yes I see what you are saying I think I would prefer the 5 sec providing we were using the qualy time start order , as it is we must be getting to the stage of needing to do something , when MD gets off a bike and says that was scary catching those back markers all over the place with such a speed difference , it must be time to have a look , that boy don't scare easily , admittedly that was at the Classic last year not this one , not that this year was made any better for as I understand it it was in fact made worse instead of better ,


.

On second thoughts would a 5 sec gap be achievable on the start line , would it be long enough to get the next rider on to the line and ready to go ? I cant say that I have watched the start procedure that closely to know , I wonder if some of our rider friands on here have any thoughts on this ??


.

Start in pairs at 15 second intervals?

2 starting positions, 2 lines. Odd numbers on the right, evens on the left. 5 second starting interval. Each rider gets 10 seconds to prepare as now.
I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do, but the start line could be easily managed.

I didn't think it was a serious problem at the TT (not the Classic per MD's comments). I can only recall riders like Guy saying they caught the odd high numbered rider but that it wasn't a problem. Are there any examples I'm missing ?

(15-12-2014, 12:22 PM)Dougboy Wrote: 2 starting positions, 2 lines. Odd numbers on the right, evens on the left. 5 second starting interval. Each rider gets 10 seconds to prepare as now.
I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do, but the start line could be easily managed.

thats how they linned up a few years back when they started in pairs so obviously a option

I suggest that the DED pay me say £50k to research this. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll suggest that a system where the riders start in pairs at 10 second intervals would be best. 

Under the present system it is very easy for the spectator to lose interest after the top 20 go past.  Plenty of people don't bother with the programme. radio or the TT live app.  It's like a practice session with the mix of numbers and no way of knowing whats going on (even visually).   Not sure if the organisers are bothered as the TV coverage just concentrates on the top runners.

the fact you know number 25 comes after 24 has no relevance as to how a rider is riding there can be a thousand reasons why number 24 is right there with number 25 , and you think you know whats going on sorry bull S--t , and to put peoples ability to count above the safety of riders is just ridiculous , the fact that a lot of people loose interest is more to do with not grasping that they aren't watching close combat racing , they are watching a time trial , and they are just filling time till they can get back out on that black strip they are sat looking at

.

• Dunlop
  
• martin
  
• Anstey
  
• Cummins
  
• Hillier
  
• McGuinness
  

(18-12-2014, 02:47 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: the fact you know number 25 comes after 24 has no relevance as to how a rider is riding there can be a thousand reasons why number 24 is right there with number 25 , and you think you know whats going on sorry bull S--t , and to put peoples ability to count above the safety of riders is just ridiculous , the fact that a lot of people loose interest is more to do with not grasping that they aren't watching close combat racing , they are watching a time trial , and they are just filling time till they can get back out on that black strip they are sat looking at

.

Eddie

I am not sure an ability to count matters. I don't see the relevance of that comment.

I recall a thread on the other website on this topic and the vast majority were against this new system; even riders. You have to remember that not all spectators are hard core enthusiasts (they can probably read numbers and count though)and view the unfolding race in simple terms i.e. number order. The spectators should be considered as the TT is entertainment after all. Even John McG says before every race "I hope we put on a good show". I totally agree that rider safety is important but the present system is confusing.

By the way, I have been coming to the TT since 1961 so am not a "new" fan. I recall seeing people with the race guide listing the numbers as they went past and you could see who was moving up the order etc by this method alone.

For me running the race regardless of how ever you seed the riders in numerical order is a must. It at least gives all spectators a good chance to work out who is doing what. The commentry is mostly about the front runners so a back marker doing well stands out to one and all .
As for the five second gap I think this is a good idea and the way to solve the time issue is to have two gates at the start an odd number and and even gate.  The starters could alternate the gates the riders leave from.  You would leave your gate 10 seconds after the last rider from your gate , or is that to simple ?

As the lap times get faster and faster, they are either going to have to reduce the number of riders in a race, or reduce the 10 second gaps.

This is my take on it:

Start them in pairs at 10 second intervals.  This should increase the time it takes the leading guys to catch the later starters.  If it's safe to start them in pairs for practice, which they still do, then surely it's safe for a race too.  Particularly if it lengthens the gap between number 1 and number 90.

I would also revert to the old numbering system.  I've never heard a convincing argument that there was anything unsafe or impractical about it.  Wasn't broke and didn't need fixing.

I would also abandon the concept of a top seeded rider carrying the same number throughout all solo races as they do now.  This would serve to change the dynamic of a race and make the whole thing more interesting and unpredictable if they started at different numbers in different races.  Three times within the last few years we've seen one rider domninate throughout race week and I believe this will happen more often if things stay the way they are.

I don't like the idea of pairs. The top dozen riders rarely get dropped by one of their peers passing them these days. If that's how it plays out it would seriously take from the time trial nature of things. Also I can't say I've heard front runners complain of the danger of passing late in a race - more the inconvenience.

i was at st ninians a few years back when the parade lap was started in pairs and 2 riders went under the bridge together and slightly touched each other sadly 1 of them riders came off as a result and lost his life
personaly i dont like the idea of starting in pairs
if you get 2 bikes/riders that are equal in performance they will be battling together on cold tyres round a few tricky bends and 1 might just try thet little too hard to get the break

Starting in pairs wasn't a problem when it was a push start as no two bikes start exactly the same. BUT with clutch starts, traction control, anti wheelie etc you will get two similar bikes staying in close formation. 5 sec gaps is the obvious way to go , but when did they ever do the obvious. Dogsbody

The race organisers generally get it right when it comes to the start list. I recall struggling in practice for the 2013 Classic TT races ending up almost at the back of the grid (not my normal position). It was a real struggle for the first couple of laps passing riders I'd normally start ahead of, which increased the risk factor. Fortunately it went well but what I learned was given the chance to go with your seeding and minimise the risk. But then again I'm no Michael Dunlop!

But what if your troubles had continued on in to the race and you had started in front of all those riders that were faster than you, sorry two way street,


.

(22-12-2014, 10:24 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: But what if your troubles had continued on in to the race and you had started in front of all those riders that were faster than you,  sorry two way street,  


.

Eh??? That logic applies to every competitor in every race!!!