M.g.
 

Just looked at 1st rd qualifying at Maple Grove.Noticed this

AA to C incl. sticks: 37 cars
D to H incl. sticks: 32 cars
G down including sticks: 21
No criticism,conspiracies,complaints,wise remarks.Just an observation.That's a lot of fast cars.Not good for me.

Ed F.

Re: M.g.
 

But... the last three stockers at Norwalk were all 12 second cars.

Re: M.g.
 

It'll probably continue that way until the upper classes get populated to the point with faster and faster cars that the perceived advantage starts to wane. You may start to see some of the mid-class cars make a resurgence in the future, but the list on incentives to running a lower-class car or FWD has been steadily shrinking over the years. Right now, you've got 'cost' and 'because its cool' on your side.

MB - thinkin' I might see if I can run the Turismo at the $5K S/SS race at Beaver.

Re: M.g.
 

Looks to me like a VERY GOOD reason to update to FIRST OR WORST on RED LIGHTS !!
Why should the fast cars get a FREE PASS on a slower car red lighting ??

Re: M.g.
 

John, That is just one of the reasons why there will never be many slow cars in the eliminator, unless the current structure and rules change dramatically.

Re: M.g.
 

Mark -- if you remember when we started doing this it was a good thing to have a slow car -- what changed?

Re: M.g.
 

Jacko, I could write a book on this subject.

Here's a blurb for the cover:

" Remember when you used to have to win your class to get in the eliminator?"

Re: M.g.
 

John, here's an idea..drive your own car and don't red light. If you can cut a bulb you don't need to worry about it. Think of having a slow car as leaving on a clean tree.

Re: M.g.
 

John's comment brings back the comment of all these past years. "If you don't like Stock/Super Stock Class Racing get an ET car."

We work on our cars and try to go fast and be the fastest in our class otherwise we would go bracket racing. That's what Class Racing was designed for.

No offense to you John but we have been over this a thousand times and it gets tiresome.

Re: M.g.
 

No, what gets tiresome, S.E., is the refusal of NHRA to level the playing field for this antique glitch in the system. It won't make them a red cent, so they can't be bothered.

Dunno if you remember, but when they first started having break-outs, the first car to break-out lost the race.

They fixed that, so that the car that breaks-out out the MOST is the loser.

Why should red lights be any different?

The car that has the worse red light should always lose the race. Having it be the FIRST car to redlight be the loser makes NO sense because it will ALWAYS BE that the first car to leave; the slower one. can deprive the seconf car to leave of THE SAME OPPORTUNITY, if the first (slower) car redlights.

There is no moral justification for that.

Now, there's no practical justification for it, either, since the electronic technology to compare the two lights and determine a winner has existed for some time, now. There's just no reason not to fix it.

Don't give me a list of reasons why the slower cars should face this red light jeopardy to a greater extent than the faster cars... I can give you an equally long list of reasons why they shouldn't.

When this first red light rule was instated, there was no alternative; now there is.

NHRA needs to fix it.

Re: M.g.
 

I agree with Robert about one thing. It all depends on how you're looking at the tree. That's why I don't stay up nights worrying about redlighting first.
On the other hand , I don't see any reason to not fix it, in this day and age.
Oh yes I do . It might help out a slower car once in a while. Just look at who's usually against this change.

"I need wheelie bars. I can't leave hard enough on the last bulb without them"
OK, no problem . Here ya' go. You slower cars can have them too.

"I don't like that deep staging thing. It might give a slower leaving car some flexibility in leaving on the last bulb"
Ok, let's take a poll. Guess what? There's more fast cars around now. Look who wins? Imagine that.

"I can't win class at Indy with my new A-B-C fi car. Help me out. Change that 40 year old rule."

OK, no problem. Let's take a poll. Guess what ? There's more class losers with 10 second cars nowadays . Look who wins this one?

to be continued...

Re: M.g.
 

This advice, "don't red light." is a lot like the advice, "WIN THE RACE."

