Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Chuck,
Regarding the "5%" you bring up...

I am not just referring to the fact that you can lose a race to a car that should not have won, if the rules for red lights were identical to breakout rules (worse infraction loses.)

That is ONE issue, and is a legitimate one, I feel; Why should people be racing under TWO sets of parameters (First infraction for red lights, and worse infraction, for breakouts) when there's no longer a reason for that kind of inconsistency?

Can you tell me?

However.... that is a part of the problem, but not THE problem.

The real problem (and though it's related, it's different) is:

The rule, itself. And, what it brings about.

The current red light rule makes it possible for a second-to-leave (quicker-handicapped car) to be awarded a"round-win" after having done NOTHING for it, but to stage his car.

There is NO WAY a first-to-leave car can EVER enjoy that advantage.

Doesn't matter if it's a B/SA car racing an A/SA car, with a handicap differential of .012-sec... if the first-to-leave car red lights, the A/SA car goes to the next round without EVER having to face the same red light jeopardy that the first car faced.

How can anybody with the ability to analyze ANYTHING, on a comparative basis, think that's fair???

It was implemented in 1963, as a matter of necessity but that doesn't apply any more.

1. With the electronics (NHRA) has available, nowadays, it's a situation that is totally unnecessary. With today's technology, the 'tree's computer can withold the first car's red light until BOTH cars have left the line, compare the infractions, and declare a winner, just like the breakouts are handled.

2. EVERY race (heat) that is run, unless it's a heads-up race, embodies the possibility for this inequity.

So, it may or may not result in a "first red light" victory for the second car to leave, but the potential is ALWAYS THERE. THAT is the inequity that the first car faces that is unnecessary, unneeded, and unfair... (and, outmoded.) The potential for unequal red light jeopardy.

The actual wins that a first-to-leave car might be awarded because the second-to-leave car bulbed worse, may be a low percentage, but the second to leave car NEEDS to face equal red light jeopardy every time he's involved in a handicapped race, or there exists the potential for a "FREE RIDE", for that second car to leave.

This "FREE RIDE" is something that flies in the face of rules parity, and as long as the potential for it still exists, there is no parity. Or, fairness.

The worse red light rule simply guarantees that EVERY CAR will have the same chance to red light. Every time.

Anything less is favoritism.

If any of that can be proven wrong, please do so...

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

There are instances when two competitors race under two parameters. For example:
1) SS is allowed trans brake with auto trans yet stick racers do not have same advantage. The trans brake user is afforded some adjust ability towards a better light.
2) Some classes are awarded a more favorable index factor than competitors with the same weight per HP factor. One example is SS/J vs. SS/JA.

Is this fair Bill? Oh, I forgot, this wouldn't affect you because you do not partake in the Class you have your nose in.

Once again, while you repeat your mantra dozens of times, You do not respond to my inquiries unless berated to do so. So once again, why are YOU not taking this to NHRA? Your commentary suggesting your calls would fall on deaf ears because you do not have an active license is meaningless. You have identified yourself as an active NHRA member (which surprised me) and receive ND publication. So you have as much voice as the minions you are trying to recruit. As their leader, lead!
You remind me of the whinny *****'s that complain about our country and politicians yet can't get off the couch to vote.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

I find it almost comical that no one here opposed to Bill's thoughts have been able to give him ONE good reason why this rule should not be changed! What some of you are doing to him is medically called a form of Offensive Thought Repression Syndrome (OTRS). What that means is a person is offended by another person's thoughts but doesn't understand (or can not process) why he is offended to said thought. The result is he lashes out by saying things such as "shut up" or "you suck" or something demeaning but unrelated to the subject of the thought. This type of syndrome is seen in politics more often. You get the idea though I hope.

It's probably these types of answers and attacks on Bill that made me think about the "Worst Red light" instead of the "First Red Light" rule. I have not heard (read) one good intellectual, factual, non-emotional answer to his proposal! Where am I wrong here? JIm

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Jeff, if you really believe that your two examples are unfair then I would encourage you to proceed, as you have told Bill to do, and attempt to change them. Start another thread and discuss it with other racers. Get some input. HOWEVER, what do those examples have to do with the situation Bill has brought up? Regardless, please stop the name calling! It's childish and beneath you. Jim

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Jim, take a step back. A lot of the responses Bill gets are his own fault. He's not lily white as you seem to think. There's plenty of condescension and accusatory nature in his posts. After a while, the whole thing gets tiring.

Add to that the fact that we have so many much more serious issues facing class racing, and some people grow quite weary of an outsider (perceived or real depending upon your view, since he has ZERO intentions of racing class) with something of an attitude and agenda of his own attempting to force change on them.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Alan, I agree with you, you probably know I have had several heated discussions with Bill myself. And I know as well as anyone on here (you also) that sometimes it is difficult to retain your composure when you are constantly being called stupid childish names.If people would stop taunting him he would probably stop posting.I would say to those who are tired of the thread, stop reading it! Nowhere does it say you can't discuss more than one issue at a time on the forum. There is no reason to continue the childish banter and name calling. Be civil. If you disagree with Bill, state that and your reason (if you have one) and move on. Let Bill do what ever he feels he needs to do. Are you guys going to Atlanta? Jim

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Pretty simple: The one that cuts the best light and runs closest to his/her dial, wins 100% of the time. What is not fair about that. I'll call that "Winners Logic", and as I stated before, I believe that each of us class racers intend to cut a good light and run close to the dial each and every time we run. Now, this is what I'll refer to as "Losers Logic", Oh Sh--, I went red and lost......OH maybe, with a lot of luck, the other guy will screw up more than I did!

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

How many times have I heard it said "I'd rather be lucky than good any day"! Jim



.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Again, what does that have to do with Bill's proposal? That being equal red light jeopardy for both cars.

Re: worst red light debate, again!
 

Jim, we broke the orange car earlier this year, the green car is down for some adjustments and minor repairs, and the other stocker is getting some serious TLC and refining. We hope to have two cars at Bowling Green for both the Open and the NitroPlate Combo. Other than the Bowling Green combo, we have not been out this year. We hope to change that after next weekend. It'll be later in the year before the orange car is ready to go again.