Howabout ...............

[Trees]

Having more races in league matches with all the top boys, second strings and reserves racing one another, would this make for more exciting racing in your opinion? I think it would

 

For instance:

 

Ht 1 1

5

1

5

 

Ht 2 6

7

6

7

 

Ht 3 2

4

2

4

 

Ht 4 3

5

3

5

 

Ht 5 2

6

2

6

 

Ht 6 1

7

1

7

 

Or summat similar, get my drift?

[pudding]

wouldnt it be good if they raced the opposite way round

[Vince]

I quite liked the idea that they used at an U15 meeting at Newport last year where each rider had 3 rides and then the 2 lowest point scorers from each team went into one race, the next 2 lowest in the next and the 2 highest scorers from each team in the final race. I thought at the time that this would make a good format for league racing. It could easily be adapted with 4 rides for each rider as they are already programmed and then all except the lowest scorer for each team taking part in the final 3 races which should all be competitive.

[Trees]

wouldnt it be good if they raced the opposite way round

Sarcy sod

[Kevin Meynell]

I quite liked the idea that they used at an U15 meeting at Newport last year where each rider had 3 rides and then the 2 lowest point scorers from each team went into one race, the next 2 lowest in the next and the 2 highest scorers from each team in the final race. I thought at the time that this would make a good format for league racing.

 

A similar idea was used in 1993 (8-rider teams) and then again in 1997 (6-rider teams). Unfortunately, it was not popular with fans because it involved a lot of writing, and you also have problems if you're using R/R or riders get injured.

 

It's actually difficult to devise a balanced heat format with 7-riders because there is always an odd rider out for each 'round' of heats. In addition, any heat format must attempt to space-out every rider's programmed rides as evenly as possible. It goes without saying that you shouldn't give a rider two programmed rides on the trot, but equally you shouldn't programme them every other heat (e.g. Heats 4 and 6) more than once in case they have to take R/R or T/S rides. Otherwise it could mean they might have up to 5 rides in a row!

[Tsunami]

Trees

 

One major problem would be the comparison of Averages. A junior 6 or 7 could end up with a higher average than a heatleader and how could you then equate one rider against another.

 

[Trees]

One major problem would be the comparison of Averages. A junior 6 or 7 could end up with a higher average than a heatleader and how could you then equate one rider against another.

Yeah have thought of that, must be some way of getting round it though, have to get me calculator out!

[Tsunami]

Trees

 

You could factor the riders. The heatleaders would keep their full actual average. The second strings averages could be multiplied by say 0.75 and the reserves by 0.50. The racing would be great because the riders would only meet their own standard.

Could be interesting to try out at a Challenge match.

 

Edited March 14, 2005 by Tsunami

[Trees]

Tsunami .............. I'd like to see it tried out, same as I would a match with all the riders on standard jawas ........... the jawa challenge, oops or the GM challenge (sorry Trevor! lol).

Edited March 14, 2005 by Trees

[SCB]

Trees

 

One major problem would be the comparison of Averages. A junior 6 or 7 could end up with a higher average than a heatleader and how could you then equate one rider against another. 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You beat me to it (do you realise you have posted something I was going to say, what does that say about you ).

 

Mind you, the current format is the same, the rider at number 1 goes out against 5 heatleaders in his 4 rides, so assuming he never beats a heatleader but beats the rest he scores 7 or even 6. The number 7 goes out against the reserve 5 times, so can score 5+4 form his 4 rides. Meaning the reserve only beats the bottom 2 and averages 9 while the number 1 only losses to heatleaders (and potentially in heat 13 his team mate) and has an average of 6 or 7.

 

Atleats with the tac sub a heatleader could have an easy heat 8 or 14 to get a win and increase his average while lowering the average of the reserve who scores 0 i one of his heats instead 1+1.

Edited March 15, 2005 by SCB

[Kevin Meynell]

You could factor the riders.   The heatleaders would keep their full actual average. The second strings averages could be multiplied by say 0.75 and the reserves by 0.50.

 

That actually happened in 1993 when an 8-rider, 18-heat format was used. The reserves had their averages multiplied by 0.5 (because they only rode against each and two second-strings), but the problem was that it became almost impossible for them to move into the main body of the team. It was even worse when reserves occasionally took extra rides against the better riders, but any points they scored were still multiplied by 0.5.

 

The racing would be great because the riders would only meet their own standard.

 

The experience of 1993 proved this to be a fallacy. The most interesting races are invariably those where theoretically mismatched riders are paired against each other, and particularly where the underdogs manage to cause an upset. Everyone loves to see their No.2 or 7 give the opposition's No.1 a good race.

 

By contrast, heats between evenly-matched riders are often quite dull because they end-up being predictable. Heat 15 is often the most boring race of the evening when in fact it should be the most exciting.

[Kevin Meynell]

Mind you, the current format is the same, the rider at number 1 goes out against 5 heatleaders in his 4 rides, so assuming he never beats a heatleader but beats the rest he scores 7 or even 6.

 

The classic 13-heat format gave the Nos 1 to 5 pretty equal rides (even if the No.2 got slightly easier opposition in theory), but easier rides to the Nos. 6 and 7. In one sense, this was a good thing because it allowed in-form riders to move-up into the main body of the team, whilst out-of-form riders could drop down and regain some confidence. Of course, it isn't totally fair, but arguably produces better racing.

 

The current 15-heat format is pretty crap really in that some riders meet more than others, others don't meet at all, and the Nos 1 and 5 (or A and E in new money) have much harder rides (often meeting in Heats 13 and 15). Still, it's difficult to devise a decent 7-rider format for anything more than 14-heats.

[Kevin Meynell]

Just how long did this 8 rider, 18 heat last Kev?

 

It lasted for just the 1993 season.

 

just what was the idea behind bringing in such a radical change to British speedway league racing??

 

It was basically an attempt to combine the 15-heat main match with the 6-heat 'second-half' matches that existed prior to 1993. The teams were increased from 7 to 8 riders with the two reserves (Nos. 7 and 8) being junior riders. They had two dedicated reserve races, and met second-strings (either the No.2 or No.6) in their other programmed heat. The other feature was the bottom, middle and top scorers after Heat 15, meeting in Heats 16 and 18.

 

I suppose the intention was to try and give fans better value for money, whilst not increasing costs too much. I think another aim was to have more even-matched heats, with lower-order riders have easier rides.

 

The main problem was the fact that matches dragged-on too long, and it didn't help that the interval was held after Heat 15. Another problem was that the 'evenly-matched' heats actually proved to be quite predictable and the extended format reduced the chances of a shock away wins. As previously mentioned, it was also difficult for the reserves to move-up into the main body of the team, whilst the nominated heats made life difficult for short-handed teams.

 

I personally thought the 18-heat principle was a good one, and could have succeeded if the heat format was re-jigged slightly and the running of matches speeded-up. Unfortunately though, it wasn't given a chance and the BSPA reverted to a new 16-heat format the following season.