worst red light debate, again!

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Neal Derochie

to Bill Dedman, you keep talking about an unfair advantage, is it unfair that some who drive cars are required to have much more safety equipment in the next lane over, is it unfair for some to get parts others can't have. Bill what makes it fair for the slow guy to even leave first when it is just math at the end anyway. Bill you can say its fair for all changing the rule but deep down you know that you will benefit from the change or you would not be pushing for it, its agendas like this that have changed the sport and has driven people to park there cars. Bill would you just answer the questions please.

Neal

Gladly.

Finally, a guy who is willing to dicuss the ISSUE, instead of just hurling insults.

RE:"is it unfair that some who drive cars are required to have much more safety equipment in the next lane over, is it unfair for some to get parts others can't have?"

I think you would agree that a 145 MPH supercharged, fuel injected Mustang with 4-valves per cylinder should be required to have more safety equipment that Ed Fernandez's inline six Gremlin because of the relative speeds involved. Who could argue with that? It's just common sense, don't you think? And, what has that got to do with performance, as regards handicapped racing, anyway?

Insofar as " is it unfair for some to get parts others can't have," No, because the essence of Stock Eliminator is diversity; and you are (ostensibly) limited to running the parts that were OEM on your combination. No way could Captain Jack's wagon be allowed ro run the supercharger off that AA/SA Mustang.... it never came that way. I do think it is patently unfair that he is limited to a 283 4-bbl intake manifold when other 283's are allowed to run a 327 intake. Maybe that's what you mean... That's just politics, and yes, I think that's unfair.

"Bill what makes it fair for the slow guy to even leave first when it is just math at the end anyway."

Maybe you could tell me HOW you'd handicap a 12-second car against an 11-second car if the slower car DIDN'T leave first? It's not a choice; it's a necessity. The idea is for the two cars to arrive at the finish line, simultaneously. That is not possible, if the slower car doesn't have a head start. That head start involves the first car leaving first. That is the essence of handicap racing. No other way to do it, unless you have figured out some way to run the cars independent of each other, and then, it's not a drag race.

"Bill you can say its fair for all changing the rule but deep down you know that you will benefit from the change or you would not be pushing for it."

This rule change WILL benefit everyone, because it will for the first time, give EVERYONE the same chance at a red light. The way it stands now, if the first car to leave, turns on the red light, the second car never has a chance to red light; he, from that point on, has red light immunity in that particular race.

There's no reason to give him that advantage, when his "light" (reaction time) could be measured against the reaction time of the first car to leave, to determine a "worse red light" and the winner, due to that..

Now, answer this question for me, please: Tell me how this rule change will be any kind of an advantage for ME, over and above simply removing the existing advantage that the second car to leave, now has.

What is my :"newfound advantage" with a rule that treats everyone with th same red light jeopardy?

Tell me, please...