Thank You BMR

[Matt Green]

I realize that the insurance is the big problem but I wonder if any of the other Hillclimbs throughout the U.S. have this problem. Maybe we could contact another organization and find out how they handle the over flow problem. Just a thought.

As Nelson said, insurance has nothing to do with the limits (just wanted to reinforce that point) at ANY level Time Trials event. As for contacting other organizations, I'm not sure who. As far as I know, NO time trials type events in the country have the entry levels we do. Mt. Washington and Pike's Peak are up there, but their event format is COMPLETELY different (can you say ONE timed run?). Nost other flat track events around the country would pee themselves if they had even the enrollment we got at Jefferson this year.

I like the fact that now when we go to events, we don't talk about the 100-150 car fields of years' past. We talk about 10 years ago when I started when we had 32 entries at Pagoda and got 18 timed runs!

While I agree that we don't want to turn newcomers (not Don) away, I think that if we start having limited entries it will become second nature to tell people to (GASP) ENTER EARLY! Don't forget, there's always a wait list if necessary, and we always seem to have some attrition...

Which problem do we want to have?

[brandonl]

Less timed entries would be a bad thing, but with more total entries, you'd think the cost per entry would be lower. Would the financial break be worth tossing a run or 2, while bring in more cars and drivers?

Brandon

[Matt Green]

Considering that most hillclimbs barely break even on cost to begin with, lowering entry fees is not likely. Also, we have no way of knowing how many entries we'll get, so the fee is predetermined.

Also, when we get to certain entry numbers at certain hills, we run into other problems. For instance, at Giants, we're going to need to run 3 run groups if we get any mroe entries. There's simply not enough room at turn-around for any more cars. At Pagoda and Duryea (as well as Giants to a lesser extent), pit space is at a premium. We simply have no more room at the inn, so to speak.

I just think that going far beyond 100 entries will cause the event quality as a whole to suffer. If we offer less time on track, we'll lose entries, negating the potential gain we are currently seeing. I'd rather have to enter early for a great event than just show up and drop into a mediocre one...

[brandonl]

Considering that most hillclimbs barely break even on cost to begin with, lowering entry fees is not likely. Also, we have no way of knowing how many entries we'll get, so the fee is predetermined.

Also, when we get to certain entry numbers at certain hills, we run into other problems. For instance, at Giants, we're going to need to run 3 run groups if we get any mroe entries. There's simply not enough room at turn-around for any more cars. At Pagoda and Duryea (as well as Giants to a lesser extent), pit space is at a premium. We simply have no more room at the inn, so to speak.

I just think that going far beyond 100 entries will cause the event quality as a whole to suffer. If we offer less time on track, we'll lose entries, negating the potential gain we are currently seeing. I'd rather have to enter early for a great event than just show up and drop into a mediocre one...

With all of these problems then how do you propose expansion? How about starting earlier and running later? Is the amount of money to run the event based on a set number of entries and a certain price? If so, why cant you take 100 cars paying $100 instead of 50 cars paying $200? Rally is run is some what the same manner. Rallies can be cancelled if a certain number of entries arent met by a certain date. Also, price breaks are given for early entry (or penalty for late entry depending on how you look at it).

Brandon

[Matt Green]

I would see expansion as an added number of EVENTS, not entrants per event. There are plenty of places for this stuff to happen.

<broken record mode on>
Problem is, we need more officials and organizers before we get more drivers. Right now, there are two (yes TWO) clubs sanctioning all the PHA events- BMR and NEPA. There's no reason another club can't get involved, other than lack of support and desire. Actually, right now, there are essentially THREE event chairpersons organizing eight events- Tim Royer, Rick Kase, and Matt Rowe. Granted, Tim and Rick have a cadre of help, but essentially, it's up to these three people and how they want to do things. Each has a different viewpoint on entry limits. So who am I to offer my opinion? I'm nobody (and you'll find lots of evidence to that effect I'm sure). I have been an event organizer in the past, but have little desire to do so again.
<broken record mode off>

Some of our entries are not much above $100 right now, while some are closer to $150. For events that do have a cutoff, it's 100 cars. I don't think that's unreasonable. To this date, we have not had to turn anyone away, but the day may be coming soon. We do have "rewards" for entering early (or penalties for late). We can't start earlier or run later due to local restrictions.

It does appear to me that your knowledge and understanding of our events and how they're run is somewhat lacking... Perhaps the criticism should be left to those participants, not only officials, but also drivers and crew, that have personal experience with the events. I'm not saying you shouldn't offer suggestions, but simply that the things you've mentioned are already being done, so people aren't going to take you very seriously when it appears you have little knowledge of what we do.

That being said, I'm not implying that we can't improve, but merely that it's not as simple as just accepting another 20 entries if in fact they materialize at all. The situation is a lot more complicated, and if anyone would like to ask specific questions, I'm sure you'll get honest answers from people with experience.

[brandonl]

Perhaps the criticism should be left to those participants, not only officials, but also drivers and crew, that have personal experience with the events. I'm not saying you shouldn't offer suggestions, but simply that the things you've mentioned are already being done, so people aren't going to take you very seriously when it appears you have little knowledge of what we do.

Im no one special either, but that does not mean that my opinions or ideas are completely out of left field just because I am not on the offical list of names to be dropped.

You are correct in thinking I am not a hillclimb guru. I have spectated 4 or so events, have not organized or participated... yet. I have not critisized a single thing. I have been more than impressed with the level or organization and promotion at every event I've seen so far. Suggestions for improvement are not meant to be criticism, I did not mean for it come off that way. As I cited, the suggestions I made were based on stage rally, which I know and know very well. The reason I use rally is because of its similarity to hillclimbing logistically. Public roads, permits, local ordinances yadda yadda.

Brandon

[Matt Green]

I see your point. I did not mean to come off so harshly, but I didn't (and still don't) know any other way to put what I was thinking into words. I'm not saying that all decisions should be made by a small group, but just that there are plenty of other ways for the program to grow, and many places for interested parties to get involved. Perhaps my other post was counter to that idea.