The New IHRA ???

[novassdude]

Originally Posted by dug283

My suggestion is to look at the Bader days. The issue is not that the tracks have to make a profit, or the cost to compete has risen. But the reality that it is very difficult to go one or more rounds at the level of competition we have. A weekend warrior can win one or two rounds and not win anything, only the top 8 or 16. So are more racers more likely to compete in events that have large payouts for the top 4, 8 or 16 finishers, which is usually about 25% of the total car count. As appose to round $$ and more moderate top $$ payout? Could that have been a factor in the low car counts of the 5k S/SS events of the recent?


PS: Bobby, I like the ideal of index qualifying too.

Please tell me I am reading this wrong. The way I read it tracks do not need to make a profit and you should win something for going one round. Well with that system the track is definitely not going to make any money. I don't like real top heavy payouts but it should require a couple of round wins to get paid in my opinion. And if tracks do not make a profit there will be no place to race.

[HR9121]

Why don't we give out trophies to first round losers also like todays youth athletic events.

[dug283]

Originally Posted by novassdude

Please tell me I am reading this wrong. The way I read it tracks do not need to make a profit and you should win something for going one round. Well with that system the track is definitely not going to make any money. I don't like real top heavy payouts but it should require a couple of round wins to get paid in my opinion. And if tracks do not make a profit there will be no place to race.

I'm not debating cost or profits, without the tracks all is lost. But I do disagree with you about having to win a couple of rounds for any pay.

[Adger Smith]

The Baders knew their market place and as track owners promoted the races to get the spectator base to attend. They put paying people in the stands that wanted to see a show. They didn't just do like the avg racetrack owner and open the gate and expect the racers to provide them with a profit. Unfortunately the mindset today is that there has to be so many cars as a "Break even" for the track operator. (even Beard discusses that theory of operation & has a nifty little excel program for it) The Baders also did something for the racers. They made them feel welcome and appreciated. Their racers wanted to be part of the show & reaped some of the rewards.
Back when I ran my tracks how big the pit gate was wasn't my priority. I was way more interested in what the spectator count was. My opinion of the pit gate was if I had enough parking spaces and if there was enough racers to put on a good show. When I had spectators I knew I was doing a good job promoting the show the racers provided. Today there are a few track owners and operators that know their market and do a great job filling the stands and pits. The ones that do are the ones that are rewarded for their efforts. I saw, first hand, what I'm posting play out with 5 tracks last year when I was Race Director for Hot Rod Drag Week.

[Michael Beard]

This is my point, HOW did the Bader's do it?????

1) They had 2-3x as many cars and a much better economy, and 2) They didn't, for long. They learned that while it sounded great on paper, neither the sanctioning body nor the tracks could survive with that structure. If it worked, they would still be doing it.

Even now Norwalk pays for a 1st round win: http://summitmotorsportspark.com/ind.../mr-gasget-pro

$5. Five (5) dollars. To be able to pay even that small amount requires a massive number of cars. 75 cars makes $20 (gross). They draw more cars for a limited number of classes and run them all in a If this is the model you wish to use, is it realistic to expect 125+ cars in EACH of the seven sportsman categories at every race? How many days will it take to run 875 cars to gross $8,000? What's the track's cost per day? What's the sanctioning body's cost per day? What's your net? How much should the track and sanctioning body profit in order to remain viable?

Understanding it is bracket racing that they have posted, but it is still a business they have been successful at. Contact them to plug in your details to see if it would be beneficial or enlightening.

Bracket programs are a completely different animal than a traveling Pro-Am series (and that's a entire editorial of its own). I worked for Bill Bader. I am quite familiar with him and the various business models. I have also worked with and for race tracks, and have co-promoted several of our own events. I designed a race purse calculator spreadsheet that makes it incredibly simple to run numbers, and the reality is indeed VERY enlightening - particularly when you promote your own events and you see all of the expenses that you didn't consider when it wasn't your wallet.

At the end of the day I'm not debating cost, profits, cars or drivers.

My point is that you threw out a suggestion without being willing to do the math and figure out if something was realistic or not, without any care for "cost, profits, cars or drivers." Those are PRECISELY the things you need to look at.

I'm not debating cost or profits, without the tracks all is lost. But I do disagree with you about having to win a couple of rounds for any pay.

You cannot ignore cost and profits when suggesting monetary changes, and assume that the changes will have no effect on the tracks. They don't survive on good intentions. We all want the best for everybody, but not every segment can have everything. It's a careful balance.

Show us how it works. You've asked for money off the top and earlier round money. Lay it out. What's the gross of the current system vs your system? How will car counts be affected by 1) earlier round money 2) lower win money? What is a racer's break even point in each system?

I'm not trying to comes across as being mean. I'm challenging you to think through it. It's the same kind of analysis you have to do when building or improving a car, improving your driving, running a business, or anything else.

[dug283]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

1) They had 2-3x as many cars and a much better economy, and 2) They didn't, for long. They learned that while it sounded great on paper, neither the sanctioning body nor the tracks could survive with that structure. If it worked, they would still be doing it.



