questions concerning christmas tree

[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]

Alan,

are you talking about the "balance" that manifests itself in the great bulk of the cars that win Stock Eliminator being cars above the halfway point (cars from AA to K/S), compared with L/S through W/S?

Would you tell me what percentage of Eliminator wins this year were awarded to the top half (AA-K) vs. L through W/S?

I'll look it up and let uou know. Five'll get you ten that what you call "balance" is not very balanced at all...

I'll get back to you....

Wanna take that bet?????????? I'll bet you ten dollars to your five that at LEAST 60-percent of the Stock Elminator Eliminator winners this year at national events were in the top half of the field.

How about it.... we'll see how your "balance" is supported by facts..

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Alan,

are you talking about the "balance" that manifests itself in the great bulk of the cars that win Stock Eliminator being cars above the halfway point (cars from AA to K/S), compared with L/S through W/S?

Would you tell me what percentage of Eliminator wins this year were awarded to the top half (AA-K) vs. L through W/S?

I'll look it up and let uou know. Five'll get you ten that what you call "balance" is not very balanced at all...

I'll get back to you....

Wanna take that bet?????????? I'll bet you ten dollars to your five that at LEAST 60-percent of the Stock Elminator Eliminator winners this year at national events were in the top half of the field.

How about it.... we'll see how your "balance" is supported by facts..

Alan,stop right now and let these two go back to their steady diet of watching Sponge Bob Square Pants.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Alan,

are you talking about the "balance" that manifests itself in the great bulk of the cars that win Stock Eliminator being cars above the halfway point (cars from AA to K/S), compared with L/S through W/S?

Would you tell me what percentage of Eliminator wins this year were awarded to the top half (AA-K) vs. L through W/S?

I'll look it up and let uou know. Five'll get you ten that what you call "balance" is not very balanced at all...

I'll get back to you....

Wanna take that bet?????????? I'll bet you ten dollars to your five that at LEAST 60-percent of the Stock Elminator Eliminator winners this year at national events were in the top half of the field.

How about it.... we'll see how your "balance" is supported by facts..

Bill,
NOW I can see where you THINK you are going. You are obviously assuming it is because of the red light rule that a lot of winners race fast cars, and you'd like to take this advantage away from guys like Bertozzi, Biondo, Fletcher, and others.

The distribution of wins has NOTHING to do with the red light rule. And nothing to do with the red light rule, either.

The distribution of wins has a lot more to do with who races a car rather than how fast the car is. Winners, like Lang, Fetch, Davis, Kidar, Faul, and others who drive "mid class" cars, get more seat time by accident in a year than the majority of the rest of racers do over a life time.

Incidentally, I'd be willing to bet that Lang, Fetch, Davis, Faul and Kidar could probably get A, B or C rides. In fact all of them but Kidar could do it without changing cars, they'd just change engines. If the red light rule is the great evil you proclaim it to be, why don't they do that? Maybe they just aren't smart like you?

Thank you for exposing your misguided agenda Bill, now that I see it for what it truly is, I see there is no need to further discuss it with you, as I can now see clearly your goal is merely to try to take something from people you see as the "haves", and give it to those you see as the "have nots". Perhaps you should seek elected office, your ideas seem to be all the rage right now.

[bill dedman]

Alan wrote:
"The distribution of wins has NOTHING to do with the red light rule. And nothing to do with the red light rule, either."

Alan, is this from the departmenrt of redundancy department???????

[442OLDS]

Ever since this topic has become such a "HOT" one,it seems as though the "double redights" are happening even more.I've only experienced it once or twice in over 25 years of racing.This certainly can change the final outcome of a drag race.Here is another example:



Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed
7980 Steve Wann 2 Jimmy DeFrank
E3 -0.003 9.928 132.67 ****WINNER**** -0.006 8.873 138.07
SS/HA Dial: 9.98 (+/-): -0.052 SS/BS Dial: 8.78 (+/-): 0.093
Prior rounds:
E2 (D Durham ) 0.025 10.064 0.154 (B Cunningham) 0.038 8.851 0.071
E1 (J Taylor ) 0.000 9.960 -0.020 (J Larkin ) 0.063 8.811 -0.009
Qualified: #22 9.949 -0.951 #14 8.911 -1.039

Jimmy DeFrank wins on a red light. He races Mason next round.

[bill dedman]

Gary,
There was 1.2 sconds between those lights....
DeFrank probably saw the win light in his lane and left.... Not a reaction time based on a real "leave..."

My 2-cents....

[bill dedman]

QUOTE=Alan Roehrich;151451]I did. Try reading. I'll give you a clue. It has something to do with changing the balance.[/QUOTE]

What "balance" are you referring to; one that would spread wins evenly around the classes?
That would be sportsmanlike. Give everyone the same chance.

What other kind of "balance" could you be talking about?

Here is the "balance" we now have:

Stock Eliminator wins, 2009 season, 24 races contested:

AA/S through K/Stock: TWENTY WINNERS
L/S through W/S: FOUR WINNERS

That's a 500-percent disparity. FIVE-HUNDRED PERCENT!!!

Stock Eliminator WINNERS, 2009, by class:

AA-3
A-3
B-1
C-1
D-3
E-3
F-2
G-1
H-3
I-0
J--0
K-0
total = 20
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++
L--0
M-2
N-1
O-0
P-0
Q-1
R-0
T-0
U-0
V-0
W-0
total = 4

Is this what you call "BALANCE"??????

AND, YOU"RE CONCERNED ABOUT UPSETTING THIS "BALANCE" by changing a rule that, by your own admission, takes away the "faster car advantage???" RE: "you'd like to take this advantage away from guys like Bertozzi, Biondo, Fletcher, and others."

I don't think ANYONE deserves an advantage. YOU obviously do...
Maybe you'd like to explain the logic behind that.




Alan wrote:
>>>"Thank you for exposing your misguided agenda Bill, now that I see it for what it truly is, I see there is no need to further discuss it with you, as I can now see clearly your goal is merely to try to take something from people you see as the "haves", and give it to those you see as the "have nots". Perhaps you should seek elected office, your ideas seem to be all the rage right now.[/QUOTE]

So, this is your latest "KILL THE MESSENGER" ploy.... Because you think you've discovered a nefarious motive in my "agenda," you can take this opportunity to cop out, and choose not to discuss it further, since you have put yourself between a rock and a hard place in suggesting that this rule change might upset the "BALANCE," but then realizing that there IS no "balance" (A FIVEHUNDRED PERCENT DISPARITY????) you want to end the discussion... LOL!

Have you yet figured this system out to the point that you understand that removing a car from red light jeopardy is an advantage that can not be repaid by the second-to-leave car????

There's no "balance" there; the second car to leave can receive immunity from a red light (if the first car bulbs). That can never happen to the first car to leave.

Once again; where's the other side of that coin, and why don't you answer the question????????