NHRA decision yields results (1 Viewer)

[none]

Another pro-active move by NHRA:

Drag Racing Internet Magazine - Competition Plus.com - MICKEY THOMPSON TIRES PULLS NHRA SUPPORT

 

[clwill]

I would really like to understand this move by NHRA. Although I'm a firm believer of the old adage "follow the money", I can't help but feel there's more to it than this. What could make a sanctioning body want to limit the options of teams? Why is fewer choices better? I'd love some kind of formal communication from NHRA explaining this decision.

 

[Ma Green]

NHRA just keeps shooting themselves (and the racers) in the foot. Heaven forbid they should allow any innovation or manufacturer competition in the sport. Might as well have cookie cutter cars like NASCAR does.

Don't hold your breath expecting NHRA to explain anything they do. They never have and probably won't start now. Sad, sad, sad.

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

The only winner with a lack of competition is the monopoly left holding all the chips!

Congratulations NHRA and Goodyear for weakening our sport to the next level just when we needed more problems.

Oh, how I wish someone would step up with a sanctioning body headed by racers and REAL businessmen in an effort to grow our sport rather than their own pocketbooks. A mass exodus to such an organization would be welcome in my book.

 

[vegasnitro]

Oh, how I wish someone would step up with a sanctioning body headed by racers and REAL businessmen in an effort to grow our sport rather than their own pocketbooks.

This has been tried with disastrous results in Open Wheel racing. The Penskes, Ganassis, Newman-Hass and Tony Georges of the world cannot see beyond their own shop doors ... let alone the big picture for the greater good. F1 was the same way until Ecclestone came to power. As much as I hate to say it ... I fear it would be no different in drag racing.

As for the tire issue ... let me play Devil's advocate for one second. Maybe NHRA is locking everyone else out and sticking with Goodyear because a "control" tire keeps costs down and keeps one more variable fair for everyone. When there are multiple tire manufacturers, there is more testing (which costs money) and there is more R+D on the manufacturer end (which costs money) and the technology tends to move towards the edge to stay competitive (which reduces safety). AND on Sunday interviews you won't have to hear a driver whine about tires being the reason they lost the race (like F1 until recently ... there were Michelin tracks and there were Bridgestone tracks ... drag racing would be no different ... there would be Goodyear, Hoosier and M/T tracks ... nothing any driver or crew chief or manufacturer could do about it except spend money testing and doing R+D ... and that is money the teams do not have).

I agree the NHRA could have handled the situation much differently by being upfront with tire manufacturers and writing hard rules regarding such issues, but I think in the short term NHRA got this one right in spite of themselves. Hopefully they have not ruined any future relationships that could exist with tire manufacturers other than Goodyear should Goodyear decide to leave the sport.

 

[HEMI6point1]

This has been tried with disastrous results in Open Wheel racing. The Penskes, Ganassis, Newman-Hass and Tony Georges of the world cannot see beyond their own shop doors ... let alone the big picture for the greater good. F1 was the same way until Ecclestone came to power. As much as I hate to say it ... I fear it would be no different in drag racing.

Didn't don Garlits try and start up an HRA of his own which flopped?

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

this . What could make a sanctioning body want to limit the options of teams? Why is fewer choices better? UOTE]

Can you say "kick-backs"? I can think of NO other reason to give a monopoly to one company, and ban their competition. jmo

 

[rollemup]

.......boy talking about kick backs, didn't nhra do the samething with the energy drinks

 

[clwill]

As for the tire issue ... let me play Devil's advocate for one second. Maybe NHRA is locking everyone else out and sticking with Goodyear because a "control" tire keeps costs down and keeps one more variable fair for everyone. When there are multiple tire manufacturers, there is more testing (which costs money) and there is more R+D on the manufacturer end (which costs money) and the technology tends to move towards the edge to stay competitive (which reduces safety).

But Chris, while I agree with your attempt to see the other side, the problem with this is that, with choice, all of this money spend is optional. The manufacturers can choose to spend the R&D money or not. If it's profitable to do so, they will do it, if not, they won't. The teams can stick with the "safe choice" tire or not. If they choose to use a radical, "edge" choice they would have to spend money (and rounds) to make it work, if they choose a safe tire, they won't.

What a sanctioning body should be doing is specifying the requirements for the equipment, not the supplier. If they're worried about safety, require a standard series of tests or even construction. It they're worried about cost, specify a maximum price. If they're worried about fairness, specify some kind of hardness spec. Then let the manufacturers decide if they can meet the sanctioning body's specs and still make a profit. Let them choose to be in the game or not.

 

[Muddy]

What would you do if a tire manufacture came to you and said..making these nitro slicks is like throwing money down a dry hole..there's just not enough return to justify it. My guess is that you would respond with "let me guarentee you the rest of the tire business to help offset the loss on the nitro tire".

Not saying that's what happened but based on previous statments from Goodyear I don't think it's very far off. Until all the information is known I think nothing is a good thing to say.

 

[Horsepower & Heels]

But Chris, while I agree with your attempt to see the other side, the problem with this is that, with choice, all of this money spend is optional. The manufacturers can choose to spend the R&D money or not. If it's profitable to do so, they will do it, if not, they won't. The teams can stick with the "safe choice" tire or not. If they choose to use a radical, "edge" choice they would have to spend money (and rounds) to make it work, if they choose a safe tire, they won't.

What a sanctioning body should be doing is specifying the requirements for the equipment, not the supplier. If they're worried about safety, require a standard series of tests or even construction. It they're worried about cost, specify a maximum price. If they're worried about fairness, specify some kind of hardness spec. Then let the manufacturers decide if they can meet the sanctioning body's specs and still make a profit. Let them choose to be in the game or not.

The best thing that can be done for competitive and safety standards is to have open market competition between manufacturers. You can still have an "official" manufacturer to give some pedigree benefits and "reward" use instead of mandate it.

 

[Nick Name]

What would you do if a tire manufacture came to you and said..making these nitro slicks is like throwing money down a dry hole..there's just not enough return to justify it. My guess is that you would respond with "let me guarentee you the rest of the tire business to help offset the loss on the nitro tire".

Finally someone got it right. NHRA did this to keep Goodyear in a money loosing deal.

 

[downtime]

Finally someone got it right. NHRA did this to keep Goodyear in a money loosing deal.

I "get it" but I do not have to like it. Hopefully MT will target additional resources toward IHRA events.

"Good for the sport" encompasses more than simply NHRA. what may be good for NHRA is not by definition "good" for the stature of drag racing overall in the long term. For our sport to grow the sportsman racer's ability to participate and compete, cost effectively, at a multitude of sanctioned facilities and bring more spectators and sponsors to a mutually beneficial relationship with more racers, more fans, and more customers of of utmost importance to all of us.

I "get it" in terms of a possible immediate need by NHRA to secure funding in the short term. I do not get it in terms of the supposed desire of NHRA to be the voice of the sport that goes beyond simply that of a sanctioning body looking to create profitability for their own interests.

 

[jackass]

I "get it" but I do not have to like it. Hopefully MT will target additional resources toward IHRA events.QUOTE]

I would expect them to go more to the IHRA and the ADRL.

Billy

 

[none]

Finally someone got it right. NHRA did this to keep Goodyear in a money loosing deal.

Then why allow any tire but Goodyear. I see many different brands on the cars at the National and Divisional events.

 

[Bill]

Then why allow any tire but Goodyear." I see many different brands on the cars at the National and Divisional events.

Do you mean "Why not allow any tire but Goodyear?
What you said makes no sense to me, since Goodyear is the only tire allowed, now, in P/S.

 

[Nick Name]

The spec fuel tire deal was to keep Goodyear making fuel tires by guaranteeing them the whole fuel tire deal. Now with the economy the way it is, that was probably no enough to keep them in the game, so they added Pro Stock.

I certainly don't think the NHRA management are saints, but I seriously doubt that they could demand a payoff from Goodyear for something Goodyear doesn't want to do anyway.

Nitro.... I won't go there

 

[none]

Do you mean "Why not allow any tire but Goodyear?
What you said makes no sense to me, since Goodyear is the only tire allowed, now, in P/S.

The post was in response to Jay's post:

Originally Posted by Jay Eshbach
Finally someone got it right. NHRA did this to keep Goodyear in a money loosing deal.

My contention is that if that is the case, then NHRA should not allow anything but Goodyear tires in ANY class. That is not the case, therefore, that argument falls apart. Or at least the logic for that argument falls apart.