Jump to content


Will C

Member Since 03 May 2017
Offline Last Active Today, 11:42 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 2018 Championship of the World - Skegness Raceway 15th Sept

Yesterday, 06:35 PM

Looks good but negative cant take chairs in were people gonna chill out round track if there not allowed to take chairs in to sit on

As per the 2012 event, no chairs were allowed as they take up too much room, worked ok then. Grandstand seats are available at an extra charge. 
I didnt go in 2012 was too young n but now Im old enough to drive n go on my own was just shocked to find out cos never had problem before anywhere else

In Topic: 2018 Championship of the World - Skegness Raceway 15th Sept

Yesterday, 04:02 PM

Looks good but negative cant take chairs in were people gonna chill out round track if there not allowed to take chairs in to sit on

In Topic: Northampton shale ? Rumours or fact

12 December 2017 - 06:22 PM

People moan about losing a shale track so the promotes change a tarmac track to shale everyone moans they cant win

In Topic: Agm !

11 December 2017 - 05:30 PM

Rb14, Ive just copied this from startrax Facebook post from their owner

In Topic: Agm !

11 December 2017 - 01:51 PM

Startrax post

Promoters Blog! The Great F1 debate!

Well, I thought I would say my piece as a promoter and therefore a 'personal' view as opposed to any official view of BriSCA or BSCDA

Clearly some controversial rule proposals at the 2017 AGM have now been confirmed and as one would expect, critics will always have a point of view directing their ire at those who 'run' the sport which is understandable. However, spare a thought as to 'why' people spend time looking into these things - They are not borne from an overnight 'whim' and 'whoopy dee' that's a great idea, neither is there 'vested' interest, they are genuinely originated to make the sport better in the future.

Some criticise BriSCA for stifling innovation, with all due respect, that same criticism has been made in BriSCA F2 however look at the situation on tarmac in particular - and a big drift in attendances both sides of the fence, much because of technical innovation. BriSCA F1 cannot afford to repeat that cycle, BriSCA F2 is now working very hard to bring back the boundaries to ensure the sport has a viable future.

We have some very talented people within BriSCA, drivers, engineers and car builders but I suggest, therein lies the problem in that many cars appearing are 'over engineered' for the market place they are in. You all subscribe in some way to social media, read comments, listen on the terraces and the constant critique is 'stock cars racing' and it's unattractive. The hybrids evolving and 'exploiting' the rule book in some cases 'look stunners' but their design and use of data sadly provides racing that does not offer the majority the entertainment they wish to see.

Take the rule which has restricted the width on rear axles, in basic terms the wider the footprint the more stable the car becomes, some have mentioned they are getting too wide for transporters which is not at all the issue - It is the superior stability the footprint provides, it's not about the 'cost' of a rear axle either it is quite simply where this takes us on track and the type of racing evolving that as evidenced is a 'big switch off'. There are far too many 'different opinions and passion about F1 Stock Car Racing and where people see it, much of it idealistic, but it's niche has always been 'horsepower' and contact and spectacle - simple as that - and if they crash, the people will come! It's not Banger Racing BUT to have a wide spectator appeal it is the same market place and it's the perceived lack of that spectacle that is the switch off. Stock Car Racing is a sport that does not particularly require technical innovation, in both definitions, F1 and F2 it should be K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple, stupid. It should be fun for drivers, low tech, fun for spectators and affordable to race in and repair, simple as that. The driver skill should matter more than perfectly smooth tracks and ultimately stable cars. We will soon be weighing drivers in their cars for weight distribution, etc - and don't laugh, it was discussed in F2. None of this is required.wanted or necessary in 'stock car racing' as it has always been defined.
Neither is anything new, Gaz Bott 20 years ago had similar dreams with a proposal to go Outlaw with a V8 modified glass bumper formula - It didn't gain sufficient interest, and here we are again!

Rules need to be simple, the sport needs to come down cost wise and detail wise to widen it's appeal to potential racers who want fun and spectator who want to watch drivers having fun!

Those that want to push the boundaries to C.A.D designed cars, has anyone thought, they may actually be in the wrong sport ? I do not wish to be disrespectful but perhaps there is a gap in the market for such ingenuity in developing a number of cars into a separate formula leaving the rest of us to focus and get back to the DNA that has been so successful. Without getting a grip, we will lose it forever.

