Great posts and great debate.
The economy is the #1 reason for a lack of spectators. Anyone can see that, as every other sport is suffering the same.
There are only couple sports in N. America that are not down spectator wise. They are Football and Hockey.
NASCAR is possibly down more than NHRA.
I have a couple questions for the two main posters.
Jeff when you say your quickest run was 316 and at 1320 you slowed to 265 that is a huge drop in speed.
How do you know you were going 265 at 1320? Your race pak has all the best stuff on it I get that but how did you determine that. I have worked on a few teams (TA), and have not seen a sensor that gives you the speed. The NHRA clocks don't give you the last 320ft in et. how did you or do you determine the speed at 1320 feet. What kind of telemetry do you use?
If in fact you have an et for the 1000-1320 mark, then and that is how you determined the MPH, then in fact your speed was way less than 265 at the end of the 1/4 mile. (I was just wondering).
George, every motorsport is reactive as far as rules go (Nascar, Indy and F-1), and I don't see it changing. That is the nature of the sport. Would it be better if in fact all motorsports were proactive, yes it would, but the only way to know how a product or technology will work is to test it? Like Patrick said, the speed Scott was going was not overly quick (in relation to the speeds of Funny Car at that time).
It was a perfect storm, at a track that really was suspect to begin with. Who would have thought that Mark Niver would have been killed going 60mph when he entered the sand trap at Seattle?
If you were to compute the ETs now to the ones prior to 2007 when it was 1320 feet, you would see that Technology has actually leveled off. No real gains have happened.
What has happened is the cars are reaching the speeds in a shorter distance. 60fts are quicker 660 ets are quicker etc. What is the big equalizer are the tires. There is not a tire that is made that can keep the cars and drivers safe over 325. Chutes should be deployed right at 1320 (if the track was 1320) and extra chute for the FC and TF class could be added.
A much safer catch/sand system should be designed, because the current one is archaic and dangerous and that one should be an easy fix. There are a lot of smart engineers in the world.
Nascar never missed a beat when they slowed down the cars.
(yes it is a different style of racing)
Jeff, don't dismiss the ones on here that state they don't like 1000 foot racing. Many feel the same, but that is not why drag racing is suffering.
Economy and price of tickets for Nationals are the two main reasons. 1000 foot is the third reason.
Yes it is expensive to go to a Football, Hockey, Baseball and Basketball game,
But they are elitists sports and for every city that has those sports, there are rich people and corporations (the majority of tickets bought for those sports are bought by companies) that don't care what the cost is for a ticket and it is the envogue thing to have tickets for major sporting events. It is status. Also all those sports survive on TV contracts and major corporate backing.
Drag racing is different, and the NHRA has to realize that. It is spectator driven period.
Teams in the major sports receive 8 (some 9) figures per year in sponsorship, corporate backing and TV, radio contracts. The gate is like a bonus.
I am just going to run a few numbers here and I think you all with get the point.
Some of these number are estimations, (but they should be close)
The Coca Cola sponsorship around 4 million maybe 5
Event sponsorships are maybe 100k likely less
Ticket sales right now based on 60,000 fans per event is approx. $2,700,000 per event (when there are at least 80,000 seats available for most tracks for a three day event.
The NHRA pays for their TV or receives nothing for it
Other corporate backing total is in the 10-15 million range per year.
Because the TV is revenue neutral or a loss, they need spectators to pay the bill.
The problem Corporate NHRA has is they feel that by reducing the gate fee they are saying their show is worth less. Their attitude would never allow that, because they are thinking the way big corps think.
NHRA is one thing, Spectator driven. They have to find a way to attract more customers. With the economy they have to reduce tickets prices right now. With every extra 1000 spectators through the gates the spin off sales from concessions and souvenirs, plus because the fans paid less to get in the gate they will also spend more
I too would like to see the return to 1320; four classes would have to be slowed down though. TF, FC and the two TA classes. In talking to a number of NHRA veterans, slowing down the cars would not be brain surgery nor would the cost be prohibitive. Plus the teams would spend less as the cost to run 4.6's@315 to 1320 feet is way less than running 3.7's @320 to 1000 feet.
Lots of great talk and hopefully the NHRA see the errors in their ways, at least to some extent.
