Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

truthsayer

Members
  • Posts

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by truthsayer

  1. Sealed engines work in other forms of motorsport... It would go to tender. A company would supply and prepare motors to the agreed spec. They would be tested, sealed and allocated on a random basis. They would be leased to the riders (or teams) and swapped when they meet their service intervals. It only works where riders cannot touch internals, and where things like the carb and electronics are standard (but gearing, fuelling and ignition settings would be fine). Policing might be a problem for speedway, and there where would need to be a pool of spare engines available at league meetings, but honestly it shouldn't be too difficult. A system like this works in Moto2, where Triumph make engines and a company called Externpro service them. Even in Moto3, where there are multiple manufacturers, the spec is set at the start of the season and the motors are all prepared identically and sealed. Other forms of road racing have 'stock' classes, where engines are not sealed but are tested at every race to ensure they are legal. Speedway's difference is that the meetings are spread out and that having a dyno and service is not feasible in the same way as road racing, but if I was designing speedway from scratch today these would be my rules and I doubt it would be too difficult to implement.
  2. Not really. Making an engine with more longevity would be relatively easy. The high maintenance is largely because they are tuned to rev to high rpm to make maximum power. Capping rpm would cause less wear and should create a more tractable engine. Making a sealed engine to a lower spec would do away with a lot of the more expensive parts and would increase service life. I'd suggest an engine could last half a season easily, against six meetings at present. I'd suggest your £3k saving is quite a way out. I'm not too up on prices these days, but I'd suggest the saving in buying the engine and maintaining it would be much more - probably like £10k a season.
  3. Yes, he's still around but not working in speedway any more. Great guy, met him a few times when he was working on other sports. More a behind the scenes guy (and very good at what he does) but an excellent interviewer too. Would be a good addition to the team, but wouldn't solve the commentary.
  4. But why are they not trained? Training and mentoring is available, and it's not as if this is their first year - that's why I am so unforgiving. It's a tough job, but it's a tough world. If someone's not good enough at something then they need to get better or get out. A lot like professional sport, it's a competitive world in media. I know, because I work in it, but the apathy and the lack of improvement from some of the talent is what really winds me up. It doesn't need to be that way. I understand ex-riders are not natural media professionals, but they've made that career change and need to get good at it. As riders they always aimed to get better but I really don't feel that they approach media work in the way they would have approached their racing careers and that offends me, as someone who works damned hard to be good at my job and to continuously develop at what I do.
  5. Often people who are shy and introverted come across as aloof and arrogant. Just saying...
  6. The style of Eurosport's production essentially needs five 'talents': presenter, commentator, analyst, interviewer/reporter and co-commentator. I think all the guys they use are ok and have a role to play. However they, understandably, don't have five team members and that means they have to take on multiple roles, which is where it falls down for me. Abi is a good presenter, Tatum is a co-commentator or analyst, and is pretty much interchangeable with Nicholls and Louis. British TV speedway really misses the talents of Nigel Pearson, who could fill pretty much any of those roles, and also Natalie Quirk, who could present and report equally well. For me the team is just not right. Tatum and (either) Nicholls or Louis are a bit too one-dimensional to fill multiple roles. If it was football style, with a panel of three analysts, they'd be great, but none of them are presenters, reporters or lead commentators. I agree Kelvin could have a role to play, but in a pared down team it doesn't work for me. It was hard as it was thrust upon him, when Nigel died, but I just don't see him getting better. Does he not get coaching, study others or reflect on his performances and work to improve? The thing about great commentators is that they know their stuff and have an encyclopaedic knowledge (usually carrying a big folder around with them). He just seems to phone his commentary in.
  7. It's all about a team and not an individual. I think Abi has some very good qualities but that in itself can't carry a show. She's more of a presenter than Natalie Quirk before her. I've got a lot of time for Nat. Her background was more journalistic but she moved across to presenting very well. These people are the face (and voice) of speedway so it is important for them to do a good job.
  8. Yep, he needs to do the hard yards. What bothers me about Tatum is that he just personifies what’s wrong with British speedway: stale, unimaginative, cliched and simply doing what’s always been done, regardless of outcome. And I have nothing against him as a person. It’s not his fault as he’s not a journalist or a lead commentator, but someone lets him do it. Nigel Pearson was an excellent journalist, broadcaster and commentator and Kelvin was his sideman. It was a good combination and worked well. Kelvin is not a lead commentator and I don’t see development since he was thrust into the role. Good journalists do their research and a lot of work behind the scenes, but there doesn’t seem to do much of that. He’s a former world class rider and even the cringe screwdriver in the track stuff brings no insight. It’s his job. It’s what he’s paid to do. We’d criticise the track curator or a rider if they weren’t doing a job and I am sorry to say I just don’t think the guy is a lead commentator. At a time when we are all craving British speedway to find its mojo and put on a great show, the TV production is probably the single biggest asset we have in promoting the sport to a new and particularly dormant audience. I don’t expect F1 levels of production. I think the main presenter is very good but I cannot believe this is the best we can do in terms of bringing the sport to life.
  9. There are not enough paying fans, this is a major part of the problem. The point you are referring to is they need to find a formula which attracts new fans as well as keeping the old ones. Engine rebuilds is a relevant point though, as cost cutting (without reducing quality) is something which needs to be looked at because costs need cutting and income needs increasing. But if speedway wants to rely on paying fans to keep it afloat then it needs to grow the audience, not simply retain it.
  10. Speedway has to rip pretty much everything up and start again though. There are a lot of really great ideas shared on this forum, the problem is that it's just too far gone. Speedway is in survival model and the promotors all have different agendas. If you started with a clean sheet of part you'd do it so differently, with many of these great ideas. All we're doing though is rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship. Venues, local rider development and reducing costs are all core to developing a 'new' speedway. They need to go hand in hand and a half assed attempt at one thing won't touch the sides. Then you have the quality of the product and promotion, which are all huge aspects in themselves. It also won't happen without investment, and won't happen overnight. Speedway has no money and little time. A five-year plan is of no use to a promotor who is praying to get through the next five days.
  11. I would see no reason why a motor couldn't do 120 races between rebuilds. A system where a tuner/prep company tenders for a contract to supply all riders in official races would be the way forward. All engines identical, to the tendered spec, tested, sealed and allocated at random. Motors leased by the riders and swapped when the service level is met. Rider can adjust gearing, fuelling and ignition, but nothing internal. It's a formula used by other sports and reduces costs and increases fairness. It would be my strategy if I was starting a speedway league today, but it's the least of the problems faced by British speedway at this time. As part of a five year plan though, it would be integral.
  12. Short term that’s all well and good. It puts out the immediate fire but any business needs to be profitable to survive and to thrive. He gets bored/frustrated and it’s back to where they all end up.
  13. Four valve engines didn’t cause stadia to be sold for development, nor for the sport to fail to invest in practice facilities. Nor did it have influence on the development of the internet or satellite Tb, or the other choices keeping people away from speedway. highly tuned engines do add unnecessary cost for competitors. Many motorsports have brought in standardised motors. The system used in Moto2, where teams lease sealed engines would be a good system but right now that’s the last of speedway’s problems. if you had a five year plan, it would be part of it though.
  14. Who would buy a speedway club? It's going to haemorrhage money and you can't even run it like a business, as outside forces tell you how to run your business - what days you can operate, what contractors you can employ, and so on.
  15. FWIW I agree with you. There's no need for such expensive equipment if it was standardised. It would save costs and possibly even improve the show. But four-valve engines aren't the cause. Progress is. If rules stated 'two valves only' then we'd still be riding just as highly-tuned and expensive engines - the only difference is that they would have two-valves rather than four. People want a competitive edge and will spend to do so, and will push the rules as far as they can. A standard engine, two-valves or four, is in theory the solution but the sport couldn't afford it as a rule change. Someone would need to buy them. Current journeymen would probably quit because of the investment. Current equipment would become obsolete and worthless and the cost to police it would likely be prohibitive. Although, in theory, it would save money the investment needed would be beyond most stakeholders currently involved in the sport.
  16. Your comment didn't add to the debate in any way. Now if you'd qualified your statement by saying '... because' then maybe it could be taken seriously. As it was it just comes across as 'old man shouting at cloud'.
  17. LOL. Speedway Star is to journalism what Greggs is to Michelin starred cooking!
  18. A few years ago I thought 'how would I run a speedway track'. The model was based around regular open practice sessions, individual meetings (multiple classes, with riders paying to enter) and perhaps some amateur team meetings for variety, and if there was demand from my customers. My customers would be competitors, who would be club members (as with most sporting clubs). I might 'promote' a couple of pro meetings a year to raise the profile and give my club members something to aspire to, and to try and brings some additional revenue in. Don't think it would be allowed due to the BSPA cartel.
  19. You speak the truth my man. In motorsport around the world, competitors pay to participate in their hobby with maybe less than 1% actually making a living. Speedway is a sport where riders are paid, with almost nothing else. Speedway needs facilities for competitors to race as a hobby. I would happily be a club racer, with a bike in the garage and doing five or six meetings a year if the facilities were there and the events offered value. The focus should have been on developing a proposition for competitors, not spectators. A strong amateur scene develops more riders at a higher level, and creates an economy around the sport. The death we are witnessing is a result of the short term view speedway has had, in failing to move with the times and its focus on being almost solely a team sport designed for spectators.
  20. Curious to understand why you think promoters are greedy. I'd suggest most, if not all, are losing money. If I was out to make a quick buck, speedway would be the last thing I'd think about.
  21. The biggest issue we have with that is that all promoters have different challenges and different priorities, so 'business as usual' and short term thinking will always win. Lack of tracks and a lack of riders (especially affordable ones) will kill speedway as a viable spectator sport in this country. Costs are going up and income is going down and no amount of tweaking the format will really change that. There's no real solution, I fear. Times change and tastes change and I think speedway was of its time as a spectator team sport.
  22. Kinda. I mean just because you're a tenant doesn't mean you can't invest in your home. If speedway attracted big enough crowds, it would be in the interest of the promoter to invest in the stadium facilities as long as they had a long term lease. Reality is it doesn't and they don't so of course facilities are going to be ignored. It's a vicious cycle. A speedway team needs to lease their venue for around 25-30 nights a year. That's a pretty poor occupancy rate for any stadium owner and not in any way a viable business.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy