Lee Beard challenges NHRA to curb costs

[clwill]

Do I have this right . . . Lee wants NHRA to cancel six races where tickets have already been sold and hundreds of sportsman teams have plans to race to save the Matco team $600K? Thousands of fans can barely afford the cost of going to one race a year in their hometown. Do ya think this strategy might pi$$ of thousands of fans who find their one live racing fix a year has evaporated? Doesn't begin to address what would be a financial disaster for the tracks where races were canceled.

Thank you for saying this. Perhaps an interesting idea if it was July and we're talking about next year... but an idea like this 45 days from the Winternationals is crazy.

 

[Toby]

Beard has alot of experience in drag racing and he brings up some good points. Cutting expenses would definitely increase the car count in all categories. The problem though is that no matter what you do to cut expenses, you will still have two classes of competitors in each category, the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. NASCAR and F-1 have done alot in the last few years to reduce costs. Yet if a team has X amount of money allocated to their racing program, they are going to spend it. PS could go to a spec engine, the higher funded teams would still spend money R&D'ing the components. The lower funded teams would be in the same spot. You could lower the amount of test sessions. Guess what happens? The higher funded teams go out and spend a **** load of money on simulation software! I really don't think changing the amount of races, limiting the testing or banning new components will bring the 'have-nots' closer to the 'haves'. Really the current economic environment might be the way the excessive spending is corrected. It might hurt for the next few years, but in the long run it might self-correct the scenario of the disparity of team budgets and the competitiveness of each class.

 

[yoda]

This is, as stated, a short term solution, but until there is a handle on costs, this will always be a problem. Billet Blowers, and other fancy "state of the art" parts need to be put in check to help keep the cost down.

Carbon Fiber this and that, Ti nuts and bolts, unobtainium domahickies.

First place to look is at internal waste of $, be it on staff, equipment, or parts. Then on efficiency of what is purchased, and pricing on these parts.

There are ways to do it. It just won't be easy, or popular. But Lee's suggestion will be a quick temporary fix until a larger, more effective mandate is laid out.

JMHO

Should we just be on our way back to this?

 

[Toby]

Here is a classic example of the 'haves' vs. the 'have-nots'

Ecclestone reveals Ferrari's extra cash - Yahoo! Eurosport UK

 

[none]

Thank you for saying this. Perhaps an interesting idea if it was July and we're talking about next year... but an idea like this 45 days from the Winternationals is crazy.

How much time did they give when they added the 24th race?????
Do you think it was after budgets had been set and money procured? Sometimes things happen at inconvenient times(recession/depression) and steps must be taken to survive.
I like the team rule that you can't just complain about something but must bring a recommendation. It would work well here as well. Some of you have, others have not.

 

[sdwarf36]

If Lee wants to run 18 races, thers nothing stopping him. Attendence isnt mandatory. You think the Glendora boys are gonna take the hit for the money lost for 6 races to save a couple of teams some $$?

 

[clwill]

How much time did they give when they added the 24th race?????
Do you think it was after budgets had been set and money procured? Sometimes things happen at inconvenient times(recession/depression) and steps must be taken to survive.
I like the team rule that you can't just complain about something but must bring a recommendation. It would work well here as well. Some of you have, others have not.

It was on the schedule as "TBA" for almost a year.

Here's a a recommendation: stop whining. Every year people whine in December and every year at the Winters there's a full field.

 

[none]

Nice recommendation..............Maybe you should send that into the sponsors while they are figuring out who to layoff, or those that get laid off. Perhaps even the teams parked now or soon to be. I am sure they could benefit from your "wisdom and insight"

 

[clwill]

Nice recommendation..............Maybe you should send that into the sponsors while they are figuring out who to layoff, or those that get laid off. Perhaps even the teams parked now or soon to be. I am sure they could benefit from your "wisdom and insight"

Your recommendation would be...??

 

[none]

Your recommendation would be...??

Do you even read before you post? This thought process probably passed you by, but I was in support of the possibility of reduced races.

 

[funnycarguy]

I think Lee is doing what any business manager should be doing at this time. Looking to protect the business in the long run. If 6 months from now their is 6 cars in TF and FC the fans will vote with their feet for years to come. Most fans and racers cant tell the difference between 4.48 and a 4.90 if you don't see the score board. The fans will understand why there are 4 bye runs in the second round. They received less value for their ticket dollars.

I can think of 3-4 top fuel teams that match race for less $ than qualifying money. In the past NHRA used to print the top 100 teams for top fuel points. Wow, think of that! If I were NHRA, I would be looking to find some of those teams to see if they would come out. Get creative. Break the continent up into 4 quarters. If a team signs up to run 4-6 races in their region and runs give them a bonus. If they qualify, they get that money too. If they lose first round most racing spectators wont know they lost in the first round the last 3 weekends too.

Just make sure their are full fields and work with these teams to make sure they don't oil the track. New teams have to see their "mentor crewchiefs" anyways. Once the sport gets healthy(economy) again and everyone will know when the sponsors come back some of these teams may even help the business grow.

Last point. Lee is taking the bull by the horns. I read that the NHRA executive is being paid more when profits are less. There are less sponsors and less teams. I think the board of directors needs to give their head a shake. This does not fit with any "strategic plan" or measurement. This is what happens when boards become in the bag of the executives.

Race team owners are smart people. That is how they got to be owners. It must be frustrating when it is December and teams are falling away. Yes it would be nice if this was happening in July but it isn't. Now, not sometime next week there needs to be a plan to keep the "customers" and in turn teams happy.

I have never met Lee but have admired his business like approach over the years. Since the Gary Ormsby days. If Lee is having to challenge Glendora in public then that says no one is listening in private. Everyone that takes part in this discussion board just wants a healthy and prosperous racing sport.

 

[tnitro2]

The BIG PICTURE here is that we need to preserve "the show"... NHRA and drag racing in general has went thru some tremendous growth in the last 9 seasons, with the ESPN2 package, PINKS, Pass Time....and yes a little known show called 'King of the Strip" (I need to talk to my "agent" about that one)...what we want to do now is adjust to the economic climate without creating a sense that the "sky is falling" so to speak....

If NHRA has 24 races next year without full PRO fields, then "the show" will suffer and people, sponsor's, the media, will notice....if the number of dates are condensed and the travel "tightened up", then its not so noticable AND it also would have several side benefits, the least of which would be the savings to the team owners. It makes all of the remaining events mean more, worth more to sponsors, TV etc...

I realize that it is late in the game to be making such drastic changes, but we have the ability to recognize that a problem is about to arise, be proactive to it and make a positive step in limiting the economy's impact on the sport and entertainment venue that we all love so much. I'm sure NHRA is aware that there is an "elephant in the living room" and are looking at several scenarios. From what I know, attendance stayed steady last year compared to a record year in '07, and if they base their decisions off of that, then they may think that the economic condition is just a "bump" but I think conditions have changed since September '08 and they may have to make adjustments accordingly. I'm a big supporter of Lee's suggestion to his team, if your making a complaint, bring a suggested solution as well and then build on that.

Off the soap box now...sorry, I get passionate about this.

 

[funnycarguy]

Well said Tom! This is a time for business leadership. Not recognizing the elephant will just get one squished.
Dale

 

[Gregg Pickens]

Can you imagine the Fur flying over "WHICH" races to cancel? Even for one year, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that exchange!

How about canceling the races where the tracks can't or won't meet new safety standards?

 

[none]

It is time for some thinking outside the box. The not for profit business that is the NHRA was reportedly +$5M. Rather than spend that on skyboxes and bonuses, put it back into the program. In TF(and maybe FC) there are possibly some independent teams that would run some races but do not have a legal chassis. Set up a program comparable to a scholarship. Have teams apply and the most deserving receive the necessary improvements to their car out of NHRA $$. Stipulate the number of events attended will determine amount of “scholarship” money received. There are probably many reasons why this would not work but maybe it would……………….

Regardless of how it is done, the car counts ARE important..........It is the show that matters!!!

 

[mick]

nhra is not just competing against other motorsports for the sponsor and
attendance dollar; they compete with extreme sports, stick&ball sports,
golf, tennis, rodeo, etc., some obviously more than others.

nhra is a traveling group of extremely similar small businesses and one
sanctioning/rule making body; mostly dependent on each other for longevity.
(this group also includes manufactures and track owners)
IMO i do not think the season should be shortened, but rather a time
to pull in the spending reigns and figure out how to provide the regular
scheduled show.

a meeting of owners, crew chiefs, nhra, mfgrs'. is rite now maybe more
important than any pre-season testing.
- pre-season incentives for independents to commit to races?
- lower racer/team entry fees?
- decreases staff on teams / lower payroll and associated costs?
- as fuel cost is rite now, there is already fuel savings from last summer
- one less qual. pass / new qual. rules?

if a facility's 'gold mine' is their annual NHRA event and it is skipped one year,
that facility may fold, creating more problems when schedule wants
to regain event back.........
flip the coin, in light of '08's events and track safety/shutdown area; if
given facility is built subpar with little hopes of lengthening, then maybe
that facility mite be a good target to 'skip' for one year; possibly never
rejoining the tour.

 

[.]

I don't understand why it is NHRA's responsibility to control costs.

NHRA doesn't mandate 2-3 semi's and trailers for one car.
NHRA doesn't mandate 5+ bullets a weekend.
NHRA doesn't require that owners have hospitality areas that consume 3-4 pit stalls.
NHRA doesn't mandate a half dozen pulls in testing the days right after an event.
NHRA doesn't control the cost of diesel for haulers.
NHRA doesn't mandate super teams, or 40-50,000 sf shops.

And what about the 6 race sponsors that lose "their" race? That is lost revenue right off the top.
Do you think they will throw that money at another race? A team? Doubt it. Will the fans from the ignored markets go to other races? I doubt that also.

Team owners created this monster.

 

[MM]

I don't understand why it is NHRA's responsibility to control costs.

NHRA doesn't mandate 2-3 semi's and trailers for one car.
NHRA doesn't mandate 5+ bullets a weekend.
NHRA doesn't require that owners have hospitality areas that consume 3-4 pit stalls.
NHRA doesn't mandate a half dozen pulls in testing the days right after an event.
NHRA doesn't control the cost of diesel for haulers.
NHRA doesn't mandate super teams, or 40-50,000 sf shops.

And what about the 6 race sponsors that lose "their" race? That is lost revenue right off the top.
Do you think they will throw that money at another race? A team? Doubt it. Will the fans from the ignored markets go to other races? I doubt that also.

Team owners created this monster.

with all due respect Greg....NHRA did mandate the rev limiter and 85%...both were/are very costly on parts....NHRA does only allow one fuel supplier which jacked up prices to a ridiculous level this year...

i agree NHRA isn't completely responsible but they aren't completely innocent either

 

[Nunz]

I don't think any one party is to blame. The very nature of racing is progression, and progress costs money. However, even in categories where performance is limited to an 8.90, for example, you see racers show up with support equipment worth hundreds of thousands. You can't stop people who have money from spending it. Racing, like every other business, goes through cycles, I remember being a kid during the energy crisis of the early '70s, I was afraid racing was going to become extinct. There have been many cycles since, but right now the economic situation is unique, and the reason NHRA and the racers need to be proactive is because it is entirely possible that we may never see the cycle swing back far enough to see 16 TF cars and 16 FCs each backed with 3Mil in sponsorship. I believe now is the time for forward thinking, to not only navigate through a rough year ahead, but more importantly plant the seeds for a healthy pro show in 5, 10 years and beyond. Let me ask a question. Dale Armstrong tested an inexpensive combination a decade ago, that created a car running 4.9s at around 300 (in 1320ft), and claimed the motor looked better than his alky stuff when it came back from a run. Is that not worth revisiting? Is it too simple?

 

[.]

with all due respect Greg....NHRA did mandate the rev limiter and 85%...both were/are very costly on parts....NHRA does only allow one fuel supplier which jacked up prices to a ridiculous level this year...

i agree NHRA isn't completely responsible but they aren't completely innocent either

Mike, I will grant you that 85% didn't help matters, but teams blew stuff up at 90 and 100% also.

As for the fuel supplier, that contract should have had a dollar or percentage g-max included in it, at the very least, or been open to competition at some point. I won't argue either point.

But, NHRA, as an association, has far less responsibility than the owners IMHO, for what has happened here. Too much "keeping up with the Jones's" going on.

It is never sound business (especially with other companies sponsor money) to spend far more than you stand to gain. If they do, they have no one to blame but themselves.

When 2-3 teams own 1/2 the qualifying field of an event class, the Densham's, Dunn's, Hartley's and Zizzo's of the world don't stand a chance on race day.

If the team owners are so worried about keeping costs down, don't field 4-7 teams. Field 1. Or 2. Some of their sponsorship money would end up on side panels of other race cars. Bet on it.