Dean
The economy is the #1 reason for a lack of spectators. Anyone can see that, as every other sport is suffering the same.
There are only couple sports in N. America that are not down spectator wise. They are Football and Hockey.
NASCAR is possibly down more than NHRA.
I have a couple questions for the two main posters.
Jeff when you say your quickest run was 316 and at 1320 you slowed to 265 that is a huge drop in speed.
How do you know you were going 265 at 1320? Your race pak has all the best stuff on it I get that but how did you determine that. I have worked on a few teams (TA), and have not seen a sensor that gives you the speed. The NHRA clocks don't give you the last 320ft in et. how did you or do you determine the speed at 1320 feet. What kind of telemetry do you use?
If in fact you have an et for the 1000-1320 mark, then and that is how you determined the MPH, then in fact your speed was way less than 265 at the end of the 1/4 mile. (I was just wondering).
George, every motorsport is reactive as far as rules go (Nascar, Indy and F-1), and I don't see it changing. That is the nature of the sport. Would it be better if in fact all motorsports were proactive, yes it would, but the only way to know how a product or technology will work is to test it? Like Patrick said, the speed Scott was going was not overly quick (in relation to the speeds of Funny Car at that time).
It was a perfect storm, at a track that really was suspect to begin with. Who would have thought that Mark Niver would have been killed going 60mph when he entered the sand trap at Seattle?
If you were to compute the ETs now to the ones prior to 2007 when it was 1320 feet, you would see that Technology has actually leveled off. No real gains have happened.
What has happened is the cars are reaching the speeds in a shorter distance. 60fts are quicker 660 ets are quicker etc. What is the big equalizer are the tires. There is not a tire that is made that can keep the cars and drivers safe over 325. Chutes should be deployed right at 1320 (if the track was 1320) and extra chute for the FC and TF class could be added.
A much safer catch/sand system should be designed, because the current one is archaic and dangerous and that one should be an easy fix. There are a lot of smart engineers in the world.
Nascar never missed a beat when they slowed down the cars.
(yes it is a different style of racing)
Jeff, don't dismiss the ones on here that state they don't like 1000 foot racing. Many feel the same, but that is not why drag racing is suffering.
Economy and price of tickets for Nationals are the two main reasons. 1000 foot is the third reason.
Yes it is expensive to go to a Football, Hockey, Baseball and Basketball game,
But they are elitists sports and for every city that has those sports, there are rich people and corporations (the majority of tickets bought for those sports are bought by companies) that don't care what the cost is for a ticket and it is the envogue thing to have tickets for major sporting events. It is status. Also all those sports survive on TV contracts and major corporate backing.
Drag racing is different, and the NHRA has to realize that. It is spectator driven period.
Teams in the major sports receive 8 (some 9) figures per year in sponsorship, corporate backing and TV, radio contracts. The gate is like a bonus.
I am just going to run a few numbers here and I think you all with get the point.
Some of these number are estimations, (but they should be close)
The Coca Cola sponsorship around 4 million maybe 5
Event sponsorships are maybe 100k likely less
Ticket sales right now based on 60,000 fans per event is approx. $2,700,000 per event (when there are at least 80,000 seats available for most tracks for a three day event.
The NHRA pays for their TV or receives nothing for it
Other corporate backing total is in the 10-15 million range per year.
Because the TV is revenue neutral or a loss, they need spectators to pay the bill.
The problem Corporate NHRA has is they feel that by reducing the gate fee they are saying their show is worth less. Their attitude would never allow that, because they are thinking the way big corps think.
NHRA is one thing, Spectator driven. They have to find a way to attract more customers. With the economy they have to reduce tickets prices right now. With every extra 1000 spectators through the gates the spin off sales from concessions and souvenirs, plus because the fans paid less to get in the gate they will also spend more
I too would like to see the return to 1320; four classes would have to be slowed down though. TF, FC and the two TA classes. In talking to a number of NHRA veterans, slowing down the cars would not be brain surgery nor would the cost be prohibitive. Plus the teams would spend less as the cost to run 4.6's@315 to 1320 feet is way less than running 3.7's @320 to 1000 feet.
Lots of great talk and hopefully the NHRA see the errors in their ways, at least to some extent.
Dean
Last edited:
