Jacques Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 So they should have phoned Greg in Hospital to ask him what gate he wanted ???-were you on the booze last night ??? He reckons I post daft stuff on here too! Had a quick check as promised. Posts that were just having a go at other members were hidden but none were yours (this time ) so if you are missing one of your posts it looks like it never actually 'posted' unless it was posted in another topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Ward suspended then given a wildcard. That would mean his suspension has served no purpose. To get back in, Ward has to qualify.But fim will set the ban, bsi choose the wildcards, and they will want him (if available).Personally I'm fine with sic month ban, an additional 12 month suspended sentence, and mandatory testing at each meeting. His bsn will hsve served no purpose? He will have missed out presumably on healthy five digits lost earnings. And had he not missed the last two gp he would likely be sitting around about the same points as tai, 14 off the world championship lead with three roundsto go and an injured leader. I reckon missing out on a great chance to be world champion IS a punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 BSI and FIM work together over wild card picks but FIM have to sanction the choices... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Presumably if fim give only a six month ban, they wouldn't object to him being given a wildcard? Or they could give a longer ban for fim events only? Hard to see bsi not wanting him back in the series as soon as they can? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Presumably if fim give only a six month ban, they wouldn't object to him being given a wildcard? Or they could give a longer ban for fim events only? Hard to see bsi not wanting him back in the series as soon as they can? If (big if) he got a six month ban then clearly he would be back in action next season but the crucial time when the four series wild cards are decided is during the winter; during his ban. I doubt it possible that the FIM could sanction a wildcard who is actually serving a ban at the time the decision is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 You could well be right GC. But would be a real shame if the series to be missing ward and emil next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OveFundinFan Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 But fim will set the ban, bsi choose the wildcards, and they will want him (if available). Personally I'm fine with sic month ban, an additional 12 month suspended sentence, and mandatory testing at each meeting. His bsn will hsve served no purpose? He will have missed out presumably on healthy five digits lost earnings. And had he not missed the last two gp he would likely be sitting around about the same points as tai, 14 off the world championship lead with three roundsto go and an injured leader. I reckon missing out on a great chance to be world champion IS a punishment. So then, if top riders had not got injured, meaning if Ward had been riding he would have NOT been in the running for being world champ, what would your thoughts be? Would just slipping down the standings have been punishment and he can have a wild card, or would you want a ban and no wild card? Wherever he MIGHT have finished in the world champs; higher or lower should not come into consideration. Theres an old saying .... "you reap what you sow". He drank to a point he was over the specified limit, he pays the penalty for that, and that does not include, IMO, getting a wild card just because he may have missed out on being world champ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 If BSI want him as he's good for business they will get him in, no qualms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f-s-p Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) JUST heard from the Hancock camp that Greg will ride in Vojens. Believe he broke one finger and dislocated another and his hand was a bit of a mess. Not only the World Championship at stake ... also his remarkable record of 177 consecutive GPs, never having missed one. That must rank as one of speedway's greatest achievements. Drove back to Berlin this morning in the company of Chris Louis and kelvin Tatum. Both agreed that Greg's injuries could have been much worse. In trying to lean his bike over to scrub off speed and lay it down he actually came off worse than he might have done had it just hit the fence. Also both these seasoned campaigners believe that most of the crashes we are now seeing - including the Hancock/Iversen one last night, Woffinden's at Eastbourne, Morris at Coventry - are directly related to the on-going problems caused by the current silencers. And both also agreed with an earlier post here that the new regulations regarding mudguards are a nonsense and on Saturday actually did Hancock more harm than good. Also just heard that Niels had a MRI scan in Poland this morning and his knee ligament damage is quite severe. Might not see him in action again this season. But you just never know with these speedway boys.... GIVE the kid a break ... early season injury which he is only just getting over and his father suffering from a serious illness. Good to see him back with Michael on Saturday. Think he will kick on from here. Incidentally, another reason why many riders (of all nationalities) are not currently enamoured with EL racing in the UK is the standard of tracks they have to ride. Coventry's at home to Swindon recently is a case in point. So the incidents have nothing to do with the offset/ baby offset engines introduced after the current silencers? EDIT: new silencers will be introduced 010115. They are the same design with lower dB. Maybe better wake up and start to live with them. Edited September 2, 2014 by f-s-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 So the incidents have nothing to do with the offset/ baby offset engines introduced after the current silencers? EDIT: new silencers will be introduced 010115. They are the same design with lower dB. Maybe better wake up and start to live with them. Why? Another option would be that FIM could actually allow silencers that works and that are not dangerous. Two Swedish Engineers Bengt Eriksson and Conny Samuelsson ("BECO") had constructed a silencers that was both fulfilling the dB limit but which also did not "strangle" the engine like the current silencers do. However FIM decided that it wasn't good because it contained packing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 So the incidents have nothing to do with the offset/ baby offset engines introduced after the current silencers? EDIT: new silencers will be introduced 010115. They are the same design with lower dB. Maybe better wake up and start to live with them. WHAT about if someone dies with one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DEAN MACHINE Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 WHAT about if someone dies with one? what about if someone dies from being burnt from the current ones which produce a crazy amount of heat and befire you say about shield they dont cover the whole silencer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f-s-p Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Why? Another option would be that FIM could actually allow silencers that works and that are not dangerous. Two Swedish Engineers Bengt Eriksson and Conny Samuelsson ("BECO") had constructed a silencers that was both fulfilling the dB limit but which also did not "strangle" the engine like the current silencers do. However FIM decided that it wasn't good because it contained packing. So why did they build one that they knew was against the rules? Like Demski. Theres a reason why the rule did not change regarding how the silencers should be built. I dont know what it is though. I saw an insert probably of the same guys on Cmore a while back. They did ask good questions. Incidentally, I'd say you can use packing for isolation in the new ones, just that it cant be in contact with the fumes. WHAT about if someone dies with one? A bit stupid comment IMO. I have a list on my home PC about everyone since Kenny Olsson 2008. Lets just cut it short from the date that 115db was made mandatory, blame each on silencers and then ask why nothing was done. I still think the silencer is not the only cause. It's a combibation of things. Offset engines being one of the big ones. Edited September 2, 2014 by f-s-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) FSP as for the packing, if I remember it correctly FIA claimed that the packing lost effect over time and that each silencer had to be able to be fully working for 5 years so all silencers have to 100% mechanical to be approved. To bad since the previous (they have made a new mechanical one now) Beco silencer received allot of praise from the riders (including Jarek Hampel and Janusz Kolodziej) who tested it. Bikes were much easier to ride since the engine didn't loose as much torque/power as the current silencers do. http://www.espeedway.pl/news,kolodziej_i_hampel_po_testach_szwedzkiego_tlumika,64463,2.html http://www.gloswielkopolski.pl/artykul/975854,zuzel-problemy-z-tlumikami-dobiegaja-konca,id,t.html?cookie=1 Also Mikael Max says that he like the BECO silencer: http://mikaelmax.blogspot.se/2013/03/fick-brev-idag-fran-bertil-andersson.html http://mikaelmax.blogspot.se/2013/03/anders-kling-besokte-mig-idag-och-hade.html I also don't think anyone is blaming the silencer for all accidents/crashes but that many of the crashes where a rider looses control/gets front wheel lifts because the engine power is not sufficient to get the back wheel spinning. Surely today's engine type was used before the silencers where introduced? So the question is still why they impose silencers that does not work with the current engines? I also would like to correct myself the name of the BE part of BECO is Bertil Andersson. Edited September 2, 2014 by Ghostwalker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Surely today's engine type was used before the silencers where introduced? So the question is still why they impose silencers that does not work with the current engines? Lets switch that around. Why use engines that don't work with the silencers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Lets switch that around. Why use engines that don't work with the silencers? Why? Surely the engine model was used before the arrival of the new silencers? Also a silencer is obvioulsy a much simpler thing to construct then a speedway engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why? Surely the engine model was used before the arrival of the new silencers? Also a silencer is obvioulsy a much simpler thing to construct then a speedway engine. The engine model is largely the reason meetings get called off if a track is anything but perfect. A stroke motor with light flywheels just compounds the difficulties the new silencers bring but riders were happy to bin the old long stroke motors years ago in favour of "ride with one hand behind your back" type motors. Surely in the search for safety they will be happy to do the reverse now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 The engine model is largely the reason meetings get called off if a track is anything but perfect. A stroke motor with light flywheels just compounds the difficulties the new silencers bring but riders were happy to bin the old long stroke motors years ago in favour of "ride with one hand behind your back" type motors. Surely in the search for safety they will be happy to do the reverse now So how long have this "Offset engine" been around then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 So how long have this "Offset engine" been around then? Dont know, 3 or 4 years. I was referring more to short stroke and light flywheels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f-s-p Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Surely today's engine type was used before the silencers where introduced? So the question is still why they impose silencers that does not work with the current engines? Not putting any money on it, but offset engines came about the same time as the current silencers. Baby offset is newer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.