|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Feb 14, 2012 11:14:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Feb 24, 2012 14:22:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Organgrinder on Jun 22, 2012 11:29:01 GMT
A great event, as always. Short and intense track. Challenging because it's really technical, rather than because it's insanely fast, which I think is the way to go if we are all going to survive. Dick's video of the fastest run of the day is here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Bc0TVLrUoMany thanks to all who were involved in running the event. We'll be back next year with a new trophy for sidecars.
|
|
|
Post by brillo451 on Jun 25, 2012 16:40:07 GMT
If this was Facebook I would LIKE the the last Comment...!
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Jul 19, 2012 10:51:00 GMT
A great event, as always. Short and intense track. Challenging because it's really technical, rather than because it's insanely fast, which I think is the way to go if we are all going to survive. It's a hard thing for me to say, having set up and run Cairngorm Soapbox Extreme for the last 4 years, but I think you're right about that. Even with the reduced speeds at Cairngorm this year ( only 60+mph...), there was still a massive two vehicle crash which ended up, yet again, with a driver heading off to Raigmore Hospital in the back of an ambulance. Someone has ended up in hospital after every race and it is an absolute miracle that nobody has been more seriously hurt. We've been very lucky up until now, but sooner or later that luck is bound to run out. I don't think it's possible to run CSEx in its current format without spending a huge amount of time and money on extra track and spectator protection, significantly increased number of marshals, robust and effective crowd control, vastly improved build quality and strength for the carties and a far more detailed and technically competent scrutineering process. I don't think we have the resources for any of those things. I think it's time to call it a day while everyone is still more or less in one piece and move towards slower and more technical courses.
|
|
|
Post by Organgrinder on Jul 20, 2012 14:06:46 GMT
I will be sorry to see the demise of Cairngorm Soapbox Extreme, but I quite understand where Stephen's coming from and support his decision. We are all amateurs and those of us who organise events do so willingly for the love of our sport and because we like to see smiles on the faces of our friends. I know from my experience as an organiser that the worry that one of my friends, or come to that a complete stranger, could be seriously injured at an event I have organised preys on my mind. I struggle to sleep for days before tBelchford and my first reaction when the last run on the course has finished is always "Thank God we've got away with it again this year".
There's a balance to be struck however, because most competitors really get a buzz from speed and from refining their carts to make them faster. In recent seasons this has seen a focus on aerodynamics from the faster teams, which has resulted in speeds rising - you have only to study the times achieved by sidecar outfits this year, compared with last to see how rapid progress can be.
We can still get the adrenaline rush from speed on tighter courses, without having to hit really high velocities, which is where I am sure the risk of serious injury increases significantly. I am certain that at Cadwel we were actually travelling a lot faster than we were at Catterline, but the tight and bumpy course at Catterline creates the illusion of great speed, whereas the open spaces and smooth surface at Cadwell are much less of an assault on the senses. On of the tracks at Cadwell was made a challenge by using the bike chicane, effectively creating a more "technical" track, that required balls to drive without braking, but the alternative track there when we last raced was pretty straightforward and if you were lucky with your draw you were more likely than not to win. Racing on that track was fun, but not really an adrenaline rush.
I know some drivers hate artificial chicanes, but they are an easy, quick, safe and cheap way of altering a track that would otherwise be too quick for reasonable safety. They keep ultimate speed at a level that is reasonably safe and introduce a skill and daring element that is arguably absent from a drag race type course, where the best cart will generally win. The introduction of a chicane near the top of the course at Belchford has changed our event from a drag race into one that rewards skill, but it still requires a "high tech" machine to win. When it was introduced the chicane had the effect of reducing top speeds recorded by at least 10mph and, perhaps perversely made the course far more challenging and exciting for the drivers.
From an organiser's point of view, the design freedom that comes with the use of artificial chicanes allows us to change our course from year to year and fine-tune it to maintain safety, even to the extent of having different settings for wet and dry races.
