|
Post by Martin S on May 13, 2009 23:17:12 GMT
It has been suggested that we look at ways to offer alternative layouts to the Bashley outdoor track. The image below shows a proposal that will allow different layouts to be used according to track conditions and type of meeting: - Make a cut through on the straight to allow a shorter track for minis.
- A route avoiding the thermometer and its puddles in damp conditions.
- A new technical section running into the current pit area, creating a longer straight.
Comments please. And register your vote in the Poll
|
|
|
Post by Simon Crabb on May 13, 2009 23:22:44 GMT
Proposed changes look AWESOME!
There's a couple more possibilities too, but they don't interfere with these proposals, so they can come later, this would be a great start.
I love the idea of more than one track layout, we'll have to give them names, and a whole new set of PBs!
|
|
|
Post by mattsedgley on May 13, 2009 23:26:39 GMT
They look great to me, I must thank Dave Chamberlain a new member who's only been with us a few weeks for completing these drawings! Looking forward to hearing the quotes and organising a work party! spades at the ready! Matt
|
|
|
Post by Simon Crabb on May 13, 2009 23:27:41 GMT
cool pic by the way, what's the weird white border for?
|
|
|
Post by Martin S on May 13, 2009 23:40:46 GMT
cool pic by the way, what's the weird white border for? Image now cropped. Happy Simon
|
|
|
Post by Reuben on May 14, 2009 6:50:16 GMT
when I saw the amount of posts I thought there was going to be a wealth of discussion and further ideas. But no just simon and his peculiar layout phobias Yeh I love the idea of a new track layout and multiple layouts available for different conditions. As simon said: More PB's more of a challenge aswell.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Young on May 14, 2009 6:54:01 GMT
Great idea's. ;D
When's the work party!!!! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on May 14, 2009 6:59:17 GMT
A thumbs up from me!
|
|
|
Post by Chris N on May 14, 2009 7:37:18 GMT
Track mods look good we are a yes vote. Hmm I did propose similar changes at the AGM a couple of years ago but it didnt get very far. It would be nice to have a variation in tracks. What about connecting across the small bit of grass in the bottom right at the hairpin?
|
|
|
Post by Simon Crabb on May 14, 2009 8:03:22 GMT
Chris/Simon - which bit of grass do you mean?
The bit at corner 7 (the hairpin), making it shorter, or the bit between turn 2 and turn 6/7.
Maybe we need labels for discussion!!
|
|
|
Post by oldtimeracer on May 14, 2009 8:12:51 GMT
Anything that allows different tracks to be used is good. Is the work being done by the club or is the intention to get an outside contractor in. Just a thought that if an outside contractor is coming in, even if only to do the final tarmac part, it may be an idea to add other changes at the same time rather than want to make more changes later and have to pay additional costs.
Whatever I see this an an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Chris N on May 14, 2009 8:18:27 GMT
Simon,
I meant the bit between turn 2 and the hairpin. Then connect the hairpin to the top of the thermometer aswell and we get a high speed oval all round the edge!
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Chris N on May 14, 2009 8:27:42 GMT
I was thinking along those lines also Ian as the main cost is getting contractor kit to the site and the labour, once there the cost of material tends not to be too high. Does anyone know how the existing track was laid, i.e. Ground compaction?, Asphalt thickness?, Base course or laid on existing dirt track?
|
|
|
Post by Robin Howett on May 14, 2009 8:48:45 GMT
Track is laid on the layout of the old offroad track with bricks and blocks hardcore underneath to aid drainage. (probably the reason for some of the bumps!) The tarmac is 8mm grain 'same as halifax' if i remember correctly, not sure how thick it is.
