Hey guys,
just a quick question...how are we going to vote?
Are we going for a majority vote, meaning that 5 out of our group of 8 have to vote for one decision and maximum 3 against it. Or are we aiming for an unanimous vote?
As far as I can see now we have
Not to race: Chris, and an anonimous person
To race: Maaike, Adriane, Francesco,Andreas,
How about the rest...
Cheers,
Adriane
I guess I am the anonymous person. :P
ReplyDeleteSorry I forgot to write my name on my last post. I fixed it. I think we should discuss a bit because we haven't at all. We have only stated our arguments. We have enough time until tomorrow at 12 pm.
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Chris, but I would say we race.
My main argument is that blowing the engine is about as bad as not racing if you take the sponsorship deal into account. Both will heighten the risk not to get the contract. What tips the balance is that Sir Ralph is a racing fan and probably appreciates a brave and adventurous mentality.
But I must admit, I agree with Chris that the chance is bigger than we (in the decisiontree) think that the engine will blow. Drivers safety is also big issue, but risk is part of this particular sport.
So I hope that Chris will be a brave man and jump on board on this risky adventure, even when he knows that the risks and stakes are high. Just consider this Chris, we'll have a problem anyway next episode, that's part of this game.;)
Tim
btw, Chris if you want to discuss, shoot! I'm (and maybe others as well) online for the next few hours. May be you can win me over in the end.
If I understood correct you say that risk of racing is as bad as risk of not racing in terms of getting the sponsorship. And you decided to race because Sir Ralph is a big fun and would understand the engine failure. Here is the way I see it. Sir Ralph is a fun of motorsports as we all know. So he will come to the race filled with enthusiasm about the new team he is going to sponsor. What emotions you think he will have after the possible failure and how will these emotions determine his decision to sponsor? Isn't better to try to reschedule the meeting. Plus engines are consuming great portion of the annual budgets of the teams.
ReplyDeleteI would like to bring up another point why Eagle Racing should participate in the race, even though there is a change of the engine to blow up. Since Goodbridge does not cover all the expenses, EagleRacing needs to find other sponsors as well. Even though they have had several blow ups during the season already, they have still two possible sponsors, Bauer and Goodbridge. Therefore, the chance that they will find another sponsor is higher if they participate in the race than if they do not participate at all, which will damage their reputation a lot.
ReplyDeleteAdriane
And I just discovered a really good point Francesco made in a previous post. Clearly Sir Ralph knows of the previous failures of the engines and is still willing to sponsor EagleRacing. The fact that up to this point he has not questioned these engine blow ups shows that he is ok with the risk being taken.
ReplyDeleteAdriane
@Chris, indeed engines are expensive, but compared to the potential income of the sponsor it's not.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the emotions of Sir Ralph, he could also be positive about a potential failure. Failure only belongs to people who dare to act and try to achieve the best. All in all, his emotions could go either way, so it's not an argument not to race. I think Adriane demonstrates well in the argument above that failure doesn't necessarily lead to a negative outcome.
Tim
I think the reputational loss will be higher if the engine blows up one more time than not race. They will start make jokes with ER in the end :P It hasn't finish in way many races and sir Ralph probably knows about that. He will expect to see a liable winning car. If we don't race we can make up whatever excuse we like other than liability issues and reschedule the meeting for the next sunday.
ReplyDelete@ Chris.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there is no excuse. It's not like skipping class. :) The race is far to important than whatever excuse could make up for and I think Sir Ralph realises this as well.
But, I think that we agree on one point: Liability. You see it in the machinery, I see it in people. Engines can be improved, but what about the people? Proving to him that we have the guts to race and convincing him that we have the knowledge to improve ourselves, will do the trick. By this, we offer him the right mentality and the necessary knowledge, whereas NOT racing would only show that we have knowledge.
Tim
Is there anyone with spare time who feels like summarizing all arguments made in our blog so we can add them to whatever decision we pass on tomorrow??? :-)
ReplyDeleteThat was me again, Adriane :-)
ReplyDeleteOke, shall we due to time pressure decide to go for a majority vote...
ReplyDeleteWe now have everyone for racing except for Chris. So that would mean that the team decides that we are racing.
Cheers,
Maaike
I agree with Maaike, lets go for a majority vote. Is that a good solution Chris?
ReplyDeleteAdriane
I guess I am out of time here :P
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is still not to race but majority vote is the fair way to do it. :)
But in the end I will say "Ive told ya!"
Cheers
hey,
ReplyDeletei am against racing. even though business is about taking risks, when people's safety is at stake it should not be. I also think that sir Ralph would appreciate a responsible attitude towards racing, and therefore see it as a strenghts of Eagleracing that the company is willing to cancel a race for the sake of their drivers safety. If sir Ralph is a true race fanatic, he will also come for the next race when safety is more secured.
best,
Jordi