Reminds me of that that one lady said, "It's the same every time; just BOOM BOOM BOOM, GO! Whats' the problem???"

LOL!

"Don't red light." Riiiiight..

It's nice that there's a sense of humor on this board.

Re: M.g.
 

I have no problem with the system now.If I go red shame on me.

Ed F.

Re: M.g.
 

I think we should allow deep staging and use a instanct green , (ducking)

Re: M.g.
 

Scrap dial ins, everyone runs against the index and leaves off instant greens.

Re: M.g.
 

>>>"I have no problem with the system now.If I go red shame on me."

Don't you think your opponent should have the right to earn that shame, too?
If you red light first, you have taken that right away from him.

Is that a fair system?

I don't think so...

Re: M.g.
 

If I'm green then it's his turn.Nobody has the right to go read,just the chance.And if you think anything in real life is fair invite me to the planet you live on.My car can have real wild performance swings in varying weather conditions.Not fair compared to a big block with a lot of compression and a big carb.But I picked the combo and do the best I can with it.Maybe if more people just tried to figure out their combos there would be a lot less tension on this site.
Just get the AHFS squared away and let's race and eat well at the nightly get togethers.

Ed F.

Re: M.g.
 

Ed,

Life is not fair because we can't change everything to make it fair; I have never had quick reactions, but some people do; I could say, "that's not fair".... but there's nothing that can be done about it.

In order to make things as fair as we CAN, the things that CAN be changed to make it fair should be changed. If not, why have any rules at all?

This can be changed; my slow reaction time and your low-hp car that becomes inconsistent with weather changes, cannot.

You have to separate the "cans" from the "cannots".... and, go from there.

This one is a "can." :)

Re: M.g.
 

Bill actually it's a WHY?It has worked well since 1963.
I suck at doing things on the computer.Maybe someone can start a drivers poll with the question "Should the red light rule be changed".Drivers only,we're most affected by it.Sorry Bill,unless you want to fork over #50 to our friends in Glendora.LOL.

Ed

Re: M.g.
 

"It has worked well since 1963"

It has?
On what level?

In actuality is has screwed every first-to-leave driver who ever red-lighted since 1963 because his competitor was given the gift of not have to operate under the possible jeopardy of a red light, once the first guy messed up. Why should anyone be awarded this "gift"?

Two different set of conditions for two otherwise equal competitors; you left first and redlighted so I won't have to worry about it, since I'm driving the last car to leave. Lucky me....

You call that "working"???

It's no longer NECESSARY to have two sets of conditions; they can be EQUAL.

Don't you think they should be EQUAL, Ed?

They're not.

You ask "WHY?" (Why should this be changed?)

Because it's the logical thing to do if you want to keep the chances of winning as equal as possible for EVERYONE.

This is not just about slow cars; if an A/SA car runs a B/SA car, they're both high hp cars and both fast, but in all likelihood, the B/SA car will leave first, and if he red lights, he just gave the A/SA car a free ride to the winners circle, and the A/SA didn''t have to do a THING to earn it.

Let's make him earn it; he never had his chance to red light.... and, by all rights, he should have to, just like the guy in the other lane.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Re: M.g.
 

Right.....there's no reason for a level playing field.....:-(

Re: M.g.
 

Oh and John, one more thing:

DON'T RED LIGHT!!!!!

Re: M.g.
 

If a “clean tree” is defined as the slower car’s driver seeing only their own side blink down, then that would apply to the faster car too: Any handicap more than 1.5 seconds will present both drivers with this “clean tree”.

As well, any handicap less than 1.5 seconds and no one gets this “clean tree”.

NHRA, end this dinosaur-inequity now. Don’t take a poll. Simply install the software and be done with it.

Re: M.g.
 

I think this post shows that people with nothing better to do will just keep on asking for changes..it has changed to much and to fast the last ten years..the first red light rule has cons and pro's...It will not change anything in the end...but just be another "Change" ..dual redlights where the first car did not drag the other car along isn't that many..and the cases were the slower cars in that scenario is the winner is even fewer...just a another way for a "redlight looser" to get back in the race as i see it..DONT REDLIGHT..put the pressure on the other guy...if you have problems with redlights you wont win anything anyway...so change that manner instead!

Re: M.g.
 

Well, I thought I had said all I was going to on this subject but I unfortunately read the last several
posts and decided I would say one or two more things.

#1. If you ain't been there you got no right to try to change things.

#2. The guy sitting there waiting on the slower car is not going to have the same light he/she
would have had if they see the red light before they react. It distracts you unless
you are using a blinder and most don't for their on reasons. Been there ,done that too many
times.

.

Re: M.g.
 

I have been there, so I guess that gives me the right to post on it.

S.E., neither driver will see a red light until after BOTH CARS have left the line.

A red light will mean "you lose," and the computer won't know who has "lost" until it compares both lights. It has no way to know whether the second car to leave will have had a worse red light than the first (and thereby become the loser) until he leaves the line, so there's NO WAY this system will affect the concentration of the faster car's driver. He will always assume the other car had a green light until he's left the line and sees a red, if there IS one.

He will see what he's always seen if the first car to leave had a good green light. NO additional distraction....

I can't see a downside to this.... really.

Re: M.g.
 

BSA said: "I think this post shows that people with nothing better to do will just keep on asking for changes."


>>>This hasn't changed for FORTY-SIX YEARS.... and all the time, the first car to leave has been enduring a set of circumstances that the second car to leave does not; if the car in the other lane redlights first,the second car never has to face the jeopardy of a possible red light.... it has a free ride to the next round, no matter WHAT kind of a light it would have had.

>>>That's not a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination. If it can be changed, why shouldn't it?
Neither driver will notice the difference until AFTER both cars have left the line and a red light comes on in the lane that had the worse one. This "Change" won't affect either driver's program until it's evident that it won't matter; the race will be over as soon as he finds out there was an infraction.



BSA said, "it has changed to much and to fast the last ten years."

>>>That is your opinion; I tend to agree with that, but this change willl require NOTHING from any driver, as far as "adjusting" his program.... He'll be totally unaware of it unless he red lights worse than the car in the other lane, and only then, AFTER both have left the line. Neither car's red light will show until after BOTH cars have launched.



BSA said, "the first red light rule has cons and pro's...It will not change anything in the end...but just be another "Change"


>>>With a double red light system, If my car is in a faster class than yours, and you red light -.003 and I red light -.004, you just won that race, BUT, the way it is now, ~I~ would have won it because my "worse" red light would not have counted because.... yours was first. I'd go to the next round, not you, even though my infraction was worse than yours.

>>>So, yes, it will change things; it will stop that kind of nonsense.




BSA said, ".dual redlights where the first car did not drag the other car along isn't that many..


>>>That is true.... this new double red light rule won't come into play very often at all.




BSA said, "and the cases were the slower cars in that scenario is the winner is even fewer...


>>>That is probably true, too....



BSA said, "just a another way for a "redlight loser" to get back in the race as i see it."



>>>Using the double red light system, if the other (second to leave) car red lights WORSE (an impossibility, now) then the first car is NOT a "red light loser" and doesn't need to "get back into the race" since he was never out of it. He won that round. Worse red light loses.




BSA said, "DONT REDLIGHT."


>>>Oh yes..... good advice; right up there with "WIN THE RACE!!!"
>>>Nothing to it....
>>>Like the lady said; "It's just BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, GO! What's the problem???" LOL!




BSA said, "Put the pressure on the other guy...if you have problems with redlights you wont win anything anyway...so change that manner instead![/QUOTE]

>>>But, you'll win more if the system gives HIM his chance to redlight, too.... irrefutable logic!!! LOL!

Re: M.g.
 

When I started racing at US 30 if both cars redlit or broke out, both lost. If both cars went red or broke out in the finals, both got second place money. Probably saved US 30 a bunch of money.

Of course winning paid $35 and second paid $15.

Re: M.g.
 

Jack,

I'm not sure what all would be in Marks book (answering your question), but I think I know one or two things that've changed when you guys started doing this level of racing:

1. The aftermarket made a lot more products for slower cars to use in Stock/Super Stock than they do now---remember when Hooker Headers produced headers for Chevy FWD V6's? Ask Linda Sherman about them since she had them on her Citation, back in the '90's before she sold the car to Randy Hyman.

2. We don't have the luxury of a variety of slick sizes like the faster class cars do as well, and I don't know of any radial slicks being made that are clearance legal for Stock that fwd's or cars such as Lane Weber's "Skyhawk" can use...do you? If so please tell me who makes them, so I can shop for them...

3. Even the big three's high-performance catalogs had products that would be legal for slower rollers to use in our classes back then..(i.e. the Mopar stuff for the 2.2's, and parts for the GM 90 & 60 degree V6's, and their 2.0 4cyl engines--after all, the Archer brothers were terrors in I.M.S.A. racing back in the 80's with their Cavaliers with those engines...).

Re: M.g.
 

Amen Mark...

Re: M.g.
 

I'm with you on this one too Bill....both racers should have to have the same focus regardless of which one leaves first...I wish the tree could be set-up so that the first racers green/red light wouldn't show, until after the second car left...if both cars had green lights then they'd both come on after the second car left the line. However (like you also said in post #26), the car with the worse red-light infraction would have the red-eye on that driver, and the lesser of the two would get the green & the win light...that's leveling the playing field. Furthermore I bet if that would happen, there would possibly be less of a massive desire to build the fastest class car, because being the second one to leave the line wouldn't matter as much...what do you think Bill???

Re: M.g.
 

What do I think?

I think you somehow missed my response to my friend S.E. Buchanan which said, in part,
"S.E., neither driver will see a red light until after BOTH CARS have left the line.

A red light will mean "you lose," and the computer won't know who has "lost" until it compares both lights. It has no way to know whether the second car to leave will have had a worse red light than the first (and thereby become the loser) until he leaves the line, so there's NO WAY this system will affect the concentration of the faster car's driver. He will always assume the other car had a green light until he's left the line and sees a red, if there IS one.

He will see what he's always seen when the first car to leave had a good green light. NO additional distraction...."

That is the way I've been told the software works.

Nothing else would be acceptable; you absolutely CANNOT have a red light coming on and distracting a driver who hasn't left, yet! Nobody should EVER have to put up with that!!!

Thanks for your thoughts, Gary.

Bill

Re: M.g.
 

Unscrew the red lights, disable the down-link to the scoreboard, and let them find out at the time booth who broke-out the most and was the winner, then the announcer can tell the crowd.

The second guy to leave deserves the "right" to lose by a worse red light.

Re: M.g.
 

Dear Lord, I agree with Ed. What is the world coming to? And yes, I have gone red against a faster car, more than once. Oh well, I need to drive better, sucks to be me I guess.

Re: M.g.
 

Oh please! If something has to be changed then do away with reaction times and down track times on a timeslip.

Re: M.g.
 

No do away with traction compound it gives the fast guys way to much of an edge.

Re: M.g.
 

Easy way to fix it for everyone. Every racer gets a win light for each round and a Wally at every event. Then nobody is a loser.

Re: M.g.
 

What's wrong with agreeing with me?Maybe my methods(wording) is a bit abrasive but at least :
1)I use my real name
2)I try to explain my positions
3)I get frustated by the way NHRA applys rules region by region and by who is involved

If you have a problem with that so be it.

Ed F.

Re: M.g.
 

Ed, lighten up. It isn't the first time I've agreed with you, think about it. :cool:

Re: M.g.
 

Alan,this post was directed to others who have demonized me.

Ed