|
|
|
Post by mattsedgley on May 14, 2009 9:22:13 GMT
Acording to Derek Chapman.. it's on 6 inches of scalpings, although i dunno what type, perhaps we should dig a little test hole and check. I think the general plan is; members to do the majority of the ground work, and call the experts in for laying the actual tarmac once we're done! Consultation with members will be quite short i expect. perhaps over a couple of weeks, so please let everyone know what we're thinking about doing, posters are up on the cabin on race days to show what we propose for those members without access to P.Cs If you can think of anyone who doesn't regularly use the forum/website, or race, and is a member then please get in touch with them so they've an opportunity to agree/ disagree with the changes! Getting this done before SLCC would be nice Matt
|
|
|
Post by mattsedgley on May 14, 2009 9:26:04 GMT
Simon - could you re-edit another picture of the track to give the corners their names/ numbers to avoid confusion Members! - if you feel the urge, print of a copy of the track. draw on your other proposals and scan them back in! Matt
|
|
|
Post by Matt Haskell on May 14, 2009 9:58:38 GMT
For me, the track is fine as it is. I love the fact that that every corner is surrounded by grass - you come off, you lose time. I can understand the thermometer part, but the other changes dont really do it for me. Also dont get the gain for shortening the track for mini's. is it really going to make a differance cutting the corner off. My other concern is that if we start making alterations, is it not possible that we will come into other problems with the track? ie, more crumbling and breaking up of the existing tarmac? This could lead to either a very poor surface or a bill that SHMCC simply cannot afford. Also, do we really want to take any chances before the slccup. Sorry to almost put a negative spin on it guys, i know i dont race as much as most of you, but thats just my opinion. Lets not make changes for the sake of making changes, its not like the club has plenty of money sat in the pot. Matt
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on May 14, 2009 10:32:29 GMT
Should we make any changes,laying hard core to a good surface is quite easy just back breaking...the hard parts getting the Tarmac right and paying for it
|
|
|
Post by keitheroonie on May 14, 2009 10:44:17 GMT
For me, the track is fine as it is. I love the fact that that every corner is surrounded by grass - you come off, you lose time. I can understand the thermometer part, but the other changes dont really do it for me. Also dont get the gain for shortening the track for mini's. is it really going to make a differance cutting the corner off. My other concern is that if we start making alterations, is it not possible that we will come into other problems with the track? ie, more crumbling and breaking up of the existing tarmac? This could lead to either a very poor surface or a bill that SHMCC simply cannot afford. Also, do we really want to take any chances before the slccup. Sorry to almost put a negative spin on it guys, i know i dont race as much as most of you, but thats just my opinion. Lets not make changes for the sake of making changes, its not like the club has plenty of money sat in the pot. Matt Don't apologise for your opinion Matt, it's all good input. If I'm honest I'd have to agree with the track shortening for minis, I'm not 100% sure it's necessary either. Would it be a benefit to drive a shorter track? after all it's a 5 min timed race, so the distance travelled in that time should be roughly the same whatever length the track is.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Crabb on May 14, 2009 11:26:14 GMT
Numbered pic on the way to Martin. Did you know, the track has 14 corners at the moment? And there are 3 proposed new ones.
Also, don't forget we're hosting STCC on 5th July.
|
|
|
Post by Reality Racer on May 14, 2009 11:37:30 GMT
All good ideas providing the club can afford it and it’s a top quality job. I worry that if good money is spent and drivers are not happy with the result, membership and driver numbers may decline further.
|
|
|
Post by Martin S on May 14, 2009 11:45:17 GMT
Numbered Pic now loaded into the first post
|
|
|
Post by Martin S on May 14, 2009 11:52:05 GMT
Did you know, the track has 14 corners at the moment? And there are 3 proposed new ones. Using the new layout but avoiding the thermometer and mini shortcut results in a reduction of bends to 13
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on May 14, 2009 11:54:36 GMT
For me, the track is fine as it is. I love the fact that that every corner is surrounded by grass - you come off, you lose time. I can understand the thermometer part, but the other changes dont really do it for me. Also dont get the gain for shortening the track for mini's. is it really going to make a differance cutting the corner off. My other concern is that if we start making alterations, is it not possible that we will come into other problems with the track? ie, more crumbling and breaking up of the existing tarmac? This could lead to either a very poor surface or a bill that SHMCC simply cannot afford. Also, do we really want to take any chances before the slccup. Sorry to almost put a negative spin on it guys, i know i dont race as much as most of you, but thats just my opinion. Lets not make changes for the sake of making changes, its not like the club has plenty of money sat in the pot. Matt As a non driver no comments from me on the detail of the changes, I'll leave that to Craig. The only thing I will say is that it makes sense to me to change the top of the thermometer to cater for the wet weather puddle at the bottom. I have to say I agree or have sympathy for pretty much everything Matt has said, in particular the first three points. Whoever designed the track in the first place is to be commended and that is supported by the visitors we get on STCC and SLCC who love its challenge. What does concern me is the vein of thought that we want to start doing this in the middle of the season. I can't see any advantage whatsoever and see a number of disadvantages/risks, most of which Matt has already pointed out. We also need to understand what the Committee's thoughts are on how the decison to use which layout is made. Personally I am not convinced that a last minute decision at driver's briefing is the best way to do it; especially if we end up with options that require setup changes. And one request. Apart from the bl**ding wooden box you have to go some to damage your car at Bashley, unlike quite a few other tracks. Can we please implement this without changing that. Oh and like Matt I like the grass verges, they add to rewarding good driving as well as keeping repair costs down HTH
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on May 14, 2009 12:00:40 GMT
... and how are you going to organise Saturday practicing? What if one driver comes down wanting to practice one circuit and someone else wants to practice another. That might sound petty or " will never happen" but I am not so sure. And will it be done in such a way that a member can come down on a Saturday or whenever and easily change the layout?
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on May 14, 2009 12:05:22 GMT
Looking at the layout, is there a danger that the mini change could see cars entering the 3rd bend and going back on to the main straight to cause some really nasty crashes.
If you made the new techical change "bridge" over the current track, that would be fun ;D
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on May 14, 2009 12:11:54 GMT
I dont think we are considering any change in the near future but it is worth "thinking" about...yes it got a thumbs up from me but should we have some money spare it may pay to consider rostrum/track repairs first...If we do go for a change lets keep it simple and cheap
|
|
|
Post by oldtimeracer on May 14, 2009 12:36:16 GMT
It's good to spend some time discussing this although the committee obviously has the right to decide whatever they feel is correct in way of changes and timing.
Nice to hear some other peoples views.
I remember some time ago changes were planned which was to join the part between 2 and 7 and also between 4 and 9. With the straight done over the top of the thermometer.
The problem then was one of people willing to do it and the cost of getting it "right".
I am sure enough volunteers could be found to do the graft but getting the tarmac joins right is critical. There are already some concerns over the amount of bumps that have appeared over the years so the last thing you need is to manufacter more.
I am more than happy with the suggested changes but as I have said before, you really need to look at what other options there are which could be done at the same time, finances permitting of course.
I also take the point about timing. You do not want to have a half finished track just before a big meeting or indeed a just finished track where the surfaces may be different (if the new bits were to be used of course) and grip levels odd when running a big race meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Martin S on May 14, 2009 12:36:27 GMT
Looking at the layout, is there a danger that the mini change could see cars entering the 3rd bend and going back on to the main straight to cause some really nasty crashes. If you made the new techical change "bridge" over the current track, that would be fun ;D As far as I am aware, I think the idea is to use the rope barriers from the New Milton indoor track to define which layout is being run. They can then be moved for mini races to give the appropriate layout. I like the idea of a shorter track for minis because they suit a more technical slower track. There is no benefit in having such a long fast straight with a mini.
|
|
|
Post by Reuben on May 14, 2009 13:00:42 GMT
indeed. the first idea was to use ropes to section the track.
regarding the track changes for practice you would not have to place the ropes for practice as without them you would still be able to run any one of the possible circuits. especially as the ropes aren't really going to be near where the car will be running. It would be a case of organising yourself with other drivers. Same if you are practising with ansmann vs pro-stock.
The original idea of the new track layout was whilst repairing parts of the track and getting in the ground work to complete this, it would make sense to complete the new changes at the same time - costs for getting company in and members down to help. And I think this still stands?
|
|