Small teams and big money (1 Viewer)

[flapjack]

Aside from money, what would it take to get the smaller teams more wins? I am of the opinion that the tune-up is HUGE part of it. Which leads to back to money, I guess. How can you refine your tune-up if you don't have the dollars to test and go through a lot of parts?

It makes me sad that the large teams get larger and have their own parts program (DSR, JFR -- I leave AJR out of it because at AJPE sells parts to all comers, in addition to lending a hand with the basic tune-up), all while the smaller teams don't go as many rounds as I would like to see...

Maybe what I am really after is this: How can the small teams get good enough to attract major sponsorship when it takes a lot of money (read, major sponsorship) to get good enough to attract sponsorship? The old chicken and egg problem...

It will be interesting to see how well Bode fares this coming year now that he has sponsorship to run all season (and maybe test) and refine his tune up. I wonder what he did to attract a season-long sponsor given that he doesn't have the track record of say DSR?

Questions, questions...

 

[handsome]

my dad always said. . ."you can't out run cubic dollars" . .you can't run fast if your forced to make parts last. The big funded teams can risk the usual sacrifice without a worry. they can try new things ,and push the tune up to the breaking point and when they pass that point, simply pull it back or make a stronger part.

 

[clwill]

I've struggled with this issue in my head for a while too. I don't think it's all about parts. Clearly parts make a big difference, but I think teams know what the trick parts they need are, and could find a way to buy them if pressed.

I think the big difference is the laps. Big teams like JFR get three times as many laps per event as Tim Wilkerson. That's three times the data, three times the testing of new ideas, and three times as many chances to fail and see what went wrong.

It's not clear how you would go about getting the smaller teams the more laps they really need. The test ban was a way to limit big teams from simply running away with it. That suppresses the big teams, but doesn't lift the small teams. But I don't know how else to solve it.

One way they have solved the issue in other sports (specifically baseball) is through revenue sharing, where big teams with fat TV contracts have to contribute to a pot that helps the small teams. But it's not clear how that kind of model works in a sponsor-driven sport that has to pay for TV time...

I'd love to hear some great idea. I'm fresh out.

 

[Just Paul]

A lot of good points and questions here. I think the biggest part of the deal is the guy behind the computer screen making the shots. Keep in mind you have to have a nice bankroll to get somebody.

Case in point, Bob Vandigriff. He ran the last couple years, and half of this year running low 3.90s and an occasional 3.8 here and there. I think at one point he made the remark that they had perfected their 3.92 tune up, but that was not getting it done.

They change crew chiefs, and within a handful of races, he had 2 cars running in the 3.70s and several runs over 320, and won a race. Did the money change? I don't think it did. The people were the difference there.

Another example is Del Worsham. He started with a nice little deal with CSK on his family run car, and ended up with at times a 3 car operation, and cars winning races. Start small and work it into something big.


I don't know that testing is the answer. I saw an article with Bob Bode recently, and he said one year they set aside a bunch of money to go test before the year started. All they did was smoke the tires 10 runs in a row and didn't learn a damn thing, and flushed that money down the drain. It goes both ways.

 

[Rat]

I would think immediately the talent. The objective is to win more, you need money but other than money you need talent calling the shots and that's money, that there's the so called luck having to play a role on sunday. Either way winning more no matter how you pick it apart all puts you back to phase 1, money.

 

[Muddy]

I don't know what the answers are but it coud start with perhaps a 2 car per team limit and data sharing between all teams.

 

[Rat]

I don't know what the answers are but it coud start with perhaps a 2 car per team limit and data sharing between all teams.

I don't see the data sharing ever happening because then everyone is a teammate unofficially.

 

[jackass]

Paul.. the only thing i disagree with is they DID get a much better influx of funds to go with the new crew members..... which neither one hurts....lol


the biggest thing i have been told is the money... lot of these low budget teams.. have to run the tune not quite as "on the edge' to make sure they can use the parts again and again.... teams with the money for enough parts can push them more and not worry if they have to change out parts run to run....

in the few rounds that Hot Rod went at Z-Max in the fall event i watched a new set of rods and pistons go in each round...

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

I don't see limiting cars per team helping the sport. In these tough times we want to increase car count, not discourage it.

 

[Nunz]

Good question Tom, but, I think you already have the answer. It really does come down to money. Racing the nitro classes has become such a niche, think about how much hype has been generated from the goings on at just a couple of teams. Because there just isn't that much else happening. Everyone talks about how big and "corporate" it's become. How corporate is it, really? Yes we have some big sponsors, that have been anchors in the pro classes, but in reality, it's a hobby for wealthy guys. And, even more so in Pro Stock. The only real hope of narrowing the gap and having fresh faces in the winner's circle, is for the NHRA to think outside the box, and overhaul these classes. There have been many, many discussions on various sites about the popularity of nostalgia cars. Imagine if the "Big Show" implemeted rules similar to the nostalgia classes, and we could have fuel cars running the full 1320, maybe a 5.0/290 combo, that could run a season for a fraction of the 2-3 MILLION DOLLARS it takes to gun for a title now. My guess is we'd be able to have 32 car shows again at some bigger events. I guess I'm rambling now, but the point is, IMO, something like this needs to happen if we are to ever see the smaller teams have a shot.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Yer right, 32 car shows is just what we need.

 

[Huge]

A lot of good points and questions here. I think the biggest part of the deal is the guy behind the computer screen making the shots. Keep in mind you have to have a nice bankroll to get somebody.

Case in point, Bob Vandigriff. He ran the last couple years, and half of this year running low 3.90s and an occasional 3.8 here and there. I think at one point he made the remark that they had perfected their 3.92 tune up, but that was not getting it done.

They change crew chiefs, and within a handful of races, he had 2 cars running in the 3.70s and several runs over 320, and won a race. Did the money change? I don't think it did. The people were the difference there.

Another example is Del Worsham. He started with a nice little deal with CSK on his family run car, and ended up with at times a 3 car operation, and cars winning races. Start small and work it into something big.


I don't know that testing is the answer. I saw an article with Bob Bode recently, and he said one year they set aside a bunch of money to go test before the year started. All they did was smoke the tires 10 runs in a row and didn't learn a damn thing, and flushed that money down the drain. It goes both ways.

I remember that test session very well. We were trying the setback blower and we shook so hard that we cracked the chassis. I think we only made one good run. Wow, that was a long time ago.

 

[Toejam]

I met John Stewart like 6-7 years ago, he's worked for what seems like every team out there at one time or another! One time we were talking about him helping out a Low dolla fuel racer, get them down the track clean! This was before 1000' this was a TF Dragster, he looked over their set-up, Parts they were running, told them he could squeeze a Mid 4.70! Told them straight up, you wanna run .50's better buy New stuff! It's amazing how much the cost escalate by just a couple of Tenths!

 

[mike]

Parts attrition has got to be murderous on the budget of a fuel team. How many motors get grenaded during the course of a season? I'm curious as to whether it's possible to greatly reduce parts breakage. What about opening up the sport to some modern technology?

My understanding is that computers are only allowed for the purpose of data recording. Active engine management and traction control are strictly off limits correct? If computer control got implemented, I'd have to think that disastrous and dangerous fireballs could be prevented to a large degree. Computerized clutch management with active feedback would likely lead to less smoked tires, less guessing about the setup, and much better racing.

Yes, I understand there would be a substantial development curve, but I think in the long run it would lead to less expense and better entertainment. The NHRA's effort to keep the electronic technology at and around 1975 strikes me as a little stale and can't really appeal to the computer-savvy younger fan base that it will need to survive long-term.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

What about opening up the sport to some modern technology?

Yes, I understand there would be a substantial development curve, but I think in the long run it would lead to less expense and better entertainment. The NHRA's effort to keep the electronic technology at and around 1975 strikes me as a little stale and can't really appeal to the computer-savvy younger fan base that it will need to survive long-term.

Post of the week right there

 

[Toejam]

Mike, who's gonna spend the Millions on this new technology?

 

[Rat]

Mike, who's gonna spend the Millions on this new technology?

I'm sure it's out there, NHRA rules kinda inhibit innovation. Open up the rule book a little bit and let the companies that made the parts rent it to the teams and if it works adapt it and sell it. I can't imagine that the technology is not already out there and the rules for TF and FC just do not let the teams explore the options.

 

[Nunz]

Yeah, I think a few times a year, it would be cool to have 32 car shows. Like Indy, something to set it apart. The main point I was trying to make was taking action that would keep lower funded teams in the game.

 

[Mooseman]

Its an interesting topic this one as the guys of the past with lower budgets who ran real fast back in the day generally either were or had super smart crew chiefs, in fact alot of the legendary crew chiefs known today were low buck guys who were really really good then either got a sponsorship or picked up by a high buck team.

Another interesting thing about this topic is how many teams back in the day made their own stuff there were obviously alot of engineers and machinists/welders who were racers. If they couldn't get parts they made them, Ken Veney even made his own cylinder heads giving himself a product to sell to other racers.

Dale armstrong had his own engine dyno as far back as the mid 70's, we all know where his career went. Chi-town hustler team had a flow bench in the 70's.

Must have been a great time a reall if can't buy it or afford it then make it yourself era.

 

[Nick Name]

The testing answer is simple. Everyone should be allowed 8 run per event. If you don't get all 8 at an event, you should be allowed to do the balance in testing. If you don't use them all by the next event, it reverts back to 8 again.

No saving them up for unlimited testing in the countdown.