Wall Street Learns From NASCAR (1 Viewer)

[clwill]

This is a technical article from Forbes that discusses lessons Wall Street can learn from NASCAR:

Speed Is Making The Stock Market Dangerous. Nascar Shows Us How To Make It Safer. - Forbes

The interesting points are several:

- NASCAR is getting press in the national media, not the sports media, but the business media
- When the author needed a metaphor for a well-run business that slowed things down, he thought of NASCAR
- NASCAR isn't being derided for slowing the cars down, but praised for it

I know we too often here on the Mater look to NASCAR with envy, but this clearly shows how far apart it is from NHRA. How nice would it be if NHRA had already showed the guts to slow the cars down and they were the example?

 

[Toejam]

How nice would it be if NHRA had already showed the guts to slow the cars down and they were the example?

Christopher, if you really think NHRA can do anything that would impress the media this ain't it! I bet 90% of the media has no clue what NHRA is?

 

[clwill]

I bet 90% of the media has no clue what NHRA is?

Thank you for making my point.

 

[Toby]

It was around ten years ago I did some data acq work for the Wood Bros testing at Talladega and then Daytona. I was jokingly giving them **** about the rules restrictions. I will never forget what I heard. Ernie Wood said 'Boy in a couple weeks there are going to be 10's of thousands of people show up to watch us race and they aren't going to give a **** about the restrictions of the rules that we race." Still today that is true, the spectators show up and spend $60 a head to watch a show for a couple hours on a sunday. As much as us diehard racers think our show is dying because its only to 1000' that isn't on the top of Joe Average Specators minds. He/She only is caring about being entertained for a sunday afternoon.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[nick name]

It was around ten years ago I did some data acq work for the Wood Bros testing at Talladega and then Daytona. I was jokingly giving them **** about the rules restrictions. I will never forget what I heard. Ernie Wood said 'Boy in a couple weeks there are going to be 10's of thousands of people show up to watch us race and they aren't going to give a **** about the restrictions of the rules that we race." Still today that is true, the spectators show up and spend $60 a head to watch a show for a couple hours on a sunday. As much as us diehard racers think our show is dying because its only to 1000' that isn't on the top of Joe Average Specators minds. He/She only is caring about being entertained for a sunday afternoon.

I think I've told this story a time or two but it carries such an essential truth it bears repeating.

In a conversation about racing technology with Ken Schrader, he told me that there were three hard and fast rules for NASCAR making changes:

1. A better show for the fans
2. Safer
3. Reducing costs for the race teams

If an idea didn't hit those marks it had no chance of being approved.

Pretty basic stuff but I seldom see that mindset used in drag racing.

 

[Nunz]

There is one big difference. Drag racing was always the sport where you could go as fast as humanly possible, because you didn't have to make a turn. That's it. Real simple. Other than Bonneville, every other sport requires turning, therefore you absolutely have limits as to how fast you could go. Having said that, when the sport began, nobody thought 150 mph was achievable, let alone 350 (which is probably where we'd be by now). So now, even drag racing has limits. My point is, yes, it's about a show for the fans, but a big part of the sport's appeal has always been new records, and breaking barriers.

 

[robinjackson]

My point is, yes, it's about a show for the fans, but a big part of the sport's appeal has always been new records, and breaking barriers.

Very true. Which is why I think the slow-'em-down argument, which seems to work perfectly well in roundy-round, is a much tougher challenge to market in drag racing.

 

[Rajunz]

I think I've told this story a time or two but it carries such an essential truth it bears repeating.

In a conversation about racing technology with Ken Schrader, he told me that there were three hard and fast rules for NASCAR making changes:

1. A better show for the fans
2. Safer
3. Reducing costs for the race teams

If an idea didn't hit those marks it had no chance of being approved.

Pretty basic stuff but I seldom see that mindset used in drag racing.

Come on dude, these all happened within the last 10 years......................

1. A better show for the fans
* 75 minute turnaround!
* Shortened Racedays!
* Oil down Penalties!
* Engine Diapars!
* LED Christmas Trees!
* 4 Car Team Limit!


2. Safer
* Roll Cage Shrouds!
* Roll Cage Paddings!
* Improved Driver Restraints!
* Automatic Shutoffs!
* Burst Panels!
* Better Goodyear Tires!
* Safety Net Re-Designs!
* 1,000 ft. Nitro Racing!
* Pro Stock Splitters!
-many more

3. Reducing costs for the race teams
* Nitro engine restrictions!

 

[Toejam]

Thank you for making my point.

So how would NHRA set an example as far as slowing the cars down???

 

[clwill]

There is one big difference. Drag racing was always the sport where you could go as fast as humanly possible, because you didn't have to make a turn. That's it. Real simple. Other than Bonneville, every other sport requires turning, therefore you absolutely have limits as to how fast you could go. Having said that, when the sport began, nobody thought 150 mph was achievable, let alone 350 (which is probably where we'd be by now). So now, even drag racing has limits. My point is, yes, it's about a show for the fans, but a big part of the sport's appeal has always been new records, and breaking barriers.

So was Indy car, so was NASCAR. They used to be "all out as fast as you could go". Then they learned that people died doing that, and it wasn't a requirement for a good show and good racing. So they slowed them down and got great, competitive racing. Starting some 20+ years ago.

 

[clwill]

So how would NHRA set an example as far as slowing the cars down???

If they created great racing that was competitive with more teams able to be involved, and with actual races that included lead changes, and lasted more than 4 seconds, and was provably safer, maybe they would be the example people thought of. Then again, perhaps that ship has sailed.

 

[DrRocket]

So was Indy car, so was NASCAR. They used to be "all out as fast as you could go". Then they learned that people died doing that, and it wasn't a requirement for a good show and good racing. So they slowed them down and got great, competitive racing. Starting some 20+ years ago.

Earlier than that, really. It all started when the Chrysler hemi powered winged warriors displayed the ability to exceed 200mph without much effort. That's why NASCAR banned all "aero" cars after 1970. (Really they were first restricted to something like 305ci engines, then later banned outright.)

Buddy Baker in the #88 Daytona was the first to break the 200mph barrier March 24, 1970 at Talladega. I recall a later interview where he said that when rolling through the pits after that run, "the NASCAR officials I saw didn't look too happy."

 

[Nunz]

Chris I agree. While the first roughly 50 years of the sport was all about barriers, I think we've reached the point where the fuel cars are just too fast. People complain that the drivers don't "do much". Well in reality, when you are hitting 330mph in 3.75 seconds, there are only so many functions that can be performed safely. It used to kill me when people would say, "Oh the racing's closer than ever since we went to 1000 ft." No s**t!! Chop another chunk of track off and see how close it is! I'm all for ratcheting things back, nothing wrong with a 4.90 300mph car that burns 90%, makes lots of noise, and runs 1320. And it would be so much more affordable, I would bet even more single car teams would spring up. But this has been beaten to death, it doesn't seem that this is what's really wanted.

 

[mick]

remove throttle stops.
all things aside, this would cost nothing and bring slight levels uniqueness
to burnouts, don't even hear two-steps to begin burnouts anymore, they
just roll thru and ease into throttle.....very homogenized IMO.
it would take a level of consistency away from the tuneup?....
what tuneup, i wasn't there to see it.

 

[clwill]

That's it! The whole problem with the sport of drag racing, from marketing to safety, from the cost of participation to the decline in audiences, is the throttle stop on the burnout.

 

[sdwarf36]

The powers that be (lawyers-insurance people-accountiants) can't comprehend that 300mph is safer than 330. 55 in a Prius is safe. We are 20 years past racers deciding things for racers.

 

[Toejam]

If they created great racing that was competitive with more teams able to be involved, and with actual races that included lead changes, and lasted more than 4 seconds, and was provably safer, maybe they would be the example people thought of. Then again, perhaps that ship has sailed.

I just hearing from those who still claim how much BIGGER NHRA was 30-40 years ago!

 

[vegasnitro]

There is no top flight racing series that is "cheap" no matter what rules you put into place. These teams have million dollar plus budgets, and if you speced everything out to they would "only" run 300MPH and use fewer parts, the teams will find other places to spend their money to find the edge to win. They would develop proprietary parts, spend more time in wind tunnels, hire batteries of crew chiefs and computers, etc. It may bring more teams in, but the same few teams will still win the majority of the races.

The bottom line is this, the crew chiefs and engineers will ALWAYS be ahead of the rules. Once the big money horse has left the barn ... there is no putting him back. No top flight team is going to go to their sponsor and tell them to give them less money, that is for sure.

 

[rocketman]

I don't know if an 80 million dollar a year budget for racing is a good business model.

 

[NYNitro86]

It was around ten years ago I did some data acq work for the Wood Bros testing at Talladega and then Daytona. I was jokingly giving them **** about the rules restrictions. I will never forget what I heard. Ernie Wood said 'Boy in a couple weeks there are going to be 10's of thousands of people show up to watch us race and they aren't going to give a **** about the restrictions of the rules that we race." Still today that is true, the spectators show up and spend $60 a head to watch a show for a couple hours on a sunday. As much as us diehard racers think our show is dying because its only to 1000' that isn't on the top of Joe Average Specators minds. He/She only is caring about being entertained for a sunday afternoon.

Entertainment? Team Geico?...NOT. "Laurel & Hardy" popping off t-shirts to "Moves like Jagger" (WTF) & conducting games with red solo cups & fans are sitting on their hands.

I remember on NHRA Mobilevision during E-Town when they did their shooting off shirts, they'd show a fan getting crazy for a shirt, then a bunch of fans sitting on their hands not caring. I laughed when they showed a girl in like a pink shirt dancing to "Moves like Jagger" and then like 3 shots of fans who didn't care. Ouch? I LMFAO over that.