Donington problems? Is testing still ongoing?

[Chris Wilson]

I got held up in meetings today, and never managed to ring Donington to see if their MSA licensing issues had put paid to testing there at the moment. Does anyone know if the track licence issues have stopped testing following their published schedule? Thanks.

[Dave 455]

Testing is still going ahead as planned, you may find the circuit a little bit quiter than normal as the next 3 meetings in the fixture list were cancelled today.
Tracks days and test days are totally unaffected by the licence issue.

[Chris Wilson]

Thanks for the speedy reply, appreciated

[Adam43]

Phew!

[strider]

Originally Posted by Dave 455

Track days and test days are totally unaffected by the licence issue.

This has always been a bit of a sore point with me. If a circuit's not safe to race on, then it's not safe to test on. QED.

I know the official explanation that gets trotted out on these occasions, but it holds water about as well as a sieve.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by strider

This has always been a bit of a sore point with me. If a circuit's not safe to race on, then it's not safe to test on. QED.

I know the official explanation that gets trotted out on these occasions, but it holds water about as well as a sieve.

I've been saying this on the historic topic about Donington.

IMO It would be a brave trackday operator to run there at the moment and very brave of the circuit to allow it.

If the MSA have said that the circuit is not safe and withdrawn its licence then their view as governing body has to be pretty persuasive that the circuit is not safe for use. I see little difference between the risks in testing and racing and arguably as test days are run on road licences the risks are significantly greater as the skill level of punters may be lower.

Strider as you know part of the test to establish negligence is "was the incident it reasonably forseeable" - in this case if someone stuffs it into the tunnel surround then I fail to see how that can be anything but forseeable if the MSA have refused to licence.

Wattleworth v Goodwood a couple of years ago said something along the lines of it was reasonable for a non race punter to assume that if the MSA had licenced a track then it was "safe" for track days and non race practice sessions. I am sure that the logic would work in the other direction so that if the MSA have said that the track is not "safe" then that should govern what is done.

[alee]

Originally Posted by Piglet

I see little difference between the risks in testing and racing and arguably as test days are run on road licences the risks are significantly greater as the skill level of punters may be lower.

Testing is for race licence holders ONLY and allows timing etc to take place - the driver/team makes its booking direct with a circuit - the days run allowing drivers with road licences only are TRACK DAYS operated by a 3rd party, and does not allow timing etc. So skill levels on test days should (in threory) be as good as on race days. Though the mix of cars and differing lap times usually mean more issues than when cars are racing or qualifying in catagories more similarly matched.

Neither general test days or track days are run under an MSA permit however most circuits' insurance and certainly the AMRCO insurance used by several of the Track day Operators, requires circuits to hold a valid MSA track licence in order for their insurance to be valid.

I'm sure Donington won't want this situation to continue any longer than it needs to, and will do something about it in short order - at least I hope so.

[strider]

Originally Posted by Piglet

I've been saying this on the historic topic about Donington.

IMO It would be a brave trackday operator to run there at the moment and very brave of the circuit to allow it.

If the MSA have said that the circuit is not safe and withdrawn its licence then their view as governing body has to be pretty persuasive that the circuit is not safe for use. I see little difference between the risks in testing and racing and arguably as test days are run on road licences the risks are significantly greater as the skill level of punters may be lower.

Strider as you know part of the test to establish negligence is "was the incident it reasonably forseeable" - in this case if someone stuffs it into the tunnel surround then I fail to see how that can be anything but forseeable if the MSA have refused to licence.

Wattleworth v Goodwood a couple of years ago said something along the lines of it was reasonable for a non race punter to assume that if the MSA had licenced a track then it was "safe" for track days and non race practice sessions. I am sure that the logic would work in the other direction so that if the MSA have said that the track is not "safe" then that should govern what is done.

You have very clearly spelt out my reservations, Piglet. Thanks.

I'll give you a specific example. When Croft first re-opened for racing British F3 was on the bill with some test sessions due on the Friday.

The man from the MSA had been there most of the week, but he left on the Friday saying in so many words: "The circuit is not ready for a track licence yet, but here's a list of work that needs to be done. If you complete these by tomorrow I will authorise the MSA Steward to issue the licence so the meeting can go ahead."

