Meeting Formula/Team Lineup

[E I Addio 15,845]

11 hours ago, Triple.H. said:

Was it the late Jon Cook who suggested a team X points behind could choose gate positions, as in we'll go off 1 and 4 or 2 and 3 etc. I think thats worth a go, at the end of the day anything to shake up the same old familiar format must be worth a try.

I was in favour of that instead of the ridiculous tactical ride / substitute. There is no perfect system though. The problem with that arrangement is that it messes the fixed gate potions up. Points are money to riders, so they want at least one ride off the better gates, which they could miss out on if the opposing team is more than 6 or 8 points behind and start choosing the more advantageous gates . I still think it’s better than the T/R, T/S system though.

[Daniel Smith 5,666]

It's all swings & roundabouts for sure but I always feel it's best to have your strongest rider's at No1 & No5. 

Gives more strength to the 2nd half of meetings. 

[Daniel Smith 5,666]

12 hours ago, old bob at herne bay said:

One of the MANY reasons that the racing is so crap now  is that there are fixed gate positions for every race. We have riders that are useless using the best gate positions, and he top riders stuck on the rubbish gate positions.  Team pairs should be able to choose gate positions to suit their style of riding and the needs of their team.  Humphrey remembers correctly that teams 6 points in arrears could choose 1and 3 OR  2 and 4. This should be re introduced.

These rules would put an end to any advantage being gained by flooding of the away team starting grids by track officials, as used this season at Eastbourne.

 

49 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

I was in favour of that instead of the ridiculous tactical ride / substitute. There is no perfect system though. The problem with that arrangement is that it messes the fixed gate potions up. Points are money to riders, so they want at least one ride off the better gates, which they could miss out on if the opposing team is more than 6 or 8 points behind and start choosing the more advantageous gates . I still think it’s better than the T/R, T/S system though.

The gate choice was trialled a few seasons ago & scrapped due to teammates wiping each other out on a regular basis into turn 1. 

[steve roberts 9,246]

12 hours ago, old bob at herne bay said:

One of the MANY reasons that the racing is so crap now  is that there are fixed gate positions for every race. We have riders that are useless using the best gate positions, and he top riders stuck on the rubbish gate positions.  Team pairs should be able to choose gate positions to suit their style of riding and the needs of their team.  Humphrey remembers correctly that teams 6 points in arrears could choose 1and 3 OR  2 and 4. This should be re introduced.

These rules would put an end to any advantage being gained by flooding of the away team starting grids by track officials, as used this season at Eastbourne.

I was never a fan of this particular ruling as, despite popular belief, the "star" rider didn't always take the best gate available. Also having fixed gates limits the opportunity to team ride whereby the rider generally on the inside (Hans Nielsen was a great advocate) dictated the first turn but I guess that the art is generally less applied nowadays with the more powerful bikes amongst other things? Also fixed gates were never consistant as dirt (if any?) tends to move towards the outside as the meeting progresses thus proving advantageous to those who have outside gates later on during the meeting and vice versa of course.

Edited December 8, 2021 by steve roberts

[E I Addio 15,845]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

 

The gate choice was trialled a few seasons ago & scrapped due to teammates wiping each other out on a regular basis into turn 1. 

I don’t remember that. Even today teams start each race either 1&3 or 2&4. Why should they suddenly start wiping each other out because tha

they happen to choose which?

[E I Addio 15,845]

3 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

I was never a fan of this particular ruling because, despite popular belief, the "star" rider didn't always take the best gate available. Also having fixed gates limits the chance of team riding whereby the rider generally on the inside dictates the first turn but I guess that the art is generally less applied nowadays with the more powerful bikes amongst other things?

Team riding is less now because modern bikes have such a narrow power band that even if you let the revs drop a little bit waiting for a team mate you lose power . If you lose power the rear wheel starts gripping ( as opposed to sliding)and you are in all kinds of trouble.

[steve roberts 9,246]

6 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Team riding is less now because modern bikes have such a narrow power band that even if you let the revs drop a little bit waiting for a team mate you lose power . If you lose power the rear wheel starts gripping ( as opposed to sliding)and you are in all kinds of trouble.

Yes it's something I've just read in John Louis's book when son Chris also indicated that 'Lay Downs" have also played a significant part to the lack of team riding as they prove to be more unreliable in handling.

Edited December 8, 2021 by steve roberts

[E I Addio 15,845]

8 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Yes it's something I've just read in John Louis's book when son Chris also indicated that 'Lay Downs" have also played a significant part to the lack of team riding as they prove to be more unreliable in handling.

Yes .It’s not lay downs per se but each time you increase the power you normally narrow the power band more and more.

I once saw Chris Louis being interviewed and he said he had ridden Tony Rickardsons bike which actually wasn’t all that fast but it was tuned to a level that he could hang on to and get the best out of the power he did have. Many other riders have their bikes tuned to a level that it becomes unpredictable. That was why Rickardson was such a great rider - he understood his bikes. How often did you see him crash with nobody else involved. Hardly ever I would say.

[The Third Man 2,217]

13 hours ago, Triple.H. said:

Was it the late Jon Cook who suggested a team X points behind could choose gate positions, as in we'll go off 1 and 4 or 2 and 3 etc. I think thats worth a go, at the end of the day anything to shake up the same old familiar format must be worth a try.

Think it was Neil Machin, i can remember Sheffield having a couple of challenge matches using this formula  

[steve roberts 9,246]

4 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Yes .It’s not lay downs per se but each time you increase the power you normally narrow the power band more and more.

I once saw Chris Louis being interviewed and he said he had ridden Tony Rickardsons bike which actually wasn’t all that fast but it was tuned to a level that he could hang on to and get the best out of the power he did have. Many other riders have their bikes tuned to a level that it becomes unpredictable. That was why Rickardson was such a great rider - he understood his bikes. How often did you see him crash with nobody else involved. Hardly ever I would say.

I also remember in said book that John Louis stated that Rickardsson's bike was set up totally differently to Tomasz Gollob's during their time as team mates at Ipswich whereby Rickardsson's bike would be "screaming" whereas Gollob's would almost be "purring" as both riders preferred different set ups and handling/responsiveness.

[mikebv 10,292]

Six man teams. .

Nine heats where all pairs race against each other on alternate gates..

Then. Three heats of managers choosing pairs, winning team name theirs first, then losing team pick theirs, and losing team pick two out of the three gate positions, winning team then have what heat is left...

Last three heats lowest to highest scorers, losing team choose their gates for one heat, the winning team then get the other available, then heat 15 is a coin toss..

No riders under 4.5pt averages, however each team can have two 'subs' signed below 4.5pt (RS's?), to replace missing riders (similar to how a Number 8 would now).

So no guests needed, but instead a 'Number 7' allied to a fit for purpose RR facilty with each eligible rider allowed a max seven rides..

15 heats in total, only one tac sub in heats 10 to 14 allowed if 8 behind, as gate positions are also used to gain an advantage, and all riders of a reasonable ability level to cover even a missing No1 if the RR facilty is fit for purpose....

 

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

13 hours ago, enotian said:

The 15 heat format is pretty good in that it provides a min of 4 rides from 4 different programmed gates for each rider.  Not sure if each rider faces every opponent?

Sort of...

1 meets 1 twice, 2, 3, 4, 5 twice and 6 (missing 7) 

2 meets 1, 2 twice, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3 home meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 5, 6 twice (missing 7) / 3 away meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 5, 6, 7

4 meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6, 7 / 4 away meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6 twice (missing 7)

5 meets 1 twice, 2 3, 4, 5 twice, 6, 7

6 home meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 6, 7 twice (missing 5) / 6 away meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 6, 7 twice (missing 5)

7 home meets 2, 3, 5, 6 twice, 7 three times (missing 1 & 4) / 7 away meets 2, 4, 5, 6 twice, 7 three times (missing 1 & 3)

 

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

4 hours ago, mikebv said:

Then. Three heats of managers choosing pairs, winning team name theirs first, then losing team pick theirs, and losing team pick two out of the three gate positions, winning team then have what heat is left...

Last three heats lowest to highest scorers, losing team choose their gates for one heat, the winning team then get the other available, then heat 15 is a coin toss..

Would involve a lot of writing in the programme...    For Heat 15, I'd also leave the choice to the losing team, or the away team if the scores are level. 

However, I think I'd have 6-rider teams with 5 & 6 as the reserves and 1-4 can be named in any order. 

I'd then pair 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 and have them all ride against each other, separated by a reserves race (5 races). Then pair 1 & 5, 3 & 6 and 2 & 4, and have them ride against each other (9 races). So Nos 1-4 would ride against each other twice, and against the opposition reserves once. Nos 5 & 6 would ride against the opposition reserves twice (including in the reserves races), and against the opposition 1-4 twice. Heat 15 could be nominated. 

4 hours ago, mikebv said:

15 heats in total, only one tac sub in heats 10 to 14 allowed if 8 behind, as gate positions are also used to gain an advantage, and all riders of a reasonable ability level to cover even a missing No1 if the RR facilty is fit for purpose....

I'd look at a handicap scoring system for replacing a No. 1 or even heat leader, so that guests would not be necessary. 

[Arch Stanton 2,255]

Don’t give Ritchie Hawkins more thinking to do please it’s more than enough already 

[enotian 562]

On 12/8/2021 at 5:26 PM, Humphrey Appleby said:

I'd look at a handicap scoring system for replacing a No. 1 or even heat leader, so that guests would not be necessary. 

Agree.

Choice of R/R or handicap. Keep it simple. Missing riders average less the average of the no.8 replacing them (i.e. 9 pointer missing replaced by a 2 pointer, add 7 points to the team total at the end of the match), retaining 7 man teams and given opportunity to no.8 youngsters. Potentially for a missing no.1 or no.2 uplift the average to reflect 5 heats but you don't want to incentivise missing top men.

If both teams are operating a no.8 replacement net off the handicaps so only the team with the highest handicap value has the net handicap added to the team total at the end of the match.