- 23,800
- Philippines
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.
You said:
But it seems you're actually agreeing with me here that "racing" to beat the fastest time doesn't make a race in formal terms.
Which I did not say at all.
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?
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.
Race: Definition: Merriam Webster: A contest of speed. Or, alternatively, a contest involving progress towards a goal.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race
-
See, here's the problem. "Wheel-to-wheel racing" is a sub-term. "Time trial" is a sub-term. Racing is a parent term. You're excluding the tomato simply because it isn't a banana.
Nobody needs to prove any of their opinions, unless they actually don't think they're opinions, but facts.
"I don't consider time trials racing" is a statement of opinion. "Time trials are not races" is a statement of fact. You don't need to defend the former, but on this site, people are likely to call you out.
Not necessarily, no. And not really in the same format as a time trial either.
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.
Let's re-phrase. Most professional rally events are time trials. Other rally events may include time-matching where the closest to a target time wins. It's still racing against the clock or to match the clock. Still a race, in much the same way a time trial is a race.
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.
Yet, what is different about a rally and a time attack? The winner of a professional rally event such as the WRC or similar events like the BRC and Asia Pacific rally is whoever sets the fastest time for the total course length for the event. Whether or not that is in one continuous run or in stages.
But it does.
So, if they call it a breakfast cereal, it's not a race, but if they call it a race, it is?
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?
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.
So what's wrong with the format of a time attack? You have entrants that are categorized according to class, ranked according to finishing order, and winners are given prizes. That sounds a lot like WRC, BRC, APR, Pikes Peak, the New Zealand Race to the Clouds and other races around the world.
The rest of your post... well... rehash. The confusion here is what you consider the "parent term" and how it's defined.
Your other point is in regards to the format. Your problem is that a time attack has as its target a set time instead of beating other drivers. Yet prizes are given for beating other drivers, so time attack is head to head racing. And, as you've pointed out, there are rallies where the target is also a set time. And those are also considered races.
I don't know what more you want from a racing event. I'd ask... what does a time attack actually lack that other forms of racing don't?
Last edited: