Originally Posted by clutch man (Post 255357)

Deep staging should be brought back and all HP taken off all combo's

Originally Posted by Bimbo Jones (Post 255386)

The first drag race I attended was 1963 at Stuttgart Ark. For handicaps they gave car lengths to the slower car and left together on the same flag drop. They both had the same chance at jumping the start back in 1963.

Between the weather(twisters & rain) and earthquakes and this message board Bill doesn't have time to sleep. BTW Bill, I was in Conway in the 60's attending a Boy Scout camp out across from Ward's and Virco when most of east Conway was destroyed. Conway tornado/earthquake capital of Arkansas. "Ski Lake Conway"

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 255361)

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)

Originally Posted by Billy Nees (Post 254711)

I also like looking at a clean tree. To me, that is my advantage to leaving first and taking the chance of being the first to go red.

Originally Posted by Mike Carr (Post 255395)

The thing that bothers the majority of us, is the fact that you and a few others bring this old subject up time and time again. We're just sick of reading it. .

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez (Post 255408)

Thank you John.That's the answer.Let's let Bill make another post and we'll just not come back here on this thread.Presto,no more wasted time.Thanks John.Anybody who answers his post is an official Class Racer Horses *****.

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary (Post 255418)

If you take away my green light coming on, you also take away my ability to more accurately estimate my RT by when the green comes on. Is that good enough Mr. Bill?

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 254631)

Makes no difference. Not going to change. Don't like it? Build a faster car or quit. Whining on a message board won't do a thing.
This is lame.

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 254652)

Does not matter. It's not going to change. Get over it or go do something else. Debating it won't change a thing. Go debate with the people that make the rules: NHRA. The people here have nothing to say about it. Makes no difference what anybody here thinks. Just does not matter what is said here. Get it?

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 254743)

Bill, approaching NHRA as I mentioned and whining on an Internet message board are two different things. Going on & on about it here does nothing. More people wanted cars weighed with the drivers than want this changed. Remember the poll done here? Most racers do not want or care about this. Get over it. Not going to happen. I would like to take long showers with Pamela Anderson too. That ain't gonna happen either.

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 254856)

Doesn't matter what you or I think Bill, it ain't gonna change because a small group complains about it here. Talk to N & I HRA. No leverage here. Surely your bright enough to get that. Ten (or fewer) guys on an Internet message board is not going to change that.

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 254860)

Doesn't matter, ain't gonna happen, but:
It (among other things here) has been discussed, and laughed about, in the staging lanes while killing time waiting for the endless line of throttle stop engines-on-a-stick cars run ahead of us. The slow cars that might be in favor are in the minority. You have not seen any polls here, or anywhere else, with my name on it.

Isn't there a bracket racing section here?

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 254904)

In the end, Bill's ( or anybody else's) long-azzed rants do not matter. It won't change.

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 255166)

What a radical idea! Petition NHRA instead of ranting endlessly on an internet message board! WOW!!

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 255222)

As I have stated many times before: I don't care either way. Read that again. I said petition NHRA instead of ranting here. Here = nothing. NHRA = maybe. That is how hp factors get reduced, not by endless message board rants.

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 255296)

If they change it, just make it right by putting both the red light cars out.
It won't get changed here.

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 255451)

It ain't gonna change by posting endless crap here. Talk to NHRA.

Originally Posted by Toby Lang (Post 255450)

This is the first time I've ever heard of anybody doing that, but it's my understanding that the green light will come on until both cars have left the line.


-Toby

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee (Post 255394)

Bill,
Your response assumes NHRA is stupid and not capable of forward thinking. You also make an assumption if NHRA made or did not make a decision, it was publicly known. I would argue that would never be the case. It doesn't happen in this day of instant access so I see no way it would have gone beyond board room doors.
The scenario I presented is one I would devise if I were starting a "new" handicap form of racing and wanted to move the sport forward.

You also have a key note of NHRA providing a "level playing field". Where is that published and to what is that term assigned too?

I know this, NOTHING in life is "level" except maybe birth. After that, all the rules change!

Originally Posted by John Lang (Post 255401)

Who started this CRAP, and woke up these guys with there never ending first or worst CRAP! IT IS WHAT IS!!!! Get over it, and What Mike said X2.......Later, John

Originally Posted by david ring (Post 255399)

Billy,

To quote the Talking Heads: "Stop Making Sense."

Originally Posted by Bimbo Jones (Post 255393)

Right back atcha Bill. Ya just lost one of the two people that was on your side on this one. Don't get wet!

Originally Posted by Mike Carr (Post 255395)

Bill, to answer your often-asked question, NO, there is NO good reason why we have the current system. Anyone with an IQ over twenty can see that the rule is unfair. Happy?

The thing that bothers the majority of us, is the fact that you and a few others bring this old subject up time and time again. We're just sick of reading it. Myself (and others) have politely asked you, and people of your ilk, to please stop posting this stuff every few months, get off your ***, and actually go out and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

And, while you're at it, get NHRA to fix the other issues that are wrong with our sport, issues much more important than a first or worst redlight rule that might come into play 5% of the time, or less. Fix the payouts, fix the rising costs/fees, fix the run schedule, fix the AHFS, fix the track conditions, fix Class Eliminations, and all the other nonsense NHRA has shoved upon us over the past 5-10 years.

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary (Post 255483)

That’s what I'm saying. If the green lights don't come on until the faster car leaves the line, then the faster car has a better judgment of where he's at on the tree.

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary (Post 255418)

Ohhh, let me hurry up and get my post in.

I'm on both sides of this. Slow car in SS (for div 4 anyway), Fast car in Stock and I like the rule the way it is. As someone already pointed out, I like to have a clean tree. There is an advantage to that. Especially if you’re a blinder racer. If you take away my green light coming on, you also take away my ability to more accurately estimate my RT by when the green comes on. Is that good enough Mr. Bill?

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary (Post 255483)

That’s what I'm saying. If the green lights don't come on until the faster car leaves the line, then the faster car has a better judgment of where he's at on the tree. I know it sounds a bit funny, but I can tell if I was closer to .000 or .040 by when the green light starts to come on as I pass the tree. Two totally different spots in my window. Take that away and you take away that advantage from the slower car and give it to the faster one. Hope I didn’t give away any secrets, we all know you guys don’t need any more help. I'm just wondering if Mr. Bill considers this one reason against changing the rule or not.

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry (Post 255522)

[ faster cars have traction problems that slower cars don't have) etc., etc., etc...]

I guess that you didn't see my earlier post about ALWAYS dialing slower than your opponent so that you won't spin your tires.....

Bob

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 255518)

None of the problems you brought up have a lifespan of 48 years... nor do any of them have the option oif such an easy fix.

Let's fix what we CAN, and worry about the hard ones, later.

Originally Posted by Toby Lang (Post 255457)

Hey, Ed, why don't you quit spamming this thread? We get the picture. How many times are you going to post the same thing over and over again?

Please put this thread in your ignore list or when you see a new post to this thread don't click on it, OK?


-Toby

Originally Posted by Toby Lang (Post 255519)

You're not quite understanding what I'm saying. When the slower car leaves his green light will come on just like normal -- even if he red lights. The red light won't come on until after the faster cars leaves.

Everything will happen just like it does now, except the red light won't be displayed until both cars have left the line. So you can judge your light off the green just like before.


-Toby

Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 255537)

Crap! I missed six pages! LMAO!

Originally Posted by Toby Lang (Post 255519)

You're not quite understanding what I'm saying. When the slower car leaves his green light will come on just like normal -- even if he red lights. The red light won't come on until after the faster cars leaves.

Everything will happen just like it does now, except the red light won't be displayed until both cars have left the line. So you can judge your light off the green just like before.


-Toby

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry (Post 255522)

[ faster cars have traction problems that slower cars don't have) etc., etc., etc...]

I guess that you didn't see my earlier post about ALWAYS dialing slower than your opponent so that you won't spin your tires.....

Bob

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez (Post 255544)

So now besides appeasing the yahoos that want this rule changed you're proposing that the first car,when he leaves,is given a green light on his side of the tree.Then after the second car leaves the redlight will come on?

Originally Posted by toby lang (Post 255550)

sure, why not? The faster car should always assume the slower car is going to go green, shouldn't they? Then if the slower car does go red they get a bonus, plus a good practice shot at the tree without the red light distracting them.

Or do you think the faster car should always hope the slower car will go red and check to make sure they don't before concentrating on their side of the tree?


-toby