E I Addio

Why stop at 13 heats ? Why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and just have one heat ? That will reduce costs even more and if that costs reduction is reflected in reduced admission, then on the basis of your argument we will have the crowds flocking in.

Yes very similar views, namely that neither of you go anymore and are never likely to ever again. The way forward is not by turning the clock back.

R/R for Ed Kennett. Jon Cook says on the club website that they are strong enough at home to cover for Ed. Going by the latest GSA's it seems that his rides can be taken by Richard Lawson, who is roughly the same level, Lewis Bridger, who is very hit and miss on the Jawa at the moment, and the two reserves, who might beat Joe Jacobs if they make the gate and that's about it. Meanwhile Belle Vue are strengthened by Nick Morris in for Max Fricke. Cooke is calling on his riders to raise their game which I suppose is coded language for saying we are up the creek without a paddle. Belle Vues to lose.

R/R for Ed Kennett. Jon Cook says on the club website that they are strong enough at home to cover for Ed. Going by the latest GSA's it seems that his rides can be taken by Richard Lawson, who is roughly the same level, Lewis Bridger, who is very hit and miss on the Jawa at the moment, and the two reserves, who might beat Joe Jacobs if they make the gate and that's about it. Meanwhile Belle Vue are strengthened by Nick Morris in for Max Fricke. Cooke is calling on his riders to raise their game which I suppose is coded language for saying we are up the creek without a paddle. Belle Vues to lose.

If they stuck to the original intent the majority of d/u riders woukd be gone already but realistically it's not going to happen. As for the "planned" switch to six man teams, as far as I am aware it has but talked about but not exactly " planned" because nothing has been decided. Jon Cook was speaking in Spedway Star a couple if weeks ago saying that six man teams was not the way to go, wouldn't save money and wouldn't create opportununities for young riders so it seems nothing has been decided on that front. If it doesn't save money it's not going to stop shakey clubs going under.

Don't worry it won't happen. The one big league idea is only put forward by the clueless. The EL band PL only survive now by a large number of double uppers. If there was one big league with the present D/U riders tied to a single club there wouldn't be enough riders to go round, at least not enough of a decent standard, and that's before injuries. Then there is the money problem, with some clubs barely able to exist on the number of meetings now. If the ones losing money had to run more meetings their losses would be even higher. That was one of the reasons the KO cup was scrapped. More meetings would make it even more difficult to accommodate foreign riders with continental commitments so there would then be even less to go round, and even then all this depends on Sky being happy with a lower standard. Undoubtedly the sport faces massive problems, including its habit of shooting itself in the foot , but one big league won't solve anything. There is no easy answer and there is a lot of talking to be done in the winter, but we can only hope the result is something more than hot air this time.

Belle Vue hold the trump cards a reserve.

Speedway is like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

I am not being negative I am just saying there is no point in pursuing harebrained schemes that are not properly thought through. I have said the issue of two valve engines is worth further investigation. Two valve engines are a common theme with riders who have applied there minds to it The Dean Machine has just mentioned it in the post above , Graham Hurry mentioned it in Speedwáy Star a year or two back , and Olle Nygren said something very similar to me a few months ago, not just in connection with cost but also rider safety. I have yet to see anything from a rider or mechanic advocating sealed engines as the way forward. It is you that keeps coming back with the same old rhetoric. This is a discussion forum. That means that if you put forward an idea or proposal, others are entitled to question it and ask for more details, but all we get from you is that it's your idea but it's up to someone else to work out the details. It's rather like me saying the way forward is to increase the crowds, but someone else will have to work out how to do it.

I am not missing the point. There are plenty of suggestions to save speedway , many of them ok in theory but they almost all fall down when you come to consider cost. Its all very well to be gung ho and say sod Poland, sod Sweden do away with top riders, one big league and all the rest of it then leave someone else to work out the details. You assume Jawa would be interested, but hardly anyone wants to ride Jawas these days and there is a very good reason why they don't. The sport is facing a multitude of problems and you wont solve them by plucking an idea out of the air and saying Oh lets have sealed engines that will do the trick. Anybody can come up with a broad brush idea without working out the costs and its workability, but its the cost and the practical details that are important and its those details which you shut your mind to. As I said before, I am fully aware of the problems, as are most people, but working out a coherent and viable solution is the hard part. Unfortunately anyone who points that out gets accused of living in a dream world. Last nights SWC meeting at Belle Vue was by all accounts an excellent meeting according to those that were there. It would not be the same draw without Team GB and you wont have Team GB by saying sod Poland and Sweden we'll go it alone. Top riders and a GB team are integral to any formula for the future of the sport. Carry on with your theories but lets have some flesh on the bones, rather than pipe dreams.

The argument for two valve engines has some merit , both on the grounds of cost and controllability of the bikes. Technology and tuning has come a long way since two valves were last used and it might be something that bears further investigation. The problem is whether a manufacturer would be prepared to spend time and money developing a two valve engine. It would be a more practical and workable approach than sealed engines though. The big problem with any change is that it is hardly worth financially from the manufacturers point if view just for the limited British market. You would have to get Poland on board in favour of any changes and I am not sure what their attitude would be.

Everyone knows what the problem is. Adam Sheilds used to say it cast him 6 grand to get to,the start line to race against 3 blokes who had also spent 6 grand getting there and wouldn't make more sense if everyone had only spent 2grand getting there. Seeing the problem is the easy part. Finding a workable solution is the hard part. My point is that you can't just say lets have sealed engines as if that solves the problem without addressing all the difficulties that go with it. Whichever way you turn there are difficulties that have to be addressed. FWIW I think the glimmer of hope on the horizon is the Gerhard engine but that still has a way to go yet. One of the problems is the riders themselves. They want to reduce costs but don't want to sacrifice anything that gives them a competitive edge over the next man.

With regard to tyres, if you read my post properly, which you clearly haven't, I acknowledged it had been tried in the past but then added technology has moved on so it is worth another look, although I also added that it depends on tyre manufacturers getting it right. Sealed engines were looked at several years ago by Jon Cook, amongst others but nothing came of it. There are too many flaws in the idea unless you can overcome the technical difficulties. The first problem is that you mention Jawa. Nobody rides Jawas these days except Lewis Bridger and that is only because he has a sponsorship deal with the importers. They are at Lakeside every meeting with Lewis but there is still a lot development work going on. That leaves you with GM's which basically come in bits rather than a complete engine so the first thing you have to do is get someone to assemble it to race standard, so there will be discrepancies in performance. Even then you have to look at different tracks. An engine suitable for a tight twisty track like Lakeside will be no good for Swindonand vice versa. Then there is different riding styles. A rider Like Kim Nilsson for example is very good on the inside line but needs an engine that will accelerate rapidly down the straight where he gets his points, but he needs a totally different engine to someone like Ed Kennett or Danny King who tend to score their points from sweeps round the outside. If you inhibit those riding styles and lines you take some of the spectacle away. Then there is the question of who buys these engines, when should they be serviced or replaced. What happens if a rider has an e.f while leading that costs him £300 points money and it's not his engine and not his fault ? All these questions and more have to be answered and the financial implications addressed before the idea even gets off the ground. Tai Woffinden has his views on modern engines but if you told him, Sorry mate you can't have your own engine but we're are giving you this one that gets you to the first bend 6 inches behind Greg Hancock " his response would be unprintable than anything he said at Cardiff.

As always, you dismiss out of hand any comment that doesn't suit your agenda. Peter Johns has put forward an idea but you don't think it's worth even a second thought. Why ask for thoughts in OP if you don't really want any that don't back your own idea ? As for saying engines need to be less powerful and have more restriction on them, that is an easy thing to say but much more difficult to apply in practice and even more difficult to police unless engines are going to be stripped and examined after every meeting. Unless you can put forward a clear and coherent technical argument as to how you make engines less powerful without scope for cheating and without affecting the quality of the racing your argument can be dismissed as readily as you dismiss Peter Johns suggestion.

I am totally with you on that. The only thing I would say is that the referee has the best view and as TV replays show he gets it spot on sometimes but everyone else looking from a slightly different angle cant see anything wrong. Although , like you, I love to watch to electric gaters but the rules require an equal start and nine times out of ten in modern speedway someone who gets a flyer usually finishes up with an FTG win which can get a bit boring for the crowd, so it is very difficult to get the balance right One of the things that make speedway great is riders whose actual professionalism and skills on the bike are so good you could almost be entertained watching them do 15 heats on their own. PK is one of my all time favourites and his time at Lakeside were some of my best memories in speedway. It will be sad day for me when he is gone, even more so when Andreas Jonsson goes but there don't seem to be many of that ilk coming along. Does that mean we are just getting old ? Are there any really class acts like PK, Leigh Adams, etc in the pipeline or are we getting an increasing number of the "open the throttle and hang on brigade " ?

Peter Johns made some good points in SS a while back. The important thing is transferring power from the engine to the track via the back tyre and Johns suggested changing the tyre compound to make it less grippy so tuners would then be forced to "soften " the engines other wise they would just be spinning up all the time. Sounds a good idea in theory but would need some careful thought. I seem to remember many years ago they played about with tyres and just made all worse. However technology has moved on and it is perhaps worth some thought as long as they (the tyre manufacturers} can get it right.

Who could forget this one ? Most of probably didn't think Bomber would ever walk again, let alone come out and win the re-run ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff1XQE_8WOE

Do you think the problem might be with you, bearing in mind a disproportionate number of forum members seem to take issue with you on a regular basis ?

This is a great thread. There is nothing like talking about Speedwáy with fellow fans who have the same affinity for the sport, and the fact that the rest of the world think we are completely bonkers makes it even more special. There is something unique about the spectacle of the sport that doesn't seem to exist in other sports. The very idea of riders being identified in red, blue white and yellow has some sort of magnetism to me. Then riders being numbered 1-7, then being designated heatleaders, second strings and reserves, somehow adds to the drama, with red and blue the heroes and white and yellow the villains. I suppose all those details plus the idea of filling the programme in progressively does give a sort of trainspotter or anorak quality but there's nothing wrong with that. As others have said, the fans are special. I love the fact you can walk round and see people you have seen for years and just nod or have a word with them even though you don't really know them and I love getting peoples opinions before the start on how they think the match will turn out. We all have a laugh about old Sid and Doris sitting in their fold up chairs with their flask of tea and sandwiches but they are the salt of the earth types and I love chatting to them as most have been going for years and are often very knowlegdeable. I suppose most of all I think I love that moment of tension between the riders coming under starters orders and the tapes going up. Even after about 150 years of going to Speedwáy that part still sends shivers down my spine. Very rare for me to go to a Speedwáy meeting and not enjoy it.

Wayne Briggs had never ridden in a Speedwáy meeting of any kind when at the age of 16 he was brought over and given a place in the Edinburgh team, on the strength of his brothers reputation. I dont think many got into a team literally within weeks but there were a fair number that were already experienced in grass track and adapted quickly, and a fair number that got into a lower league team not within a few weeks but certainly after winter at training at Rye House, say a few months. Like a lot of the past versus present arguments it is a bit futile because you cannot easily compare like with like but understanding modern bikes has a lot to do with it. Malcolm Simmons for example has said he started off using his grass track engine in his Speedwáy bike , which obviously woukd be impossible today. The problem for a lot of modern riders is understanding set ups, which was less important in the past. Many young riders have no idea how to set a bike up. I remember when Richie Worrall first rode at Lakeside as a fairly raw novice he couldn't get his bike to pull so Piotr Swiderski's mechanic set his bike up like Swidders bike and he was flying, and of course he has built in that since. I think something similar happened with Ben Morely in the first year of fast track. He wasn't up to speed on set ups so Lewis Bridgers mechanic set his bike up like Bridgers and he went out and beat Adam Skornicki. That was not necessary of course in Malcolm Simmons novice days.

Why would they be licking their wounds ? There apparent objection was upheld. As for being clear on the facts, it's really a matter of whether Fords little tirade in SS records ALL the facts and/or whether those facts recorded have Fords spin on them. Always the same problem with Speedwáy Star, they only ever record one side of the argument, not just in this matter but all the time. I have mentioned this on other occasions. We come back to the point that was mentioned earlier. According to Steve Shoveller Ford said in the programme he would have taken it further and would have won, but the question is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I can't think of any other promoter that would make all this fuss over a settled issue. If he had said he was going to make sure the rules get clarified at the next AGM we coukd respect him for that.

Where exactly would he have taken it ? The rules only allow for an appeal against penalties enforced. You can't appeal against a penalty that wasn't enforced. It's like trying to appeal a parking fine you never had. Ford does come out with some drivel.

Judging by the Lakeside website it looks like he is riding at No5. but not totalling sure. Looks like Robbo will be at reserve but I can't see what rule allows him to ride as an EDR reserve. Can anyone clarify ?

Full squad. AJ, Kennet, Lawson, Bridger, Nilsson, Mear, Kerr. TBF, it is the result of rain offs, home and away. The Lakeside v Swnidon A fixture was rained off and iis now on in September,, but there are apparently no other available dates when Swindon can put out a full squad . Hence Lakeside had to go to Swindon on a re-arranged fixture without AJ and Kim after the original one was rained off and Swindon come to Lakeside with 3 riders already booked at Sommerset. Not satisfactory but will always occur while the domestic league plays second fiddle to the continental season.

I don't think anybody has mentioned Ronnie Moore yet. I only saw Ronnie at the back end of his career when he was past his best but still an absolutely sensational rider. He has been described as the most naturally talented rider ever to sit on a Speedwáy bike and qualifying for his first World Final at the age of 17 bears that out. I have heard of fantastic rides at Wimbledon and he seems to have been a model of consistency which would stand him in good stead in a GP system where not just wins but 2nd and 3rd places are important. Of course he missed the 1957 season when he tried car racing, and had that broken leg in '63 which brought about an early retirement before his comeback 6 years later, but potentially he could have been a multi-GP winner by reason of his consistency, and his attitude of taking every race as it comes whether it be a World Final or second half. Who knows ? I admit to bias because the two great riders that stand out in my memory are Ronnie and Briggo