Randy Lewis

GREETINGS FROM MAYODAN, NORTH CAROLINA

ALL PICTURES HAVE BEEN UPDATED FROM THIS TRACKCHASING TRIP AT WWW.RANLAYRACING.COM

 

I WOKE UP IN SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA THIS MORNING.  I WENT TO SLEEP IN GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA.  THIS IS WHAT TRANSPIRED TODAY.

 

 

PEOPLE/STRATEGY/TRAVEL NEWS

 

The Strategy                                                                                    

As many of you know, one of my hobbies is financial planning.  I am retired.  When one retires, they no longer get that direct deposit paycheck.  I do not receive any kind of pension or retirement monthly check whatsoever.  Therefore, if Carol and I are going to live out your “golden years” in a blissful contentment we have to make whatever savings we have last until the final sun sets if you know what I mean.

 

Carol is away visiting her parents in New Mexico this week.  This allowed me to spend a little time managing my “30 Year Cash Flow Needs Analysis.”  Before I go any further, I caution you, the loyal Trackchaser Report reader.  This analysis may get a little tedious.  It may not be your cup of tee.  Therefore, I recommend you consider jumping down to the “people” section to see how I managed to live for four days without Carol being in the house.  That part will definitely be more entertaining.

 

To begin with a “30 Year Cash Flow Needs Analysis,” is exactly what it says it is.  I take the 25-30 line items that make up our annual household budget and project them out over the next 30 years.  Yes, I have an estimate of what these 25-30 expense items will cost in the year 2036.  At the end of those 30 years, both Carol and I will be 87 years old.  That’s a bit beyond our IRS life expectancy, but not by much.

 

I take every line item and add an inflation factor to the annual total.  As an example, if our electric bill is currently $100 per month, I might add a 3% inflation factor to that total.  That means that next year our electric bill might be expected to be $103, the following year about $107, etc.  At a 3% inflation rate, the total number would double every 18 years.  That’s the rule of 72.  Therefore, a $100/month electric bill might end up being $300-400 in 30 years with a 3% inflation rate.  By the way, our August, 2006 electric bill was $571!  However, I am not here today to talk about electric bills.

 

As you might imagine, my trackchasing expenses each year are substantial.  My recent sponsorship packages are helping with this astronomical number somewhat, but this is still a huge expense.  Not only do I need to project what my future trackchasing expenses might be in all seven trackchasing categories (airfare, rental car, hotel, gasoline, parking, food and tickets), but I have to estimate how hard I will need to trackchase in the future in order to maintain my current #1 worldwide ranking.  I am not here today to talk about trackchasing expenses.

 

What I am here to strategize about are future trackchasing trends.  How will these trends affect my trackchasing?  How will those trends affect my “30 Year Cash Flow Needs Analysis?”  I am currently leading the trackchasing race.  I need to know how much harder I have to work, in order to stay on top.  Is the trackchasing hobby expanding?  Are certain trackchasers performing at a pace that will jeopardize my current standing?  Can I afford to coast in the coming years without losing my current position?

 

In an effort to answer these questions as well as develop a strategy for my coming trackchasing years, I have developed the “Trackchasing Trends Analysis 2000-2006” table that you see below.  I hope the formatting holds for the email message you receive.  If not, it may be hard for you to track with the analysis.

 

By the way, the base numbers I worked with, in most cases, came from www.trackchaser.com.  This is the pre-eminent sight for data on worldwide trackchaser activity.  Our trackchaser commissioner, Will White, gathers the trackchasing results from each trackchaser and sums up the totals on his website.  Trackchasers do not charge Mr. White for using their base data and he does not charge anyone else for using his base data.  That seems like a fair arrangement.

 

Nevertheless, www.trackchaser.com does not include ALL of the current data.  There are a couple of trackchasers who do not agree with the politics of trackchasing.  They refuse to submit their trackchasing totals.  There is another trackchaser or two, due to neglect or whatever, that don’t submit their totals in a timely fashion.  If you check the notes section of my analysis, you will see how I have handled these variances.  I do not believe these deviations, such as they are, affect the analysis in any significant manner.

 

By the way, Proctor & Gamble used to pay me really big bucks for this type of analysis.  I tried to save as much of what they paid me as I could.  Therefore, without further adieu, I present the “Trackchasing Trends Analysis 2000-2006.”

