You're telling me I'm agreeing that a race against the clock is not a race. I'm not.
Huh? I've told you no such thing. As I've said, and I say it again, to me, "racing" in order to beat a best time is not what makes a race. That's all I've said here, nothing else. I wasn't saying that a race against the clock cannot be a race, nor that you're agreeing with it. In fact, I've previously said it could well be a race, depending on the format. And I've made the point that the format of an event is what I consider to be the most important factor here, not that it's a case of "racing" in order to beat the best time.
Cars in a "time attack" are not just racing to beat the lap record. They're racing to beat each other. The time attack part is simply a bonus. You do get a prize whether or not you beat the lap record, as long as you beat everyone else in your class!
And there's nothing here I'd disagree with.
Uh... because by definition, and we're talking dictionary and sporting rules regulations... a time trial is a race? It's specifically a time trial because that is the subspecies of racing we are talking about. Do note: Time Trial races are not simply confined to motorsports.
It's all a form of "racing", but there's a difference between what's traditionally called a race and a time trial, just like there is a difference between a qualifying session and the main race. It doesn't make these both races, it makes these both a form of "racing". If you go ahead and call the parent term of a race and a time trial a race, then yes, a time trial is a race, and a race is a race, and you've got an ambiguity. But, if people use race to refer not to the parent but to the child term "race", then a time trial is not a race, and I don't see where all sporting bodies would have agreed to race being the parent term for races (as in wheel-to-wheel races) and time trials. Where is this universally defined?
You may not agree with the definition of a tomato as a fruit, but that doesn't change the fact that, by definition, it is.
I agree that the tomato is a fruit. But if I go ahead and call the parent term for all fruits tomato, then the banana is a tomato as well. Now, one could well argue that the banana is not a tomato, if one refers not to the parent term, but to the sibling.
No need to agree, if we're talking opinions. But we're talking about an opinion that has to be based on facts. If it's your opinion the sun is blue, you have to prove it.
That analogy isn't really any better than the last one, as there's no ambiguity in either case between a parent and child term. That aside, since when does one have to prove an opinion? Opinions are just that, opinions, right? If you want to tell anyone their opinion is wrong, and you're arguing as a matter of fact, then the burden of proof is actually on you. Nobody needs to prove any of their opinions, unless they actually don't think they're opinions, but facts.
Why? Rally cars are racing against the clock for the lowest cumulative time, period.
Not necessarily, no. And not really in the same format as a time trial either.
Whoever has the lowest time wins.
That's simply not true for all rally events. Some rally events are judged based on how close you come to the "ideal" time. Faster isn't necessarily better.
That's exactly what a time trial is. There's no wheel to wheel racing involved.
Whether there is wheel-to-wheel racing involved or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. In a time trial it actually is all about the fastest time, and time trials aren't set in stages. A rally is
not exactly what a time trial is, or rather, a rally isn't a time trial.
It's most definitely quite a bit different from a time trial. Just like a race (child term) is quite a bit different from a time trial.
The time attack series is called a racing series by the organizers, who are sanctioned by the governing body. If you'd like, they could call it a breakfast cereal. Would make no difference.
But it does.
Qualifying sessions are not races in themselves only because they are not stand-alone events with results.
So? But qualifying sessions are "racing" to beat the fastest time, no? And I said that's not what makes it a race. And I've equally said it's the format of the event that's more relevant here. And from what I seem to read here, you seem to be agreeing, no?
Again, and just in case this wasn't clear, I'm not saying "racing" to beat the fastest time cannot be considered a race, I've merely said it isn't a sufficient requirement. The format is equally relevant. And isn't that exactly what you're saying above?
A qualifying run is an extension of the main race. Your position in qualifying affects your starting position in the race and nothing else. If you want to look at it another way, a qualifying session is an incomplete race, because the outcome of the race is not decided at the end of qualifying, but at the end of the main race itself. In other words, there is only one race during an F1 weekend. it just happens to occur in two parts.
I doubt the F1 governing body would agree with you here. Even though qualifying sessions are a part of the racing event, i.e. the entire F1 weekend, the race happens within no more than two hours. Qualifying sessions aren't races, nor are they part of the race. They precede the race, and determine the grid for the race.
If the qualifying session gave out points that counted towards the F1 championship, I'd consider it a race... Is that clearer?
It sounds like you're suggesting that the format of an event is most relevant here, and not the fact that it is a case of "racing" to beat the best time. Oddly enough, that's exactly what I've been saying.
Nothing to do with time attacks or time trials... of course... you do know the first NASCAR stock car racers were moonshine and rum runners that started their racing careers in illegal races?
Would these "races" back then be considered races within the given context? And if one would not consider these to be races, would s/he be wrong?
If we consider NASCAR races to be races today, does that make these "races" from back then races in retrospect? If there are time trial series within a particular format we call races, does that make every time trial a race? And yes, if race is the parent term for time trial and race (child term) then clearly, a time trial is a race. That's not even something I'd ever argue.
What's highly arguable about it? If a car is built to go as fast as possible on the race track, what's there to argue about? It's not just a marketing exercise... not any more than any racing series using touring cars or silhouette racers is... as you can't buy the CT230R. You can't buy off-the-shelf parts and simply make one. You can't drive it legally on the road. So what is it, then?
Not exactly sure. It may well be sensible to call it a race car. I don't really have any issues with calling it a race car. My only issue is with telling people who do not consider it a race car that they're necessarily wrong.
Me neither, but that's what the game classifies it as. I don't agree with the game either, since it's well past the point where you could consider it as such, but it's certainly not an OEM. Thus if the question is whether the CT230R is OEM or tuner, it's tuner.
Can't one say neither, or simply not answer if these are the only two options? Just because it isn't OEM doesn't make it a tuner.
But to consider it "not a racing car because HKS" is to ignore the fact that HKS also builds drag racers. That ProDrive is a tuning company that also happens to make racecars (notably Subaru rally cars), that Cosworth is a racing company that happens to sell a whole boatload of tuning parts for road cars. Or even in the game... where you have the Autobacs and Amemiya race cars, which are full blown race cars competing in the JGTC, which happen to be made by "tuning" companies. The nature of the company says nothing, really, about whether a car is a race car or not.
Not necessarily, no, the mere fact that it was HKS doesn't tell us anything, really, it's more of a contributing factor.
