Originally Posted by dug283 (Post 368867)

My suggestion is to look at the Bader days. The issue is not that the tracks have to make a profit, or the cost to compete has risen. But the reality that it is very difficult to go one or more rounds at the level of competition we have. A weekend warrior can win one or two rounds and not win anything, only the top 8 or 16. So are more racers more likely to compete in events that have large payouts for the top 4, 8 or 16 finishers, which is usually about 25% of the total car count. As appose to round $$ and more moderate top $$ payout? Could that have been a factor in the low car counts of the 5k S/SS events of the recent?


PS: Bobby, I like the ideal of index qualifying too.

Originally Posted by Lyn Smith (Post 368612)

Super Stock at the US Nationals.second round losers get $350.

Originally Posted by GarysZ24 (Post 368948)

That's good, but first you have to qualify for the field to even have a 50/50 chance to win first round, and if you're not -.8ish under, then you just as well not even travel there...

Danny (post #56), unfortunately out west here we don't have an IHRA option like you do, so we have only two options; either we race with what we have here, or we don't race...personally I'm not ready to give up on the sport I've loved for 41yrs just because IHRA isn't here with their pro-am series yet...

Originally Posted by Michael Beard (Post 368877)

Those absolutely are issues, and that's why changes were made in the first place.

You say half empty I say half full??? Your reply was not in line with my post. Tracks have to make a profit, the cost has risen to race, is a given NOT my point.


Yes, it is. It is challenging. It takes a good car, skill, and a little luck. If it were not challenging, we would just go to test n' tune and car shows. You can help the driver aspect of the equation at www.thisisbracketracing.com

Again, this is not my point?????? There are lots of quality cars and great drivers but there is a minority of racers that is always in the money rounds. And that's fine because they have paid the price to become the great racers that they are. I grew up with some of the best and I'm honored to have them as friends. But, along with many other factors, and No return on investment, no matter the size, is shrinking the number of class racers?

No. 2nd round winners do in fact get paid already.



Please detail the entry fee, complete purse structure, track and promoter expenses, what the necessary level of profit is in order to remain viable, and the car counts required in each class to achieve that.

Originally Posted by novassdude (Post 368920)

Please tell me I am reading this wrong. The way I read it tracks do not need to make a profit and you should win something for going one round. Well with that system the track is definitely not going to make any money. I don't like real top heavy payouts but it should require a couple of round wins to get paid in my opinion. And if tracks do not make a profit there will be no place to race.

Originally Posted by Michael Beard (Post 368985)

1) They had 2-3x as many cars and a much better economy, and 2) They didn't, for long. They learned that while it sounded great on paper, neither the sanctioning body nor the tracks could survive with that structure. If it worked, they would still be doing it.



$5. Five (5) dollars. To be able to pay even that small amount requires a massive number of cars. 75 cars makes $20 (gross). They draw more cars for a limited number of classes and run them all in a If this is the model you wish to use, is it realistic to expect 125+ cars in EACH of the seven sportsman categories at every race? How many days will it take to run 875 cars to gross $8,000? What's the track's cost per day? What's the sanctioning body's cost per day? What's your net? How much should the track and sanctioning body profit in order to remain viable?



Bracket programs are a completely different animal than a traveling Pro-Am series (and that's a entire editorial of its own). I worked for Bill Bader. I am quite familiar with him and the various business models. I have also worked with and for race tracks, and have co-promoted several of our own events. I designed a race purse calculator spreadsheet that makes it incredibly simple to run numbers, and the reality is indeed VERY enlightening - particularly when you promote your own events and you see all of the expenses that you didn't consider when it wasn't your wallet.



My point is that you threw out a suggestion without being willing to do the math and figure out if something was realistic or not, without any care for "cost, profits, cars or drivers." Those are PRECISELY the things you need to look at.



You cannot ignore cost and profits when suggesting monetary changes, and assume that the changes will have no effect on the tracks. They don't survive on good intentions. We all want the best for everybody, but not every segment can have everything. It's a careful balance.

Show us how it works. You've asked for money off the top and earlier round money. Lay it out. What's the gross of the current system vs your system? How will car counts be affected by 1) earlier round money 2) lower win money? What is a racer's break even point in each system?

I'm not trying to comes across as being mean. I'm challenging you to think through it. It's the same kind of analysis you have to do when building or improving a car, improving your driving, running a business, or anything else.