worst red light debate, again!

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Been camping with BSA this weekend. I see that Bill just slid past my "this is who gets harmed scenario" and tried to spin it to "why not build an AA/S car"
Bill, when I ran D/S, my car was typically at the events I participated was fastest car in D/S, C/S and at least half of any B/S field. And that would usually cover the same classes with an auto trans in it. So I'm not sure what the math is but I would guestimate that my car was in the top 10-15% of the event. And I built an AMX because I liked the specs and that would include the 97" wheelbase. I studied the NHRA Stock classification guide and engine blueprint guide (which I spent $400 on from NHRA as this was not web based at the time I bought the car). And I'd bet I had more research into what to build than a great majority who "just happen" on a race car for class racing.
So in this example (and I KNOW I'm not the only one with these smarts in NHRA racing), I built what I thought would be very competitive with the idea that I would leave second a part of that scenario. And the same logic is following me as I transform the car to SS/H status. Trust me, I don't expect to be leaving first on too many cars.
So you asked for an example of who would get hurt. I gave one. Then you resorted to the fairness doctrine. That tells me no amount of logic on the other side of the fence will be considered.
And I liked the response (who?) which asked about a double red-light / breakout situation. Mark Yacavone said the race was over once there was a red light winner declared (first or worst). Then that surely doesn't sound fair because if we have to play fair, it should be all the way down to the finish line! Make it so both racers AT LEAST GET A CHANCE TO PROVE THEIR PROWESS AT ET PREDICTION!
That's it, I'm done. It was nice not having internet access while in the forest this weekend!

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....