NO WORD FROM THE BSPA

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

2 minutes ago, acef said:

Then perhaps it needs to start selling its self as a motorsport? That's the obvious answer to this isn't it? 

I keep talking about the word decline. Its really important. Just because the few remaining fans are telling us that it's a team sport, just because some people think it's always been for the family and the freind etc, doesn't mean it is or that it has to be. 

I'll use the analogy I did earlier. If my restaurant was declining I wouldn't be listening to the remaining customers who were telling me its great because it isn't, I'm declining. I have an issue that needs addressing. 

Its the same here. Speedway might have always attracted a certain crowd, but that crowd is gone and we are not recycling it. That instantly tells me that all the things you think are right, are actually wrong because it's not increasing footfall. All the things you are raising, like the team element, the argument it's not a motorsport, those things are still here and we STILL DECLINING. 

Your twitter poll proves nothing. You have a captured audience dean, who like you, are stuck in a time warp 30 years ago. 

If you don't change what you do you will continue to get the same results. 

 

 the team concept works extremely well in Poland for speedway  and in pretty much every other team sport in Britain, until that changes I am completely right, the concept works ,it is a team sport

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

you keep referring to your restaurant, so how do you attract me to your restaurant as im the type of person who only eats cause I have to, I don't get all that celebrity food bollox and food is just that food so how would you get me into your restaurant because your idea is to show me the food is great, the best but I couldn't care less cause food isn't my thing , but if all my friends were going to your place and it looked fun to do then I would go

[Stoke Potter]

20 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

 but changing tracks will do nothing there will still be bad meetings even on the best tracks that is the nature of the sport

Completely untrue!  Changing the tracks improves the core product.

Of course you will still get poor meetings just as you get poor football matches.

The problem is the vast majority of UK Speedway meetings are poor at the moment, the main reason being is the tracks are not fit for purpose!

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

8 minutes ago, acef said:

It costs what it costs. That's the value. If they can't afford it then they need to step off the saddle. 

I hear you. I get why you'd want to help, but the sport is moving in the direction it's moving in because of Poland and the big bucks. 

That's just too big a fight imo. 

Poland have structure and they gear their leagues to the fan, when you go to polish league speedway you become part of the family of what ever team your at, as I said earlier I have been to some pretty poor polish meetings but the fan experience made it great

Edited July 19, 2018 by THE DEAN MACHINE

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

4 minutes ago, Stoke Potter said:

Completely untrue!  Changing the tracks improves the core product.

Of course you will still get poor meetings just as you get poor football matches.

The problem is the vast majority of UK Speedway meetings are poor at the moment, the main reason being is the tracks are not fit for purpose!

the bikes are not fit for the purpose the tracks are the same as they have always been and even if you were right 90% of the tracks cant be changed

[acef]

Just now, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

Poland have structure and they gear their leagues to the fan, when you go to polish league speedway you become part of the family of what ever team your at

Absolutely. The team element still works there so their product doesn't need changing. In fact it's only getting stronger. As a consequence of that costs have risen because riders are earning more and so invest more. Supply and demand. That is my argument. 

As speedway shares the same basic principle it means the equipment over here is no longer relative to what they earn. 

But that's just how it is. We don't cut corners or dilute we market a better product so the riders over here can invest like they do over there because they are earning more, and they are earning more because there are bums on seats because we have a better product. 

[Stoke Potter]

1 minute ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

the bikes are not fit for the purpose the tracks are the same as they have always been and even if you were right 90% of the tracks cant be changed

A good majority of the tracks have never been fit for purpose either!

You're wrong at 90% and we're finding out what the figure might be on the other thread.

You'll see the light one day Deano.

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

1 minute ago, acef said:

Absolutely. The team element still works there so their product doesn't need changing. In fact it's only getting stronger. As a consequence of that costs have risen because riders are earning more and so invest more. Supply and demand. That is my argument. 

As speedway shares the same basic principle it means the equipment over here is no longer relative to what they earn. 

