worst red light debate, again!

[Tim Ellis]

Forget the worst red light, let's allow deep staging. What a FARCE to make THAT illegal. Guess they just didn't want slow cars to have a shot. It would be tough enough to deep stage being the slow car with courtesy staging and autostart, isn't that enough of a disadvantage to allow it?

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by Tim Ellis

Forget the worst red light, let's allow deep staging. What a FARCE to make THAT illegal. Guess they just didn't want slow cars to have a shot. It would be tough enough to deep stage being the slow car with courtesy staging and autostart, isn't that enough of a disadvantage to allow it?

I run a slow classed Stocker and shallow stage as much as the rest do,and leave on the bottom light. I`ve never had a problem hitting the tree good consistantly,and I`ve never needed to deep stage it. That`s a moot point too.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Whining on a message board won't do a thing.
This is lame.

It is undoubtedly "LAME" when suggesting a fix for an inequitable rule that's been with us for 47 years, is attacked as "whining."

Were they whining when they approached NHRA to weigh the drivers with the cars, to stop the inequity of an advantage the lightweight drivers had over the big guys?

I don't think so...

Were they whining when the "first car to break out" rule was in effect, and needed to be a "worst breakout rule?"

I don't think so...

This "first redlight" rule is at least as bad as either of those, but pointing it out and suggesting that it be changed so that EVERYONE has the same chance to red light, is "whining."

Sounds like semantics (look it up, ED) at its worst...

But the absolute worst part of all of that "you're whining" rhetoric, is that NOBODY who writes on that side of the ledger, ever has posted ONE reason not to change it; instead, they choose to KILL THE MESSENGER with character assassinations and claims of "whining."

It's so transparent...

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

It is undoubtedly "LAME" when suggesting a fix for an inequitable rule that's been with us for 47 years, is attacked as "whining."

Were they whining when they approached NHRA to weigh the drivers with the cars, to stop the inequity of an advantage the lightweight drivers had over the big guys?

I don't think so...

Were they whining when the "first car to break out" rule was in effect, and needed to be a "worst breakout rule?"

I don't think so...

This "first redlight" rule is at least as bad as either of those, but pointing it out and suggesting that it be changed so that EVERYONE has the same chance to red light, is "whining."

Sounds like semantics (look it up, ED) at its worst...

But the absolute worst part of all of that "you're whining" rhetoric, is that NOBODY who writes on that side of the ledger, ever has posted ONE reason not to change it; instead, they choose to KILL THE MESSENGER with character assassinations and claims of "whining."

It's so transparent...

Thank you Bill. Jim

[Jim B]

OK Bill I've gotta ask. I understand your position on the starting line redlight inequity but do you advocate fixing a potential breakout correction at the finish line? Example: Car A fouls by .002 and car B fouls by .005. Under your revision is car A now the final and undisputed winner? (barring crossing the centerline) At the other end car A runs out by .005 (gets there first) and car B runs out by .001 Since the total combined infractions (.007 vs .006) would give the win back to car B... is that what you advocate? How would you treat a single breakout run that possibly was a result of chasing a worse redlight? (Car A runs out by .002 and Car B runs dead on (doesn't break out) but has a worse (.005 to .004) total infraction.

[bigshow2966]

Why don't we just go back to the way it used to be in the '70's at US 30. Both cars redlight or break-out, they both lose. Double red in the final, both get 2nd place money. Saves money in the long run.

Oh yeah, we can also go back to paying only 4 places. Round money is for sissies.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Jim B

OK Bill I've gotta ask. I understand your position on the starting line redlight inequity but do you advocate fixing a potential breakout correction at the finish line? Example: Car A fouls by .002 and car B fouls by .005. Under your revision is car A now the final and undisputed winner? (barring crossing the centerline) At the other end car A runs out by .005 (gets there first) and car B runs out by .001 Since the total combined infractions (.007 vs .006) would give the win back to car B... is that what you advocate? How would you treat a single breakout run that possibly was a result of chasing a worse redlight? (Car A runs out by .002 and Car B runs dead on (doesn't break out) but has a worse (.005 to .004) total infraction.

Bill's proposal has nothing to do with breakouts.
Both car leave the line...Worse red light comes . Win light comes on in other lane...Race over...Not that complicated.
Maybe it is?