I think that would be an interesting question to pose to the chair of the marketing committee.....ie, how were the weight and speed limits arrived at, and was existing inventory factored in over and above park safety. Why don't you pose the question to Mark?
Is that so we can compare the answer we already got from AMA to the answer Mark would give?
Kinda like Mark disagreeing with the Joyce-mail stating they intended for PPP to have their own clubs and not be at standard fields.... which Mark now says isnt so.
We had a thread on the PPP limits rationality,
and iirc we got an official answer that Muncie didnt put much consideration into the physics but focused on what the industry was selling as PFs. I'll try to dredge up that thread from 6-9 months ago.
Another interesting question would be to ask how the EC and the Marketing Committee would define success for the program. I would hope that with a major initiative like this that AMA has a specific goal in mind both in numbers and time frame. Otherwise how does one know whether to continue or to punt?
This questionwas already put to Mark, by STL, and then the important part was clarified for me:
I asked if theer was any condition that could sway his unconditional support of PPP and have him consider pulling the plug, and Mark said basicly No.
"
To be clear,
STL asked if you would UNCONDITIONALLY support PPP.
Is there any condition, that could eventually occur, that would have you decide it it time to end the PPP?"
The marketplace is dynamic, not static and I cannot anticipate what “any condition” yields; thus, my answer is no. The PPP is our centerpiece and main opportunity for membership growth.
Great, we now have out goals & definition of success:
No conditions can be considered failing, it is a success at all times by definition.
The goal is to exist, regardless of all conditions.
Bob, if this is an exercise in comparing what we were told by AMA with what we will be told by Mark,
then I am all for it.