E I Addio

The thread is not about a saviour for the EL its about changes for 2017. Sorting out the EDR will not necessarily save the EL but it will be one less nail in the coffin, and will certainly be more beneficial to keeping the existing fans than pandering to those of yesteryear who are unlikely to return unless we revert to a 20 race programme including a second half all for £10 . It is something that needs immediate attention if the league is to be a semblance of fair competition. In all honesty, look at my suggestion and compare it with TWK's above post suggesting we simply change the names. Which one is most likely to result in something like a level playing field (or speedway track ) ?

10 pages into a thread about next year and all we have seen are suggestions to turn the clock back 30 or 40 years. The issue above all else that needs addressing is the one that even the BSPA realise they got wrong, namely the ridiculous EDR scheme. We have to keep the EDR scheme on the grounds of cost but the following adjustments have to be made IMO:- 1. The team that finishes bottom get first pick and the team that finishes top get last pick, no ifs, no buts, no protected assets nonsense. 2. Any EDR'swhose average takes them into the 1-5 may only ride at No's 2or4. No more EDR's getting blown away in heatleader roles. 3. Get rid of the huge gap between the best and worst EDR's. It needs to be looked at carefully but should be something like EDR's to be selected from PL second strings or NL No1's. No more Newmans, Worralls, Auty's, etc dominating the EDR . riders of that standard need to earn their EL team place on merit. 4. I am tempted to say that reserves be limited to six rides. I invite opinions on that. I can see flaws in the suggestion which others might be able to improve upon but we need to stop bona fide second strings and heatleaders dropping to reserve and being able to score 18 or 20 points. Riders like Lewis Bridger, Bjarne Pedersen, and Nikolai Klindnt should never be in protected heats against genuine EDRs

Well, well, well, I didn't expect that. Zagars absence levelled the playing field, gave the Kennet-less Hammers an olive branch that they grabbed and probably cost the Aces the MAtch, but along the line it produced s very tense and from Laakesides perspective exciting meeting. Everybody tried hard, everybody had a slice of the action at some stage. And there was plenty of passing. You can't ask that from any of the riders ( well some of the usual moaners would but not your normal fan). I have to say I went with a heavy heart when I knew Kennett would be missing but full marks to all the riders for putting on an entertaining meeting. Lakeside breath a sigh of relief as they claim the three points to keep their play off hopes alive, Belle Vue deservedly get a point, All those that went should be happy with that. Some excellent reserve switches by Kelvin so that Rob Mear only had to beat Joe Jacobs in three of his races, but very well done to Rob and Lewi Kerr who tore the form book up in heat 12 to put 5-1 over Richie Worrall that effectively sealed the match for Lakeside. Lakeside also only had six riders!

AJ can ride snywhere well, Kim does well on the bigger tracks in Sweden, Lewi Kerr is a KIngs Lynn asset, Ed and Rich are top of the PL averages and score well on virtually all the PL tracks wherever they go. Lewis Bridger is a bit of an enigma but suffers from lack of regular racing but suffers under the daft ruling that allows Team GB members to ride PL for regular racing and regular money but not Bridger.. Rob Mear is simply a bad pick. Quite why they travel so badly is a difficult one to solve, but the fact remains that going into this match with /r/r for Ed is a masterpiece of bad planning

20 heats of racing in individual meetings if that is the criteria, and the second halves which you miss are, to all intents and purposes mini individual meetings. Be honest and say you have simply got out of the habit. Many people do. It's happened to me in the past.

The race format has changed since the days of the second half. These days the top men have raced each other at least twice, usually three times by the end of the match. Is there really going to be the same interest in seeing them race yet again in the second half. I used to like all the old palava like scratch races , Golden Helmet , Juniors and so on but times have changed and you can't put the clock back.

Sid, I know what you are saying but Moxeys point was to reduce costs but cutting 15 heats down to 13 . You are not going to cut costs but cutting out 2 heats from the main event then having four heats and a final to pay for in the second half. If money were no object I would say yes, have a second half but the reality is its not financially viable these days, and won't be for the foreseeable future.

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 ?