But that's just how it is. We don't cut corners or dilute we market a better product so the riders over here can invest like they do over there because they are earning more, and they are earning more because there are bums on seats because we have a better product. 

our product only differs because we have killed the team concept, we don't have a team to support anymore only in name , I used to be a wolves fan, who never missed a match, I have been twice this year because I cant relate to a team who has 5of the 7 riders riding for another team, in Poland your team is your team not someone elses team

[acef]

3 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

the bikes are not fit for the purpose the tracks are the same as they have always been and even if you were right 90% of the tracks cant be changed

But they are fit for purpose everywhere else dean. 

Panama doesn't have the same footballing infrastructure as England, but they haven't reinvented the game. They still played us at a game of football in the world cup. They aspire to be like us and thats a great attitude. 

By changing the equipment you are cost cutting and corner cutting. It's got to be implemented across the sport for it to work. You can't just do it in one nation. 

The only way to start competing is to stabilise the product by providing better entertainment then you can market and drive revenue. 

And we will go round in circles all night mate, because imo to improve the entertainment we need to sort out the tracks to accommodate the bikes. 

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

8 minutes ago, acef said:

Absolutely. The team element still works there so their product doesn't need changing. In fact it's only getting stronger. As a consequence of that costs have risen because riders are earning more and so invest more. Supply and demand. That is my argument. 

As speedway shares the same basic principle it means the equipment over here is no longer relative to what they earn. 

But that's just how it is. We don't cut corners or dilute we market a better product so the riders over here can invest like they do over there because they are earning more, and they are earning more because there are bums on seats because we have a better product. 

investing in what?,longer vans

[Stoke Potter]

2 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

our product only differs because we have killed the team concept

Again, completely untrue statement, our product also differs because our tracks are completely different (and massively inferior).

Keep going!

[acef]

2 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

investing in what?,longer vans

Yep. And shiny bikes with neon colours. 

Its the 21st century. That's how we roll now. 

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

Just now, acef said:

But they are fit for purpose everywhere else dean. 

 

they are not ,they bikes were the best around 20 years ago , they were the safest and easiest to ride and pretty much the same speed as todays bikes, difference being they didn't have problem getting round any track, but riders follow suit and go with whatever someone else uses, there is a product that has been made but no one is using it yet, if it does I gaurentee some will be killed with it, greg hancock saw it and said he couldn't use it as it doesn't suit how he rides but other lesser riders will see it a progress cause it in theory makes the job a little less work but it also takes away the little throttle control they have now , its a disaster waiting to happen

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

8 minutes ago, Stoke Potter said:

Again, completely untrue statement, our product also differs because our tracks are completely different (and massively inferior).

Keep going!

think you need to spend a bit more time in Poland mate, they have some amazing tracks and stadiums but they have some real dumps too

Edited July 19, 2018 by THE DEAN MACHINE

[Stoke Potter]

7 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

think you need to spend a bit more time in Poland mate, they have some amazing tracks and stadiums but they have some real dumps too

Reality is we have one truly world class track and loads of flawed ones.  They have how many truly great tracks and how many as bad as most of ours?

Stadiums are not the point of the debate at the minute.  A few BV type tracks in fields would be a good start.

[OveFundinFan]

2 minutes ago, Stoke Potter said:

Reality is we have one truly world class track and loads of flawed ones.  They have how many truly great tracks and how many as bad as most of ours?

Stadiums are not the point of the debate at the minute.  A few BV type tracks in fields would be a good start.

I just watched the 2nd round of Euro championship from Gustrow which Robert Lambert won in great style.  300 metre track, really good racing, but the stadium part is nothing to write home about.... so I go along with you, Stoke Potter, a good race track in a field is a good starting point. Then build around it.

[acef]

12 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

they are not ,they bikes were the best around 20 years ago , they were the safest and easiest to ride and pretty much the same speed as todays bikes, difference being they didn't have problem getting round any track, but riders follow suit and go with whatever someone else uses, there is a product that has been made but no one is using it yet, if it does I gaurentee some will be killed with it, greg hancock saw it and said he couldn't use it as it doesn't suit how he rides but other lesser riders will see it a progress cause it in theory makes the job a little less work but it also takes away the little throttle control they have now , its a disaster waiting to happen

So explain a bit more about the mechanics to me then. 

The bikes now are clearly more volatile and have higher revs, there is less throttle control so a bigger track is surely safer where there is more banking and run off to scrub your speed. 

I'm guessing the current lay down is always turning over a lot faster so even with the tap off your still revving high as f%%k in a race. 

Its the control of the motorbike at the lower end that has been lost, which in your opinion makes the bike dangerous? So on a smaller track its harder to get the back end out than it used to be because there is too much power in those moments. Is that what you mean? 

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

Just now, Stoke Potter said:

Reality is we have one truly world class track and loads of flawed ones.  They have how many truly great tracks and how many as bad as most of ours?

Stadiums are not the point of the debate at the minute.  A few BV type tracks in fields would be a good start.

as I said spend some time in Poland, they have some real crap tracks that are in fields, did you watch the SEC FROM gustrow at the weekend?, a small track similar size to buxton that has a similar black type shale and was rough, completely the opposite to belle vue but there was some really good racing on it especially in the first half the meeting, the size of the track doesn't matter, all the size does is make the tuner more important  

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

21 minutes ago, acef said:

So explain a bit more about the mechanics to me then. 

The bikes now are clearly more volatile and have higher revs, there is less throttle control so a bigger track is surely safer where there is more banking and run off to scrub your speed. 

I'm guessing the current lay down is always turning over a lot faster so even with the tap off your still revving high as f%%k in a race. 

Its the control of the motorbike at the lower end that has been lost, which in your opinion makes the bike dangerous? So on a smaller track its harder to get the back end out than it used to be because there is too much power in those moments. Is that what you mean? 

not just the lower end,its lost the mid range too, the back wheel is spinning about 1500 revs faster than it was 20 years ago but the bike speed is still pretty much the same, the light flywheels in a short stroke engine just makes it rev, it not all the engine the silencer has reduced the usable power a bit more, the bikes are relatively easy to ride no matter what the size of the track and on a smooth surface they behave but as soon as there is a build up of dirt or a rut they just take off, now imagine the bike takes off and you have to scrub that wheel spin off before you hit the fence , on a track like belle vue  you not so much broadsliding as steering a skid, you need the bike to be going forward all the time but on a smaller track you have to turn hard and you scrub a lot of speed off, on really tight tracks your almost going backwards mid turn, so do we really need extra wheelspin to go the same speed?, the product looks the same, many of the people I have spoken too have said we should never have gone from upright to laydown, even hans Nielsen and peter karlsson said it but we did and the first laydowns were great as they had the handling of the laydown chassis and the performance of the upright engines but as short strokes got more popular we are just getting further and further away from a good bike no matter how much they shine

Edited July 19, 2018 by THE DEAN MACHINE

[acef]

3 minutes ago, THE DEAN MACHINE said:

not just the lower end,its lost the mid range too, the back wheel is spinning about 1500 revs faster than it was 20 years ago but the bike speed is still pretty much the same, the light flywheels in a short stroke engine just makes it rev, it not all the engine the silencer has reduced the usable power a bit more, the bikes are relatively easy to ride no matter what the size of the track and on a smooth surface they behave but as soon as there is a build up of dirt or a rut they just take off, now imagine the bike takes off and you have to scrub that wheel spin off before you hit the fence , on a track like belle vue  you not so much broadsliding as steering a skid, you need the bike to be going forward all the time but on a smaller track you have to turn hard and you scrub a lot of speed off, on really tight tracks your almost going backwards mid turn

So even without the ruts or a bit too much dirt, the power at the low to mid range is still going to hurt you on a track like Rye for example. Your having to lose so much speed going into that corner and your essentially at a right angle, the thing just straightens out if you overcook it even it a little bit. 

I get where your coming from. The bikes make it hard and I certainly wouldn't fancy trying to keep it on the kerb on these smaller tracks. I'd be out by the boards and make the track as big as I could to keep the bike at its optimum momentum. 

What gets me there is the silencer. I know it plays such a huge roll but that is going to be hard to redevelop. Especially in the UK where the noise pisses off a lot of the locals. 

I also don't get how Greg would struggle if the engines were toned down a bit. If that's what you meant. 

He's straight outta calafornia on super tight tracks. He grew up with those machines 30 years ago. Surely he'd appreciate some better development