.400 Full Tree: Yes/No

.400 FULL tree in Comp?


  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
I have to agree with Craig.. a 400 tree will just be the same but different.. people will still push the tree and people will still red light.. On a system with a full tree, where you pick your spot a leave, if you are Red lighting or cutting bad lights it's no bodies fault but your own. Lets stop trying to change everything to suit those that want to make racing easier for themselves.. Racing isn't easy if it were everyone would do it. And personally that is the satisfaction in it..
 
Last edited:
.450?

C Tanksley brought up a good point in the other thread

Human nature makes us lean towards nice, clean even numbers, hence .500 or .400.

What would the consensus be on 'splitting the difference' and making the gap between the bulbs .450???
 
The fact of the matter is comp is an evolving class. Cars are reacting MUCH faster today than they did years ago when the .500 full tree was standardized. A day will come when the cars are too fast and the reaction times are as well. If the rules don't evolve with the cars, one day the class will suffer. It's already taken a 180 degree turn from what it was intended for.
 
will, a fantastic job on the stats. thank you for spending you time digging through all the info to bring them to us.

just a quick question. we all know that pro stock cars do not run any type of delay, or switch. look at the reaction times of pro stock cars leaving as soon as they see yellow in any bulb. red lights in pro stock are not common, but they do happen. i wonder what the average reaction time of pro stock is this year? for a driver using blinders, leaving as soon as you see yellow on the bottom bulb of a .400 full tree would be the same as leaving off a pro tree. i feel that a look into the reaction times of pro stock might shed some light on the validity of this discussion.
 
There have been 210 competition(elimination) runs in pro stock this year. Out of those 210 runs there have been 14 redlights. The average reaction time is .037 from the first 7 races.

If we take a look at comp this last weekend in St Louis there was 62 competition runs and 15 redlights. More redlights in nearly 1/4th the amount of runs down the racetrack....

Just the facts, interept them how you wish.
 
i thank you for going digging up the facts. very interesting.

wow. unfortunatly, i have to say that when nhra goes to a spec button, that number of red lights is going to go way up. it is a shame to see which way the class is headed.
 
The problem I see comparing a pro tree red light/average reaction time is the heads up factor. The staggered start of index racing can't be compared in my opinion.:rolleyes:
 
Rick Troutner said:
The problem I see comparing a pro tree red light/average reaction time is the heads up factor. The staggered start of index racing can't be compared in my opinion.:rolleyes:

Have you seen the incremental run sheets from qualifying recently? I have ran 3 races this year utilizing the standard(non-staggered) tree and there are just as many, probably more red lights in qualifying than in eliminations. Maybe we should make a poll asking the current drivers if they "back down" or try and slow their reaction time down from qualifying to eliminations. If I was a betting man, I'd say most all drivers will tell you they are hesistant first round because the chances of red lighting are extremely high....I just suggest going to look at run sheets in qualifying where both cars are leaving at the same time, and you will see the red light trend there as well.
 
Staggered/Non Staggered, either way, the bottom bulb is the bottom bulb. You let go before you see it come on, its RED. I understand the concerns being voiced on this thread and some valid points are being made, but........ According to the stats, 1/3 of all runs result in red lights, but that still leaves 2/3 of the runs that don't. So 33% of the racers can't figure out how to cut a light, so change everything up for the other 67%? That math doesn't make sense to me.
 
Easier for who?

Steve,

Your quote of "Let's stop trying to change everything to suit those that want to make racing easier for themselves" cannot and must not be the underlying reason this discussion is being tabled. I refuse to believe that every single person participating on this forum has some alterior agenda that would benefit them only. Will's excellent job of putting the red light stats together, makes for a rather clear case of trying to reduce red lights is important to the class as a whole....period. If it reduces them at all it is a step in the right direction and if you are a "bottom bulb" Comp racer then it will work. It won't help gambling on the tree, but it will definetly get rid of the .480 reds we see now and that is a good thing for everyone. Not trying it is certainly not going to reduce .480 red lights. It would also mean the faster car is on the chip for less time and more flat out racing will result. We are not changing everything....we are changing the timing between bulbs....period.
 
.400 Tree of any kind is better than the .500 full for comp.

Remember my post in the past on the split tree..... .400 pro or .500 full, take your pick. The reason that configuration exists and is in use, is that it works very well.

It appears that 2007 is following the same path as 2006 in the red light department. The stats I presented last fall are almost the same as Will's from this year. The data shows trends that are the same. The data shows the facts.

The cars of today move a lot faster than they did when the tree was introduced in the mid 1960s. That is the problem.....

I believe we should all use our real name, class, and car number.

Have a nice day.....

Ray Hadford A/ND 6577
 
Today....what are the facts?

Ray,

You were right when you posted this issue a few month's ago and you are right now. .500 light tree timing was right for the "times", things change and the cars are faster now...which requires an adjustment to the system in how we react...quicker by the car and the driver. Moving to a .400 full tree is not an earth shattering change...it simply keeps pace with technology. Did you ever think a F/A would break the 1.10 60' , well say hello to where we are today...and the path continues. I must say, this is an exsasperating problem....at least on this forum.....and I sincerely hope that all the time that has been put into the posts on this forum mean something....cause if it isn't real....I need to look at some other way to occupy my time...heaven knows I have devoted enough time to this discussion.
 
Rob every class has gotten faster and leaves harder than years past. Fuelers, Pro Stock, hell even Super Comp and super gas.. and NHRA has not changed anything for them.. If they aren't going to change the lights for Pro Stock bike they certainly aren't going to change them for us..
 
The fact is NHRA has changed the tree several times in the last 10 years and just recently for pro stock bikes!! #1 The use of LED bulbs # 2 the Black back ground behine the bulbs #3 bulb on time #4 the bulb intencity and #5 the use of pantie hose over the bulbs to lower the visibility for the PROS
( bikes ) !! All of these are a fact and the problems they cause us in a full tree system has been brought to there attention. The other problem now is the bulbs are harder to see because they blend into the back ground which makes it harder to find the bulb or pick out your spot on the bulb!

All said if you take away the adjustability we have they need to up date the tree timing as well.

Don Eberly Comp 26
 
I worry about the heavy small motor super mod cars being able to react to a .400 full tree or even my little altered.
 
I also find this interesting from the standpoint that nobody has talked about the transitions from a LED to a Standard Bulb at the National -vs-Divisional races. There is no delay build into the LED lights, yet there is a difference of reaction/transitions between the two lights.