Jump to content


Photo

Brands Hatch circuit changes


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 14 December 2011 - 16:34

A planning application was submitted on October 20th for the reconstruction and re-profiling of Graham Hill Bend on Brands Hatch Motor racing Circuit.You can see it here
http://www.stevespla...brandshatch.pdf

General public can apparently comment on the planning application which is here
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

Palmer comments here (December 9th)
http://www.thebikein...h-changes-2012/





Advertisement

#2 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 December 2011 - 16:46

Mike, when I first saw it a few weeks ago, I thought , "funny, I never knew Herman Tilke was British". Doesn't look like a lot of thought went into it does it!!?

#3 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 14 December 2011 - 16:50

Hard to know what there is about it that requires planning permission. Even the application form doesn't make it clear and unusually there is no supporting statement, only the drawings.
There's no change of use; no buildings to be constructed or demolished; not even a case that the change will make the place more popular and therefore increase traffic.

#4 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 14 December 2011 - 17:23

Hard to know what there is about it that requires planning permission. Even the application form doesn't make it clear and unusually there is no supporting statement, only the drawings.
There's no change of use; no buildings to be constructed or demolished; not even a case that the change will make the place more popular and therefore increase traffic.

Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines the meaning of development for which planning permission is required as being:

"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."

The proposed alterations to Graham Hill Bend constitute engineering operations and that is why they require planning permission.

#5 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 14 December 2011 - 18:27

Mike, when I first saw it a few weeks ago, I thought, "funny, I never knew Herman Tilke was British". Doesn't look like a lot of thought went into it does it!!?

I just thought it's Mallory Park flipped through 180 degrees Steve!

I don't know if anyone noticed but look again at the photo & zoom into the area where the developer is based...

If you read this description here it doesn't fit with the bus stop hairpin shown on the photo
http://www.visordown...ised/19697.html


#6 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,151 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 14 December 2011 - 18:52

Oh, they f***ed up that corner long ago, do they need to do it again??

#7 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 December 2011 - 20:31

As someone pointed out elsewhere there is a rather steep slope running up from the existing bend to Paddock. I cannot see how that layout is feasible. I suspect that this is a Max Mosley style plan, come up with an outrageous idea, wait for the storms of protest and then submit what you really want.

JPs description talks of a constant radius left hander whereas the plan shows a hairpin immediately followed by a right hand bend.

Edited by opplock, 14 December 2011 - 20:36.


#8 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,531 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 14 December 2011 - 21:11

Confusing innit!? it just needs the inside radius smoothing out, returning it to something like it was before the latest incarnation! :well:

#9 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 14 December 2011 - 21:16

Confusing innit!? it just needs the inside radius smoothing out, returning it to something like it was before the latest incarnation! :well:

I wonder if they did something as straightforward as asking a rider?

#10 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 14 December 2011 - 23:15

As someone pointed out elsewhere there is a rather steep slope running up from the existing bend to Paddock

My guess is the proposed extension would not need to go uphill very much at all - it would be almost entirely in the 'bowl' below Paddock


#11 exclubracer

exclubracer
  • Member

  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 14 December 2011 - 23:15

I wonder if they did something as straightforward as asking a rider?

Very unlikely Mike, a corporate decision based on future TV rights, i.e. income for advertising from a slower corner.

Never mind that it will destroy the character of one of the country's most historic race circuits.

A cynical person could say that it is for purely selfish financial motives, but, JP? He has motor sport's best interests at heart of course...

#12 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,709 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 15 December 2011 - 00:48

Sorry but this looks so out of character with the rest of the circuit I believe it has to be either an April fools joke or is intended only for the motorcycle community.

I can't see it being any benefit to racing on four wheels at all.

As has been mentioned the corner has already been altered, this latest abomination to my mind is a step on the slippery slope to turn what was once one of the more challenging circuits into a glorified karting track.

#13 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 December 2011 - 07:52

JP quotes: "the corner simultaneously more challenging and yet increasingly safer as a result of barrier movement and extra run off space in the correct areas."

Where's the extra run off at the new hairpin? There's very little space between the corner and road to the tunnels.

It all looks a bit strange to me

#14 Belmondo

Belmondo
  • Member

  • 210 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:39

JP quotes: "the corner simultaneously more challenging and yet increasingly safer as a result of barrier movement and extra run off space in the correct areas."

