Sunoco 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 21 Jan 2008 09:57 AM by  Bobzilla
Aussie Pursuit
 63 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>
Author Messages
MichaelBenz
New Member
New Member
Posts:83


--
18 Jan 2008 09:07 AM

I am really starting to think that the best course of action is to do everything EXACTLY as it was in prior years. It was my impression that many people were calling for some changes and possible improvements in the Solo program...but this thing seems to be turning into a major hub bub unnecessarily. I do not wish to butt heads with the BOD in any way shape or form nor ruffle any feathers whatsoever within the base membership. Therefore....what I am proposing now is that we run the Solo program EXACTLY as it has been in years prior with no changes. This is supposed to be fun guys....lets just work on that factor. Agreed? It certainly would make it easier to manage and steering committee meetings less complicated. We will just work on getting a new venue or two if possible and leave it at that? Sound acceptable to everyone?

I know....changes can be scary sometimes to many people. This will take that factor out of it completely. I got into this to have fun and do what I like to do and do well....manage and organize and have fun. This will bring it back to that situation and nobody will have to worry about the Solo program "running amuck" with all these apparent unneeded changes. Sound acceptable to everyone? If the AP needs to be tweaked....just let us know what you would like done and Will and I will see to it that it gets taken care of. If the BOD has any suggestions or requests that they would want to see imputed, please let us know. We will take your lead and act accordingly on those plans. Lets just plan on excitement and fun just as prior years.....sound acceptable?

mtownneon
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:666


--
18 Jan 2008 09:12 AM
Michael Benz wrote:

I think given the responses...I would agree. We should poll at the first event of the year (typically a widely attended event as people are wanting to shake the dust off from the winter) and see what the majority of the people want to see done. We should also discuss other options at the same time so we have something to fall back on if it comes out that the AP should be replaced. Excellent suggestion Steve!

Now...I would also say that leadership needs to communicate a bit MORE WITH EACH OTHER? If this was still up for discussion....it should never have been announced that it was dumped then. What upset me was that Will reopened this can of worms after having met with me following the steering committee meeting (we meet prior to discuss meeting agenda, ect) and I thought we had agreed that the concensus was to dump the event and try something new. We made a decision and moved toward discussions of alternate formats. Following the announcement of that change at said meeting, Will then took it upon himself to reopen the can without prior discussion with me as to what direction we were attempting to go in, which honestly, I took great offense at given I was the one the announced our prior decision to move onto a different format. Greater communication would have avoided this issue honestly.

I am the type of leader that once a decision is made...I move forward. I am fairly decisive and definate in my actions and planning, and sometimes I am right...and sometimes I am wrong. But I am also in the belief that a good leader makes a decision based on fact (which is what I thought we were working under) and moves forward from
there. Is this good or bad....I dunno. But in my career (sales and marketing) this is the way things are done so I tend to take a solid
stance and attempt to sell it from there. If it sells....I am sucessful....if it doesnt...I re-evaluate and re-modify until it does
or revert back to prior plans. Thats just the way I do it.
I certainly hope I am not offending anyone here as thats not my
intent whatsoever...nor my intent to push a personal agenda
whatsoever that I have in my head...because honestly...I dont have
one whatsoever. I just lead in a fashion that tends to be decisive
and definate once a decision is made, for which I thought was already
done. Again....I hope I didnt offend anyone here. I think those
that havent met me will learn I am a very easy going guy and easy to
get along with for the most part. I look forward in leading Solo
with Will this season and this being one of the first changes we had
talked about making, I dont want to set a presidence that we are
inept at what we are doing here. Both Myself (prior VP of Board of
Directors) and Will (prior Committee Chairman) worked well together
last year in making a charity event sucessful and raising the bar to
new levels of sucess by raising the end result to a tune of 218.5%
increase from prior year. I am an out of the box type of thinker and
Will tends to be very detail oriented, and I see this combination as
working well and being very complimentary to each other and hope to
use this combination again to better a great program that already
exists here to new levels to excitement. So again...not trying to
and hope I did not offend anyone. If so....feel free to call me at
any time at 317-753-2062 and express your opinions or objections. I
really do care here - not leading you down the pike by any means and
no offense meant therein! I just want what everyone wants....a great
and fun season for 2008!

