Food For Thought: Pro Racing (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cliff
- Start date
TD5023
Nitro Member
This is a tough one. Chicago is an overbuilt facility, so it always looks emptier than it actually is. Removing a race from there would be a mistake. You can't get rid of Seattle because it's the only national event in the D6 footprint. I'm sure there are contract obligations to make things difficult, but I don't see why tracks can't come in and out on a rotating basis. Something like a three-on, one-off schedule, and on the off year, they can put together their own exhibition show if they want, with no track having more than one points-earning national per season.
If you reduce the amount of exposure you can provide a sponsor by eliminating races, the sponsor would reduce the amount of money they are willing to provide. While yes, decreasing events will decrease the amount of cash you spend each season, the percentage of cash required to fund your operation as part of your now reduced budget will not change.
ironpony
Nitro Member
Being we have the wonderful countdown in effect here is my thought.
How about we increase the schedule?? now hear me out.
There are East based teams and west based teams then centrally based teams.
Run a west coast schedule which will eliminate traveling cross country for some, an east coast schedule for others and the central teams can go either way, and there are plenty of central tracks.
All teams can run a maximum of XX events before the countdown.
The countdown will start at Indy as always and finish the year out as normal.
Possibly take the top 16 into the countdown if enough cars come out of retirement.
Even reset the points to zero for all qualified.
We can take the cost out of the equation and find the truly best of the best not the best of who can afford to run.
Some teams skipped Epping some teams skip western swing, so why not have closer events for them to get points.
There are plenty of NHRA tracks that could support both areas.
NHRA will need to step up and have 3 safety crews but I think they can handle that.
Imagine turning on the tube and having 3 "divisional" races to watch in one weekend??
Would there be more teams if it cost less? maybe
maybe have to change the ladders to accomodate the fields?
3 races with 12 car field is better than one with 14.
NITRO only of course
Discuss.
Alan, Alan,
How about we increase the schedule?? now hear me out.
There are East based teams and west based teams then centrally based teams.
Run a west coast schedule which will eliminate traveling cross country for some, an east coast schedule for others and the central teams can go either way, and there are plenty of central tracks.
All teams can run a maximum of XX events before the countdown.
The countdown will start at Indy as always and finish the year out as normal.
Possibly take the top 16 into the countdown if enough cars come out of retirement.
Even reset the points to zero for all qualified.
We can take the cost out of the equation and find the truly best of the best not the best of who can afford to run.
Some teams skipped Epping some teams skip western swing, so why not have closer events for them to get points.
There are plenty of NHRA tracks that could support both areas.
NHRA will need to step up and have 3 safety crews but I think they can handle that.
Imagine turning on the tube and having 3 "divisional" races to watch in one weekend??
Would there be more teams if it cost less? maybe
maybe have to change the ladders to accomodate the fields?
3 races with 12 car field is better than one with 14.
NITRO only of course
Discuss.
Alan, Alan,
mick
Nitro Member
if you're going to start trimming events, i think the first thing you do is keep the money makers, which has nothing to do with physical amenities of the facility. if the people show up
year after year and the place/event makes money, you keep the race..........also, there are tracks with little pit space, and those with a lot. IMO nhra leaves a lot of money on the table by not
utilizing larger sportsman fields at select events.
year after year and the place/event makes money, you keep the race..........also, there are tracks with little pit space, and those with a lot. IMO nhra leaves a lot of money on the table by not
utilizing larger sportsman fields at select events.
You can debate the reason for eliminating or keeping tracks forever and everyone has valid reasons mostly based on emotion but the reality is a standard for a track needs to be set and those tracks that can't or won't meet those standards need to be eliminated. Sponsors won't go to a rat hole or be represented at a marginally safe track. Races need to be 2 days with 2 qualifying runs on Friday and one Saturday morning. Eliminations should run Saturday afternoon and evening. There should be no more than 16 races and national events should be limited to nitro, top alcohol funny car/dragster and the top sportsman car and dragster classes. Additionally there could/should be on a rotating basis top nostalgia, some version of pro stock, pro mods etc. And most important all classes regularly competing at national events need to be regulated in some manner which can be tweaked annually and results in a 10% reduction in performance from todays level.
TooTall999
Nitro Member
What about taking the opposite approach, make the races with the poorest pro car counts worth more points? How about bringing the show back to the racing? Hard to miss the crowd's reactions when the pro stock class had an impromptu burn out contest. Do a burn out contest for the first round of nitro qualifying and award some points for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
Z28LT1
Nitro Member
I'd be in favor of keeping the schedule at 24, but only allowing points to be collected at... maybe 14 of the 18 regular season races. Cut the clown down to 8 cars and put them all on the same side of the ladder for the last 6 races.
IDK what the answer is, but something to think about.
IDK what the answer is, but something to think about.
