*Turn 2 Blog is a regular feature on InsideDirtRacing.com. Here, site operators Michael Moats and Richard Allen take turns offering their thoughts on the dirt racing topics of the day from east Tennessee and beyond.
Richard: It seems as if the topic of how to best use time at race tracks pops into my mind frequently during my travels to and from the events I attend. And one of those thoughts has to do with heat races and their place in the grand scheme of things.
And keep in mind, I’m not really talking about pill draws, inverts, or anything along those lines. I’m talking about whether to have them at all in certain situations. In particular, on those occasions in which there are not enough cars to even make a full field, is it really necessary to stage heat races being that no one is actually trying to race their way onto the starting grid?
Recently, I ran a poll question on Twitter in which I asked “Dirt Racing Fans: When there are not enough cars to make a full feature field, do you still want heat races after qualifying?”
The answer choices I provided were- “Yes, I want a full show.” and “No, what’s the point?”
A pretty resounding number of the 312 total respondents answered that they did want a full show as 64% chose that option with the other 36% wondering what’s the point.
While I was primarily thinking of the times in which a track is hosting a touring series of some sort and qualifying has to be part of the program, this question could certainly apply to weekly shows for any of the classes competing on the track on any given night.
So, what are your thoughts? Are heat races an essential part of a racing program?
Should tracks stage heat races when there aren’t enough cars for a full field?
Michael: Heat races are becoming less and less the norm in our area. It’s rare that I even see a heat race unless it’s for part of a Super Late Model program. I think this is one area where promoters put their drivers over the paying fans. Keep in mind, in the Midwest, heat races are the norm even for Late Models.
Drivers dislike heat races. Their point is they can get their cars torn up and get no money for the night if they can’t make the feature. I totally get that. If I was a driver, I’d probably feel the same way.
But the fans are what keep the tracks open. If the fans feel like all they’re getting for their ticket is two laps of qualifying and a feature race for each class, they may decide to spend their money somewhere else. The truth is fans are getting less racing for the same or more money. Very rarely are tracks utilizing heat races. Even the Super Late Model shows have less racing than say 15 years ago. Heat races used to be 12 laps, now they are 10. B-mains used to be 15 laps, now they are 12 or less.
I will say this as a caveat. Tracks that only run a heat race with 3 or 4 cars in it are wasting everyone’s time. In those situations, I’d rather see all cars just have a feature, but give them another 5 laps to make up for lack of track time because they didn’t run a heat. With these situations, I’m talking more about classes such as Street Stocks or Four Cylinders, not Late Models.
Richard: My biggest contention is when tracks have both qualifying and heat races. That just takes way too much time. And to your point, divisions that have six or fewer cars should not have a heat race because, as you said, that is just a waste of time.
You are correct that drivers do not like heat races while fans do. This puts promoters in a terrible spot because they obviously need the drivers and teams to be there but none of it matters if the fans do not show up.
When it comes to a special event such as a Super Late Model touring series that winds up only drawing 16 or 18 cars and the series locks in a certain number through time-trials, I just don’t see the point of making six or eight cars go out and ride around for ten laps. Besides, if the drivers are smart, they are not going to go out and take chances just to improve their starting spot for the feature from 10th to 9th.
The fan in me would prefer to see a pill draw and heat races but the part of me that knows the plight of racers understands their concerns.
It really puts both racers and promoters in a tough spot doesn’t it?
Michael: It really does. Fans expect to see a certain amount of racing, especially when it’s advertised ahead of time. But to your point, running heat races for Late Models when no one is eliminated from racing is pointless. That is really for the fans. Savvy race fans know it’s pointless.
I think there is also the issue with some series advertising races as heat races when they are actually B-mains or consolation races. I don’t consider races that don’t include all cars participating as a heat race as some try to label them. That can also be confusing to the novice fan.
To your point, your poll seems to indicate the fans want those races to be held even if no one is eliminated from the night. Then again, I wonder how many of those fans consider heat races like you’d see in WoO or Lucas versus what is really a consolation race like other series. It would also be interesting to see how polling would go if you asked that only in the South versus only in the Midwest.
There are fewer tracks for Limited Late Models to race on in east Tennessee
Richard: To turn this conversation to another area that puts promoters here in east Tennessee in a tough spot is that of the Limited(Steelhead) Late Model division. 411 Motor Speedway and Volunteer Speedway have removed the class from their weekly programs while some tracks run those cars regularly and some run them occasionally.
Many see the issue as simply a problem of car counts being too low, sometimes even falling below ten on some nights at some tracks. And if there is a night in which multiple tracks are running the class, those numbers are going to be impacted as the cars will be spread thin.
But as I see it, the issue seems to be one of rules variations. It just seems like the tracks in the area could never come together on a rules package that would allow for easy movement from one track to another. As a result, there would be complaining from Steelhead regulars whenever there was a big show because they felt as if the Crate Late Models and/or Sportsman Late Models were getting too many concessions, and thus, the playing field was not level. As a result, some Limited Late Model drivers avoided big paying shows for that class because they felt as if they were at a disadvantage.
In a recent interview posted on this site, racer and engine builder Vic Hill addressed that very issue.
However, it wasn’t just the racers who felt like they were being put in a tight spot. Promoters did not want to run the risk of having a race that would pay $1,500 or $2,000-to-win and only have 10-12 cars start the feature. It was a kind of no-win situation for all involved.
What are your thoughts?
Michael: The engine rules have become too liberal. A lot of that was to appease certain drivers that were running these engines. If one track were to tighten up the rules a bit, another one might not and the drivers spending the money will go there. But while they are doing this, other drivers can’t afford to spend that kind of money to keep up, so they moved “down” to Sportsman or just quit racing. It seems like that is what’s happening now.
The end result is promoters trying to appease a few, they end up cutting the class altogether a few years down the line. This has been discussed many times by us in this blog and by others. The promoters have ignored these warnings and now we are here where the class is about to go away…for now.
Drivers use the excuse of having so much money in their engines they can’t afford to “throw them away.” I used to go along with that argument. But I’ve heard that for 5 years or more and those drivers have replaced those engines with something as expensive or more expensive. That argument doesn’t hold well. These guys want to race. If they rules were tightened up, they would find a way to get another engine and continue to race.
