Brands Hatch - proposed changes. Poll Added.

[Bodysnatcher]

Originally Posted by ascarmarshal

I'm just disappointed that the cycling route doesn't go past my front door.

aye, but you won't have far to go to cheer on Alex Zanardi.

[Rudernst]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

Doesn't "cancelled" mean it won't start? It wasn't due to start until winter 2012/13 anyway.

JP seems prepared to spend money on this, so must have a good reason....

I dont like the new layout, 2 hairpins in succession, dreadfull
But then, I never really got on top of that section in current layout either.

I have a different theory about the reason:
Brands gets used mainly in Indy layout these days because the cost or running the GP loop are too high.
Problem with the Indy circuit is the short laptime, well under a minute in a reasonably quick car.
That means little capacity for cars on the track at the same time.
The new layout would make the laptime longer, as is increases the length of the circuit and makes the following straigt much slower because of the lower corner exit speed.
I would guess that the change is good enough to allow 10 % more cars on the Indy circuit, every day, every trackday....

Rudolf

[brands hatch]

Originally Posted by barnettracing

I have been told, from a reasonably reliable source close to MSV, that G.Hill won't become a hairpin/followed by 90 degree a la Sear at Snetterton. Woopeee!

Instead, the corner will be moved closer to Druids (increasing the run off; though the approach would also be slower so less run off would be needed) and increasing (naturally I assume through South Bank's slope) the negative camber of the corner. Hmmm. Still not too keen. Thoughts?

What I have heard varies from both these, will be interesting to see what if anything occurs...I say leave it as it is, but if changes happen they happen, not much anyone can really do about it.

[Pure Fiater]

but if changes happen they happen, not much anyone can really do about it.

I'm against the changes aswell, but you can do something, you don't have to
race there. Perhaps we could have a little vote here and maybe somebody
from MSV reads this and reports to JP.

Against

[Tim Falce]

OK, I've added a poll and the good peeps from MSV do frequent these boards so it shouldn't go unnoticed.

[ascarmarshal]

Originally Posted by Pure Fiater

I'm against the changes aswell, but you can do something, you don't have to
race there. Perhaps we could have a little vote here and maybe somebody
from MSV reads this and reports to JP.

Against

The council vote has a target date of 27th December. Basically it is in the hands of SDC now. All we can do is wait. The track changes if approved are unlikely to be made before the season starts on 20th January

[Al Weyman]

I dont care too much either way, I think it will make the track a bit more of a challenge although not a lover of hairpins but as long as its not silly tight like Mallory then have no real objections. I will still continue to race there its daft and cutting off your nose to spite your face saying you wont IMHO.

[johngee]

Unless the change is required on safety grounds by a governing body to protect the circuit licence, I can't see the economic imperative at all.
Perhaps Eau Rouge at Spa or Arnage at Le Mans is next?


I voted NO by the way!

[chunder]

Nothing at Brands would ever be driven by DTM believe me!

it is all about the bikes.

Palmer now has 7 out of 12 roudns on his tracks with more probably to come, missing out such places as Mallory, he is 3 damn rounds at Brands so is looking at making that corner better as two of them will be on the INDY circuit.

DTM doesnt earn him much, whereas BSB is huge for MSV, so that drives most of it I would imagine

[brands hatch]

Originally Posted by chunder

Nothing at Brands would ever be driven by DTM believe me!

Not even catch-fences placed in places DTM liked to close off? (Probably not the only reason for it to be erected there I know but I'd say that was probably influenced by DTM at least a bit.)

[johnw]

I really enjoyed the original Bottom Bend, but a reversion to that is not going to happen.
The current Graham Hill Ben is IMHO a bit of a nothing, so a change could well improve that part of the circuit.
I quite like the idea of a run down into the dip and up the hill towards the inside of Paddock, just not what looks like two slow corners back onto Cooper Straight.

Sadly, I'm old enough to remember the addition of the Druids link - and that was an improvement.
I voted for option 3.

[Andrew Busby]

I'm surprised you don't remember it as a grass track running counter clockwise JW!

My view is clear on this - leave well alone and if you've looked at the proposed plans submitted to Sevenoaks DC for a hairpin left then right hander you'll be as shocked as I was. Just not in keeping with the nature of the circuit (amongst plenty of other reasons why not)

I have created an online petition here www.twitition.com/9dsmc for those who wish to express a similar view. Thanks Andrew

[Andrew Busby]

Originally Posted by ascarmarshal

I'm just disappointed that the cycling route doesn't go past my front door.

As regards to the Graham Hill bend changes i haven't heard of any changes to the plans and none have been submitted to SDC to me knowledge

Current submitted plans can be found here:

http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-ap...=LTCRIABK8V000

[johnw]

Originally Posted by Andrew Busby

I'm surprised you don't remember it as a grass track running counter clockwise JW!

