CompetitionPlus.com Forum  

Go Back   CompetitionPlus.com Forum > NHRA

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-08-2018
HEMI_guy HEMI_guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,176
Default

Hey that might be fun to pack busses full of fans!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-08-2018
anotheridiot anotheridiot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,057
Default

When arguing, or conversing if whether injected nitro is better than blown alcohol, I always go to that heat wave of a pair of cars flying down the track. That heat wave from 4 nitro cars is the experience that should put fans in the seats. The problem lies in the fact the stands are so far away from these lanes the effect is lost.
__________________
Sometimes the peanut gallery can make a useful suggestion.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-08-2018
Roger Gates Roger Gates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wofford Heights Ca
Posts: 1,250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossyback View Post
What is the reason that only the pro categories race 4-wide? It seems that if the allure of 4-wide racing is the uniqueness and entertainment value of this type racing format, then there is merit for racing all classes in this fashion. The 4 lanes are for this purpose, but not used? Why is that?
The feeling is that the fuel cars cause "Shock & Awe" from the noise and vibrations resulting in the interest in 4 wide. 4 Z/S automatics don't have much "Shock & Awe" or extra entertainment value but they deserve to have their time on track if they paid their money. One thing that 4 wide does is to require 4 qualifying passes to give everyone an equal shot at each lane. If the other classes have no "Shock & Awe" value & they only get 2 qualifiers they can run on the same part of the track getting to run each lane both in qualifying and eliminations. This is a reason that all the Pro Classes require 4 instead of 3 since some would be out of luck if they are on the wrong side of the qualifying line up. The draw back for the Pro cars with sponsors is that instead of a whole 14/15 (30 with qualifying) seconds of Prime time on track exposure they have a maximum of about 11/22. That is pretty expensive TV and on track time. I know you see more during the burn outs - staging & shut down, but not much unless the sponsor buys commercial time.

This brings up a point of why a sponsor would want to spend several million dollars to sponsor a car that has the possibility of "6" minutes (12 counting qualifying) of on track time if they win every round of every race for the whole season. I think Super Bowl ads are less expensive than for cars actual on track exposure.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-08-2018
a21stud a21stud is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Gates View Post
The draw back for the Pro cars with sponsors is that instead of a whole 14/15 (30 with qualifying) seconds of Prime time on track exposure they have a maximum of about 11/22. That is pretty expensive TV and on track time. I know you see more during the burn outs - staging & shut down, but not much unless the sponsor buys commercial time.

This brings up a point of why a sponsor would want to spend several million dollars to sponsor a car that has the possibility of "6" minutes (12 counting qualifying) of on track time if they win every round of every race for the whole season. I think Super Bowl ads are less expensive than for cars actual on track exposure.
Not only is the time on track in front of the crowd and TV viewers reduced, that time is now split between 4 cars instead of two. If four cars are doing burnouts, I can only watch one at a time. Sure I will try to look at all of them but at least one is going to be shortchanged more than if I were only looking at two cars on the track at a time.

Iíve not make it to a 4 way yet and am looking forward to it at least once. Course I also made it to the Flamingo Races in Puerto Rico once. (Donít go! Itís a rip off!)

Iím expecting the 4 way to be significantly more funÖ (Am I the only guy that wishes they came up with a better term than ď4 wayĒ?)
__________________
.
a21stud only refers to the more common 21 stud flathead motors early drag racers coveted before the Chy. Hemi and sbc came along.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-08-2018
slugbelch slugbelch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Gates View Post
This brings up a point of why a sponsor would want to spend several million dollars to sponsor a car that has the possibility of "6" minutes (12 counting qualifying) of on track time if they win every round of every race for the whole season. I think Super Bowl ads are less expensive than for cars actual on track exposure.
2018 Superbowl ad is around $5M for 30 sec.
An average of 111.3M watched 2017 Superbowl.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-08-2018
a21stud a21stud is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slugbelch View Post
2018 Superbowl ad is around $5M for 30 sec.
An average of 111.3M watched 2017 Superbowl.
That’s $166,666.67 per second or like paying $22.26 per person for them to watch a 30 second commercial. (74 cents per second per person)
The problem for the advertiser is that too many are in the john…
__________________
.
a21stud only refers to the more common 21 stud flathead motors early drag racers coveted before the Chy. Hemi and sbc came along.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-08-2018
mgty3whlr mgty3whlr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: N/E Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a21stud View Post
Not only is the time on track in front of the crowd and TV viewers reduced, that time is now split between 4 cars instead of two. If four cars are doing burnouts, I can only watch one at a time.
Yes, 4-wide is a little confusing to watch but if Derrick Kramer keeps doing the burnouts like he's been doing in 2017, All eyes are going to be on him. Great for sponsor exposure.
__________________
Horsepower: How hard you hit the wall
Torque: How far you take the wall with you
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-09-2018
oddyhahn's Avatar
oddyhahn oddyhahn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 537
Default

Itís too hard to watch I have moved all over the place at zmax. Cool to see the first time. After that not that interested
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-09-2018
shaketown dave's Avatar
shaketown dave shaketown dave is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: lake isabella,ca
Posts: 1,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddyhahn View Post
Itís too hard to watch I have moved all over the place at zmax. Cool to see the first time. After that not that interested
which is what will happen at vegas.again,what a shame
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-09-2018
rognelson77 rognelson77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a21stud View Post
Thatís $166,666.67 per second or like paying $22.26 per person for them to watch a 30 second commercial. (74 cents per second per person)
The problem for the advertiser is that too many are in the johnÖ
Correction on your math $5,000,000 per 30 second advertisement divided by 111,300,000 viewers is $0.045 cost per viewer.

So if NHRA has average 500,000 viewers x .05 for each viewer add should cost $25,000. in comparison
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.