worst red light debate, again!

[Alan Roehrich]

It's so unfair it's killed drag racing, and people have been quitting over that one rule for decades. It's so important that the very life of drag racing depends on that, and that alone.



It wouldn't make a difference to me, no matter what I drive, although I do have some things in the works for an A/SA car.

I've raced under the same rules for about 3 decades, give or take, and it seems like a reasonable balance to me, even when I go red first, but the other guy is more red than I am.

If I go red, I go red, if I do it first, shame on me, even if the other guy was worse. I don't care, I blame every loss on the guy I look at in the mirror when I brush my teeth. If I lost, I didn't do everything better than the guy in the other lane, or at least I didn't do enough things better than he did.

[Ed Wright]

Your wasting your time Alan. This gets him attention he would not get otherwise.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

It's so unfair it's killed drag racing, and people have been quitting over that one rule for decades. It's so important that the very life of drag racing depends on that, and that alone.



It wouldn't make a difference to me, no matter what I drive, although I do have some things in the works for an A/SA car.

I've raced under the same rules for about 3 decades, give or take, and it seems like a reasonable balance to me, even when I go red first, but the other guy is more red than I am.

If I go red, I go red, if I do it first, shame on me, even if the other guy was worse. I don't care, I blame every loss on the guy I look at in the mirror when I brush my teeth. If I lost, I didn't do everything better than the guy in the other lane, or at least I didn't do enough things better than he did.

"If I go red, I go red, if I do it first, shame on me, even if the other guy was worse."

If you were in a car with a slower handicap(dial-in), what choice did you have????

YOU HAD NO CHOICE. If you redlight, it will ALWAYS be "first" if you are racing a quicker-handicapped car.

JEASUS...

Talk about circular logic...

Do you feel the same way about breakouts? I kind doubt it. Same deal... different rule.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I've raced under the same rules for about 3 decades, give or take, and it seems like a reasonable balance to me, even when I go red first, but the other guy is more red than I am.

If I go red, I go red, if I do it first, shame on me, even if the other guy was worse. I don't care, I blame every loss on the guy I look at in the mirror when I brush my teeth. If I lost, I didn't do everything better than the guy in the other lane, or at least I didn't do enough things better than he did.

In regards to your contention, "it seems like a reasonable balance to me," ....

No, Alan, a "reasonable balance" would be if both cars were treated equally by the rules. They's not.

Also, you failed to answer the burning question in my last query, in reference to your comment about having lost to a "first red light situation."

I asked,"When did your opponent have HIS chance to red light???"

Why didn't you comment on that one-sided situation???

I think I know...
I think we BOTH know...

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

In regards to your contention, "it seems like a reasonable balance to me," ....

No, Alan, a "reasonable balance" would be if both cars were treated equally by the rules. They's not.

Also, you failed to answer the burning question in my last query, in reference to your comment about having lost to a "first red light situation."

I asked,"When did your opponent have HIS chance to red light???"

Why didn't you comment on that one-sided situation???

I think I know...
I think we BOTH know...

Your definition of a reasonable balance is not necessarily the same as mine. You look at ONE facet of the situation, I look at more than one, I look at the entire situation.

He didn't get a chance to red light, I screwed up, let the clutch fly too soon, and beat him to the red light. My mistake. I commented on the situation all I needed to. I screwed up first, I lost. Brutally honest, brutally simple.

That's right Bill you "think" you know. But you do not. Next time, don't try to be so condescending, and assume you know what I'm thinking, because I don't think you're quite capable of knowing what I'm thinking. You're quite capable of ASSUMING. And you AMUSE me. Good luck with that, see how far it takes you.

[Jeff Lee]

This may be a public forum but I don't see that allows people to make policy changes for something they are not even a member of.
Besides not even requiring an NHRA or IHRA membership on this board, a real name is not required. Neither is there an age requirement.
So conceivably, a 5 year old could get on here and start ranting about change that would suit him or her at the races.
Come to think of it, that may be happening on some of these posts...

Bill,
You never did come back with my comment on the "why" we have this red light rule. You only commented that "it couldn't be". I provided a perfectly good, rational argument of the "why" yet you seem to have buried it and can not or will not acknowledge there is some merit to it. This seems to suggest you are no more open to reasoning than you suggest I and others are. Therefore, it would seem an impasse as neither side is listening. "It's not fair" is not good enough. Life is not fair.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

This may be a public forum but I don't see that allows people to make policy changes for something they are not even a member of.
Besides not even requiring an NHRA or IHRA membership on this board, a real name is not required. Neither is there an age requirement.
So conceivably, a 5 year old could get on here and start ranting about change that would suit him or her at the races.
Come to think of it, that may be happening on some of these posts...

Bill,
You never did come back with my comment on the "why" we have this red light rule. You only commented that "it couldn't be". I provided a perfectly good, rational argument of the "why" yet you seem to have buried it and can not or will not acknowledge there is some merit to it. This seems to suggest you are no more open to reasoning than you suggest I and others are. Therefore, it would seem an impasse as neither side is listening. "It's not fair" is not good enough. Life is not fair.

Jeff,
We both are on this board and have our own reasons for being here. I don't know why you would bring up "no name" posters, as neither you, nor I, use that M.O. as a part of our online presence, nor do we feel a need to. In that vein, I'm not sure why you brought it up, as it's not a factor, here. I'm in the Conway phone book, is you need to verify my existence.

Insofar as " "It's not fair" is not good enough. Life is not fair.", no, life is not fair, but this situation is not "life." It's just some rules that exist at the pleasure of a gouup of guys who clearly haven't had the time, or inclination to examine the content and consequences of the rule, as it was originally conceived when this fledgling handicap system was put into play 47 years ago, when there WAS NO ALTERNATIVE. The necessary software didn't exist.... yet.

In the ensuing years, everyone, myself included, got so used to it that it becaame a part of the "landscape" and just blended into the scenery, as a non-entity.

As I have said, it took ME several weeks before I could fully comprehend the difference in the two systems... guess I'm a slow learner.

But, when the facts finally hit home regarding the different way that system treats the red light infraction, I was moved to try to rectify it.

Life is not fair, for sure, but when it comes to rules, and racing, it needs to be as fair as it CAN be, and this is something I feel needs to be changed in the interest of creating a more level playing field for everyone.

Can you tell me who would be "damaged" by a worse red light rule? Aside from an AA/S car, I can't think of anyone...

I am "changing" nothing; I am ~suggesting~ this change in the interest of trying to righting a wrong that I feel, has been with us for way too long.

Just my 2-cents (and, probably overpriced, at that...)

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Besides not even requiring an NHRA or IHRA membership on this board, a real name is not required. Neither is there an age requirement.
.

There is another section on this Forum that REQUIRES the person have a Permanent Number and be racing. So why are you trying to make policy for this section ??

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

There is another section on this Forum that REQUIRES the person have a Permanent Number and be racing. So why are you trying to make policy for this section ??

Because it lends a bit more credibility to a subject if the person uses his real name and
also if he is actually affected by any potential rule changes discussed here.And there is no direct connection between this rule being implimented in S/SS class racing and regular bracket racing.
Anywhere else if an outsider (and Mr Bill for all intents and purposes,in addition to you yourself,are outsiders to S/SS class racing)harped on about a subject they had no stake in would be ignored.You two seem to have a small audience here because a minority of racers see this as another way to supposedly
"level the playing field".That term was used back a few years ago during the first
discussion about the AHFS.Well it didn't go anywhere then and it won't go anywhere now.
"Get a life" is the appropriate saying to end this discussion.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

There is another section on this Forum that REQUIRES the person have a Permanent Number and be racing. So why are you trying to make policy for this section ??

The only one trying to make policy is Bill.He's been told 100 different ways the rule,even
if some don't think it's fair,will stand as is.But will Bill put a lid on it?????Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo.........
There has to be a name for an affliction like that,but I'm too polite to put a name to it.