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.

[GarysZ24]

Originally Posted by Lyn Smith

Super Stock at the US Nationals.second round losers get $350.

That's good, but first you have to qualify for the field to even have a 50/50 chance to win first round, and if you're not -.8ish under, then you just as well not even travel there...

Danny (post #56), unfortunately out west here we don't have an IHRA option like you do, so we have only two options; either we race with what we have here, or we don't race...personally I'm not ready to give up on the sport I've loved for 41yrs just because IHRA isn't here with their pro-am series yet...

[danny waters sr]

Originally Posted by GarysZ24

That's good, but first you have to qualify for the field to even have a 50/50 chance to win first round, and if you're not -.8ish under, then you just as well not even travel there...

Danny (post #56), unfortunately out west here we don't have an IHRA option like you do, so we have only two options; either we race with what we have here, or we don't race...personally I'm not ready to give up on the sport I've loved for 41yrs just because IHRA isn't here with their pro-am series yet...

I hope they can make it happen out your way Gary........We just have to see what happens in the future of the new IHRA now....I will support it as long as i can .....as well as NHRA ( Jr leaving today for Gainsville....s/c wish him luck ..........

[dug283]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

Those absolutely are issues, and that's why changes were made in the first place.

You say half empty I say half full??? Your reply was not in line with my post. Tracks have to make a profit, the cost has risen to race, is a given NOT my point.


Yes, it is. It is challenging. It takes a good car, skill, and a little luck. If it were not challenging, we would just go to test n' tune and car shows. You can help the driver aspect of the equation at www.thisisbracketracing.com

Again, this is not my point?????? There are lots of quality cars and great drivers but there is a minority of racers that is always in the money rounds. And that's fine because they have paid the price to become the great racers that they are. I grew up with some of the best and I'm honored to have them as friends. But, along with many other factors, and No return on investment, no matter the size, is shrinking the number of class racers?

No. 2nd round winners do in fact get paid already.



Please detail the entry fee, complete purse structure, track and promoter expenses, what the necessary level of profit is in order to remain viable, and the car counts required in each class to achieve that.

This is my point, HOW did the Bader's do it????? Why not look and see what is being done different? Even now Norwalk pays for a 1st round win: http://summitmotorsportspark.com/ind.../mr-gasget-pro

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.

At the end of the day I'm not debating cost, profits, cars or drivers. I'm looking at ways to encourage growth to our shrinking class. I still remember the days at Empire Dragway and other local tracks with more stock and super stocker's weekly than we see at some major events now.

Just my .02

[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.