Michael Benz aka "Mikey"
Solo Co-Chair

PS....I should also mention that Dale Brier was also involved in the success of said event and 218% growth....cause without Dale...I would have tore my hair out at times! lol

IMHO the Chairs are not leaders in the fashion you beleive it to be. The entire "management" of the Region is volunteers who have elected to serve the membership, administrate for the betterment of the Region. The membership of the Region are the bosses, not the BoD, not the Committees.

MichaelBenz
New Member
New Member
Posts:83


--
18 Jan 2008 09:17 AM
Dave...hearing you loud and clear. Nothing will change. My plans at this point are to run a carbon copy of prior years in all ways possible. I see your point...but my history in marketing and sales does NOT include running unprofitable events...but more to market and sell in order to bring in additional membership base and participants in order to makes things more attractive in that regard, which often require changes and tweaks here and there in order to accomplish those goals. It was my idea that we could change some things here and there in order to try to bring in additonal revenue to the IndySCCA region so we might have more options in all programs through new available fundage. That is why I thought Solo was a good program to get involved in....it appeared to offer the greatest potential for growth to me. Would this course of action make everyone more comfortable....if we just run it as prior years with the exception of a possible new venue or two? This is supposed to be fun guys....not an uphill battle. Last event that I got involved in grew to the tune of 218.5% over prior years....I just thought I could do the same thing here by implementing some changes here and there.
dbrier
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:255


--
18 Jan 2008 09:17 AM

Edit: I started typing this before the last 4-5 posts...

I'm seeing lots opinion, emotion and facts. Let's see if I can break some of this down to smaller parts we can work with. My Vulcan side is showing as I take emotion away and go for an unbiased look at the topic.

I see three options for Australian Pursuit (AP) as it is right now.

  1. Do nothing. With this option, we run the event as we have in the past. We don't change the rules, format or anything. This is the easiest option, it requires no extra work.
  2. Keep the AP but update the rules, format, etc.
  3. Replace the AP with a different (and hopefully improved) special event. Replacing it with something worse would not be very productive. Replacing the AP with a regular event was not even discussed.

Now, let's look at some facts, or at least things everyone agrees on about the AP.

  1. The AP has become an Indy Region tradition. Someone on the Yahoo groups was nice enough to post some history of the event going back to the 80s
  2. The AP is a special event that is different from a normal timed autocross
  3. It is the best spectator event of the year.
  4. Scoring leaves something to be desired. Because of the unique style of the event, you can't place racers in a nice neat order like when they all have individual times. There are lots of ties.
  5. The formal portion of this event offers less seat time to most of the racers compared to a regular event. 50% are done after their first three runs. Better competitors get more seat time, worse racers get less. A normal event gives everyone the same number of runs.
  6. The fun run/grudge match racing after the event is a unique opportunity not found at other events. Not often do you get to run head-to-head against a racer of your choosing.
  7. The event runs quicker (over earlier) than other 16th street events.
  8. Some people are unhappy with the current set up of the event
  9. Some people are happy with the current set up of the event
  10. The initial pairing of cars for competition is not uniform like a regular event. Competitors are often racing against cars in very different classes.

Here are a few observations. Now I get away from facts and universals. These things I think are true, but could be proven wrong.

  1. I see the more long-standing members defending the event more. Sure there are some new members who like it and there are probably some guys with 20+ years of autocrossing that don't. I think this stems from a sense of Tradition from those that have been with organization for some time. I also notice that these folks are less concerned with points, scores and standings.
  2. Those looking for change in the event are newer members. The most vocal for change have been with the region and autocrossing in general less than 5 years.
  3. Your solo steering committee has a LOT of new faces on it. Feathers got ruffled when talk of cancelling an Indy tradition came out.
  4. There is a compromise in here somewhere that will make the greatest number of people happy.
  5. There is a lot of discussion going on about this right now but I think it is less 15 people doing a majority of the talking. We have had lots of single comments from folks that don't post often.

That is what I see without picking sides.

dbrier
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:255


--
18 Jan 2008 09:33 AM
mtownneon wrote:
IMHO the Chairs are not leaders in the fashion you beleive it to be. The entire "management" of the Region is volunteers who have elected to serve the membership, administrate for the betterment of the Region. The membership of the Region are the bosses, not the BoD, not the Committees.