In the meantime testing did go ahead for all the wrong reasons and what happened? The first session ended early when one of the cars, driven by Darren Turner, so no muppet, got caught out in one of the problem areas and went off very hard into the Armco. He was basically uninjured, but the car was very badly and expensively damaged.

To be fair, the circuit people responded very well and the problem was solved by the following morning, but the lesson to be learned from the incident is very clear.

[socram]

As someone who was involved in the first post war Donington meeting, back in May 1977, what exactly has happened there to make the circuit 'unsafe'? Sorry, news like this does not filter down to NZ.

[JimW]

Originally Posted by socram

As someone who was involved in the first post war Donington meeting, back in May 1977, what exactly has happened there to make the circuit 'unsafe'? Sorry, news like this does not filter down to NZ.

Hi socram; good to know that there are still some others who were at that meeting still around.

For the current hoo-ha try http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...=108156&page=2 and begin reading from about halfway down the page.

Regards

Jim

[Eric Falce]

May be the wrong thread,but I heard that the new Donnington will not have parking facilities for the general public,they will have to park and drive for the GP,shades of the Dome I think,had the same advisers no doubt so as far as I'm concerned,a no go.

[Adam43]

This is a track day yesterday, but to answer the question is Donington still being used:

[Chris Wilson]

Rang them today, testing is ongoing as normal, it comes under their own circuit insurance coverage, for which a circuit licence is apparently unnecessary. Thanks for the replies.

[chezza]

Totally off topic but look at the state of that pitlane...there are cars parked at all angles!!

[The STIG]

Originally Posted by chezza

Totally off topic but look at the state of that pitlane...there are cars parked at all angles!!

That's pretty much typical for a track day. The one I did at Donington had cars parked, and going, all over the place in the pits. The problem of overcrowding was also present

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chezza

Totally off topic but look at the state of that pitlane...there are cars parked at all angles!!

Hmm, still photography. It looks to me like some cars are exiting garages while others are entering.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm, still photography. It looks to me like some cars are exiting garages while others are entering.

Continuing the off topic theme. It was a sessioned track day. This is the end of one session, just before the begining of the next. I liked the picture because it was mad.

Originally Posted by Chris Wilson

Rang them today, testing is ongoing as normal, it comes under their own circuit insurance coverage, for which a circuit licence is apparently unnecessary. Thanks for the replies.

Interesting. You'd think that a MSA inspection would be good for reducing the premiums? Maybe the insurance firms have done their work and see a (much?) lower risk in track days - or a much higher one and they are charging the earth already!

[JimW]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

. . . You'd think that a MSA inspection would be good for reducing the premiums? Maybe the insurance firms have done their work and see a (much?) lower risk in track days - or a much higher one and they are charging the earth already!

Adam - Look earlier in this thread http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....02&postcount=8 for some relevant comments. Perhaps Donington have not read that court case.

Jim

[MikeH]

Originally Posted by chezza

Totally off topic but look at the state of that pitlane...there are cars parked at all angles!!

You want to see the dinky Knockhill pitlane on a busy trackday in that case!

[grantp]

Thursdays being, usually, test days I could hear some interesting noises today when the prevailing wind direction allowed and the series of showers abated for short periods.

I have always understood that I participate in a track day at my own risk. Usuallya small portion of the charge goes to provide some form of insurance cover for certain situations. I assume that to sue the organisers or circuit successfully one would have to prove that they were negligent in some extreme way which was beyond what could be expected.

One can see, and therefore expect and make a judgement about, obvious things like where the hard boundaries are and whether the grass is wet. One can then use one's judgement about what might happen if one eas to hit them or, if one got onto wet grass, how far off circuit one might travel at speed. At that point you decide upon your own level of safety.

Track days are, of course, very different to competitive racing days. Or at least they should be.

On the other hand if one was led to believe that, say, a barrier was solid and suitable for purpose but it failed to perform as 'billed', then one might have a case for negligence.

Presumably such issues have already been taken into account, given the H&S inspired world in which we live (unless you are a member of the armed forces when it seems that any old kit and poor equipment will suffice.)