No it was a tarmac kindey shape when I first saw it Andrew
I think the Druids loop was added at about the time of the Coronation (of Madge, not her father, before you ask).

Do though remember races being run in both directions and I drove it anti-clockwise in a single seater on a Motor Racing Stables course.

Just a shame I can't remember what I had for breakfast.

Had another look at the plans (thanks for the link). I agree that the two new corners look naff, particularly the right hander which looks way to tight. Replace them with left and right esses and it could be a lot of fun on that slope.

[ascarmarshal]

Originally Posted by Andrew Busby

Current submitted plans can be found here:

http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-ap...=LTCRIABK8V000

they are still the original plans as submitted on 20-10-2011. Nothing new had been added and I have spoken to one of the of district councillers on the planning committee today ahd she says that no new plans have been submitted to her knowledge

[Tal Aras]

The right hander looks very tight and and almost invites corner cutting. I suspose it'll be a change for the Post Chiefs from reporting 4 wheels off on the exit to the current bend.

Could be a good point for spectators, if they can extend the South Bank area down (up?) towards the bend.

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by Tal Aras

The right hander looks very tight and and almost invites corner cutting. I suspose it'll be a change for the Post Chiefs from reporting 4 wheels off on the exit to the current bend.

Could be a good point for spectators, if they can extend the South Bank area down (up?) towards the bend.

It's not going to be any different to what was Sear at Snetterton, it flows OK but we have the corner there, we don't need the same thing at Brands.

[Andrew Busby]

As all Brands historians will know, the Druids loop was first used on 19th April 1954.

(with thanks to Chas Parker!)

[dtype38]

Ahem.... I like it!

I agree that the current Graham Hill is tricky, and getting it right can lead to an overtaking opportunity on the Cooper Straight. On the other hand, I hate the kink down the hill from Druids. It's neither something nor nothing and IMHO messes up any decent chance of an overtake down the hill as it makes defending too easy. A longer straigher run down the hill will give more reward to a good exit from Druids, and if I remember the topography correctly, the proposed hairpin will be at or after the compression at the bottom of the hill, giving good grip for late braking and maybe even a positively cambered hairpin. If its done right and the exit isn't too tight I think it could be an epic corner.

Ahem!

[JimW]

That new hairpin looks as if it will climb and fall quite steeply. Do we have a surveyor on here who could look at the plans and say what the new bit will look like in elevation?

Regards

Jim

[Tim Falce]

If the green lines are measured in metres it looks like the hairpin will rise 3 metres from the dip at the bottom.
Ken, the exit looks quite tight, it wouldn't be too bad if it was a tad wider.

[brands hatch]

Originally Posted by dtype38

if I remember the topography correctly, the proposed hairpin will be at or after the compression at the bottom of the hill, giving good grip for late braking and maybe even a positively cambered hairpin. If its done right and the exit isn't too tight I think it could be an epic corner.

From what I've heard, that is exactly the plan! Imagine shell oils hairpin just the otherway

[NJH]

I don't really have an opinion on the existing corner however ask yourselves this, are you happy with the changes made to Snetterton? I am not a fan of that circuit anyway but it had one epic corner ruined by the changes and a load of extra corners that no one seems to like much. Given what has been done at Snett do you trust Dr Palmer and his intentions in this "evolution" of Brands?

Anyways I hate all hairpin bends with a vengeance and for that matter pretty much all low speed corners but sadly this is the way race tracks are going. The changes at Silverstone as another example all done to lengthen the circuit and add more low speed cornering.

[m1fcf]

Originally Posted by JimW

That new hairpin looks as if it will climb and fall quite steeply. Do we have a surveyor on here who could look at the plans and say what the new bit will look like in elevation?

Regards

Jim

If you take a look at this document, then I think it goes something like this.

At it's lowest point coming down the hill from Druids, it is 118.5m ASL, rising to 120.75 at the apex of the corner, then dropping back down to 118.5 where it rejoins the existing track.

At the apex of the corner, the inside edge is at 120.75, but the outside edge is at 121.75. So a 1 metre banking across the width of the track. The contour lines don't run evenly across the track, so the banking will appear to increase into the corner, and decrease on the run out. Should be pretty interesting for picking your line through there.

I make that 2m vertical rise from bottom to apex, and 3m rise to the outside edge of the corner. Still doesn't give much escape room if the cars overshoot the corner, or run out of power running up to the corner.

I wonder where the marshals post(s) will be placed to cover that corner. The current location should be fine for most, but we are going to need a team on the drivers right (uphill) side to cover that area as well as a team covering the bottom of South Bank.

What is also not clear, is whether the existing track is staying or being taken up? Any one got any clues on that?

[mattt]

DTM would want Graham Hill Bend changing given the fact that only a couple of the drivers took the corner correctly more than a few times across the weekend. at times it looked like a challenge to see who could be furthest away from the track