Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

As impressive as all that sounds, it's still a long way (index/dial-in wise) from AA./S to D/S. I stand by my contention that if you REALLY wanted to be second-to-leave, AA /S would be the place to be. Of course, there were no AA/S cars at that time, but there were plenty of A/S cars to consider, then, if leaving second were the defining parameter.

However, I applaud your choice of something other than a '69 Camaro; we have enough of them...

Is you're still interested in leaving second, why not a SS/C, factory 390 race car. I don't keep up with HP factors on those cars, so I don't know if they're still competitive in that class, but they (the cross-ram, 390 factory SS cars) have been more than competitive for an extended period of time.

Would one of those cars not be more of a "second leaver" than what you're building? Just askin'...

Insofar as "smarts-related" factors in picking a candidate for running Stock or Super Stock is concerned, using a rules-based advantage, you HAVE to consider whether that rule might change someday.

Rules do change.

I was aware, when I built my Hydramatic-equipped '57 Chevy, that no such vehicle ever had come down a G.M. assembly line. I KNEW, in 1966 that no sedan deliveries, had ever been built with anything but manual transmissions or Powerglides. But as long as NHRA was accepting Hydros, I was going to take advantage of that glitch in the rules.

So, I did, and raced that car (later, with a partner, Harry Sparks) until the combination was finally banned in about 1971.

At that time, various year, Chevy sedan deliveries, with V8s in a variety of horsepower combinations, held virtually every class record they were eligible to run (and, there were a LOT.) I could see the writing on the wall, and when the axe fell on that (hydramatic) combination, it came as no surprise to me, and having been aware of its bogus status, the whole time, I felt I had no complaints.

That scanario has more than a little in common with your situation, wherein you picked your race car with a rule in mind (second-to-leave) that gave you an advantage. The reason for that "first red light" rule that gave you that perceived advantage, was something that came about as a result of NHRA's inability to deal with changing the rule to a "worse red light" rule (ike the first-breakout rule was changed to a "worse breakout" rule) because the software wasn't available at that time.

We both used rules that were viable at the time, but were both vulnerable to change, eventually.

In that vein, I don't see where you would have any more to complain about that ~I~ did.... we both built our combinations on sandy soil.... legal at the time, but eventually, subject to change.

That may never happen, relative to NHRA's ($$$) mindset, but, it should.

Just my 2-cents....

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I understand rules change. You asked "who would be hurt" and I gave you an example. I can deal with any rule change. Today NHRA announced a maximum weight rule. Those with ultra-high HP cars on 9" slicks may suffer as a result.
My '70 AMX is not legal with 2x4 induction. That is '69 only with different sheet metal and front suspension.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Just my 2-cents....
__________________
Bill
Last edited by bill dedman; Today at 12:19 PM.

Well I think you owe a dollar three eighty + for this mess and Yac you need to pay up too ! LMAO

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Why would any fair-minded person NOT want a change from a system that deprives the second-to-leave car of red light jeopardy (if the first car bulbs) to one in which EVERYONE has an equal chance to red light, ALWAYS???

They wouldn't.

What would that say about their character?

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Send me a bill!!! LOL!

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Sorry; I knew that...

And on a different tack, guess I'm not a very good communicator.

I apologize. Somehow, the point of my sedan delivery story got lost in translation. I was trying to point out that I had no complaint, when they banned the sedan deliveries, since they should never have been :legal," anyway. Just a fluke... like the first red light rule. It (the rule) was never a product of NHRA tech; it was result of inadequate software development, and should have been rectified when devolpment of that software that could "fix it" came available.

In that vein, I thought it was similar to the sedan delivery mess, and the attitudes of people who were "harmed" by its being laid to rest as an "advantage" would have been like mine... which was, "Thanks for the years of 'unfair advantage it afforded me."

But, it's moot, anyway; it's probably NEVER going to change... I believe that.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Bill, I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I believe the system is fair. You don't. I'm OK with our differences. Please don't draw "character" of people that do not agree with you, into this.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Well sense these aa/s and a/s cars get the same tire on the rear that the slower class car gets to use can they add traction control if the red light rule is changed because now there at a disadvantage on a hot track, when is this going to stop. SOMEBODY PUT A BAG OVER THIS GUYS HEAD!!!!!!

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I apologize for that remark; and I withdraw it. It was clearly uncalled for, and I am sorry I wrote it.

My bad....

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I think I speak for most people when I say..... WHAT????
Put down the bong and repost please. Jim


.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

A" NO NAME" is trying to shut people up now ?

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

What's a bong? Is that sorta like a really good Martini. Absolute has a new one, Orient Vodka with apple and ginger. Can't wait to try it. Three or four of them will make you bong. Is that a bong. Help please!!!

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Damn you Jeff - I had absolutely (get it) sworn off of this stupid thread and then I saw you were last to post.

I know you always have something stowic to say

I thought he meant "thong" or "dong" or was it Ray - "but you doesn't have to call me Johnson"

Talk to you in the AM

LMAO

:-) peace

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Here's my thoughts after seeing that this has made it 58 pages for the i dunno 15th or 16th time.

We all participate in the sport of Drag racing right? Fastest car wins every time cause it's a performance based sport. Somewhere along the way someone decided they could get WAY more involvement in the sport and let many others join in on their passion for fast cars if he came up with a way to allow the slower car a chance to win somehow. This is where our current form of Bracket racing came from. It was a way to give the slow guy a chance and let many, many new combination of cars into the racing world. To keep an advantage on the the Fast guy's side....because after all HE IS THE FASTER CAR and HE WOULD WIN IN EVERY RACE if it was heads up... this creator of Bracket racing wrote the red light rule so the FIRST guy that lit the bulb red LOST.

Look he gave you a pretty damn good chance to win a race without taking every advantage of being the faster car out of the equation. You could show up with you M/SA car like I have and know when you stage you have NO chance of beating this A/SA car cause he is faster or we would all be building AA/SA cars and every car in the class would be the same combo OR you can show up with the rules the way they are and quit b*tching that the Faster car has all the advantage in the world...

The Faster car is SUPPOSED to win. This IS Drag racing. you've been given the opportunity to win within the rules and this is a classic example of if you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want some milk. Quit begging for Milk people.......

Brad Hawk

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Oh SO WRONG !!
It was done that way because when the Christmas Tree and handicap racing came into being there wasn't the computer technology to do it right !
Now we have the technology with computers to make it fair for all concerned in handicap racing !

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Yeah it really makes it fair,especially for those non racers who get on here asking for justice.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

You like to SLAM people....
BUT you have never given a single sensible reason not to change it !
At post # 90 on this thread you said you were DONE with this subject...... :-)

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

OK I will mention this for the fourth time in this thread - no one has ever responded in all 58 pages

Why is it unfair to have them both lose - advantage no one

A racer who DQd himself does not get a "do over" or muligan


:-) peace

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Look, everyone, I see a lot of arguing over advantage being to the "faster" car, and whether it's "fair" or not. What is being confused here is exactly what is a faster car. The AA/S car should always be the fastest car in the eliminator, simply because it has the highest HP/Wt ratio, the question is: is it the fastest AA car. In the case of two same class cars against each other, the race is heads up, and the advantage naturally goes to the fastest car - as it should be.

What's being left out of the discussion is the DRIVER... we race each other for a reason, it's a contest of machine AND MAN.... otherwise, we could give out the prizes after qualifying rounds are over. The drivers compete against each other as well, and that's what the handicap starts allow, the dialing under making the eliminator a level field for everyone... the faster cars DO often have the luxury of seeing a redlight and getting a "bye", and we can rightly debate whether this is fair, but the faster car part is an apples/oranges type of argument. I remember when handicaps used to be set by the National records, and that penalized those who didn't have the ability to go as far under as the guy in the next lane, so some drivers, depending on class matchups, had an unfairly earned advantage. If you think about it, that system could actually favor the slower cars, because any HP improvement will have a bigger effect on a lower HP car (although I know the weights involved would smooth that out somewhat).

The system we have now keeps the driver component in the equation, and the only question is if it's fair to allow the 2nd car leaving the chance to get a freebie... I've been on both the rabbit and tortise side, and there are several advantages the faster car will have regardless of how you handle the redlights. Giving both drivers the opportunity to beat themselves on the tree might be a little more fair... but I don't know that we can ever have a calm or reasoned discussion about it because passions are so high. I think the only time having a faster car should be an advantage is when the two cars are in the same class, and with exception of the redlight issue, we already have that.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

John Kelly:

NHRA Class #:None
" Type of car:None
Future NHRA # and car:None
Rule change implications for John Kelly:None
Conclusion:Nosey body

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

KILL THE MESSENGER note # 6354

No other info... at all.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Hey, Dad...

Would you think that disqualifying both cars in a race in which they both broke out would be a good idea?

If you're going to deal with a double red light by disqualifying both cars, to be consistent, you'd have to do the same in a double breakout situation.

What do you think?

And, having eliminated 4 cars (two double red lights and two double breakouts) what would you do for a winner in the Eliminator, if that happened in the last two rounds of racing?

All I see for that plan is unnecessary complication, where eliminating ONLY the worse offender in each case, keeps things fair and introduces NO more complication.

How about it, Dad?

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Hey Bill - Ron Here (as it says at the bottom of my posts)

Why not deal with one thing at a time - this thread was about red lights

You did not answer what is UNFAIR about both losing - if both red light

Answer this and then lets start a new thread on break outs



I realize this forum is a form of entertainmenet for you and others

It is a debating society and it is entertaining at times




BTW - BOs use to be the way you described

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Ron, I believe Bill answered your question very well! Interesting. Jim

.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Ron,

Sorry; somehow I missed your posted name. My bad...

No, I don't see anything unfair about disqualifying both cars that redlight.
Having said that, I would also like to say that I don't see that it accomplishes anything, other than "thinning the herd" as it makes its way toward a final round. Additionally, I think that some degree of consistency in the rules, is a good thing, and this disqualifying BOTH red lighters would be in contention with the way breakouts are treated (WORSE breakout loses.)

I don't see that dual protocol as a good thing; do you? In the interest of consistency and simplicity, I think they should both be the same; "worse infraction loses."

What we have now, is schizoid.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

No he did not

Do you really think - three questions and bringing up a totally unrelated topic (BOs) was an answer to the question of - "Why is it unfair to have them both lose - advantage no one?"

BTW - It is not complicated to explain you both DQ'd yourself you both lose - no one gets a do over - no one gets a mulligan

I have a car and a race to prepare for so I may not be able to entertain myself as much as you or I might like with this debate

I only got involved because the others seemed to be losing interest and I think we should go for the record of "most posts"

You may never know how I really feel - since as a former debate team member in college you never knew which side of an issue you were going to have to support - so you needed to be able to support both

LMAO

:-) peace

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

The idea of eliminator racing, (round robin style) is to end up with a (1) winner .
Therefore ,you'd need a first OR worse contingent built into the rules to get there, which many feel should apply throughout.
If only two cars show up for a race ,and both breakout , no one would get to see a winner.
How popular do you think that would be?
If all four cars in the semi's were to double R/L or double B/O, who gets the money? NHRA?
Not a workable plan.

Moving on....

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I get your point but the winner would be the guy smart enough - not to red light or BO

If the rules were different the racing would be different

You may never know how I really feel - since as a former debate team member in college you never knew which side of an issue you were going to have to support - so you needed to be able to support both

Got to get back to work so I can afford to race - LOL quietly here at the office

:-) peace

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

The first or worst rule makes sense, and if the debate to have is whether to have a "worst" rule only , if both R/L and B/O, how do you determine who was the worst offender?? The earliest leave, or the most under... you could get dizzy trying to figure out who should be the winner with a big red & just under vs a slight red and waaay under.....

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

That has already been figured out Marvin, a red light trumps a break out, Just as crossing the center line trumps both. Jim

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Also being light on the scales......

The car was not legal when it staged which was prior to the tree activating....

This cancels a red light start.....

Sooooooooooooo first or worst still applies.....

Bob

PS....The red light rule might be the only NHRA rule that is NOT first or worst????

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Bob, it's not FIRST to go red?

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

[Ed Wright;Bob, it's not FIRST to go red?]

What are you talking about..................

It's first or worst.........

Wasn't I clear enough....

NHRA has a policy that was in the rule book for years that NHRA would always have a round winner..The policy is first or worst to determine the winner of the round of racing....EXCEPT red lights which is first only and NOT first or worst...

It should be either the first red light or the worst red light....or crossing the center line or hitting the wall or punching out an NHRA official....whatever is first OR worst

You can even win on a single red light if the other car is light…..First OR Worst…

This is like pulling teeth

Bob

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I don't know what you're talking about.

In the first place, when you compare TWO items (such as red lights) there are only two degrees of infractions; "worst" is not one of them.

It's first, or worse, not "worst."

Like, bad, worse, and worst, in the English language... There are three degrees of "bad." Since there are no "worst" red lights (only a first red light, or a worse red light) there can never be a "worst."

The current system has no way to compare the two red lights (if two occur on one run) and only recognizes the first one, and issues a disqualification when it "sees" this happen.

Since there iS no second red light, there is no "worse", no matter what the first one was.

THAT's what we're trying to fix, here.

The second car to leave NEVER has his chance to red light, if the first car bulbed.

Some people feel that red light jeopardy should be a part of everyone's racing experience.

Right now, it's not. There is no such thing as a "worse red light" with today's rules, as regards handicap racing..

Maybe someday...

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

It still ain't gonna change, no matter how much you cry about it.
It's like pulling teeth getting through some thick heads that it is what it is, and if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Nobodys disputing that, Ed. If they had a rule that said all red cars have to pull an extra two hundred pounds, would you think that was okay, too?

Makes as much sense...

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

You don't like this thread so you appoint yourself to tell people what to do ??
And many tines yo've said that you don't care one way or the other ??
Maybe you should go fishing ! Or snipe hunting !!!

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Maybe you should get a race car so your opinion might become relevant.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Like all dying arguments, it almost always resorts to either name calling, spell checking or grammar corrections. I think you know what Bob was trying to say.
And I don't think this thread is going to die until it hits 20,000; at least. Looks like all arguments are exhausted except those noted. So what's the point? Internet status? As far as I know, nothing has been formerly presented to NHRA so it must be that, internet status. Yea! What an accomplishment!

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I'll go snipe hunting with you Ed. I like them. They taste like chicken.