worst red light debate, again!

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Car A redlights

Car B crosses the centerline, .....worse , Car A gets a win ticket

Car A proceeds to the scale, is light, gets tossed

Car B had the worst infraction, but they're both still out.

I don't know how this all relates ,but it's an example of "worst"

Anyway , you guys are pretty much on the same side of this debate.You ought to quit arguing about it ..LOL

What you say is 100-percent keyrect, Mark, but you're talking about "infractions," and I'm talking about red lights.

Since there's only two competitors, and it takes three of ANYthing, to have a "worst," There can never be a "worst red light."

Only worse.

How many ways can this subject of a "worse red light" be muddied up, and made to seem ambiguous, when the fix is so simple?

I have a list as long as your arm from people who don't understand this, because they don't WANT to understand it, who introduce impertinent facets to the basic argument, whose only interest in the discussion is to add situations and possibilities to the situation that have nothing to do with the basic premise (that all drivers, regardless of handicap, reaction time, or dial-in) EACH deserve a chance to red light.

People want to talk about deep-staging, clean trees, wheelspin, and anything under the sun to divert attention away from the basic question of, "Is everbody facing equal red light jeopardy."

The answer is of course, "NO, not until this rule is changed."

Not a dead horse, unless you have a hidden agenda, and feel like, somehow, SOME cars just naturally deserve a break.

I don't think so....

[Ed Wright]

Jeff, the software would have to be changed. You lose many that way?

Bill, I call asking (you haven't yet) for a software re-write and rule change, especially AFTER you build a car knowing the long standing rules, a hand out. JMHO

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Jeff, the software would have to be changed. You lose many that way?

Bill, I call asking (you haven't yet) for a software re-write and rule change, especially AFTER you build a car knowing the long standing rules, a hand out. JMHO

That is so ABSURD !!
As are most of your "I don't care either way" posts..... you care but I can't figure out why !
What is your agenda ?

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Jeff, the software would have to be changed. You lose many that way?

Bill, I call asking (you haven't yet) for a software re-write and rule change, especially AFTER you build a car knowing the long standing rules, a hand out. JMHO

If you don't realize it; unfair is unfair, no matter if Bill Dedman races, or not.

I'm just not that important... but thanks for the compliment.

When ALL CARS are subject to the SAME red light jeopardy, then I won't have a gripe.

If you don't realize that this rule affects EVERYBODY (Not just Bill Dedman,) then I've been wasting my time.

Why put up with this antiquated rule that treats different racvers differently, when if can be fixed so that EVERYBODY gets the same chance to red light? MY standing as a current racer has less than nothing to do with that.

Can you understand THAT?

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Jeff, the software would have to be changed. You lose many that way?

Bill, I call asking (you haven't yet) for a software re-write and rule change, especially AFTER you build a car knowing the long standing rules, a hand out. JMHO

Okay, where is the hand out???
How is making the rule for red lights the SAME for EVERYBODY, a hand out?
A hand out would be giving an advantage to slower car... OR a faster car (as it is, now.)

Faster cars have been enjoying a "hand out" since 1963 (the FREE RIDE if their competitor "bulbs.")

If that isn't a "hand out," I don't know what is....
Where is your objection to THAT "hand out"?????

Jeasus....

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry

Originally Posted by Jim Wahl
Hey Bill, you better head on over to the ER. Your forehead must be bleeding badly by now! Jim



Use 'worse' if you're comparing two things: "I think eggplant is worse than squash, but that's just my opinion."

Use 'worst' if you're comparing multiple things: "I disagree. Eggplant and boiled cabbage are both vile, but squash is the worst!"





Since you guys don't have a clue................

The policy that you are attempting to correct is the policy known as "First or Worst" not first or worse.....

If you didn't understand the content of my prior sentence, feel free to make all of the grammatical corrections that you like....

I think I will sign off with...

Have a nice day....

Bob

PS.

I can't say what I want to say because it will get me tossed off of this forum...

Watch out Bob! I think Ed O'Brien stole your computer! Wow, were you an English major! No? It shows. Maybe you should look up the definition of worse/ worst first before you call us clueless.
Have a nice day! Clueless Jim


.

[Mike Carr]

This will help (maybe). Copy this, and send it in to anyone who will listen to you. (BTW, I won't be sending it, for three reasons).



Dear NHRA (and/or IHRA), and officials whom it may concern.

I, __________________, would like to bring to your attention the unfairness of the current red-light system in handicapped racing. THis includes bracket racing, Jr Dragsters, Top Dragster, Top Sportsman, Competition, Super Stock, and Stock Eliminators in NHRA Full Throttle and Lucas Oil drag racing events (if sent to IHRA, subsititute applicable classes). Many years ago, the break-out rule, in dial-in racing, was changed to disqualify the worst offender. I believe the redlight rule should be ammended to be the same. The worse of the two redlights should be DQ'd, not the first car doing it. Example:

Car A, dialed in at 10.00, has a -.002 redlight
Car B, dialed in at 9.50, has a -.005 redlight

In the current format, car A is out, because he fouled first. And car B, despite a worse foul, is the winner.

In all fairness, car A in my example should win, because his light was actually better (closer to .000), provided they did not cross the centerline, fail fuel check or scales, etc.

I would like you to take this under consideration in the future, to make it fair(er) for ALL cars, not just the second car to leave in a handicapped race.

Thank you for your time.