Where's the extra run off at the new hairpin? There's very little space between the corner and road to the tunnels.

It all looks a bit strange to me


Current Graham HB has acres of run-off, never seen anything come close to the barriers on the outside of that corner.

#15 maserati300

maserati300
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:42

I cannot understand why they can be allowed to ruin what was a perfectly fine corner for something useless, followed by another useless corner. They've already done this to Snetterton with these stupid hairpins, and managed to ruin Coram. Brands already has one hairpin! I have never found a driver yet who likes slow corners/hairpin bends.

#16 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 15,555 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:06

It strikes me that the "proposed changes" will only be of benefit to the hooligans in BTCC as it will provide two more opportunities to punt off the opposition!

:mad:

PS I just spotted this elsewhere:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

It is the link to the Sevenoaks Council's website and it is where you can comment on the Planning Application.


Edited by Stephen W, 15 December 2011 - 10:10.


#17 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:56

It strikes me that the "proposed changes" will only be of benefit to the hooligans in BTCC as it will provide two more opportunities to punt off the opposition!

:mad:

PS I just spotted this elsewhere:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

It is the link to the Sevenoaks Council's website and it is where you can comment on the Planning Application.

wrong URL Stephen

#18 Hamish Robson

Hamish Robson
  • Member

  • 389 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:09

:down: Totally out of character with the rest of the circuit, the "new" GH bend was bad enough. :mad: Either they're going to dig in to the sloping run-off there or have an up-hill approach. Which ever way - it's awful. Looks like it'll be really tight for the bikes too.

#19 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:13

Current Graham HB has acres of run-off, never seen anything come close to the barriers on the outside of that corner.

The percieved problem is clearly the potential for a head-on impact with the barrier beyond the gravel trap currently on the exit of the bend (left hand side of photo).

That implies that the new loop will be used for both cars & bikes.

The changes will be justified if there is a history of incidents resulting in racers ending up in that gravel trap.

From a racing point of view, I would suggest that it would increase the number of lines into Surtees as the racing line along the straight would be towards the left of the track.

The line out of Druids will change also. Instead of switching towards the right of the track for the immediate entry into Graham Hill Bend, cars might be more able to go round the outside of competitors around Druids and compete along the new, longer, straighter straight into the new hairpin.

The combination of the two new corners will have a similar effect to the current trend in F1 thinking for first & second corners at new circuits; a driver challenging on the inside of the first element of the new complex will be on the outside into the second element. The position will have to be won decisively into the first element to be retained through the second.

The longer, straighter new straight might add better overtaking opportunities into the new corner than the current layout.

The new hairpin doesn't look any 'sharper' than Druids, so it won't, necessarily, make the new complex a case of 'point-and-squirt'; with current downforce levels it should flow reasonably well.

The number of lines into Surtees might decrease overtaking opportunities there, on the GP circuit at least, as the racing line would begin on the left of the track, the defensive line into Surtees.

The lap length will increase, of course, but whether it will be faster or slower I'm not sure; the flow of the current layout from Druids to Surtees will be replaced by the braking and accelerating through the new complex, following the longer straight.

Spectators at Paddock Hill Bend will have the best view in the house.

While I too lament the passing of a much loved layout that I have enjoyed immensely, I'm conscious of the fact that nostalgia isn't the best reason to oppose change. I'm willing to wait and see what effect it has. Photos never present such plans at their most attractive.

For me the changes will be deemed successful or not after seeing some racing.

Advertisement

#20 simonlewisbooks

simonlewisbooks
  • Member

  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:56

Mike, when I first saw it a few weeks ago, I thought , "funny, I never knew Herman Tilke was British". Doesn't look like a lot of thought went into it does it!!?


Steve, you could not have put it better....

What an absolutely pointless alteration!
Are they in the business of motor racing or just selling space on advertising hoardings?
I wonder how long will it take to recoup the cost of this ground work from any extra advertising bucks that might result?

