200BHP on limited electronics probably lessens the issue though 😊

I'd be in favour of a two part weight limit, one for bike and one for rider. Firstly it could be relevant to safety on a couple of counts. Riders starving themselves can't help with their strength or injury resistance. Then I remember seeing a clip of Tai saying that he ran smaller boots without the insert so he could run a smaller steel shoe to help keep the weight down. If they will go to those lengths what other safety protection are some sacrificing? Would riders be wearing more protective armour and padding if the weight wasn't an issue? A higher weight limit for bikes could also help with costs, lightweight fixings and components are always going to be more expensive than standard stuff.

….and this just proves passing is limited……. ‘Cause when there is……there’s always a big deal made of it…..lol

I'd personally put r/r at 5 before using at 2. As for the argument against using it at 3 or 4, "you are weakening that position if the other rider isn’t going well" but wouldn't that happen anyway, if Brennan or Ellis doesn't go well they've weakened the 3/4 pairing without moving r/r there? I personally look at who the riders would meet in their "extra" ride, Sayfutdinov is the last rider I'd want in heat 8, if you expect every Ipswich top 5 rider to beat Boughen, then that's only a point gained if Sayfutdinov beats the second string. Out of curiosity what do you think of King being put at 5 to pair with a reserve in 3 of his rides?

Have to agree.

That can’t be right. There’s never any passing at Poole.