While that is true, you can't take every decision to the entire membership. You'd never get anything done. I know the committee is there to serve the membership, but I guess I thought the role was to steer the Solo program, not just come in and run things they way they have always done. The solo-chairs were brought on being told that they could do things differently and didn't have live with the status quo. It appears that from a couple comments that you DON'T want the committee making decisions.

I didn't get involved to run an assembly line type of organization. That is what Mike is suggesting and it it looking like that is the way people posting here and on Yahoo are saying they want.

Eclipse2Lancer
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:918


--
18 Jan 2008 09:44 AM

Thanks for the recap above, Dale.

The main point of trying to solicit response was to gauge a larger opinion of the region club membership about the Aussie. Not to hurt feelings or crush dreams! [:D]

I think taking a poll at the opening fun event of the season is still a good idea to do. From the feedback of the membership we have received in a mere 24 hours, I already think we can make the Aussie a little more fun for everyone. That's what it takes to make things work sometimes...more feedback. I didn't get involved to become a benevolent dictator. There are already too many of those in the world.
Also I believe that there is still potential to have different style events at Grissom to draw more interest to increase the attendance there.

Thanks to everyone weighing in on the subject. All the feedback is being soaked in.

Mike and I are here to help the program along and continue to carry it in a positive direction, while doing what the members want to do.
I think everyone needs to take the bee out of their bonnets and stop taking things so personally. This is a Club, and we should all:
1. Have fun
2. Have Fun.
3. Have FUN!

Racerlinn
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:271


--
18 Jan 2008 09:54 AM

cross post from egroup:

A final opinion from me:

Consider changing the event to be non-points paying (as it used to be). This will have to be part of the submitted rules package for the season. Keep in mind you will be down to only 7 points paying events, and with the 70% rule only the drivers best 5 scores will count. A driver will be required to compete in at least 4 events to be eligible for a year end trophy.. With 8 points events, the best 6 count, and must compete in 4events still.
Note - If there are plans to make any changes to the current Rules package, it had better start now and be well advertised and discussed. Previous Solo Chairs and Boards did not just come up with these rules in an off-hand manner. These have been developed and discussed (often argued) for a very long time.
Tentatively list the Aussie on the schedule, but poll the membership at the first two events to see if there is support. The format can be changed back to a normal points event if the membership wants it.
If it remains on Aussie, fully review and understand the current rules and standards and make any changes deemed neccesary, but be prepared to justify and defend those changes with facts and qualified data, not estimates and guesses.
Continue with plan for at least one other "special" event at Grissom. We can have lot's of "specials" if that's what people want. You can only run so many different course variations so many times at 16th Street.
Steve
The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
18 Jan 2008 10:22 AM
Racerlinn wrote:

Cross post from egroup:

Jason,
Sorry, you are wrong.
Let me explain how the pairings are done. At registration, we track all entries and organize them via their PAX multipliers. We then try and evenly group the entries into the 4 brackets, keeping the classes grouped as closely as possible by PAX. This means typically the HS, GS, and STS end up together, a bunch of Stock class cars in a second group, SP and slow Prepared cars next, etc, etc. If there is a low count of Prepared and Mod cars (as is normal), yes, the faster "production based" classes end up running with them (like SM). Should we tell the Prepared and Mod cars not to show up becuae the SM guys don't like running with them? I wouldn't do that...
Now as far as the seeding within each run group, this is done as a complete blind draw. We literally pull numbers out of a hat (I think we've used playing cards as well before). The only time we have modified the initial seed is when a two driver car comes up as facing each other in the first round. We will move the second driver that was pulled down to the bottom of the bracket to try and accomodate and keep them apart so that the drivers have a chance of not having to run against each other (which happened in a quite leteral sense this past year to everyone's ammusement). The point being, the brackets and groupings are set up as fairly as possible given the group of competitors that show that day.
I saw a suggestion that we should come up with some type of new "factor" based on previous times and experience. You would prefer this over using a nationally recognized PAX factor? No thanks. All you do is open yourself up to grief from people saying that your new factor was wrong. You have no substantial data or analysis to rely upon.

