QR Fails To Meet CAMS Safety Requirements

[PVDA]

You need to remember that only two events a year are held under CAMS Sanctioning at QR, the V8's & Shannons Nationals.

You'll likely find the V8 Testing and Ride Days held at QR isn't even done under the CAMS Insurance scheme either so technically CAMS cannot mandate the set up at those days.

[Razor]

Always felt a little unsafe at that circuit ever since a Mini did some gymnastics into the crowd back in 2010.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by PVDA

You'll likely find the V8 Testing and Ride Days held at QR isn't even done under the CAMS Insurance scheme either so technically CAMS cannot mandate the set up at those days.

Exactly, and I bet Whinchup is there with bells on to flex his ever increasing ego, and the track is safe enough then, bloody hypocrites

[Casper]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Story Here

How can this happen?

The Headline is wrong, it should read

QR Does Not Care If It Does Not Meet CAMS Safety Regulations

There is fairly big gap between the two. reading between the lines he is saying...If you V8 Supercars want to race here you make it meet the regulations on your dollar because it is not worth my money to do so. Let the mutiny begin!! He is not blaming anyone and it is not V8 SC's fault it is a financial decision taken by the circuit owner. he does not say he does not want them to run but he is saying it is up to them if they want to spend the money as they did at the previous race meeting. Obviously this has been subject to discussion way before the story emerged with the wrong headline.

[Trevor]

QR will continue to hold events under AASA, CAMS are out of touch with grass roots motorsport, they are trying to get there, but they have a way to go

In saying that, NOTHING should ever compromise safety

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Trevor

QR will continue to hold events under AASA, CAMS are out of touch with grass roots motorsport, they are trying to get there, but they have a way to go

In saying that, NOTHING should ever compromise safety

I really don't think CAMS are out of touch but that is another conversation altogether. This appears to be a pragmatic decision purely on financial grounds made by the circuit owner. It is also the first time (that I know of) that a circuit owner has put to V8 SC that to run at a circuit venue they have to ante up with dollars instead of him paying them and if they want the race. I guess the concept is a bit foreign to V8SC apart from Sydney which is a totally different thing being a street circuit. I guess time will tell and it will be interesting to see where it goes. I wonder if V8SC TV obligations include a set number of broadcast races, if this were the case they may have to ante up or find another venue PDQ.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Casper

I really don't think CAMS are out of touch but that is another conversation altogether. This appears to be a pragmatic decision purely on financial grounds made by the circuit owner. It is also the first time (that I know of) that a circuit owner has put to V8 SC that to run at a circuit venue they have to ante up with dollars instead of him paying them and if they want the race. I guess the concept is a bit foreign to V8SC apart from Sydney which is a totally different thing being a street circuit. I guess time will tell and it will be interesting to see where it goes. I wonder if V8SC TV obligations include a set number of broadcast races, if this were the case they may have to ante up or find another venue PDQ.

As I have said I have been an insider from a track owners perspective, and as I have said before fox them to **** off as well, V8SC now hire the track and run it themselves

Trust me, you really have no idea what goes on behind the scenes

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Trevor

As I have said I have been an insider from a track owners perspective, and as I have said before fox them to **** off as well, V8SC now hire the track and run it themselves

Trust me, you really have no idea what goes on behind the scenes

I have been in and around the admin of this sport for quite a few decades and still am. I do not pretend to be a circuit owner (I nearly was once) but I can well imagine the arm twisting etc that inevitably happens. I have never understood the concept of someone paying the V8's a fee for them to appear, if they want to entertain at a venue they should hire the track and make it work. If I as a promoter bring an act to a city I have to hire a venue and stand the overheads and cop the profit from the gate take. it appears that SC take the view that they are not responsible if a promoter makes a loss even if what they bring to the venue is not good enough or what the spectators want to see. Apparently QR is now taking the view that SC can pay to make it work.

[spook]

Casper - Please pay attention ! - For your information, V8SC have hired QR to run the round of the championship for many years. V8SC are the promoters of the round and set their own circuit safety "standards" with advice from CAMS "experts".

JT is upset they are blaming him for having to spend money that he sees as unsuitable and less safe and inferring there are problems where none exist. QR staff/JT know the circuit better than anyone, and do not hesitate to make changes to improve safety - that is a fact !.

It is in the best interests of QR and it's customers to make the circuit as safe as possible, and they work very hard to achieve a safe circuit, but no one can guarantee an accident will never happen.

I cannot imagine any circuit owner ANYWHERE, who would save $ where circuit safety could be improved. If you honestly believe that someone would operate a business and put his customers at risk beyond what is "reasonable", you need a reality check.

[Trevor]

well said spook, some people think they know everything . . . . . . .

[GTRMagic]

Meantime Erebus is testing at QR tomorrow

[spook]

Of course the V8's will continue to test at QR - it is the safest circuit for them in Queensland !.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Trevor

well said spook, some people think they know everything . . . . . . .

Yes, and one of them owns a racing circuit.

Personally the views of the FIA on safety equipment matter more to me than John Tetley.

Anyway it his is decision entirely, he can choose not to run events with CAMS and therefore to run a piece of equipment that is basically untested, but he firmly believes in.

This is where the story starts and ends. V8Supercars thought it pertinent to offer an option, lest they run into a liability issue for contractually forcing a team to test at a venue that no longer has adequate safety, in their, of the governing body of motorsport in Australia's eyes.

[spook]

Ah Mixer, the equipment has been tested at QR, and it works. Go back and read what JT has said.

But sadly, the FIA and CAMS are not the slightest bit interested.

You would think in the interests of safety they would investigate any proven technology, but if it comes from the USA or Australia, it seems the FIA have already made a decision.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Meantime Erebus is testing at QR tomorrow

and under AASA (not CAMS) coverage I can almost guarantee

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Personally the views of the FIA on safety equipment matter more to me than John Tetley.

the FIA were lukewarm in their interest on the 'safer barrier' when the Indianapolis Motor Speedway was developing it weren't they?

Just because CAMS/FIA aren't interested in something does not make it unsafe.

[Trevor]

Racing officialdom is not that pro-active in Australia, CAMS forgets that they are a member organisation and as such MUST represent the views of their members, but they are too busy sucking up to the big end end of town as that is were they derive their income!!!

Yes they need to represent the views of the FIA, but they also need to represent their members

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by spook

Ah Mixer, the equipment has been tested at QR, and it works. Go back and read what JT has said.

But sadly, the FIA and CAMS are not the slightest bit interested.

You would think in the interests of safety they would investigate any proven technology, but if it comes from the USA or Australia, it seems the FIA have already made a decision.

If their barrier is so good why don't the try for FIA and NASCAR approval?

[fomoco]

In theory the barrier system that is used at QR and Lakeside it works, if it is set in the right position. That is not against a solid wall but 5 metres away. The idea is to impede the speed of the car and wrap around it.

Like all safety barriers, it depends on the angle of contact. If the barrier is against a solid wall, it will not work, if the barrier is set at 10 metres, and then another behind it at 5 metres before a solid wall, then it should in theory work.

I have actually built these barriers and, seen the remains of one after contact by a car coming of the circuit.

Like all things in Newtons law of motion, they are as good as you can get if every thing is aligned.

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to said forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarised as follows:

1. First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3]
2. Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object.
3. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

So if John does intend to send his Barrier design to FIA , then good luck to him .

As I said, I have built them, and seen the end result, but it all depends on the directional contact of a car coming of a circuit. These barriers should not be placed against a solid, but , set up in such a way to retard the speed of the vehicle if it happens to leave the black stuff.

That is the design principle in my view.