Chad,
I read with interest, your advice post that suggests alternative ways to go about getting this rule changed.
Having been around drag rcing since 1955 (what were YOU doing in '55?) I have seen a fair amount of legislation come and go, and one thing has been abundantly clear over the years: NHRA policy is adapted by the lesser venues as a matter of course. I can't think of a single rule that NHRA adopted because local "Bracket tracks" were doing it that way. Super Gas was being run at Sacramento before NHRA started that format, but they changed it from 9.50 to 9.90 and made it "their own"in a show of autonomy. And that was a L-O-N-G time ago. That's about the only one I remember.
No, that's just not the way things are done in this business; NHRA decides the M.O. and the rest of the strips follow suit.
Having said that, I am wondering what your thinking is regarding the complexities of the implementation of this change. The simple, instantaneous comparison, by the computer, of the two competitors' reaction times and the turning on a "win" light in the appropriate lane (in the case of a red light, or two) isn't going to affect ANYONE'S driving methodology, and the crowd will still know who won the race.
There IS no "down-side" to this change (except for the removal of an existing unfair advantage for the "second car to leave".)
Double red lights are an unusual phenomenon and don't happen very often. I don't have any statistical data to back that up, but I believe it to be true. I think the incidences of this happening would be very rare, and the second-to-leave WORSE red light in a double red-light situation would probably be even more rare..
So, why am I willing to spend my time arguing for the change?
For one thing, the philosophical chasm that exists between NHRA's knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING that has even a whiff of "cheating" with mechanical parts, while continuing to uttilize a basic rule of how to run a race that is patently unfair to the first car to leave is unconscionable. I have seen cars thrown out for valves that were thousabdths of an inch too small, camshafts that had lifts that measured mere thousandths of an inch too great, and carburetion modifications that were all but invisible to the naked eye.
I have NO PROBLEM with any of that; it's the way it's been since day one . I heard that at the 1955 Nationals, a Stocker in the Final, was disqualifed because his air cleaner's wing-nut had been loosened (they raised his hood and checked on the starting line,) so NHRA has ALWAYS bent over backwards to ensure FAIR competition.
ALWAYS.
Then, all of a sudden, it's 1963 and the Christmas Tree enables the possibility of handicapped starts for racing cars of different capabilities for a common (larger) prize.
Eventually, Dial-Ins become the handicap factor and a problem emerges regarding the "breakouts." People are unhappy with the existing system, which eliminates the first car to break out.
NHRA gets busy and fixes it by having software designed that changes the breakout infraction to, instead of it being the first to break out, to instead, eliminate the car that breaks out the most, by comparing the to breakouts.
They could have probably done the same with double red lights, but I guess they figured, "fix the squeaky wheel first..."
So, they did,
There is a totally-similar parallel between double breakouts and double red lights. If there is a difference, tell me, but please don't tell me that they are dissimilar because they never changed the red light rule to reflect the change they made in the breakout rule, so the first red light loses.
I am aware of that.
I am talking about the CONCEPT involved; it's identical.
Now that the 4-wide red light situation has brought to light (no pun intended!) the fact that the timing computers have been programed to award a "win" light by comparing reaction times in the case of a three-red-light situation, it's obvious that this same technology could be used to determine the worse red light in a 2-lane, handicapped race.
It might take a programmer five minutes to make the change.
And, 49 years of unequal red light jeopary would be "righted."
If you can tell me a reason NOT to do this, I'd like to hear it.
As I've said before this is NOT something ~I~ discovered, invented, or came up with. I am not that smart. Credit Bob Mikulic with that (not Steve.) I resisted the idea myself, having been steeped in years and years of tradition, and I really didn't "get it." For weeks...
Then one day, it hit me; and I felt really dumb for having taken so long to understand it.
Forty-nine yrars of an unfair rule is way too long; it's an easy fix... I think they should do it.
But, they probably won't... No $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved for th druids..
Thanks for "listening."
