1- what is the point,there is always non starters in every race so why can't the organizers just shuffle any faster riders up after practice? 2014 non starters superbikes 7 n/s,super sport 10 n/s,superstock 14 n/s,senior 11 n/s.it happens every year just check your race guides.the initial race guide isn't to far out.
2-they haven't done it to make people subscribe to tt live on smart phones so you can follow what's going on?(another revenue)in the hedges you need to be aware of what's happening on track not looking down on screens,don't need bikes heading towards you.
3-most important really,riders trying hard in qualifying(qualifying now in race guide not practice)only need to be stranded out on track couple of nights all of a sudden chasing times.
4-enjoyment gone out of watching this system,simple logic to follow previously,also old photos told a story of races for years to come,won't tell the same story now.
5- not going to buy a tt programme this tt,if they're not listening to reason maybe if people vote to sacrifice the programme and hit the revenue you never know.

I don't think I made a derogatory remark about the management Eddy, but through weak management, the organisers DID allow the riders to move their numbers, thus devaluing the Programme.
It should be possible go through that list, sort out a perfectly reasonable order, and have the riders be told that "only under exceptional circumstances " would a rider change be considered. Otherwise, the riders set off in the order of the programme. End of.
And right now, I cannot imagine what would constitute "exceptional circumstances".
The original system worked for over 100 years Eddy. Years ago the winners numbers were all over the place from No.1 to No.78.
I don't propose going back to that arrangement, but the system from 1960 to around 2012 was as good as it gets, so why the change?
If there was a clear safety requirement to adopt this new system, I would be agreeing with you, that goes without saying.
This is NOT a "no overtaking" sport.

Nick my friend you are a one , come on its me your talking to !!

Your words ( The original system worked for over 100 years Eddy. ) sorry Nick no the system you yearn the return of was not 100 years old for many years it was mass start and there have been many changes along the way as there should be to cope with the changes in bikes and anything else found to be in need of updating ,
again your words ( but the system from 1960 to around 2012 was as good as it gets ) sorry I disagree , I would say it was thought to be adequate at the time but has outlived its time , and the ever increasing speeds of the bikes will always push the way things are done to new levels , its called moving with the times ,

Come on Nick whats that Yorkshire saying " if thas ti aud fa Change thas ti aud , end on " ha ha ha , I would not for one min suggest that you are past it not the way you ride , BUT ?

Eddy you know we love ya but dear God you're stubborn!  

This change has nothing to do with safety (and again you know why I think that) and it has nothing to do with bikes getting faster.  It was merely change for the sake of it.  The original system worked fine - nothing wrong with it.

In another thread you brought my name up in connection with this but I'll respond on here.  You suggested that as a photographer I should just 'work harder' to understand what was going on.  My answer to that is that delivering publishable images is difficult enough in itself.  On top of that I need to write reports - again of publishable standard.  Therefore it's important for me to be able to interpret the race as the guys I report on may not necessarily get featured in every commentary.  That is not possible under the new system and I can't do my job if I'm constantly peering at a device of some sort to get the placings etc.  Frankly, if we're all going to have to do that then what's the point of even being there?

Eddy - the new system (in my opinion) is NOT safer than the old one - I believe it to be more dangerous (again, my opinion) and it certainly isn't customer friendly (everyone's opinion - including every racer I've spoken to!)

Yes Stick's I know I am but look you over by here down yonder would you have me any other way ??

There are six pages of posts trying to achieve the impossible to bring me in line with the mistaken masses , what would you do with your selves if you didn't have me to have a go at

and as in the post you refer to , you are the one , the only one in all this that I do sympathise with , and to assist in your ability to overcome some of your problems I think that the numbers on the bikes should be more readable than they are at the moment for according to my Spec Saver specials many are very hard to read with all the corporate logo splattered all over the place , see some one thinks about you XX

Starting orders have begun for 2015, have a good un.

Ha Ha Ha and you got the number 1 plate well done that man , hope its a good line up Spanner's 


.

