Revolting Nelson or Revolt At Nelson?

and they could go back to Suzuka again:up:

 

it wasn't rain poltroon. it was a torrential downpour.


don't stop though.

 

I'm late, but my question was more in line with motive than anything else. I'm in agreement of not racing there, but why would you one week then show up to convince others not to? What if they decided not to boycott? would we be asking these same questions?

 

So, exactly when does it become too dangerous to ride/race. Are we going to go out and measure the fucking size of the water drops?

 

if i were mongo and ev, i'd shut wera down for a year until you people drama queening over unrealistic safety utopia went somewhere else.


you act as if they don't care.

frankly, i'd be insulted.

get a fucking grip. and please, stop all the semantical bullshit. like you just had an epiphany that this shit can get you hurt?

that is all.

 

The first time he was ever at the track, he raced (and set a lap record), the second time, he organized a boycott with the other 2 fast guys who'd be at the front running that pace and are in the points race.

Your last question is a lot like the tootsie pop commercial. "The world may never know ... "

- Roach

 

I definately agree with the increase in view through 4, it helps a bunch being able to see further through there. I never thought about the run off out of three, but I think it would have to be a pretty late crash.

 

So if it is so unsafe, why did he race on it the first time?

 

gotta go see it for yourself...right Scotty.

 

Yeah, right...

 

it's great that the riders that boycotted did so to bring attention to the track conditions at nelson. way better than a fatality or debilitating injury. they should be supported for their (in)action. when they agree that something needs to change or the consequences will be dire, believe them instead of spouting the BS of 'just slow down.'

we all know what its like to race and push the limits of the track, the bike, the tires, the suspension. every lap push it just a bit farther....until one of these limits is reached or exceeded. that's the buzz of racing....it's what makes us do dangerous things. suggesting that your top level competitors should just circulate at 'the pace' is absurd.

gee, what else could possibly happen in racing (god forbid): you miss a shift, your chain breaks, the racer next to you bumps you (or your brake lever), the next world-champ-wannabe blasts into the turn too hot and you have to run off to keep from running him over when he tucks the front and lowsides. we've seen that happen, haven't we?

yes, racers will race on unsafe tracks. yes, almost every track is unsafe in one way or another. yes, racing is dangerous. but if your riders are telling you that there is inadequate runoff at nelson (and it sure seems like it's a widely held observation) then support them and do something about it.

one of wera's responsibilities must be to continue to do whatever it can to make the racing environment safe, especially as bike, tire and suspension technology continue to allow racers to go increasingly faster. wera should be applauded for whatever improvements in safety it has and no doubt will continue to create. but support your riders when they tell you something isn't safe. trust them.

what is unfortunate is that you choose to burn bridges at other tracks over personal differences but seemingly refuse to open your eyes when your clients tell you a track is no longer suitable for competition.

 

Oh, I dunno, lack of ESP?

Do you run lap records in practice? Apparently neither did Robby that day ... but he did in the race, and thinks the pace will be faster, and unsafe, this weekend.

If there wasn't at least an ounce of reality in his judgement, do you think Tray and Lee would go, "You know, you're right ... we're not going to race either" ? We're not exactly talking about guys who are at their first Rodeo.

- Roach

 

because he didn't have to ride at 100% to win money. with the other fast guys there, he probably would. him and a couple other fast guys did something simular at BIR on a rain day. they wanted the 600ss expert race moved to later in the day, when it was supposed to clear up(or hopefully).

 

Yea, what were his practice laps, 2 seconds off his lap record?? I'm sure that wall would hurt much less doing 1:08's instead of 1:06's.

He has enough time on a bike that he could have easily gone out in practice and been able to tell if it was safe or not. I think the situation is drastically different for someone who raced there before versus someone who is seeing it for the first time.

 

So I guess the point you guys are trying to make is that the track is safe if everyone is going to run 1:08's or slower, but if you go faster than that, then it becomes too dangerous to race on?

 

I think it was more of a thing where he got there planning to race and then was like screw this, it's too dangerous. probably a lot of the on-the-spot decision making.

First off, if you ran WERA, it'd already have shut down . Proper run off and a smooth surface are key for safety. a rough surface can be run on, not that big of a deal just harder racing with marginally more danger, but insufficent run off is a huge problem that will end up biting you in the ass, and it should be fixed. Going slow and not pushing the bike means you aren't racing and probably not having very much fun, so the riders saw that and decided not to run while making a statement implying that they would like to race, just not under those conditions.

 

or that it's safe to run at 90% if it mean you'll still win the contingency money you showed up for.

 

Alright. Haven't posted in a while, but I can't hold back anymore on this one...

I have to agree with Larry and applaud Rob Jensen (and company) for making the statement. Change will only come when riders of such caliber and visibility make this sort of statement. I'm sure many others have decided not to race in the past due to the same concerns, but their decisions went un-noticed. Hats off to Mr. Jensen.

I'm no Larry, Rob, Lee, Tray, etc., but I have turned quite a few laps at Nelson. I've managed to dip into the 7's and have, unfortunately, tested several different areas of Nelson for run-off in doing so.

Nelson may have been safe many moons ago. But it does become more unsafe each year as bikes and racers get faster and the tirewalls get closer. Has track ownership made improvements? Yes. Have they made improvements at the same pace as the performance of riders and bikes? I don't believe so. They have upgraded the bathrooms, built a nice viewing tower, patched some corners, paved pit lane, etc. But run-off (short of what has been debated here in T3) has not been addressed.

The tires may not be bolted together, but they are decades old and hurt/destroy just the same. I have personally made it to the tirewall in T1-2 area and have been there when others have crushed it and gone over. I have also been there when riders have went off the carousel and the results were devastating. The kink can be scary as well.

This statement ...
"Just because you have 2 riders of the 120 or so on the property saying it's not safe doesn't make it so."
... shows everyone that more racers like Jensen need to step up and take advantage of this move - only if you feel it is unsafe. If not, forever hold your peace regarding the safety of this track. Besides those two or three riders may be seeing what someone, who isn't quite down to the 5's yet, will see in another year or so.

This statement ...
"Basically we have some riders who can't control themselves enough to ride the track they're on and the conditions that exist..."
... would make one believe the Isle of Man is a safe circuit and the only reason the fastest riders in the world don't race it, is because they can't control themselves. As well, this argument could make one question the need for airfences. One may ask, if the rider would just control himself/herself, would an airfence be needed? By the way, I am a recipient and believer of the efforts of Mr. Ulrich and everyone else involved with making this measure available at certain tracks.

It's up to everyone to decide the safety of a track to race. There's only a few making a living at it and when they decide it's getting a little scary, maybe everyone needs to take a closer look. Again if you feel it's safe, race it. If not, make your voice heard.

Just my .02. But I'm glad this issue is being debated, as this is definitely one of the more important issues that affect everyone involved.

Keith Reed