[the.cosmic.pope]

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n...IMG_8151-1.jpg

Is that really as bad as they are making out? I mean LMPs navigate the Porsche curves at much higher speeds with less run off than that and an amrco barrier.

http://www.thepurists.net/Patrons/Me...m_lem_1_39.jpg

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JimW

Adam - Look earlier in this thread http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....02&postcount=8 for some relevant comments. Perhaps Donington have not read that court case.

Jim

Cheers Jim. My post had taken that into account. There is a disparity between race and track days. I was guessing at what an insurance company may consider.

Originally Posted by the.cosmic.pope

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n...IMG_8151-1.jpg

Is that really as bad as they are making out? I mean LMPs navigate the Porsche curves at much higher speeds with less run off than that and an amrco barrier.

http://www.thepurists.net/Patrons/Me...m_lem_1_39.jpg

The barrier could well be closer, but it is the angle of the Donington barrier that is the issue. At one point it is clear that if you go off you'll hit the barrier head on, rather than the usual glancing blow you'd normally get in the Porsche curves.
However I see your point.

[socram]

Thanks Jim W. An interesting thread and it is really sad. Here in NZ we are keenly waiting the new Hampton Downs circuit and like Donington, the original developers/owners install a degree of wisdom and purity that should be left well alone.

I remember the 1977-1982 Donington meetings with a great deal of affection - and yes, sanitary toilets.

I was apalled at hearing that they had been granted the F1 GP, as building a venue for what may become a one off event is financial suicide as Bernie is not committed to a British GP at all.

The club racers are the backbone of the sport and if Donington remained a top quality club venue, a lot of people would be more than happy. F1 apparently makes a small fortune for a select few and everyone else pays through the nose or loses money.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by socram

The club racers are the backbone of the sport and if Donington remained a top quality club venue, a lot of people would be more than happy. F1 apparently makes a small fortune for a select few and everyone else pays through the nose or loses money.

The thing is though that 'a lot of people' may be happy but not in attendance.

At a couple of the more 'interesting' meetings last year I was talking to people on a gate about how empty the place looked despite a handy programme and decent weather. Apparently the attendance had been predicted at about 1000 paying spectators (at £12 per head) but only about 1/3rd that number had passed through.

This year I made it to the 2 events that have run - MGCC and HSCC - and was able to park right next to the Paddock entrance (the only access gate that was in use as far as I am aware) despite arriving quite late in the morning on both occasions. In the end HSCC looked busier then MGCC but that is not saying much and I suspect that with some of the circuit inaccessible and no infield open to speak of, the 'crowds' were somewhat more corralled than usual. I also suspect that many of them were directly connected with people and teams racing on the day and may therefore not have been paying spectators - or at least not independently paying spectators.

It is possible that some of the Bike meetings do a little better.

It would seem that even hosting the Renault World Series (free entry weekends) for a few years has not significantly encouraged locals to attend other meetings regualarly in any numbers.

I would guess that the gamble with hosting F1 is that it makes the name better known and therefore attracts more people to the facility ( and the museum, etc.?) whilst at the same time justifying an 'improved margin' on charges where such can be exercised. Such potential is unlikely to influence club racing supporters. Improved facilities just might - but then part of the attraction of Donington is (or was) the infield area and the views from the banking. Once that is gone (as it is now, effectively, in terms of access) some regulars may feel a little disenfranchised. Sadly there are probably not enough of them attedning regularly enough to keep the circuit operating in the way they would like.

Now that the MotoGP is going to Silverstone I can't see things improving much if the GP doesn't happen. In fact quite the opposite. But then I ave no knowledge of where the revenues to run the place actually come from.

The circuit plans clearly allow for 2 separate tracks that could be run concurrently, each with paddock, garages and support facilities. I assume that this would increase the potential daily revenues for the entire circuit and may be one way forward for them, but at the risk of encouraging the place to be carved up somewhat from a spectator point of view.

How the two track potential would affect club racing for competitors, other then the layout for the National Circuit changing in some places, is anyone's guess.

[terence]

One thing that puzzles me is who the idiot was who dreamed up where to put the tunnel/wall's.Do those responsible actually have any idea on circuit design/safety issues!
I think uncle Tom now has the task of getting rid of Gillet and co and starting over again,get the circuit back into a race ready state and start making the place earn some revenue during the week as well as the weekends.The small matter of the GP/? was it ever going to happen??