Letter in 'Motorsport News'

[Dave Brand]

Some of you may have seen a letter in this week's MN, under the title 'No value', whingeing about the August 20th Oulton meeting. Those of us who were there know just what problems we had & how hard everyone worked to ensure that the full programme was run. Accusations of 'thoughtless' & 'incompetent' organisation are, I think, totally unjustified. I've written a reply to MN giving what I hope is a more balanced view of the situation - watch this space!

Fuuny how all the best race officials, marshals, drivers, mechanics, etc., are all the wrong side of the spectator fences......

[Ian Sowman]

It was from a K&N Sports/Saloon driver - and also in Autosport last week.

Also worth noting that the K&Ns had more track time than they did in the previous round at Mallory - that race had only been reduced by one lap as opposed to eight minutes!

[ascarracinguk]

i dint see anything wrong with the organisation on that day..think we all did bloody well to get the full meeting in....

[Ian Sowman]

The full meeting was not run, though - the final race was cut short and that was the driver's point.

The main problem appeared to be lack of common sense (and possibly ability) from drivers in certain categories.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

It was from a K&N Sports/Saloon driver - and also in Autosport last week.

I thought the name was familiar, & did check in the programme; he must have been a late entry......hmmm, thoughtless?

Isn't it normal, or at least good manners, to declare an interest when writing to the press? I can understand his feeling badly done to, but whichever race was last was going to suffer the same problems.

[CombeMarshal]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Some of you may have seen a letter in this week's MN, under the title 'No value', whingeing about the August 20th Oulton meeting. Those of us who were there know just what problems we had & how hard everyone worked to ensure that the full programme was run. Accusations of 'thoughtless' & 'incompetent' organisation are, I think, totally unjustified. I've written a reply to MN giving what I hope is a more balanced view of the situation - watch this space!

Fuuny how all the best race officials, marshals, drivers, mechanics, etc., are all the wrong side of the spectator fences......

[Ian Sowman]

There could be more to it than merely the 'being on last' issue. Although I obviously knew he was a driver, I took it from the context of the letter that it was clear that he was. I will have another read!

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

The full meeting was not run, though - the final race was cut short and that was the driver's point.

I stand to be corrected on this, but weren't other races or practice sessions also cut short?

The main problem appeared to be lack of common sense (and possibly ability) from drivers in certain categories.

Exactly......so why accuse the organisers of incompetence? I don't remember race control telling the Sports 2000 driver to spread a sumpful of oil from Water Tower to Bailey Bridge!

[Ian Sowman]

I can't remember without checking, but I have a feeling other races only last time/laps if they were red-flagged, which of course is normal practice. I don't think the Sports/Saloons did anything wrong.

Couple of reasons why you could argue there was incompetence:

1) Allowing people to compete who didn't think to get off the circuit when they had an oil leak.

2) Attempting to run that schedule on the International circuit anyway - as you said, the last race was always at a significant risk. So there was too much action timetabled for that circuit. Would probably have got away with it on Fosters.

[ss_collins]

I was at a race meeting last week that chopped 7 races...

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

There could be more to it than merely the 'being on last' issue.

I suspect there may be much more to this than meets the eye - however, I'm not prepared to comment on that in a public forum.

Although I obviously knew he was a driver, I took it from the context of the letter that it was clear that he was. I will have another read!

Reading the last paragraph with that knowledge, yes. However, in the second paragraph, reference to 'those', competitors, 'their' entry fee, etc., does give a strong impression of a disinterested bystander.

Whatever the grievance, whatever the motivation, that letter contains some very serious allegations against a lot of people who were only doing a difficult job to the best of their abilities in a situation where any any decision would have been wrong for somebody or other; making such allegations without declaring an interest is a little bit naughty!

[Dave Brand]

Might as well let you know what I wrote:

>>As a marshal at the Oulton Park meeting on August 20th I saw no evidence of the 'thoughtless' or 'incompetent' organisation Martin Brockhouse complains about. What I DID see was a dedicated band of people working hard to ensure that a full programme, albeit with some races shortened, was run under very trying circumstances.

A lot of time was lost at this meeting because of several incidents, in both practice & racing, serious enough to require red-flagging; the biggest loss of time was caused by an enormous oil slick. I can't really see how any of these can be blamed on the organisers!

Despite all the problems, nine practice sessions & nine races were run, involving around 200 drivers - I'd call that pretty good value. Nobody was more disappointed than me that the K & N race was curtailed, but that it was run at all is a credit to everybody involved in clawing back lost time - it did look at one time as though we would lose it. I can't comment on the condition of the track, but I think it's fair to say that, with Oulton's very strict curfew looming, it came down to a simple choice, dress the alleged 'dangerously oily track' or cancel the race; not an easy decision.

Let's not forget that ALL the drivers at this meeting were 'lowly private competitors' - not just the K & N entrants; everyone who paid an entry fee got the opportunity to race.

I've marshalled at every BRSCC meeting at Oulton so far this year. The August 20th meeting has been the only one where any part of the programme has been in doubt; it's unfair to blame BRSCC or the MSA for a sequence of events over which nobody had any control. Uninformed, ill-founded criticism doesn't help in these circumstances.<<

Apart from possibly the last sentence, nothing too controversial there, I think!

[blue nose]

The problem on the day was drivers going out in ill prepared cars and dumping oil every were,the officals and marshals do an exellent job.

[badgeman62]

maybe mr brockhouse should do a days marshalling next time.

[Ian Sowman]

Now that is a little unfair badgeman62: he did not make any critcism of marshalling (which makes me think this thread should be elsewhere, but that is besides the point). Indeed, he noted that the organisation (as he saw it) compromised both drivers and marshals.

[Piglet]

Organisers, drivers and marshals will always have differing interests with regard to scheduling at race meetings. Drivers want to have as much time on track as possible as they've paid their costs of getting to and from the meeting. they don't want sessions cut short as they've paid to be there and want to race. Organisers need the income from the entry fees and this means that they have to run as many sessions as they can - this involves a compromise between what they can get into the programme whilst allowing time for predictable incidents. Marshals want to know that they will have an uncompromised lunch break (at least that's what many say vocally on here), and days that are not overlong. To me those three interests are always going to conflict as there is no real way of keeping everyone happy.

I haven't read the letter (don't buy the mags anymore) but if the guy has paid his entry fee then fundamentally he has a right to be a bit narked if he hasn't got what he paid for. Whether that is incompetence is clearly debatable, I do recall though other clubs who've run at Oulton being accused of this by the regulars when they've had to cut races short because of time lost to damaged tyre walls etc. - I'm not sure if that was the case at this meeting but Oulton does seem particuarly prone to red flags and damage that eat large holes into timetables.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Marshals want to know that they will have an uncompromised lunch break (at least that's what many say vocally on here),

Interesting comment - at the meeting in question the lunch break was compromised. However, hardly anybody complained, as we recognised the need to recover lost time.

I haven't read the letter (don't buy the mags anymore) but if the guy has paid his entry fee then fundamentally he has a right to be a bit narked if he hasn't got what he paid for.

I accept that: what is unacceptable is that he is slagging off 'the organisers' when the problems were all caused by things happening on-track.

Oulton does seem particuarly prone to red flags and damage that eat large holes into timetables.

That's the price you pay for a 'real' circuit - there just isn't the room for the big run-offs which the disused airfields enjoy!

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

That's the price you pay for a 'real' circuit - there just isn't the room for the big run-offs which the disused airfields enjoy!

And so that should have been taken into account when planning the timetable. It always looked optimistic, and perhaps less should have been squeezed in. Originally this meeting had been scheduled for Fosters (I think) where the content - including K&N Sports/Saloons, as a guest championship - could have been more easily accommodated. Hence there is some justification for levelling criticism at the organisation.

[Kicking-back]

Not having seen the letter - is the man "slagging off" anyone - or is he offering his opinion which happens to differ from other peoples?


And why do marshals get riled at criticisms of the organisers? Marshals are not the organisers.

[Gordon Knight]

The same driver sent a similar if not identical letter to Autosport Sept 1st issue
to which I have already repiled. My reply is printed in yesterdays Autosport
albeit much edited. Have checked the entries for all the K&N races this year and
Mr. Brockhouse has only entered two races other than the one in question, namely
one at Croft and one at Mallory. He was not an entrant at the extremely successful and entertaining 13 lap race at Oulton in April, 15 lap race at Oulton in June ,
and the 25 & 27 lap races at Anglesey in July, all of which were run by the same
officials crticised by Mr Brockhouse.

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

And why do marshals get riled at criticisms of the organisers? Marshals are not the organisers.

Marshals "get riled" as you so quaintly put it, when criticism is levelled at the home circuit they love - no matter where those criticisms are targetted. The average MN reader probably does not know the difference between an organiser, marshal or competitor and will simply lay the blame with the circuit.

However, thank you for advising us of the role marshals play in motorsport.

Marshals are as much a part of any event as anyone else and we're entitled to an opinion and feelings about it.

Now we return to the actual topic in hand.

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by Gordon Knight

He was not an entrant at the extremely successful and entertaining 13 lap race at Oulton in April, 15 lap race at Oulton in June ,
and the 25 & 27 lap races at Anglesey in July, all of which were run by the same
officials crticised by Mr Brockhouse.

I know there is some crossover of officials, but were some (if not all) of those not BARC-run meetings rather than BRSCC?

[Gordon Knight]

Yes Ian they were all BARC NW meetings but as you have rightly spotted virtually
the same officials officiate at both BARC NW & BRSCCNW meetings with one or
two exceptions.

[COLIN STUBBS]

slagging people off isnt going to get anyone anywhere. our marshalls are brilliant and mostly give it their all. a large number of racers are out there on a shoestring and spend every penny and a bit more besides on their hobby.im damn sure the guy never meant to slow things up so much with his oil leak and its not fair to assume his car was ill prepared.these things happen and the meeting was perhaps a bit over ambitious with the timing.iv been racing for years and the only times iv felt agreaved has been the attitude of a few officials who,instead of encouraging people to race,seem intent on stopping you.iv said this before in another thread,but i got picked on for a very small sticker on my rear window when two cars behind in scrutineering with most of their windows covered were passed.i digress,sorry!! its bloody annoying when a meeting runs out of time for whatever reason and not many people realise how much effort a private entrant puts in to do a race.sometimes it would be a good idea to move championships to the back of the programme when they cause stoppages on a regular basis..whatever,we re all out to enjoy our racing so lets stop grizzling and get on with it!!!!!!!!!!!

[COLIN STUBBS]

and of course the organising club would have given a rebate to all competitors that lost out due to their races being shortened. wouldnt they????????????