P
PureDeathRacing
Guest
Winston-Salem Journal
DARLINGTON, S.C. - At first blush, expanding the NASCAR tour from 36 to 40 events shouldn't sound very appealing to stock-car racing crews. But given the forces at play - TV and the NFL's own expanded TV packages - teams are looking at some of the positives. In fact, the past two days the response has been surprisingly optimistic when the pluses are considered:
First, a curb on long-distance testing. While a complete ban on testing at all NASCAR-sanctioned tracks might be difficult to enforce, cutting back practice and qualifying to Saturdays, for two-day shows, and opening Fridays for computer-instrumented testing at the track, could be a significant cost-cutting move, teams say.
Second, Daytona's SpeedWeeks could be shortened.
Third, half a dozen or so mid-week summertime shows could be added to the tour as two-hour primetime TV fare - Wednesday Night Thunder, freeing a few weekends. That could save North Carolina Motor Speedway from the scrap heap, if that track added lights.
One car owner points out NASCAR might be looking at a new three-network TV package, with ABC joining Fox and NBC, and with ESPN back in the mix, too. That could lead NASCAR to create a "three-season" tour - spring, summer and fall, 13 or so races each, with the tour finale a "Super Bowl" of sorts rotating from network to network each season, perhaps at Las Vegas one season, perhaps at Daytona the next.
Such creative thinking could be a major sponsorship boost, which NASCAR sorely needs.
"I'd be OK with it," said Andy Graves, general manager for Chip Ganassi's operation, of a 40-race tour. "I haven't heard the whole plan, but I've heard bits and pieces. If they wanted to knock out the All-Star race and the Shootout.... the way we look at it now we run 38 weekends, so running two more....
"Yes, it would take a toll on everybody, and you would have to get very creative. But if that's the solution, then that's something we'd do."
But Dale Jarrett offers a warning: "The one thing we've always had to be careful of here is overexposure. When we had 30 or 32 races, they had to keep building more stands. When we got to 36, maybe some places weren't selling out. But we'll race wherever they say. If they say race 52 times a year, we will. My dad and them used to race more than 60 times a year. So it's not something that couldn't be done.
"But if you expand that much, you'd have to do away with the Bud Shootout and the All-Star race. There wouldn't be time for anything but the points races. As long as the sponsors and TV people are happy, we'll be there."
Thoughts on testing
Cutting testing? "You would have to be very smart if you banned testing," Graves said. "Because with the simulation tools that are available now, we would actually spend more on computer simulations than we spent track testing now. So just to say, 'No more testing,' that wouldn't work.
"What I'd like to see is cutting the weekends down to two days instead of three, and come in on Fridays with the data systems like at Homestead for testing. Then Saturday we can qualify, and as soon as qualifying is over, we're done till Sunday. If we did that every weekend, we wouldn't be going to Kentucky and Lakeland and Nashville to test. Why would you want to test somewhere else when you could test right at the track you're racing at, in the same time frame.
"But people say, 'Then you've got to bring one or two more engineers.' But bringing one or two guys for a couple of days would be cheap compared to everything else.
'Just saying, 'No testing' wouldn't work. You'd just spend more money on wind tunnels, shaker rigs, and simulation tools. My budget would actually have to go up."
"People are going to test somewhere," Jarrett said. "So I'm sure NAS-CAR would prefer you go where you would gain some benefit. My suggestion is we pretty much do away with testing. Do test at Daytona, and add a few tracks that we would go in a day early for testing, like we did at Homestead. I don't know there is a solution that would satisfy everyone though. But we can't keep going back to our sponsors for more money."
Reasons to expand
Why consider expanding to 40 races? To give teams sponsors more bang for their bucks, to add more markets (a new race in Seattle, and second races in Kansas City, Las Vegas and Dallas-Fort Worth), to help NASCAR and its TV partners market against the NFL and other sports. And any such push would come more from TV than NASCAR.
It is all about money, which is in short supply. Just ask Todd Bodine, who is making one more "last stand" this weekend, though still hoping a full-time ride arrives.
Bodine, whose reputation for not pulling any punches sometimes lands him in hot water with NASCAR executives, said it may be time for a cost-cutting summit: "Maybe we need some sort of organization of crew chiefs or drivers or car owners to try to help figure out the problems and get them under control before it's too late. Not just the race car problems and the rule problems, but how can we make the sport cheaper, what can we do to bring the costs under control?
"There have got to be answers. I don't claim to be a guru and know them ... but if you get 43 crew chiefs together and 43 drivers together and 43 car owners together, there will be a lot of things flying around that might be good ideas.
"There are a lot things they could do differently, and I don't think they're trying to do things wrong.
"What's ruined our racing are these bodies. With the amount of downforce these things are generating, you can't run side by side, you can't run up on somebody, you can't let somebody come up behind you, because it changes everything you're sitting in. Consequently nobody wants to run around people."
And the body costs have skyrocketed. "Four years ago it cost $7,000, $7,500 to $8,000 to put a body on. Now it's $14,000. That's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The problem now is they've got so many templates with zero tolerance that it takes a long time for a body hanger to get it that close. And when you add the motor and the wheels, the body flexes and it all changes."
Bodine is worried this season may be an even tougher one for many teams than they expect, because sponsorship contracts are coming up for renewal: "Even before 9-11 companies were tightening up, and then 9-11 came and companies clammed up tight. Now it's almost three years later and all the contracts are up, this is when you need to find a new sponsor because the old one is going away, and you can't find one.
"And at the same time all this is happening, the costs of the sport are being driven way up because of competition. DEI and Hendrick are spending a ton of money on things like straight-line testing, and if you want to survive you have to spend money on that, too.
"And you can't get away with just one engineer anymore; you need two or three or four more guys. Those are the things driving the price up!
DARLINGTON, S.C. - At first blush, expanding the NASCAR tour from 36 to 40 events shouldn't sound very appealing to stock-car racing crews. But given the forces at play - TV and the NFL's own expanded TV packages - teams are looking at some of the positives. In fact, the past two days the response has been surprisingly optimistic when the pluses are considered:
First, a curb on long-distance testing. While a complete ban on testing at all NASCAR-sanctioned tracks might be difficult to enforce, cutting back practice and qualifying to Saturdays, for two-day shows, and opening Fridays for computer-instrumented testing at the track, could be a significant cost-cutting move, teams say.
Second, Daytona's SpeedWeeks could be shortened.
Third, half a dozen or so mid-week summertime shows could be added to the tour as two-hour primetime TV fare - Wednesday Night Thunder, freeing a few weekends. That could save North Carolina Motor Speedway from the scrap heap, if that track added lights.
One car owner points out NASCAR might be looking at a new three-network TV package, with ABC joining Fox and NBC, and with ESPN back in the mix, too. That could lead NASCAR to create a "three-season" tour - spring, summer and fall, 13 or so races each, with the tour finale a "Super Bowl" of sorts rotating from network to network each season, perhaps at Las Vegas one season, perhaps at Daytona the next.
Such creative thinking could be a major sponsorship boost, which NASCAR sorely needs.
"I'd be OK with it," said Andy Graves, general manager for Chip Ganassi's operation, of a 40-race tour. "I haven't heard the whole plan, but I've heard bits and pieces. If they wanted to knock out the All-Star race and the Shootout.... the way we look at it now we run 38 weekends, so running two more....
"Yes, it would take a toll on everybody, and you would have to get very creative. But if that's the solution, then that's something we'd do."
But Dale Jarrett offers a warning: "The one thing we've always had to be careful of here is overexposure. When we had 30 or 32 races, they had to keep building more stands. When we got to 36, maybe some places weren't selling out. But we'll race wherever they say. If they say race 52 times a year, we will. My dad and them used to race more than 60 times a year. So it's not something that couldn't be done.
"But if you expand that much, you'd have to do away with the Bud Shootout and the All-Star race. There wouldn't be time for anything but the points races. As long as the sponsors and TV people are happy, we'll be there."
Thoughts on testing
Cutting testing? "You would have to be very smart if you banned testing," Graves said. "Because with the simulation tools that are available now, we would actually spend more on computer simulations than we spent track testing now. So just to say, 'No more testing,' that wouldn't work.
"What I'd like to see is cutting the weekends down to two days instead of three, and come in on Fridays with the data systems like at Homestead for testing. Then Saturday we can qualify, and as soon as qualifying is over, we're done till Sunday. If we did that every weekend, we wouldn't be going to Kentucky and Lakeland and Nashville to test. Why would you want to test somewhere else when you could test right at the track you're racing at, in the same time frame.
"But people say, 'Then you've got to bring one or two more engineers.' But bringing one or two guys for a couple of days would be cheap compared to everything else.
'Just saying, 'No testing' wouldn't work. You'd just spend more money on wind tunnels, shaker rigs, and simulation tools. My budget would actually have to go up."
"People are going to test somewhere," Jarrett said. "So I'm sure NAS-CAR would prefer you go where you would gain some benefit. My suggestion is we pretty much do away with testing. Do test at Daytona, and add a few tracks that we would go in a day early for testing, like we did at Homestead. I don't know there is a solution that would satisfy everyone though. But we can't keep going back to our sponsors for more money."
Reasons to expand
Why consider expanding to 40 races? To give teams sponsors more bang for their bucks, to add more markets (a new race in Seattle, and second races in Kansas City, Las Vegas and Dallas-Fort Worth), to help NASCAR and its TV partners market against the NFL and other sports. And any such push would come more from TV than NASCAR.
It is all about money, which is in short supply. Just ask Todd Bodine, who is making one more "last stand" this weekend, though still hoping a full-time ride arrives.
Bodine, whose reputation for not pulling any punches sometimes lands him in hot water with NASCAR executives, said it may be time for a cost-cutting summit: "Maybe we need some sort of organization of crew chiefs or drivers or car owners to try to help figure out the problems and get them under control before it's too late. Not just the race car problems and the rule problems, but how can we make the sport cheaper, what can we do to bring the costs under control?
"There have got to be answers. I don't claim to be a guru and know them ... but if you get 43 crew chiefs together and 43 drivers together and 43 car owners together, there will be a lot of things flying around that might be good ideas.
"There are a lot things they could do differently, and I don't think they're trying to do things wrong.
"What's ruined our racing are these bodies. With the amount of downforce these things are generating, you can't run side by side, you can't run up on somebody, you can't let somebody come up behind you, because it changes everything you're sitting in. Consequently nobody wants to run around people."
And the body costs have skyrocketed. "Four years ago it cost $7,000, $7,500 to $8,000 to put a body on. Now it's $14,000. That's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The problem now is they've got so many templates with zero tolerance that it takes a long time for a body hanger to get it that close. And when you add the motor and the wheels, the body flexes and it all changes."
Bodine is worried this season may be an even tougher one for many teams than they expect, because sponsorship contracts are coming up for renewal: "Even before 9-11 companies were tightening up, and then 9-11 came and companies clammed up tight. Now it's almost three years later and all the contracts are up, this is when you need to find a new sponsor because the old one is going away, and you can't find one.
"And at the same time all this is happening, the costs of the sport are being driven way up because of competition. DEI and Hendrick are spending a ton of money on things like straight-line testing, and if you want to survive you have to spend money on that, too.
"And you can't get away with just one engineer anymore; you need two or three or four more guys. Those are the things driving the price up!