Apart from the fact it ruins the flow and character of the track it's just plain boring..... :down:

Please JP, change it's name to "Tilke Corner".
It's an insult to name it after a double world champion/Indy 500/Le Mans winner but entirely suited to someone synonymous with all that's gone bad in recent circuit design.
Better still, revert to it's previous,sweeping layout which was far better than the one you now seek to make even worse. :(



#21 Dutchy

Dutchy
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 December 2011 - 13:33

I don't like the look of it at all.
The present Graham Hill Bend is a very good means of aiding the better drivers who can then use their higher exit speed to overtake on the bottom straight and into Surtees. I think the proposed layout will nullify that variance in skill level.
I also don't see how the corner can go as close to Paddock Bend as it suggests without a lot of disorientating lengths of barrier (thereby osbscuring the view). I see this exercise in a similar vein to the extension at Snetterton which I don't enjoy. The topography is non existent - you just feel you are driving along a drain. For spectators it's also very unsatisfactory as although you can see a lot it's so far away as to be pointless.
It is clearly designed for maximising TV exposure and doesn't in my opinion offer anything to the driver or spectator at all.

#22 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,529 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 15 December 2011 - 14:34

The percieved problem is clearly the potential for a head-on impact with the barrier beyond the gravel trap currently on the exit of the bend (left hand side of photo).

That implies that the new loop will be used for both cars & bikes.

The changes will be justified if there is a history of incidents resulting in racers ending up in that gravel trap.

From a racing point of view, I would suggest that it would increase the number of lines into Surtees as the racing line along the straight would be towards the left of the track.

The line out of Druids will change also. Instead of switching towards the right of the track for the immediate entry into Graham Hill Bend, cars might be more able to go round the outside of competitors around Druids and compete along the new, longer, straighter straight into the new hairpin.

The combination of the two new corners will have a similar effect to the current trend in F1 thinking for first & second corners at new circuits; a driver challenging on the inside of the first element of the new complex will be on the outside into the second element. The position will have to be won decisively into the first element to be retained through the second.

The longer, straighter new straight might add better overtaking opportunities into the new corner than the current layout.

The new hairpin doesn't look any 'sharper' than Druids, so it won't, necessarily, make the new complex a case of 'point-and-squirt'; with current downforce levels it should flow reasonably well.

The number of lines into Surtees might decrease overtaking opportunities there, on the GP circuit at least, as the racing line would begin on the left of the track, the defensive line into Surtees.

The lap length will increase, of course, but whether it will be faster or slower I'm not sure; the flow of the current layout from Druids to Surtees will be replaced by the braking and accelerating through the new complex, following the longer straight.

Spectators at Paddock Hill Bend will have the best view in the house.

While I too lament the passing of a much loved layout that I have enjoyed immensely, I'm conscious of the fact that nostalgia isn't the best reason to oppose change. I'm willing to wait and see what effect it has. Photos never present such plans at their most attractive.

For me the changes will be deemed successful or not after seeing some racing.

Yes, I think the obvious step after the Bottom Bend improvements have been carried out, is to tackle Paddock Bend. I’ve long been concerned about this same old, same old, corner. In line with current trends and thinking, I would like to see at least one, or perhaps two, chicanes introduced at this location. This will introduce much needed variety to a corner that is so last century. The measure will, of course, also have the effect of both slowing and funeling throughput in the corner, thereby maximising opportunities for televisual appeal with both advertisers and viewers, as opportunities for slow speed impacts are enhanced. In addition, the circuit length will be increased in the most cost effective way, thereby opening up further potential opportunities for increased asset usage and stakeholder investment yield.

Edited by Russell Burrows, 15 December 2011 - 14:35.


#23 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 15 December 2011 - 15:39

Yes, I think the obvious step after the Bottom Bend improvements have been carried out, is to tackle Paddock Bend. I’ve long been concerned about this same old, same old, corner. In line with current trends and thinking, I would like to see at least one, or perhaps two, chicanes introduced at this location. This will introduce much needed variety to a corner that is so last century. The measure will, of course, also have the effect of both slowing and funeling throughput in the corner, thereby maximising opportunities for televisual appeal with both advertisers and viewers, as opportunities for slow speed impacts are enhanced. In addition, the circuit length will be increased in the most cost effective way, thereby opening up further potential opportunities for increased asset usage and stakeholder investment yield.


:) :) :)

#24 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 December 2011 - 17:20

Funny, I always worry when someone says "we're going to improve this"...........................

