If I were starting a new OW srries w/multiple Manufactors, how do you keep the costs down?

[TIS31]

hi everyone, my name is Otto and I'm a long time reader and fan of these forums. And now first time poster to.
I'm working on a business paper for my MBA and one of the subjects i'm addressing is cost containment vs. maximum exposure/performance in a variety of business ventures (this current economy in mind). One of those is motorsports, and since i'm a huge OW fan i can't help but try to tackle Indycar (or any race series really, doesnt matter).
So here is the question that I need help with (and this is totally hypathetical so hopefully no one goes off the deep end):
I'm a obnoxiously rich dude who wants to start a "new" Indy car type series. Multiple chassis and engine manufactors. I also want to keep the costs down to around $2-3 mill a year to run a front running, championship caliber team.

Chasis: Does having a template that all manufactors have to build to (but some small areas that they can each customize) work?

Engines: does having "production" based engines that are based off of already made road versions (like if Ford wanted to make a racing version of their Mustang, for example) keep costs down? how much additional $$$ is added to engine fees by taking regular engines that are already in production for road cars and supping them up to be in race cars? (what is the cheapest and most effective means?)

Does leasing engines really driving up costs? does buying a engine and doing you own rebuilds that much cheaper? i seem to recall in the early days of th IRL engines were only $80k or something ridicously cheap liek that.
Grand-Am has many of the same cost containments that equal really close and competetive racing, but no tech. advancments.
I'm trying to find if it's possible to have a series that is ultra-competetive w/close racing AND technalogical freedom (like ALMS) but that also is very affordable and extremely cheap (like i said, $2-3 mil, tops).
There has to be someway to have you cake and eat it to.

[TIS31]

grrr...spelling has never been my strongest skill . "Series" not "Srries"

[Dr. Krogshöj]

I personally believe that IndyCar should go down the Grand-Am route at the moment. There is little technological advancement in Grand-Am, if any, but you still have multiple chassis constructors and engine manufacturers with different designs - but close competition and contained costs at the same time. It would be a viable and feasible compromise right now.

[Jag_Warrior]

Welcome aboard, Otto. :wave:

The first question I have: is your corporation/series focused more on cost containment or the enhancement of shareholder value, or even value to the spectator?

If it's cost containment that you're focused on, then the spec racing path is probably the one that you would choose. Why? Think about a project you're working on. The more variables, the more complex the project becomes. The more complex, usually the higher the cost. To keep costs down, you would allow producers to submit bids and then simply choose the lowest cost submissions. You could certainly mandate maximum prices to be charged and then let the teams choose, but as soon as it was seen that Company A's product outperforms Company B's product, then the teams with B have to buy A in order to remain competitive. That adds cost. Either that or Company B has to spend an additional amount on R&D in order to catch up. That adds cost on the supplier side. If I'm held to a maximum price, why would I continue to supply these parts if I can't recover my R&D costs and make a profit?

My frustration with AOWR is not from a cost standpoint. Although that's ALL that has been talked about for the past 10-15 years, the side of the equation that I feel AOWR has completely ignored is value enhancement. Does Ferrari work to contain costs on new models? Yes. Do they do that at the expense of the (perceived) value of the car? Absolutely not. Ferrari's main focus has always been on enhancing the value of their cars to the market place.

Carl Haas mentioned in an interview that when Mario and Mansell were at Newman-Haas, he had an annual budget exceeding $25 million (I assumed he meant that was for both cars and included driver salaries). Remember, that's in '92-'93 dollars. Why? Because the market value was high enough that that amount could be asked for and gotten.

OK, those days are long gone. So I agree that costs have to be controlled. But if I was an investor in your venture, the first thing I would ask (as you try to put together this business plan where the teams can be run for $2-$3 million per season... including driver salaries???), what will be the value of those teams? I mean, will the product be one that will encourage actual sponsors or other investors to spend that amount per season to support the team?

I like where you're going with this. And I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate. I'm just questioning whether or not you're designing a car for $10,000 that is only going to sell for $8,000. See what I mean?

[TIS31]

wpw Jag_Warrior thank you for taking the time to really dive into this. You gave me a lot to think about, so let me go point by point and address the questions:
1. I think ultimatley it woud have to provide enhanced value to the spectator+shareholders. One of the thoughts I was kicking around, based on the low-cost/containment factor, was increased ROI to the manufactors/participants. Under the $1.3 mil engine cost for Honda in the IRL, suppossedly they make very little profit of the leasing. I'm not sure if there is any accurate report of what total sponsor/exposure returns the IRL provides.
I was thinking of a way that turbo engines that produce 700+hp could be maunfactored and held to a very tight spec (i guess similar to NASCAR or Grand Am) with minimal costs to the manufactor involved. (basically Company A has their engine template approved and rattle off 75 or so on the line. Company B and C do the same). the "formula" stays the same so the manufactor is not constatly re-building, developing, pouring money into the engine, so their costs are relativley low. However with the Tv package and print/advertising exposure (lets assume it's the same level at the current IRl+VS deal) can increased profit be made, while having brought down the manufactots cost, thus increasing ROI?

2. I would want the product to encourage sponsors, Not individuals funding the teams privatley. I'd want the teams to have real value and turn profits. However, if a really rich dude wanted to go racing badly enough, having the cost of the series low (and the increased ROI) they could realisticly foot the bill for the season them,selves. And that $2-3mil I floated out there does not include driver salaries.

3. i was also thinking, back to the engines, even if the formula was one slightly advanced step away from "spec" at least each maufactor could apply their own trademark supplement to their engines. This would have to be almost juts cosetic/artificial so that they wasnt a massive competition gap, but if we had Push To Pass, maybe Mercedes has a slightly different Nitrous injection, great on big courses, over BMW's higher tourque, which evens out on tight street circuits. These are just examples and i'm sure peopel much smarter than me can come up with better examples, but just trying to get an idea across.

[MDS]

The Fins have a simple solution in some of their lower tier series. After the race anyone who wants to can trade cars with the winner for $1. Keeps any one team from sinking too much cash into a car.

[beachbum]

Claiming rules have never really ever worked in racing as someone with sufficient funding will just consider the loss of an expensive part in a claim as the cost of racing. If you have a claiming rule on engines at $1000, someone will build a $10,000 engine and dare you to claim it. You can't ever race it, as they will get someone to claim it back and everyone is right where they started. It sometimes works in amateur racing, but there is a financial incentive to win in pro racing and claiming rules are much less effective. I was once involved in a pro series with claiming rules that were quickly dropped as unworkable.

Spec racing is about the only cost containment method that works. A number of series have tried sealed engines, from ASA to the IRL. That does put a fixed cap on engine costs.

The Grand-Am model is actually a form of spec racing as all major parts must be approved. The result is that all chassis are very much alike with similar (if not identical) components, and all engines make close to the same power (500hp). The engines are are set to make the engines lightly stressed, so they are relatively cheap to build and maintain and are usually very reliable. Roger Edmonson (the founder of Grand-Am) has always been a very big fan of relatively low tech, highly controlled, spec type racing. The cars look exotic, but are old technology compared to most sports car racing. The fan doesn't see the low tech, they just see close racing.

[TIS31]

No Claiming rule...no no no :vader:

BeachBum, what is the average cost to run a championship caliber team in Grand-Am (just rough estimate, if you happen to know)? also, what are "sealed" engines? If Grand-Am cars make 500hp, what would be the most cost effective (i.e. CHEAPEST) means to increase the HP to 700+? can it just be tuned with no additonal cost? That's one of the main points i'm trying to wrap my head around, increase engine performance with minimal cost increase.

[MDS]

I threw out the claiming rules as a somewhat sarcastic remark.

I'm of the mind that there really isn't an effective way to contain costs in a major series. If you limit how much teams can spend on equipment you'll always have someone who spends on personal and drivers. If your series is successful top teams will always be able to advance the market for sponsorship dollars, be it in F-1, NASCAR or the IRL.

I drive in the Honda Challenge series. It is a sport for gear heads by gear heads. Costs aren't really an issue because most of us don't have $100k to sink into a car and its largely just yourself and a couple of friends working on the car. This year though two jackholes have turned up and they're spending well over $50,000. One is a rich kid whose family has hired two mechanics and a "Driving Coach," and the other is this retired guy who has a crew. I have one of my brothers and a few guys I know. I pay them in beer and a campsite at Le Petite Le Mans.

Spec cars save some cash, but put an Penske chassis next to a D&R car and a trained eye can see where the cash has gone. Spec cars also, I believe, damage competition.

Engine leases are more expensive, and make it harder for second and their tier teams to operate. A lot of low-budget teams used to make do with rebuilt engines, and they can't do that now. The upside is it equals competition and reduces the possibility of cheating.

The one rule I've seen save money, not hurt competition and be entirely enforceable is engine use rules. Teams used to make Bonzai engines that would only run once or twice for qualifications. Getting rid of those caused the teams to spend some money making the engines more reliable, but overall saved cash.

[nigelred5]

The Fins have a simple solution in some of their lower tier series. After the race anyone who wants to can trade cars with the winner for $1. Keeps any one team from sinking too much cash into a car.

LOL, you watched the episode of Top Gear with Mika too?

[nigelred5]

Claiming rules have never really ever worked in racing as someone with sufficient funding will just consider the loss of an expensive part in a claim as the cost of racing. If you have a claiming rule on engines at $1000, someone will build a $10,000 engine and dare you to claim it. You can't ever race it, as they will get someone to claim it back and everyone is right where they started. It sometimes works in amateur racing, but there is a financial incentive to win in pro racing and claiming rules are much less effective. I was once involved in a pro series with claiming rules that were quickly dropped as unworkable.

Spec racing is about the only cost containment method that works. A number of series have tried sealed engines, from ASA to the IRL. That does put a fixed cap on engine costs.

The Grand-Am model is actually a form of spec racing as all major parts must be approved. The result is that all chassis are very much alike with similar (if not identical) components, and all engines make close to the same power (500hp). The engines are are set to make the engines lightly stressed, so they are relatively cheap to build and maintain and are usually very reliable. Roger Edmonson (the founder of Grand-Am) has always been a very big fan of relatively low tech, highly controlled, spec type racing. The cars look exotic, but are old technology compared to most sports car racing. The fan doesn't see the low tech, they just see close racing.

Exotic in an unfortunate, genetically confused impure way. If they would allow the driver rollcage strcuture to be changed ever so slightly, the grand am cars could look SOOOO much better. IMHO, the Crawford is still the only Grand Am car that came close to nice looking, and even that required some careful livery design to camoflage some of the design elements like hte door openings that are just weird. Can we get a Grand Am design that would look like the Peugeot LMS cars. They's sessssy! ;)

[beachbum]

Exotic in an unfortunate, genetically confused impure way. If they would allow the driver rollcage strcuture to be changed ever so slightly, the grand am cars could look SOOOO much better. IMHO, the Crawford is still the only Grand Am car that came close to nice looking, and even that required some careful livery design to camoflage some of the design elements like hte door openings that are just weird. Can we get a Grand Am design that would look like the Peugeot LMS cars. They's sessssy! ;) Unlikely to happen. The wide "greenhouse" exists for a reason, and that is primarily because it isn't aerodynamic. The big hole it leaves in the air limits the effectiveness of many aero appendages (which are mostly outlawed anyway). Grand Am doesn't want ALM lookalikes.

[MDS]

LOL, you watched the episode of Top Gear with Mika too?

"That's an overtake, it may be a 12-year-old school girl, but that's still an overtake."

I get satilite just so I can watch the BBC.

[beachbum]

No Claiming rule...no no no :vader:

BeachBum, what is the average cost to run a championship caliber team in Grand-Am (just rough estimate, if you happen to know)? also, what are "sealed" engines? If Grand-Am cars make 500hp, what would be the most cost effective (i.e. CHEAPEST) means to increase the HP to 700+? can it just be tuned with no additonal cost? That's one of the main points i'm trying to wrap my head around, increase engine performance with minimal cost increase.Horsepower costs money. Not just in the engine, but in other related parts such as transmissions, half shafts, brakes (the car goes faster) and on and on. I think that is why GrandAm chose a relatively low number. It makes for relatively cheap engines (note "relatively") and keeps the speeds in check.

A sealed engine is just that. The user can't open the engine or even service the engine beyond strict limits. For example, an IRL team can't be much of anything on the Honda except replace ancillary parts such as fuel pumps, headers, etc. In some series, there are physical "seals" put on various parts, such as valve covers, etc to physicality show if the engine has been opened. Some local series require the use of "crate" engines that have strict requirements such as certain parts. All of this is intended to reduce costs and keep a more level playing field.

I have no idea what a top Grand Am team spends. But the basic answer to how much does racing cost is "how much do you have to spend?" because you will probably spend it all, regardless of how much you have. One of the best signs I ever say in a race shop many many moons ago was "How fast do you want to spend?"

[CCWS77]

The idea of implementing cost containment rules on top of a system that completely rewards whichever teams spends the most resources to go faster, is really just an awkward bandage. It has the side-effect of dumbing down the tech and slowing the speed.

The problem of never ending cost escalations will always exists until someone invents a ruleset for racing that completely decouples spending more money by the teams with them going faster. In other words, a total rethink of the way the business side racing operates from top to bottom. No one has done this and a good portion of the racing establishment and fans is opposed to this since they are the incumbent beneficiaries of the status quo. Conceptually, there is no reason such radical changes and restructuring cant be done. It only takes some imagination.

[Hoop-98]

JM2C,

The cost of racing is determined by the perceived value of winning.

rh

[Jonesi]

Very similar to the original SCCA rules for their Showroom Stock Sedan classes when they were first introduced. Any competitor's car could be acquired by another competitor for the MSRP.

I thought it was Blue Book plus $500 (bolt-inRoll cage, seat belts, fire extinguisher) It only worked when there was a gentleman's agreement and no one did it. Once the first car was claimed (As I recall a Porsche 924 last race before the Runoffs in I think '82?) the dam burst and cars were claimed left & right and the rule was scrapped in a couple of months.
I was at the first SCCA National race at Sears Point the next year, where a car was claimed after the race. The driver turned over his car, left the track, had second thoughts (since the car was his wife's daily driver.) He came back with a County Sheriff and wanted the other driver and the Race Stewards arrested for car theft. The Stewards explained he didn't have to sell the car , but if he didn't he would lose his compitition license, since he signed an agreement that he would.
Claiming rules only can work if you're racing junk.

[Jonesi]

>I also want to keep the costs down to around $2-3 mill a year to run a front running, championship caliber team.

I don't think that's a practical amount for a (presuming) top race series, with 12-20 races a year) You don't say if you're trying to come up with a plan for a new from scratch series, or new formula for an existing one. Most sucessful race series started small grass roots and grew. Starting a new series from scratch has been very expensive and none of them have made it yet (IRL over $100mil the first year, A1GP over $200mil each of 1st two years, GP Masters bankrupt 1st year, SuperLeague probably around $100mil and had to give away tickets, etc.)
In this economy nobody's going to design a new chassis for less than $10mil worth of business. Want multiple manufacterers, start writing multiple checks. Probably something similar with engines unless you go with a spec engine. The current Honda/IRL deal is a bargain!

Want to try to do it cut rate? Go with an existing chassis; Panoz ChampCar/SuperLeague, Lola's A1GP, Dallara GP2, etc. Put out a bid for an exclusive engine & tire deals. Then put together a 6-8 race series over the summer months so teams don't have to hire year round mechanics, they can get automotive engineering students on vacation. Oh, those million dollar transporters & motorhomes will have to go too. Back to pickup & vans with the race cars on open trailers, and staying at Motel 6. The teams will still probably burn through $2-3mil budget a year.

[Chris R]

I think an idea that has not been looked at too much is the notion of limiting the amount of crew that can accompany a car to the track on a race weekend (in addition to testing limits etc.). If you limit a car to say 5 people for the weekend (excluding PR and marketing folk) you limit any team's ability to implement expensive changes. You could also limit hours worked on the car etc....
just a thought...

[SarahFan]

you cant so you dont

[TIS31]

>I also want to keep the costs down to around $2-3 mill a year to run a front running, championship caliber team.

I don't think that's a practical amount for a (presuming) top race series, with 12-20 races a year) You don't say if you're trying to come up with a plan for a new from scratch series, or new formula for an existing one. Most sucessful race series started small grass roots and grew. Starting a new series from scratch has been very expensive and none of them have made it yet (IRL over $100mil the first year, A1GP over $200mil each of 1st two years, GP Masters bankrupt 1st year, SuperLeague probably around $100mil and had to give away tickets, etc.)
In this economy nobody's going to design a new chassis for less than $10mil worth of business. Want multiple manufacterers, start writing multiple checks. Probably something similar with engines unless you go with a spec engine. The current Honda/IRL deal is a bargain!

