Train wreck

[OldSchool+]

"[Banjo Matthews] built 72% of the winning cars from 1974 to 1985. I'd say that's a pretty good stat."--Luke

Indeed it is. However, another way to put that is that if we call Banjo's cars a "spec" chassis, 28% "other" cars also won races.

However, to your point, seems like I heard along the way that our current chassis are NASCAR serialized and any modifications will result in a beheading. Perhaps this is a moot point and we are already there. I know that sketchy rear truck arms are a non-starter.

Even if they are all identical, there are the endless setup variables that allow one car to get away. Therefore, a spec chassis may not reduce costs per se, since we need 34 aerospace engineers to work on said setup. Even Chad Knaus, who I always considered to be a tech-type guy, recently said it was now all beyond him and in the hands of the engineers. Would you propose that a IROC-like setup be mandated each week...?

Am not necessarily saying that would be a bad idea, but it gets closer to a $5-per-ride go cart track.

Re: Unibody V8 Supercars:

https://www.motorsport.com/v8superca...895986/895986/

They look both pretty stout and unibody based. However, note that the article indicates that they "missed a race" and that there is a picture of a guy in the hospital. I guess Cup guys get hurt from time to time...

Ultimately, do they look cheaper or "better", and would they--per se--produce better competition?

[luke81]

I really don't know if i think the iroc style setup rules would be good or not. I'm totally not sure. I think each time having the ability to tune the car to their liking is an important part of motorsports so i'd never want to take that part away. But engineers do cost a lot!

Most other major series (like Supercars, indycars, etc...) don't operate with the huge fleets of cars like NASCAR, many of these series are run with 1 or two cars for the year.
Again it goes back to the cost of running an entire manufacturing facility along with a race team. I've read articles claiming anywhere from 10-20 cars get built in a season, yikes!

[jacko241]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think the V8 supercars are showroom cars turned into race cars at all. They're fully purpose built race cars with a sort of showroom appearing body draped over them (essentially the same thing as a current cup car) just using a LOT more technology. And they basically use a spec chassis to start with. I'd be surprised if building a v8 supercar wasn't a lot more expensive than building a cup car.

You may be right about that, Luke. I honestly don't know. They do LOOK a lot more like street counterparts than current NASCAR stock cars. I think where I am trying to go with my thoughts it that back in the day they put on a pretty good show before the days of 10 engineers per team, shaker rigs, pull down rigs, shock dynos, and you know all the rest. They pulled hand built hot rods in on open trailers, and still went 195 mph at Daytona and Tally.

[jacko241]

Most other major series (like Supercars, indycars, etc...) don't operate with the huge fleets of cars like NASCAR, many of these series are run with 1 or two cars for the year.
Again it goes back to the cost of running an entire manufacturing facility along with a race team. I've read articles claiming anywhere from 10-20 cars get built in a season, yikes![/QUOTE]

Bingo, Luke! That is another point I was trying to make. The number of cars these teams are fleecing sponsors for to build is obscene, and unnecessary.

[OldSchool+]

Joe, help me out, here.

I am say, Nathan's hot dogs.

Joe Gibbs comes to me and says "I need 'X' amount of dollars for the year".

Nathans says--"Show me the marketing and TV coverage and ratings, the number of fans in the stands, show me the Return On Investment".

Joe sez "Never mind that, I need 20 cars this year, up two from last year".

Nathan's says "Security to the office of the president, please".

In other words, I really do not see how the number of cars that a team needs--or wants--is correlated to the sponsorship dollars they receive.

What am I missing?

[jacko241]

LOL, I like your analogy. OS, for criminy sakes, if Joe Gibbs only need 5 cars, doesn't that mean he needs less hotdogs sold by Nathans?

[OldSchool+]

Negative.

It is all exactly where it should be. Nathan's should not and does not care about the number of Gibbs cars. What they care about is time in front of the camera and how it compares to "regular" commercial time and it's costs.

And, say, Richard Petty has less cars, and let's say he wants less money. If you are Nathans, you have to look at your budget. If you have a fat budget, you want that sponsorship on Gibb's car--NOT Petty's, even if you can save a buck, because you figure it will sell more doggies and bring you back MORE MONEY. If you are Bob's Discount Tires out of Charlotte, you might get on Petty's quarter panel for one race. And if you are Bob, you can't get by Joe Gibbs receptionist.

All precisely as it should be.

And... how about the number of engineers? The square footage of the garage space? The number of haulers? The chrome wheels on the hauler?

Speaking of Gibbs and spending as little as he feels he has to on all elements of his operation (while simultaneously gathering all the sponsorship bux he can), note that Championship contendah Matt Kenseth, arguably a better driver than Daniel Suarez, got kicked to the curb. Presumably because he was earning (costing) a group of millions of dollars and on the other hand, Suarez brought a fat sponsor--Arris--with him.

Is that "fair"? IMO, yes.

[OldSchool+]

Back to my deal, like a lot of folks, at one time I thought maybe I could wheel a stock car.

But I did not figure out how to make a lot of money. Nor get a sponsor with a lot of money. Nor did I sacrifice a great deal of the rest of my life in time or things like the folks I know that are behind the wheel.

I am rolling tires around.

Is that fair? Damn straight it is.

Again, in my own (semi-sane) world--and for me-- I find that a lot of this stuff could fall under... coveting.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor [including his race car(s)]."— Exodus 20:17


If a guy inherits money to race--I am happy for him.

If he earns it legally--I am happy for him.

If he earns it illegally--I still do not begrudge him for it.

If he got the ride through skill or hard work--I am especially happy for him.

And so...I am a man satisfied rolling them tires around.

[jacko241]

I will have to agree to disagree with many of your observations. You missed my analogy of the number of cars. I am talking about the budget a team is asking for to race. The numbers they are asking are not necessary. They could race with much less. It is killing the sport. The cost is too high for almost ANY company to want to play anymore. If they do, it usually a partial deal. The only way to reduce the cost to play is to reduce the expenses to race. Simple math. You are trying to make it about fairness. That has nothing to do with the simple economics of the current situation. NASCAR knows what is going on cannot last. Look at all the crazy changes they are making. I predict trouble for IMSA in the not too distant future, too. They are banking totally on manufacturer involvement. They ran all the small teams like us, and even better ones, off. And trust me, at some point, the OEMS will leave.

[OldSchool+]

Aight, I will get off the "fairness" thing and look at sponsorship dollars only.

Joe, I get your point, and I agree with it--and you.

It is the solution that differs.

How does a sanctioning body limit the amount of money a team is asking for--or gets-- in sponsorship? Instead of an arbitrary and unenforceable cap, I maintain that they limit the effectiveness of spending a lot of money through rules. Effectively negating the crucial effects of said money for those teams that can command and have less.

Specifically engine rules, for starters.

If Tommy Baldwin could consistently run in the top ten he--and others--would better fill out the field.

This could be accomplished in a number of ways. In addition/instead of restrictive motor rules, short tracks are a great equalizer.

After a lifetime around this I realize that big money always wins. The only trick is to figure out how to mostly negate the big money so the other guys have a chance.

But NASCAR itself is guilty of creating the problems that are now cutting their own throat. Killing their own golden goose, as it were.

We will see if they can turn the bus around before it goes off the cliff.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and I highly value it.

[OldSchool+]

RE: Manufacturers

From time to time, Manufacturers have been in racing. In Cup Ford and Chrysler in the late sixties, then largely out in the 70s.

Same with BMW and Porsche and Jaguar in the "old" IMSA. And when they were the only money, when they left, it was a helluva vacuum.

But Big Bad Bill and Bill Jr would always dial the rules back--AND FAST-- so everybody and anybody could race.

That is why Chevys were competitive on the Ovals, and stock bodied Porsches and Nissans won the 24 hour event.

Now, I dunno, it looks like a clownshow, or...a trainwreck... without clear direction.

[luke81]

I don't think a sponsor cares exactly HOW their dollars are spent, all they care is that they're getting an ROI on those dollars. And in my opinion (with my little bit of marketing experience as a small business owner) it is VERY VERY hard to justify 30 million dollars to be a primary sponsor in NASCAR, and then add in many millions more of sponsorship activation dollars - I'd bet a 30 million dollar sponsor deal costs a company 40 million bucks. That's foolish. Racing just doesn't drive that kind of sales anymore. Even as a race fan I find a company's involvement in NASCAR means very little to my spending habits. I drink both Monster and Red Bull, and I didn't shift more to Monster because of their nameplate on the Cup. I don't ship items with FedEx over USPS or UPS because of the 11 car. I'm sorry, it just have little to no effect on the daily buying habits of the average consumer. Now if a company could get a primary sponsorship deal at 10 million we would have full fields of fully sponsored cars. So I believe they have to get the cost to operate down by at least half. And sorry again, but that's going to involve a LOT of people losing jobs. That hurts to say, but payroll costs are likely the biggest single expense for these teams. Best I can find on these interwebs Hendrick employs somewhere around (possibly over) 600 people. SIX HUNDRED PEOPLE to run a 4 car race team!!!

That's foolish and flat out stupid.

[OldSchool+]

Luke--Agree that 30-40 mil seems like a lot.

That is why most sponsorship is for a handful of races, and they need several sponsors for the year.

BUT, if someone will pony it up, that means that sponsorship was "worth" 40 mil to that sponsor.

As the deal ratchets down, it may be "worth" 10 mil per year, or say, a half a mil.

When the sponsors will pay only that much, that in fact will be what it is "worth".

Again, all self leveling.

[jacko241]

Luke, I think you are spot on with everything you said. I agree that most sponsors probably don't care how the money is spent. My thinking is that if it takes less to run a team, then there will be more to go around to several teams, not just a few. You could not be more right that there is NO WAY, not even today, that it should take $30-$40 million dollars to sposor a stock car, and 600 people to run 4 tube frame cars. It is totally out of hand.

[jacko241]

OS, we are on the same page about IMSA I think. If you remember how we got the Daytona Prototype, then you will see they are setting themselves up to repeat history. Remember, IMSA went bankrupt, and then we had the USRRC. Top level sports car racing almost disappeared in the US. ANd, in typical fashion, NASCAR (IMSA) is milking the golden goat until it falls over dead. I was privy to some insider meetings back at the end of 2008, right when NASCAR officially took over Grand Am, and trust me, after that I knew where this was going to lead.