Think about this.........

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Indyracer

Here's all the reason you need:

1) This is racing. Quicker car gets the advantage. So first red light loses.


The end.

No, this is HANDICAP racing, not Top Fuel . The fastest car is not the one at the top of the qualifying sheet, nor does he get the first round bye run.
What planet do YOU race on?

[JMatt]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

No, this is HANDICAP racing, not Top Fuel . The fastest car is not the one at the top of the qualifying sheet, nor does he get the first round bye run.
What planet do YOU race on?

I didn't put an adjective in front of the word "racing." At its heart, it's still racing, right? Quicker car gets the benefit.

You don't have to like the answer. But it is the correct answer, and it's why it won't change.

I didn't make the rule. Don't blame the messenger.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by art leong

Bill you are beating a dead horse about this subject. Give it a rest.
I have the slowest car in Superstock I get to leave first everytime. The rule would help me more than anyone.
BUT.
When I built the car the rule was first redlight. I'm not one to build something then lobby to get the rules changed to suit me.
To me that is the same as buying a house near a race track then wanting the track shut down for noise.

Art,

This horse is not dead, because it has the advantage of logical thought on its side.

You just told me that you are willing to play the goat in this theater of the absurd, to eternity, because you CHOSE to run a class with a built-in disadvantage from the git-go.

That's noble, I suppose, in a twisted way, but it's certainly no reason not to change the system from one that favors certain cars (*second-to-leave") over other ones ("first to leave.")

You act like I'm trying to give an unfair advantage to somebody, with this change.

I'm not. I'm trying to get the system changed to one that gives NOBODY an advantage.

Is that the same thing? I don't think so....

How can anyone, with an appreciation for the positive sportsmanship aspects of a system that doesn't bestow an advantage to ANYONE, be against this change?

It takes the advantage away from the second car to leave, and that's ALL IT DOES.

Now, tell me what's wrong with that, if you can. Where is it written that NHRA is entitled to run a system wherein they give an advantage to one car, or another, at their whim?

I'm not talking about horsepower factors; I'm talking about the rules structure.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

"Give it a rest"??? LOL!

I said it before, and I'll say it again.... this forum has enough moderators, already...

Is somebody selling those "temporary moderator" hats???????
I know Santa didn't bring you one; it's not Christmas,yet...

If you don't like what I write, DON'T READ IT! Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in this discussion.

My offer still stands; if ANYONE can post (on this forum) a legitimate and logical reason not to change to a "worse red light" system, I will never write another word about it.

I'd welcome the "vacation." I'm sure everyone else would, too!!!

So far, nobody has.. because there IS no logical and legitimate reason not to change to a system of red lights that stops favoring the quicker car, be it a AA/S or a V/SA....

NHRA spends $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on trying to make racing as fair as it can be (teardowns, factors, etc.) To ignore this "easy fix" for an admittedly unfair rule is incredibly remiss, I think

But, it'll never happen, in the real world, because NHRA can't make any money with it...

Not a plugged nickel...

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Indyracer

I didn't put an adjective in front of the word "racing." At its heart, it's still racing, right? Quicker car gets the benefit.

You don't have to like the answer. But it is the correct answer, and it's why it won't change.
I didn't make the rule. Don't blame the messenger.

Only your opinion, Mr Indy Racer

I'll say it again, in a different manor . Why is it again ,that the guy at the top of this list should be treated any differently than an A/Stocker near the bottom?

http://www.dragracecentral.com/DRCSt...r2008#indextop

[JMatt]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

My offer still stands; if ANYONE can post (on this forum) a legitimate and logical reason not to change to a "worse red light" system, I will never write another word about it.

You already broke your promise. I posted the reason. You just don't like it. Sorry man.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Indyracer

I didn't put an adjective in front of the word "racing." At its heart, it's still racing, right? If you're not comfortable lobbying for it, I can understand that...

If you're not comfortable lobbying for it, I can understand that...

You don't have to like the answer. But it is the correct answer, and it's why it won't change.

I didn't make the rule. Don't blame the messenger.

>>>RE:"the quicker car gets the "benefit"

I have NO IDEA in what context you say, "the quicker car gets the benefit."

No one is arguing that.

Yes, the "quicker car gets the benefit," and that's the problem. There's NO REASON that a quicker car should get ANY benefit from the red light system.

Who told you they should, and how can something like that be justified???

I'd like to know what your thinking is, on this.

Tell me, please, why ANY car should derive a benefit from the starting/red light system. Wouldn't you say that ideally, it should be the same for everyone?

Please..... and tell me, too, what brought you to such a conclusion.

[JMatt]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Only your opinion, Mr Indy Racer

I'll say it again, in a different manor . Why is it again ,that the guy at the top of this list should be treated any differently than an A/Stocker near the bottom?

http://www.dragracecentral.com/DRCSt...r2008#indextop

Because it's harder to beat an 11.00 index by 1.00 seconds than it is to beat a 15.00 index by one second. So unless we start measuring by how big a % you can beat an index by, yadda, yadda, yadda, we simply use the rule we've already used.

Now in the case you showed, that 1.335 under is pretty impressive. But look down the list. 1.085 under an 11.85 index is tougher than 1.100 under a 13.75 index.

So how are you going to decide? Sorry, but the answer is simple: Do it how they've always done it. Quicker car gets the advantage. First red-light loses.

If you'd be willing to re-seed the qualifiers based on percentage run under the index, then perhaps a "worst red-light" rule makes sense. And they should block the red/green from the other driver's sight.

I'm sorry you don't lie my answer, but you don't need to mock me and make it personal. It's not.

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Indyracer

You already broke your promise. I posted the reason. You just don't like it. Sorry man.

Bill Dedman said "LEGITIMATE AND LOGICAL REASON". Your reply was neither one !

[JMatt]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

>>>RE:"the quicker car gets the "benefit"

I have NO IDEA in what context you say, "the quicker car gets the benefit."

No one is arguing that.

Yes, the "quicker car gets the benefit," and that's the problem. There's NO REASON that a quicker car should get ANY benefit from the red light system.

Who told you they should, and how can something like that be justified???

I'd like to know what your thinking is, on this.

Tell me, please, why ANY car should derive a benefit from the starting/red light system. Wouldn't you say that ideally, it should be the same for everyone?

Please..... and tell me, too, what brought you to such a conclusion.

Like I said. Sorry you don't like the answer.

Big picture: Racing (in general - I don't care if it's rubber duckies in a tub) is about being quicker than the next guy. Handicap racing eliminates most of that. One thing that's left is that in a drag race that is handicapped, either through class racing or bracket racing, the quicker car gets the benefit of the "first red-light loses" rule.

Just because you hate the reason, doesn't make it NOT the reason.

[JMatt]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

Bill Dedman said "LEGITIMATE AND LOGICAL REASON". Your reply was neither one !

Really? Who is the "legitimacy police?" You? And what makes it illogical?