Brands Hatch - proposed changes. Poll Added.

[jamesholland]

I've just come across this: http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-ap...=LTCRIABK8V000

and this: http://www.stevesplace.org/phocadown...randshatch.pdf

also this: http://www.thebikeinsurer.co.uk/bran...-changes-2012/

Personally, I'm not in favour at all.

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm,

It's for the bikes as I read it. The good doctor likes his hairpins so I'm not surprised.

[Colin McKay]

I've never much liked this bend but it's not fair to say it doesn't offer overtaking opportunities, although JP is referring to bikes when he says this. For cars, I wouldn't consider run off was a problem either.

[morninggents]

Oh crap! Even if it is just for bikes.
JP has just gone down a lot of notches in my estimation.

[The SpeCTator]

I get the impression that some mods at Brands are driven by DTM as opposed to JP leading them.

[jamesholland]

As I understand it, it is for both cars and bikes.

Another nasty slow corner for TV exposure and low speed shunts for the BTCC destruction derby.

[Peter Mallett]

Yes, I think the reason is the bikes but it would also apply to cars. Thus a major change to the circuit.

[Peter Mallett]

Incidentally, I think this would be more suited to Racers Forum since it affects more than the historic community.

[brands hatch]

Originally Posted by The SpeCTator

I get the impression that some mods at Brands are driven by DTM.

Only the impression?! I'd say almost certainly!

[Tim Falce]

I think the idea has been cancelled, thankfully.

[barnettracing]

Good lord that is truly awful! Surely there is plenty of run off at G.Hill Bend, even for bikes! Surely building corner into the existing run-off actually decreases the new run-off area!?

And to replace it with a hairpin followed by right, well... Dr. Palmer has already buggered up Sear at Snetterton with this formula and I hardly think it is going to work here.

If he wanted more of a challenge, why not change it back to the third gear (in a Formula Ford) sweep that it used to be back in 1998/1999?

Bikes have been using the current layout for over 10 years now without a huge amount of fuss (if any) surrounding danger at this particular corner so why chose now to change it?

Next thing we know, Surtees Mclaren with be a second gear chicane!

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

I think the idea has been cancelled, thankfully.

I really, really hope this is true...

[historic racer]

Having looked at the plans I can only say they are absolute rubbish, they have already messed the cicuit about enough with the changes at Paddock and Bottom Bend over the years, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[ascarmarshal]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

I think the idea has been cancelled, thankfully.

The plans haven't been passed by SDC yet which is the reason why the work hasn't started

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by ascarmarshal

The plans haven't been passed by SDC yet which is the reason why the work hasn't started

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

[Adam43]

I am hoping cancelled means cancelled.

[Paul D]

There doesn't seem to be many people in favour of this, so, I'm going to stick my neck out and say...

What a crap idea!!!

I can't think of any other circuit that has two hairpins one after the other as per this proposal. In fact, I can't think of any other (UK) circuit that has two hairpins at all, period (OK, Donington did, before they dug it up - but theirs was done as part of creating an additional loop to the circuit, and it was possibly the only practical way to do it). There's just no need.

What next? Get rid of all bends deemed to be 'not enough of a challenge'? Some bends are always going to be more challenging than others, that's the nature of racetracks... and the attraction. Some offer more of a challenge, some offer a better overtaking opportunity, but they're all there as an essential part of the whole lap - it's what makes a great circuit. Sanitise all the bends and we may as well drive round in circles.

I hope someone sees sense and bins this idea before it gets started and ruins a superb, flowing circuit.

[ascarmarshal]

the work was susposed to have been done this winter. Brands is on a shut down at the moment until 20 January. I spoke to the Parish Clerk on Wednesday who has said that the planning application is going through as normal. The target date for approval is 27th December and I expect it to go through as there has been no objections from residents and the Parish Council has no objections

[tristancliffe]

Originally Posted by Paul D

There doesn't seem to be many people in favour of this, so, I'm going to stick my neck out and say...

What a crap idea!!!

I can't think of any other circuit that has two hairpins one after the other as per this proposal. In fact, I can't think of any other (UK) circuit that has two hairpins at all, period (OK, Donington did, before they dug it up - but theirs was done as part of creating an additional loop to the circuit, and it was possibly the only practical way to do it). There's just no need.

What next? Get rid of all bends deemed to be 'not enough of a challenge'? Some bends are always going to be more challenging than others, that's the nature of racetracks... and the attraction. Some offer more of a challenge, some offer a better overtaking opportunity, but they're all there as an essential part of the whole lap - it's what makes a great circuit. Sanitise all the bends and we may as well drive round in circles.

I hope someone sees sense and bins this idea before it gets started and ruins a superb, flowing circuit.

I actually thought Graham Hill was surprising challenging to do it right. Very very easy to be generally slow through it, or lose a lot of time on the short run to Surtees. No, there wasn't much passing, but most corners don't have a lot of passing.

The new hairpin idea is horrible. I'd rather go back to the much safer Bottom Bend layout - quicker, but lots of run off. As opposed to a very slow corner requiring a lot of speed to be scrubbed off, and not a lot of run off if your brakes fail.

[m1fcf]

Interesting that no-one has the same strength of feeling about the application to make changes at Westfield that was submitted at the same time and as part of LOCOG changes required?
http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-ap...=LTCRI6BK8V000

[tristancliffe]

Originally Posted by m1fcf

Interesting that no-one has the same strength of feeling about the application to make changes at Westfield that was submitted at the same time and as part of LOCOG changes required?
http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-ap...=LTCRI6BK8V000

Well I can't work out what the planned changes are exactly...

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by m1fcf

Interesting that no-one has the same strength of feeling about the application to make changes at Westfield that was submitted at the same time and as part of LOCOG changes required?
http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-ap...=LTCRI6BK8V000

Surely those changes though don't inherently change the profile or character of the corner (and thus the GP loop as a whole). Instead, those changes are to improve the access road by creating a left turn onto the road that runs parallel to the chute between Hawthorns and Westfield Bend.

The changes at G.Hill on the other hand would comprehensively alter (and ruin) one of Britain's most famous circuits. As I've said before, if the Superbike riders want more of a challenge with greater run-off, change it back to the sweeping Bottom Bend of the pre-1999 era. It would also make Surtees much more difficult on the Indy circuit as the approach speed would be much higher. On the GP loop it would make Surtees an even better overtaking place as the braking zone would start earlier.

This hairpin idea is a travesty and would definitely ruin racing and driving at Brands Hatch for me. Even though I have raced almost exclusively at the circuit for the last two years, I don't want these changes to spice up the circuit.

[Bodysnatcher]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

Well I can't work out what the planned changes are exactly...

these changes are to do with the paraympic cycling events' track


http://www.london2012.com/documents/...-route-map.pdf

Look at the little bit of road from Fawkham Road to Westfield bend - used as works access at the mo, not really much more than a rough track in places. Possibly also a very small gap of rough ground between the existing access road and the hard standing at Post 16 - which might only be levelled shale in places, it's been a while since I was out there. Certainly there is a tarmaced vehicle access from Post 16 to the race track.

Google map - post 16 - track access bit, hard standing - now find the MSV access track to Fawkham road.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/myplac...ctz=0&t=h&z=20

[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?

[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