Major Changes To Brands Hatch Approved?
Major Changes To Brands Hatch Approved?
Author
Discussion

Notshortnottall

Original Poster:

610 posts

213 months

Tuesday 6th March 2012
quotequote all
Read all about it here.

First I've heard of it but I'd echo the sentiments of the posters below in the article - why ruin a good thing?

woof

8,456 posts

306 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
someone else mentioned this a few weeks ago.
Staggered that they can ruin the excellent Graham Hill - seen of many of a successful and unsuccessful overtake. The proposed new corner will put an end to any overtakes as you'll be eaten up on Coopers.

JP is the only person behind this - he totally ruined Coram at Snetterton with a very similar constant radius extension.



Forbes82

812 posts

208 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
From what i've gathered its because the DTM guys want it as another overtaking spot.

Shame it ruins the flowing nature, and the best thing about Brands is that is does flow better than 99% of circuits. Hopefully enough fuss is thrown up about it untill the end of the season to make them reconsider, although it seems unlikely.

telecat

8,528 posts

270 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
My Opinion is that it should work pretty well. It will certainly enhance the "Short" circuit which is too "flowing". I think though the "original" profile should be retained as well as the new so that series that feel it would be detrimental to their vehicles can still use it.

BelperJim

2,505 posts

212 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
'Graham Hill' isn't the bend it once was. As long as they retain the track so it can still be used in the current configuration I can't see the problem

cptsideways

13,880 posts

281 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
It would be nice if that had'nt been drawn twith a ruler & the mug of off coffee they had in the office. A bit more natural flow would be nice!

Theres now a straight with a power/braking advantage leading up to the new section, as opposed to a best line/drivers corner which GH bend always was. Making the downhill section into it a constant bend into the section would be so much better.

Notshortnottall

Original Poster:

610 posts

213 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
I'm always curious of what sort of consultation is carried out when changes liek this are made. I suppose money talks in any eventuality though - and the average clubbie doesn't come fully equipped!

I've always enjoyed lining up for Graham Hill as if you got it wrong, put you on the back foot - but get it right and it would give you a great run at someone into Mclaren.

Just seems too clinical for my liking and I'd agree with earlier comment about Snetterton - I think that circuit has been completely ruined by it's "designed in a lab with a set-square" feel.

Count Johnny

715 posts

226 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
telecat said:
...I think though the "original" profile should be retained as well as the new so that series that feel it would be detrimental to their vehicles can still use it.
THIS, is a really, really good idea!

Scuffers

20,887 posts

303 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
still think it was better before the current layout....

playalistic

2,270 posts

193 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Count Johnny said:
THIS, is a really, really good idea!
Yes, and makes you wonder why they didn't decide to do this in the first place frown

kimducati

398 posts

193 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
cptsideways said:
Making the downhill section into it a constant bend into the section would be so much better.
Like it used to be before the current layout then?
Bring back 'Bottom Bend' I reckon.smile
Seriously though, the drawings being shown are only representative, not necessarily the final form of the layout.

Kim

DiscoColin

3,328 posts

243 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
If they do it then it will be bad news for track day traffic flow. As it currently is, slow traffic exits the corner on the right, leaving anyone behind in a faster machine a good opportunity to go inside and pass down the subsequent straight (on the left, on which you must pass on almost all UK track days). Consequently it is an ideal place to pass 'unhelpful' cars. The new layout will put them out on a blocking line on the left...

From a racing spectator's perspective I reckon that compared to the sample image, if would be better as an opening radius bend (to make it less of a pinch point), but that is just MHO.

Andy 308GTB

3,049 posts

250 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Forbes82 said:
From what i've gathered its because the DTM guys want it as another overtaking spot.
The same lot (IIRC) that caused the huge fencing to be erected on the entry to Druids?
The DTM get a good turnout at Brands and the tickets for that weekend are at the upper end of the pricing scale. So I expect BH would do much to retain the race.

Any change to Brands Hatch causes me concern but MSV and JP have done such a great job over the years, that I'm happy to give them the benefit of any doubt.

realjv

1,193 posts

195 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all

There was a brief interview with JP regarding the changes in Motor Sport magazine a couple of months back. Essentially he said they were looking at changes to the bend to aid overtaking but the layout shown on the planning drawings was for planning only and not finalised in any way. They may choose not to do anything at all but if they were to do anything they would need planning permission which can take soe time so they applied just in case.

Life Saab Itch

37,069 posts

217 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
realjv said:
There was a brief interview with JP regarding the changes in Motor Sport magazine a couple of months back. Essentially he said they were looking at changes to the bend to aid overtaking but the layout shown on the planning drawings was for planning only and not finalised in any way. They may choose not to do anything at all but if they were to do anything they would need planning permission which can take soe time so they applied just in case.
I would trust nothing that man says.

Chunkychucky

6,094 posts

198 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
still think it was better before the current layout....
yes much quicker bend and much more flowing than the current iteration

MonkeyHanger

9,267 posts

271 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
So who contacted English Heritage about getting Brands "listed" as a site of special historical interest then?. No doubt someone out there thinks this was a clever way to get these changes stopped, but it might just come back and bite them on the arse.

Full story in Motorsport News this week...

skeggysteve

5,724 posts

246 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Life Saab Itch said:
realjv said:
There was a brief interview with JP .....
I would trust nothing that man says.
Why?

He has done a lot of good for motor sport and has invested a lot of money in 'our' sport.

What's your problem with him?

designndrive62

801 posts

186 months

Thursday 8th March 2012
quotequote all
Obviously not many are in favour of this change but let's just be thankful that this is a thread about the development of the circuit and not about its closure as is the constant threat of so many tracks

thechosenfamily

332 posts

184 months

Friday 9th March 2012
quotequote all
designndrive62 said:
Obviously not many are in favour of this change but let's just be thankful that this is a thread about the development of the circuit and not about its closure as is the constant threat of so many tracks
Could not agree more whole heartedly