F1 Abbey Disappointment For Historics

[terence]

The more I think of this the more ridiculous it seem's especially when you consider the amount of revenue the MSA have made out of us Members with the new HTPs.What are they doing with that money if not reinvesting it into the likes of getting the Historic Abbey re-licensed?? The only thing to do now is for all of those who voted is to express their concerns directly to the MSA,
www.msauk.org is the web address.The more of us who do complain the better,it should not be hoped that this will get resolved by just ignoring it because that will not happen.

[terence]

Originally Posted by terence bower

The more I think of this the more ridiculous it seem's especially when you consider the amount of revenue the MSA have made out of us Members with the new HTPs.What are they doing with that money if not reinvesting it into the likes of getting the Historic Abbey re-licensed?? The only thing to do now is for all of those who voted is to express their concerns directly to the MSA,
www.msauk.org is the web address.The more of us who do complain the better,it should not be hoped that this will get resolved by just ignoring it because that will not happen.

Something else to consider is that there have been far molre accidents on the exit of Woodecote,as seen this last weekend,has anyone complained about the dangerous walls either side.???

[terence]

RE the Abbey thread,has anyone else written to the MSA
Or, are you just going to sit back and see what happens?

[John Turner]

Nice try Terence, but we are not having another thread on this - merged!

[terence]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Nice try Terence, but we are not having another thread on this - merged!

Sorry John,but it does seem as though no-one cares about this now the "jumping up and down "has subsided,just as predicted by John Symes.

[rogerwills]

Can someone more knowledgeable on the FIA track inspection procedure advise us how it works? John Gee or someone else? Then perhaps we can ask MSA / FIA to seek another inspection either for 2008 or for next season but for both modern and historic layouts?

[johngee]

Normally it's the circuit owner who applies and pays for the inspection and I suspect herein lies the problem at Silverstone. Whilst, obviously, it has an 'owner' in terms of the BRDC, they have the circuit 'operated' by Silverstone Circuits. They, in turn, have sub-contracted a lot of the promotion of meetings, in the case of the Classic, to Motionworks. Since it's the latter company who is the 'commercial operator' of the major meeting where the historic configuration is applicable they might be 'persuaded' or pressured into stumping up the fee, which for 2008 is £4,750.
I think that's the best avenue to apply pressure but I suspect all the parties mentioned may get very 'slopey shouldered' and 'pass the parcel'

[terence]

We'll see!!

[TorqueWench]

Originally Posted by johngee

Normally it's the circuit owner who applies and pays for the inspection and I suspect herein lies the problem at Silverstone. Whilst, obviously, it has an 'owner' in terms of the BRDC, they have the circuit 'operated' by Silverstone Circuits. They, in turn, have sub-contracted a lot of the promotion of meetings, in the case of the Classic, to Motionworks. Since it's the latter company who is the 'commercial operator' of the major meeting where the historic configuration is applicable they might be 'persuaded' or pressured into stumping up the fee, which for 2008 is £4,750.
I think that's the best avenue to apply pressure but I suspect all the parties mentioned may get very 'slopey shouldered' and 'pass the parcel'

Well John -Brave of you!

[terence]

Letter sent last night,any bets on wether or not I get a reply?.

[rogerwills]

72 people voted here against this layout. 72 x £66 = £4750. So if the track owners or promoters of the biggest historic event on the circuit are not willing to pay for the inspection of the historic layout, perhaps we should fund it as competitors? If enough of us were to write to the BRDC and Motionworks with this proposal it may be that they manage to find the budget for it. If not, we can have a whip around and it would also serve to highlight the absurdity of it all. Thoughts?

Perhaps someone with a little time on their hands could draft a letter to BRDC and Motionworks that we could each copy, paste, print, sign and send to get a campaign rolling?

Roger

[john ruston]

50 Quid each for the Bring back Abbey Historic fund with excess to Marshals Fund,

[terence]

That,in fact John is'nt such a bad idea,but then why should we pay for something that should never have come to this anyway.Considering that Historic Abbey was a safety move it should be re-licensed with out question.Cant wait to see what,if any,response I get,but if it turns up,I will post it on here.

[john ruston]

If you re-read the original info produced in HMRN and the latest reasons /excuses posted here it seems headway is being made.

[terence]

Hopefully John,Becky has just E-mailed to say that Richard is in possession of the mail I sent him,now we have to wait!!

[Peter Horsman]

I think it's fair to say that Mr Hilton has been less quick to reply to my 'recent' letter (see post 173) compared to my original letter where he had cut-and-paste-able responses readily available.

[terence]

Still no reply from Richard either !!

[terence]

Apparently Silverstone have sent in computer drawings of the track/measurements of Abbey and are now awaiting a decision from the FIA as to whether they will allow its use for some types of cars,IE,historics.See-ing as the drawings were sent a couple of weeks ago[and Silverstone are chasing an answer]perhaps we could have this feature back for next season.