Prague GP`s rounds 5 and 6 Friday and Saturday September 18th and 19th

[OGT]

43 minutes ago, Scipio777 said:

i think we are all missing the point. zero racing. worst meetingI have seen this year, no question. awful

Truly, truly terrible. I'd recorded it cos I was out and I need to contact Virgin Media for a new remote as I've worn the fast forward button out! 

[ytsejam]

3 minutes ago, chunky said:

Have you ever thought of reading - and comprehending - what was written, instead making nonsensical claims? I never said this was fairer, and I never said this was better, so don't put words in my mouth. I have stated on here (on multiple occasions) that I much preferred the system used in previous years. As I said though, it was possible to win every GP, and not finish in the Top 8. I will be back in a little while with all the figures for you.

In the meantime, you said that a rider could win the World Championship this year without winning a race the whole season. We all know that it was POSSIBLE to do that with the old world final system. You didn't have to win a race to get through the qualifying rounds. In the final itself, there were 120 points at stake, which gives an average per rider of 7.5 points. Therefore, anything ABOVE the average could win. Keeping it simple, a rider could finish with 10 points (five second places), which means that the average for the other 15 is 7.33. So, not only could the winner not need to win a race, he could win with points to spare.

So, why is this year so bad when it was possible before?

As I said, I will be back in a little while.

Have YOU ever thought of actually reading my original post too where I said “How can someone who doesn't win a race ALL NIGHT end up with 18 points?!!!”

it was someone else who said that theoretically someone could be World Champion without winning a race and I just agreed that yes, that could happy in theory. We all know it won’t in practice. My beef is that the new system is totally unfair, and that riders shouldn’t end the night with less or significantly more then they have earnt through the racing. 

So before you try being all big and clever again why don’t YOU actually a) read my posts and b) try to tell me how a system which means riders can go away with vastly different totals of points to what they have earned in 6 or 7 rides on the night is not a lot worse than the previous one used or fairer?

EVERY point a rider scores should matter and no one should end up with less than they have earned during their rides. 

And as for you analogy!!.What on earth is that all about? “In the final itself there are 120 points and a rider can finish with 10 points”....NO WINNER of any GP has ever done it scoring only 10 points on the night!!...You’re in utter cloud cuckoo land!! Even if they scraped through to the semis with 7 points from their 5 heats, to actually WIN the GP they would then need to get another 5 points minimum so the lowest they could ever actually won a GP with was 12 points on the night!! And that’s what they would take to the next round.......and it was FAIR.

 

[HenryW]

1 hour ago, ytsejam said:

Oh look, a hero alert!!!....Did I say that it was a perfect system in the past?.....but it was certainly a lot fairer and more professional than one where someone can win 6 races (18 points) on the night and end up going home with 14 whilst someone can score 12 points and go home with 18 or even 20!!! 
Don’t see how even a super fan like you can possibly argue that that is fair or a better system than has been used for many years prior to this one!!!!

Come on then PROVE that!!!

You might be horrified by a system that could allow a rider to win 5 races out of 6 (or 3 wins out of 4) and finish with 16 points, while a rider that had 2 lasts and 7 second places (or 1 last and 4 seconds) could get 20 points...But that was the SGP scoring system for 7 years.

During those 7 years, the rider that never won a race would have been world champion 6 times. Only the exceptional performance of Tony Rickardsson in 2001 would have prevented that (if my drunken counting is right!)

I'm not a fan of the scoring change this year, but there have been equally bad or worse systems in the past. The riders just have to adapt and make it work for them.

[chunky]

21 minutes ago, ytsejam said:

Have YOU ever thought of actually reading my original post too where I said “How can someone who doesn't win a race ALL NIGHT end up with 18 points?!!!”

it was someone else who said that theoretically someone could be World Champion without winning a race and I just agreed that yes, that could happy in theory. We all know it won’t in practice. My beef is that the new system is totally unfair, and that riders shouldn’t end the night with less or significantly more then they have earnt through the racing. 

So before you try being all big and clever again why don’t YOU actually a) read my posts and b) try to tell me how a system which means riders can go away with vastly different totals of points to what they have earned in 6 or 7 rides on the night is not a lot worse than the previous one used or fairer?

EVERY point a rider scores should matter and no one should end up with less than they have earned during their rides. 