Want to try to do it cut rate? Go with an existing chassis; Panoz ChampCar/SuperLeague, Lola's A1GP, Dallara GP2, etc. Put out a bid for an exclusive engine & tire deals. Then put together a 6-8 race series over the summer months so teams don't have to hire year round mechanics, they can get automotive engineering students on vacation. Oh, those million dollar transporters & motorhomes will have to go too. Back to pickup & vans with the race cars on open trailers, and staying at Motel 6. The teams will still probably burn through $2-3mil budget a year.


Haha the idea of Motels and Pickup trucks is actually very appealing to me.
So here are two different options: Shoot for a higher budget. instead or $2-3 mil, maybe around $7-8 mill. I think as long as the costs are on average in this range year after year (not skyrocketing or dropping drataically) teams will be able to put programs together accordingly. Continuity (sp?) and consistency with budgets are a very positive thing for business (in this case).
I would want to use existing chassis, the Ferrari/Lola A1GP, the Panoz, the Superleague, the WS by Renault (not sure who makes these chassis);
I idea is that a manufactor has to spend releativley little (AND they know exactly how much budget will be needed year after yeard after year...no hidden or rising costs to them) for maximum ROI. The ROI would be determined by television exposure (lets say they have VS ro a channel with similar exposure) and by aggressive league print+ media addvertising. If they can turn a profit of even 20 points, in this economy thats huge. if that is a profit margain they can depend on for a few years at a time knowing their expenses will be the same, the room for potential growth is large. Also keep in mind Gorrilla marketing, which is free or very low cost. My wife specializes in this feild for the company she works for and the buzz that can be created by word of mouth should not be understated, even for an international organization. But i could take up an entire thread on that subject alone.
Also i think it would be logical for engines to be governed by the same principals as chassis. There would have to be some sort of equivelancy formula (that is for gear heads much smarter than myself to figure out..i have to deffer ont hat one) but the idea is teams could buy the engine outright and take it from there. (policing this would have to be very knowledgble league officials, again I would have to deffer this to someone with much more skill and knowledge int his area..but thats why you hire good people).
i would think the majority of the increased budget would be for travel accomidations, crew salary etc. Not sure about driver salary, i think thats too hard to factor right now due to the wide range of salaries.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You want to keep the racing affordable? Stock block engines that are preapproved and leased by engine manufacturers approved by the series. The engines are sealed by the series once teched. Basically similar to Grand AM rules for most parts I think will work.

Most of us are on that page for that. I don't know tho how you can stop a Roger Penske from really polishing his apple better than the next guy and doing what he does behind the scenes.

Racing is expensive, pro racing is worse. There is no getting around it and lets face it, people want to see exotic.....not cheap.

[TIS31]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]You want to keep the racing affordable? Stock block engines that are preapproved and leased by engine manufacturers approved by the series. The engines are sealed by the series once teched. Basically similar to Grand AM rules for most parts I think will work.

What's a "stock block" engine? is that a style of engine manufactored or a term for a type of engine program? (sorry i have minimal knowledge of engines, all i know is I like the Turbos :D )
Does Gran-Am have engine leases?
as far as a Penske "polishing his apple better", there is no way to combat that. Proffessionals are proffessionals, but at least with costs going down you give the small teams a chance to hire better people with more experience, and maybe eventually build towards the same thing

[TIS31]

Speaking of engines, I have an example of how a series could run on production engines for releativley (being the key work) low cost.

The Mclaren F1 Road Car. Retail value is around $1million. The BMW engine churns over 620 HP (which is close to an IRL car) and is the fastest normal asperated road car (unless these is something new that i'm not aware of, which very well could be the case).
but anyways, with a more "open wheel" body design (maybe it could be retro-fitted with a Lola, or Panoz DP01, or even an Indy Lights chassis) and voila! an ENTIRE Car for $1mill that already rivals the current IRL car in terms of HP. Thats for a spec series. If you wanted more manufactors, why not go the engine builder route? get a Cosworth or Zytek involced, say "here is the blue print for the engine, make it". the engine has already been developed and now it's just a case of turning on the assembly line.
So in keeping with the though that i would be trying to fund a team for around $5-7Mill, buying a couple of these would be one of the more affordable aspects of the budget. Teams would be able to re-build them engines themselves (no leasing, they buy the car/engine outright). crew salaries and travel costs can be negotiated (again way to much discrepency to nail down an accurate figure) but hypotheically a team could get a trailor and haul these bad boys fro race to race.
Remember, I wanted to build a series that encouraged value for a sponsor and had ROI for those who participate so owners and contestants would not have to fund their teams privatley. A1GP has lost so much money because from abusiness perspecive it was a terrible idea. To have a series that ran all over the world and did not want or try to encoyrage major sponsorship (i recall that the Sheik wanted to fund it all and then try to recoup $$ from tickets sales and race fees, correct?) just doesnt make any sense.
If Indycar racing was treated as a "grass roots" style series with respect to costs containent and competiton, but had the media exposure of a top-level series the profit margins for all participants would be massive. again as long as a manufactor/team/owner know what the costs will be up front and there is consistentcy year after year witht hat cost, than you can have growth because companies can plan on those margins and how to allocate funds within their own programs.

[Marbles]

I personally believe that IndyCar should go down the Grand-Am route at the moment. There is little technological advancement in Grand-Am, if any, but you still have multiple chassis constructors and engine manufacturers with different designs - but close competition and contained costs at the same time. It would be a viable and feasible compromise right now.


My biggest issue with a series such as Grand Am is that the close competition is arrived at by continually tinkering with the cars from race to race ala old NASCAR. Raising a ride height on this car, lowering the rev limiter by 300 on this car, taking away a gear from this car, trimming a spoiler on this car. This often isn't even mentioned and when it is, there is little made of it. You'll often hear slower teams say that they are hoping to get "a break" from the rulesmakers so they can be more competitive.

I'll admit that Grand Am is very entertaining but I'm often left wondering why one team is winning and one isn't. Is it the drivers or do they need a break? I joked with a friend that if Schumacher and Senna drove for the same team in Grand Am they might be forced to tow trailers full of wieghts with their cars by the end of the season.

[Bob Riebe]

You want to keep the racing affordable? Stock block engines that are preapproved and leased by engine manufacturers approved by the series. The engines are sealed by the series once teched. Basically similar to Grand AM rules for most parts I think will work.

What's a "stock block" engine? is that a style of engine manufactored or a term for a type of engine program? (sorry i have minimal knowledge of engines, all i know is I like the Turbos :D )
Does Gran-Am have engine leases?
as far as a Penske "polishing his apple better", there is no way to combat that. Proffessionals are proffessionals, but at least with costs going down you give the small teams a chance to hire better people with more experience, and maybe eventually build towards the same thing
Stock block means, and engine that is similar to the same as ones mass produced for street cars.
I.e., parts fully inter-change with zero to minimal machine work.
GARRA limits it engine via comp. ratio, rev. limiter, or what ever trick the France family thinks of.
I do not think leases are legal, nor could they work.

[Mark in Oshawa]

GARRA (Grand-AM) is tinkered rules wise to the point one wonders if they are playing favourites or not, but there is a few unescapable truths in racing:

One, speed costs money. Whatever you think, the richer teams have an advantage, and you can try to take it away through rules, but the Roger Penske's and Chip Ganassi's will win because they spend their money wisely on good people who make great cars. Shoestring operations wont win on a consistent basis.

Two: People who pay a lot of money to see professional racing want to see competition. No matter how you slice it, no one wants to watch a car go really fast without some other car on the track near it gaining on it or not gaining. They want to see passing, they want to see an element of chance, risk and skill being displayed with a winner at the end. You can get that by luck, you can get it by applying rules to slow down one competitor vs another, or you can create a rules structure that forces everyone to build cars quite similar to each other.

If you have no attempt made to keep racing close, you end up with 14 car fields, few spectators and one team winning all the time.

People can whine about cost, and they can whine about rules, but in the end, the more competitive the series, the more money that will be spent if the prize funds and sponsors reflect that. For those things to be present, you need fans.

Fans only go where there is competition, and you wont get that in a Formula Libre, at least, not enough to create the wealth needed to make the series viable.

Where does this come in with the IRL? They are a spec racing series right now to keep costs down while having competition on the track. The only issue I have is that the oval package is too restrictive, and there is no difference in the car, and at Indy that proved to be a snore.