Yes, I would like to see TWS move back the armco around turn 8a, but as I understand it they do not want to invest in it. I do not consider TWS 'unsafe' though.

ROI on Oak Hill - with the vested interest we have in the track, we get VERY good deals on track rental. From a weekend standpoint (and I don't have the financials handy, but I hope someone else can verify this) we make MUCH more profit from an Oak Hill race than from TWS.


We decided to keep the two Oklahoma races to keep a northern presence. We didn't want to lose an Oak Hill date. This left TWS as the odd track out. Since TWS cannot be run backwards, 3 dates stagnates the variety. If we run MSR counter clockwise/CW/CCW then you won't see the same track twice.

The BoD is human. We make decisions, and we try and make them in the best interest of the club as a whole. We may find next year that 3 MSR and 2 TWS wasn't the best idea, so we will adjust that in the 2005 schedule. you don't really know until you try it.

I know we have shaken a lot of things up this year. There will be a lot of adjustment all at the same time. Not every decision we make will be a gold star on the chalkboard. That is how we learn and make the club stronger.

[CYCLE 1]

Gordon,is it the distance to the races you dont like or losing a track you prefer. How many race weekends did you attend this year. Do you race minis , gt, endurance,sprints or a combination.
[img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif[/img]

[Walter Walker]

Let me add my .02 cents. As a rider I love TWS. I have raced there for a lot of years. I remeber when the padock area was dirt/mud and we only raced the 1.8 mile course. I have a picture of a young man named Hayden on a YSR going out for his first roadrace in the rain at TWS. OK I'm rambling. As an offical I hate it. TWS pushes our resourses to the limit. You don't want to know what it cost to to rent that track. Did you know in our rental contract we only get the actual track from 8:00am to 5:00pm. If we go over that time it cost $400.00 per hour rounded up to the next whole hour. Can anybody remember the last time we finished before 5:00? We have to use there med units and they stage where they want, regardless of what we want. Ask Sam McDonald what it's like to have almost hit a med unit that took off to a crash without being called. And you have no idea how many butt chewings I have taken from track managment over silly stuff. There are 15 corners to man, thats 6 more corners and 12 more corner workers than anywhere we go. Recovering crashed bikes is a pain, if not for Larry and the pushers it would be impossible. Turn 8A, enough said. PA system, never mind I'll shut up now. Look TWS is still a cool place to race, but why do we have to do the same schedule every year. Bottom line is the schedule is set. There is no way to change it now so lets go racing and have fun and see what 05 brings. [img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img]

[Daniel Browning]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
Since TWS cannot be run backwards, 3 dates stagnates the variety. If we run MSR counter clockwise/CW/CCW then you won't see the same track twice. </div></div>Bryan thats a really good point.. We have to remember that everyone rides on the same track, drives to the same track, goes over the same bump, cuts across the same patch, buys tires from the same 3 guys, pits in the same paddock, hates the same red dirt.. all odds are the same.. complaining about the drive or facilities is a moot point because everyone has to do it.. if someone can spend $20k on a new race bike does that mean its not fair? No.. Sure MSR pits aren't as nice as TWS.. but your still in the same place as everyone else.. Thats what makes it RACING.. take away all the similarities and we could just compare checking acounts and mileage driven and determine the winner.. but it doesnt work like that..

Thanks to the BOD for everything you guys do..
I guess Im done complaining about the crying.. Ill shut up now.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img]

[Brooks Gremmels]

Gordon,
I am not sure, just in principle, what the harm is in trying something different, i.e. scheduling a third race at MSR at the expense of one at TWS.
But, in terms of rationalization, I give you an example. Have you noticed that the announcer doesn't use the PA at TWS? That is due to the fact that track magt. refuses to unlock the equipment for our use. After charging the club $14,230.00 for track rental and an additional $875+/- as a gate percentage.
Our vendors are hassled at TWS, threatened with expulsion, for instance, for selling Nutech. Our riders and officials face the same treatment. At MSR, we have consistantly been treated with respect. The facilities are first rate and it is arguably the safest track we race on. The track can be run in both directions adding to the variety.
I went to Ronnie Lunsford, several months ago to tell him the BOD was contemplating trying a schedule with two TWS dates. I went to Ronnie because he is both from Houston and an avid endurance racer. I correctly suspected that he would prefer more, rather tham fewer races at TWS. I wanted out of respect to hear his thoughts and to explain the BOD's. The BOD will listen to the membership's opinions regarding the scheduling for the following season.
Brooks

[John Orchard]

Heya Gordon, I've had the same question as Scott on a number of occasions, what's your angle/interest?

In addition to pushing ridesmart on the message board, you usually always have an opinion on something, which is fine, but I'm curious as to what your interest is - I wasn't able to find you anywhere in the results and have never met you at a race weekend. In what way do you participate in the CMRA race weekends?

[G-Man]

Interesting since you've never asked me the question directly. Not exactly sure why it's even remotely pertinent to the topic at hand but I'm more than happy to answer.

I raced a couple events during the 2001 season till being sidelined with a broken hand that required surgury to repair and a job change. Haven't raced any during the 2002 season simply because my consulting business requires occasional weekend work and several event weekends fell on holiday weekends which I reserve to spend time with my wife and two children. As hard as I've tried I just can't convince the Mrs. that spending Easter Sunday at the track is an acceptable alternative to attending church and celebrating with our family.

I've got two questions for you then.

1. Is it your implication that my ability to try and understand the motivation/reasons behind this change is somehow limited because circumstances might prohibit the number of races I attend in a season? I've been unable to locate anything in the club's rule book or charter that even remotely references the # of races an individual attends dictating his input on this forum or to the organization in general; if I missed it please feel free to point it out to me. My stance is I payed the same amount for a CMRA race license as you did consequently I have just as much right to question how the club is run as you or anyone else in this organization does.

2. What is your issue with me or anyone else promoting RideSmart, a CMRA sponsor, on this member forum and exactly why is it relevant to this issue? If I've violated some kind of rule supporting an organization that supports the CMRA and it's racers then please show me the rules and I'll guaranatee you it doesn't happen again.

[John Orchard]

No need to get defensive there Gordon. It was a simple question, which you sort of answered. You say you haven't participated in a race weekend since 2001, so I am still curious what difference it makes to you if the BOD drops a round a TWS and adds one somewhere else?

Yes, we all pay the same amount for our license, but the guys who show up regularly year after year will always have more say in the way things are run. The BOD represent us all, but doesn't necessarily answer to any single one of us, yet the tone of your post is demanding of answers as if someone owes you something. Honestly, I took a little offense to your tone, especially from someone who hasn't been around in a couple of years, except on the BBS.

btw, a simple "ctrl+shft+f" took about 15 seconds to search for your name on the 2003 results pages.

-John O

[G-Man]

First of all I would like to thank Bryan, Walter and Brooks for their insite into this decision. I may not necessarily agree with all the reasons but at least I have a better understanding of some of the motivating factors in the decision.

Second, I never insinuated or promoted that my goal was to change this year's schedule, just to better understand the BOD's mindset since I don't ever remember being given the opporunity to express an opinion on this change prior to the BOD making the decision. Granted, Brooks did seek out the advice of Ronnie Lunsford (an excellent source due to both his current and previous CMRA involvement as both a racer and BOD member) but the reality is sampling one (or even 10) racer's opinion on an issue that has such sweeeping ramifications for all CMRA racer's seems a little too narrow a focus.

Based on your detailed responses, I hope you will indulge me a few more questions:
1. Was the goal to ad an event at MSR or reduce events at TWS or both? Brooks focused on eliminating an event at TWS due to cost, safety and facilities issues. Bryan focused primarily on adding an event at MSR due to reduced cost and flexibility of the track and it's owner. Why I still don't understand is why it was so imperative we add an event at MSR. Why not add one at NPR if the BOD wants to try a little "variety" instead of adding yet another event at an existing track?
2. Exactly what is the profit percentage for a weekend event at each track for the club? I now understand that TWS is significantly more expensive to rent but do increased revenues offset the higher rental?
3. If Oak Hill is so profitable for the club (and it's membership) why did the fee increase so dramatically last year for CMRA license holder's to rent the track themselves?

Thanks again for your patience.