4-wide Pro red lights

[bill dedman]

Chad,

I read with interest, your advice post that suggests alternative ways to go about getting this rule changed.

Having been around drag rcing since 1955 (what were YOU doing in '55?) I have seen a fair amount of legislation come and go, and one thing has been abundantly clear over the years: NHRA policy is adapted by the lesser venues as a matter of course. I can't think of a single rule that NHRA adopted because local "Bracket tracks" were doing it that way. Super Gas was being run at Sacramento before NHRA started that format, but they changed it from 9.50 to 9.90 and made it "their own"in a show of autonomy. And that was a L-O-N-G time ago. That's about the only one I remember.

No, that's just not the way things are done in this business; NHRA decides the M.O. and the rest of the strips follow suit.

Having said that, I am wondering what your thinking is regarding the complexities of the implementation of this change. The simple, instantaneous comparison, by the computer, of the two competitors' reaction times and the turning on a "win" light in the appropriate lane (in the case of a red light, or two) isn't going to affect ANYONE'S driving methodology, and the crowd will still know who won the race.

There IS no "down-side" to this change (except for the removal of an existing unfair advantage for the "second car to leave".)

Double red lights are an unusual phenomenon and don't happen very often. I don't have any statistical data to back that up, but I believe it to be true. I think the incidences of this happening would be very rare, and the second-to-leave WORSE red light in a double red-light situation would probably be even more rare..

So, why am I willing to spend my time arguing for the change?

For one thing, the philosophical chasm that exists between NHRA's knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING that has even a whiff of "cheating" with mechanical parts, while continuing to uttilize a basic rule of how to run a race that is patently unfair to the first car to leave is unconscionable. I have seen cars thrown out for valves that were thousabdths of an inch too small, camshafts that had lifts that measured mere thousandths of an inch too great, and carburetion modifications that were all but invisible to the naked eye.

I have NO PROBLEM with any of that; it's the way it's been since day one . I heard that at the 1955 Nationals, a Stocker in the Final, was disqualifed because his air cleaner's wing-nut had been loosened (they raised his hood and checked on the starting line,) so NHRA has ALWAYS bent over backwards to ensure FAIR competition.

ALWAYS.

Then, all of a sudden, it's 1963 and the Christmas Tree enables the possibility of handicapped starts for racing cars of different capabilities for a common (larger) prize.

Eventually, Dial-Ins become the handicap factor and a problem emerges regarding the "breakouts." People are unhappy with the existing system, which eliminates the first car to break out.

NHRA gets busy and fixes it by having software designed that changes the breakout infraction to, instead of it being the first to break out, to instead, eliminate the car that breaks out the most, by comparing the two breakouts.

They could have probably done the same with double red lights, but I guess they figured, "fix the squeaky wheel first..."

So, they did,

There is a totally-similar parallel between double breakouts and double red lights. If there is a difference, tell me, but please don't tell me that they are dissimilar because they never changed the red light rule to reflect the change they made in the breakout rule, so the first red light loses.

I am aware of that.

I am talking about the CONCEPT involved; it's identical.

Now that the 4-wide red light situation has brought to light (no pun intended!) the fact that the timing computers have been programed to award a "win" light by comparing reaction times in the case of a three-red-light situation, it's obvious that this same technology could be used to determine the worse red light in a 2-lane, handicapped race.

It might take a programmer five minutes to make the change.

And, 49 years of unequal red light jeopary would be "righted."

If you can tell me a reason NOT to do this, I'd like to hear it.

As I've said before this is NOT something ~I~ discovered, invented, or came up with. I am not that smart. Credit Bob Mikulic with that (not Steve.) I resisted the idea myself, having been steeped in years and years of tradition, and I really didn't "get it." For weeks...

Then one day, it hit me; and I felt really dumb for having taken so long to understand it.

Forty-nine years of an unfair rule is way too long; it's an easy fix... I think they should do it.

But, they probably won't... No $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved for th druids..

Thanks for "listening."

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Chad,

I read with interest, your advice post that suggests alternative ways to go about getting this rule changed.

