http://www.iomonline.co.im/ViewArticle2....ID=1765419

Oh... will this improvement again knock off three seconds to the lap?
I wonder.

Hello, Hans! Yes, I should think so. They need to re-measure the lap, I think.

thewitch Wrote:They need to re-measure the lap, I think.

Helen, you have just nailed one of my 'pet' subjects. The 'official' course measurement that is still used dates back to the early 1950s - indeed when Geoff Duke just missed the 100mph lap in 1955 he recorded 22.39, so the same formula was used then as being used now (22.38 for the 100mph lap).

Clearly this is completely and utterly ludicrous. The TT Course has changed beyond all recognition since the 1950s - if someone who hadn't been round the course for 50 years looked at it now they would hardly recognise a lot of it. Purely off the top of my head, I can list major road changes since the 1950s having been made at Union Mills, Laurel Bank, Quarry Bends, Verandah, Graham Memorial, Windy Corner, Cronk ny Mona, Signpost and Bedstead. There are probably others as well, and now Brandish is going to be completely re-aligned, cutting off a huge chunk of the corner.

At a guess, I would say that the racing line could be as much as half a mile shorter by next year than it was in the 1950s. Mind you, how accurate was the measurement in the 1950s? And was it a centre of the road measurement, or was it the racing line? Whatever the answers to those questions, the course urgently needs to be completely and accurately remeasured (using the racing line) and the lap speed tables adjusted accordingly.

This might upset the traditionalists (actually I am one of those!) and it might also upset John McGuinness who has probably 'only' lapped at 128-something. However, the present speed tables are, quite simply, both out of date and totally inaccurate. For the TT's centenary year, let's have them right!!

Wouldn't the ideal be to get John McG fitted with some kind of mileometer, and he could measure it as he raced? That would be the true racing line, and an accurate measurement. It could be part of the centenary celebrations.

Cannot agree you measure the racing line as this is the quickest but not the shortest,with all the backward and forward across the road it would come to way over 38mls.Surely the most accurate and balanced measurement is down the centre of the road.
Good question though,how was the original measurement taken?

How interesting...but isn't that more accurate, because it's how far he and the others race? I also thought it would mean some sort of immortality for John...the McGuinness measurement...for the next 50 years...or maybe only 20, with impending changes in the day to day roads.
Yes, who measured it..when and how?

Agreed it is how far they raced Helen,but for instance the sidecars would allways record a different distance to the solos,purely because the front and back wheel could not posssibly follow the line of a solo machine through a right /left hand corner,depending which side the sidecar was attached.eg take the verandah,a left hand attached sidecar would travel several yards less in distance than a top solo even if both were useing all the road available.

Yes, on reflection I agree with you that it should be a centre-of-the-road measurement (which is fixed) and not the 'racing line' (which varies from rider to rider). Otherwise you could have two riders recording identical lap times, but slightly different speeds because they were on different lines!

But my main point still stands - that the 'official' measurement from the 1950s is so out-of-date as to be completely meaningless now. The course needs to be re-measured and the lap speed tables recalculated accordingly as soon as possible.

I'm not sure about the 'McGuinness measurement' Helen, as I presume that would only measure the distance when the bike is actually in contact with the road! Less than 35 miles, probably...

Arthur, I don't agree that the racing line is longer than the centre of the road line - that suggestion seems to defy the laws of geometry! Surely the racing line cuts off corners, straightens twisty sections and generally reduces the distances from A to B? Otherwise, why take the racing line?

did they not years ago, late 50,s early 60,s send Geoff Duke around the course, in a car with a "pedometer" or something simalair attached to the back of it
I think it was done for one of the comics,
Maybe the likes of tom or ian might remeber it?

Have to agree with David that it does need recalibrating, so much has been changed over the years, & what better time to do it than next year,

But if they do that,the 130mph lap might not happen!! so less publicity for the make of bike that does it!!
& as we all know, they have to take commercial interests very close to heart these days

This subject has been making me laugh for about 12 years now, people go on about how this and that record was broken, and how fast this new comer is but, The reality is that the track is getting faster not the riders!

Hang on! Aren't the machines getting faster as well as the track? Perhaps my head has been burrowed in the sand.

The course was certainly longer for the 2006 MGP due to all the detours away from the racing line in order to avoid the diesel spills.

They are still happening. Has anyone been prosecuted yet?

The only way that track can be measured is down the middle of the road.

Many years ago Geoff Duke managed to get the course re-measured after he was denied the first 100mph lap, and he disputed the official measurement.

"In 1955 he won the Senior, and was declared the first rider to lap at 100mph, but this was corrected two laps later to 99.97mph."

It was a contentious issue then and still is.