TT 2023

[Declan]

20 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

Now there's a man who'd love a TT Burger. 

If that's a euphemism, I think it was just a rumour.

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

when they installed the stop box at the entrance to the pits.

Exactly, and it worked at preventing any speed based incidents within the pit-lane, after a couple of very close calls IIRC. Yet elsewhere, any such considerations are considered blasphemy. It's a strange outlook.

[Ativa]

22 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Exactly, and it worked at preventing any speed based incidents within the pit-lane, after a couple of very close calls IIRC. Yet elsewhere, any such considerations are considered blasphemy. It's a strange outlook.

Like where?

Where should they be making the course slower in an attempt to make it safer?  I am intrigued as to your thinking

[HiVibes]

26 minutes ago, Ativa said:

Like where?

Where should they be making the course slower in an attempt to make it safer?  I am intrigued as to your thinking

They should put the gates back in, it's our heritage!

[Ativa]

42 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

They should put the gates back in, it's our heritage!

With ramps so the riders don’t have to stop.

I like it.

[kevster]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

If that's a euphemism, I think it was just a rumour.

Nope - he admitted all in an interview with The Times

[HiVibes]

34 minutes ago, Ativa said:

With ramps so the riders don’t have to stop.

I like it.

Nah, open and close, and they stop at each pub and down a pint, it's what Joey would have wanted.

[cissolt]

Is the TT being green washed again this year?  Govt are very quiet on last year's carbon offsetting

[manxman1980]

5 hours ago, WTF said:

when they installed the stop box at the entrance to the pits.

Haven't they taken the stop box away now and replaced with speed limiters?

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, Zarley said:

How can you say it doesn't make a difference? If safety issues weren't being addressed and adjusted every year, the death rate would be going up in line with the increasing speeds, rather than remaining relatively static. That looks like a big difference to me.

Fair comment. I should have said it's not leading to a general downturn in serious injuries and deaths. Yes I agree, it's necessary and helps to prevent repeat incidences of the same thing. I also agree that without review then the number of deaths would be growing faster.

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, WTF said:

i think if you come off at 120mph or 150mph the survival rates won't be too different, what helps with the increased speed is the increase in vehicle handling, the bikes ability to corner and absorb the bumps and undulations,  if it was just about pure speed you go to santapod.

I'm not sure that makes any sense at all.

1. Surely an extra 30mph is massive. It ,ay be that a situation 120mph ends up in maiming and lifelong disability where 150mph would result in death.

2. Bikes are ridden to their limits. You are showing an ignorance. So if the bike handles better, handles bumps better and can corner better. The rider will go faster. Pushing the limits. When you are near the limit you are nearer to a  mistake causing a crash. If what you say were true there would be fewer crashes each year. 

[Omobono]

9 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Haven't they taken the stop box away now and replaced with speed limiters?

thats correct stop box gone and penalties for exceeding  the limit in the pit lane , speed is detected by loops  built into the lane    but all the top riders have the bikes mapped which has  restricted  the revs and controls speed 

[WTF]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not sure that makes any sense at all.

1. Surely an extra 30mph is massive. It ,ay be that a situation 120mph ends up in maiming and lifelong disability where 150mph would result in death.

2. Bikes are ridden to their limits. You are showing an ignorance. So if the bike handles better, handles bumps better and can corner better. The rider will go faster. Pushing the limits. When you are near the limit you are nearer to a  mistake causing a crash. If what you say were true there would be fewer crashes each year. 

re 1 , possibly , but death would be preferable to most riders at a guess, it would be for me.

 

re 2 ,   bikes have always been ridden to their limits , that's nothing new,  the fact that the limits are now faster has no bearing on the fact that exceeding the limits is what can cause accidents, the amount of times the limits get exceeded may be a constant which is why the crash ratio is a constant.

[HeliX]

18 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

1. Surely an extra 30mph is massive. It ,ay be that a situation 120mph ends up in maiming and lifelong disability where 150mph would result in death.

Sometimes, but not always. To paraphrase the (late) great Dr John Hinds, "Mechanism of injury is important in motorcycle crashes, but speed doesn't seem to be."

[Ativa]

8 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Sometimes, but not always. To paraphrase the (late) great Dr John Hinds, "Mechanism of injury is important in motorcycle crashes, but speed doesn't seem to be."

Exactly.

You can have pretty much the same crash twice even somewhere with very little to hit, like Windy corner.

160mph and slide down the road.  Probably ok.

120mph but head digs into the gravel,  probably dead.