In terms of RPM - there are a number of issues here and people far more equipped to comment than me will doubtless have opinion. Whilst cost is a factor, it isn't totally that as those who wish to invest in reliability should be free to do so. Several years ago, rules were changed, again controversially at the time, to make brakes cheaper, simpler and basically a bit less effective - which adds to the racing experience, so how did some drivers [ not all ] get around that ? Higher revving engines biggest asset is in 'braking power' on deceleration which again, drip drip alters the style of racing we see on track. A restriction on RPM - and information gathered, suggests that the finally agreed 7500 rpm is right, people will always try and spend to get around it, F2 will be a prime example with the introduction of an RPM limit, many pinto drivers will spend £1500+ on the engine to get around it, however the issues in F1 are different and engine builders would state if honest where the ideal RPM should sit, but will always take money from drivers willing to spend it finding additional torque and grip - much of this is linked with tyres, where, to be honest is where the sport needs to loo closer in coming years - Smaller profiles and narrower wheels simply won't deliver as much grip - It's development in this area that has increased engine cost because if you can use the grip you will spend on the engine. So, to be revolutionary, imo less grip and tyres that actually suit our tracks should be the next major revolution - that will bring costs tumbling down! But you can also do too much too quick!
The compromised proposal is the right solution for 'now' but imo needs in the future to be bolder. The K6 has been a problem for 18 months, sparce supply, individuals 'stockpiling' them. that caused a famine in the market and prices trebling for lower graders who used to get them from £15 - and then were lucky to get them. it had to be addressed. The A/R is still under development and needs more time, but I question whether we need to be bolder!

The Russell Coopers are as important as the top flight men and he has his right to comment as he actually did bother to attend the AGM and vote where many drivers didn't but can be satisfied that ultimately in the majorities best interest, further feedback and clarification was sought before agreeing the final .2 version of rules, as his comments contributed to that!

It is disappointing to 'read' that for example our World Champion 'may' elect to race only in Holland. He is a credit to our sport in his approach, I have a lot of empathy in the fact he has worked hard with his consultants for 2 years in producing attractive machinery that is performing well, so I get his emotions, but I would say Nigel standing back, is it right for our sport ? If it's not for many of the reasons above, it is right to veto it before we have 20 of them which we would have within a year - on that basis, hard as it seems, to protect the spectacle and tug it in for the medium and long term, sorry it's right. A sport with insufficient spectators will in effect increase driver costs as the expenses there given by promoters will diminish!
This is not a change that incurs major cost and I would hope Nigel moves forward after some consideration to demonstrate his skills with the challenge of working within the new configuration. Craig is another driver that is hugely respected and talented and sadly another making overtures of racing in Holland - who incidentally talking about EXACTY the same rule changes, but possible not until 2019. No one wants to lose any individual driver but if the majority and compelling views are for a solution, one should go with that majority.

Mark Thornton, somebody I hugely respect has vented his frustration online with some 'very' snazzy and well thought through conceptual designs - BUT as previously stated, some of the methodology has been thought through before and those who believe these are over engineered innovations equally are entitled to their opinion too and equally valid in their belief that this takes us into a different type of horsepower sport and, as in this case, if the majority agree, then that is how the rules will be constructed. We do actually need less innovation and more simplicity and the BSCDA should be commended in their thought's in direction albeit there remains a lot still to do to get us to where we should be [ imo ]

Rule changes will always be controversial, the sport will always lose and hopefully gain drivers as part of it's evolution however, as if we hadn't already learnt sufficiently, personal 'opinion' based upon effect and then 'jumping on the bandwagon' pronouncing the death of the sport is unreliable, uninformed and unhelpful - Let's get on with it, one day we will get it right and perfect, but that will be the holy grail!

The hugely respected Ross Brawn made a significant comment following the last GP of the season, and NO ONE should doubt his credentials. As part of F1 Management, the thoughts will revolve around future 'rule changes' and their cause, effect and addition to expense. Oval Racing should take that to heart and some should understand that the thought was carried forward in the process between the AGM and finalising rule proposals. It won't be prefect BUT our future should be fashioned on those thoughts - and what are the objectives and how may they be circumnavigated usually at increased cost to the driver! If F2 had that wisdom also then it would have saved a lot of pain - but we are always learning!

The end was nigh in March 2017, season 2018 will come in March and we will move forward hopefully 'together' and ensure this sport has a great future and one where the majority are listened to - that - and common sense - is the future!