Jer
Nitro Member
I need to go here next year, i hate crowds so it sounds like it would be perfect for me
Just Paul
Nitro Member
How about a double header at some tracks with 2 races? Cars, trucks, crews would already be there, so only 1 travel cost. 3 qualifying runs Friday for 16 spots in both races. Saturday normal race. Sunday set the field based of Saturdays results. Winner is #1 qualifier. R/U is #2. Best ET of the losing semi final would be #3, other would be #4, and so on.
Last edited:
I like Ken's ideas. Let me throw something else out. Suppose you divide the country into West & East? 10 races in each "division" and at the end of the year, one meet with the division champions racing for the title. I thought if a team would run, say, western division only, run 10 races, and that could be done on a smaller budget. Just my 2 cents. I'm seeing a lot of great posts here on this subject.
Double Header is sometimes done with Divisional races, and it's a great way to earn points w/o having to travel. Plus great show for the spectators. Can a racer repeat? That would be something to bring the spectators back. They usta do this at Wild Horse and I thought it was great. Big car count, lotsa out of state cars, get to see some big names in Sportsmen.
Huge
Nitro Member
The cars that miss those races are probably not chasing points.
dboxell
Nitro Member
Agree with Kens statement, one event per track , weed out the lower attended race of those repeat venues, with possible exception of Pomona.
Ontario is gone.
or at least re-arrange the schedule so the teams don't have to cross the country twice in a year.
Back when, they used to have pros run at divisional races gathering points for the championship. then those points would accumulate to the National meets.
Ontario is gone.
or at least re-arrange the schedule so the teams don't have to cross the country twice in a year.
Back when, they used to have pros run at divisional races gathering points for the championship. then those points would accumulate to the National meets.
Don Schumacher has some interesting thoughts:
CP: YOU THINK LESS RACES WOULD MAKE IT BETTER?
DS: Not really because my sponsors look at the markets you’re in and you’re in, I think it’s 21 different markets because there’s two races at three of the race tracks. If you take us out of one of those markets it gives them less value. Yes, we’d save some on race parts which I said is a component of it but it isn’t the biggest cost. Save us something on travel and hotels but it’s not going to do anything for any of the other costs.
If this sport cuts back let’s say 10% or 15% in the number of races, do you think we can go out and get a 15% decrease in our health insurance cost? Or insurance on my building back in Indy? Or the heat, light and power?
So let’s think about all of it before we go off in a direction. It’d be great to run seven races a year like we used to but it isn’t like it used to be. We’re dealing with today with sponsors who look at it differently.
With sponsors who look at marketing in every marketplace and such. So I am not a proponent of less races because of that unless we can figure out a way to reduce all of those other costs and I don’t see my heat, light and power going down at my race shop. I don’t see the real estate taxes. None of those are going to reduce if we have less races and we have less income from our sponsors.
CP: YOU THINK LESS RACES WOULD MAKE IT BETTER?
DS: Not really because my sponsors look at the markets you’re in and you’re in, I think it’s 21 different markets because there’s two races at three of the race tracks. If you take us out of one of those markets it gives them less value. Yes, we’d save some on race parts which I said is a component of it but it isn’t the biggest cost. Save us something on travel and hotels but it’s not going to do anything for any of the other costs.
If this sport cuts back let’s say 10% or 15% in the number of races, do you think we can go out and get a 15% decrease in our health insurance cost? Or insurance on my building back in Indy? Or the heat, light and power?
So let’s think about all of it before we go off in a direction. It’d be great to run seven races a year like we used to but it isn’t like it used to be. We’re dealing with today with sponsors who look at it differently.
With sponsors who look at marketing in every marketplace and such. So I am not a proponent of less races because of that unless we can figure out a way to reduce all of those other costs and I don’t see my heat, light and power going down at my race shop. I don’t see the real estate taxes. None of those are going to reduce if we have less races and we have less income from our sponsors.
This is the 1st proposal I have seen that makes sense. More exposure = more sponsor interest + more new fans.
ironpony
Nitro Member
Any team can go to any event they want to. The small budget guys can stay "local " and accumulate points for the count down. Jim Head just skipped the western swing if there were events in the region he would of ran them.
I am not saying limit the teams as to where they race just have more events available to race. Two or three venues every weekend , just to make more teams able to race local/affordable..
ironpony
Nitro Member
I am sure with all the NHRA tracks around we could easily schedule double the events. Possibly 2 events at every track, Norwalk spring/ fall, National Trail spring /fall, Maple Grove etc.
Double the opportunity for spectators, maximize exposure for sponsors, income for NHRA.
Small teams do not have to travel 3-7 days roundtrip with lodging.
Double the opportunity for spectators, maximize exposure for sponsors, income for NHRA.
Small teams do not have to travel 3-7 days roundtrip with lodging.