 

TRACKCHASING FREQUENCY TRENDS ANALYSIS 2000-2006
RANK	RANK			6 YEAR AVE.	3 YEAR AVE.	2006
TODAY	1999	NAME	HOME STATE	2000-2005	2003-2005	ONLY
1	15	RANDY LEWIS	CALIFORNIA	96	123	132
2	4	GUY SMITH	PENNSYLVANIA	56	59	67
3	1	RICK SCHNEIDER (1)	NEW YORK	53	38	42
4	3	GORDON KILLIAN	PENNSYLVANIA	41	35	49
5	2	ALLAN BROWN (2)	MICHIGAN	47	44	59
6	10	ANDY SIVI	PENNSYLVANIA	77	59	17
7	19	ED ESSER	WISCONSIN	81	115	96
8	5	JACK ERDMANN (3)	WISCONSIN	35	29	1
9	8	P.J. HOLLEBRAND	NEW YORK	39	54	12
10	6	JOHN MOORE (4)	TENNESSEE	29	34	25
11	11	NORM WAGNER	OHIO	28	28	13
12	7	PAUL WEIDMAN	NEW YORK	8	8	1
13	16	WILL WHITE	PENNSYLVANIA	41	43	26
14	13	DALE O'BRIEN (5)	WISCONSIN	23	25	15
15	9	ROSCOE HOUGH (6)	NEW JERSEY	0	0	0
16	12	ELEANOR WEIDMAN	NEW YORK	8	8	1
17	18	BRUCE ECKEL	PENNSYLVANIA	21	23	24
18	17	PAT ECKEL	PENNSYLVANIA	20	22	23
22	14	JOHN OSOWSKI	MASSACHUSETTS	8	4	0
23	20	NANCY BROWN (2)	MICHIGAN	24	28	14
			TOTALS WITH LEWIS	735	779	617
			TOTALS W/O LEWIS	639	656	485
ALL TRACKCHASERS TOTALS
2006 TOTALS VS. 6 YEAR AVERAGE			83.9%
2006 TOTALS VS. 3 YEAR AVERAGE			79.2%
ALL TRACKCHASERS TOTALS LESS LEWIS' TOTALS
2006 TOTALS VS. 6 YEAR AVERAGE			75.9%
2006 TOTALS VS. 3 YEAR AVERAGE			73.9%
NOTES:
(1) REPORTED TOTALS FOR RICK SCHNEIDER DOUBLED DURING YEARS 2003-2006
(2) BASED UPON ANNUAL TRACK TOTALS REPORTED EACH YEAR
(3) REPORTED TOTALS JUDGED AS ACCURATE BASED UPON LOCAL FEEDBACK
(4) TOTALS ESTIMATED FOR 2005-2006
(5) TOTALS ESTIMATED FOR 2006
(6) DECEASED

 

Let me explain what type of information the “Trackchasing Trends Analysis 2000-2006” is providing.  I first began tracking individual results in the year 2000.  I looked at the current top 20 trackchaser rankings as they ended up in 1999.  Trackchaser.com does not formally track annual results before 2001.  However, nearly everyone has individual track dates recorded for the year 2000.  This makes me confident in coming up with totals for that year.  Prior to the year 2000, annual totals are a bit sketchy because several trackchasers have not provided specific dates (not even specific years) for when they saw each of their tracks.

 

The first column in the TTA (not to be confused with a Trackchasing Tourist Attraction) shows each person’s rank as of November 1, 2006.  By the way, I’m doing this analysis now and not at the end of year for three reasons.  First, the 2006 season is nearly over.  Most folks see very few tracks in November/December of any given year.  Secondly, I have the time to do this now with Carol being out of the house.  Finally, I will be extremely busy following the completion of 2006 with all matter of things, so now is the time to provide this analysis.  However, if you are of the skeptical nature, I will provide an update upon request, if that request is made after January 1, 2007.

 

At any given time, we have trackchasers who are really getting into the hobby and others who are pursuing other interests.  I was surprised to see that only two trackchasers who ranked in the top 20 at the end of 1999, no longer make that list in 2006. 

 

The two trackchasers who have fallen out of the top 20 are John Osowski and Nancy Brown.  They have been replaced by Roger Ferrell and Roland Vanden Eynde.  These two “newcomers” to the top 20 currently rank #19 and #20.  During the past seven years, no new trackchaser has been able to come onto the scene and gain a ranking any higher than 19^th.  That doesn’t say much for the hobby attracting new blood.  My analysis today includes only the top 20 trackchasers from the end of the 1999 season.

 

Although not many new people have cracked the worldwide trackchasing top 20 over the past several years, the movement WITHIN the top 20 has been dramatic.  You can compare the first two columns of the table to see who has moved up and who have move down.

 

You will also see the geographical locations of the top 20 trackchasers.  The East dominates the rankings with a strong showing from several Midwesterners.  Sadly, it doesn’t look like many people living west of the Mississippi have shown much interest in trackchasing.

 

Following the names and locations of the top trackchasers is the really important data as it relates to my “Trackchasing Trends Analysis 2000-2006.”  The first column to look at is titled “6 year average – 2000-2005.”  This column shows each trackchaser’s average annual number of tracks seen over this six year period.  These twenty trackchasers averaged seeing 735 new tracks over each of these years.

 

I also wanted to look at a shorter period to see if the last three years trended any differently than the past six years.  The results from these two periods are not dramatically different but do seem to show a continuing trend.  During the three year period from 2003-2005, the top twenty trackchasers saw 779 new tracks each year.

 

Finally, I totaled the tracks seen by this original core group of twenty trackchasers for 2006 only.  Remember, this total does not include the November/December results as meager as they may be.  During 2006, this group saw 617 tracks.  The total number of tracks seen by this group was significantly less than the number of tracks seen in their six and three year historical averages.  These folks were going to only 83.9% of their past six year average and just 79.2% of their past three-year average.  Yes, that means that trackchasers in 2006 were going to dramatically fewer new tracks than they had averaged in the past.  What was going here?

 

Before I could go any further, I needed to back my own personal numbers out of these totals.  I was trying to find trends about what OTHER trackchasers were doing not what I was doing.  When I took my numbers out of the trackchasing averages, the trend became even more significant.  The remaining 19 trackchasers had seen just 75.9% of their historical six-year average in 2006 and only 73.9% of their most recent three years of trackchasing activity.

 

Was I on to something?  Why were the trackchasing totals in 2006 from this top 19 trackchasing group showing 24-26% declines versus the previous periods?  If a large company showed “growth” rates of negative 24% or 26% their stock price would be in the tank.

 

If these trends continued, what effect would it have on my trackchasing goal of remaining number one?  If the average totals of trackchasers were declining at these rates, what effect would this have on my “30 Year Cash Flow Needs Analysis?”  As I looked out over the ocean with my stomach growling because Carol was not here to prepare my breakfast, I wondered about these things.

 

I had the base data.  In the few instances, where the data was not readily available, I had made reasonable estimates to account for the missing data.  Why were the trackchasing totals declining?  Most of you have been reading the Trackchaser Report for several years now.  You may have your own theories.  If you do, please share them with me and I will share them with the group at the earliest opportunity.

 

In the meantime, I will give you my take on this trend.  I know most of the people on this list and have some personal background information to support my assumptions.  Make no mistake these are my assumptions and nothing else.  Here is why I think trackchasing totals for the top 19 trackchasers are declining.

 

As time passes, people’s activity preferences change.  If you are 40 years of age or older, you probably don’t do the same things you did when you were twenty.  If you are 60 years of age or older, you probably don’t do the same things you did when you were forty.

 

I see several people on the list who have decided that their social/personal relationships and interests have changed.  They don’t have the time or interest to pursue trackchasing with the same vigor they did just a few years ago.

 

There is no secret that the “Geographical Driving Circle” has limited some people’s ability to see tracks.  Once you’ve seen most of the tracks near where you live, the hassle of time and expense to go to a track a long way from home keeps many people on their doorsteps.

 

In trackchasing, we count ovals, figure 8 tracks and road courses.  Most American trackchasers did their early trackchasing at oval tracks.  Most American racechasing/trackchasing enthusiasts prefer ovals over your typical figure 8 or road racing program.  Again, after a trackchaser has seen most of the oval tracks near his/her home, the incentive to travel long distances for non-oval racing may not be there.

 

I know the expense of trackchasing is keeping some trackchasers home.  I am the only trackchaser who routinely flies to tracks.  Of my seven trackchasing expense categories, gasoline ranks third behind airfare and hotels and nearly tied with rental car expenses.  Trackchasers who drive to tracks within their Geographical Driving Circle don’t have airfare expenses, rental car expenses and not much hotel expense.  This makes gasoline their biggest expense. 

 

Gasoline expenses have more than doubled since the 2000 season in some locations.  This doubling of the most major expense of most trackchasers has to have an impact on trackchasing frequency.