Splashdown. Is that fact that a start number 78 won a race. If that is correct it sort of puts the icing on the cake with regards for going back to the old system of going in number order.

Yes Kursal ,but Nick is going back there to the days of mass starts when when he used to ride wearing his dads flat cap , lol

.

I think this thread has run its course. What should be discussed as a serious issue is decending into a joke which it is not.
There are plenty of other threads that can be light hearted banter, this should not be one of them.

Malcolm

I think that after reviewing some of the previous comments on here, that perhaps I should be posting a voting a poll on this matter, in order to permit all of you to vote on your preference for Old as against New.

After some thoughts, I shall post a poll in a new Thread for you to Vote upon, hopefully later today.

Malcolm.

I will make a prediction.
All those in favour of the new system. 1
All those in favour of the old system. Everyone else.  

Thank you Malcolm for allowing us to continue the thread.
I SO wanted to inform Kursaal Flyer that Eddy was incorrect re the No 78 win being a mass start. IT WAS NOT!
It was in fact perhaps the most famous TT win of all time, the 1957 EIGHT lap Senior won by the legendary Bob McIntyre on the Gilera four, setting the first ever 100mph lap (101.12).
And just to remind everyone, Bob also won the Junior that year, (also on a Gilera 4), and what do you think his starting number was? SEVENTY NINE!! And, yes, it was NOT a massed start.
Eddy what were you thinking? There have been very few massed starts in the TT. Late 40s 250 Lightweight. All Clypse Circuit races (1954-59), and the Production Races of 1967-76, which were in fact a Le Mans start.
If we could contemplate Le Mans style starts in the 70s, surely it's not asking too much to expect racers, (yes RACERS) to set off at 10second intervals, and do a spot of overtaking on their merry way round the course.
I am sure that there are many more like me who will not want to watch a TT race with ill flawed, badly planned, confusing system.
Many will convert to the Classic TT and the Manx Grand Prix, where the system was used once, and done away with. I wonder why?

Sorry Nick I stand corrected as I did jump to a conclusion that it would appear was wrong , I openly admit that I am not the Historian that you and many others are , I live for today ,  and I have no idea how things were run back in 1957 , but in a time trial that is what can happen it's not as if he had 77 riders to pass , he just had to do what you have to do in a time trial post the fastest time , taking nothing away from his achievement but I still think we must move with the times , and you expect no less than I will remain as stubborn as I ever was , we differ on this and accept our rights to our opinions , on here I stand alone and I accept that , but there are people with clout that make decisions agree with me ,and at the end of the day it's not me you need to convince you need to use your influence in your new position to change the opinions of the organisers

as for the vote we all know how that will go and as I have just said I know I stand alone , and to have a vote on this is some what against the vote we had only a week or so ago

ok I am on my own but lets be realistic on this post all the people against me only amount to a small vocal few , what about 25 to 1   I have seen worse odds than that in the winning enclosure

on the other site we were considered a vocal minority I think now that they have split us up in to a smaller fragment they will consider us an even smaller minority , so being vocal on here is not in my opinion going to get you what you want 

I don't think the poll will be necessary now.

Malcolm.

I have a further thought on this, and I think it's extremely relevant.
For the purpose of this posting, FORGET the nos 21 to 80(?). Let's just concentrate on the first 20, who as we know have priority numbers given to them.
I wonder, have we got the final practice qualifying times for 2014 to see what order they WOULD have started had they not had their priority numbers?
For instance M.D. (No6?) was he the fastest? And so on. Because, if it was so important to have this numbering sequence, why aren't the fastest riders, (i.e. those most likely to be in a winning position), placed in the order of qualifying, just as we were for the Senior a few years ago?
It seems a ridiculous dichotomy to place the higher (slower) numbers in order of qualifying, and turn a blind eye to the faster riders who perhaps become badly baulked by riders travelling only marginally slower than themselves.
And finally in my previous post about No.78 Bob McIntyre, what does Eddy mean by saying "it's not as though he had to pass 77 riders"? Does that not answer the argument perfectly? And by the way John Surtees finished 2nd (no. 64) and Bob Brown 3rd (35?).
The previous year (1956) John Surtees won as Number 81, and in 1955 Geoff Duke won at No.50.
The original reason for changing the order to give known names the early numbers was for fairness, not safety.
I think Malcolm would like us to finish this thread, so maybe someone could start a new thread regarding the correlation between qualifying and actual starting numbers. I think it is important to know.