_________________ Name
_________________ Class/Car number
_________________ NHRA Membership number (or IHRA, if you submit this to them




You may feel free to add your own comments in your letter sent to the powers that be. So this way, you can stop posting here, get a posse together, and try to get this unfair rule changed. You're welcome.

[Joe DeMarzo]

Mike "Buff Daddy", my man. Hope all is well and you are feeling better.

Could you be kind enough to draft a similiar letter for us guys who think the rule is ok the way it is.

I know you are an intelligent person who writes well and is objective so the yang of this yin should be able to voice their opinion as eloquently to the powers that are or is it be (?).

Maybe it is Jimmy Powers', nah.

Your the best, hope to see you soon somewhere.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

This will help (maybe). Copy this, and send it in to anyone who will listen to you. (BTW, I won't be sending it, for three reasons).



Dear NHRA (and/or IHRA), and officials whom it may concern.

I, __________________, would like to bring to your attention the unfairness of the current red-light system in handicapped racing. THis includes bracket racing, Jr Dragsters, Top Dragster, Top Sportsman, Competition, Super Stock, and Stock Eliminators in NHRA Full Throttle and Lucas Oil drag racing events (if sent to IHRA, subsititute applicable classes). Many years ago, the break-out rule, in dial-in racing, was changed to disqualify the worst offender. I believe the redlight rule should be ammended to be the same. The worse of the two redlights should be DQ'd, not the first car doing it. Example:

Car A, dialed in at 10.00, has a -.002 redlight
Car B, dialed in at 9.50, has a -.005 redlight

In the current format, car A is out, because he fouled first. And car B, despite a worse foul, is the winner.

In all fairness, car A in my example should win, because his light was actually better (closer to .000), provided they did not cross the centerline, fail fuel check or scales, etc.

I would like you to take this under consideration in the future, to make it fair(er) for ALL cars, not just the second car to leave in a handicapped race.

Thank you for your time.

_________________ Name
_________________ Class/Car number
_________________ NHRA Membership number (or IHRA, if you submit this to them




You may feel free to add your own comments in your letter sent to the powers that be. So this way, you can stop posting here, get a posse together, and try to get this unfair rule changed. You're welcome.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Mike, did you not read this post I wrote on thee subject of petitioning NHRA at this time, on the double red light system?

Originally Posted by bill dedman
Jeff, this a discussion board, right? I think we can agree on that. It is not just a discussion board; it is a discussion board dedicated to the idea that non-racers have brains, too, and CAN have good ideas, and need a place to put those ideas out for public scrutiny. Ken created this board for just such a purpose. Ask him...

I have been able to, through my many posts here that explain the reasons why I think this "worse" red light idea could be an improvement over what we have, to use this board as Ken intended it.. Why anyone would object to using this board for the betterment of our sport is beyond me.

Some say it's boring, and a waste of time. That's their opinion, and they are surely within their rights to voice it here, but I would ask, "Why would anyone continue to read something that is boring, and a waste of time?" Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head and says, "READ THIS, OR I'LL SHOOT!" When I find a TV show on my television that bores me, I switch channels. There is an abundance of other subjects that are available on Class Racer that will inform, entertain, and educate... all one needs to do is click on them; nobody has to read this thread if it bores them.

Having said that, and I don't think there's anything in that paragraph that you would disagree with, doesn't it make you wonder why there are SO MANY posts here???? Somebody likes it... Somebody thinks it's worth discussing. A lot of "somebodies," apparently.

As far as NHRA/IHRA goes, I don't run a Class car right now, and the "quality" of people that I would be talking to at the "HRA's", don't have the perspective beyond "the company line" to entertain "outside the box" ideas from non-NHRA/IHRA racers, especially (given their financial state of affairs,) ideas that are going to cost them money (no matter, how little.)

No, I am sure that the first question he'd ask would be, "What is your membership number and what is your Permanent Number," as if that information would have ANY bearing on the quality of my suggestion(s).

Only by hearing it from a variety of sources, will this idea ever gain traction, and this forum is probably the best place for dispensing the kind of logic that is part and parcel of a worse red light rule.

Popular opinion will get this rule passed, eventually, if, indeed, it ever gets passed.

Talking to an NHRA/IHRA "official," who's relegated to answering the phones, isn't going to get it done. He's likely, already afraid for his job, and suggesting to his superiors a new rule that not only, won't make the national organization one thin dime, but will COST money to implement, isn't going to "enhance" his employment status at all... especially, at a time like this

It's not the right time for that methodology, I'm afraid. Maybe it will never be.

In the meantime, demonizing someone who is trying to help enact a rule that would make things more fair for everyone, and would hurt NO ONE probably isn't the best course of action...

My 2-cents.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

I wrote that awhile back, in answer to suggestions that I do just what you suggested.

I explained why I do not think the timing is right for such an action. In fact, I am convinced that strategically, it would do far more harm than good, right now.

But, at another time, I think what you have suggested would be a great idea, and you did, in my opinion, an excellent job of summarizing the question at hand, in a way that anybody could understand it. I was impressed!

Thanks much for your hard work and insight!

[bill dedman]

Bob Mulry said:
"The policy that you are attempting to correct is the policy known as "First or Worst" not first or worse."

Give me an example of a "Worst red light."

Well, for example...

Car A bulbs with a -345-sec infraction. That's a .345-=sec. red light BAD

Car B bulbs with a -346-sec infraction, That's a .346-sec red light WORSE

Car C.... Oh, there is no car C. and no "Worst" red light.

There are infractions worse than a red light, such as if Car B hits the guardrail, but that's not a red light.

No such thing as a "Worst red light."