Friends of Brands Hatch

[buzzerm3]

Appreciate there is another thread on this topic but wished to highlight the subject.

MSV have lodged planning application with Sevenoaks District Council to alter Graham Hill Bend and turn it into a constant radius left hand hairpin followed by a right hander; the planning application can be found here:

http://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-applications/app...

Determination date is 27th December and so far the local Parish Council have said they have no objection so that doesn't bode well.

As someone who has enjoyed Brands Hatch for many years as both a spectator and competitor I believe the changes are unwarrranted, out of keeping with the character of the circuit and will not improve the racing / trackday experience but in fact will have completely the opposite effect. I have created an online petition at www.twitition.com/9dsmc so if you are of a similar mind please take a moment to go there and add your name.

Many thanks Andrew Busby

[TheHeretic]

Just curious, but of the owners, and operators of the circuit wish to do this, with no issue with the locals, why do you wish to stop them? Plenty of circuits are having issues with locals complaining, and yet when the locals do not have issue, they have opposition anyway? All seems very odd.

[eastlmark]

I think its odd anyway that they even need to apply for planning permision for alteration to a race track within its own boundries. I cannot see what grounds a local counciler can even complain about anyway other than maybe some disruption on local roads during construction. Its not like its going to be a highly visible construction such as another hospitality complex.

[Piglet]

I also think it's odd that they need to apply for planning consent for a track reconfiguration that doesn't affect any of the surrounding property. Whilst I could understand it if it involved a reprofiling of the GP loop that affected the neighbours I can't see the relevance of it in this situation

I suspect what matters is that the circuit is able to do what needs to be done to keep the licensing bodies (MSA and ACU) happy - without that you can be a friend of the Brands Hatch Housing Development or the Brands Hatch Shopping Centre.

I doubt that in this financial climate anyone is suggesting expensive track alterations that aren't "required".

Sometimes the ability to see a bigger picture is quite useful.

[MX7]

A pic taken from elsewhere.



Brands seems to change quite often. Graham Hill has only been as it is now for about 5 or 6 years I'd guess.

I'd prefer if they didn't, but Brands will still be Brands if they do.

[H100S]

Change it for me. Never been bothered about the racing on the Indy circuit rarely produces exciting racing the Gp track though is a wonderful piece of tarmac often producing exciting racing.

See below championship decider on last lap of last race BSB 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19KBCswXAdo

[Turn7]

Is that pic the final design ? I thought they were only planning a minor opening up of Graham hill ?

[MX7]

Turn7 said:

Is that pic the final design ?

I believe so, although it does look like it's based on a Scaletrix lay out.

Sevenoaks Council Application.

Edited by MX7 on Sunday 18th December 11:18

[Northern Munkee]

Looks like an attempt to put in a big stop, to make another easier overtaking opp' on the Indy loop. Is this just a symptom of how limited the use of the GP loop due to the nimbours?

[Andy 308GTB]

I'm no racing driver by any means but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this change.
Wouldn't a smoothing out of the existing Graham Hill bend into a sweeping left hander increase overtaking opportunities more? I won't explain my thinking as I'm sure it will be proven wrong...
This would cut a bit into the Southbank viewing area but ignore know that for the moment.

The comparison of the currnet proposal to a Scalextric circuit is so true.

[Turn7]

I beleive there are concerns about runoff with the current layout, so could understand trying to slow the corner a little.

[buzzerm3]

Northern Munkee said:

Looks like an attempt to put in a big stop, to make another easier overtaking opp' on the Indy loop. Is this just a symptom of how limited the use of the GP loop due to the nimbours?

Think you may have hit the nail. No issue with alterations which improve the circuit for both spectators and competitors alike; the current Graham Hill bend is OK but could be better - like put it back to how it used to be when known as Bottom Bend (they altered it to it's current layout in 1988) However the proposed changes will not IMHO improve the circuit for either and will most likely detract from it. Brands is one of the world's most iconic circuits and the proposed changes are simply not in keeping with the character of the circuit. What's next? By way of example, I doubt that a corner such as Paddock at Brands would ever be built now on grounds of safety but we don't hear any complaints and I'd imagine if MSV lodged planning application to flatten it there would be uproar; why? Because spectators, riders and drivers like the inherent difference, challenge, danger if you will of the unique nature of the corner - it is part of the very fabric of the circuit and to take that away would be to completely emasculate Brands.

Well, my contention is that these proposed changes to Graham Hill bend amount to the same thing albeit on a lesser scale. Change is needed yes, but not this change.

[MX7]

Andy 308GTB said:

I'm no racing driver by any means but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this change.
Wouldn't a smoothing out of the existing Graham Hill bend into a sweeping left hander increase overtaking opportunities more?

That's how it was a few years ago, and it didn't offer much more overtaking, but it did mean that any contact was done at a higher speed.

Have a look at 2:11 here.

I suspect this might be more relevant to bikes than cars.

[MX7]

[quote=buzzerm3]like put it back to how it used to be when known as Bottom Bend (they altered it to it's current layout in 1988)

Was it really '88? I thought it was about 10 years ago at the most.

By way of example, I doubt that a corner such as Paddock at Brands would ever be built now on grounds of safety but we don't hear any complaints and I'd imagine if MSV lodged planning application to flatten it there would be uproar; why? Because spectators, riders and drivers like the inherent difference, challenge, danger if you will of the unique nature of the corner - it is part of the very fabric of the circuit and to take that away would be to completely emasculate Brands.

You're right, Paddock is unique. The Corkscrew. Eau Rouge. Graham Hill bend? No, not really. And I don't think it'll ever become remembered as anything legendary. Who knows, perhaps Graham Hill Bend v2.0 will?

[kimducati]

Could be something to do with some racers feeling the need to go 4 wheels off nearly every lap at the existing corner. There WILL be a big impact into marshals post 8 one day, if this isn't dealt with.
Dont like the proposed layout though - it would be better with the left hand hairpin opened out, and the right hander becoming a fast 'kink' back on to the straight adjacent to post 8.
Dangerous game - could end up like a kart track if they're not careful!!
Kim.

[anonymous-user]

kimducati said:

Could be something to do with some racers feeling the need to go 4 wheels off nearly every lap at the existing corner. There WILL be a big impact into marshals post 8 one day, if this isn't dealt with.
Dont like the proposed layout though - it would be better with the left hand hairpin opened out, and the right hander becoming a fast 'kink' back on to the straight adjacent to post 8.
Dangerous game - could end up like a kart track if they're not careful!!
Kim.

Really? It wouldn't be easier just to put in a big kerb and move the marshal's post?

I reckon it's more to do with making BTCC even more spectator attractive. What could be more of an invite to that lot than a downhill hairpin? It will be carnage.

[Forbes82]

I don't mind them changing the corner but that looks terrible to me. Keep it fast and flowing, does brands really need two hairpins in a row?

[kimducati]

REALIST123 said:

Really? It wouldn't be easier just to put in a big kerb and move the marshal's post?

I reckon it's more to do with making BTCC even more spectator attractive. What could be more of an invite to that lot than a downhill hairpin? It will be carnage.

I think the only way of stopping kerb hopping there would be either a three foot high concrete wall, or an equivalent sized drop off beyond the kerb, filled with water populated with crocodiles.
The new hairpin would be UP hill, tho.
Kim

[eastlmark]

is that going to be an uphill run to the new haipin or are they going to excavate the hill to make it flat? if the latter then run off will be minimal infront of a big earth bank.

[Piglet]

A big kerb is a nice idea but will never be licensed for bikes - the circuit needs both licences and needs to be safe for trackdays for both bikes and cars as well to earn its bread and butter money. IIRC GP days are limited to something like 16 days a year.