on this I agree Nick 100% and have said so many times

For the purpose of this posting, FORGET the nos 21 to 80(?). Let's just concentrate on the first 20, who as we know have priority numbers given to them.
I wonder, have we got the final practice qualifying times for 2014 to see what order they WOULD have started had they not had their priority numbers?
For instance M.D. (No6?) was he the fastest? And so on. Because, if it was so important to have this numbering sequence, why aren't the fastest riders, (i.e. those most likely to be in a winning position), placed in the order of qualifying, just as we were for the Senior a few years ago?
It seems a ridiculous dichotomy to place the higher (slower) numbers in order of qualifying, and turn a blind eye to the faster riders who perhaps become badly baulked by riders travelling only marginally slower than themselves.

one for all and all for one   a level playing field equal opportunity for all , based on the most up todate information available ,


as forthe not having to pass 77 riders
I made the comment to  emphasise that it is a Time Trial a fact that I know you and some others don't like , but I feel has a huge impact on how things are run , and rightly so in my opinion , and as I said in that post I don't know how things were run in the fifties , all I remember of that period was being taken to Scarborough to I think it would be the Gold Cup meeting expecting to see one Mr G Duke on a much talked about Gilera V8 and he never turned up , one very disappointed little boy

"now Nick can I ask how much difference there is between riding one of todays  200 + BHP superbikes and a bike from the fifties through to the early seventies , you will have far more idea than me ??"

Last point above - 

It's not a minority unhappy,not everyone visits website forums,why not have a simple yes/no vote box on say steam packet or manx radio grandstand studio this year.hand the results in to the powers,at least then we will have only this year with the farce of a system.

(02-01-2015, 05:07 PM)Steady the Edward Wrote: on this I agree Nick 100% and have said so many times

For the purpose of this posting, FORGET the nos 21 to 80(?). Let's just concentrate on the first 20, who as we know have priority numbers given to them.
I wonder, have we got the final practice qualifying times for 2014 to see what order they WOULD have started had they not had their priority numbers?
For instance M.D. (No6?) was he the fastest? And so on. Because, if it was so important to have this numbering sequence, why aren't the fastest riders, (i.e. those most likely to be in a winning position), placed in the order of qualifying, just as we were for the Senior a few years ago?
It seems a ridiculous dichotomy to place the higher (slower) numbers in order of qualifying, and turn a blind eye to the faster riders who perhaps become badly baulked by riders travelling only marginally slower than themselves.

one for all and all for one   a level playing field equal opportunity for all , based on the most up todate information available ,


as forthe not having to pass 77 riders
I made the comment to  emphasise that it is a Time Trial a fact that I know you and some others don't like , but I feel has a huge impact on how things are run , and rightly so in my opinion , and as I said in that post I don't know how things were run in the fifties , all I remember of that period was being taken to Scarborough to I think it would be the Gold Cup meeting expecting to see one Mr G Duke on a much talked about Gilera V8 and he never turned up , one very disappointed little boy

now Nick can I ask how much difference there is between riding one of todays  200 + BHP superbikes and a bike from the fifties through to the early seventies , you will have far more idea than me ??

Regarding the 200+bhp superbikes, Whatever competitive bike in its period in the entire History of the TT would to its rider have seemed like he was pushing the boundries, the modern superbikes are probably the easiest bikes in TT history to ride you could nip down into douglas for a loaf of bread on one but you would struggle to do the same with the honda six.