The rumor of the day

[novassdude]

Originally Posted by Jack McCarthy

just when i thought it would never happen...
someone is considering a rule change for fairness !

jack mccarthy

i notice the negative posts are all from million dollar boys...
what do ya think bob shaw, ellis buth, stephenson, pohill... hey guys wake up.

I am far far from a million dollar boy. I also do not run a fast stocker. When I get back out it will be in G/sa or H/sa so in theory I should be for this. But it should be left alone If people don't like the rules of stock and super stock pick a different class and leave class racing alone.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Jack McCarthy

just when i thought it would never happen...
someone is considering a rule change for fairness !

jack mccarthy

i notice the negative posts are all from million dollar boys...
what do ya think bob shaw, ellis buth, stephenson, pohill... hey guys wake up.

Jack you forgot me the slowest of all Superstockers (by a bunch)
Personally I would like this change, but I built the car with the rules as they are . So either way I won't lose any SLEEP over it.

As far as the fasters cars saving their parts goes. How about my case. If I redlight it's over, I get to drive up the track, If the new rule comes to be, I'll have to run all out for as much as 5 seconds (330'). Instead of saving my parts.

[bill dedman]

Somebody said, "Take all the advantages of building a fast stocker away."

Where is it written that fast cars should have any advantage over slow cars?

I don't remember seeing that in any rulebook I have ever looked at (and, I've looked at them for a l-o-n-g time...)

There exist certain things that benefit fast cars (driving the stripe from behind, less dial-in change due to changing conditions, wind, etc.), and things that benefit slower cars (leaving on a "clean" tree, generally less traction problems, smaller initial expense), but those are all things that happen naturally, not as a result of a deliberate rule implimentation.

NHRA has always gone to GREAT LENGTHS to ensure parity by whatever methods the deemed appropriate, including teardown-based inspections where cars are disqualified for thousandths of an inch too much or too little.

That they would continue to utilize a system (FIRST RED LIGHT LOSES), after technology has been introduced that would enable them to institute a system that would eliminate the advantage given to one car, or another, is so inconsistent in its thinking as to be almost unbelieveable.

But, I forgot... it's NHRA.

[Bob Mulry]

I See The Light!!!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi All,

I posted the explanation below on 09/07/2007 and it still is the answer to the problem:

************************************************** *********************************

I just had a vision........

It's not FIRST OR WORST RED LIGHT it's who left first relative to their own lane against their own dial in.

The rule would still be FIRST RED LIGHT LOSES only the lights and the lanes would be looked at separately based on the dial in.

Everything would stay the same FIRST RED LIGHT LOSES.

Is NHRA willing to take a giant step and right this wrong?

Bob
__________________
Bob Mulry 7516 STK
A & M Motorsports


************************************************** ************************************************

I guess that dealing with NHRA is a lot like breeding elephants..........

Everything happens at a high level with a great deal of bellowing and it takes 2 years for results....

on the other hand, maybe never.

Bob

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Bobby Zlatkin

I would love to see this. Yes, make it a level playing field.

Chad, if NHRA cared about tradition, the '55 - '57 Chevy's would still be running stock elim.

I wish they were