#25 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 15,555 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:08

wrong URL Stephen


That was posted elsewhere! :wave:

#26 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,591 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:25

I don't understand why the Sevenoaks Council link posted by Steve doesn't work - it appears to be the same as the one I posted in the other TNF Brands thread which originally appeared in the bike (MCN) thread. See if this one works:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

#27 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:34

I don't understand why the Sevenoaks Council link posted by Steve doesn't work - it appears to be the same as the one I posted in the other TNF Brands thread which originally appeared in the bike (MCN) thread. See if this one works:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

Sevenoaks DC's planning application system was offline for a spell yesterday - that's why the link didn't work.

#28 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,531 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:35

Yes, I think the obvious step after the Bottom Bend improvements have been carried out, is to tackle Paddock Bend. I’ve long been concerned about this same old, same old, corner. In line with current trends and thinking, I would like to see at least one, or perhaps two, chicanes introduced at this location. This will introduce much needed variety to a corner that is so last century. The measure will, of course, also have the effect of both slowing and funeling throughput in the corner, thereby maximising opportunities for televisual appeal with both advertisers and viewers, as opportunities for slow speed impacts are enhanced. In addition, the circuit length will be increased in the most cost effective way, thereby opening up further potential opportunities for increased asset usage and stakeholder investment yield.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: nice one Russell!!

#29 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:11

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: nice one Russell!!


I just ventured across to similar thread on the RC forum. Always makes me wish I hadn't bothered. Russell seems to be fighting a one man battle...sadly one comment I'll paraphrase said something like "so what, it's not as if F1 goes there..." :evil:

#30 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:43

sadly one comment I'll paraphrase said something like "so what, it's not as if F1 goes there..." :evil:


That person has no regard for history and should be taken outside and spoken to with something heavy.......................


#31 midgrid

midgrid
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,132 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 16 December 2011 - 13:27

I just ventured across to similar thread on the RC forum. Always makes me wish I hadn't bothered. Russell seems to be fighting a one man battle...sadly one comment I'll paraphrase said something like "so what, it's not as if F1 goes there..." :evil:


To be fair to RC, there was an earlier thread on the same subject (which has now become corrupt) in which several of us voiced our displeasure at the proposed changes.

Edited by midgrid, 16 December 2011 - 13:27.


#32 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 16 December 2011 - 13:34

That person has no regard for history...

...or racing in other forms, as if they're of no consequence :confused:

#33 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,531 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 16 December 2011 - 18:27

Just read the RC thread, don't know what to say, obviously we don't always expect everyone to go along with "our" point of view but blimey cant believe so many seem not to care, I bet its an age thing? we love this forum because of the history & memories, these people don't yet have any nostalgia/history to look back on it seems, & are happy to see these stop start sanitized "modern" circuits how sad. :(
Give it up Russ & come back here with the grown ups. :wave:

#34 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,917 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 16 December 2011 - 19:11

It is an age thing Graham, but lots of younger guys do appreciate the history, as we do mate.

#35 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 16 December 2011 - 20:19

Quite a lot of foolish comments here about the thread in RCF - I would expect better from this Forum, where facts are usually regarded as important.

On the RCF thread, there is just ONE poster who said that it didn't matter, and he made a reasonable sensible case for saying that. You might not agree with him, but he was far from making the sort of dismissive comments that are implied by some here. Most posts have been against the proposed changes.

In fact, it is one of the more measured and sensible threads in RCF, with several people urging some restraint until we know a bit more about the plans, and one wise poster (cough...me) questioning whether using the planning process to combat this might not rebound on us. The only poster there getting a bit hysterical is Mr Burrows, who seems to have taken it upon himself to conduct a Holy War and is hostile to anyone who doesn't immediately agree with him.

Personally, I would prefer not to see these changes made to Brands Hatch. But I imagine that MSV have some good reasons for planning this. I am sure that they aren't intending to throw their money away for no good reason, just to spite race fans. Until we hear the full story, we should be a bit cautious. This is only a planning application at the moment, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be carried out.

#36 PhilG

PhilG
  • Member

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 16 December 2011 - 21:03

JP quotes: "the corner simultaneously more challenging and yet increasingly safer as a result of barrier movement and extra run off space in the correct areas."

Where's the extra run off at the new hairpin? There's very little space between the corner and road to the tunnels.

It all looks a bit strange to me



i agree.. not enough run off , not even close... why do you think they have so much run off there already.

#37 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,529 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 16 December 2011 - 23:47

,

Quite a lot of foolish comments here about the thread in RCF - I would expect better from this Forum, where facts are usually regarded as important.

On the RCF thread, there is just ONE poster who said that it didn't matter, and he made a reasonable sensible case for saying that. You might not agree with him, but he was far from making the sort of dismissive comments that are implied by some here. Most posts have been against the proposed changes.

In fact, it is one of the more measured and sensible threads in RCF, with several people urging some restraint until we know a bit more about the plans, and one wise poster (cough...me) questioning whether using the planning process to combat this might not rebound on us. The only poster there getting a bit hysterical is Mr Burrows, who seems to have taken it upon himself to conduct a Holy War and is hostile to anyone who doesn't immediately agree with him.

Personally, I would prefer not to see these changes made to Brands Hatch. But I imagine that MSV have some good reasons for planning this. I am sure that they aren't intending to throw their money away for no good reason, just to spite race fans. Until we hear the full story, we should be a bit cautious. This is only a planning application at the moment, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be carried out.


You accuse me of waging a Holy war, yet I'm the hysteric :stoned: I suspect sloth and a lack of insight characterises your stance on things other than this issue, but try hard to understand the following: the proposal remains under consideration and the council will pronounce in a matter of weeks, ergo - as per the council's invitation - now is the time to lobby the authority, not after the decision has been reached without them having considered the views of those opposing the plan. As for contacting, Palmer: you're either additionally, staggeringly naive, or perhaps I'm actually currently in debate with Dr Palmer?

Edited by Russell Burrows, 17 December 2011 - 00:08.


#38 exclubracer

exclubracer
  • Member

  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 December 2011 - 00:16

QUOTE (WhiteBlue @ Dec 16 2011, 09:56)
I don't see a great significance in this issue. If the owners think the re profiling of the corner will be beneficial they probably have given it some thought.

For the wider public Brands Hatch is of no concern since it lost F1 status. It remains a fairly dangerous old track which seems to be unsuitable even for F2 as the Surtees death indicates. Several crash zones are deadly for open wheel race cars. Cars leaving the track due to driver or technical faults will hit the barriers at high speed levels raising concerns that drivers will be exposed to massive impact shocks and that wheels can be separated and return to the circuit.
QUOTE

Erm...F1 status??...F2?...open wheel race cars?...driver or technical faults?...wheels can be separated...blah blah blah

Do you you seriously believe that you 'four wheeled johnnies' are the only ones who have any interest in the configuration of the UK's most historic race circuit?

With the greatest respect... get a life.

To add...FFS :rolleyes:



#39 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 17 December 2011 - 00:45

You accuse me of waging a Holy war, yet I'm the hysteric :stoned: I suspect sloth and a lack of insight characterises your stance on things other than this issue, but try hard to understand the following: the proposal remains under consideration and the council will pronounce in a matter of weeks, ergo - as per the council's invitation - now is the time to lobby the authority, not after the decision has been reached without them having considered the views of those opposing the plan. As for contacting, Palmer: you're either additionally, staggeringly naive, or perhaps I'm actually currently in debate with Dr Palmer?

:clap:

Advertisement

#40 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 15,555 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:11

Do you you seriously believe that you 'four wheeled johnnies' are the only ones who have any interest in the configuration of the UK's most historic race circuit?

With the greatest respect... get a life.

To add...FFS :rolleyes:


Personally I don't have a problem with any change to a race track's configuration so long as the changes:
(a) don't make it worse,
(b) don't make the track less safe,
© don't make viewing less enjoayable, and
(d) mean that the spectators are moved well away from the action.

It looks on the surface as if the proposal will make it worse, make it less safe, make viewing awkward and also keep the spectaors in their current positions at the old Bottom Bend.

I haven't been to Brands for many years and these changes will probably mean that I am less likely to ever go back.






#41 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 17 December 2011 - 13:26

As for contacting, Palmer: you're either additionally, staggeringly naive, or perhaps I'm actually currently in debate with Dr Palmer?