This is supposed to be fun.
Steve

With all due respect, Steve - I do not think I am wrong, because we are saying the same thing. Brian Gard said that classes would compete against each other initially - but we did not. Class only came into play in setting up the 4 run groups. But, as we both said, the run groups were randomized to set up the pairings - that is what I and most everyone who did not like the AP complain about. Why can't we just pair up similar racers - by some means, whether it be directly by class or some more clever manner? Again, I did not race against Dale Brier or Mike Benz or anyone else I had any chance in hell of beating. I think the issue a lot of people are missing is that some people did not like the event because they had no chance. We were lambs for the slaughter, 16th seeds being matched against Duke, etc. Let me race someone I have a chance to actually beat - at least for 1 race - otherwise it is not at all fun.

Rather than everyone arguing for keeping AP because they like it, they ought to try to really understand why people hate it so much so we can figure something out.

The problem is the seeding did not work at all for some racers. And, assuming it will be the same next time - why would we want to participate. As an example, SM comes in to this event as underdogs. (Has SM ever done well? Does anyone in SM like this event? Doesn't that say something when the largest class all don't like an event?) There is a structural problem with how this race is set up.

The solution is to improve pairings.
Do as Brian Gard described. Have the pairings (not just run groups) based on Class. Let me race a couple SMs before I take on the Mods and Preps. And, even better rank within the class (at least
roughly). Let me race Brier or Benz before I go up against Kevin Miller. These simple changes would make it more fun. And would not be that hard to set up.

Or, we can get more fancy and use the season's previous race times to rank everyone (I think it would be worht a try before dumping AP, certainly). This would give an even better set of pairings - and it
would also not be that hard to do (yes it would be better than PAX in making things 'fun' as racers would be closer than the generalized car factor, PAX, as it would take skill into account). I could easily have it set up before the event if we wanted. This would not be a perfect rank, but certainly it would not see me racing against Clemens Burger in the first round.

I'll say it again...
The key is everyone needs a reasonbale shot of winning at least one race.

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
18 Jan 2008 10:29 AM
dbrier wrote:

50% are done after their first two runs. Better competitors get more seat time, worse racers get less. A normal event gives everyone the same number of runs.

To be fair, 25% are done after 2 runs, and 50% are done after 3 runs. This is unavoidable with the Aussie Pursuit setup. (unless we went beyond double elimination)

(I thought Vulcans were good with math [:P] )

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
18 Jan 2008 10:36 AM

Mcguirecm at Yahoo groups wrote:

There appears to be some differing opinions on the brackets and how everything is set up, so I'm going to try and shed a little light on that subject:

When Steve and I would set up the brackets, we would rank everyone in that group from lowest to highest PAX so that the first round was as fair as possible. For instance, I would try to keep all the HS cars against each other and all the GS cars against each other in the lowest PAX group - when that was possible.

My suggestions would be to:
1. Run the event as a mid-season non-points fun event. Most sports have a mid-season all-star game or non-points event just for fun. Let's use the Aussie as ours.

2. Rank the competitors in the run groups slowest to fastest as we did in the past.

3. Set up the brackets based upon a maximum PAX spread instead of mandating four groups. This would make it more fair. Maybe we end up with six groups with ten cars instead of four groups
of fifteen. This will make the event take a little longer but we're always done early with this one anyway so that's not that big of an impact.

I'm willing to even volunteer to be the event chair again and not compete so that I'm always in the trailer and able to make sure that we follow the suggestions I've made above.

Chris

I only have experience from last season, but what you are describing is that last season it was done differently for some reason (random within the run group). I think that is the problem and why so many newer guys do not like Aussie Pursuit. The setup last year did not work well for many drivers. And, how you say it previously was done, is what I have been suggesting - rank within the run groups.

As far as more 'tiers', I had said this before, but as I thought about it more, I realized this logically makes no difference if cars are running ranked with the group. It ends up being structurally the exact same thing.

(Sweet, my first triple post... )

dbrier
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:255


--
18 Jan 2008 12:53 PM
The Nebulizer wrote:
dbrier wrote:

50% are done after their first two runs. Better competitors get more seat time, worse racers get less. A normal event gives everyone the same number of runs.

To be fair, 25% are done after 2 runs, and 50% are done after 3 runs. This is unavoidable with the Aussie Pursuit setup. (unless we went beyond double elimination)

(I thought Vulcans were good with math [:P] )

You got me, I updated the post. I don't want the "facts" to be wrong.
mtownneon
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:666


--
18 Jan 2008 01:20 PM

Michael Benz wrote:
Dave...hearing you loud and clear. Nothing will change. My plans at this point are to run a carbon copy of prior years in all ways possible. I see your point...but my history in marketing and sales does NOT include running unprofitable events...but more to market and sell in order to bring in additional membership base and participants in order to makes things more attractive in that regard, which often require changes and tweaks here and there in order to accomplish those goals. It was my idea that we could change some things here and there in order to try to bring in additonal revenue to the IndySCCA region so we might have more options in all programs through new available fundage. That is why I thought Solo was a good program to get involved in....it appeared to offer the greatest potential for growth to me. Would this course of action make everyone more comfortable....if we just run it as prior years with the exception of a possible new venue or two? This is supposed to be fun guys....not an uphill battle. Last event that I got involved in grew to the tune of 218.5% over prior years....I just thought I could do the same thing here by implementing some changes here and there.

Mike...you're not hearing me loud and clear. Re-read your words, only read them from someone else's perspective. I'm glad that we have someone of your caliber to help the region but reading the above makes it look as though the only thing you're concerned with is getting your way. That you're the final arbitor. What about Will? The other Chair. What about the rest of the committee.

One thing that has become clear, we on the Solo committee need to do more homework on what makes this region tick. We also need to gather facts when making these kinds of decisions. In our meetings, it was always presented that the Aussie was a loser financially but is it? Or is it a scape goat?

It's obvious we are making decisions based on conjecture, not fact. If the participation numbers that have been presented are any indication, then we on the Committee have been wrong, or there are a large number of events that are un-profitable. The whole discussion is subjective.

You're a marketing guy, so market! That's what the region really needs. C'mon, we're part of the SCCA, ya' know, the Secret Car Club of America. In thinking about this, the nuts and bolts of this region are pretty good, we run a good program. Our problem is in letting others know that. I would say that's where we should concentrate our efforts to make changes and improve.

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
18 Jan 2008 02:00 PM

All right, taking a cue from Dale here is how I see it:

  1. Too many people like AP to dump it. But, too many people object to the current structure to keep it as is without trying something new (i.e. fix the seeding).
  2. The seeding method (which was changed a few years ago?) is the main reason for the complaints. So, update (or return) the seeding method to ranking (by PAX or previous event results) within the run group (i.e. not random). Problem solved.
  3. Points? If we fix the seeding problem, then the final points will be based on competition within your class. This makes giving class points a little more viable. (But, it doesn't sound like anyone cares too much one way or the other on points for this event - assuming we fix the seeding.)

That's it. Fix the seeding and we fix the problem.

Does anyone have any problem with this solution? I haven't seen anyone post anything against this and it seems to resolve pretty much everything.

MichaelBenz
New Member
New Member
Posts:83


--
18 Jan 2008 10:37 PM

Dave...Not the case. I am very accustomed to working in committees under a BOD disgretion. I had a reason for what I was doing....trust me. Notice the added participation and people crawling out of the cracks that we havent seen in a long time? My point is...these are things that should be decided at meetings and NOT over the internet. More meeting participation and added focus on the program was in part...one of the reasons....among others. It wasnt to just push MY way. Remember....I am a marketing guy....and there will often be motives and reasons for what I am doing related to such. Also...I never stated we didnt have a good program if you recall. I know what I am doing...trust me....but nobody is truely giving me a chance here. Its only January....lots of things can happen still and nothing is written in stone as you should know. BUT.,....not given a chance.....its kinda hard for me to start marketing - hear what I am saying? I know you have to read between the lines a lot there to get what I am saying....but I do have my reasons.

