There has been some discussion on work sessions at the practice. In order to get a sense if opinions have shifted over time, please select your preference for a practice format.
Option 1
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NnOy39QIJME/VbKIwjISzeI/AAAAAAAAKsA/v4gsJAx0m8Q/s800-Ic42/Run%252520Groups%252520Option%2525201.jpg)
Option 2
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NINjxECStqc/VbKNbvKtBtI/AAAAAAAAKsM/N-MO1JzZKRw/s800-Ic42/Run%252520Groups%252520Option%2525202.jpg)
Option 3
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Br37kO6z41g/VbKIwlAX1CI/AAAAAAAAKr4/Xe1-rM560xg/s800-Ic42/Run%252520Groups%252520Option%2525203.jpg)
Option 4
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-L_IzKQdSGkM/VbQjvSh4tUI/AAAAAAAAKss/EIbXSKVfl38/s800-Ic42/option%2525204.jpg)
Moderators: Mike Simanyi, Christine Grice, Rick Brown
Nope. No idea.Sean Fenstermacher wrote:Hey KJ. I assume you will be able to see who votes for what.
Some observations/background:Sean Fenstermacher wrote:People who don't work course due to chief duties or sit in an air conditioned trailer announcing vs those standing or chasing cones will most likely have very different view points and not nearly providing the same amount of physical effort.
For those having a hard time deciphering these charts, here is a quick summary of each option:
Option 1: 5 run groups. Work 1 shift per day of 1hr50mins. Run 4 times, 3 runs each time (12 runs total)
Option 2: 4 run groups. Work 2 shifts per day of 1hr10mins. Run 2 times, 6 runs each time (12 runs total)
Option 3: 5 run groups. Work 2 shifts per day of 55mins. Run 2 times, 6 runs each time (12 runs total)
No to me. And I guess it doesn't surprise me that you're one who gets the 3 runs done quickly. You're one of those almost always ready to go, so when the grid guy is looking for someone not tinkering on his car or chatting it up, it's easy to send you.Guy Walker wrote: it sounds like i'm complaining
that is better! but we are still pushing a single 2 hour workgroup. i personnally believe that 90 mins should be the max for a single workgroup.KJ Christopher wrote:No to me. And I guess it doesn't surprise me that you're one who gets the 3 runs done quickly. You're one of those almost always ready to go, so when the grid guy is looking for someone not tinkering on his car or chatting it up, it's easy to send you.Guy Walker wrote: it sounds like i'm complaining
I was going to make a comment about the benefit of hitching rides with friends and new cars, but I guess you have the ability to do that regardless of whether we run four times or run twice.
If there was an option of working once and having two run sessions instead of four, would you need to think as hard? It's actually easy to convert option 3 into option 4- let me do that and add it.
I like this!Guy Walker wrote:KJ Christopher wrote:that is better! but we are still pushing a single 2 hour workgroup. i personnally believe that 90 mins should be the max for a single workgroup.Guy Walker wrote: it sounds like i'm complaining
i know there are tech and reg duplication, but i like the idea of 1 90 min work group, 2 45 min run groups with a 1/2 day commitment
something like this...
1,2
1,3
2,3
2,1
3,1
3,2
carts
4,5
4,6
5,6
5,4
6,4
6,5
I don't think it does anyone any good to run 8 to 10 runs straight. Especially when gearing up for Nationals.Craig Naylor wrote:I haven't done practices in a long time... and rarely when I did. It's probably been 10+ years since any club in the region offered such... But I personally liked 1/2 day's. Work/run morning or afternoon. Sure Reg and Tech have to be open twice. They usually consisted of 8-10 runs rather than 12, but most participants still got a half day to do other things.
We do use this format (3*2) when we're lower on headcount. The event will literally stop moving for 20 minutes as we do change-overs. It is so inefficient that we try to get to a 4*2 or a 5*1 as quickly as possible. I haven't gone back to look over the maths, so this is a pure guess, but I suspect we'd have to drop 15-20 people from the entry list. We'd rather not do that for this event.Guy Walker wrote:something like this...
1,2
1,3
2,3
2,1
3,1
3,2
carts
4,5
4,6
5,6
5,4
6,4
6,5
We've made a deliberate decision to avoid employer/employee relationships.Steve Abbott wrote:Some organizations have no work. Let's take a poll on hiring workers and pay an X amount to cover it.
Those groups are probably "for profit" groups not run by volunteers. If we were a for profit company, we would weigh that option in relation to profitability and make a decision accordingly. As a club made up of volunteers, there is much more to consider. Volunteers are much less willing to take bold steps like this one as it would certainly have an affect on attendance and change us from a grass roots organization to a group seeking more of a PCA type crowd. I have no doubt that there is a market for what you suggest Steve, but I'm not sure it's right for us.Steve Abbott wrote:Some organizations have no work. Let's take a poll on hiring workers and pay an X amount to cover it.
It's not as easy as I make it look ;)Steve Abbott wrote:Some organizations have no work. Let's take a poll on hiring workers and pay an X amount to cover it.
Thanks for the compliment Jason. As one of the core organizers, it's great to get feedback, both good and bad. The fact that your feed back was positive let's me know we are on the right track.Jason Rhoades wrote:I gotta say that was probably the best practice I've ever been to. The run group thing confused my wimpy brain a little but when it was done I got a ton of runs and realize I didn't spend a lot of time wondering where I was supposed to be when.
Cal Club has come a long way in event operations, this was nothing like how I remember it from the mid 2000's. Great job everyone.