It has become tradition in the days leading up to a major event with a unique format for the conversation to focus on one thing: how much the format sucks.

The complaints can be endless. It produces boring racing, it takes too long, it’s too confusing, it’s too random, it punishes fast cars, or all of the above. But this season, one aspect seems to have rubbed people the wrong way more than any other: inverts. 

Is this concept of starting fast cars towards the back and slow cars at the front actually unfair? Does it even make a difference in the final rundown at the end of the night? Let’s take a look. 

In a typical World of Outlaws event with a standard format, the proceedings are fairly standard. If you are one of the four quickest cars in qualifying (or top two in your group on nights with split-field qualifying), you will start on the pole of your heat race. With the All Star Circuit of Champions, on the other hand, the quickest qualifiers start fourth in the heat races.

One way to examine the potential effect of inverts is to look at the final finishing position of the quick qualifiers across both series. In the 40 World of Outlaws events this year that utilized a standard format, the heat race polesitters have an average finishing position of 6.5 in the night’s feature. With the All Stars, the cars starting fourth in the heat races have an average feature finish of 7.3 through Sunday’s event at Selinsgrove.

The two sides remain very similar when you compare race wins. Out of the 40 standard-format races this year on the Outlaw side, 21 of them were won by a car that qualified in the top four and started at the front of their heat race. Meanwhile, in 36 All Star races so far this year, 18 have been won by someone who qualified up front and started fourth in their heat. Which means that the chances of one of the quick qualifiers winding up in victory lane at the end of the night is about 50% on both tours.

This data leads us to the conclusion that no, an invert does not unfairly punish fast cars as long as it is within reason. I’ll borrow an idea from Richard Allen at Inside Dirt Racing, as I believe it’s a fair way to evaluate the implementation of an invert. He wrote that as a general rule, the amount of cars being inverted should never exceed the amount of cars transferring from that particular race.

For example, if a format calls for the top four finishers in a heat race to transfer to the main event, then an invert of three or four cars would be acceptable, but a six-car invert would be a bit excessive. This ensures that fans still get to see the fastest cars fight their way to the front of the pack, but if it is a night where passing is difficult, it ensures that the quickest cars in qualifying are not stuck in a B-Main assuming they maintain position.

Obviously, none of this information is going to stop the complaining on social media about how the invert was responsible for a driver’s poor finish. What it does show, however, is that a format can be unique and interesting while still being fair to the competitors. As with any competitive event, it doesn’t matter how complicated, intricate, or drawn-out a format is; the cream will always rise to the top.