Originally Posted by SStockDart (Post 257507)

If you can tell me what is fair or equitable about a rule that treats different compititors, differently, please do


Rhetorical question as you stated it. The rules do treat competitors equitably. Each have the opportunity to cut a good light and run the dial. The one with the best light and closer to the dial wins 100% of the time.

The first red light rule treats the first-to-leave cars differently from the way it treats second-to-leave cars, if the first-to-leave red light.

So you believe the slower cars deserve a "mulligan"?

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez (Post 257443)

I just checked the entry list for Englishtown (Stock is full) and I see I'm the slowest turtle in the pond.Bill,please get on the horn with NHRA and get that red light rule changed fast.If I happen to get lucky and go some rounds I want the playing field leveled so I can win my first "big" Wally.

Thanks
Ed

Originally Posted by Pvt Parts (Post 257562)

Good luck Ed. I was at Englishtown 3 different times, in three different cars, in 3 different classes in 2 different eliminators and was runner up all three times. Maybe you can nail it.

Originally Posted by Pvt Parts (Post 257567)

......the first 2 times I red lit in the final....

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez (Post 257443)

I just checked the entry list for Englishtown (Stock is full) and I see I'm the slowest turtle in the pond.

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 257462)

Just sidesteps the question, Why not change the unfair things we can?"

You seem to think this is an issue of unfairness. Others disagree, myself included. While you scream unfair, others claim the rule is fair. I again reiterate, once you red light, your out of play. Doesn't matter if your the fast car or slow car. Both have an equal opportunity to red light first. Not worst. First.

If you can tell me what is fair or equitable about a rule that treats different compititors, differently, please do.

Each of the two competitors have an equal shot at a .000 light or any variance up or down from that figure. The one that has a negative variance first, looses. Both competitors are treated equally. One chose to end the game first. He's out. The slower competitor could have built a faster car and been second to leave. That option is open to all competitors.
The second to leave has a multitude of other distractions that the first to leave did not have to deal with. That may also be unfair but again, was known when the participant entered his first race.

The first red light rule treats the first-to-leave cars differently from the way it treats second-to-leave cars, if the first-to-leave red lights.

Once the first party red lights, the game is over. The way the remaining participant is treated is of no consequence because the first red lighting party ended the game by his own actions.


No reason to do that.

That's your opinion.


The only reason they do it that way, now, is that when the system was created, they had no alternative. Now, they do.

They may, but choose not to. And it is of course, their game. Based on conversations with an NHRA official, I believe NHRA (and presumably IHRA), think as I do. Once the red light is activated, the game is over for that participant.

NHRA's "bottom line" is no legitimate reason to maintain an unfair rule.

Again, your analogy is that this is an issue of fairness. I have previously scripted a scenario which showed how and why giving incentives to racers to continuously produce quicker ET's would help NHRA with their bottom line. If NHRA is unable to maintain their bottom line, they fail to exist. I, for one, would like to see NHRA remain in business. I do not think you feel the same way. But maybe I'm wrong.

Like I said, "If you can tell me what is fair or equitable about a rule that treats different compititors, differently, please do."

Each participant has the same rule book to review before entering the first race. Each is given equal opportunity to red light. Each is given equal opportunity to cut a .000 reaction time and predict to .00 their ET. Either participant can win or loose based on their own actions.

I will bet a dollar to a donut, you can't , and your response will be ANYTHING BUT, a rational, logical, reasonable answer to that question.

You have seen my responses and choose not to accept them are reasonable. That is your prerogative. That would indicate negotiations are at an impasse and little to nothing will move this argument forward to either side.


How about it, Jeff???

Here's a picture of Bracket racer, Bill Dedman, "not racing"...

Yes, I'm driving the brown Mopar, and yes, I got there first.

Good. I'm glad you bracket race and hope you enjoy the fruits of your labor. However, that is where your arguments need to be, in the bracket racer community. You have stated you have ZERO intention of racing in S/SS class so I would say your position has NOTHING to do with those that choose to make S/SS racing the venue of choice. Your past accomplishments have no relevance especially given your statement that you will NEVER race S/SS again in any capacity. Your argument that a change in S/SS red light rule will affect Bracket racing is not acceptable to me. If you have such a good cause, take it to the bracket race community. Or have you? What was the result? Ideally, you would petition NHRA for this change. I'm amazed you have not, given your passion. If you have not, why not? Is this your 15 minutes of fame and you want it on these pages for that reason? I can not imagine having such a passion over something and letting it progress no further than a web site. Or are you just wanting somebody else to carry this forward?