4-wide Pro red lights

[Bill Howell]

On the 4 wide pro tree the first red light applies. Two cars advance each round until the final.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Bill Howell

On the 4 wide pro tree the first red light applies. Two cars advance each round until the final.

Bill,

If TWO cars advance, then two cars are eliminated. (DUH!)

Which two get eliminated?

If the first two to leave are red-light LOSERS, then the cars with the reaction times closest to a perfect light (.000) would lose. That is diametrically-opposed to the established system for breakouts. where the car with the time closest to the dial-in WINS.

The worse offenders go on to the next round, using that logic.

"First or worse" is a playground for multiple intertpretations. I read where, if three cars in a 4-wide redlighted, the red-lighting car with the least infraction went on to the next round.

That makes all kinds of sense to me.

Probably never happen, but I thought it an interesting possibility.

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Bill,

If TWO cars advance, then two cars are eliminated. (DUH!)

Which two get eliminated?

If the first two to leave are red-light LOSERS, then the cars with the reaction times closest to a perfect light (.000) would lose. That is diametrically-opposed to the established system for breakouts. where the car with the time closest to the dial-in WINS.

The worse offenders go on to the next round, using that logic.

"First or worse" is a playground for multiple intertpretations. I read where, if three cars in a 4-wide redlighted, the red-lighting car with the least infraction went on to the next round.

That makes all kinds of sense to me.

Probably never happen, but I thought it an interesting possibility.

Right on cue, strike up the band!!!!

BTW Bill, haven't seen your name on a Q sheet in stock or SS.....ever! Why do you bring this drivel here? Take it to your local bracket track

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

Right on cue, strike up the band!!!!

BTW Bill, haven't seen your name on a Q sheet in stock or SS.....ever! Why do you bring this drivel here? Take it to your local bracket track

The simple fact that you consider this "drivel" points up the fact that either, 1.. You don't really understand the situation, or 2. You DO understand it, and think that an unfair rule is just fine if it suits your purposes. Do you race a car that is the second to leave most of the time?


What does the fact that I don't currently race a car in Stock or Super Stock have to do with my opinion? Do you think you have to be a woman to be a good gynecologist???

Jeesh...

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

The simple fact that you consider this "drivel" points up the fact that either, 1.. You don't really understand the situation, or 2. You DO understand it, and think that an unfair rule is just fine if it suits your purposes. Do you race a car that is the second to leave most of the time?


What does the fact that I don't currently race a car in Stock or Super Stock have to do with my opinion? Do you think you have to be a woman to be a good gynecologist???

Jeesh...

Bill,

I have addressed this which you before, but I will do it again.

1. I completely understand the issue as you describe it.

2. For the last 2 years I have raced an I/SA car, I have yet to leave second.

The fact that you are not a current stock/ss racer is very relevant, but not for the reasons you think. Its because there are much bigger issues to those of us who do race in these class, that take precedence over changing the red-light rule.

In no form of handicapped drag racing, is there anything other than the first red light loses.

You are more than welcome to swim against the tide and attempt to "right the wrong" as you see it, however Stock and SS is not really the place to start that. As a whole, we all knew that part of the rule before we started. If it bothers you that much, maybe drag racing just isn't for you. But if you feel that you must continue on this crusade, let me offer my advice as to how to go about it.

1) start at your local bracket track. Offer to sponsor a free entry footbrake race, with a modest purse, under your "worst red light" rule. I'm sure, since its so simple to do, that you could figure out how to change the computer system for it. If not you could always just announce the winner of each race after its completion, by just unscrewing the red-lights and the win lights.

2) if its a success, and the racers seem to like your idea, maybe you could convince your local track to run the trophy or sportsman class that way for a year. This would give you some statistical data as to how many races your new adaptation of the red-light rule actually affected, since, as you have stated MANY times before, you don't believe that the existing data is accurate.

3) If you have succeeded thus far, you should now have some empirical data to support your claim. If it affects a significant number of races in which the first car to leave red lights, you should then talk to more tracks, and possibly your division director. At that point you may begin to effect major change in your crusade toward fairness (wow that sounds a lot like an Obama voter, lol).

Here is the caveat; if you succeed to step three and your new rule has a fairly insignificant effect on the outcome of races, be prepared for the fact that no one is going to want to change, even if it is "fairer". The process of the change would upset and confuse more people, those in the stands included, than it would benefit. I don't think you would see more slow cars win, or even more slow cars racing.

Bill, I admire your determination and diligence. If you wish to take up a cause that is important to us class racers, and run with it like you have here, then I would gladly support you.

Now as I stated earlier, I've raced an I/SA car for 2 years now. I've lost 3 times on a red light. Its was no ones fault but mine, I do not blame a rule that i was totally aware of before I ever strapped into a car. I've also lost a race due to my dial in being wrong, as little john kelley pointed out. I think that if you have your dial clearly written on all 4 sides of your car, the tower should have a tiny bit of responsibility in reading it correctly. However I do understand the rule as it stands.

So, Bill, no offense to you personally, but give it a rest on this issue. Its not going to change, and if it is, its not going to come from stock or ss. When i can look at just the thread title that you started and already know that you are making an end run toward the red light rule, yes it becomes drivel. You've become that predictable. The more you bring it up on this board, you are actually turning people against the idea, simply because most of us are tired of hearing it. I wish you the best of luck in implementing it at your home track, and look forward to the imperial data you are able to gather. THAT, may actually sway some opinions.

[bill dedman]

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 two 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 years 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."

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

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."

Bill, I understand your points and I'm not arguing the premise. I'm arguing the method. Over the first thirty years of this sport there was a lot of evolution in how to run a drag race, as you've illustrated. However over the last two decades, any changes or innovation in how to run a drag race have come from bracket racing. Double entries, buy backs, run for the money/gamblers races, etc (some for the better, some for the worse) have all come from the grass roots. Even the outlaw street car and newer index classes have come from local bracket racing and local promoters.

that's why I suggested that route, going to NHRA isn't going to do any good. The local racers would be your only hope.

[Bunkster]

The first track owner that corrects their software to insure all handicapped races are run fair and equal, I’ll buy you a ….well, I won’t buy you anything. One shouldn’t be paid to simply do the right thing. (Besides, I’m cheap.)


But amusing it would be to hear the first few “new” losers under the corrected, fixed software. Their explanations as to how the corrected system is “unfair” will be extremely interesting and entertaining.


Until then, running the existing broken, unfair handicap starting system is willfully engaging in cheating people.

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Bunkster

The first track owner that corrects their software to insure all handicapped races are run fair and equal, I’ll buy you a ….well, I won’t buy you anything. One shouldn’t be paid to simply do the right thing. (Besides, I’m cheap.)


But amusing it would be to hear the first few “new” losers under the corrected, fixed software. Their explanations as to how the corrected system is “unfair” will be extremely interesting and entertaining.


Until then, running the existing broken, unfair handicap starting system is willfully engaging in cheating people.

So is getting a payday loan, but people line up for the privelidge