More hysterics....


Yes, you're right, I have been uncovered at last. Since 1999, I have been posting on this BB and in all that time, no-one has realised that I am actually Dr Jonathan Palmer MD, former F1 driver and owner of MotorSport Vision. :rolleyes:

I suggest that you grow up and try to understand that just because some people don't agree with you absolutely and completely, that doesn't mean they are therefore the enemy.


#42 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 17 December 2011 - 14:00

Personally, I would prefer not to see these changes made to Brands Hatch. But I imagine that MSV have some good reasons for planning this. I am sure that they aren't intending to throw their money away for no good reason, just to spite race fans. Until we hear the full story, we should be a bit cautious. This is only a planning application at the moment, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be carried out.

Thank goodness for this reply. This thread is starting to resemble the Comments Forum for rationality.

I have great affection for the Brands Hatch circuit I grew up with from the 1960s onwards. I don't understand all the references to TV and advertising, which I don't see as the prime reason for the changes at a good, national level club circuit, which Brands has become.

Only for bikers is Brands now used for significant international events, and it may be that these changes are required to retain that international status with the FIM. After all, look at the many changes that Siverstone had to make in order to be awarded the British MotoGP round?

It might be that the changes are aimed at attracting international events of all types from, amongst others, the FIA?

No-one is going to invest in such major construction work unless they consider it to be necessary.

Of those here who will still race at the potentially altered circuit, what are your specific objections to the changes, from a racing point of view?

For the armchair racers, how often do you attend events at Brands?

All the references to Tilke and F1 suggest that the obsession with Brands' current national level status is the main sore point here.

Perhaps you would all be happier if Brands was only used for 'historic' racing series'?

I expect posts to soon demand the return of railway sleepers and earth banks to replace all those horrible crash barriers!

#43 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,529 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 17 December 2011 - 14:16

More hysterics....


Yes, you're right, I have been uncovered at last. Since 1999, I have been posting on this BB and in all that time, no-one has realised that I am actually Dr Jonathan Palmer MD, former F1 driver and owner of MotorSport Vision. :rolleyes:

I suggest that you grow up and try to understand that just because some people don't agree with you absolutely and completely, that doesn't mean they are therefore the enemy.


Lest it begins to feel like abuse, I operate a self imposed ordinance not to engage in debate with those unable to properly defend themselves with sensible argument. Since you're clearly in such a category, Goodbye. :wave:


#44 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 17 December 2011 - 14:27

Lest it begins to feel like abuse, I operate a self imposed ordinance not to engage in debate with those unable to properly defend themselves with sensible argument. Since you're clearly in such a category, Goodbye. :wave:

Agreed. There is no point arguing with you.

#45 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,529 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 17 December 2011 - 15:57

Thank goodness for this reply. This thread is starting to resemble the Comments Forum for rationality.

I have great affection for the Brands Hatch circuit I grew up with from the 1960s onwards. I don't understand all the references to TV and advertising, which I don't see as the prime reason for the changes at a good, national level club circuit, which Brands has become.

Only for bikers is Brands now used for significant international events, and it may be that these changes are required to retain that international status with the FIM. After all, look at the many changes that Siverstone had to make in order to be awarded the British MotoGP round?

It might be that the changes are aimed at attracting international events of all types from, amongst others, the FIA?

No-one is going to invest in such major construction work unless they consider it to be necessary.

Of those here who will still race at the potentially altered circuit, what are your specific objections to the changes, from a racing point of view?

For the armchair racers, how often do you attend events at Brands?

All the references to Tilke and F1 suggest that the obsession with Brands' current national level status is the main sore point here.

Perhaps you would all be happier if Brands was only used for 'historic' racing series'?

I expect posts to soon demand the return of railway sleepers and earth banks to replace all those horrible crash barriers!

A heresy nowadays I know, but a utilitarian, bottom line, approach isn’t always the way to go, even if it can be shown to be the driver for change – and in this case that’s far from clear - there are other considerations. Your ‘terms of reference’ do not address the startlingly obvious issue of change to the character of this iconic site. You are silent too on the venue being one of last remaining circuits yet to be ‘bus stopped’. You presumably are aware that this fate has befallen so many of our other racing circuits? In the past we had quick circuits and slower ones – where is it written that that they must now be so similar. Surely it’s worth preserving the undulating swervery of at least this circuit, one of our very best.

