Shorter Races

[chupp n bloomer fan]

You are making a different argument. It was proposed that the racing was better. You start the race with 4 tires on your car either way. But the other items have merit as far as teams' expenses go. But, you are assuming pay doesn't drop with laps.

But there again, I been in this sport 30 years and expenses always get argued at the wrong times. They watch blindly was cars become down force monstrosities and install wide bore engines. Then they cry cause Davenport wins with some junk hacked out in the shop.

That junk hacked out in the shop made a night and day difference in his speed. It shoulda been axed as it was. Two years ago now. That anyone can admit took a lot of testing and I'm sure r&d on a computer to get it correct. The end product may not have been pricey, but getting there I'm sure was.

But you are also right in that the bodies and aero crap is getting ridiculous. They need to nip that sh!t in the butt, not let them get farther and farther into la la land as they are. The engines, I dunno, let the guys deplete their inventory, and the manufacturers, and then put them back to what they used to run.

And I wouldn't shorten the races, up the purses, and work on track prep. Purses haven't changed, and track prep is very inconsistent.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

So many assumptions. Just like the people who make rules based on less than facts.

[dirtyboy]

As long as they drop the admission prices, then drop the amount of laps they run.

[chupp n bloomer fan]

So many assumptions. Just like the people who make rules based on less than facts.

Then you start your own little series since you got all the answers. I agreed with you for the most part, but the downplaying of Rumley and his gadget as junk made in the shop is ridiculous. I mean, it's been two years, over and done with. Move on. That minuscule hacked up device made JD go from a top 10 car, to a dominant kick their a$$ car. So go ahead and keep downplaying, results show just how important it was.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Then you start your own little series since you got all the answers. I agreed with you for the most part, but the downplaying of Rumley and his gadget as junk made in the shop is ridiculous. I mean, it's been two years, over and done with. Move on. That minuscule hacked up device made JD go from a top 10 car, to a dominant kick their a$$ car. So go ahead and keep downplaying, results show just how important it was.

Results don't mean something was cost prohibitive. If the truth is that it will take 6 months for CBR to catch up, just call a spade a spade. Don't cry costs. That was the point.

[Bubstr]

Then you start your own little series since you got all the answers. I agreed with you for the most part, but the downplaying of Rumley and his gadget as junk made in the shop is ridiculous. I mean, it's been two years, over and done with. Move on. That minuscule hacked up device made JD go from a top 10 car, to a dominant kick their a$$ car. So go ahead and keep downplaying, results show just how important it was.

Something like the Rumley device should never be over and done with. If anyone can explain how and why it works, they may have a legitimate reason for banning it. The sanctioning bodies didn't or couldn't explain it, so we must assume that they assumed it was expensive to R&D. They made a rule aimed at one team, much like the, being late rule, was against Bloomquist. If that device belonged to a Manufacturer and for sale to anyone, it wouldn't be banned right now. They don't ban a new nose every year or more HP to make use of that nose. For all anyone knows, Rumley could have dreamed that up one night and made it out of scrap junk. The advantage it had would have been short lived. The other teams have taken what they could from it and are using it. So many people are afraid of the unknown. Fact is, you don't know, what you don't know, why fear it. Davenport wasn't going to beat everyone with this device for long. They earned that advantage and should have been able to ride the advantage, just like spring behind or gas shocks. They took something away from the whole racing community when they made this rule. They took innovation. If smart goes fast, they made everyone that races dirt a little slower with this rule.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Something like the Rumley device should never be over and done with. If anyone can explain how and why it works, they may have a legitimate reason for banning it. The sanctioning bodies didn't or couldn't explain it, so we must assume that they assumed it was expensive to R&D. They made a rule aimed at one team, much like the, being late rule, was against Bloomquist. If that device belonged to a Manufacturer and for sale to anyone, it wouldn't be banned right now. They don't ban a new nose every year or more HP to make use of that nose. For all anyone knows, Rumley could have dreamed that up one night and made it out of scrap junk. The advantage it had would have been short lived. The other teams have taken what they could from it and are using it. So many people are afraid of the unknown. Fact is, you don't know, what you don't know, why fear it. Davenport wasn't going to beat everyone with this device for long. They earned that advantage and should have been able to ride the advantage, just like spring behind or gas shocks. They took something away from the whole racing community when they made this rule. They took innovation. If smart goes fast, they made everyone that races dirt a little slower with this rule.

You hit the nail on the head! It is "cheaper" to buy an XR1 and get all the info you need to make that big stack of bumpstops work. Lol

[DirtPhantom]

To comment to the OP, yes A-Main laps should be reduced for regular events, but only for tracks over 3/8th mile from 50 to 40 laps, keep the 3/8th mile tracks and smaller A-Mains at 50 laps, plus every regular scheduled A-Main should start 26 cars and pay at least $15k to win $1,500 to start. For the 2nd poster, both the LOLMDS & WOO should each have at least four 100 lap A-Main races scheduled each year paying at least $50k to win and starting 28 cars. I will go further, both series need to co-sanction four 100 lap $100k to win crown jewel events each year in addition to the four 100 lap events they would have on each series regular season schedule. All four of the crown jewel events would be aired live on a major tv sports network to bring in the advertising revenue to support the events, this is very much needed for our sport and should already be happening. Also, both series should use A/B qualifying for all of their events, which should create much more passing in the A-Mains. More on this later.

[Clayton_Wetter]

NO to shorter races. Yes to fewer classes

Now let's discuss the track prep, the real issue!!

[plunks7]

No they shouldn't have shorter racing in the A-Mains!!!! If you don't agree stay home, simple as that.

[Clayton_Wetter]

If less is better, then nothing is great!!!

[buster83]

hell they done and eliminated the fast car dash that helped for pole position.their already is less racing due to lower car counts.

[zyoung25]

Personally, I like seeing the longer shows. It seems like racing season passes fast enough without shortening the nights at the track.

[MaverickSprints]

That junk hacked out in the shop made a night and day difference in his speed. It shoulda been axed as it was. Two years ago now. That anyone can admit took a lot of testing and I'm sure r&d on a computer to get it correct. The end product may not have been pricey, but getting there I'm sure was.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. He was fast before the Rumley Device and he was fast after the device. If I remember correctly he still ran second in points to Bloomquist the following year, surviving intense technical scrutiny and rampant speculation from idiots...

[BloomerHarvickFan]

I like longer races. 100 lap races take more skill to win. You have to handle more changing track conditions, deal with more lapped cars, have a car that's durable, and a driver with the patience to move through traffic.
I heard Bloomquist say years ago that shorter races favor the local drivers, because they are used to the track and can get it done till the track starts going through multiple changes.

[BloomerHarvickFan]

Besides, 100 lappers are only 50 miles on the bigger tracks they run on. It's not like they are running 400 or 500 miles. a 100 lapper at a 1/2 mile track is over in just a bit over in 30-35 minutes without cautions.

[vande077]

I don't understand the logic of less laps will mean lower purses at all.

WoO Sprint Cars run 25-35 lap purses at virtually EVERY Race, yet they pay out the same purse as the 50 lap Lucas or WoO Late Model races (sometimes more money even front to back).

It's about balancing the needs of the fans with the needs of the racers IMO. Long laps for stagnant purses is not going to get more teams in the field as their costs keep increasing.

Less laps for MORE $$ isn't going to put more butts in the seats. Less laps (say cut a 50 lap race down to 45) may have zero effect on the front gate.

Until track prep gets to the point where it isn't one lane at most venues it doesn't really matter if it's 10 laps or 100 laps. If starting position determines the winner (barring mechanical failure) that is a much bigger issue than how many laps the race is.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

I don't understand the logic of less laps will mean lower purses at all.

WoO Sprint Cars run 25-35 lap purses at virtually EVERY Race, yet they pay out the same purse as the 50 lap Lucas or WoO Late Model races (sometimes more money even front to back).

It's about balancing the needs of the fans with the needs of the racers IMO. Long laps for stagnant purses is not going to get more teams in the field as their costs keep increasing.

Less laps for MORE $$ isn't going to put more butts in the seats. Less laps (say cut a 50 lap race down to 45) may have zero effect on the front gate.

Until track prep gets to the point where it isn't one lane at most venues it doesn't really matter if it's 10 laps or 100 laps. If starting position determines the winner (barring mechanical failure) that is a much bigger issue than how many laps the race is.

No one wants to pay the same at the front gate for less entertainment. Less money at the front gate = lower purse.

[Bubstr]

If I go to a track that shortened up their race, because the longer ones where not entertaining, I may have gone to the wrong track.

[vande077]

No one wants to pay the same at the front gate for less entertainment. Less money at the front gate = lower purse.

No, but those same people complain that tickets cost too much now, so you can't raise the ticket $$'s to raise the purses either.

It's a lose/lose situation for the promotors currently. The teams want to race for more $$ and the fans think the admission prices are too high already...

I for one have no issue if I was told we are leaving admission at $25, but the $10,000 to win race is now 45 laps instead of 50.