questions concerning christmas tree

[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]

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..