Hopefully Michael Dunlop will see sense and choose to start first on the grid

Howdy Spannerman. I reckon he likes going behind some of his completion and passing them. Pretty much beats them there and then. The spectacle of seeing him cut through the silence as #1 at the start of a race would be pretty special though. What do you think ?

(12-12-2014, 07:48 AM)Ken37.73 Wrote: Howdy Spannerman. I reckon he likes going behind some of his completion and passing them. Pretty much beats them there and then. The spectacle of seeing him cut through the silence as #1 at the start of a race would be pretty special though. What do you think ?

Not to sure about that Ken, when he easily caught John McGuinness and two other riders eight miles from Ramsey it was not until a desperate move at water works that he managed to get passed them, I have always said that starting number one on the grid has got to be the best option and not starting down the field as to tactically gauge yourself against other riders.

I guess Bruce would get the option of number 1 before Michael, although I can't see him taking it?

David

I think MD would jump a the chance of having teh number 1 spot.He likes being on his own and doing his own crazy stuff lol.There can be ots of valuable seconds lost if you end up in a battle with other riders.
I always thought that James Hillier was under extreme pressure when he had the number 1 spot in 2013 and thought it was just to much for him and he seemed to do better when McGuiness or Dubnlop passed him and he had them to follow.
It must always be in the back of your mind what your going to come across on the track when your away first i certainly wouldn`t favour it.

Ha ha ha here we go, there should be no seeding, every one on qualifying times, level playing field, stands back ready for the flac


.

(12-12-2014, 12:33 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: Ha ha ha here we go,  there should be no seeding,  every one on qualifying times,  level playing field,  stands back ready for the flac



.

theres a lot to be said for starting in qualifying order
but only the organizors would know the order they were in the race
i much prefer them to start in numerical order therefore you know whos gaining time or dropping back down the field

MGP and the Classic TT are now back in numerical order, it made spectating ten times better, was now able to take an interest on progress of the later runners.

This is what I would like to see as a starting order - it's what I reckon would give close racing (in the true TT sense, that is to say on the clock). Everyone needs to catch the guy in front for what they would consider a good result and won't want to be passed by the guy behind .................. PS. Don't get your pants in a bunch if your don't like where I put your favourite rider, on December 12th it just a bit of fun to pass the next 169 days !

1. MD
2. JM130
3. GM
4. BA
5. CC
6. WD
7. GJ
8. DH
9. IH
10. MR
11. JH
12. JB
13. PH

We have had this subject many times , and the facts remain if you do the number crunching look at the start position that riders set of in to where they qualified you will find there is some big discrepancies that would say some riders would have had it tough when you stick to numerical order , as with the numerical way you can only move so many , making it a farce and once you get to race week you then have the situation that you MAY THINK you know that rider number 40 is catching number 38 but you don't know who he is cos your program is no good any more cos you did not catch the movers on the radio , I have said it many times I would rather have a rider having a safer ride than some one sat in a hedge back thinks he knows who is doing what , when the reality is he hasn't a clue , how many times in the past have the people with all the electronic gizmos got it wrong , and you think you can do it bareback , in your head

(12-12-2014, 08:38 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: We have had this subject many times , and the facts remain if you do the number crunching look at the start position that riders set of in to where they qualified you will find there is some big discrepancies that would say some riders would have had it tough when you stick to numerical order , as with the numerical way you can only move so many , making it a farce and once you get to race week you then have the situation that you MAY THINK you know that rider number 40 is catching number 38 but you don't know who he is cos your program is no good any more cos you did not catch the movers on the radio , I have said it many times I would rather have a rider having a safer ride than some one sat in a hedge back thinks he knows who is doing what , when the reality is he hasn't a clue , how many times in the past have the people with all the electronic gizmos got it wrong , and you think you can do it bareback , in your head

its hard to judge the lower ranked riders but the ones just outside the top ten are usualy the ones afected most
some face just dont suit and they get placed behind some who are not as fast but better thought off dont want to start naming names but i do have 1 or 2 in mind

i wonder if gamesmanship will enter in to it IE riders slowing down in practice Ramsey to Ramsey times come to mind 

Yes you could get some gamesmanship coming in to play , but if you sit and go through the number crunching and look at the hard facts , the numerical start is way off the mark of what a preferred starting order is , hard facts , take away the miss placed notions and the don't like change at any cost and the qualified start is the way it should be done

.

I can see why people would like the numerical start but qualifying order is of great kudos to the unseeded as well as being the fairest way. Furthermore, of a practical note, it makes printing the programme manageable and the issuing of competitor numbers.


.

to me scrap the first 20 rider seeding , all starters start on qualy times , last year I think it was in one race we had about about 5 or 6 of the first 10 all in a heap scratching, the IoM is not a place for that sort of riding , that is why it is run as a time trial , we have a duty of care to make it as safe as we can , sorry if I sound like a parrot but safety is a big thing with me ,

.

if you get the seeding right before hand theres not a problem but just how do you seed them that is the problem

the problem with seeding is that the information it is worked out from is 12 months old , totally inadequate , riders on different bikes and many other changes that make the information useless , only one way to be up to date , run qualy times many riders have said that it is fairer and better for them , but we will always get the dont like change brigade  shouting against it , and for all that there are plenty on here against what I say on this subject , the cold facts are clear , the old way is not the best , if you take riders safety and fair play for all in to account ,

I cant remember were I saw it but only a couple of weeks ago some one posted a photo of some guys watching the TT sat on a grass bank about 5 of them two watching the bikes two asleep one looking the other way on his phone , and people are arguing that it is better that they can follow the numbers than give riders a level playing field and be safer , oh and not one of the five had a program in his hand , ????

oh and Ps ,   in the photo there was a race bike passing them at the time it was taken 

I may be an Old Dog but in the interest of safety I will do my best to learn new tricks


.

It's not so much the guys at the front that I'd like to adjust, it's the ones at the back. Every year the top guys end up catching the guys at the back. This, as we all know, gets bl**dy dangerous. How about...........

The first 20 (or so) start at 10 sec intervals, and the rest start either, 5 secs apart, or in pairs, 10 secs apart.
That would reduce the whole race start by approx 45%, and remove the situation of riders being lapped (breakdowns, bad running bikes and remounts excepted).

Merry Xmas, Pete

Hi Pete hope you are well was wondering where you were , had not seen any thing from you for a while but by the look of it you had been here long before us ,

it is always going to be a problem trying to please everyone I don't think we ever will , but surely it is down to priorities and riders safety must be put before anything else ,

as for the front runners catching the tail enders, that is a simple matter of mathematics, the faster the front runners become , the faster the tail enders must be to qualify, or cut the size of the field simple as that , it's not rocket science

but cut the field and we loose entry fees and we end up with the economics rearing it's ugly head , and then we have to say what price do we put on safety ?? awful glad I don't have to make those sort of decisions


.

Yeah Eddie I'm still alive ;-)

My point above is that by starting in pairs (or one at a time but 5 seconds apart not 10secs) the size of the field is the same, but they all get away in half the time. That way (mathematically) over 6 laps they can't be caught.

See you on Peel breakwater mate ;-)

Pete