I agree with you on this Don and I think we both know simply finding and
reaching a mutually beneficial agreement with an entity that is open to such
an arrangement, a pretty daunting task by itself, will be only the first
hurdle. More troublesome to me is that we require public approvals, usually
in the form of a Conditional User Permit in order to conduct our events, and
a Conditional Use Permit, assuming we can get one in the first place, is
revocable at any time. Before we could prudently participate with a
"partner" we need to decide how to cover our investment should we lose our
entitlement. In the context of the San Francisco Bay Area, I can't stress
the reality of this enough. I always enjoy the variety of opinions I hear in
these site discussions, but the only issue I that I find consistently
frustrating is the lack of appreciation of just how genuinely out of the
mainstream our activity is. Beyond any of the practical disadvantages we
discussed like wear and tear, there is no compelling political reason for
anyone to support us in this. It is a lose-lose proposition for a public
entity, no upside. That we actually still have sites to use in the area is
amazing to me, and attributable I think to both hard work in getting and
keeping them, and lack of public awareness about what we're up to. I do keep
the faith however that there is some trucking guy out there planning a cross
dock out there where there ain't no people and who wants a break on the site
costs in return for weekend use. We just have to find him. And get him to
take our money.
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald R McKenna" <donbarbmckenna@earthlink.net>
To: "Anthony Tabacco" <atabacco@california.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: A/C Paving 101
> Tony,
>
> Unfortunately, you've hit the mark! We're (SCCA SFR SOLO II) still going
to
> try, through the $5 site-fee-per-entrant fund, to develop a "proprietatry"
> site but, the reality of this goal is cooperation. Unless we are able to
> find a "partner" to share their acerage, long-term, with our "paving-fund"
> the chances of getting a good bay area (or even close-to-bay-area) site
are
> limited. We have to continue to try and find a connection (and add to the
> site fund in the meantime) as the only logical path to a really good
chance
> of getting a good surface to run on.
>
> There are few lots we've used that make most folks "happy".All have
> compromising characteristics over time and with the various weather
> variations throughout the year.that render them "good" only occasionally.
> But then, the alternative is boredom --- and not throughing money into the
> black hole of autocrossing.
>
> I want to keep throughing!
>
> Don
> ----------
> >From: "Anthony Tabacco" <atabacco@california.com>
> >To: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> >Subject: A/C Paving 101
> >Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2002, 11:20 AM
> >
>
> >Hot Mix Asphalt Paving ingredients include asphalt binders, course and
fine
> >aggregates, and mineral fillers. About 90-95% of the total volume of the
mix
> >is made up of aggregates. Surfaces that we usually associate with gravel
> >buildup will usually be of a mix design that contains a high percentage
of
> >course aggregates, and probably a degradation of binders though wear and
> >evaporation (petroleum products evaporate). There are various surface
> >treatments, ranging from sprayed asphalt, asphalt seals (fog seal), to
> >slurries of emulsified asphalts mixed with fine aggregates, that can
extend
> >the life of paving by limiting water intrusion, and these are
particularly
> >necessary as the mix begins to disintegrate.
> >
> >I can think of no other activity that will degrade a paved surface faster
> >than autocrossing on it. The aggregates are literally being pulled from
the
> >surface. Even high traffic-index truck traffic will not subject a surface
to
> >the high shear of racing cars on it. So that's where the gravel comes
from,
> >and that's why no matter how we sweep it, it reappears. It is just the
> >pavement breaking down. Irreparably.
> >
> >With rough grading, but no curbs, gutters, marking, right now you can
figure
> >about $3.00 per square foot in install a medium index (for large areas
and
> >not a high traffic-index) parking lot. The lot at GGF to use an example
is
> >550,000 SF (about 12.6 acres not counting the staging area). That's works
> >out to a little over $1.6M.
> >
> >This is all pretty boring stuff but it begs a question that is
interesting
> >( I've always found it very interesting anyway), namely : Why would
anyone
> >let us do this to their lot?
> >
> >Tony
|