M.g.
 

Just looked at 1st rd qualifying at Maple Grove.Noticed this

AA to C incl. sticks: 37 cars
D to H incl. sticks: 32 cars
G down including sticks: 21
No criticism,conspiracies,complaints,wise remarks.Just an observation.That's a lot of fast cars.Not good for me.

Ed F.

Re: M.g.
 

But... the last three stockers at Norwalk were all 12 second cars.

Re: M.g.
 

It'll probably continue that way until the upper classes get populated to the point with faster and faster cars that the perceived advantage starts to wane. You may start to see some of the mid-class cars make a resurgence in the future, but the list on incentives to running a lower-class car or FWD has been steadily shrinking over the years. Right now, you've got 'cost' and 'because its cool' on your side.

MB - thinkin' I might see if I can run the Turismo at the $5K S/SS race at Beaver.

Re: M.g.
 

Looks to me like a VERY GOOD reason to update to FIRST OR WORST on RED LIGHTS !!
Why should the fast cars get a FREE PASS on a slower car red lighting ??

Re: M.g.
 

John, That is just one of the reasons why there will never be many slow cars in the eliminator, unless the current structure and rules change dramatically.

Re: M.g.
 

Mark -- if you remember when we started doing this it was a good thing to have a slow car -- what changed?

Re: M.g.
 

Jacko, I could write a book on this subject.

Here's a blurb for the cover:

" Remember when you used to have to win your class to get in the eliminator?"

Re: M.g.
 

John, here's an idea..drive your own car and don't red light. If you can cut a bulb you don't need to worry about it. Think of having a slow car as leaving on a clean tree.

Re: M.g.
 

John's comment brings back the comment of all these past years. "If you don't like Stock/Super Stock Class Racing get an ET car."

We work on our cars and try to go fast and be the fastest in our class otherwise we would go bracket racing. That's what Class Racing was designed for.

No offense to you John but we have been over this a thousand times and it gets tiresome.

Re: M.g.
 

No, what gets tiresome, S.E., is the refusal of NHRA to level the playing field for this antique glitch in the system. It won't make them a red cent, so they can't be bothered.

Dunno if you remember, but when they first started having break-outs, the first car to break-out lost the race.

They fixed that, so that the car that breaks-out out the MOST is the loser.

Why should red lights be any different?

The car that has the worse red light should always lose the race. Having it be the FIRST car to redlight be the loser makes NO sense because it will ALWAYS BE that the first car to leave; the slower one. can deprive the seconf car to leave of THE SAME OPPORTUNITY, if the first (slower) car redlights.

There is no moral justification for that.

Now, there's no practical justification for it, either, since the electronic technology to compare the two lights and determine a winner has existed for some time, now. There's just no reason not to fix it.

Don't give me a list of reasons why the slower cars should face this red light jeopardy to a greater extent than the faster cars... I can give you an equally long list of reasons why they shouldn't.

When this first red light rule was instated, there was no alternative; now there is.

NHRA needs to fix it.