(29-12-2014, 11:21 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: I am sorry Geeky but did you not have to qualify under the old system ??

I'm glad you raised this Eddie.
Yes, you do have to qualify. It used to be that you had a to achieve a fixed time (there was an extra margin allowed for newcomers). Now, there is a different system that, I feel, may put people under even more pressure. In order to qualify, a competitor has to achieve a lap time that is within a certain %age of the 3rd fastest qualifier's fastest time. (I think it is 115%, please correct me if I am wrong).
So, consider this: a newcomer trying to learn the circuit will not know what the time he has to achieve when starting his final qualifying session on Friday. He (or she) may be faced with a Friday scenario where the top three put in a faster lap than they have achieved all week, thus moving the newcomers time further away. 
Friday (last practice) used to be traditionally a time to run in a chain, scrub in a set of tyres or try a new setting. Now, a struggling newcomer may be under pressure to go as fast as possible, whilst chasing an unknown time, in order to qualify. In what way is that safe?
Also, bear in mind, that due to the seeding of the top 10 sidecars, it is often possible for those top runners to get three laps in in one session. The later starters, the ones who need the most practice time, will find it virtually impossible to get three laps done in the remaining time available. ( I will confine myself to sidecars, as that's what I know about!). Therefore, the very people who need the most track time are denied it in favour of the top runners.

In short, under the old system, a competitor would have a  fixed time to achieve, to which they could gradually build up. Now, they might have to go flat out, chasing a moving target.  

FAO Splashdown, Nick what you said about me was out of order, I would never have said that knowing your ability, history, and results, why did you make that pointless statement? not happy, regards Bill

(30-12-2014, 06:03 PM)spannerman Wrote: FAO Splashdown, Nick what you said about me was out of order, I would never have said that knowing your ability, history, and results, why did you make that pointless statement? not happy, regards Bill

Now now gentlemen, Let's not allow this to get into a personal issue, in a public Forum.

I remind you of Point 17 of the "Postings will not be allowed which could be judged to be:" within the Terms & Conditions, which reads:- •17. One to one arguments. Such postings should be conducted through private email and not through public discussion.

Malcolm.

Back to the debate Geekay old chum yes I do appreciate what you are saying about the moving goal posts of the time required but that is to try and eliminate as much as poss the speed differential I would have thought , for as the top men get faster then the newcomers have to follow suit , now in another thread I have said and again with any bull smelly I come out with , I stand by and in that thread I did say that to me the Practice time given to competitors is absolutely VITAL and as the speeds increase I feel more should be made available even if that is at the inconvenience of the residents however unpopular that may be , there will be a time when they have to make up their minds do they want the TT and all it brings with it , money world recognition and many other benefits not all of which are obvious or not ,
if the answer is yes then they must be seen to be running it as safe as possible , and not saying here is a licence to go out there and commit euthanasia , if something makes it a thousandth of a % safer we MUST implement it , for if we dont or should I say they dont then they will be deemed as being neglectful , and being neglectful would bring the whole shooting match down around our ears
and Geeks!! whats that you are a what ?? slidycar personage?? ha ha ha are you allowed out at this time of year

But when riders are trying to go, or are expected to go as fast as posible in practice, then it is not safer.
If a rider is allocated for example number 38 under the old system, other than qualifying, he can build up and PRACTICE his setup for the race,knowing that unless he has practiced significantly quicker than what he was seeded, he would start at number 38 regardless of what he or she does in PRACTICE.
Now the riders feel the pressure to go quicker in practice just so they dont start at the bottom of the feild.
How is that safer?

Re my remark to Spannerman, I have pm'd him to apologise for my needless comment. It didn't come out how it was intended.




Malcolm.

(30-12-2014, 02:57 PM)Nev14 Wrote: As Marshall I have to say that when called upon to use the black flag it is  a lot easier to pick up a bike when you have some idea where in the field the bike might be coming.Under the new system unless you have logged all the changes in your programme you are never sure when they are due to arrive at your pull in point. I know ideally you should get a call from the previous two or three marshal points but experience shows this by no means always happens.When approaching you at up to 180mph you have little time to spot the rider.Black flagging is an important safety issue, ask Guy Martin when he was black flagged at Ramsey.

To answer your black flag point which Splashdown promotes as a valid one and I agree it is ,  but as we only have so many black flag points we do greatly rely on the tetra to inform us as to the riders position , and at your station at Sulby Bridge by the time you confirm that the rider approaching is who you think it is as we must be sure we cant go showing it to the wrong rider , its too late for he may not have stayed in the order even of the old system and with the numbers being as they are hard to see some times you very much rely on the radio , so for all it is a concern it is not a reason for overriding other more important issues, 

. 

Sorry to repeat, but is there any history of incidents caused by faster riders lapping the later starters. I can't think of any but happy to be corrected. This is important to this discussion as the justification for the new system is that it is a safety issue.
(Frankly I think the faster riders have far less trouble overtaking the high numbers than they do riders of much closer ability)

There have been many quotes over the years from front runners having to struggle getting past slow riders , and as was being discussed in another thread should there be less riders in a race as times get faster , set them off at different time gaps all these things are relevant , in how a race should or could be run

.

(26-12-2014, 12:15 PM)Andy from Kazakhstan Wrote:

(25-12-2014, 10:50 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: Oh I think there are a lot on here that think they are Andy

I don't qualify , I am a volunteer official a Marshal,  who takes it seriously. With a open mind to the hard facts ,
That others find hard to grasp

.

Eddie, you mention "Facts" I have obviously missed them as I've yet to see any FACTS presented. Please could you point me to the relevant postings.

I'm still waiting Eddie.

This thread seems to be just going round and round, perhaps a mass start would sort the issue. St Ninians and Bray hill would be interesting    

well for me the main fact is that in a time trial for every one to set off on a level playing field with equal opportunities , you would set them off in their most recently achieved order of ability , as they do in any other race in the world , simple fact , as I see it and I assume the ACU /DED sees it , and for me the only thing I disagree with the ACU/ DED on is I would include the top 20 in that procedure ,


.

Definitely agree with setting riders off as per their allocated numbers, lunk heads like me can then  follow whether a riders doing well or not. How can they justify selling programmes with riders allocated numbers then swap them all around when they have done practice (qualifying) and get allocated different numbers. I know I`m not the sharpest knife in the draw but I don`t think anybody will know what the hell is going on unless they have the opportunity of have a updated start sheet before official racing begins. When people like Splashdown and JM130 think it`s wrong then the people who have decided to change things should listen to these guys because they know a damn side more about racing than they will ever know.

(30-12-2014, 09:45 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: well for me the main fact is that  in a time trial for every one to set off on a level playing field with equal opportunities , you would set them off in their most recently achieved order of ability , as they do in any other race in the world , simple fact , as I see it and I assume the ACU /DED sees it  , and for me the only thing I disagree with the ACU/ DED on is I would include the top 20 in that procedure ,

1 it is a time trial. Other than having to overtake other riders, it does not matter what position you start at to affect your measured time over the distance travelled. 
2 in almost all other time trials they go off in numerical order.
3 there is no other race/ time trial in the world that is nearly 40 miles long or has the same track layout and conditions as the TT 


.

(30-12-2014, 09:01 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: There have been many quotes over the years from front runners having to struggle getting past slow riders , and as was being discussed in another thread should there be less riders in a race as times get faster , set them off at different time gaps  all these things are relevant , in how a race should or could be run

.

Sorry Eddie but that doesn't answer the question. Riders saying that they struggle to get past slower riders when lapping them does not amount to evidence of a safety issue.

I am assuming that since the TT began all those years ago the riders have left the start in number order which sort of proves the system works  for both riders and spectators.  So why change it ? 

The DED claimed they did not recieve many complaints/comments on the new system , but from experience the general public these days are to busy to do this sort of thing, sorting out who to contact and then doing something takes effort . this does not mean they are happy with how things have changed its just doing something about it if it not having a direct influence on them then it goes on the back burner. Its a shame the DED did not put a question card on the ferries for all the punters to fill  in on the way home .Then they would know what most of us all ready know the new system is unpopular.

C IoM you say
2 in almost all other time trials they go off in numerical order.

I think , but stand to be corrected , but the TT is unique and I do not know of, or have heard of any other event run in this way , the only other time trials I know of , are trials of endurance where you are given a task to do in a given time slot and are issued with penalties for infringements, usually in the context of added time to achived overall time , bearing no resemblance to the TT so therefore of no importance what number people set off in , more important that the numbers in the program are the numbers on the bikes , which was not the case in the old system in race week ,

Not true Eddy, the numbers in the programme corresponded exactly with what you were observing throughout a race with the exception of the alterations, which WERE manageable, but which became too prolific due to bad race management.
The management started to give in too easily to riders who felt they deserved to be moved up the order.
I've said it before, but I arrived at the TT in 1984 having won the Senior Manx in '83, and was given No. 73 for the Senior, and No. 80 for the Premier Classic (unlimited race).
I never complained (though I was a little cheesed off), and went on to finish 9th and 7th respectively.
And before you start, the bikes were pretty quick (RG500), admittedly not as fast as today's bikes, BUT, there were nearly 100 starters, thus lots more traffic for everyone.
And if you look at the quality of the field, there were good riders finishing right down to 20th place.
So tell me why it wasn't a problem in 1984, and it is now? Everyone's got fast bikes now, so it should be less of a problem.

The beauty of the 'old' system was that you could follow it without a program, it was a 'race by numbers', if no. 36 passed you ahead of no. 34 you knew no. 36 was having a better race.  Under the new system you would have to look to a program (if you had one) find both riders, note their start time differential and then work out who was having a better race - by which time another 8 riders would have passed and you have lost track !!

Perhaps a very simplistic solution would be for the bikes to show a supplementary number, so display a race (program) number AND a start position number.

Phil

(31-12-2014, 01:27 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: C IoM you say
2 in almost all other time trials they go off in numerical order.

I think , but stand to be corrected , but the TT is unique and I do not know of,  or have heard of any other event run in this way , the only other time trials I know of , are trials of endurance where you are given a task to do in a given time slot and are issued with penalties for infringements,  usually in the context of added time to achived overall time , bearing no resemblance to the TT   so therefore of no importance what number people set off in , more important that the numbers in the program are the numbers on the bikes , which was not the case in the old system in race week ,

Every sprint event I have been to have gone off in the order printed in the program.
Yes the TT is a unique event, that was my point!

Well Nick by what you say ( the alterations, which WERE manageable, but which became too prolific due to bad race management.) you infer that the old system of alterations had become too prolific , I assume by { prolific } you mean it was no longer very good at what it did because there had become too many needing moving up or down and the system could not cope efficiently and made a mockery of the program , , now I think someone else said that ! wonder who that was ? oh well never mind , as for your derogatory remark as to the management I assume and I have to stress ASSUME for I do not know but as far as I know the same method of calculating the seeding program numbers is still in use apart from the top 20 that I believe to be wrong and its inefficiency is the cause of so many riders being moved up and down the order , and again I say it sit down with the programs and start numbers and do number crunching of how many were moved and by how far to work out how out of tilt the old system needed altering , but if you can come up with a way of achieving that without the boring cry of don't change anything I will be very interested to hear it


.