worst red light debate, again!

[Bob Mulry]

[Ed Wright;Bob, it's not FIRST to go red?]

What are you talking about..................

It's first or worst.........

Wasn't I clear enough....

NHRA has a policy that was in the rule book for years that NHRA would always have a round winner..The policy is first or worst to determine the winner of the round of racing....EXCEPT red lights which is first only and NOT first or worst...

It should be either the first red light or the worst red light....or crossing the center line or hitting the wall or punching out an NHRA official....whatever is first OR worst

You can even win on a single red light if the other car is light…..First OR Worst…

This is like pulling teeth

Bob

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry

What are you talking about..................

It's first or worst.........

It's either the first red light or the worst red light....

Bob

I don't know what you're talking about.

In the first place, when you compare TWO items (such as red lights) there are only two degrees of infractions; "worst" is not one of them.

It's first, or worse, not "worst."

Like, bad, worse, and worst, in the English language... There are three degrees of "bad." Since there are no "worst" red lights (only a first red light, or a worse red light) there can never be a "worst."

The current system has no way to compare the two red lights (if two occur on one run) and only recognizes the first one, and issues a disqualification when it "sees" this happen.

Since there iS no second red light, there is no "worse", no matter what the first one was.

THAT's what we're trying to fix, here.

The second car to leave NEVER has his chance to red light, if the first car bulbed.

Some people feel that red light jeopardy should be a part of everyone's racing experience.

Right now, it's not. There is no such thing as a "worse red light" with today's rules, as regards handicap racing..

Maybe someday...

[Ed Wright]

It still ain't gonna change, no matter how much you cry about it.
It's like pulling teeth getting through some thick heads that it is what it is, and if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

It still ain't gonna change, no matter how much you cry about it.
It's like pulling teeth getting through some thick heads that it is what it is, and if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing.

Nobodys disputing that, Ed. If they had a rule that said all red cars have to pull an extra two hundred pounds, would you think that was okay, too?

Makes as much sense...

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

It still ain't gonna change, no matter how much you cry about it.
It's like pulling teeth getting through some thick heads that it is what it is, and if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing.

You don't like this thread so you appoint yourself to tell people what to do ??
And many tines yo've said that you don't care one way or the other ??
Maybe you should go fishing ! Or snipe hunting !!!

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

You don't like this thread so you appoint yourself to tell people what to do ??
And many tines yo've said that you don't care one way or the other ??
Maybe you should go fishing ! Or snipe hunting !!!

Maybe you should get a race car so your opinion might become relevant.

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

It still ain't gonna change, no matter how much you cry about it.
It's like pulling teeth getting through some thick heads that it is what it is, and if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing.

This simply is just not true! It CAN change if you can get it through the "thick heads" and convince them, much as I was, that this is worth changing! I don't see anybody "crying" about anything here Ed. I see several people debating and putting forth facts and opinions. And to tell someone to " if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing" is asinine. How would you feel if a Top Fuel racer told you "if you can't run 4.50 in the quarter mile you should build a faster car go fishing"? Makes just as much sense. Jim

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by Jim Wahl

This simply is just not true! It CAN change if you can get it through the "thick heads" and convince them, much as I was, that this is worth changing! I don't see anybody "crying" about anything here Ed. I see several people debating and putting forth facts and opinions. And to tell someone to " if you can't live with that, either build a fast car or don't race. Do something else. Go fishing" is asinine. How would you feel if a Top Fuel racer told you "if you can't run 4.50 in the quarter mile you should build a faster car go fishing"? Makes just as much sense. Jim

Then go get it done, don't cry about it on the internet. Do something, call somebody. So far we don't have to race top fuel cars. I don't have a fast car. I don't feel like I need a helping hand. Are you a liberal that wants Obama make everything easier for you?

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Then go get it done, don't cry about it on the internet. Do something, call somebody. So far we don't have to race top fuel cars. I don't have a fast car. I don't feel like I need a helping hand. Are you a liberal that wants Obama make everything easier for you?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Ed, my friend, you don't have a clue! If you had one you would not have written that last sentence. Me a liberal? Are you serious? Really? You really are reading comprehension challenged. Visit the lounge sometime.
The Top Fuel thing is called a metaphor. Look it up. I am so glad you pointed out we don't have to race a Top Fuel car! I never would have known that!
I get it now, you don't believe that the rules of Drag Racing should be consistent, I understand you. However, just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else does. Members of this forum are (believe it or not) allowed to discuss (crying according to you) things (rules included) without having to call Glendora (or you) to get approval to do so. Discussion IS allowed here without the requirement that you must act one way or the other on what has been discussed. Once again I say to you and others, if you are tired of this thread, DO NOT READ IT ANYMORE! Jim

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

I don't know what you're talking about.

In the first place, when you compare TWO items (such as red lights) there are only two degrees of infractions; "worst" is not one of them.

It's first, or worse, not "worst."

Like, bad, worse, and worst, in the English language... There are three degrees of "bad." Since there are no "worst" red lights (only a first red light, or a worse red light) there can never be a "worst."

The current system has no way to compare the two red lights (if two occur on one run) and only recognizes the first one, and issues a disqualification when it "sees" this happen.

Since there iS no second red light, there is no "worse", no matter what the first one was.

THAT's what we're trying to fix, here.

The second car to leave NEVER has his chance to red light, if the first car bulbed.

Some people feel that red light jeopardy should be a part of everyone's racing experience.

Right now, it's not. There is no such thing as a "worse red light" with today's rules, as regards handicap racing..

Maybe someday...

Like all dying arguments, it almost always resorts to either name calling, spell checking or grammar corrections. I think you know what Bob was trying to say.
And I don't think this thread is going to die until it hits 20,000; at least. Looks like all arguments are exhausted except those noted. So what's the point? Internet status? As far as I know, nothing has been formerly presented to NHRA so it must be that, internet status. Yea! What an accomplishment!