And as for you analogy!!.What on earth is that all about? “In the final itself there are 120 points and a rider can finish with 10 points”....NO WINNER of any GP has ever done it scoring only 10 points on the night!!...You’re in utter cloud cuckoo land!! Even if they scraped through to the semis with 7 points from their 5 heats, to actually WIN the GP they would then need to get another 5 points minimum so the lowest they could ever actually won a GP with was 12 points on the night!! And that’s what they would take to the next round.......and it was FAIR.

 

I never said anything it about being better or worse. You were the one who said it was. You complained that a rider COULD be World Champion this year without winning a race; I said you COULD have done that with the old World Final system. It doesn't matter that a winner of a GP HASN'T finished with 10 points on the night, and I was using that to illustrate that it was possible with the World Final system.

Referring to the anomalies of the 2020 GP system, I haven't been through all the possibilities.  However, with the previous system, it WAS possible for someone to win EVERY GP (yes, all ten) and not finish in the Top 8. That is FACT. To correct you, 12 was not the lowest possible winning score - a rider could qualify with 6 points (plus the semi and final).

Again, I have stated that I preferred the old system, but do YOU think it's fair that it was possible for a rider to do what I said? Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will, and just because something HASN'T happened doesn't mean it won't. No system is perfect, despite what we may prefer, or what we may think.

[chunky]

18 minutes ago, HenryW said:

You might be horrified by a system that could allow a rider to win 5 races out of 6 (or 3 wins out of 4) and finish with 16 points, while a rider that had 2 lasts and 7 second places (or 1 last and 4 seconds) could get 20 points...But that was the SGP scoring system for 7 years.

During those 7 years, the rider that never won a race would have been world champion 6 times. Only the exceptional performance of Tony Rickardsson in 2001 would have prevented that (if my drunken counting is right!)

I'm not a fan of the scoring change this year, but there have been equally bad or worse systems in the past. The riders just have to adapt and make it work for them.

That was my point; every system flawed, but people don't think like that., Do you think it was fair that a rider could win every GP, and not even qualify for the following year? No, it was never going to happen, but...

Again, this year is the same for everyone, and the riders knew what it was like before they started the season.Like EVERY World Championship season previously...

[chunky]

1 hour ago, tyler42 said:

But the ref called back one of those starts and after watching the reply, Realised he had made a mistake. Whereas tonight Madsen jumped before the tapes went up and many times did he do that tonight? four out of six rides was it not!

I still felt bad for Fricke, as had the ref done the right thing, he would have been in the semis.

[chunky]

For those who are interested (all you anoraks), here is how a rider COULD have won EVERY GP last year, and not finished in the Top 8. 6 points could get you into the semis, plus 2 from the semi, and 3 for winning the final. Of course, there are variations on this, but I tried to keep it simple.

The top section is the final points awarded for each GP, and the bottom section is the season-end totals with final positions. Again, this was just something I did for fun, and to prove that while most of us preferred the old system, it was far from perfect! As has been EVERY system...

[HenryW]

8 minutes ago, chunky said:

That was my point; every system flawed, but people don't think like that., Do you think it was fair that a rider could win every GP, and not even qualify for the following year? No, it was never going to happen, but...

Again, this year is the same for everyone, and the riders knew what it was like before they started the season.Like EVERY World Championship season previously...

Yep. I totally understand your point and was just trying to add some extra "colour" to the argument that things have never been totally "fair".

However, I do understand why so many are feeling a little grumpy or uneasy with the scoring this year, and that's because we have had a scoring system that actually worked really well for a good while now. It had its issues, but it's hard to argue against the concept that "every point counts" through a GP. To me, last year's scoring has been the closest to a "fair" system that the GP series has had ..and there doesn't really seem to be a particularly good reason for the change this year...but I think you probably agree with that anyway, you have just making the point that there has never been and never will be a "perfect" system, which I agree with.

[chunky]

19 minutes ago, HenryW said:

Yep. I totally understand your point and was just trying to add some extra "colour" to the argument that things have never been totally "fair".

However, I do understand why so many are feeling a little grumpy or uneasy with the scoring this year, and that's because we have had a scoring system that actually worked really well for a good while now. It had its issues, but it's hard to argue against the concept that "every point counts" through a GP. To me, last year's scoring has been the closest to a "fair" system that the GP series has had ..and there doesn't really seem to be a particularly good reason for the change this year...but I think you probably agree with that anyway, you have just making the point that there has never been and never will be a "perfect" system, which I agree with.

