questions concerning christmas tree

[John Kelley]

Three examples from the Division Seven race at Vegas where the wrong car won...............
ROUND ONE VEGAS DIVISIONAL !!

Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed
5370 Al Steinmetz 7897 Andy Kimball
E1 -0.055 11.482 115.61 ****WINNER**** -0.108 11.068 119.50
F/S Dial: 11.50 (+/-): -0.018 E/S Dial: 11.05 (+/-): 0.018
Qualified: #75 11.540 -0.860 #14 11.023 -1.227
Andy Kimball wins on a double red light.

Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed
779 Chuck Echmalian 6111 Mary Ann Method
E1 -0.025 11.627 111.49 ****WINNER**** -0.068 10.865 120.52
G/SA Dial: 11.80 (+/-): -0.173 C/SA Dial: 10.85 (+/-): 0.015
Qualified: #84 11.840 -0.770 #23 10.848 -1.142
Mary Ann Method wins on a double red light.
ROUND FOUR
Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed
7402 Tibor Kadar 4402 Jerry Emmons
E4 -0.007 12.343 94.26 ****WINNER**** -0.341 15.708 59.69
L/SA Dial: 12.22 (+/-): 0.123 B/SA Dial: 10.79 (+/-): 4.918
Prior rounds:
E3 (J Irving ) 0.037 12.244 -0.026 (M Ann Method) 0.029 10.794 0.004
E2 (R Irving ) 0.055 12.196 0.006 (J Foshee ) 0.054 10.744 0.024
E1 (S Hook ) 0.006 12.413 0.163 (R Johnson ) 0.042 10.804 0.034
Qualified: #31 12.217 -1.103 #39 10.759 -1.081
Jerry Emmons wins on a -0.007 red light by Kadar.

[Ed Fernandez]

Quack,quack,quack,quack,quack,etc. etc. etc.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Alan,

All the complaining in the world about the problems you mentioned has nothing to do with this issue.

If you think it's not important, then, ignore it. It's not worth your time.

I think it's a mole hill, but one that people have been tripping over for 36 years, and it's time to level it out, and level the playing field, in the process.

Doing so, won't affect any of the many other problems you mentioned in the slightest... one way, or another.

In all your verbiage, you still have not come up with one single reason NOT to fix it... none. Even YOU can't logically defend keeping this lopsided rule in effect.

That is very telling.

Glendora couldn't care less, I am sure; if they cared, it would have been fixed long ago.

I'm not holding my breath...

Thanks for your comments.

Bill, you are operating on an invalid assumption.

You assume that the change you desire will level the playing field. But you don't know that to be true. You only know that it would appear to have the same effect on everyone. That may not be true.

Rules are not necessarily about making everything the same for everyone. They are often about achieving or trying to achieve balance. In handicap drag racing you can NEVER make everything the same for every racer. It is impossible. You cannot give both racers in a handicap race a clean tree. Nor can you give both racers the same waiting time for the last yellow to come on.

You see what you assume is a glaring inequity that you feel you have the solution for. Others see that what you think is simple and obvious is actually neither simple nor obvious. You assume that a balance does not exist, but you do not really know that for sure, and yet you still seek to change something, without having the knowledge to be certain you will not actually upset an existing balance. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

You THINK you will level the playing field, but do you have statistical data to prove it? Do you have definitive proof that an actual imbalance exists? Or do you simply see what you think is an inexcusable inequity?

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

Quack,quack,quack,quack,quack,etc. etc. etc.

It looks like you are "DUCKING" the issue.........:-)

[bill dedman]

Alan,

This situation cannot be saddled with a thousand and one OTHER inequities that exist in handicap racing, in an effort to "level the playing" field, because there is no way to quantify the effects of "leaving on a clean tree", or "driving the stripe from behind." You know there are many, many ways in which a faster car has an advantage over a slow car, and vice-versa. You cannot justify legislating advantages for either group, in an effort to "level the playing field."

This worse red light situation cannot be viewed as an effort to do that, because of the crazy-quilt that is Eliminator racing. By that I mean, it changes, every time you're up to bat, depending on what class of car you're racing.

You run an F car with your G car (your dial-in will almost always be slower) you are the victim; if you red light... he never is under "red light jeopardy."


You run an H car with your G car (your dial-in will almost always be faster) HE is the victim if HE red lights, never putting YOU in the jeopardy of a red light.

Giving the quicker car (second to leave) a free ride, if the first car red lights, is a benefit to anyone, ONLY when they are the second to leave, and the other car red lights.

The only place this becomes a significant inequity, it could be argued, is when a car is classed either very high, or very low in the hierarchy of the classes.

For example, you don't need a statistical analysis to conclude that Ellis Buth's W/SA wagon is on the wrong end of this system (virtually, always leaving first), or that the new, 9-second Mustangs are on the "right" end of it.

The Mustangs enjoy an immunity from red lights IF their opponent bulbs.
Ellis's Pinto NEVER enjoys such an advantage.

I asked, "Where is the other side of that coin" relative to the fact that the quicker car sometimes enjoys this advantage, but there is none.

THAT is an "inexcusable inequity," in my book, because it is unnecessary, now, and accomplishes nothing.

Can you show me the other side of that coin?

Thanks for your input; I enjoy discussing things with you.

[John Dinkel]

When you are racing are you watching if the other guy turns on the red light, or you watching the tree?

[bill dedman]

John,

NOBODY's red light comes on until BOTH cars have left the line. Once they've both launched, the computer decides who had the worst red light and turns it on.

It can't do that before both cars have left, so nobody will see any red lights until after they've launched.

Hope this helps...

[Alan Roehrich]

That you choose to believe that a balance does not exist does not make it so.

Citing extremes in order to make rules or to justify them is never a good idea.

Again, you ignore the law of unintended consequences simply because it is easy, convenient, and suits your agenda.

Just because something can be done does not make it the right thing to do, nor does it mean that it should be done.

I know plenty of guys with slower cars, the red light rule doesn't seem to matter to most of them, in fact, I'd say more than 1/2 of them would rather the rule not be changed, and most of the rest just don't care. Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, they don't want your help?

This whole thing reminds me a lot of "we're from the government, and we're here to help".

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

John,

NOBODY's red light comes on until BOTH cars have left the line. Once they've both launched, the computer decides who had the worst red light and turns it on.

It can't do that before both cars have left, so nobody will see any red lights until after they've launched.

Hope this helps...

And then neither will see the red light, because the tree is behind them, because both cars have launched and then the computer makes up its mind after the fact. MAYBE one or both drivers will see a win light come on, or maybe they won't.

[bill dedman]

>>>"Again, you ignore the law of unintended consequences simply because it is easy, convenient, and suits your agenda."

Okay; Alan, please give me an example of ANY "unintended consequence" that might come from this rule change I'm advocating.

I can't think of one; can you???

Please tell me of an "unintended consequence" that could come from this rule change that could have a negative impact on racing.

Just one... please.

RE: "And then neither will see the red light, because the tree is behind them, because both cars have launched and then the computer makes up its mind after the fact. MAYBE one or both drivers will see a win light come on, or maybe they won't."

And, this will affect the race how??? I don't know anybody who is oblivious to a win light... but then, I don't know everybody. Maybe they could install a red light beside the win lights that would appear as the win light in the other lane comes on... a minor issue, at worst. And, it will take the computer a millisecond to turn on the red light, once the second car has driven out of the beam; think he might see it as he passes the tree???

Finally, I don't have an agenda; I'll be racing no matter if they never change this, and they probably won't.