Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 158651)

I don't think bracket racing is complicated until I am asked to explain why the first car in a handicapped race to red light, ALWAYS loses, but the first car to break out, doesn't.

How do you explain the reason for that disparity to a novice?

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 158691)

Ed, I don't like beer....

Believe it or not, there are people who think more deeply than to simply accept such a cockeyed situation... "Well, here (on a red light) we disqualify the first car to create an infraction, but HERE, (on a breakout infraction) we don't..."

Where is the consistency?

I'd be too embarrassed for NHRA to simply ask the novice to just close his eyes to intelligent thought, and accept that glaring disparity in logic just because "IT'S THE RULE."

Rules owe it to their constituency to provide a logical reason why they're written the way they are. Anything less, is chaos...

Nobody can do that in this case. It's a travesty to anyone who looks at it with more than a cursory glance.

This may be a novice who can understand the lopsided situation it creates.

Some people are deep thinkers, Ed... and can see that if you're going to eliminate the first car to redlight, shouldn't you also eliminate the first car to break out?

They used to.... in the beginning of Christmas Tree handicap racing. But, at some point, early-on, someone said, "Hey; that makes NO SENSE!"

"Let's eliminate the racer who breaks out the MOST!!"

And so they did. I assume you have no problem with that.

Now, it's possible to eliminate the racer who RED LIGHTS the MOST!

No reason not to change to a system that mimics the breakout protocol.

If the novice asks me, I can't just dumb the question down to "READ THE RULEBOOK;" there's more to it than that, because it needs attention.... the novice MAY be as stupid and thick-headed as I was; it took me YEARS before somebody took me aside and explained the problems with the current system, and even THEN, I didn't really "get it." A few more weeks, and it began to dawn on me that, "Hey; this guy's got something, here."

Comparing it with the breakout situation, and how it's handled, might be the easiest way to understand why the way they've been doing it since 1963 is not consistent with the way they prosecute breakouts... and breakouts are EXACTLY LIKE REDLIGHTS... a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time... maybe by milliseconds, but nevertheless, the wrong place at the wrong time.

Same type infraction; needs to be handled the same way.

The novice is owed an explanation beyond "READ THE RULEBOOK."

I'd like to be there when he asks you why the difference in how red lights are treated, vs. breakouys and see what you tell him!!! "Read the Rulebook, sonny!!!" LOL!

You probably would...

Merry Christmas.

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 158823)

Alan, Mike, and Ed, I'll give it up when any one of the three of you can give me a logical reason why it should NOT be changed.

I have never heard one... and, I'm waiting.

Is the best you can do, when asked by the novice, to tell the kid, "READ THE RULEBOOK," when he asks, "What's the reason for this "First redight ALWAYS loses," BUT, "First Breakout doesn't lose; 'Worse' breakout loses."

The rulebook doesn't address the reason for that basic difference in protocol.

We all know that that "First red light" procedure was born of necessity; they didn't know how to fix it...

THAT'S NO LONGER TRUE. Easy software adjustment/fix, now....

So, I'd say that if you are really as sick of reading that fact as you seem to be, just tell me ONE legitimate and logical reason why NHRA should NOT spend the small amount of money to change this current procedure to a worse red light system, I promise the three of you, who don't seem to care much about fairness in this sport (it's a foregone conclusion that a first red light is an advantage for the faster car, even if it's a V/S over a W/S) that I will never, EVER post another word about it on this forum. NEVER.

That's something that nobody has ever done.... give me a legitimate reason not to change it. In place of reasons not to do it, I am subject to character assassination, regarded as a motor-mouthed KOOK, and generally ridiculed, in a transparent effort to divert attention away from the inability of anyone to show me ONE SOLID REASON not to change it.

I'll make good on my promise, I promise. You'll never find another post on this forum about that subject from ME, if any of you can tell me what reason exists NOT to change it.

Don't tell me you run a AA/S car and are always the chaser; that doesn't count... :)

Happy Holidays!

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 158823)

That's something that nobody has ever done.... give me a legitimate reason not to change it. In place of reasons not to do it, I am subject to character assassination, regarded as a motor-mouthed KOOK, and generally ridiculed, in a transparent effort to divert attention away from the inability of anyone to show me ONE SOLID REASON not to change it.

I'll make good on my promise, I promise. You'll never find another post on this forum about that subject from ME, if any of you can tell me what reason exists NOT to change it.