Having been around drag rcing since 1955 (what were YOU doing in '55?) I have seen a fair amount of legislation come and go, and one thing has been abundantly clear over the years: NHRA policy is adapted by the lesser venues as a matter of course. I can't think of a single rule that NHRA adopted because local "Bracket tracks" were doing it that way. Super Gas was being run at Sacramento before NHRA started that format, but they changed it from 9.50 to 9.90 and made it "their own"in a show of autonomy. And that was a L-O-N-G time ago. That's about the only one I remember.

No, that's just not the way things are done in this business; NHRA decides the M.O. and the rest of the strips follow suit.

Having said that, I am wondering what your thinking is regarding the complexities of the implementation of this change. The simple, instantaneous comparison, by the computer, of the two competitors' reaction times and the turning on a "win" light in the appropriate lane (in the case of a red light, or two) isn't going to affect ANYONE'S driving methodology, and the crowd will still know who won the race.

There IS no "down-side" to this change (except for the removal of an existing unfair advantage for the "second car to leave".)

Double red lights are an unusual phenomenon and don't happen very often. I don't have any statistical data to back that up, but I believe it to be true. I think the incidences of this happening would be very rare, and the second-to-leave WORSE red light in a double red-light situation would probably be even more rare..

So, why am I willing to spend my time arguing for the change?

For one thing, the philosophical chasm that exists between NHRA's knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING that has even a whiff of "cheating" with mechanical parts, while continuing to uttilize a basic rule of how to run a race that is patently unfair to the first car to leave is unconscionable. I have seen cars thrown out for valves that were thousabdths of an inch too small, camshafts that had lifts that measured mere thousandths of an inch too great, and carburetion modifications that were all but invisible to the naked eye.

I have NO PROBLEM with any of that; it's the way it's been since day one . I heard that at the 1955 Nationals, a Stocker in the Final, was disqualifed because his air cleaner's wing-nut had been loosened (they raised his hood and checked on the starting line,) so NHRA has ALWAYS bent over backwards to ensure FAIR competition.

ALWAYS.

Then, all of a sudden, it's 1963 and the Christmas Tree enables the possibility of handicapped starts for racing cars of different capabilities for a common (larger) prize.

Eventually, Dial-Ins become the handicap factor and a problem emerges regarding the "breakouts." People are unhappy with the existing system, which eliminates the first car to break out.

NHRA gets busy and fixes it by having software designed that changes the breakout infraction to, instead of it being the first to break out, to instead, eliminate the car that breaks out the most, by comparing the to breakouts.

They could have probably done the same with double red lights, but I guess they figured, "fix the squeaky wheel first..."

So, they did,

There is a totally-similar parallel between double breakouts and double red lights. If there is a difference, tell me, but please don't tell me that they are dissimilar because they never changed the red light rule to reflect the change they made in the breakout rule, so the first red light loses.

I am aware of that.

I am talking about the CONCEPT involved; it's identical.

Now that the 4-wide red light situation has brought to light (no pun intended!) the fact that the timing computers have been programed to award a "win" light by comparing reaction times in the case of a three-red-light situation, it's obvious that this same technology could be used to determine the worse red light in a 2-lane, handicapped race.

It might take a programmer five minutes to make the change.

And, 49 years of unequal red light jeopary would be "righted."

If you can tell me a reason NOT to do this, I'd like to hear it.

As I've said before this is NOT something ~I~ discovered, invented, or came up with. I am not that smart. Credit Bob Mikulic with that (not Steve.) I resisted the idea myself, having been steeped in years and years of tradition, and I really didn't "get it." For weeks...

Then one day, it hit me; and I felt really dumb for having taken so long to understand it.

Forty-nine yrars of an unfair rule is way too long; it's an easy fix... I think they should do it.

But, they probably won't... No $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved for th druids..

Thanks for "listening."

Bill, I understand your points and I'm not arguing the premise. I'm arguing the method. Over the first thirty years of this sport there was a lot of evolution in how to run a drag race, as you've illustrated. However over the last two decades, any changes or innovation in how to run a drag race have come from bracket racing. Double entries, buy backs, run for the money/gamblers races, etc (some for the better, some for the worse) have all come from the grass roots. Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters.

that's why I suggested that route, going to NHRA isn't going to do any good. The local racers would be your only hope.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

Bill, I understand your points and I'm not arguing the premise. I'm arguing the method. Over the first thirty years of this sport there was a lot of evolution in how to run a drag race, as you've illustrated. However over the last two decades, any changes or innovation in how to run a drag race have come from bracket racing. Double entries, buy backs, run for the money/gamblers races, etc (some for the better, some for the worse) have all come from the grass roots. Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters.

that's why I suggested that route, going to NHRA isn't going to do any good. The local racers would be your only hope.

Chad, sed... (see above)

"over the last two decades, any changes or innovation in how to run a drag race have come from bracket racing. Double entries, buy backs, run for the money/gamblers races, etc (some for the better, some for the worse) have all come from the grass roots. Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters."

Chad,
Read what you wrote here and tell me what, if any, of the things you've enumerated, have been embraced by the NHRA and included in their national events (or, even, at points races) ????

If I read your post correctly, I understood you to mean that if I got the double red light rule accepted and put in practice at some local (Bracket?) tracks, then it would stand a chance of being accepted by NHRA and maybe, become a part of their M.O. at NHRA races.

Is that correct? I think that's what you meant.

If so, tell me what past events you're basing this on. Have you EVER seen a buy-back, at a national event. OR at a points race? Or a "gambler's race" at an NHRA national event???

"Double entries" (I am assuming you're referring to running two cars; one in Stock and one in Super Stock,) came about when the few "Touring Pros" that populate Stock and Super Stock pointed out that they could not make it by racing in just one Eliminator; they needed a chance at least, to win in two. The acceptance of that didn't come from "local races..."

You contend, as a part of your argument, that "Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters."

Do they run these at NHRA national events? I haven't seen any...

No rules-changing activity of any kind that has gone on at the national level of NHRA events that I am aware of, has come from local racing protocol.

NHRA has ALWAYS had a bad case of "not invented here." You are surely aware of that.

Well, they did "invent" the double red light technology as practiced at the 4-wide Nationals. I can only hope that it filters down to the Sportsman ranks, eventually.

This is a message board, dedicated to the idea of the free exchange of ideas and information. Not only that, but this PARTICULAR message board was specifically set up for input from people who are not current racers. In that vein...

It is entirely appropriate that subjects such as this are posted ffor everyone's perusal and comment. Your suggestion that because my car is a Bracket car, and I don't own a class racer, that fact would disqualify me as a contributor to this board on a subject that didn't afffect me directly.

Well, that's just not true, and the hope from this corner is, that IF NHRA ever DID choose to enact a double red light rule, that the practice would filter down to my local track and I, and others, could benefit from it.

It's not going to happen the other way. In this case, the tail doesn't wag the dog.

In fact, it's probably never going to happen at all... I realize that.

But, that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

Again. thanks for listening.

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Chad, sed... (see above)

"over the last two decades, any changes or innovation in how to run a drag race have come from bracket racing. Double entries, buy backs, run for the money/gamblers races, etc (some for the better, some for the worse) have all come from the grass roots. Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters."

Chad,
Read what you wrote here and tell me what, if any, of the things you've enumerated, have been embraced by the NHRA and included in their national events (or, even, at points races) ????

If I read your post correctly, I understood you to mean that if I got the double red light rule accepted and put in practice at some local (Bracket?) tracks, then it would stand a chance of being accepted by NHRA and maybe, become a part of their M.O. at NHRA races.

Is that correct? I think that's what you meant.

If so, tell me what past events you're basing this on. Have you EVER seen a buy-back, at a national event. OR at a points race? Or a "gambler's race" at an NHRA national event???

"Double entries" (I am assuming you're referring to running two cars; one in Stock and one in Super Stock,) came about when the few "Touring Pros" that populate Stock and Super Stock pointed out that they could not make it by racing in just one Eliminator; they needed a chance at least, to win in two. The acceptance of that didn't come from "local races..."

