|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
2 Jul 2005, 09:24 (Ref:1345295) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,518
|
OK, so the BRDC are the promoters. Any chance they can contribute a more realistic sum towrds the expenses of the marshals, who they admit they cannot do without, or reintroduce the sew-on patch, or perhaps organise a pit lane excursion just for us to ogle the cars and, heaven forbid, talk to a F1 driver?
OK I'll come back to reality in a mo, but we can dream.......... |
||
__________________
There are two rules for ultimate success in life: 1. Never tell everything you know. |
2 Jul 2005, 12:12 (Ref:1345384) | #27 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,038
|
Why nor make your feelings known to the BDRC? You never know they may do something along the lines you mention. Nothing ventured etc etc
|
||
__________________
The Priest Catcher Honoured recipient of the BARC Browning Medal |
3 Jul 2005, 15:52 (Ref:1346054) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 689
|
A good question Steve, but I refer you to an earlier post. Isn't that what the Marshal's Club is for?
No? Well surely it can't be there just to provide cover for race clubs...can it? |
||
__________________
The only stupid question is one not asked! |
4 Jul 2005, 12:32 (Ref:1346814) | #29 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,750
|
Quote:
If testing is becoming prohibitively expensive due to increased insurance costs, the surely means that the underwriters have been able to demonstrate and increased risk/hazard ratio or potential increased risk/hazard in the activity of their customer. To reduce any kind of insurance premium, you must either reduce the risk (likelyhood of a claim) or the hazard (the size of the claim). This then presents us with a chicken and egg situation. It is plainly obvious that if we have more and better trained/motivated safety crews at the tests, that would result in decreased risk and hazard, an ideal situation for both the sport and the insurers. However, if the allocation is going on insurance for ongoing testing, the money cannot be spent on getting in the extra bods for the job. This leaves F1 with essentially two choices, they could invest extra funds in the marshalling and safety crews to be better trained and numbers bumped up at test days, which would seem to be the positive response. Or they could try and reduce testing to lower the risk (while frankly the hazard would remain or even get worse). That option would seem to be the negative response. Again, to my chagrin, F1 seems to be leaning towards the latter, more negative, response. Last edited by b1ackcr0w; 4 Jul 2005 at 12:36. Reason: PABKAC - typos and nonsensical drivel needed sorting |
|||
__________________
I want a hat with "I only wanted one comb" written on it. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Autosport 20th april,Marshalling article | Mark Smith | Marshals Forum | 42 | 27 Apr 2006 16:22 |
Anyone seen the Autosport article? | Woolley | Marshals Forum | 32 | 29 Nov 2004 20:37 |
Driver marshalling 16th October, Silverstone, HSCC meeting. | A. C. E. motors | Marshals Forum | 3 | 22 Oct 2004 08:27 |
Super Silverstone weekend - 15/16th June! | Chris Y | Trackside | 19 | 19 Jun 2002 20:16 |