All food for thought and I'm sure there'll be lots of people who don't agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Jul 20, 2012 16:41:44 GMT
After putting a lot of thought into a great many things, I must admit I've refined my views on chicanes too. They can be useful in some circumstances - if you want to add technical difficulty or to keep speeds low for instance. Belchford and Catterline are good examples of this. But using them to slow racers down after they've got up to high speeds is problematic - especially if it's in the context of a race where there are 4 carties trying to do exactly the same thing at the same time.
Chicanes were considered for CSEx. They seem at first to offer an easy solution, but they are problematic for several reasons. The main issues are;
1. They rely on the good sense and judgement of the drivers to be effective. Experience suggests that these commodities are in short supply when the "red mist" descends.
2. Chicanes are accident magnets. They should not be used on high speed sections of a course, since carties do not react well to being asked to simultaneously decelerate hard and change direction, and especially so when trying to avoid or pass other carties. The Switch is effectively a high speed chicane - braking from 50mph down to around 30 - and that is where the majority of accidents have happened (although far fewer after we introduced "the numpty cone"). Adding high speed chicanes means adding more hazards like The Switch. i.e. adding more accidents and hence more risk of injury. Chicanes need to be used on relatively slow sections of the course to keep speeds down, not on high speed sections where they will inevitably cause more accidents. In order to reduce speeds to a reasonable 50ish mph on the fastest section - between Dead Tree and the Allt Mor Bridge - we would need a whole series of chicanes between Sugar Bowl and Alpha.
3. Chicanes require extra barriers, and hence more expense and more manpower needed to manage them. Money and volunteers are always in short supply. CSEx always struggles to find enough marshals and has never managed to cover its costs.
4. Chicanes cannot be set out until the road is closed and must be removed before it is opened again. We have the road closure from 6pm until 11pm, and rigging up/removing the chicanes would take out at least 40 minutes of race time.
5. The chicanes would need to be moved to allow the tow vehicles up and down the track, and then put back for racing. They would also need to be reset after collisions. This would require several marshals assigned to this task.
In summary - they are of questionable effectiveness in reducing risks at CSEx, will require more marshals, more expense (passed on to the teams) and more work, and will give us less time to race. Teams would need to pay higher entry fees and give a greater commitment to providing manpower to assist the event in return for less racing and at lower speeds.
It's not really a vote winner, to be honest.
You're right about there needing to be a balance between reasonable safety on the one hand and the drivers' desire for excitement on the other. However, I think there is no middle ground between what is necessary for "as low as reasonably practicable" risks at Cairngorm (stronger carties, higher build quality requirements, even lower speeds top speeds, better spectator management, more marshals etc) and where the teams seem to want to be (70mph+ racing with minimal restrictions on what they can build and a laisse faire approach to scrutineering). I just don't see how that circle can be squared.
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Jul 20, 2012 23:18:11 GMT
This discussion on Cairngorm Extreme seems to have hijacked the Catterline Carties thread. Would it not be better moved onto a new thread?
|
|
|
Post by Organgrinder on Jul 24, 2012 7:58:25 GMT
My comments, made on 20 July, were not specifically intended to offer a solution to the technical problems of CSEx, but were intended to address the evident conflict between the desire for an exciting challenge and sensible levels of risk. Having reviewed several threads, it seems that competitors really enjoyed the Screwfix races last year, even though speeds were low
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Jul 24, 2012 9:58:54 GMT
Organgrinder wrote: I am not sure if there is an actual conflict as much as a desire to try out new things and achieve differing objectives. The main objective being to attain a buzz and have fun. As an example, may I remind you of one of your previous posts where your objective was at the opposite end of the spectrum. ;D This unfortunately posted at a time when my personal concern was to try to mitigate a perceived risk of running Sidehacks with Carties in the same race. I didn't relish the prospect of running over some prone Monkey going into the Switch. However circumstances change and Sidehacks have progressed and gained such an advantage over carts that conflict could take place on any part of the track. There are issues to be addressed as there always are following an event such as CSEx but at the moment until Stephen has published his report and finalised the SCA accounts further discussion on CSEx is somewhat pointless and could well be counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Jul 24, 2012 10:31:10 GMT
Since your imagined prone monkey is no less likely to be hit by another sidehack, the logical conclusion of your personal issue with sidehacks is that they only be allowed to race in time trials on a clear track. Similarly, since a cartie striking another cartie in the track and injuring the driver is no less likely, all cartie races would have to be time trials too.
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Jul 24, 2012 13:57:53 GMT
In reply to Catterlinecartie: I don't have a personal issue with Sidehacks and at the time in question I believe there were several teams who had genuine concerns on the idea of running two different classes in a head to head race. Regarding the comment: The two scenarios are quite different in that cart drivers have the protection of a seat harness, roll bar and some measure of protective bodywork. The reason for my initial post was simply to point out that perhaps it would be better to move discussion on CSEx to a new thread and to urge those who might feel like joining in to consider if this was the best time to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Jul 24, 2012 16:02:02 GMT
Sorry - I misunderstood your use of the expression "my personal concern". My mistake.
Cartie drivers do indeed "have the protection of a seat harness, roll bar and some measure of protective bodywork", and yet you know fine well that that is not enough to prevent potentially life threatening injuries when they are turned on their side and hit by another cartie.
I would argue that all the permutations are almost identical. If head to head racing between carties and sidehacks is too dangerous, then racing sidehack v. sidehack and cartie v. cartie is too dangerous too. I think it would be extremely difficult to make the safety case for allowing one and not the other.
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Jul 24, 2012 16:59:08 GMT
Catterlinecartie wrote : . Not really your mistake as the author making a point needs to ensure the reader gets the intended message. The message I am trying to get across is that in my opinion now is not the time when a discussion on these topics will produce the best results for cartie racing in general.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Jul 26, 2012 9:00:13 GMT
This is a public forum and I'm perfectly entitled to express my opinion. I don't agree that this is any better or any worse than any other time to discuss anything.
I can't help noticing that you're ducking the question; do you still believe there is an unacceptable risk in racing sidehacks alongside carties, and if so how do you make the safety case for disallowing it while still allowing cartie v. cartie and sidehack v. sidehack?
|
|
|
Post by Organgrinder on Jul 31, 2012 9:59:38 GMT
Who are we trying to kid?
I don't think any of us who compete really expect to be able to race (or time trial) carties or sidehacks at high speeds without there being some risk of us getting hurt. I can't think of any other sport involving vehicles, whether motorised or not, that doesn't involve a degree of risk. I go mountain biking and regularly fall off, sustaining varying degrees of injuries. I control the risk to a level I consider to be reasonable by wearing a helmet and sometimes, depending on the nature of the trail I'm riding, I wear pads on my elbows, but I don't expect to escape from a crash without some damage to my person. My wife has decided that mountain biking is too risky for her liking and she doesn't do it - that's fair enough, in my view.
My friends who go mountain biking have suffered broken legs, hips, collarbones, wrists, etc, but they accept that these injuries are part and parcel of their chosen sport. They quickly return to riding when their injuries heal and they don't seek to blame anyone else for their accidents. They certainly don't expect the people who build the trails they ride on to make them free from risk - in fact they would cease to be fun if they did. Similarly, we can't expect to eliminate risk from our sport, but we can, and in my opinion should, seek to control it to levels that, as individuals, we consider to be reasonable. In the case of Dick and myself, we decided Cairngorm was more dangerous than we considered was reasonable for us on our sidecar outfit, but other people have different machines and different views as to what is a reasonable level of risk for them to take on.
In a nutshell, the point I'm trying to make is that we are all adults and nobody forces us to do what we do. Sidecars and soapboxes have different levels of risk attached and the degree of risk varies enormously between different events. If you judge any particular race too dangerous for you, I would suggest that you stay at home that weekend and go to the pub.
If you don't accept that what we do has to carry some risk of getting hurt you are really taking part in the wrong sport and should take up dominoes.
|
|