You contend, as a part of your argument, that "Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters."

Do they run these at NHRA national events? I haven't seen any...

No rules-changing activity of any kind that has gone on at the national level of NHRA events that I am aware of, has come from local racing protocol.

NHRA has ALWAYS had a bad case of "not invented here." You are surely aware of that.

Well, they did "invent" the double red light technology as practiced at the 4-wide Nationals. I can only hope that it filters down to the Sportsman ranks, eventually.

This is a message board, dedicated to the idea of the free exchange of ideas and information. Not only that, but this PARTICULAR message board was specifically set up for input from people who are not current racers. In that vein...

It is entirely appropriate that subjects such as this are posted ffor everyone's perusal and comment. Your suggestion that because my car is a Bracket car, and I don't own a class racer, that fact would disqualify me as a contributor to this board on a subject that didn't afffect me directly.

Well, that's just not true, and the hope from this corner is, that IF NHRA ever DID choose to enact a double red light rule, that the practice would filter down to my local track and I, and others, could benefit from it.

It's not going to happen the other way. In this case, the tail doesn't wag the dog.

In fact, it's probably never going to happen at all... I realize that.

But, that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

Again. thanks for listening.

I thought your goal was to increase fairness in drag racing, not just NHRA. I'm just saying that's a start, since as you already admit, changing NHRA's mind is just about impossible.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

I thought your goal was to increase fairness in drag racing, not just NHRA. I'm just saying that's a start, since as you already admit, changing NHRA's mind is just about impossible.

Chad,

Of COURSE, I want to see this program implemented everywhere... why would anyone want to keep a system operating that victimizes half of the field every time the cars come to the line for a handicaped race? That's lunacy...

As NHRA goes, so goes the country. Nobody had Christmas Tree starting systems until NHRA unveiled theirs in 1963 at Indy; then they began showing up all over the place!

Remember???

Probably not... LOL!

IF, and WHEN, NHRA starts using a double red light system of determining winners on the starting line in Sportsman racing, that's when you'll see them at BodCaw Dragway; people will demand it!l

Until then, well, I'm not holding my breath...

[bigshow2966]

Maybe we should just go back to the old ways and if both cars go red both are out. Double breakout? No winner. That's how US 30 did it when I started racing. Both went red or broke out in the final and both got 2nd place money.

Also, do away with round money. Pay 4 places and you race for all 4, no 3rd and 4th get the same money crap.

In all seriousness, here's a question, and this happened at RT 66 a few years ago.

Buddy of mine was dialed at 10:73 in his Duster. His opponent was dialed at 10:72 in a Camaro. Both cars go red. My buddy went -.004 and the other guy went -.057.

Who won?

[KRatcliff]

Originally Posted by bigshow2966

Maybe we should just go back to the old ways and if both cars go red both are out. Double breakout? No winner. That's how US 30 did it when I started racing. Both went red or broke out in the final and both got 2nd place money.

Also, do away with round money. Pay 4 places and you race for all 4, no 3rd and 4th get the same money crap.

In all seriousness, here's a question, and this happened at RT 66 a few years ago.

Buddy of mine was dialed at 10:73 in his Duster. His opponent was dialed at 10:72 in a Camaro. Both cars go red. My buddy went -.004 and the other guy went -.057.

Who won?

Your buddy won because his opponent went red first.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Well, they did "invent" the double red light technology as practiced at the 4-wide Nationals. I can only hope that it filters down to the Sportsman ranks, eventually.

Bill, I think it probably WILL be changed for all categories within a few years' time .

It most likely would never be changed due to some poll , here or through one taken directly by NHRA. With the proliferation of 10, and even 9 second cars lately, most would vote for pocketbook issues ; ...whatever's in their own financial self interest. We all vote that way, don't we?

We saw that with the deep staging issue .. With the big number of fast cars that didn't need to use the technique, and then some who to this day, don't even understand the issue; ... that vote was hopelessly skewed from the start...
That's just not a good way to make policy in the interest of fairness..
After all , fast cars, slow cars, and those in between,...all need the same amount of grade points, and all pay the same entry fee.