Now...I wasnt going just on MY opinion. If you recall....two meetings went by where we asked by show of hands who was in favor of dropping the AP (one I believe Darren was still in charge of) and the concensus was each time in favor or dropping the event. Will and I were actually going on that - didnt just pull that out of a hat or my own agenda. The last meeting wasnt widely attended though....and the annoucement was made there....but we continued to discuss alternate events to take its place. Fact is...in the end....this will look like you are expecting it to, trust me. But you should give me a chance and the benefit of the doubt that I am not here to run anybody over and just get my way. I rarely get my way....trust me. If I did....people would be paying list price for everything...lol....and I would be making more money! Its all about compromise! If left alone though...and spoken about and decided from the outcomes of the meetings like I am accustomed to...turnout would probably about fill the room based on the reaction, wouldnt it? Thats why I was upset about the can being opened here at this point. I understand what you are saying...but you are not giving me the benefit of the doubt that I am a fair person at the same time! BTW...has solo EVER filled the meeting room at Dooleys? I sure would like to see that happen and more people to get involved where it really helps and where the decisions are actually made...or should be anyway. You could be right though...I may be somewhat mistaken or misled on what the function of the steering committee is all about. I am going to get clarification on that and clarification on the Chairman position at the same time to make sure it matches what I am used to working in corporately. Cause I thought the Chairmen were supposed to lead at the same time they follow. Otherwise...we are just guys out there to do the grunt work and nothing more....which wasnt the impression I was given when I took the job assignment. I was asked to "shake things up a bit" and propose changes that I thought might improve the program. Remember though...its still WAY early in the game plan here! Give me a chance. For example....if it was voted on at the meeting that we should input topless female cone chasers in the mix...does that then mean the Chairmen shouldnt over-ride this decision in good taste and at the same time to coincide with standard SCCA rules? I would think so?

At the same time...I am also used to the phrase....if you dont vote in an election and participate in the process, then dont then complain about what you get thereafter. (Presidential elections...policy...taxes....ect....you fill in the blank with whatever you like here). The more people we can attract into the mix...the better program we will end up with in the end. It was my opinion that these decisions should be greatly made by the committee chairmen after the meetings and inputs though. I could be wrong though....thats whats done corporately though in other committees and BOD's I have been involved with in the past. Remember....we still have to have BOD approval IMO in anything we finalize. We kind of operate under their oversight IMO. Again...I could be wrong. We should lead...at the same time we follow.

You are not giving me a chance. Just relax....again...still early in the game!

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
18 Jan 2008 11:12 PM

Benz, I have to say I totally disagree with you. [:@]

If the proposal for topless female cone shaggers passes, you have no right to take that away from us!

But, seriously, I do have to ask - was the Aussie Pursuit issue ever published anywhere as being an issue that was going to be decided on at the meeting? (I may very well have missed this). If not, then I think that is something we should work on. I am all for change (obviously), but I think when significant change is in the works we need to clearly let everyone know about it. Make a big post online to let everyone know that a vote will be held on a topic at the next meeting, and if you can't make it - please post your thoughts,etc. I think the issue here is a lot of people were caught off guard by the stated dropping of Aussie Pursuit. I can certainly understand that it is a hassle for many people to come to the meetings. To be honest, I would probably not come if they were as far for me as they are for some of our members. Perhaps in the meeting announcement thread, we could include what issues are up for a vote (clearly labeled). Then I think you can safely say, if we didn't hear from you at the meeting or on the web, then its your fault you have no voice - but we need to give a reasonable chance for everyone to speak up and know what is going on.

If it was posted somewhere that we were going to vote on dropping Aussie Pursuit, then I think we need to work on making it more clear - as I didn't know about it and I read pretty much everything.

kar120c
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
19 Jan 2008 12:08 AM

Jason,

The minutes of the 12/13/07 solo committee minutes, which were posted on 12/14, in the 2nd bullet point noted: "The Aussie pursuit was discussed as possibly changing or
dropping to replace with some other kind of special event". You were there at that meeting and we talked at length about it.

Not a single response from the membership was made (pro or con) that I'm aware of. That discussion continued at the last meeting with the results now being discussed on 2 (sigh) forums.

Look, putting together a solo season happens mostly at the Solo Committee meetings. The meeting announcments have clearly stated that, as have other threads related to the solo committee meetings. Every decision can't be flogged to conclusion on an internet forum. We'll never get anything done. I applaud the people who show up at the meetings and take on actual assignments and responsibilities for making the season happen. I also nderstand that everyone can't make it, but I don't know of another way to get 2-300 people's opinions counted in a timely fashion.

The solo chairs work hard to provide the members a good season. Only a few people have ANY idea what it takes to make it happen. 99.9% of the work/decisions goes smoothly and people show up on sunday morning and an event magically happens. OK, this decision has caused concern with people and is being discussed and reconsidered at length. But I'm starting to get concerned at what seems to be tones in some messages that the solo committee and it's workings are FUBAR. Give people some credit and some slack. One controversial decision doesn't mean the process that has delivered successful seasons is now broken.

Phil

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
19 Jan 2008 12:27 AM
kar120c wrote:

The minutes of the 12/13/07 solo committee minutes, which were posted on 12/14, in the 2nd bullet point noted: "The Aussie pursuit was discussed as possibly changing or
dropping to replace with some other kind of special event". You were there at that meeting and we talked at length about it.

Oh, I remember talking about it, of course. (And, I remember chiming in to dump it a few times.) I just wondered if it was posted clearly for those who weren't there. Even this statement does not make it clear that at the next meeting there was to be a decision on whether to drop it or not. I'm just saying perhaps we need to highlight bigger issues like this more - and state if there is a planned vote coming up so people aren't so shocked when decisions like this are made.

I hope you were not refering to my postings as having a tone that seemed against the solo committee - because that was definitely not my intent. (Maybe you saw my angry face and didn't catch that I was making a joke with the next line?) I am actually excited by the willingness to make changes within the committee and that is why I plan to keep attending. I was just trying to make some suggestions for how to deal with an issue like this in the future to make things go smoother.

Eclipse2Lancer
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:918


--
19 Jan 2008 10:28 AM
Well the people have spoken, and the Aussie will still be run as a points event in 2008.
We will pay special attention to groupings and match ups.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback. We knew that not everyone can make it to meetings to voice their opinions.

-Will
Solo co-chair
dbrier
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:255


--
19 Jan 2008 11:09 AM
kar120c wrote:
The minutes of the 12/13/07 solo committee minutes, which were posted on 12/14, in the 2nd bullet point noted: "The Aussie pursuit was discussed as possibly changing or
dropping to replace with some other kind of special event". You were there at that meeting and we talked at length about it.

Not a single response from the membership was made (pro or con) that I'm aware of. That discussion continued at the last meeting with the results now being discussed on 2 (sigh) forums.

Look, putting together a solo season happens mostly at the Solo Committee meetings. The meeting announcements have clearly stated that, as have other threads related to the solo committee meetings. Every decision can't be flogged to conclusion on an internet forum. We'll never get anything done. I applaud the people who show up at the meetings and take on actual assignments and responsibilities for making the season happen. I also understand that everyone can't make it, but I don't know of another way to get 2-300 people's opinions counted in a timely fashion.

The solo chairs work hard to provide the members a good season. Only a few people have ANY idea what it takes to make it happen. 99.9% of the work/decisions goes smoothly and people show up on Sunday morning and an event magically happens. OK, this decision has caused concern with people and is being discussed and reconsidered at length. But I'm starting to get concerned at what seems to be tones in some messages that the solo committee and it's workings are FUBAR. Give people some credit and some slack. One controversial decision doesn't mean the process that has delivered successful seasons is now broken.

Phil

I could not have said it better. I don't think this was aimed you Jason.

I was seeing people posting about the steering committee overstepping it boundaries and questioning if they could even make decisions such as this controversy about the AP. I think it fine to discuss decisions and topics, but to attempt to take away the boards power when they make a decision that isn't popular really rubbed me the wrong way. I attend the meetings to try and make the Solo run and to improve it. If I was told we can't make decisions and changes, I'd quit going right now.

The committee made a decision that evoked a lot emotion. If enough people voice opinions, decisions can be changed, we don't write the minutes in stone. I still say the the majority of the voices for keeping the event as is are coming from the Yahoo group and I'd like to see what general popular vote is. Let's take some votes at the first couple of events this year.

At the very least, we'll look into working on the initial pairings to make things more fair.

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1818


--
19 Jan 2008 11:52 AM

Dale,

Am I right that had your initial pairing been against someone closer to your speed range, you would have liked it more? (like me, Benz, the VW wagon with giant turbo, or Priest, etc) ? Because that is my only major complaint. The problem we faced was not only were we outclassed by our cars, but the vast majority of racers in M and P are excellent drivers. Racers with my skill don't drive BMs in our region - just guys like Lee Miller, Clemens Burger, and Team Lavair. So, it was a double hit - out-skilled and out-car'd. Obviously we would eventually face this competition - but if we could get a few close ones in first it would be a lot more enjoyable.

Well, I think the right decision has been made. (And, I would be happy to help with developing the seeding plan - so long as I don't have to wake up really early [:P] )

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>


Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
Sunoco 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner