Warsaw Gp Saturday 18th April

[Humphrey Appleby]

Because they are doing it wrong. They use the same material for the entire track instead of using layers of 2-3 different type of material.

 

It appears to make sense because that's how you construct roads, but whether it's appropriate or practical for a temporary track is another matter. I can well imagine the top layer of fine shale will initially sink through the coarser lower layers which bind it together, and you have to keep building it up over several weeks until there's a consistent well supported layer on top.

 

Maybe you simply cannot do this in the few days you have before a GP, so just have to rely on heavily compacting a single layer and hope for the best.

[Ghostwalker]

So you know this, or are you just quoting Tommy Rander?

 

Both.

 

If you look at the temporary tracks. They all suffer from the same problem. They develop ruts and holes very quickly, sometimes already during practice.

Then everyone can see that these ruts and holes also appears during the race. Add to that Philips comment that the same material is used for all tracks=

same problem on all tracks that uses that material.

 

Like Nicki P says "They have been laying these tracks for 15 years so they should know hot to do it". Nicki also says that when they drove a tractor on the track,

the track's structure changed. Here it says that the track was too loose.

 

Sure Rander often has "I know best attitude" especially when it comes to Swedish speedway and I often don't like/agree with what he writes but

even a blind man (no offence to anyone) can see that there is something wrong being done with these temporary tracks.

 

Morgan Andersson, team manager for the Swedish national team and also an expert for Cmore, says that the track was laid too late (although other sources have claimed the opposite)

and that meant that it didn't have enough time to settle (or burn as we say in Swedish). http://www.svt.se/sport/jonsson-brot-warszawas-gp

 

So If Ole isn't doing it wrong, why do "we" keep having problems with the temporary tracks (ruts, holes, track too loose and etc)? Because it isn't done right.

 

Links originally posted in this post: http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=78246&page=54&do=findComment&comment=2601984

 

It appears to make sense because that's how you construct roads, but whether it's appropriate or practical for a temporary track is another matter. I can well imagine the top layer of fine shale will initially sink through the coarser lower layers which bind it together, and you have to keep building it up over several weeks until there's a consistent well supported layer on top.

 

Maybe you simply cannot do this in the few days you have before a GP, so just have to rely on heavily compacting a single layer and hope for the best.

 

At least permanent tracks are done the same way: see these pics:

 

http://www.svenskalag.se/galleries_show.asp?teamID=1227&TeamGalleryID=15119

http://www.svenskalag.se/galleries_show.asp?teamID=1227&TeamGalleryID=15608

 

That is what Morgan Andersson also says (see link above).

Edited May 7, 2015 by Ghostwalker

[PHILIPRISING]

.

Whilst that sounds, superficially, a sensible and plausible excuse.

It just does not seem to tally with my recollection of past events.

 

My memory was that just about ALL the worst temporary tracks on Saturday nights.

Had also been deemed horrendous at practice.

 

When was it other?

 

.

THAT'S true and there was no solution in Gelsenkirchen. But at Cardiff two years ago and in Warsaw they had practice on Saturday morning during which the riders gave the track the thumbs up only for it to deteriorate more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case during the meeting.

 

But even at meetings where the track has been satisfactory at worst and excellent at best (and Olsen built indoor tracks have frequently been praised by riders at post-SGP press conferences) it doesn't alter the fact that practice takes a heavy toil although Ole would be the first to tell you that having riders doing some laps (though not as many as they have been) is useful because it turns the surface over which is then relaid and packed down again.

[Humphrey Appleby]

At least permanent tracks are done the same way: see these pics:

 

Of course you also have to lift the temporary tracks at the end of the meeting as well, and if the material has to be re-used, presumably you'd then need a process of sifting out the different grades of material that have got mixed together.

 

This may also be an issue.

[Grand Central]

THAT'S true and there was no solution in Gelsenkirchen. But at Cardiff two years ago and in Warsaw they had practice on Saturday morning during which the riders gave the track the thumbs up only for it to deteriorate more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case during the meeting.

 

That's the wonder of hindsight.

 

In Cardiff 2013 and at Warsaw the first practice sessions were completely abandoned as the track was too bad.

After that experience It would have been impossible to get the riders on board to go straight to racenight, proper, without seeing if Ole's overnight remedial work had actually worked.

 

Even BSI - or PZM - could not have legitimately opened their doors on either night without the practice showing that there was a reasonable chance of success.

[bigcatdiary]

RICHARD is never slow to voice an opinion, as he did in Warsaw, but to suggest that he knows more about track building than Ole Olsen must rank as one of the most ridiculous statements of all time.

 

Anyone would think that every track Ole has built has been rubbish which isn't the case. He has certainly got far more right than he has wrong and I have said until I am blue in the face that it isn't as simple as some on here seem to think.

 

Tommy Rander is another who thinks he has all the answers except he hasn't. The material used in Warsaw was the same as in Copenhagen, Cardiff and Stockholm which have produced some good tracks in the past.

 

One of the unique problems for temporary tracks is that generally they are at their best for practice, during which they take a pounding equal to a whole meeting. That obviously wasn't initially the case in Warsaw but there is no doubt that had there not been a full practice on Saturday morning conditions would have been better later in the day.

Perhaps its about time they did away with the practice beforehand then

[HenryW]

Oh please tell me that we aren't trying to shift the blame to the fact that they have practice...If that is the outcome of any "investigation" it will be completely unacceptable.

 

I'm sorry but somebody needs to be held responsible for the monumental f*** up I paid to witness in Warsaw.

[wigtoncomet]

RICHARD is never slow to voice an opinion, as he did in Warsaw, but to suggest that he knows more about track building than Ole Olsen must rank as one of the most ridiculous statements of all time.

 

Anyone would think that every track Ole has built has been rubbish which isn't the case. He has certainly got far more right than he has wrong and I have said until I am blue in the face that it isn't as simple as some on here seem to think.

 

Tommy Rander is another who thinks he has all the answers except he hasn't. The material used in Warsaw was the same as in Copenhagen, Cardiff and Stockholm which have produced some good tracks in the past.

 

One of the unique problems for temporary tracks is that generally they are at their best for practice, during which they take a pounding equal to a whole meeting. That obviously wasn't initially the case in Warsaw but there is no doubt that had there not been a full practice on Saturday morning conditions would have been better later in the day.

As quoted above about the shale. It would be interesting to know when the shale was actually shipped to poland. If it was stored, where and for how long. IMO and I,m just guessing the shale was transported directly from the docks off the ship to the stadium. That could explain why the track builders were in the stadium two days before starting building it. From a logistical point of view 3000 tonnes of shale would take roughly 120 truck loads and the cost of transporting it from the docks to a store then re-loading it to take to the stadium would be doubled. Not to mention the storage costs. There has been lots of talk about how much moisture is in the shale and now how it supposed to be monitored. If my assumptions are correct no wonder the track was not up to expectations. Really though the main reason the meeting didn't continue was the tapes not working properly. The riders should of done another ride each then semi's and final. If they wouldn't do that then they shouldn't of got paid. There seemed to be no leadership,My friends can't believe I travelled to Poland to watch less than 12 minutes of racing!. The damage to speedway is done now though.

[PHILIPRISING]

Even BSI - or PZM - could not have legitimately opened their doors on either night without the practice showing that there was a reasonable chance of success.

EXACTLY ... which I stated previously. It's a bit of a Catch 22 situation but, of course, the solution to that conundrum is to have the track right from the outset.

 

Ole has told us that the track laying procedures at Warsaw were exactly the same as at Cardiff, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Auckland previously and to the same time scale. The material used is a special blend which has been scientifically tested to ensure that the moisture content is neither too high not too dry. However, all the evidence of Gelsenkirchen, Cardiff and now Warsaw points to the fact that if the moisture is too high, even in just a relatively small amount of the total tonnage, it can and does cause problems.

 

Problems which are exasperated in stadiums where the track is laid on a concrete base and the ambient temperate inside is particularly cold, as in Germany and Poland, because it is nigh on impossible to get the excess moisture to the surface for it to evaporate. Using heavy equipment to roll the track just shifts the problem from one area to another. The only solution is to dig up the affected areas, turn the material over, and relay.

 

It would appear that what is required is a better system of monitoring the moisture content of all the material as it is being laid to provide an early warning system as it were and to have some sort of equipment on hand to dry out any material that is deemed too wet. In Gelsenkirchen the then road-building sponsors of Scott Nicholls, who were there, said that when laying tarmac on a road the material is fed through a machine which heats it as it is being laid. Something similar might do the trick although such as equipment is not readily available for such an operation as laying a speedway track.

 

Ole will be the first to admit that he got it wrong but if anyone who thinks he doesn't care or lose sleep over it is wrong. He and his guys, who include a Danish construction engineer with vast experience in road building, worked through the night in both Cardiff and Warsaw to try and get things right. They don't set out to produce a crap track as some on here like to call them.

 

The track in Warsaw certainly wasn't laid too late. And had the weather been warm and the roof been open it might have been better. But it wasn't. All sorts of factors conspired to make the track far from perfect but question still remains over whether it was actually unsafe as the riders eventually insisted and gave the fIM no option but to cancel.

[rob tatum]

As just a fan of speedway & certainly no track expert can somebody please explain to me why the poole track is so crap & the somerset track is so good. If it comes down to the track curator or track expert then surely for the gps they should get the best in to prepare the tracks if olsen isn't.

[Grand Central]

Phil ... I think it is important to separate the two strands of your argument more completely.

 

Strand 1 ... Ole just has not got these tracks right and no amount of wishful thinking can, necessarily, make it so.

The moisture issue is the overriding one. And as so many factors relating to that will always remain out of his control he wil NEVER be able to guarentee sufficiently to avoid this being an on going problem.

 

Strand 2 ... The riders lied. They said it was the track that was unsafe and really it was the starting gate issue that was really their problem.

 

Bringing the strands back together.

 

If temporary tracks in big city stadiums are to continue then the minor inadequacy of the track (as it was this time) will just have to be swallowed by the riders.

Sometimes.

 

And now we know that they will 'abuse' the safety concerns aspect;

They just cannot have the power - in effect, at least - to cancel meetings themselves.

 

.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Grand Central

[rob tatum]

Just watched the warsaw shambles again & to be honest the racing was pretty good & from my comfy sofa the track looked ok & have seen far worse (just go to poole its bloody terrible). For me it was the amount of time everything was taking. Surely to god 23 heats of speedway can be done an dusted in 2 hrs unless there is a major incident.

[Humphrey Appleby]

As quoted above about the shale. It would be interesting to know when the shale was actually shipped to poland. If it was stored, where and for how long.

The ship that reportedly transported the shale from King's Lynn to Gdansk does not appear to have docked at either port in the 2 or 3 weeks preceding the GP. One therefore wonders whether it was delivered earlier and sat somewhere, which of course would then not explain why there appears to be have been a delay in starting work on the track. Maybe something went wrong with the storage, and some local shale had to be found in a hurry?

 

Even if the shale was shipped just before the GP, I can't see that transporting it a damp maritime environment is ideal.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Humphrey Appleby

[PHILIPRISING]

Phil ... I think it is important to separate the two strands of your argument more completely.

 

Strand 1 ... Ole just has not got these tracks right and no amount of wishful thinking can, necessarily, make it so.

The moisture issue is the overriding one. And as so many factors relating to that will always remain out of his control he wil NEVER be able to guarentee sufficiently to avoid this being an on going problem.

 

MY opinion doesn't matter. But I handle Press Conferences at SGP events and there have been plenty at Cardiff, Copenhagen and more recently Stockholm when the riders have unsolicited thanked Ole for his track preparation.

The ship that reportedly transported the shale from King's Lynn to Gdansk does not appear to have docked at either port in the 2 or 3 weeks preceding the GP. One therefore wonders whether it was delivered earlier and sat somewhere, which of course would then not explain why there appears to be have been a delay in starting work on the track. Maybe something went wrong with the storage, and some local shale had to be found in a hurry?

 

Even if the shale was shipped just before the GP, I can't see that transporting it a damp maritime environment is ideal.

THERE was no delay in starting work. Before laying the track the metal safety fence has to be installed and that takes time

[Humphrey Appleby]

Ole will be the first to admit that he got it wrong

He didn't admit he got it wrong though. He said the FIM Jury signed-off on the track, so it's their responsibility.

 

They don't set out to produce a crap track as some on here like to call them.

Of course not, but something is obviously not right with their preparation or quality control. When you're doing something professionally, good intentions are not good enough.

 

I'm sure he's also very concerned about the potential to be sued, as much as anything else.

THERE was no delay in starting work. Before laying the track the metal safety fence has to be installed and that takes time

And the transport of the shale on the ghost ship? Where was it kept?

They just cannot have the power - in effect, at least - to cancel meetings themselves.

They'll always have the power - they just have to refuse to ride and the show's over.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Humphrey Appleby

[f-s-p]

 

Both.

 

Ok, so you know.

 

The way that Ole builds his tracks, is that the thickness of the track next to the white line is about 20 cm. On the outside it's somewhere between 80 cm to 100cm, closer to 80 cm. I can see some benefits putting a different base material (which can always be local, as it can be basically stones ranging between 20-40 mm for example) and some material will always be "lost" during taking down the track. But since most of the racing would be on the inner half of the track anyway, it would not (I dont know really?) make much sense to make a bottom layer of rocks for 10-35 cm and then 10 cm of top layer of speedway shale. ??????????

 

Like Phil says, it's about moisture, the base floor it's built on and how the moisture acts with the surroundings. This is what I think. It was a good post by someone earlier about covered football stadia with grass problems...

 

If track building was easy, the ratio between good ones and bad ones would not be 70/30 for the bads, it would the other way around. This last is not about Ole's tracks but tracks in general where I've seen any. And if it's easy, I'm doing it daily in a few years time, you're all welcome!

[Grand Central]

They'll always have the power - they just have to refuse to ride and the show's over.

Only by snivelling, hiding behind the (false) safety issue and then keeping a public silence.

Remove that, somehow, and then disciplinary action would have them sharing with Darcy on his hols.

[A ORLOV]

Only by snivelling, hiding behind the (false) safety issue and then keeping a public silence.

Remove that, somehow, and then disciplinary action would have them sharing with Darcy on his hols.

If they disciplined all the top riders and banned them from riding it would not be long before some one like onesport ran an alternative comp.

[The White Knight]

 

It appears to make sense because that's how you construct roads, but whether it's appropriate or practical for a temporary track is another matter. I can well imagine the top layer of fine shale will initially sink through the coarser lower layers which bind it together, and you have to keep building it up over several weeks until there's a consistent well supported layer on top.

 

Maybe you simply cannot do this in the few days you have before a GP, so just have to rely on heavily compacting a single layer and hope for the best.

Hoping for the best is simply not good enough for paying Spectators. It smacks of unprofessionalism.

 

Ole will be the first to admit that he got it wrong but if anyone who thinks he doesn't care or lose sleep over it is wrong. He and his guys, who include a Danish construction engineer with vast experience in road building, worked through the night in both Cardiff and Warsaw to try and get things right. They don't set out to produce a crap track as some on here like to call them.

Nobody is suggesting that they set out to lay a crap Track. Sadly, though, too often they do. I don't believe that these Temporary Tracks are a good idea. Up to a point I think they are dangerous.

 

Obviously, in this case, if it was the Track that stopped the Warsaw GP - the Riders would agree with me.

 

Phil ... I think it is important to separate the two strands of your argument more completely.

 

Strand 1 ... Ole just has not got these tracks right and no amount of wishful thinking can, necessarily, make it so.

The moisture issue is the overriding one. And as so many factors relating to that will always remain out of his control he wil NEVER be able to guarentee sufficiently to avoid this being an on going problem.

 

Strand 2 ... The riders lied. They said it was the track that was unsafe and really it was the starting gate issue that was really their problem.

 

Bringing the strands back together.

 

If temporary tracks in big city stadiums are to continue then the minor inadequacy of the track (as it was this time) will just have to be swallowed by the riders.

Sometimes.

 

And now we know that they will 'abuse' the safety concerns aspect;

They just cannot have the power - in effect, at least - to cancel meetings themselves.

 

.

Why should any Rider be asked to ride on (swallow) a dangerous Track? Would you?

 

The Riders must have the POWER!!! They are the ones putting their lives at risk, not those building crap/dangerous Tracks.

 

I hope you aren't a Health and Safety Officer.

[Grand Central]

H&S have alerted me to the danger of responding to certain posts.

The use of red type, underlining, multiple exclamation marks and italics are to me taken as warning signs.

I must leave well alone and let the old dear calm down.

 

 

 

Edited spelling

Edited May 7, 2015 by Grand Central