worst red light debate, again!

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Dan Wilson

Both lights should remain green until both cars cross the finish line and the worst offender turns red!
Dan

EXCELLENT idea, Dan...

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

There's just no way to get to you.My middle name is Anthony.

Why didn't you answer this question??? "Both will benefit you. Why do you embrace one and decry the other???"

[bill dedman]

[QUOTE=Bill, it isn't that no one can show you a reason, it's that no one can show you a reason you can agree with, or live with. There is a distinct difference. [QUOTE

Okay, Alan, YOU tell ME what is fair about a rule that gives FREE RIDES to the second car to leave, if the first car red lights. Please do...

I don't have all the answers, but if you can tell me what is fair about "the above" I'll listen to any argument you can muster, on the subject.

I'm waiting... and I'm afraid I'll be waiting for a long, long, time, because there's nothing fair about it. Please prove me wrong...

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by tommy d

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

I always wondered how the sound of "the truth hurts" actually sounded.

Now, I think, I know... LOL!

[Mark Yacavone]

Love this...!! Thanks ,Claude

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

OK,since we want to rationalize about this.If they change the red light rule to even the
so called playing field then maybe the fast cars should be allowed a mulligan if they spin the tire on a $hitty track.But wait,who told them to build such a hi horsepower car.They
should have built a car like mine that 60's 1.74-1.80 and they wouldn't be at a disadvantage..But wait again.Maybe if I don't like the first foul rule maybe I should build a
higer classed car.
Let's get NHRA to raise the payouts.Now that's doable.

What you fail to realize (and, I am convinced that you really DO not realize this) is that a worse red light rule gives the advantage to NO ONE. With it, EVERYONE has an EQUAL CHANCE TO REDLIGHT...

That is unlike the current first red light rule, that provides the second car to leave NO CHANCE to red light, IF the first car to leave turns on the bulb.

Will you NEVER grasp the idea that that is not a fair, nor equitable situation?

It's not exactly rocket science...

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

A long time ago, the powers-that-be were sitting around and trying to plan a path for drag racing involving the Sportsman racers and the time delay start. The starting system was in discussion, about the same time they were discussing "how can we continuously promote the sport, feed our advertisers, and keep the fans interested". They realized advertisers made money on speed equipment and there would be no money spent on speed equipment if everybody drove a car that never evolved into a continuously faster car. And if the speed equipment industry faltered, the advertising revenue would dry up and there goes a significant amount of income earned.
And if the status quo on race cars was "slow is good enough", then the fans would be bored to death, never to return.
So NHRA ingeniously merged all these concepts into one. Slower cars could still race but there was a carrot to going faster and faster as his budget grew. The racer figured out he might have an advantage by leaving second with a faster car than the other guy. He found that not only was leaving second an advantage but his faster car reacted on the starting line differently. Word spread and others wanted faster cars. Speed equipment flourished, advertising budgets increased and fans had something to marvel at. Everybody was happy except the slow guy. Too bad.

Now maybe this isn't really what happened or why we have the red light rule, but it may offer some reasonable ideas to Bill and others as to why it is the way it is.

Drag racing on any level is entered into based on a rule book. When I read and understand a rule book, I build a car to win. If my perception is that the first to leave is better, I might build a slower car than if my perception were reversed. Everybody has that option when they enter racing.

Jeff, I apologize for the lateness of this reply, but the truth is, I just didn't see it until now. My bad...

Point-by-point...

Jeff sed: "long time ago, the powers-that-be were sitting around and trying to plan a path for drag racing involving the Sportsman racers and the time delay start. The starting system was in discussion, about the same time they were discussing "how can we continuously promote the sport, feed our advertisers, and keep the fans interested".

Bill contends: Even back in 1962, when this "program" was in the planning stages, the NHRA DRUIDS were never that insightful, when attempting to give us a game-plan that would do three things, successfully, at once. Remember, these were the guys that gave us class racing based on SAE Gross HP numbers (replaced at a later date, with SAE "NET" figures and HP "Factors." A TOTALLY different set of classes for the very same cars. My '72 Valiant 318; 2-bbl went from 230 (gross) HP to 150 net...and the class changed (later, changed again, with factored HP)..... the "now it's legal', now it's NOT" rules chages that defined what constituted a Stocker, that resulted in Cast iron manifolds replacing tubing headers for a while), camshaft rules that went all the way from "Stock lift/duration, and overlap" to this virtually wide-open cam situation that exists, today and the attendant valve spring rule that makes it all work (ALMOST,) today... nevermind the illegal status of aftermarket rockers, which would make it ACTUALLY work... No, these geniusses aren't going to be thinking about THREE things ("marketing, sport promotion, and keeeping the fans interested") at one time, during the genesis of the handicap system.

Nope, the handicap system that included the "first red light loses, PERIOD" was born, not because of any far-sighted thinking on the part of the authors, and their efforts to further the fortunes of Stock-Super.Stock racing, but nothing more complicated than "There's no other way to do it. Maybe no one will notice."

No one did... At that time, they were trying to work out software that would, instead of eliminating the first car to break out, eliminate the car with the WORST amount of breakout.

They got that glitch taken care of, and apparently, so many people were happy with that new method of prosecuting the breakout system, the red light problem was swept under the rug.

Years went by... the red light system in use (first red light loses) in handicapped racing was identical to the one in use for heads-up racing (where it makes TOTAL sense), so it became the "industry standard," and went virtually unchallenged for many years.


Then, Jeff wrote: "And if the status quo on race cars was "slow is good enough", then the fans would be bored to death, never to return.

And Bill countered, " But, that didn't happen, and it had nothing to do with a "first red light rule," It had everyting to do with Drag Racers having the mindset that hot rodding IS engineering one-upmanship, that manifests itself in the never-ending search to go faster and quicker... even in Stock.
One only has to look at the maximum horsepower available from Chevy (for example) in those salad days of Stock Eliminator to realize that it was no secret that performance sold cars, and dominance on the drag strip was first and foremost in racers' minds, in those early years. Beginning in 1955, the numbers, yearly, went up from (1955) 195, 225 or 240 (depending on whether you "buy" the Duntov cam in a '56 265), 283, 315, 335, 350 etc....

The desire for a fast car had nothing to do with a "first red light" starting line advantage. Folks just wanted to go F-A-S-T.... In fact I don't remember that ever being discussed back then, as an advantage for a quicker classed car, do you?

Seriously...

Then Jeff wrote, "So NHRA ingeniously merged all these concepts into one. Slower cars could still race but there was a carrot to going faster and faster as his budget grew. The racer figured out he might have an advantage by leaving second with a faster car than the other guy. He found that not only was leaving second an advantage but his faster car reacted on the starting line differently. Word spread and others wanted faster cars. Speed equipment flourished, advertising budgets increased and fans had something to marvel at. Everybody was happy except the slow guy. Too bad."


Bill contends, that "It IS too bad, because NHRA has spent its entire, organized LIFE trying to make a "level playing field" for ALL it's competitors, especially, in Stock and Super Stock.

Cases in point...

I had a friend who ran his '55 Chevy in Stock at the '55 Nationals. He was disqualified on the starting like because the tech inspectior opened his hood and found his air cleaner wing nut "too loose."

I have a friend who lost in class racing because one of his exhaust valves was too SMALL, by a few thousandths,

The tear down barn can only be called an obsessive/compulsive attempt to remove cheaters from the equation...

The NHRA dedication to fairness in their Modus Operandi is legendary.

No one can fault them for that.

But, to sit idly by, and watch as one car, that was forced into leaving first by circumstances (his car was the slower-dialed car) get eliminated by a red light, and not require the second car to leaave, to face the SAME red light jeopardy, demonstrates a double standard worthy of Adolph Hitler... especially, since the "fix" for the digital mechanations, is so easy these days.

You have to remember, this is not about slow cars vs. fast cars. If a B/SA car is racing an A/SA car, it applies equally as much as if a AA.SA car is up against a V/SA car.

I am in no way involved with the invention of this "worse red light" rule concept. I am a slow learner, and it took me a good 2 months to figure it out, after a good friend of mine had the patience to teach me the vagaries of it.

Now, I don't see how I could have been so thick headed,,, but, I was... too steeped in the tradition of the first red light rule... (since 1963)

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Bob Pagano

Awe crap, do the pros bitch about this ? Why go on and on "Its Futile"

By "Pros" do you mean Tony Schumacher and John Force?

Do they race handicp starts?

Or, if you mean the Dan Fletchers of Stock and S/S???? You know, those guys who get more seat time in a month than most people get in a year????

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Bill, it isn't that no one can show you a reason, it's that no one can show you a reason you can agree with, or live with. There is a distinct difference.


What it is that makes you think you are the final authority on this subject, no one knows.

That's because I never said it.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

There you go Bill.Post your email address and you and all your supporters can get your
petition to NHRA and change the face of S/SS for the unwashed masses.

No, Ed, there YOU go again, wasting keystrokes instead of answering the question: "Why should this unfair rule NOT be changed."

You don't have an answer, even a wrong one, so you never even try...

Instead, you pass the buck, and do anything BUT write a post that relates to the question at hand.

Since you don't seem to have the answer, why don't you just admit it and say, "Gee, Bill, I guess I don't know..."