Sprinting Issues...

[Dan Friel]

Considering the rapid rise in circuit hire costs in the last few years, if some major clubs are now struggling to run race meetings, what hope is there for sprint events?? Hiring the Brands Indy circuit is now £32k. Castle Combe always seems fairly reasonable, but the entry fees that I’ve seen for Brands, Cadwell and Goodwood for instance are just barmy… Is there really a market for such costly events? It just seems to close the gap to the expense of racing, and track days become a very attractive prospect.. I can imagine “one off” events at certain circuits being very popular but can this be sustained over time??

Another sprinting issue that I’ve noticed over the years, is that various championships require that the best 10 or 12 scores count. Given the increase in entry costs, surely this practice should be confined to the bin? Having series where only 2 or 3 competitors score enough points surely devalues the championship completely??

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

Considering the rapid rise in circuit hire costs in the last few years, if some major clubs are now struggling to run race meetings, what hope is there for sprint events?? Hiring the Brands Indy circuit is now £32k. Castle Combe always seems fairly reasonable, but the entry fees that I’ve seen for Brands, Cadwell and Goodwood for instance are just barmy… Is there really a market for such costly events? It just seems to close the gap to the expense of racing, and track days become a very attractive prospect.. I can imagine “one off” events at certain circuits being very popular but can this be sustained over time??

Another sprinting issue that I’ve noticed over the years, is that various championships require that the best 10 or 12 scores count. Given the increase in entry costs, surely this practice should be confined to the bin? Having series where only 2 or 3 competitors score enough points surely devalues the championship completely??

Let me go through your points one at a time Dan.

1. Circuit Hire Fees: certainly they are going through the roof. The Circuit Owners will, quiet rightly, point to market forces as the cause but what is really happening is that they push the price up and if you don't pay then someone else will! The only way for sprints to get a toe-hold is if these events are treated differently by the planners - see below.

2. Entry Fees Rising: again market forces come into play. Last year I refused to enter the September Cadwell Sprint as I thought it failed to provide good value for money - it was the most expensive entry fee in the British Sprint Championship. However both days at Cadwell were not only full but had a list of reserves. I have no problem if people want to pay higher entry fees.

3. One-off Events: going back a few years the last sprint at Donington Park attracted a MASSIVE number of entries. Everyone got two practice and two timed runs plus there was a Sprint Championship Top 12 Run-off. The meeting didn't finish until after six and a lot of competitors swore they wouldn't go back! I think there is room for these 'one-off' meetings and they will be sustainable as an annual event. However the costs may eventually doom them all.

4. The Number of Rounds to Count: the MSA provide a simple table for clubs with suggested percentages for rounds to count. Clubs do not have to follow this table and several have introduced what they call Second Division Championships. The First Division is still along the lines of 9 out of 14 but the Second Division ones I have seen rate at any 6 from 14 - a far better percentage for the impoverished competitors.

One thing that I am aware of is that MSV have set-up their own Track Day Franchise and I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future the only trackdays at MSV circuits will be those run by their 'in-house' trackday company.

The other main problem facing the circuits are the local planners. Currently
ALL timed events are classed the same; so a sprint or a motorbike race meeting are looked on in a similar fashion by the local council. This includes the dreaded noise issues. It would be great for our sport if events at all race circuits were given one of three classifications: (a) race meetings, (b) single vehicle timed events - this would include sprints, rallies, autotests etc, and (c) trackdays. With the significantly lower noise levels from the single vehicle timed events it should be possible for the circuit management to agree far more 'competitive' days of motorsport. Once this is underway then the hire fees should also be able to be lowered - after all Jonathan Palmer did state that "I want our venues to be used more for motorsport".

[b1ackcr0w]

One question that's baffled me is why town councils don't see the business sense of using motorsport, specifically sprints, as a cheap promotional tool for their towns. Especially those towns where tourism is an important industry.

[Suze]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

Another sprinting issue that I’ve noticed over the years, is that various championships require that the best 10 or 12 scores count. Given the increase in entry costs, surely this practice should be confined to the bin? Having series where only 2 or 3 competitors score enough points surely devalues the championship completely??

Having recently been involved in discussions about the number of rounds to count, I don't have a problem with it. However, it all depends on the individual club - for example the one I belong to has a tourist trophy (ie some further events are recognised as "tourist" events and you get points for going to those) and a local trophy (ie the local events again can win you points for going to local events) and then there's the overall championship. Personally, as it isn't just "one prize," I don't have a problem with this however I do feel it's extremely important to listen as clubs to the competitor's opinions and gauge whether they feel the current limits are too little / too high etc.

