Vince

Hopefully they are too busy producing a magazine to get too involved in the theory of whether it is a sensible proposition in the business sense. Like Speedway itself too much research is likely to conclude it's not sustainable. However we are fortunate enough to have some people around the sport who allow passion to overcome logic and put in the money and/or work to keep the sport alive rather than worry about market research and the like. No doubt it is a big part of the reason why Speedway survives rather than either thrives or disappears with the help of sound business sense but survive it does. Market research and consultants could very easily be the end of this sport as it has been for many businesses that live because of passion rather than theory.

I really like the Star and have no wish for the sports only magazine to start becoming an investigative tabloid type read. There is enough knocking of the sport on the internet in my opinion we don't need more in print. My favourites are the technical articles and I actually prefer the magazine in the off season as they look for different articles.

I agree that it is a possibility and worth investigating but I do think you are tending to ignore the problems because you think it is the answer. Equally I am undoubtedly making some of the problems worse than they need to be because I'm not convinced it's the way forward. You have but I don't think you're right If you employ all the current tuners how are you going to make sure all the engines are as equal as possible? It can only really work if you use a very limited number of mechanics and the same checking equipment. For example Moto2 engines all come from the same workshop and are checked on the same dyno, I believe that in the karting series that run sealed engines there are a very limited number of engine builders allowed to work on the motors. Very few riders can afford or will want to run completely different equipment for the few individual meetings. Grasstrack is dying on it's arse and you won't lose a dozen engines a year to that. However you look at it those engines are scrap value. You can take this as 100% gospel, liability waivers aren't worth as much as the paper they are written on, it's just a hope that some people will assume they are and not take legal advice. Seems to me that current thinking is to get engines to rev higher and higher by shortening the stroke and lightening flywheels, if you can't rev them there is no point carrying on down that route. Same with lightweight parts although there are some other benefits it's often in the chase to gain revs that they are fitted. Since the first motorcycle was made they tinkered with it trying to make it faster. Since the second one was made they started racing them and had to tinker more to beat the other guy!! If they can't tinker with the engines they will produce more expensive ignitions and clutches and carbs and more adjustable frames and so on. The only way I can see to keep the price of machinery down is a claiming rule where if you win a race anybody can buy your bike at the end of the meeting for £x therefore ensuring you make sure it's never worth more than that. has been done in other motorcycle sports but there have always been issues and problems around it.

But given the very limited production runs of Speedway engines using only one manufacturer would very likely put the other out of business. There might be the rest of the Speedway world and a very minimal Grasstrack sales but British Speedway must be a very significant part of GM's business. As soon as Jawa have a monopoly do you really believe that their engines won't rise in price? It's all well and good saying you have to find a way to make it work but that is because you believe this to be the answer, those of us who don't are entitled to explore the possible pitfalls and alternatives. Start with the pitfalls: Clubs are barely surviving so for them to suddenly spend quite considerable sums on engines isn't really very practical at this time. Don't forget it is no good having 14 engines because some will be away for service and you have to allow for breakdowns etc. Presumably the clubs supply ignitions and carbs as well. Who services these engines and won't their prices rise once the other tuners have packed it in? What happens to all the engines riders are currently using? As a cost cutting measure reducing the main assets of the competitors to scrap value overnight isn't going to be very helpful. It doesn't matter how carefully they are assembled there will be a performance differential in the engines. What happens when a rider gets hurt because of an engine failure, is the club liable? There must be other issues that actually need looking at rather than saying "this is a good idea we need to find a way to make it work" In my opinion the single engine idea could only work if you got somebody like Rotax involved who aren't dependant on Speedway. Alternatives: For my money the best is the rev limiter with a gradual lowering of the limit year on year. I think there are numerous benefits the big one for me being that it would reduce the ever shorter stroke/light flywheel engines that have come in. I firmly believe they cause more problems for riders than the silencers ever do. Encouraging the introduction of longer stroke engines with heavier flywheels would also future proof against the inevitable lowering of noise limits in years to come. Also a very easy item to police. Flywheel weight and or minimum stroke limits would, I believe, help a great deal but would be incredibly difficult to police. Then there is the question of just how much of a saving does any of this actually represent to the riders. On here it's become the latest cause that could save the sport but how much are we actually talking about per rider? If you take an average PL rider and say he does approximately 100 heats per year league matches. I'm out of date with prices but lets assume that it's about £500 for a service and double that for a full rebuild. 50 heats between services that is £15 per heat per rider on servicing costs. For sure its quite a lot of money but its a lot less than it takes to run the van to get you to meetings or than you are likely to lose taking time off work. In reality reducing rider costs by £1500 per season isn't going to save the sport. If it's not about costs but providing better entertainment then I have three suggestions. Run a short practice so everybody gets to start with a good set up. Let the losing side have the pick of gates 1 & 3 or 2 & 4 every race. Prepare tracks to give good racing rather than home advantage, although fans have to take the bulk of the blame for that as it has been seen many times how a winning side brings in more spectators than good racing does.

If you restricted British Speedway to Jawa supplied bikes only what would happen to the price a couple of years down the road, especially if GM don't survive the restriction of their trade?

So despite all the theory the only bloke regularly using one says he had no problems and it reduced his costs? When they did the tests at Scunthorpe wasn't David Howe also in favour? He's been around long enough to know what's what I'd have thought. My son rides a bike with a rev limiter that he hits twice every lap, has a carburettor and has yet to wash the bore or lock up. I rode the same bike and did the same thing to it for 4 years and did blow it up, after it had 180 hours on the engine! It behaved no differently hitting the limiter to my injected bike. Despite being methanol that won't happen on a Speedway engine either, it doesn't when they misfire now.

Because it would be very difficult to police while a rev limiter would be really simple. The end result is the same though, rev limiters would be no more dangerous in my opinion, possibly less so as they would misfire rather than sign off completely. The way bikes are over revved on the start by some has to shorten the life span considerably. The oil system is so primitive that there is no way anything is getting adequate feed at those sort of revs.

I think the benefit of a rev limiter could, in the long term, be to make short stroke engines obsolete. Then possibly you get back to long stroke engines with heavier flywheels which in my opinion are inherently safer especially as silencers become more restrictive which they will undoubtedly do. Can't see how an engine hitting a limiter in the middle of a race is any different to one which over revs, either way the power disappears and you get some unexpected grip.

You do realise there are other tracks than the one at Poole and Neil took riders to many of them over the years? He spotted and then helped many youngsters in his time and was brilliant at it.

I think Neil Street was about the nicest man I ever met and superb at bringing out the best in riders, great talent spotter, superb motivator and the best coach I've ever seen. I do believe that he lacked the ruthless streak I think a great team manager sometimes needs, if anything though that's a compliment to the character of the man.

Wasn't that bad a bike although not well prepped :-) to be fair he had never ridden an upright. The engines would probably be competitive if you laid them down but I suspect that on modern slick tracks an upright would struggle against the laydowns. Then again on a modern track at race speeds would an old Weslake etc be any better reliability wise with the way they are revving these days I doubt it. Still think the rev limiter has the most potential given that you could over time reduce the limit to a point where extra flywheel weight would be more beneficial than a very short stroke engine. Would be interesting to know what happened to it given that the last we heard those who had actually ridden with it were largely in favour.

A case where air fences aren't necessarily the best option, personally I think the Rye fence was superb.

Seen a couple in the Classic magazines with upright Speedway engines, one a GM and one a Jawa I think. Not the most reliable engine to cover lots of miles with I would imagine! Quite a few 2v Jawa's running in pre 65 MX including some Metisses which are beautiful to see and hear.

Being really old I can remember when the Motor Cycle News was more about racing than road bikes. You would have the results and reports of all meetings, Speedway, Trials, MX, Enduro, Grasstrack all featured heavily. Even local meetings had the results printed I actually learned to read at an early age because my mum stopped looking up my Uncles results for me so I had to do it. Later Wednesday mornings was the day you rushed to get the MCN so you could see where you came in Sundays Trial and the source of endless trouble as I tried to read it first lesson in school. In those days though Motorcycles were much more a mode of transport and competition was for the enthusiast. Even then Speedway had a niche of its own as if it were not quite a motorcycle sport but something a little separate and most of the crowd had little interest in Motorcycling otherwise. For as long as I can remember though competitors in other motorcycle sports were interested in Speedway so there is a cross over there somewhere. Nowadays owning a road motorcycle is in itself a hobby and magazines and the Motor Cycle News have gravitated toward that as there are huge numbers in comparison to competitive racing. The advent of the Trials and Motocross News probably took them further away from sport when they were no longer the main source of results. Road racing is much more associated with the new motorcyclists because it's something they can associate with I assume. Much as I love Speedway on the TV I think BSB and Moto2 & 3 are at least as good to watch. Despite my assertion that it's all about the racing I always watch Moto GP as well and that often is as much about the personalities as the racing.

I think the asset system is poor and does a lot more harm than good, particularly to the development of British riders. However I can also see that in a team sport like Speedway you can't have riders operating as completely free agents as they could choose a team based on the pay offered and track being ridden literally week by week. Clearly they have to be contracted to a team on a yearly basis and certainly can't be allowed to ride as a guest when their own team is racing. The sport cannot afford to pay and treat riders as employees when they are free to go and work abroad or for other teams when theirs isn't racing so some sort of compromise has to be reached and generally where it is suits most. The Ben Hopwood situation appears to be more about whether he was sacked or not and not as straight forward as you are making it out to be.

OK, maybe a better phrase would be very expensive. I just don't think all tuners are products of the devil, some, probably most, do a decent job for the price they charge. And yes, I have paid for a Speedway engine to be serviced a few of times although I was generally too much of a tight arse to pay somebody else and did them myself.

I think that there are good and bad 'tuners' like everything else. Some charge a very reasonable price and do a very good job. Doing your own engines will always be cheaper because somebody who does it for a living can't take the risk of running a rod for an extra spell or just replacing rings and not the piston. Too many breakdowns and the 'tuner' loses his reputation and livelihood. As for the Gerhard engine even at NL level there will be a couple of riders with plenty of dad's money to spend who will have somebody try to get more out of them. If they start winning then everybody will be back on the same merry go round with a higher starting price. The opportunity is there to reduce costs but only if they jump on it now, once the tuning starts it's back to square one. Perhaps they should bring in a claiming rule set at just above the price of a standard Gerhard engine. Any rider can buy a race winning engine for say £250 above the standard engine price (for the inconvenience of having to replace it). If riders then choose Jawa or GM engines they have the leeway to spend up to that figure on tuning them, any more is a major risk.

The asset system is a nonsense that needs to disappear as soon as possible anyway in my opinion. They are owned by EL clubs in name only, youngsters whose head was turned by the opportunity to sign for a big name club which will do well if the rider does and not care if he doesn't.

I would think that a few quid getting somebody in to at least clean the toilets very thoroughly before and keep them that way during a meeting would be a good investment. You can get away with sub standard facilities if they are very clean.

If the Poole EL team was bottom of the table and the PL team top there would very likely be more support for the PL fixtures. That's not a dig at Poole as it would apply to most places. However if it was a once a season opportunity to see Holder and Anderson against, say, Woffinden and Lindgren then perhaps that alone would keep the numbers up.

I actually like the thinking behind the suggestion. I think your hardcore PL level support could be boosted by a few very high level meetings giving limited opportunities to see the worlds best riders in UK team racing. I do think that Speedway loses the pulling power of many it's top riders because fans can see them in action every week. Then get as many local riders as possible in the lower level teams and try to retain riders as much as possible year on year (with a team building average bonus for retained riders if need be) and you have a very good outline for the future. The more I consider the idea the more I like it.

I knew a track man who mixed some old oil in with the shale and when he did it a little at a time got good results and it wasn't obvious what was going on. However when he got a bit carried away every time he watered it looked like the Amoco Cadiz had sunk on the track and became clear to everybody what was going on

I've been to amateur meetings where there has been an old JAP running unsilenced (and noticed the same at men in black demos) and the difference in noise is nowhere near what you expect. A lot to do with modern bikes revving a lot harder I imagine and they are still pretty loud in comparison to most things. All that oil dripping out the bottom of the bikes used to do wonders for binding the shale together on the track as well.

I've seen a NL rider fined for removing his cutout from his wrist after a race, however it is common practice in the EL and GP's and is seen on the TV all the time! Presumably it's because the NL rider can afford to be fined. Also saw Karlis Ezergailis fined for having the wrong shade of yellow helmet cover at the same NL meeting as the referee told the machine examiner to measure the eco mats but when a rider punched another following a collision it wasn't mentioned Then again it was Ms Vardy so not like a real referee.

The first meeting I can remember going to was, I think, in 1967. Taken by my Grandfather and father I spent a lot of time hearing how the riders, tracks and bikes used to be so much better than this modern stuff. Those horrible 2v Jawa things were way too easy to ride unlike the good old JAP and real men had ridden Douglas DT's. Ask any fast old timer how often they used to do their JAP motors and a modern one looks a model of reliability in comparison. I was guilty of much the same when I took my own kids, thinking that slick tracks took the skill out of riding and telling them how much better it was in my day, whenever that was! Some years later a (very slow and very erratic) few rides on a modern bike made me realise that the grip level on a slick track isn't very different to my old 2V on a deeper surface. Now I've the utmost respect for modern riders, they ride very very hard the majority of the time and have to react so quickly to what the bike is doing. You see mostly processional racing with a couple of good races thrown in and the occasional great race that makes all the rest worthwhile, just like it always was. It's not the sports fault that we only remember the great races but it is it's biggest problem. In the early 80's I worked for Jim Squibb who had a very long and quite successful Speedway career, I think from just after the war to the mid 70's but that's without looking it up. We spent hours and hours just chatting about Speedway and he said that the skill level of the riders was continually rising and that Penhall was amazing on a bike and could do things that the past greats could only have dreamed of. Personally I think you could take a top rider from any era and he would adapt to any other but that was Jim's opinion and he was in a position to know.