2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes

[Dgal]

I realize that the NHRA may not do anything about it, but they have just shown that they will gleefully address issues that don't seem to the the top of current list of problems. I don't remember being at the track once in the last couple of years and heard a racer say "Gee, if they would just bring back the 55's....." Not that I don't like that they are because I feel they are neat cars, but I won't put anything past Glendora.

I still haven't seen one argument for keeping the redlight rule and inequality at the starting line that I can get behind. It is simply unfair to only recognize the first, not the worst.

That is the equivalent of saying the rule of the first breakout looses versus the worst breakout. If you feel the first redlight should only loose, then why wouldn't you support only the first breakout? Of course, that is another change and it would be stupid to do so. But it is no different that the current rule at the starting line as it stands.

Don

[Dan Wilson]

The main reason I got the new Dodge is the first red looses.
Gee why else would I spend all this money?
Dan Wilson

[Bunkster]

Mr. Dedman, never give up on this argument: You ARE correct as is only a few others such as Mr. Ashley.


It is so inconceivable, that so many cannot see how this situation, that is fixable in a nano second with a software change, is so unfair.


Imagine this change DID take place and no one was told about it. The first run at the Winternationals in 2011, and I’ll use the usual scenario that seems to be the only one that anyone understands, is an A/S and a V/S: And the V/S win light comes on.


The A/S guy gets his time slip, and sees that the V/S car fouled by .005, and he, the A/S car, fouled by .007.


The A/S car starts whining about how unfair it is for him to be the loser. When it’s pointed out to him that he fouled worse than the V/S guy, the A/S guy says so what…..the V/S guy fouled first.


The A/S guy is then told that of course, if the V/S guy fouls, it’s going to be first. How is that unfair? How in the Hell is the V/S guy ever going to foul last against an A/S guy like you?


How in the Hell is it unfair to expect BOTH cars to have to take a shot at the tree? The tree is a basic…a fundamental…a must.


Those faster cars that win via a slower car fouling against you….you got a freebie…..a gimme…and you ought to be ashamed: You’re no better than someone on welfare that refuses to work for what they receive.


You got something for nothing, only because technology wasn’t used properly. Sort of like someone NOT getting out of prison because DNA was not used.


Next time I see a car win via a slower car foul, I believe I’m going to flip them the bird, and laugh.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Bunkster

Those faster cars that win via a slower car fouling against you….you got a freebie…..a gimme…and you ought to be ashamed: You’re no better than someone on welfare that refuses to work for what they receive.


You got something for nothing, only because technology wasn’t used properly. Sort of like someone NOT getting out of prison because DNA was not used.


Next time I see a car win via a slower car foul, I believe I’m going to flip them the bird, and laugh.

Knock yourself out. It'll show what a first class individual you really are.

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Bunkster

Mr. Dedman, never give up on this argument: You ARE correct as is only a few others such as Mr. Ashley.


It is so inconceivable, that so many cannot see how this situation, that is fixable in a nano second with a software change, is so unfair.


Imagine this change DID take place and no one was told about it. The first run at the Winternationals in 2011, and I’ll use the usual scenario that seems to be the only one that anyone understands, is an A/S and a V/S: And the V/S win light comes on.


The A/S guy gets his time slip, and sees that the V/S car fouled by .005, and he, the A/S car, fouled by .007.


The A/S car starts whining about how unfair it is for him to be the loser. When it’s pointed out to him that he fouled worse than the V/S guy, the A/S guy says so what…..the V/S guy fouled first.


The A/S guy is then told that of course, if the V/S guy fouls, it’s going to be first. How is that unfair? How in the Hell is the V/S guy ever going to foul last against an A/S guy like you?


How in the Hell is it unfair to expect BOTH cars to have to take a shot at the tree? The tree is a basic…a fundamental…a must.


Those faster cars that win via a slower car fouling against you….you got a freebie…..a gimme…and you ought to be ashamed: You’re no better than someone on welfare that refuses to work for what they receive.


You got something for nothing, only because technology wasn’t used properly. Sort of like someone NOT getting out of prison because DNA was not used.


Next time I see a car win via a slower car foul, I believe I’m going to flip them the bird, and laugh.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess that you voted for Obama. Life is not fair, there will always be inequity. You can either choose to put your big boy pants on and deal with it, or you can whine, bitch and get in line with the rest of those expecting a handout or a rule/law change in favor "fairness".

[Chad Rhodes]

Oh, and Bill, let me give you a short list of cars not to flip the bird to and laugh.

1) black AA/SA vette
2) purple I/SA camaro
3)any camaro with a tall guy in a black cowboy hat standing next to it, lol

[KingReptile]

Chilllllllllllllll pill they do make them

[bill dedman]

This is NOT "rocket science." After all these hypothetical scenarios, and the conclusions that support the FACT that the present situation is NOT fair, never has been, and has sent many a car to the trailer when he should have won the round, it's abundantly clear that some people will argue with a gatepost, even when they can't supply ANY legitimate reasons for their position. They just want to argue.

Some say "Life is not fair."

Of course it's not... and racing is not fair, but it needs to be as fair as we can make it.
Why do you think NHRA Tech tosses cars out for valves that are a few THOUSANDTHS of an inch to big.... ot too small? Keeps voluminous technical records on carburetor part numbers, venturi size specs, and throttle bore sizes? Camshaft lift information???

So it will be a fair race... or, as fair as they can make it.

But, I'm just a "whiner" because I want to change a rule that screws, or has the potential to screw virtually half the cars running. Any race that's not "heads-up" is a candidate for this unforunate event.

So, if you think that you're a "good guy" for not complaining when a car that leaves after you, has a red light infraction that is worse than yours, I have news... you might not mind losing like that, but keeping quiet about it is just one way of telling NHRA that the first red light system is okay, and that's all they need to leave it alone. The others (and, their numbers are growing,) who can see the built-in inequities that are part and parcel of the first red light system, and want it changed, now have a steeper uphill battle to get a worse redlight system in place.

To use a very tired adage, you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

But, the biggest problem is NHRA's inertia with stuff like this. It won't make them any money, so they have no initiative to fix it... so, in all likelihood, they won't.

We're lucky that this bunch of Druids wasn't running NHRA back in the sixties, or we'd probably still have the "first breakout loses" rule...

Would you guys like that???

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

This is NOT "rocket science." After all these hypothetical scenarios, and the conclusions that support the FACT that the present situation is NOT fair, never has been, and has sent many a car to the trailer when he should have won the round, it's abundantly clear that some people will argue with a gatepost, even when they can't supply ANY legitimate reasons for their position. They just want to argue.

Some say "Life is not fair."

Of course it's not... and racing is not fair, but it needs to be as fair as we can make it.
Why do you think NHRA Tech tosses cars out for valves that are a few THOUSANDTHS of an inch to big.... ot too small? Keeps voluminous technical records on carburetor part numbers, venturi size specs, and throttle bore sizes? Camshaft lift information???

So it will be a fair race... or, as fair as they can make it.

But, I'm just a "whiner" because I want to change a rule that screws, or has the potential to screw virtually half the cars running. Any race that's not "heads-up" is a candidate for this unforunate event.

So, if you think that you're a "good guy" for not complaining when a car that leaves after you, has a red light infraction that is worse than yours, I have news... you might not mind losing like that, but keeping quiet about it is just one way of telling NHRA that the first red light system is okay, and that's all they need to leave it alone. The others (and, their numbers are growing,) who can see the built-in inequities that are part and parcel of the first red light system, and want it changed, now have a steeper uphill battle to get a worse redlight system in place.

To use a very tired adage, you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

But, the biggest problem is NHRA's inertia with stuff like this. It won't make them any money, so they have no initiative to fix it... so, in all likelihood, they won't.

We're lucky that this bunch of Druids wasn't running NHRA back in the sixties, or we'd probably still have the "first breakout loses" rule...

Would you guys like that???

if the first breakout lost now, i bet you'd have alot less people holding three tenths. seems to me you'd have to dial VERY hard and run them out the back door. Not that i would want to see that come back. If you are so dissatisfied with the current system why don't you find a track or a drag racing series where they have adopted your "fair" method of doing things, and race there???? OH wait, there isn't one.