Less is more?

[John Greist]

Returning to a worrisome recurrent theme, I note the Sebring full course (3.7 mile) races were 7 laps = 25.9 miles, with Championship positions 1 - 10, finishing in less than 18 minutes in the dry. In the wet it was 6 laps and 18 minutes.

We ran 10 Road America 4 mile laps (40 miles) at 26 minutes in September where there's more full throttle running than anywhere else.

Several have written about taking the sting out of higher prices with more seat time and no one has suggested less seat time is good for anyone. At Sebring, there were only 4 groups, including MX-5s (though MX-5s did run 9 laps - and Kudos to T. Earwood, P. Brand and S. Debrect for showmanship!).

Realizing there may be a reasonable explanation for what was hopefully an aberation, it would be good to learn what it was and also to learn what the future holds for race distance/times.

[GEORGE]

Alas; less is really less. I think Skip is taking some cues from the current Adminsitration in starting with "Nuthin up my sleeve..........Presto Chango.....TaaaaDaaaaa!!!!
Musta had the Wrong Hat!!"

[Kasey]

The Champ group races last month at Road Atlanta offer additional evidence supporting John's stated concern.

[WatertownNewbie]

John, I noticed the same thing. Reports on Saturday at Sebring were that the rain delayed the starts to the point that a cutback was warranted, but your observation about Road America is spot on. I raced there last summer as well as Lime Rock Park (26 laps and 25 laps in the two races, which works out to 39.78 and 38.25 miles, respectively). Then I went to Mont Tremblant, where the longest race was 13 laps (34.45 miles). It may not seem like much of a difference to the admins, but it was noticed by the drivers.

$3000 is a good chunk of change to fork out for a few laps. (Has anyone figured out that a qualifying session can go longer than a race?!) At this rate, it almost seems that doubling on a lapping day is a better bargain. Or maybe a few sessions in the computer car.

It would be nice if there were understood to be a target length for a race at a given track. At RA that appears to be 10 laps (and I hope that nothing changes that). If every other track were calculated to achieve forty miles (or at least the upper thirty mile range), that would at least give us some comfort that we will not find the race lengths shrinking. I would hate to show up at RA this summer and find out that somebody decreed that races were henceforth six laps long.

Anybody out there listening?

[chsutherland]

I found somewhere else to put my money. Everyone knows how I feel about the lack of seat time and the increase in prices. Recently I attended the Road America race at the midwest finale, I didn't even race. And I couldn't have been happier. I watched your group race on sat Dr. Greist, 4 green flag laps if my memory serves correct. It was pathetic. I had a hard time not signing up for Sebring this past weekend. In hindsight I am glad I did not. You can't learn much in 18 min, or at least I can't. My days of racing at SBRS might have come to a close. The lack of seat time isn't helping me. The mileage they advertise I have not gotten since my first ever race weekend with them in oct 06. I am still in disbelief they butchered lead-follow. Recently my brother asked me about racing, I nudged him in the direction of SB. He was in total shock over the price of a 3day school and I don't blame him. He went sailing instead. 2500 for a week all expenses paid on a sailboat. SB 3day school was a cool 4,000 before flight, hotel etc. SB has priced themselves out of the market. I have had 4 race weekends with BSI and couldn't be happier. I got hours of track time instead of minutes. Some of the guys racing with me at BSI were doing "doubles" they were running in spec miata class, the running the same car in ITS. BSI wanted another 300 bucks to run a "double". Try getting that with SB! Not to mention BSI has a true MX5 cup car, I have looked underneath SB's "Cup car" and it isn't the same. No fully adjustable suspension no slicks. Basically they have a street car with a roll cage. Oh and its 4500 for a race weekend!! BSI for normal regional scca weekends was less than 2800, that gets you two 30 min races, 1 25 min qualify, 1 15 min practice and 2 hours of practice on fri!!!! SB made the choice for me.
Craig
chsutherland@gmail.com if you want info on BSI

[John Greist]

Originally Posted by Kasey

The Champ group races last month at Road Atlanta offer additional evidence supporting John's stated concern.

The races at Road Atlanta were 12 laps = 30.48 miles. Way short of Road America's 40.5 miles if we use the official 4.05 mile distance.

Checking the race report, I see the first Saturday race at Sebring was 8 laps = 29.6 miles:

"G1R1 (Sportsman)
With the track only slightly ‘‘sprinkled’’ (it would begin to rain much harder after this race was checkered)"

so rain was a factor on Saturday and perhaps Sunday's first race:

"G1R2 (Sportsman)
With the track a bit more precarious than Saturday – it hadn’t fully dried out from Saturday’s rain..."

But the rain reason disappeared as the track dried Sunday and the championship race, run second, had lap times as fast as in qualifying.

With only 4 groups, it's hard to see why longer races aren't possible, especially on Sunday when there's no qualification. With small group numbers in years past, SBR sometimes ran qualification both days to give more seat time to the faithful.

All one can do at this point is speculate. It would be good to understand what led to the decision to shorten races and to know what race distances are planned for future races.

[chsutherland]

I don't see why the races are shorter. If the SCCA can crank out more races, for longer periods in the same amount of time at the same track why can't SB? Over Thanksgiving at Sebring, the SCCA ran 6 groups sat and sun. We had groups as large as 60. Over Halloween it rained, but they still got 6 groups in with longer races. I vote with my dollar. It seems to me there is a conscience decision to give us less track time. I don't see how it could be anything else. SB is getting more for our dollar while we get less. No thanks
Craig

[John Greist]

Originally Posted by chsutherland

I don't see why the races are shorter. If the SCCA can crank out more races, for longer periods in the same amount of time at the same track why can't SB? Over Thanksgiving at Sebring, the SCCA ran 6 groups sat and sun. We had groups as large as 60. Over Halloween it rained, but they still got 6 groups in with longer races. Craig

There are important differences. SCCA is running races with different classes/fleets of cars while SBR is using the same cars race after race, with necessary down time for refueling, driver changes, switching cars/drivers after crashes, etc. SCCA can false grid the next race with different cars as the current race is running and start the new race more quickly than is possible when recycling the same set of cars.

With Kiddie National races where each driver has his/her car, SBR has them ready to go as the preceeding regional race is finishing and has the next regional race ready when the National race ends. Having our own SBR car costs more and the goal is to control costs while maximizing seat time.

There may be good reasons why SBR races have shortened, we just don't know them.

[GT-Subject]

It will be very interesting to hear the reasoning and logic behind shorter race duration. I maintain that it is in our best interests as drivers (and customers) to express our concerns directly to senior management. I surely hope that senior management is monitoring these threads!!

[Slowhands]

Craig,

An important limiting factor to how quickly Skippy can put a group on the track after the previous one has finished is instructor feedback. The guys have to drive in from all the corners, and then spend adequate time giving a lot of folks individualized information about the mistakes they are making and how they could do better, and then drive back. This is a critically important part of the SBRS experience that you can't get in a series that is not built around driver development. It warms my heart to see how seriously these guys take this part of the job. They all drive on a different plane than we do and they could easily blow it off. But it is obvious that the passion they have for the sport makes them care about how we learn.

A while ago I experimented with running SM in SCCA, and while it was great value for the seat time I didn't really get better without the instruction. I am not a natural at this so I had to be taught. Running Lead-Follow with JP plus being alternately beaten on (for mistakes) and encouraged (when I finally started getting some things right) by our familiar cast of instructors/characters finally got me headed in the right direction in about the shortest time possible for me. I think I am now at a point that I can start to solve problems on my own, but I personally wouldn't have gotten there for years in the SCCA environment and I recognized that after a few events. So it is a trade-off. Certainly if the price continues to rise and the track time shrinks further we may get to a point (perhaps we are there already) where the value proposition shifts in favor of lower cost racing. Hopefully the powers-that-be will recognize what it takes to keep this golden goose alive and not slowly suffocate it.

[John Greist]

Originally Posted by GT-Subject

It will be very interesting to hear the reasoning and logic behind shorter race duration. I maintain that it is in our best interests as drivers (and customers) to express our concerns directly to senior management. I surely hope that senior management is monitoring these threads!!

Me too. Ignorance may be bliss but it's seldom an advantage.

[chsutherland]

I understand the turn-around time. But that still doesn't explain the duration of races. It looks like there were not very many entrants during the past Sebring weekend. Yet from what I read the race time was still shortened. I was trying to give a solution to those that would like more seat time. I understand being frustrated about lack of seat time, and wanting to do something about it. I wouldn't and won't sit around for SB to do something. The writing is on the wall, they haven't listened to anything that their best customers have said so far. Why would it change?
Harsha while I agree that the feedback we receive from the staff is excellent, I can't digest it with 18 min on the track. So its almost useless. I can't afford to double every event. Throw in a black flag or two and the session is wasted. I did a lead follow with JP at road america in sept, we had two black flags and a car that was losing 5th gear. Not to mention they shortened the lead follow to begin with. Its not his fault. I felt bad for JP. He is trying to pass along his craft and the situation sucked. So I found a different venue and brought "instruction" with me. I take what I do seriously, and am not willing to waste my money. I need maximum value out of every dollar and I am no longer getting it from SB. Instead of just talking about it on TJR I went out and did something about it.

[jeffrey Pietz]

If you look a the results for Atlanta 08 you see similar trends. 18 minute races in dry, sunny conditions. If you look at the results at Elkhart in June as busy as that weekend was we still had 25-30 minute races.

Unless there were some imponderable excuse such as rain, snow or an attack by Al qaida I would consider getting positively rude about a proposed 17-18 minute race. Seat time is already too short.

Is there anyone who was at these last two weekends who can shed light on the short races? If I become convinced that this is some new plan by SBR I will not be there to complain.

[Gerardo]

Gentlemen,

Here's the clue most of you are searching for. Fuel.

The design of our chassis allows a relatively small fuel cell. Generally the Pit Lane Coordinator and Race Control jointly decide how many laps races will be. The cars are supposed to have a 30 minute window, and do. But, this weekend we had rain, and as such, drivers were given 1 and 7/8 lap warmup. At Sebring, that's 7.4 miles of warmup, or essentially two laps.

Every Pit Lane Coordinator's fear is running a guy out of gas during a race. So, the lap count for the races were set conservatively to be 100% sure none of the cars would stumble on fuel before the checker flag. 2 laps of warmup, 7 laps of racing = 9 laps total per group.

The car will do 10 laps you say? In theory, yes. But we've had a few cars stumble on gas at that point, so 9 laps was the cap, including warmup.

Why won't the cars go longer on fuel? Simply put, the gas tanks are comparatively small (old design limitation we have to live with). We've tried plenty of cell and fuel pump configurations. Have a chat with our engineers and you'll understand that making it work for our package is not so easy. Oh, and there are hundreds of components on the cars the engineers find ways to make work, from electrical issues, to transmission, to lubrication, to seating position, on and on. These guys work hard for you.

Had it not rained, warmups would have been 1 lap with 8 lap races. With better fuel economy, add another lap or two. The guys are working on the economy.

So, no, races were not shortened intentionally. They were run as long as fuel would allow. YES, the powers that be know it should be longer, and they're working on it! Give them a little time. It's not easy...

Craig, I disagree "they haven't listened to anything that their best customers have said so far." In the last five years the company added new programs (lead follow, radio coaching, R/T Test Day), improved the National Championship, improved hospitality, secured a new manufacturer partner (Mazda), a new tire deal (BFGoodrich), and hundreds of other improvements, some visible to the customer, some visible to the staff.

Yes, there are many areas the company can improve, and as others have suggested, it never hurts to write to the powers that be. They take their survey results seriously, and would certainly take your letters seriously. You cannot imagine what their shoes are like to fill, so understand some things will take time. You also can't imagine the incredible cost increases the company has had to pay in expenses, from track rent, to fuel, to travel. It's not easy keeping it all under control, but somehow, we all show up and have a great time.

As Harsha pointed out, the value in the dollar you part with is realized in multiple ways. You gotta do what's best for you, and for many, there's still no better deal in motorsports than Skip Barber.

Have fun.

[Jim Pace]

While we wait for increased capacity (it's been since 2000) an option could be to eliminate the warm up. Grid in the pit & go, just like real racing! The down side is when you drive a different car you have to feel it out quickly. The up side is a longer race and more efficient use of the day. Perhaps we can try this one weekend and see? Todd is very good about taking suggestions. Overall the warmup lap for SBRS is a good thing but times change. Until they change alot maybe we "Grid & Go"?
JP

[Slowhands]

I spoke to Todd before Bobo's post and he told me the same thing. There are real complexities to solving the fuel problem, since the Skippy car is well past its design life and well past the ability of suppliers to provide appropriate parts at a reasonable cost. It is a uniquely shaped fuel cell and internal vs external fuel pump placement have their respective pros and cons (external = more space for gas but vapor lock in summer months). The ECU seems to be a one-off stepchild from the stock Neon that Dodge has nothing more to do with and trying to figure out how to massage/reprogram it has been problematic (seriously, anyone with expertise in this area please contact Todd).

It is clear to me that Todd cares that we get the laps we are paying for, and that this is not a nefarious scheme to surreptitiously cut costs. In trying to figure out how many laps the cars will run without running out of gas (as I believe John did at RA this summer (correct me if I'm wrong, John)-- while he was many seconds ahead of Kasey and me through the Carousel in one of the Regional races, he barely made it to the stripe ahead of us (and well below minimum recommended speed for the front straight), whether it's only 1 or 2 cars that are a problem, whether they can be pulled while still providing everyone in the race a ride, sometimes Todd and Nick may get too conservative, which is probably what happened at Sebring. JP proposes a good solution. I voted for one lap fewer warmup on Sunday but got outvoted by the rest of the group. We could ask that the company roll back the price increase until this problem is addressed as a good-faith gesture. Finally, as Craig says, each of us will vote with his/her dollar and those who continue to see overall value in Skip will remain, and those who don't won't.

[Jim Pace]

Often the Pit lane coordinator runs one out of fuel during practice on pupose (tester?) to see if anything has changed since the last time the series ran at that track. Additionally the Lapping guys keep notes of cars running short during the 35 min sessions in lapping. This usually filters out the "short" cars. Then to be safe, a lap is cut off to make sure. If at any point someone stumbles in a race, the next group may be cut again. PLC and timing stay in touch over elasped time but still there is only so much fuel (or so little?) There is no conspiracy theory here just dealing with a difficult problem.

Now the MX5 cars should run an hour + but that is a different topic.

And as Harsha said, one votes with ones wallet. End of story.
JP

[John Greist]

Originally Posted by Slowhands

It is clear to me that Todd cares that we get the laps we are paying for (Sure agree with this point), and that this is not a nefarious scheme to surreptitiously cut costs. In trying to figure out how many laps the cars will run without running out of gas (as I believe John did at RA this summer (correct me if I'm wrong, John)-- while he was many seconds ahead of Kasey and me through the Carousel in one of the Regional races, he barely made it to the stripe ahead of us (and well below minimum recommended speed for the front straight) [Right, was passed on the outside in the carousel and by 3 others before start-finish, didn't complain as Dan and others felt so responsible - they discovered fuel pick up was bent up so not all fuel in cell was picked up, replaced fuel cell and mileage was fine thereafter.], whether it's only 1 or 2 cars that are a problem, whether they can be pulled while still providing everyone in the race a ride, sometimes Todd and Nick may get too conservative, which is probably what happened at Sebring. JP proposes a good solution. I voted for one lap fewer warmup on Sunday but got outvoted by the rest of the group. We could ask that the company roll back the price increase until this problem is addressed as a good-faith gesture.

SBR has always done something to "make it right" with past problems. Seat time is far more the issue in my mind than what SBR has to charge to keep the ship afloat. Limited fuel range isn't a new problem. I don't remember vapor lock in the summers, hot as they sometimes get. Dodge engines consume more fuel than the Fords they replaced and while the Fords permitted longer races that were sure more fun, they had problems too.

That said, 40.5 mile races with 1 lap warm up, short pace lap and 1 cool down lap and 1 victory lap (total > 54 miles) were possible (victory lap admittedly sketchy) in Sept at Road America. Sebring had 2 lap warm up, 1 lap cool down and if victory lap added to 7 lap race, that's 41 miles for a dry race. In the rain it's 37 miles - overly large fuel safety margin = big hit on seat time.

SBR, with all the strengths we value, has always addressed problems as they arise. Seat time is only one aspect of the whole package which has many fine qualities. But as price goes up, it's hard to see seat time go down.

[jp56]

Get rid of the warm-up lap(s)..What other series has warm-up laps?

[AlDelattre]

[quote=Slowhands;25097]Craig,

An important limiting factor to how quickly Skippy can put a group on the track after the previous one has finished is instructor feedback. The guys have to drive in from all the corners, and then spend adequate time giving a lot of folks individualized information about the mistakes they are making and how they could do better, and then drive back. This is a critically important part of the SBRS experience that you can't get in a series that is not built around driver development. It warms my heart to see how seriously these guys take this part of the job. [quote]

Hey guys- it's been a while- Happy Holidays

1) Turnarounds can be aggravatingly long - but I know the guys hustle (to Harsha's point above). Plus, I still want/need the feedback.

2) I DO agree - Todd, Randy Buck, et al (aka "the people in the field") do whatever they can, are more than fair, and try and incorporate suggestions - to wit, last years "force people to race champ group" ordeal.

3) The fuel tank-based race distance has been there since I started this stuff in...2004? so what's changed?? tanks are the same size....are they using E85, with poorer mileage all the sudden?

3) let's be clear - shorter races = lower costs. Lower chance of crash damage; 1 less lap per 10 lap race = 10% reduction is wear, tear...etc etc. Hmmmm....

I'm not suggesting that there is a secret conspiracy to screw over the customer or anything...though I still recall one SBR "executive"'s brilliant observation from LRP 2 years back - "from now on, if anyone crashes, they are out, no refund!". I have witnesses to that... I think another key thing is most of us do this for fun and appreciate the value - both real and perceived. I have - and will - pay for some lead/follow with Jim Pace, or for radio coaching from Rob Slonaker. However, I also "feel" good about that..

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

[tom goodhart]

I vote for a 7/8 lap warmup. Go out, come around and grid. Enough time to scope out the track condition and get a feel for your car.

[Kasey]

Why lose even 1/2 lap to pace the field ...lets do F1 style standing starts or even better, "old school" Le Mans running starts!

[Andrew]

How about I throw this out for criticism?

Leave Saturdays as is with the fuel comsumption governing the qualifying and race lenghts; then for Sundays, which are not as time restrictive due to no qualifying, we run two heats of about 20 mins. each. The way it would work is run the first heat, pit and grid at the same time, drivers leave driving equipment on, exit the car, remain on the side while re-fuelers do their thing, then strap in for the second heat. The first guys in can strap in as soon as they are re-fueled; we'll only be delayed by the last couple of rows and the mechanics can assist them getting their belts on to hurry things along.
The out lap could be a short pace lap. Any gains in position during the first heat would still be realized. The overall time of the race would be lengthened by the time it takes to re-fuel typically 12 to 18 cars, two at a time. Probably 10 minutes or so. No serious impact on Sunday's schedule.
We would get 40 min. of seat time, a sizable increase with very little
impact, which would more than make up for the shortfall from Saturday. The coaches would stay out during the re-fueling and come in for feedback after the second heat. Each heat would score points.

Open for slings and arrows.

[dalyduo]

In '05 Feb Sebring races were 9 laps.
In '06 the races dropped to 8 laps.
In '07 after 2 MDNF's my 3rd and last sportsman race was a 9 lapper (didn't save results from the mdnf's) but the memorial was 8 laps. Both dry. Had one practice session that showed me running 11 laps with no one else more than nine so maybe a glitch. (I was fastest in the session... But not that fast. )

Last year we had a wet start with a 1 7/8th start to give everyone a feel for the wet conditions. But what happened to the shortcut at Sebring? I recall starts that involved turning right at turn 3 and circling back around on the backstraight to save fuel?

Andrew... Creative thought but IMHO not practical for mechanics and instructors. It doubles everyones work load on Sunday.

[John Greist]

Originally Posted by Andrew

How about I throw this out for criticism?

Leave Saturdays as is with the fuel comsumption governing the qualifying and race lenghts; then for Sundays, which are not as time restrictive due to no qualifying, we run two heats of about 20 mins. each.

We would get 40 min. of seat time, a sizable increase with very little
impact, which would more than make up for the shortfall from Saturday. The coaches would stay out during the re-fueling and come in for feedback after the second heat. Each heat would score points.

Drew, Great idea. Solves seat time problem. If two 25 minute sessions with no warm up as several suggest, that would really be great racing. Start second heat single file as after double yellow.

As we've heard when too timid about corner speed, "The car will do it." The cars, in their present fuel configuration, will surely "do 30 minutes" - hell, they'll do 45+ minutes much of the time.

Open for slings and arrows.

Accolades from me.

[jeffrey Pietz]

I still do not understand all I know about this. At RA we run 25-30 minute races with a one lap 4 mile warm up. At Sebring we run less than 18 minutes a 6 mile warm up. The math does not make sense. Could the burping test cars have a problem with their fuel pick ups as John encountered?

As for Drew's idea I like it if we cannot get the mileage problem corrected.

[John Greist]

Appologies for conflating minutes with miles:

As we've heard when too timid about corner speed, "The car will do it." The cars, in their present fuel configuration, will surely "do 30 minutes" - hell, they'll do 45+ minutes much of the time.

The cars will, with rare exceptions signaling need for fuller filling or problems with fuel pick up curable by replacing the fuel cell, do 30 minutes. 45 minutes is a stretcher. 45+ miles works at Road America with arguably more full throttle than most other tracks - I ran 54+ miles in Sept in the Masters race, counting warm up, pace, cool down and victory laps. At Sebring, the maximum distance with 2 lap warm up, 7 lap race and 1 lap cool down was 37 miles, and with a victory lap was 41 miles.

My bet: there'll be longer races at Homestead and Laguna in January.

[rgreist]

To be sure, this is a topic that inspires heated debate.

Skip Barber remains one of the great values in racing. Spec Miata or MX-5 racing probably is another, but I can say from experience that if you can drive a Skippy car well, you can drive an MX-5 well. The reverse is not necessarily true. So despite slightly higher cost per mile with Skip Barber, you get top notch instruction and a access to "laboratory" for experiments in applied physics. In MX-5 Cup or Spec Miata, you get a lot of seat time, but it is lower quality than that you get in a Skippy car for learning to drive.

And before people get angry and say I'm disparaging sports cars, I'd say that the maxim holds for the Formula Continental I'm going to drive this season. It's a great car, and lots of fun, but it's fun in a different way than a Skippy car. It's more precise and goes faster through the corners, especially the high-speed ones. But it's easier to drive. And if I had learned to drive in it, I wouldn't be as competent in all cars as I am because I learned to drive at Skip Barber.

I agree with Gerardo that Skip Barber does listen to customer suggestions, and I understand the fueling issues, but it seems to me that races have gotten shorter in the past few race weekends while the fueling constraint has remained constant. Combine this development with rising prices, and you've got an even greater effective increase in the price per mile. I think that's what chafes long-time customers.

Doing away with warm-up laps is a possibility, but that idea probably would be best tested in the championship group where drivers have experience with many different cars and handling characteristics. I remember my first 10 races, and I appreciated every extra moment to get settled and relax after the warm-up. I recall on several occasions finishing the warm-up with the feeling of, "OK, I can do this. I am (probably) not going to die." That feeling is invaluable for allowing new drivers to relax, focus on their driving and improve during the race.

After all is said and done, though, JP is right: people will vote with their wallets. If Skip can raise prices and the market will bear it, we established customers might not like it, but it's simply a business decision as to whether management should do it.

[dlippert]

I think the underlying issue is that there is a relationship between price and volumn that at first is not (to some) readily apparent.

When we speak of ppotentially fewer laps at a given price, we are addressing the value component of the price. More significantly is the overall impact that the increasing price has on the on the market.

The SBRS porgram appeals to a fairly broad demographgic, ranging from people for whom money truly is no issue, to those who are on a limited and very strict budget.

As the price increases, the company will see an overall increase in revenue per event that is likely masking the fact that a percentage of the people who would have participated at the lower price have dropped out. For example, 100 people paying $4,000 generates $400,000 in revenue and 95 people paying $4,400 creates $418,000 of revenue, a 4.5% increase. This can look attractive for awhile, because not only have revenues increased, but costs have decreased (fewer cars, fewer instructors, etc.) But, as the price increases over time, the product becomes less affordable to more and more of the customer base starting at the (relatively) lower income side and progressing upward, driving more and more customers off to other venues or out of racing all together. There is a point where a continually increasing price has driven off enough customers so that event revenues decline - ultimately to a point where they no longer can cover fixed expenses. And, as the price has increases, so too does the realtive competitive value of other series.

In the SBRS case, rising price also has the effect of making the schools appeal to an increasingly narrow financial demographic and puts it in a competitive position with a larger number of alternative "adventure" experiences. It also makes it more difficult to convert a school graduate to a regular race series customer, which is a serious issue since many of the more affluent customers participating in the race series who could pay the higher prices tend to naturally gravitate to other "higher level" series after some time with SBRS, which further reduces the core of people able to pay the increased rates. If they are not being replaced at a rate equal to or greater than the attrition, the problem is magnified.

No doubt the race series is a complicarted financial model, but it would be interesting to look at it from all angles that would include evaluating the impact of such things as lower versus higher price, creating more value per $ spent, etc.

[John Greist]

Revere and Dick convince me I went to the wrong graduate school to do business. Each profession has its common cultural experiences and jargon that leave out non professionals. SBR school students get high quality education with many degrees of professionalism as their reward.

I agree with Revere that driving a RT-2000 well prepares one to drive other cars well. The school cars are even better teaching tools, but SBR doesn't think they could prosper racing them, though they cost less to make and maintain - RT transmissions cost more than twice the Hewland 4 speed, not to mention wings - are more fun to drive and harder to drive well, hence more educational.

Getting good in a formula car is like learning to sail a capsizable single-handed boat well - if you do, you can sail any other boat well, including bigger and faster boats. But to get good at either, you need lots of sail or seat time, and that's where the rub comes in. Seat time costs something, from little in a Kart, to middling in a non SBR Miata/MX-5 to middling plus for SBR formula and MX-5s to lots for other sports and open wheel cars.

With SBR, good formula cars, computer car, fine coaching, and superb lead-follow, are all available. If one can afford SBR, it's tops. But as Dick says, the business model is complicated and I hope the evolving model continues to work as it has, perhaps miraculously, for 30 years.

[dlippert]

There is no doub that the SBRS program is a great learning tool that prepares people to drive many different kinds of race cars well AND how to be the kind of competitive yet safe racer that is welcomed into other series.

I can also see the advantage of the "H" gearbox, having just tested MX5 cup cars and managing to, not once, but twice, (expensively) perform a 3rd to 2nd when a 3rd to 4th was intended. Maybe more time in the school car would have

I think the SBRS model would be much more clear and the economics easier to establish and explain if someone would define the objective. Is it a low cost race series? Is it a mid price series that competes with SCCA? Is it a school that only wants to keep its students for a year or so? Is it primarily a rung on the professional ladder? If one can define the objective then everything else can be designed around it. This creates a product that can be explained and one whose price can be justified. Customers are not driven off just because a company has the wrong policies or standards. Rather, it is the the customer's misunderstanding and the company's inconsitent application of the policies and standards that creates the problem.

At the end of the day the fact remains that we have these conversations only because we love the company, the people who represent it at the race weekends and the office staff who make it all work. Looking back on all my years in business, what I would have given to have had a base of customers so passionate about my product and so loyal to my company. What a gift.

[chris nussbaum]

I'm impressed as always by the caliber of the individuals responding to this thread, the insights and observations they've made, and the correlation with their skills in the car. Interesting how sharp observations and honed assessment skills in their respective fields translate to on-track performance, too.

Dick is right on in his comment regarding the passion and intensity of the customer base. The vast majority of Skippy drivers i've had the pleasure of associating with are walking ambassadors for the school. They are the kind of drivers you like to compete with, and the kind of people you're glad to have met.

While there are many impressive drivers in SCCA, i can tell you from personal experience, running a fair amount of SM events, that there are many there who need Skippy -- badly. Many simply have no idea how far from safe/fast/steady/smooth they are. ( Thanks to my Skippy days and coaching, i know how far i am!.....). I have turned down offers of free rides in Spec Racer knowing going racing with the crowd at hand would have been a slugfest, and there would be more bad than good going on.

I've recently detailed some of my own issues to Chris Kretzmer, my Skippy rep. To give SBRS credit, they did follow up with me, and seemed to sincerely want to know my spin on things. It appears they noticed i hadn't booked many events with them lately. That's a start, no?.

Happy Holidays to you all! See you on track.

[Andrew]

I don't know if SBRS changes gear set for the various venues, but whether they do or not, I'm thinking the fuel mileage obtained has a lot to do with what distance you travel in which gear at each track.
Road America has three long segments in fifth gear while Mid-Ohio and Mont Tremblant, for example, have only one.
Why the race distance has gotten shorter, as some suggest,could possible be justified and explained by SBRS if they cared to do so.
Maybe they went to shorter gears or smaller tires in addition to placing the fuel pumps in the fuel cell.
All I know is that travelling up to 2400 miles round trip to race at wonderful tracks will become harder to justify if I can only run a few meager laps.
I think running a second heat on Sunday as previously suggested in my previous post has some merit. SBRS is between a rock and a hard place. They have to deal with the existing car, ( what ever happened to the 'new car') and increasing cost of doing business.
I think more seat time at a given venue will increase their overall cost marginally; and while that cost would need to be passed on to the consumer ( as in all business) it would be a lot more palatable if we felt we received something for it; i.e. value in the form of more racing.

[Fabriceweill]

after signing for a few races for 2008, the budget is a fairly important issue...
Dare I mention also the friendship aspect of skip barber environment?
How many organisations offer you the pleasure of racing against people you actually enjoy being with?
Personnally, I have met great people that kept me coming back for more.
I don't race in the same groups as some of you, Revere will continue to be a "guy I know" who won the race in the "other" group, but SBR has brought me more than just racing and gas fumes, it brought me modern chevalry (sometimes) and friendship (always).

Now, to get more mileage, would one want efforts made during the race or during the coaching period, lapping and practice?
If the effort was made during the practice, could it be a better pricing on additional practice session? this, afterall is mostly incremental fuel cost and an incentive on both sides since we pay slightly more but get it at "a real deal" additional session?

[LimeRockRacer]

Dick said it much more eloquently than I could in his previous 2 posts. So therefore I will refer to Dick's view point for the large part of my sentiments on this subject. Now if I could just get Dick's speed on the track!

It is a complicated model for sure but there is one point I have learned in my business over the years that I think applies here that seems to have been missed and that is the fact that it is much cheaper and ultimately more profitable to retain your existing good customers than to have to go out and replace them with new ones....

Merry Christmas all!

[Duc998M]

I hope everyone is well this holiday season. I couldn’t sit out any longer. I always have to put in my 2 cents
fficeffice" />
I think there are some terrific ideas here. We may be over looking something. If SBR was really looking to lower costs, would reducing the number of laps be their main focus? I don’t think there is much cost savings in reducing laps/track time.

How much of a reduction in cost (dollar or percentage) is there for every lap reduced?

Lets say the Formula 2000 get 12 miles per gallon (I would guess it is higher but it is an easy number). Three laps at Road ffice:smarttags" />America would be one gallon. So if SBR reduced a race at RA by three laps, they would save $3 per car (assuming $3.00 per gallon). With 15 cars racing that is $45. I am over looking something?

I think it was JP that said the largest cost is the track rental. I would guess that insurance, people and equipment are the other big ones. These would be mostly a fixed cost. They would be the same no matter if 10 or 100 people showed up to race for the weekend.

Lets compare racing with BSI to Skip. While I have not raced with BSI, I have been looking into it seriously. BSI does not have to pay for track rental. While you pay a fee to race, the track rental is usually distributed over more people. At BSI you are not paying for instructors to be at every corner. Not only are the instructors at SBR giving you feedback, they are refereeing and have the ability to assign crash damage. With BSI, if the car is damaged you pay. No damage can be assigned to the knucklehead that tried to go from last to first by turn one (Gerardo, you are excluded from this statement because you do it without crashing anyone). While they only charge you for actual costs, there is not limit to your liability. The potential is that you could have to pay for the entire car ($30,000+). BSI said that this would be very unlikely but it is something that you have to consider. They mentioned that if you wanted to buy insurance is would cost around $7,000 for the race weekend. Something to consider if you have every helicoptered your car coming out of turn 11 at Watkins Glen (the guilty will remain anonymous).

So, how do they reduce costs? They could go to less expensive tracks. But I like SBR because of the track selections. They could cut the number of instructors. I go to Skippy to get feedback. They could get rid of the limited liability. Go to something similar to the 13/13 rule at the Porsche Club racing. You crash, you go home.

All just my thoughts. Open to additions or criticism.

Marc

[chsutherland]

Well since I have raced with BSI here are the basic differences. You don't get instruction about every single corner on the track. You will get overall coaching and radio spotting along with lead/follow. The instruction is top notch, trust me. True there is no CD limit. You break it, you buy it. I broke some parts at Moroso on the front stretch opposite pit lane. Long story short 45-50mph hit my best guess, 1200 dollars. The entire bumper was replaced and a few panels pulled out. I know how hard I hit, and I thought that was a pretty fair price tag. Stu is a pretty fair guy. True you must be more responsible. You must also be more aware of what is going on around you. You must make sure to get all the laps you paid for. There is no backup car. Racing with BSI leaves a person with less safety nets. The insurance can be less than 7,000 for one weekend, i would shop that number around. Racing in the SCCA has been a bit surprising for me. Every race weekend will have humbling moments for a driver, I have witnessed more humbling moments racing with SB. There are more on track "events" at a skippy weekend in comparison to SCCA, or PBOC. IMHO it is because everyone is responsible for their own gear outside of SB. Very few SCCA racers have the means to have a backup car in addition to the primary. The result is racers taking fewer chances. Dr. Nussbaum is correct that most SCCA drivers are not as fundamentally sound as SB drivers. However there are some very good drivers in the SCCA. The most obvious difference is track time and cost. I get more time and I pay less.
In respect to SB here are my thoughts and I will leave it at this. A lapping day is advertised as "about 100miles". I have never gotten 100 miles at a lapping day that I can recall, maybe at Lime Rock it is possible, but at the longer tracks it is not as stated above. Their "cup car" is infact not a cup car. Why?! Its a racing school/series with sponsorship from Mazda. Why would they not have a real MX5? They share 0 suspension parts. If Todd Snyder can turn a 2:44 best lap at Sebring and I can run 2:42's that says everything about their MX5. Todd would clean my clock in equal cars. I have had 4 CSR's in less than a year. I was never notified of them leaving, so it made for some interesting planning. When your CSR leaves and no one tells you, then your weekend get screwed up as a result it isn't fun. I have had them call me months after a race weekend and say I owed them money. If I do owe you please call me sooner than 90 days. I asked for my deposit back since I wouldn't be racing with them for awhile and was told it would take 14 days. I owned retail stores, and did returns on a CC it takes all of 30 seconds. However my new CSR Evan is excellent and they are lucky to have him.
The lack of seat time and increasing prices have been a hot topic on TJR for the better part of a year. I am not responsible for either the increase in price or lack of seat time. Nor do I see either getting better.
I may not be the most well read individual, however I don't miss much. If we aren't on the track busting bugs it doesn't cost anyone but us. I don't understand why fuel would be an issue. We are in the same car. I would be very surprised if SB didn't have every single number and expense figured out. If nothing else repetition would provide this. Same business for the last 30 years. Same basic cars, subtle difference yes but the idea is the same. The RT isn't a new model, I am not sure if major parts and pieces have been changed completely. I would imagine they are just replaced. Lastly, I have never met any of SB's owners or executives. Nor have I ever talked to one on the phone or at the track. I have never to my knowledge seen one post on TJR and if they did they did not represent themselves as such. If I had such an incredible resource as TJR and some of the most loyal customers ever i would exploit it to the absolute max. I would call Dr. Greist once a week at home to see how he was! I ran a retail chain for a friend who had become sick. At 20 I had the responsibility of balancing a 40million budget and 180 employees over 6 stores in 4 states. The business i was managing was an absolute mess due to the owners illness. i would have killed for a website like this. I would have done anything to have the kind of customers SB has. Most of you guys/gals love SB like most people love their local sports team. Yet in my eyes it goes largely unappreciated. Outside of the few instructors who do post I have never heard from the SB brass. Might I add the instructors who do post it is my understanding from what I have read here, they are only allowed to do so because they are independent contractors! I see TJR and the kind of customers SB has as an absolute gift. When i see a gift being given, and then wasted it angers me to no end.
All that being said, race where you want to. Race where you have fun. If someone races with BSI that doesn't mean they can't also race with SB. I didn't race with SB to make friends, i found some while I was there but it wasn't my intention. I wanted to learn how to race, and I wanted to be good. So far it seems to me there are a few key elements to being a good driver, coaching and seat time. I was getting the coaching i needed at SB but not the seat time. And since my mommy and daddy don't pay for my seat time I need every nickels worth. If I could double every event at every weekend i would. but I can't. and I can't get to where I want to be racing solely with SB. However I don't fault those who do. I applaud your loyalty and devotion to SB and what Mr. Barber intended the company to be. i think its great. I only brought up BSI because I thought there might be others like me out there, and if there were I wanted to help.
PS my brothers christmas card to me this year was in spanish and infact a birthday card. I loved it!

[PT Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Duc998M

Lets say the Formula 2000 get 12 miles per gallon (I would guess it is higher but it is an easy number). Three laps at Road ffice:smarttags" />America would be one gallon. So if SBR reduced a race at RA by three laps, they would save $3 per car (assuming $3.00 per gallon). With 15 cars racing that is $45. I am over looking something?

This is a bit of an oversimplification, as it does not account for wear and tear on the racecar. The RT/2000s actually take a fair amount of abuse between rebuilds, but stuff wears out eventually and needs to be replaced, and this is far from free. Adding or subtracting one lap per race might not make that much of a difference, but I'd bet that the extra cost of running double heats on Sunday would be far more than just the extra tank of fuel required for each car.

I do wonder what SBRS's situation is with respect to engines at this point. The new open wheel car has obviously not materialized as quickly as originally hoped. Nevertheless, I don't think SBRS will want to go through the pain of converting the existing formula car fleet from Dodge to Mazda engines, unless they've totally abandoned plans for a new car. When their deal with Dodge expired last year, my understanding is that they stopped getting the Neon engines currently used in the RT/2000 for free. If in fact they are cutting back on seat time during races --and I'm not necessarily convinced this is the case, since variables such as the number of warm-up laps before a race can confuse the issue and skew people's perceptions-- perhaps it is because in the context of the new financial realities --the Dodge engines are much more expensive to SBRS than they used to be-- they need to make each engine last for a greater number of weekends (on average) for the overall financials to work out.

Idle speculation: I wonder if 2-5 years down the road whether ALL of the SBRS race groups will be Miata race groups, and the open wheelers will be a thing of the past. I'd hate to see this happen, but if Mazda is supplying SBRS with deeply discounted Miatas, but not cheap engines for the open-wheel series, the economics might ultimately give SBRS little choice in the matter.

[John Greist]

Laguna Seca this weekend sure turned up the seat time, even adding an extra practice related to fog.

I wasn't there, but thanks seem in order to SBR and Randy for making sure everyone is getting more rather than less seat time.

[rgreist]

There was an abundance of seat time at Laguna. Don't know whether Skippy management was acting at all in response to some of the observations in this thread, but whatever the reason, Randy and Todd made sure we all got to drive.

The sessions were long -- to the point that we were running out of gas toward the end of the 35-40 minutes. Given the fuel capacity constraints of the car, we were allowed to drive as much as was possible. Great weekend.

[chsutherland]

So was there a change in the ECU?