Edited by Russell Burrows, 17 December 2011 - 16:01.


#46 Dutchy

Dutchy
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 17 December 2011 - 18:50

Of those here who will still race at the potentially altered circuit, what are your specific objections to the changes, from a racing point of view?


I have already stated my objections from a driver's point of view.

#47 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 17 December 2011 - 19:53

A heresy nowadays I know, but a utilitarian, bottom line, approach isn’t always the way to go, even if it can be shown to be the driver for change – and in this case that’s far from clear - there are other considerations. Your ‘terms of reference’ do not address the startlingly obvious issue of change to the character of this iconic site. You are silent too on the venue being one of last remaining circuits yet to be ‘bus stopped’. You presumably are aware that this fate has befallen so many of our other racing circuits? In the past we had quick circuits and slower ones – where is it written that that they must now be so similar. Surely it’s worth preserving the undulating swervery of at least this circuit, one of our very best.

Believe me, I don't disagree with your views, and I would love the character of Brands to be retained.

My posts simply try to offer reasons why the changes are being considered, rather than blindly oppose them.

If the planning permission is refused for any reason, and the proposed changes abandoned, then I will be as happy as anyone.



#48 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,529 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 29 December 2011 - 18:51

Ladies and Gents, After trying repeatedly before Christmas to speak to the planning person responsible at the council, I finally received an email today. This person said the paperwork for approval had been written up, although she didn't know if it had yet been signed off (my central question to her). It would appear then that the council have chosen to disregard the more than thirty objections and the information that English Heritage were expecting an application for protection of the site (something that both EH and myself advised them before Christmas). Since EH have told me a proposal with our number of objections should go before the full planning committee rather than being decided on a discretionary basis, I have got back to 7oaks council for an explanation.

Since the council appear Gung Ho for Palmer and an EH application was always a long shot, things could be better. But, if they have just whacked it through on the nod, it should be open to challenge and EH probably won't be best pleased after being treated with such contempt. It's my intention to lodge an application with EH ASAP, although it's not as straightforward as one might imagine. Any hot shots lawyers, planners, etc out there? Since the comment section on the council site remains accessible, it would be helpful if those who haven't lodged a protest did so ASAP.


#49 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 30 December 2011 - 00:39

Ladies and Gents, After trying repeatedly before Christmas to speak to the planning person responsible at the council, I finally received an email today. This person said the paperwork for approval had been written up, although she didn't know if it had yet been signed off (my central question to her). It would appear then that the council have chosen to disregard the more than thirty objections and the information that English Heritage were expecting an application for protection of the site (something that both EH and myself advised them before Christmas). Since EH have told me a proposal with our number of objections should go before the full planning committee rather than being decided on a discretionary basis, I have got back to 7oaks council for an explanation.

Since the council appear Gung Ho for Palmer and an EH application was always a long shot, things could be better. But, if they have just whacked it through on the nod, it should be open to challenge and EH probably won't be best pleased after being treated with such contempt. It's my intention to lodge an application with EH ASAP, although it's not as straightforward as one might imagine. Any hot shots lawyers, planners, etc out there? Since the comment section on the council site remains accessible, it would be helpful if those who haven't lodged a protest did so ASAP.

See my reply on the Racing Comments forum: http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=5464122

#50 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 30 December 2011 - 13:13

See my reply on the Racing Comments forum: http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=5464122

And a very sensible reply it was. The only point which I would question was your interpretation of the Council's policy point 2 re the 'character of the area'. I am sure that by this they mean the overall environment - a partly wooded, partly open and grassed area, which happens to have a race track in it. I doubt very much that they care at all about the exact layout of that track - and indeed, why should they? I don't want Council planners telling us how to lay out race tracks. We are regulated more than enough already, which is why I am chary about using planning authorities as a weapon against MSV.

As for getting English Heritage involved, that could also prove a massive own goal. If we ended up with a listed, protected Brands Hatch, it would be almost impossible to ever make any changes to anything there in the future; it would be preserved in aspic for future generations, but as a museum piece, not as a living, working, financially viable race facility.