questions concerning christmas tree

[Alan Roehrich]

Once again, the slow car and the fast car each have advantages.

The slow car spends less time "on the chip" or "on the converter".
The slow car driver has less time in which to anticipate the light.
The slow car is less sensitive to track prep.
The slow car gets a clean tree.

The fast car is less affected by weather.
The fast car almost always has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The fast car is easier to get to react.
The fast car, as it stands, has the "first red light" rule.

They each have disadvantages.

The slow car is harder to get to react.
The slow car is more affected by weather.
The slow car almost never has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The slow car often has less options at the finish line.

The fast car does not get a clean tree.
The fast car spends more time on the chip and/or on the converter.
The fast car has more time to anticipate the light.
The fast car is far more sensitive to track prep.

Bill,
I always loved it when the so called "smart people" tell everybody else they "don't understand how they're getting screwed", and the "smart people" are "there to help them". Do you really think you are that much smarter than everyone else? Really? I think Stock and Super Stock racers understand how the "first or worst" rule works as it stands. Just about every one of them I've ever met understand the rules just fine, and they're pretty smart people.

The race with Fred Suiter was not heads up, and I didn't get screwed out of a damned thing. I went red, I screwed up and lost the race.

The fact that you didn't get the "WD-40 on the starting line" comment shows you didn't understand it, and you do not grasp the concept at all. Bad track prep is getting VERY common. In fact, it always has been. I recently attended one race where at least a dozen fast cars never had a prayer, they couldn't get down the track. Every one of them was beaten by a slower car that did not have the disadvantage of being sensitive to track prep.

Hell, right now there's a thread about track prep at an NHRA National Event. So yes, the slow cars have an advantage the fast cars do not enjoy, are you going to fix that? If not, how do you justify "fixing" the red light rule, but not "fixing" the track prep problems? Well, in your case, you do not care, because you want to "fix" things, because you think you are smarter than the rest of the racers, they don't "know they're getting screwed". You do not understand balance. Balance is where there are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and they cancel each other out as close as possible, achieving some level of balance. Which is what we have now.

If slow cars are getting screwed so bad, why do people keep building them? If slow cars are getting screwed so bad, why are people who can run A or AA running B, C, or D? Because there are advantages to being slower, just like there are advantages to being faster. Because they are smart, a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

As to unintended consequences, well, since you can't seem to understand that some level of balance exists as things stand right now (if the rule was killing slower cars, they'd all quit) then you'll never grasp the concept that changing the balance is a consequence. Of course, I'm giving you credit for not intending to screw up the balance. Maybe I'm being too generous.

I really do find it amusing, but not at all surprising, that you seem to think you are so much smarter than all of the rest of the racers, that you know "they're getting screwed" but they don't know or understand they are, or how and why they are.

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Once again, the slow car and the fast car each have advantages.

The slow car spends less time "on the chip" or "on the converter".
The slow car driver has less time in which to anticipate the light.
The slow car is less sensitive to track prep.
The slow car gets a clean tree.

The fast car is less affected by weather.
The fast car almost always has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The fast car is easier to get to react.
The fast car, as it stands, has the "first red light" rule.

They each have disadvantages.

The slow car is harder to get to react.
The slow car is more affected by weather.
The slow car almost never has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The slow car often has less options at the finish line.

The fast car does not get a clean tree.
The fast car spends more time on the chip and/or on the converter.
The fast car has more time to anticipate the light.
The fast car is far more sensitive to track prep.

Bill,
I always loved it when the so called "smart people" tell everybody else they "don't understand how they're getting screwed", and the "smart people" are "there to help them". Do you really think you are that much smarter than everyone else? Really? I think Stock and Super Stock racers understand how the "first or worst" rule works as it stands. Just about every one of them I've ever met understand the rules just fine, and they're pretty smart people.

The race with Fred Suiter was not heads up, and I didn't get screwed out of a damned thing. I went red, I screwed up and lost the race.

The fact that you didn't get the "WD-40 on the starting line" comment shows you didn't understand it, and you do not grasp the concept at all. Bad track prep is getting VERY common. In fact, it always has been. I recently attended one race where at least a dozen fast cars never had a prayer, they couldn't get down the track. Every one of them was beaten by a slower car that did not have the disadvantage of being sensitive to track prep.

Hell, right now there's a thread about track prep at an NHRA National Event. So yes, the slow cars have an advantage the fast cars do not enjoy, are you going to fix that? If not, how do you justify "fixing" the red light rule, but not "fixing" the track prep problems? Well, in your case, you do not care, because you want to "fix" things, because you think you are smarter than the rest of the racers, they don't "know they're getting screwed". You do not understand balance. Balance is where there are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and they cancel each other out as close as possible, achieving some level of balance. Which is what we have now.

If slow cars are getting screwed so bad, why do people keep building them? If slow cars are getting screwed so bad, why are people who can run A or AA running B, C, or D? Because there are advantages to being slower, just like there are advantages to being faster. Because they are smart, a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

As to unintended consequences, well, since you can't seem to understand that some level of balance exists as things stand right now (if the rule was killing slower cars, they'd all quit) then you'll never grasp the concept that changing the balance is a consequence. Of course, I'm giving you credit for not intending to screw up the balance. Maybe I'm being too generous.

I really do find it amusing, but not at all surprising, that you seem to think you are so much smarter than all of the rest of the racers, that you know "they're getting screwed" but they don't know or understand they are, or how and why they are.

All that BABBLE and you never answered Mr.Dedman's question............

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

All that BABBLE and you never answered Mr.Dedman's question............

Got anything at all of any consequence to say? I explained things quite clearly. The fact that you don't get it speaks volumes.

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Got anything at all of any consequence to say? I explained things quite clearly. The fact that you don't get it speaks volumes.

You babbled a lot about "clean tree" and "on the chip" BUT AVOIDED ANSWERING THE QUESTION !!

AND NEVER LISTED THE "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES"........SPEAKS VOLUMES ALL RIGHT !!

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

You babbled a lot about "clean tree" and "on the chip" BUT AVOIDED ANSWERING THE QUESTION !!

Just because you cannot read and comprehend doesn't mean I didn't make things clear.

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by alan roehrich

just because you cannot read and comprehend doesn't mean i didn't make things clear.

could you explain the "unintended consequences" ..????

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

could you explain the "unintended consequences" ..????

I did. Try reading. I'll give you a clue. It has something to do with changing the balance.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Once again, the slow car and the fast car each have advantages.

The slow car spends less time "on the chip" or "on the converter".
The slow car driver has less time in which to anticipate the light.
The slow car is less sensitive to track prep.
The slow car gets a clean tree.

The fast car is less affected by weather.
The fast car almost always has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The fast car is easier to get to react.
The fast car, as it stands, has the "first red light" rule.

They each have disadvantages.

The slow car is harder to get to react.
The slow car is more affected by weather.
The slow car almost never has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The slow car often has less options at the finish line.

The fast car does not get a clean tree.
The fast car spends more time on the chip and/or on the converter.
The fast car has more time to anticipate the light.
The fast car is far more sensitive to track prep.

Bill,
I always loved it when the so called "smart people" tell everybody else they "don't understand how they're getting screwed", and the "smart people" are "there to help them". Do you really think you are that much smarter than everyone else? Really? I think Stock and Super Stock racers understand how the "first or worst" rule works as it stands. Just about every one of them I've ever met understand the rules just fine, and they're pretty smart people.

The race with Fred Suiter was not heads up, and I didn't get screwed out of a damned thing. I went red, I screwed up and lost the race.

The fact that you didn't get the "WD-40 on the starting line" comment shows you didn't understand it, and you do not grasp the concept at all. Bad track prep is getting VERY common. In fact, it always has been. I recently attended one race where at least a dozen fast cars never had a prayer, they couldn't get down the track. Every one of them was beaten by a slower car that did not have the disadvantage of being sensitive to track prep.

Hell, right now there's a thread about track prep at an NHRA National Event. So yes, the slow cars have an advantage the fast cars do not enjoy, are you going to fix that? If not, how do you justify "fixing" the red light rule, but not "fixing" the track prep problems? Well, in your case, you do not care, because you want to "fix" things, because you think you are smarter than the rest of the racers, they don't "know they're getting screwed". You do not understand balance. Balance is where there are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and they cancel each other out as close as possible, achieving some level of balance. Which is what we have now.

If slow cars are getting screwed so bad, why do people keep building them? If slow cars are getting screwed so bad, why are people who can run A or AA running B, C, or D? Because there are advantages to being slower, just like there are advantages to being faster. Because they are smart, a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

As to unintended consequences, well, since you can't seem to understand that some level of balance exists as things stand right now (if the rule was killing slower cars, they'd all quit) then you'll never grasp the concept that changing the balance is a consequence. Of course, I'm giving you credit for not intending to screw up the balance. Maybe I'm being too generous.

I really do find it amusing, but not at all surprising, that you seem to think you are so much smarter than all of the rest of the racers, that you know "they're getting screwed" but they don't know or understand they are, or how and why they are.

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

ALAN said:
>>>"The slow car spends less time "on the chip" or "on the converter".
The slow car driver has less time in which to anticipate the light.
The slow car is less sensitive to track prep.
The slow car gets a clean tree."

Bill said:
"And, which of these are the result of rules/legislation??? NONE None of these scenarios were created by NHRA to "level the playing field..."

Alan said:
"The fast car is less affected by weather.
The fast car almost always has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The fast car is easier to get to react.
The fast car, as it stands, has the "first red light" rule."

Bill said,
"And, which of these are the result of deliberately enacted rules/legislation??? NONE None of these scenarios were created by NHRA to "level the playing field.." The first red light rule was born by default; no options, at the time."

Alann said,
"The slow car is harder to get to react.
The slow car is more affected by weather.
The slow car almost never has his opponent and the finish line in the same field of vision.
The slow car often has less options at the finish line.

The fast car does not get a clean tree.
The fast car spends more time on the chip and/or on the converter.
The fast car has more time to anticipate the light.
The fast car is far more sensitive to track prep."


"And, which of these are the result of deliberately enacted rules/legislation??? NONE None of these scenarios were created by NHRA to "level the playing field..""

You simply CANNOT jockey rules around to give an advantage to this car, or that car, because, as I said before, you cannot quantify changes like that; you have no way of knowing HOW MUCH it helps one car, or hinders another.... so, the rules have to be the same for everybody, otherwise, where would this sort of thing end??? It wouldn't..."

Bill also said,
"Rules have to be the same for everybody.... and....
They're not, in the first red light case. The last car to leave can benefit from something the first car to leave NEVER can; the removal from red light jeopardy by a red light in the other lane. Doesn't matter if it's an A car racing a B, or a V car racing a W... the effect is the same. Screw job, if the first car bulbs, and the last car to leave has a worse infraction, which is always a possibility.

Alan wrote:
>>>"Bill,
I always loved it when the so called "smart people" tell everybody else they "don't understand how they're getting screwed", and the "smart people" are "there to help them". Do you really think you are that much smarter than everyone else? Really? I think Stock and Super Stock racers understand how the "first or worst" rule works as it stands. Just about every one of them I've ever met understand the rules just fine, and they're pretty smart people."

Bill wrote;
"You aparently don't read much of what I write, to try to demonize me with comments like, "Do you really think you are that much smarter than everyone else?"

I have commented on this subject frequently, saying things like "I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer," and "someone smarter than me, (not too hard to do)", and I've commented at least three times about how long it took for ME to understand the vagaries of this "first red light rule"/"worse red light" business.

Does that sound like someone who thinks he's smart??

One more time: This worse red light rule is in no way my creation. I had nothing to do with its genesis. It took several explanations, over about a 2-month period, for me to fully understand what it was, how it worked, and WHY it needed to be implemented. I resisited for a long time,because I was brainwashed by a system I'd been using since 1963 (and, this was in the nineties!)


Yet, because I said there are people who don't fully understand it, you want to make it sound like I am insulting them, and making myself sound like I'm "smarter" than they are.

I said no such thing, and your tactic of putting words in my mouth to that effect, will be recognized for what it is... trying to shift the focus from the subject at hand, to your attampt to discredit my credibility by making me a bad guy.... someone who thinks he's smarter than the othrer people on this forum.
Quit putting words in my mouth; you can't find those words in any of my posts.

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

It is said that:
Great minds talk about ideas.

Lesser minds, talk about things.

Small minds talk about people.


RE: "The race with Fred Suiter was not heads up, and I didn't get screwed out of a damned thing. I went red, I screwed up and lost the race.

What happened to Fred's chance to go red??????????? Oh; he got a free ride to the next round because of something you did, but if he'd done the same thing you did, only a thousandth worse, YOU wouldn't have been the winner, anyway, as things stand.

That's not getting screwed? What would you call it, when the software exists to compare your light to his, and award the win to the car wth the lesser infraction (yeah; like a breakout.)???
No chance of that as things stand; you got screwed by the system not putting him in the same jeopardy you had to face. Your screwing came courtesy of an antiquated software system that gave Fred the advantage. But, your good-hearted nature thinks that' just fine... What a guy!!!

You said, " Balance is where there are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and they cancel each other out as close as possible, achieving some level of balance. Which is what we have now."

You still think we have "BALANCE," with a PROVEN, 5 - to-1 disparity in wins between the top half of the field and the lower half, over a one year period?? (2009)

How bad would that have to get before you thought it was "OUT OF BALANCE???"

Tell me; I'm vary curious as to what your idea of a desirable "balance" number might be. And, why....