.400 Full Tree: Yes/No
- Thread starter Jason Richey
- Start date
Polls are good for getting peoples opinions on certain things, NOT for changing the class. The only way a poll should be able to change a class is if it is commissioned by NHRA, like the current delay box in SS/Comp poll. Perhaps like Will said in another post, the growing popularity of this site will eventually make it a strong voice for the class, but only if the posts made are backed up by a person's name/car #. Unfortunately for you RacerRex, your opinion holds no water, b/c you don't put you name on it; therefore, as far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be counted, bc who knows who you are........... I only care to hear the opinions of my fellow racers, whom have a name that I can associate w/ a car, not from no namers.
the poll on real names clearly shows that most members feel they are not required.
so even though you feel my view and vote doesnt count the fact is they count as much as yours and the other members.
if only real names can vote on the .400 tree change your poll and say that.
this site has limited members and if you continue to pressure the no names and visitors the site will die.
you make a terrable moderater. how did you get the job.
so even though you feel my view and vote doesnt count the fact is they count as much as yours and the other members.
if only real names can vote on the .400 tree change your poll and say that.
this site has limited members and if you continue to pressure the no names and visitors the site will die.
you make a terrable moderater. how did you get the job.
Didn't say no namers couldn't post, just if this/or other polls are to be taken seriously, as it seems everyone wants it to be, a name would make more sense.
I'm sorry you feel that way RacerRex.
I'm sorry you feel that way RacerRex.
Not No!!!!!!
.400 full tree? Not no, but Hell no!!!!!!. And it won't stop red-lights. When a person in down on performance, they will take a shot. And the result of "missing" the tree is a red light. I was also told that Will was considering that members have to be a grade 3 or higher in comp to post on this forum. Is that true? Anyone could read the forum, but to post, you would have to be a current grade 3 in comp or higher to post. Maybe that is a good idea. What do you think Will?
.400 full tree? Not no, but Hell no!!!!!!. And it won't stop red-lights. When a person in down on performance, they will take a shot. And the result of "missing" the tree is a red light. I was also told that Will was considering that members have to be a grade 3 or higher in comp to post on this forum. Is that true? Anyone could read the forum, but to post, you would have to be a current grade 3 in comp or higher to post. Maybe that is a good idea. What do you think Will?
Steve, Rampy deserves luck as much as anybody. He works hard and walks away as to not kill his index some days. Some times your on your game and first round a nobody kills the tree and finds that extra power and sends you home. Some times it is just dumb luck. It was just Rampys day.
I see comp as a team effort including owners, drivers, fans and NHRA. To limit this site to just drivers shows that some think the world turns around them.
Keep the site open to all and figure out why many comp racers read this and won't post? The poll is only an opinion of a few until you get a real majority participating. I don't vote in the polls now as a fan. Then again maybe I should.
I see comp as a team effort including owners, drivers, fans and NHRA. To limit this site to just drivers shows that some think the world turns around them.
Keep the site open to all and figure out why many comp racers read this and won't post? The poll is only an opinion of a few until you get a real majority participating. I don't vote in the polls now as a fan. Then again maybe I should.Steve, I think Comp driving is the most skillful in all of drag racing. If the ball bounces your way, I am sure some day the luck Gods will take it back. Comp like life is not always perfect. If you understand comp then you see what happened. Not pretty but part of the game. I don't like stagging your car taking the green and backing out either but that is the present game. Changes in comp should come slow and carefully.
I would tend to agree partially with Rick.... I like the 4 tenths tree idea and if it gets the car counts up and generates more fan base, I am all for it. The guys who take a shot at the tree will still be index challenged and will still go red. This would also do away with 95% of the delay BS. As for a 3 grade point to post, WHY? This a forum right? What gives a 3 grade point racer more clout than the guy with 1 or? Does he work less or spend less? NO!
I like the 4 tenths tree idea and if it gets the car counts up and generates more fan base, I am all for it. The guys who take a shot at the tree will still be index challenged and will still go red. This would also do away with 95% of the delay BS. As for a 3 grade point to post, WHY? This a forum right? What gives a 3 grade point racer more clout than the guy with 1 or? Does he work less or spend less? NO!
anticipation vs quick car
how many of the red lights out there are of these categories.
1. just anticipating the light and missing
2. with blinder trying to hit the tree real hard due to performance disadvantage
3. with blinder trying to hit the tree w/ quick car and/or driver
4. quick reacting car that is hard to slow down.
a great deal of how much this would help/hurt the class has to do with what percentage of the redlights no. 1 type redlights. a quicker tree will not eliminate most of the anticipation redlights. if you look at pro tree categories like the alcohol classes, most of the redlights there are people taking a shot at the tree. occasionally you'l see someone drill the tree too hard and go an 'oh' red.
the next question is how many cars in the class if you put the quickest reacting set up you could have on the car, with a blinder, no anticipation, could go red just drilling the bottom bulb? are there enough cars in comp that may NEED the .500 full tree.
very good points on both sides of this. hopefully we can keep all discussions on this site civil.
this thread isn't lobbying for a rule change. sure some posters here are lobbying for a change. it's just about discussion and awareness of all the issues on both sides of the ball. racers on each side of the fence may here an argument from the other side that may turn that 'hmm, never thought of that' light on.
if this website truly is the root of all rule changes, well, contributions to the will hanna fund may help your class....
how many of the red lights out there are of these categories.
1. just anticipating the light and missing
2. with blinder trying to hit the tree real hard due to performance disadvantage
3. with blinder trying to hit the tree w/ quick car and/or driver
4. quick reacting car that is hard to slow down.
a great deal of how much this would help/hurt the class has to do with what percentage of the redlights no. 1 type redlights. a quicker tree will not eliminate most of the anticipation redlights. if you look at pro tree categories like the alcohol classes, most of the redlights there are people taking a shot at the tree. occasionally you'l see someone drill the tree too hard and go an 'oh' red.
the next question is how many cars in the class if you put the quickest reacting set up you could have on the car, with a blinder, no anticipation, could go red just drilling the bottom bulb? are there enough cars in comp that may NEED the .500 full tree.
very good points on both sides of this. hopefully we can keep all discussions on this site civil.
this thread isn't lobbying for a rule change. sure some posters here are lobbying for a change. it's just about discussion and awareness of all the issues on both sides of the ball. racers on each side of the fence may here an argument from the other side that may turn that 'hmm, never thought of that' light on.
if this website truly is the root of all rule changes, well, contributions to the will hanna fund may help your class....
2007 redlights
2007 Comp National Event redlights
Group A: (-.001 to -.020)
Group B: (-.021 to -.030)
Group C: (-.031 to -.100)
Group D: (-.101 to -.500)
Redlights by group-
Phoenix:
A: 1, B: 0, C: 2, D: 1
Total: 4
Gainesville:
A: 3, B: 1, C: 3, D: 3
Total: 10
Houston:
A: 7, B: 0, C: 4, D: 4
Total: 15
Belle Rose:
A: 4, B: 0, C: 1, D: 1
Total: 6
Las Vegas:
A: 4, B: 3, C: 1, D: 0
Total: 8
Atlanta:
A: 3, B: 0, C: 0, D: 7
Total: 11
St. Louis
A: 5, B: 2, C: 4, D: 4
Total: 15
Year to date totals
Type A (-.001 to -.020): 27
Type B (-.021 to -.030): 6
Type C (-.031 to -.100): 15
Type D (-.101 to -.500): 21
Total Redlights: 69
A full Comp field will have 31 pairs race each other. After 7 races, we have had 217 matchups
Redlights have comprised 32% of the elimination rounds this year. Essentially 1 in 3 pairs redlight.
Of the 69 redlights:
Type A: 39% (12% overall runs)
Type B: 7% (3%)
Type C: 22% (7%)
Type D: 30% (10%)
An argument could be made nearly all of those Type A redlights could go away with the .400 full tree. At least some of the Type B's could go away. That's nearly half the redlights.
On the other side of the spectrum, how many of you drivers have been late because you've been afraid to push the tree and go red?
Playing the other side of the fence, are the above numbers worth the change?
What's your thoughts of the numbers?
2007 Comp National Event redlights
Group A: (-.001 to -.020)
Group B: (-.021 to -.030)
Group C: (-.031 to -.100)
Group D: (-.101 to -.500)
Redlights by group-
Phoenix:
A: 1, B: 0, C: 2, D: 1
Total: 4
Gainesville:
A: 3, B: 1, C: 3, D: 3
Total: 10
Houston:
A: 7, B: 0, C: 4, D: 4
Total: 15
Belle Rose:
A: 4, B: 0, C: 1, D: 1
Total: 6
Las Vegas:
A: 4, B: 3, C: 1, D: 0
Total: 8
Atlanta:
A: 3, B: 0, C: 0, D: 7
Total: 11
St. Louis
A: 5, B: 2, C: 4, D: 4
Total: 15
Year to date totals
Type A (-.001 to -.020): 27
Type B (-.021 to -.030): 6
Type C (-.031 to -.100): 15
Type D (-.101 to -.500): 21
Total Redlights: 69
A full Comp field will have 31 pairs race each other. After 7 races, we have had 217 matchups
Redlights have comprised 32% of the elimination rounds this year. Essentially 1 in 3 pairs redlight.
Of the 69 redlights:
Type A: 39% (12% overall runs)
Type B: 7% (3%)
Type C: 22% (7%)
Type D: 30% (10%)
An argument could be made nearly all of those Type A redlights could go away with the .400 full tree. At least some of the Type B's could go away. That's nearly half the redlights.
On the other side of the spectrum, how many of you drivers have been late because you've been afraid to push the tree and go red?
Playing the other side of the fence, are the above numbers worth the change?
What's your thoughts of the numbers?
I don't buy that the .400 full tree will eliminate the need for a delay type switch and you will still see red-lights. Let's say that there is someone that is out in s/s or comp leaving off the top bulb, which I do realize that you are NOT supposed to be doing. At present, they would need about 1.000 delay. With a .400 tree, now they only need .900 delay. They already make a switch with .400 in it. How long is it going to take for someone to come out with a .900 switch? I find it very hard to believe that racers can't slow their car's reaction time down to stop red lights with the .500 tree. Is it because they don't want to? People are still going to take shots at the tree.
To answer you question Will, I think a lot of cars will have trouble going .050 on the .400 full tree, especially bodies cars. And nice job on the stats, very nice.
Will, good post. The stats speak for themself bringing the facts to the table. Nearly all the red lights in group A would be eliminated by changing to the .400 tree. That is an obviousy assumption I hope everyone can agree on. The truth to the matter is comp is a performance based class and this includes reaction time. With that said, why are we trying to SLOW our reaction times down? Instead of investing the money in buttons, valve bodies, short linkages, and not to mention all the testing time, doesn't it seem logical to invest in trying to speed the reaction time up? The current rules are making teams slow their cars down and their reaction times down. Obviously there is a major red light problem and the stats show the majority of this can be corrected by adjusting the tree delay to .400. Everyone will be placed under the same rules which means there is a level playing field. Can anyone(ANYONE) suggest a reason this will hurt our class just to try it out? Maybe NHRA can test the theory at races that don't reward divisional or national points such as national opens. This would give feedback from drivers and a database of real world reaction times proving if the idea is worth merit.
I hate to include myself within this topic, and promised myself that I wouldn't. I will agree that the .400 pro-tree idea DOES have its special benefits. However, after much conversation with other racers in the comp pits, I have decided to change my mind given their reasons and concerns on the issue.