There is the argument of "if it's 10 rounds to count from X the people who do 9 may be encouraged to do that one extra" however having recently looked at it for our club, it didn't seem to be the case depending where you put the bar. I personally plan on doing too few to make it worth doing the 10 necessary to be eligible (if I had a fighting chance of winning anyway which I don't...!).

[Dan Friel]

Currently ALL timed events are classed the same;

I didn't realise that was the case.. how to Combe get away with running sprints in addition to their permitted race meetings then? Perhaps the planning restiction is specific to racing in that instance. It's a similar case at Goodwood, where they run considerably more sprints than the 5 racing days that they are permitted. Is it really an issue??

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

I didn't realise that was the case.. how to Combe get away with running sprints in addition to their permitted race meetings then? Perhaps the planning restiction is specific to racing in that instance. It's a similar case at Goodwood, where they run considerably more sprints than the 5 racing days that they are permitted. Is it really an issue??

Combe have permission for X number of days motor racing. This covers everything!

The problem for the sprinters is when a club comes along with a fistful of readies and wants the sprint date most circuit managers give way and dump the sprint!

If the planning applications made a differentiation between the noise levels generated then the sprints, single venue rallies etc would have a lot easier access to venues like Castle Combe, Brands Hatch, Cadwell Park, Oulton Park etc.

[Pete Stowe]

Originally Posted by Steve Wilkinson

Combe have permission for X number of days motor racing. This covers everything!

Steve, that is NOT correct. Sprints at Combe are covered by a seperate planning permission to racing.

[Dan Friel]

Steve,

I believe that you think there is an issue where one doesn't actually exist. The restrictions at Combe and Goodwood do relate purely to racing, and no other activity. The danger here is that the sprint slots will get replaced by tack days (as those organisers may be able to offer higher fees).

With regards to Cadwell, Oulton and Brands, I was unaware that any planning requirements restrict the number of events per year.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

Steve,
I believe that you think there is an issue where one doesn't actually exist. The restrictions at Combe and Goodwood do relate purely to racing, and no other activity. The danger here is that the sprint slots will get replaced by tack days (as those organisers may be able to offer higher fees).

Dan, it isn't "tack days" that we need to worry about. There have been at least four occasions in the past five years where a date given to an organising club has subsequently been withdrawn because the venue got a better offer. All but one of these it was a race meeting that gazzumped the sprinters whilst on the other it was an 'event week-end' that took over the date.

I do not percieve track days as a direct threat to the dates at venues only as a threat to recruiting competitors to sprinting & hillclimbing.

Certainly the circuit owners/managers need to split the planning applications up so that there are seperate ones for (a) car racing, (b) motor bike racing, (c) single car events (e.g. sprinting & rallying), and (d) track days. The reason for this is simple if they are all lumped together the greater the risk of a rejection of the whole!

[Circuitmarshal]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

I didn't realise that was the case.. how to Combe get away with running sprints in addition to their permitted race meetings then? Perhaps the planning restiction is specific to racing in that instance. It's a similar case at Goodwood, where they run considerably more sprints than the 5 racing days that they are permitted. Is it really an issue??

The revival at Goodwood is out on it's own in terms of the council, it is a stand alone event.
There are extra restrictions before and after, as in seven days before and seven days after are quiet days, not even track days.
Other days are 5 or 10 car days, sprints and the rally being 5 car days.
As for circuit owners running their own track days Goodwood do as well as from last year.
Once you see how well attended they are if you own the facilities why let others make money and not you?

[Dan Friel]

Certainly the circuit owners/managers need to split the planning applications up so that there are seperate ones for (a) car racing, (b) motor bike racing, (c) single car events (e.g. sprinting & rallying), and (d) track days. The reason for this is simple if they are all lumped together the greater the risk of a rejection of the whole!

I’m still struggling to understand the issue with “planning”. It’s my understanding that only a few circuits have restrictions on the number of race events, and for those that don’t, why would they seek to change the current position?? There is simply no need to (in business terms). No circuit in their right mind would actively seek to divvy up their event restrictions as is suggested – it would be financial madness. I don’t believe that the sprinting community should be promoting such actions in a bid to protect their own variant of the sport.

Sprinting will always come second best to racing because the circuit “may” actually take some gate money with the later..

May be the MSA should require circuits to be open to sprint events at least twice a year? – but then could the clubs afford the circuit hire anyway??

I maintain that track days are a serious threat, as some of those companies do have the potential to pay for expensive circuit hire costs. I doubt that many clubs / speed events could afford to match these offers for the summer weekends which aren’t race days.

With regards to Goodwood, they have permission to have 5 race days (and they chose to only run 3) - the permission ins't specific in terms of it must be the "Revivial Meeting".