Redlight Poll (Revised)

[Sean Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

You're the little kid that has to get in the last word.

And you are the grouchy old man that lives inside of this site who lives to get his last word in to anyone dares to have a different opinion.

You are the guy people imagine when they picture the cliche old guy yelling 'you damn kids get off my lawn.'

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Sean Kennedy

You are the guy people imagine when they picture the cliche old guy yelling 'you damn kids get off my lawn.'

Are you saying that there is something wrong with that?

[Bunkster]

The enthusiasm for "first" in the case of the starting line, I presume this would apply to the finish line as well?

Once one vehicle breaks out, the other vehicle ought to be immune?

"The first to foul, and the first to breakout are always the loser." Seems like this would be a consistent application of the notion of "first".

[bill dedman]

Excellent logic, Mr. Bunkster. I can't imagine a valid argument against what you have suggested.

Wish I'd said that...

The only instance a "first red light" makes any sense is in a heads-up race. DUH...

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Excellent logic, Mr. Bunkster. I can't imagine a valid argument against what you have suggested.

Wish I'd said that...

The only instance a "first read light" makes any sense is in a heads-up race. DUH...

actually there is a logical argument against it. If the first breakout were always the loser there would be less incentive to try and take the stripe in a bracket race. As it stands right now both cars go to the line intending to take a shot at the tree.

[bill dedman]

You may well be right, Chad. I could agree with that.

But, even if it were true, that would be no reason to condone what we have now, back on the starting line.

What you have suggested is a nebulous, iffy, potential COULD happen scenario, steeped in uncertainty and ambiguity. Possible, yes, but subject to a thousand potential uncertainties. COULD happen, for sure...

But...

This red light rule that we have is an iron-clad certainty, every time.

You bulb first, you're OUT, thus depriving the second car of his chance to do what you just did, and maybe worse.

I think everybody should have his own chance to do that (red light.)

Can't think of any logical, sensible, reason why he shouldn't. Can you?

[Casey Miles]

Bill, I agree with your responce, it would be a better way of racing other then the second car get a free run. On the free pass that the racer gets, the racer can go as fast as he wants to gather as much information as he needs to get an advantage over the rest of the cars that didn't get the freebee. There is no toll to be paid for what ever he does because the other car fouls in front of him.

Casey Miles
248H Stock?

[johnny shot]

I can tell you the exact valid argument. Prior to dial in racing, stock and superstock ran off National Records. Then a group of complaining racers who were not winning campaigned to allow a new rule called "dial under", to level the playing field and make it fair for everyone.

But that was not fair enough for some. Change the rules again so you THINK you can win.

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

I don't have a rule book in front of me, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a red light or lane crossing is grounds for disqualification. Going under the dial is not, it's simply a matter of doing the math.

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Excellent logic, Mr. Bunkster. I can't imagine a valid argument against what you have suggested.

Wish I'd said that...

The only instance a "first read light" makes any sense is in a heads-up race. DUH...

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by johnny shot

I can tell you the exact valid argument. Prior to dial in racing, stock and superstock ran off National Records. Then a group of complaining racers who were not winning campaigned to allow a new rule called "dial under", to level the playing field and make it fair for everyone.

But that was not fair enough for some. Change the rules again so you THINK you can win.

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

I don't have a rule book in front of me, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a red light or lane crossing is grounds for disqualification. Going under the dial is not, it's simply a matter of doing the math.

Johnny, how much of this thread have you read?

Nobody wants to change anything about breakout rules; this whole thing is just a discussion about why should the second car to leave get a free ride to the next round (or, Winners' Circle) just because his opponent left first and red lighted. Some folks on here think that the second car to leave should get HIS chance to red light, too. They feel that there's no reason why he shouldn't face HIS red light jeopardy, too, as a matter of fairness.

Can you think of any good reason why he shouldn't? I can't...

The fact is, that the rule that creates this lopsided scenario came about in 1963 (!) when the electronic capability of correcting it didn't exist, yet, but it does, now... so, saying "It's always been that way" isn't a valid reason.
Way past time to fix it...

[Ed Fernandez]

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

Sounds like a good idea.But then S/SS would turn into a playground for guys with deeeeeeeep pockets.Think about it.