$5. Five (5) dollars. To be able to pay even that small amount requires a massive number of cars. 75 cars makes $20 (gross). They draw more cars for a limited number of classes and run them all in a If this is the model you wish to use, is it realistic to expect 125+ cars in EACH of the seven sportsman categories at every race? How many days will it take to run 875 cars to gross $8,000? What's the track's cost per day? What's the sanctioning body's cost per day? What's your net? How much should the track and sanctioning body profit in order to remain viable?



Bracket programs are a completely different animal than a traveling Pro-Am series (and that's a entire editorial of its own). I worked for Bill Bader. I am quite familiar with him and the various business models. I have also worked with and for race tracks, and have co-promoted several of our own events. I designed a race purse calculator spreadsheet that makes it incredibly simple to run numbers, and the reality is indeed VERY enlightening - particularly when you promote your own events and you see all of the expenses that you didn't consider when it wasn't your wallet.



My point is that you threw out a suggestion without being willing to do the math and figure out if something was realistic or not, without any care for "cost, profits, cars or drivers." Those are PRECISELY the things you need to look at.



You cannot ignore cost and profits when suggesting monetary changes, and assume that the changes will have no effect on the tracks. They don't survive on good intentions. We all want the best for everybody, but not every segment can have everything. It's a careful balance.

Show us how it works. You've asked for money off the top and earlier round money. Lay it out. What's the gross of the current system vs your system? How will car counts be affected by 1) earlier round money 2) lower win money? What is a racer's break even point in each system?

I'm not trying to comes across as being mean. I'm challenging you to think through it. It's the same kind of analysis you have to do when building or improving a car, improving your driving, running a business, or anything else.

Again: At the end of the day I'm not debating cost, profits, cars or drivers. I'm looking at ways to encourage growth, a win-win for tracks and racers. Coming across as being mean??? I would say exposing your personality. At any rate, I've at the end of this debate.

[Michael Beard]

At the end of the day I'm not debating cost, profits, cars or drivers. I'm looking at ways to encourage growth, a win-win for tracks and racers.

I understand what your goal is. I was posing questions so that we could try to determine whether or not a particular suggestion would achieve that goal.

I would say exposing your personality.

Huh? I addressed the questions you've asked here, and posed some economic questions.

[Rich67stang]

I have spoken to many racers that do not compete anymore (10-15 racers) within the last 5 years. All of the reasons given for not racing had nothing to do with payouts, round $, entry fees. If the economy is weak and jobs are at risk, it does not matter how you sugar coat a race, racers will not come.

Good Luck in 2013

[Chuck Beach]

Today racing is so much different than it was when I first started. First and foremost it did not cost a fortune (back in the day) to build a competitve stocker. There were certainly more limitations of what you could and couldn't do so you had to work with what you had to improve your performance. It was all about performance and the work it took to be the fastest. At that time the ROI was pretty good, if you won class or won a pts. meet or National event you made out pretty well (actually made a profit). Your chances of winning were pretty good to because we did not have reaction times or weather stations like today.

In todays racing to build a competitve car the costs could be overwhelming. There are centainly racers where cost is no object. There are racers that have had the same combo over the years, continued to worked on them, and updated them to be very much competitive today. There are racers who just want to compete but don't need to be the fastest. The biggest difference today is the ROI. It takes so much more $$$ and time to be competitve today than in the past. It is so much tougher to win today because 'everyone' is good and we have the professional sportsman racers. Class pays about 1/3 of what it used to but costs us 10x more money to get there. And now there is that potential penalty of going to fast and getting HP.

Our poor economy does not help either. Lots of manufacturers are tightening their belts and it seems more difficult to win any contingency, some have limitations on what pays and what doesn't and the contingency list seems to get shorter and shorter.

I think we are at the point or have been at the point where many racers are picking and chosing what races to attend based on their funds, the race, the distance to the race, the payout of the race and who is attending. When it gets to expensive or over our budgets we choose other things to do or other races.

I think we all still enjoy racing and hanging out with all of our buds, but for most of us to consider racing other events or adding to our current list of races we want to attend there has to be good possible ROI to get racers to go. If you won a race years ago, that money alone would cover all of your costs and you would have some left over. Now winning a race and getting of the contingency may not even cover the cost of going.

[Michael Beard]

Here's how you could make the argument:

I think it would help if they took money off the top and paid first round winners. They did it in the early years of the Bader era. The entry fee was lower then, but I understand that expenses are a lot higher today than they were 10 years ago, so for argument's sake, I'd leave the entry fee alone.

Right now, it's a $135 entry fee in Stock, and the payout is:
Win $1,000
R/U $400
Rnd 4 Win $160
Rnd 3 Win $120
Rnd 2 Win $80

With 40 cars, the total payout would be $2,200.

To start payouts with Rnd 1 winners and keep at least that amount of revenue to keep the tracks and sanctioning body going, the payout could be:
Win $700
R/U $300
Rnd 4 Win $160
Rnd 3 Win $120
Rnd 2 Win $80
Rnd 1 Win $40

With 40 cars, the total payout would be the same $2,200. Now, if there's more cars then that, the round money adds up quicker and it'd cost more this way, but it's my belief that more cars would race for this purse vs what we have now, and make up the difference.

What do you guys think?

...and then people would discuss their thoughts on it. That's it.