Yep, that's it... It just gets me that everyone picks holes in a system for something that MIGHT happen (but won't) but then hate it when you compare it to an equally flawed system where something COULD have happened (but didn't)!

To be honest, I think that's why they changed it - because winning a GP in previous years didn't really mean anything as far as the overall standings. As many on here said, heavier weighting on the semis and final would probably have taken care of a lot of that.

Think about it from last year; why should someone who scrapes in to the final, and then wins one race, get the rewards of GP winner, yet a rider who only dropped one point in seven races DOESN'T win? Oh, wait a minute, a similar thing has happened this year - twice! Only difference is, Woffinden and Lindgren picked up extra points.

Of course, the main thing as far as the organisers are concerned is that they want the title to go down to the wire - which doesn't actually happen in most major sports! It's just a matter of finding the right balance...

[tyler42]

1 hour ago, chunky said:

I still felt bad for Fricke, as had the ref done the right thing, he would have been in the semis.

Not only Max. As it turned out Madsen jumped the start one too many times, but just say he made it all the way to the final and won it (quite feasible if he makes the start) He would now be only one point behind Tai and in the process knocking out at least two riders along the way who had made semi and final. All down to a bad error on the refs part.

Would there have been a case for a protest from one or two riders over the ref's decision. As it could have had made a big impact on the final standings in the championship?

[HenryW]

2 minutes ago, tyler42 said:

Not only Max. As it turned out Madsen jumped the start one too many times, but just say he made it all the way to the final and won it (quite feasible if he makes the start) He would now be only one point behind Tai and in the process knocking out at least two riders along the way who had made semi and final. All down to a bad error on the refs part.

Would there have been a case for a protest from one or two riders over the ref's decision. As it could have had made a big impact on the final standings in the championship?

As I have said earlier, I think that Madsen DIDN'T jump the start in semi final, so he could possibly be going away feeling cheated out of points, although I accept that he was lucky to even be in the semi final as he definitely got away with one earlier...

However, I feel like the warning system isn't right. Does it not seem more sensible that if you get excluded for a 2nd infringement that it clears the earlier warning? You were warned that if you did it again you'd be excluded. You've now been excluded...Why does the warning status stay with you? It feels like punishments are being doubled up.

Or, alternatively, why do warnings get cleared at the end of a round? If they want to punish persistent offenders, why not roll them across rounds? Why should someone who moves at the start of a final get no further stress as there are no more races? Keep those warnings rolling and have Doyle, Madsen and Janowski (possibly some others too, but those are the ones that seem to be the most consistent offenders) regularly getting excluded from races during the series?

[tyler42]

3 minutes ago, HenryW said:

As I have said earlier, I think that Madsen DIDN'T jump the start in semi final, so he could possibly be going away feeling cheated out of points, although I accept that he was lucky to even be in the semi final as he definitely got away with one earlier...

However, I feel like the warning system isn't right. Does it not seem more sensible that if you get excluded for a 2nd infringement that it clears the earlier warning? You were warned that if you did it again you'd be excluded. You've now been excluded...Why does the warning status stay with you? It feels like punishments are being doubled up.

Or, alternatively, why do warnings get cleared at the end of a round? If they want to punish persistent offenders, why not roll them across rounds? Why should someone who moves at the start of a final get no further stress as there are no more races? Keep those warnings rolling and have Doyle, Madsen and Janowski (possibly some others too, but those are the ones that seem to be the most consistent offenders) regularly getting excluded from races during the series?

As someone stated earlier. It takes slow-mo to see whether a rider jumps or just make a perfect start. Last week slow-mo proved Bartosz made a perfect start. That was why he was not issued with a warning. but refs nowadays call back races when a rider makes a fantastic start, because they think " he must have jumped" so anyone who makes a great gate is usually called back just like the riders who jump the start. 

I would not agree with what you said about Madsen. In his semi-final It showed imo as well as Tatum and Pearson's that he moved before the tapes went up.

I totally agree with you when it comes to clearing the warning if you have been excluded in your previous race. Surely by being excluded then your punishment has been dealt with and thus you should go back to no warnings.

[HenryW]

29 minutes ago, tyler42 said:

I would not agree with what you said about Madsen. In his semi-final It showed imo as well as Tatum and Pearson's that he moved before the tapes went up.

I'm not sure about mobile devices, but if you have a laptop or PC and can do frame by frame on youtube - "." key (full stop) to move one frame forward and "," key (comma)  to move one back, it really looks to me like he didn't move until the tapes were moving.

Don't get me wrong....He clearly anticipated the start. That was NOT a reaction to the tapes being released. Apart from anything else, he was looking at the tapes in front of himself rather than the pole and when he moved the tapes in front of him hadn't moved...I'd love to hear any theory about why Leon does that when everyone else looks at the pole/magnet. 

However, as my understanding of the rules are, that was a perfect start. He didn't move until the tapes moved. It was impossible for him to have reacted that fast, but I don't think the rules say anything about reaction time...I could be wrong, though, as I haven't checked any rule changes in recent years.

[OveFundinFan]

Overall the Czech GP was poor speedway entertainment. Too often races were strung out. Not what viewers want, not what riders want. Yes, I will sit through it tonight for Round 6, all the time hoping it will be better then Round 5.

The fact 8 of the riders were on a start infringement warning/exclusions shows the riders knew they had to get a good start to have a chance of winning the race. Some of the infringements, when shown in slowmo, were so close to perfect anticipation it was difficult see why a penalty was given. The fact some races, not only las night, were called false starts and the race stopped, but then after the ref replayed in slowmo he decided it was not an infringement just shows how difficult a job the ref has to uphold the rules.

In MotoGP, and F1, do not have start tapes (not practical) and especially in modern day F1 a good start is imperative, but rarely do you see riders/drivers being penalised for moving at the start. One of the reasons for this is that the have many laps to claw a “poor” start back., in speedway there is just 4.  Remember Warsaw GP a few years ago, the tape system failed, so they used the green light system to start races and the system worked. Refine the green line system such that it includes a beam in front of the front wheel AND a beam behind the rear wheel. The rider cannot have his machine too far away from the front beam (the rear beam would be broken) so cannot do massive rollers, but has no fluttering tapes in front to distract, nor magnets too watch......... just, when the green light comes on then the beams go off and the rider is free to go. For sure, the rider can anticipate the start but the amount would be so small it wouldn’t matter.

The rollers that were in the 70’s etc were allowed and they spoilt races, IMO, I hated them. But today, equally races are spoilt when a rider anticipates perfectly but it’s stopped and potentially a rider excluded for really a very minimal offence.

[mikebv]

They should just do four finals..

That way you race off against your peer Group to determine your final points earned..

And EVERY race then becomes important to which final you race in, and your performance through the evening leaves you in and around the position you deserve to be..

And will also mean the last round of heat races have lots to race for so even if the racing is poor (like this GP for example always delivers), then at least you have interest and drama to keep you watching.

To have anyone beaten by SEVEN  different riders, meaning almost half the field have beaten you, and finishing 'Second Best' on the night, is simply ludicrous..

No system is perfect (if you want to run the meeting with a final rather than just using the 'simple' what you score over 20 heats determining the result) but currently the one used is miles off given such huge anomalies are allowed to exist..

Edited September 19, 2020 by mikebv

[Pinny]

Jesus, i stopped watching before this but did Madsen really get excluded for that?! The one thing speedway lets itself down on is if you don’t touch the tapes, you shouldn't be excluded. Its always done my head in.

People acting surprised , Prague is always dross. Its the attraction of the city that keeps it here. Always rubbish racing. 

[topaz325]

Cardiff GP , good weekend away, few beers , meet up with fans , average racing.........

Last night was ok , not the best compared with the previous meetings but a few friends round (covid friendly ) few beers. 

 

[Pinny]

2 minutes ago, topaz325 said:

Cardiff GP , good weekend away, few beers , meet up with fans , average racing.........

Last night was ok , not the best compared with the previous meetings but a few friends round (covid friendly ) few beers. 

 

Im not one for saying the Cardiff racing is superb, but even on its bad days its better than that lastnight. Plus a massively bigger crowd etc. No comparison IMO. 

[sparks123]

5 hours ago, chunky said:

I still felt bad for Fricke, as had the ref done the right thing, he would have been in the semis.

If Madsen was excluded and you promoted the riders in that race then Dudek and Michelsen would have had 8 points also (with 2 and 1 race win).

Fricke and Tai would have missed out on the semi's along with Madsen (as Tai was the 8th qualifier).

[Steve Shovlar]

The technology is available to take any subjectivity out of the equation. A movement sensor on all bikes, aligned to the release of the tape mechanism. As soon as the green lights come on the sensor becomes live, and if a rider moves before the tapes are released he is out. Very straight forward to do and would remove the ref from making subjective calls.