Racers posed different issues, and some were simple issues, such as figuring out when to get on the two-step with a clutch car, and making appropriate adjustments overall in order to get a decent light on a pro-tree. After discussing it even more, we decided that it just wouldn't work. For the few that it helps, it just isn't worth it due to the fact that it negatively affects many other racers.
I'm all about being fair. Therefore, to be fair on this issue, I would have to say that the idea of a .400 pro-tree WILL be unfair to many racers who oppose it, whether it be for technical or opinionated reasons, it's just unfair.
Have a nice day!
Racers posed different issues, and some were simple issues, such as figuring out when to get on the two-step with a clutch car, and making appropriate adjustments overall in order to get a decent light on a pro-tree. After discussing it even more, we decided that it just wouldn't work. For the few that it helps, it just isn't worth it due to the fact that it negatively affects many other racers.
I'm all about being fair. Therefore, to be fair on this issue, I would have to say that the idea of a .400 pro-tree WILL be unfair to many racers who oppose it, whether it be for technical or opinionated reasons, it's just unfair.
Have a nice day!
Jeremy,Jeremy Tanksley said:I hate to include myself within this topic, and promised myself that I wouldn't. I will agree that the .400 pro-tree idea DOES have its special benefits. However, after much conversation with other racers in the comp pits, I have decided to change my mind given their reasons and concerns on the issue.
Racers posed different issues, and some were simple issues, such as figuring out when to get on the two-step with a clutch car, and making appropriate adjustments overall in order to get a decent light on a pro-tree. After discussing it even more, we decided that it just wouldn't work. For the few that it helps, it just isn't worth it due to the fact that it negatively affects many other racers.
I'm all about being fair. Therefore, to be fair on this issue, I would have to say that the idea of a .400 pro-tree WILL be unfair to many racers who oppose it, whether it be for technical or opinionated reasons, it's just unfair.
Have a nice day!
The poll in question is for a .400 full tree, not a .400 pro tree. But I personally still am against it.
Yes it was a typo, which is really easy to do. And yes, it was a .4 "FULL" tree that was discussed with other racers in the comp pits, not a pro-tree. A pro-tree is MOST DEFINITELY out of the question. And yes, I DO know the difference thankyou. Thanks for letting me know about my typo before I looked confused in front of everyone. LOL Here is the fixed version:
I hate to include myself within this topic, and promised myself that I wouldn't. I will agree that the .400 FULL-tree idea DOES have its special benefits. However, after much conversation with other racers in the comp pits, I have decided to change my mind given their reasons and concerns on the issue.
Racers posed different issues, and some were simple issues, such as figuring out when to get on the two-step with a clutch car, and making appropriate adjustments overall in order to get a decent light on a FULL-tree. After discussing it even more, we decided that it just wouldn't work. For the few that it helps, it just isn't worth it due to the fact that it negatively affects many other racers.
I'm all about being fair. Therefore, to be fair on this issue, I would have to say that the idea of a .400 FULL-tree WILL be unfair to many racers who oppose it, whether it be for technical or opinionated reasons, it's just unfair.
Have a nice day!
I hate to include myself within this topic, and promised myself that I wouldn't. I will agree that the .400 FULL-tree idea DOES have its special benefits. However, after much conversation with other racers in the comp pits, I have decided to change my mind given their reasons and concerns on the issue.
Racers posed different issues, and some were simple issues, such as figuring out when to get on the two-step with a clutch car, and making appropriate adjustments overall in order to get a decent light on a FULL-tree. After discussing it even more, we decided that it just wouldn't work. For the few that it helps, it just isn't worth it due to the fact that it negatively affects many other racers.
I'm all about being fair. Therefore, to be fair on this issue, I would have to say that the idea of a .400 FULL-tree WILL be unfair to many racers who oppose it, whether it be for technical or opinionated reasons, it's just unfair.
Have a nice day!
Last edited:
