Humphrey Appleby

Well yes lower rpm in principle would contribute to improved reliability, but then riders will complain about a lack of power to spin the wheel etc... I've never ridden speedway though, so can't really comment on the merits of this approach. However... Sealed engines would contribute little of nothing to the problem unless you had a centrally maintained pool of engines at arm's length from the riders. Firstly you're reliant on the honesty of engine tuners when many will have working relationships with particular riders. Okay, you can still unseal an engine to inspect it, but then why do you need to seal it? The next issue is that even if you mandate stock parts, all that will happen is tuners buying up multiple examples to find the best bits to put in their engines. In the world of karting, I can say with an absolute fact that it was cheaper to run in unsealed engine classes than sealed classes, although I would completely agree that the lower revving engines with rev limiters had significantly longer service intervals. I think another question is why riders have to basically replace a significant part of the internals of a speedway engine out of the factory? Presumably this is because the tolerances and quality control leaves something to be desired, but speedway engines are specially built for the purpose and are hardly mass produced. Would have thought if it wasn't necessary to use custom replacements for half the engine, that would also represent a saving?

It's a good documentary, but I think you'd have to put similar effort into maintaining any sort of racing engine. I'd guess where you could save costs is insisting on stock parts rather than the custom-made bits (e.g. cam shaft) which I assume are expensive to make, but these are never made equal and you'd end-up buying multiple parts to select the best ones anyway. I'd guess you could also try make the engines run longer before needing maintenance which would save a bit on the 5-8 hours manpower each time, but realistically unless you can make an engine last a full season, you're probably only going to be saving GBP 2-3k on the actual labour over a season, which is probably relatively insignificant for a professional rider.

Went karting at the track next door to the Rye House stadium a couple of months ago. The stadium still looked in fairly good condition (to some extent better than it originally did back in the day ), although huge piles of earth had been dumped all over the track and I think part of the terracing as well.

I'm guessing that averages are normalised to 4 rides as historically that was the number of rides each rider was programmed for (with some exceptions for reserves etc...). Therefore it could be easily understood by the layman as the average contribution a rider made to every match. Even with the later advent of tactical subs and rider replacement, it still makes sense as those are occasional rides that don't happen every meeting. Then nominated heats came along (although I think they were used by some heat formats in the distant past) which distorts the calculation as not only are some riders contributing more actual points on a regular basis, but the nominated ride will generally be harder as it usually involves the best riders of the night. Indeed, I think the averages of the top riders dropped after the nominated heat was introduced on a regular basis in 1988, although that also coincided with fixed gate positions which would also be a reason. I suppose you could add a factor to points scored in the nominated heat to reflect the tougher ride, just as you could add a reducing factor to the reserves race for example to reflect the fact it's a 'easier' ride. But then it further removes the resultant CMA even further from the actual reality of how many points a rider is scoring. In the modern world, I do think it would make more sense to base averages on points-per-ride, but I guess CMAs are traditional and everyone knows the difference between a 10 point rider, 6 point rider, and 3 points rider etc... It would just end-up confusing everyone. Getting back to rolling averages, I think they're complete nonsense although I understand the reasoning which was to remove the early season distortion/potential manipulation when riders have only taken a handful of rides when being issued with a new CMA. However, taking the last x number of meetings really bears little relation to a rider's performance during a whole season, and even more so when the rolling period spans more than one season. A factored CMA would be a better approach where a rider's average at the start of the season (or assessed average) forms part of the CMA, but becomes less of a component as the season progresses. By the end of the season, their CMA would (likely) be their actual average for the season and would also be their starting average for the following season. This way the CMA would always be based on a season's worth of data.

Methanol is principle a renewable and clean fuel, but it still produces some CO2 and nitrous oxide. The amount of methanol burned is probably also tiny in comparison to getting the riders and spectators to meetings, although as crowds have declined, arguably the more environmental the sport has become... Speedway should really be thinking about going down the route of electric engines, to which it should be well suited as its short sprints. Okay, you'll need to charge the batteries, but electricity is not all fossil fuel produced. Electric speedway also wouldn't need on-demand power. Tracks could install a wind turbine and/or solar panels and charge up the batteries over the course of the week between meetings.

Probably a condolence page is not the place for a critique, but arguably the architect of the 'them-and-us' division between the BL and NL that arguably did not serve the sport well in the long term. Nor the 're-merger' of the BL and NL as a vehicle to get Poole back into the top league at a lower cost. I'm sure there are different sides to the argument that are both valid though.

At the end of the day though, how is Manchester any different from Cardiff other than the fact that Manchester has better transport links? Belle Vue is fine for domestic speedway and smaller international events, but offers a smaller outdoor stadium outside of the city centre compared to Cardiff.

Articles in the Sun and Mirror today… https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/22313954/haunting-pics-abandoned-sports-stadium/ https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/abandoned-uk-stadium-coventry-speedway-29942720

Was never a Spurs fan despite living near the ground. Always preferred going to the Arsenal daan the road...

I lived on White Hart Lane for a while and the area was a terrible dump. I will say that all of the demolition and reconstruction of the area to accommodate the new stadium does seem to have improved it.

I'd say Wembley is a very good stadium - for football and other rectangular sports. Everything around Wembley is less good - overpriced and overcrowded eateries and hotels, the ready mix concrete plant, and all the industrial units housing tacky businesses. The stadium is in principle quite well served for transport, with both National Rail and Underground stations nearby, but as you say, the National Rail station doesn't really seem to work that well. Wembley is the best stadium in London, although the Emirates pushes it pretty close and you've got the option of walking there from various places. The former Olympic Stadium would probably be better for speedway though.

There's probably not more than 25,000 semi-regular speedway fans in Britain nowadays, and that's being generous. There's an ever diminishing number who 'used to go' - the Cardiff GP would suggest 10-15k, plus a properly promoted Wembley might get the interest of a few thousand new spectators willing to give it a go. I'd agree London is much more accessible and arguably more attractive to foreign fans, so you'd probably also pick up a fair few more there too. But I don't realistically think you'd get more than 50k, maybe 60k absolute tops. I'd agree with you about the air of hostility in Wales. I don't want to over-generalise as I go to Wales a lot and only once have directly experienced any issues, but there does seem to be an underlying air of menace in even small towns there. I don't think it's particularly directed at the English because the local youth mostly seem to want to abuse each other.

Would have thought that largely sustained it as can't imagine that a couple of cup finals, rugby league and maybe 4-5 internationals per year would have paid all the bills. Of course concerts became a thing in later years, which I'd have thought would have done far more damage to the pitch than speedway! Even then, Wembley was probably only viable as it was purchased for a bargain basement price (equivalent of 10-20 million today). So it really only needed to recoup its operating and maintenance costs. By contrast, the new Wembley cost 800 million so no wonder they're trying to maximise use of it.

Depends when you mean. Up until the 1950s, I think England rarely played at Wembley, but after that until the old stadium closed, they very rarely didn’t. Obviously whilst Wembley was being redeveloped after 2001 then England played all over the place, but since the new stadium has opened they’ve played all but two home matches at the new Wembley.

The FA didn't own Wembley at the time though.

The management then (a private company) has absolutely no connection to the management now (the FA). Quite aside from the fact that it all happened over 40 years ago and everyone involved will have moved on. But was speedway actually kicked out of Wembley, especially as it been successfully run there for 50-odd years? I suspect the 'pitch damage' was a convenient excuse because of rising costs and falling attendances. Certainly nothing that couldn't have been resolved, and considering that Rugby League carried on playing there...

Would have thought the former Olympic Stadium would be a better bet, as I think that can be more easily configured as an oval due to the athletics track.

Would think November is a bit of a dead time. No cup (semi-)finals or playoffs, only one international match, and unlikely to be any outdoor concerts then. The Australian Speedway GP has been in late-October several times, so a GP in early November wouldn't be totally out of the question although that time of year is of course late-spring rather than late-autumn in Australia. However, I suspect it was just a throwaway comment by the Stadium Manager in response to a question, without any serious thought having gone into it.

Even if you could get 30-40k spectators, 2 or 3 nights in a row, would it be financially viable? I seem to recall hearing that Wembley costs at least 250k per day to rent (and that was a few years ago), plus it takes 10% of ticket sales. It would probably needed to be rented for a week to install and remove the circuit, and whilst it might be cheaper for set-up days, I doubt there would be much change out of a million quid. Then there would be installation costs of the track and paying the event staff, before you even got to the staging costs of the GP itself. Then any rain, and you could be faced with all these costs with no revenue. Insurance coverage would likely be huge. Would be a brave undertaking in the hope of getting maybe 50k fans at best.

The roof doesn't fully close. It's primarily there to cover the spectators, but it can open so the pitch will (in theory) get light and air.

I think that's really just a bit of spin put on a throwaway comment from the Stadium Director. It would still have to be financial viable to rent the stadium and install the track.

Wembley now is much better than it was then. Whilst there was a lot of romanticism about the old Wembley and it was probably decent for its time, it had become totally inadequate for large events by the end of its life. Football and oval sports (whether speedway or athletics) also don't go well together, and oval sports of any description unfortunately no longer pull the crowds to justify their inclusion in large stadia. This is quite aside from the fact that speedway is very weather dependent.

I think it’s being shown on Discovery+.

The obvious problem would be the difference in the number of meetings. Britain stages the most meetings by far, and outside of the main professional leagues, most countries and clubs will only run a handful of meetings each season. A big commitment from club officials and riders would be necessary to run in a fully professional league.

Happened to pass through Maitland last week...