Rockingham Banked turn madness

[bt52b]

Anyone else fell it was wrong to run the BTCC through a banked corner with just a concrete wall on the outside.

Why has Rockingham not upgraded the safety on the banked corners? 'Safer (http://www.indycar.com/tech/safer.php)' barriers have been around for at least five years.

Wasn't it about 1995 when Magny Cours knocked almost all there concrete barriers and replaced them with armco?

If the banked corner safety is not improved, shouldn't there be a chicane before the corner, to stop the BTCC going through a dangerous corner.

Last weekend was a dark weekend in motorsport, luckily not at 'the Rock'.

[LiamM]

If the banked corner safety is not improved, shouldn't there be a chicane before the corner, to stop the BTCC going through a dangerous corner.


There is a chicane in the corner, but its too dangerous for cars to go through

[Khrest]

There is a chicane in the corner, but its too dangerous for cars to go through

Only because drivers insist on taking too much kerb.

[Hazell B]

They're drivers, they'll always take kerb if the corner's faster that way. Can't be avoided.

Would the alternative barriers be as safe for the people behind them (ie, me!) and who's going to pay for the work?

[Iain]

Didn't see a problem with them running that corner last weekend. I did fear what would happen when the fixture was announced, but all the drivers treated it with respect and it produced some good slipstreaming into the turn 2 hairpin.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It could have got nasty when there was oil on the track in race 1.

[PDS]

It could have got nasty when there was oil on the track in race 1.
It can get 'nasty' at any circuit when there's oil on the track!!

Rockingham is predominantly an Oval circuit. That's how they are built!

Have you not noticed all these Motorways that are currently being 'upgraded' and widened.. They all now have concrete walls in the middle! They have taken away the armco barriers that were there....

[racer69]

I thought the layout was fantastic, as mentioned provided some great action down to the hairpin.

More chicanery is exactly what we don't need....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I would have liked a camera on the inside apex of turn 1 and on the wall on the exit of the corner. I would give a true sense of speed. Who fast were they through there. Faster than church at Thruxton?

[PDS]

Around 90-100mph across the start line...145ish through turn 1.

[savage86]

I dont think the BTCC cars looked that quick at rockingham, however sitting so high up does mask the speed a bit. The worry would be a large impact in the drivers door at turn one.

I have seen Ascar's go off there at far higher speed and they have been fine, and pickup trucks.
I (think) the FIA dont like safer barriers or something like that. Anyway Rockingham wont have enough money to have them installed.

The problem is with tyre walls is if they put a temp one in turn one and a car hits it; It would explode tyres would go all in the track and the car would go flying back into traffic and maybe get collected by someone else.

While the walls at Rockingham will just hold a car there, Im sure none of the drivers mind racing is potentially dangerous always has been always will be.

[chloe_clio]

Would organisers have been allowed to put the race on there if it was unsafe? racing is a risky sport both drivers and spectators know that. i was sitting on turn one and outside the chicane and thought it provided the perfect conditions for the drivers to take advantage of the availabilty of speed and overtaking lines. think it was turkington that did an interview addressing the dangers of the wall on turn one and that care was needed from the drivers which all the drivers seemed to take.

[VXRDartford]

I was at rockingham as well and not even the clios got anywhere near the concreate walls and even if they did they are very safe nowadays it would have to take a very very big impact to even injure a driver. I am sure if the drivers thought it was unsafe they would not have raced. As it says on the ticket motorsport CAN be dangerous un can't make everything totally safe.

I hope it is back there next year as it is much better than silverstone

[thompp]

I'd like to see both Silverstone and Rockingham

[bt52b]

I was at rockingham as well and not even the clios got anywhere near the concreate walls and even if they did they are very safe nowadays it would have to take a very very big impact to even injure a driver. I am sure if the drivers thought it was unsafe they would not have raced. As it says on the ticket motorsport CAN be dangerous un can't make everything totally safe.

I hope it is back there next year as it is much better than silverstone

The cars are a bit safer, but not very safe. They haven't been crash test test approved. Side impact protection has hardly been improved in the last ten years.

All oval NASCAR and IRL circuits have SAFER barriers installed. Rockingham haven't been able to upgrade their safety. If the circuit doesn't upgrade, then you can't send people thru' a turn like that at full whack.

[BeeJ_UK]

I was marshaling at T3 at the Rock for BTCC. I do not think that there is a concern for saftey running around the full T1 and as said before it is better than having them run the whole of T4 of the oval and then have them running through that stupid chicane at T1.

The MSA have sorted of adressed saftey by saying that no road circuit can have 2 consecutive banked turns hence the stupid situation you get at the Rock where on the 1st lap they run the full T1 and T4 and then marshals have to run out on to the circuit and cone off the full T1 to force drivers to use the chicane.

[Mark]

Have you not noticed all these Motorways that are currently being 'upgraded' and widened.. They all now have concrete walls in the middle! They have taken away the armco barriers that were there....

That's due to a few issues, mostly to make sure that if a car crashes, it doesn't end up in the opposing carriageway, ask any officer who has to deal with incidents and they'll tell you that cross-overs are always the worst.

Another issue is with motorcyclists, they could get severe injuries on the armco and wire fences installed previously, with concrete they just scrape along it.

HGV's are also an issue, armco just wasn't an issue to them, but concrete will keep them on the road.

There are issues however with drainage and drifting snow etc, however. But I'm getting way off topic now :p

[Hazell B]

Plus the fact that armco's shot up in price and is stolen by the mile for reclaimation cash. Nobody nicks concrete blocks :)

Anyway, I still don't get why anyone would think the banked turns at Rockingham more dangerous than assorted turns at other tracks. There hasn't been a BTCC tour crash has there?

[thetrooper_uk]

Why are you all going on about it. That's the risk you take being in Motorsport. It makes the racing more exciting when you know the bravery of the drivers that push their cars to the limit. Why not put speed restrictions and big inflatable barriers up and while your at it why not stop them overtaking into the corners. Then it'll be more boring than F1

[Hazell B]

You haven't read the tread, have you?
Only one person is saying it's dangerous, the rest of us aren't :mark:

[Erki]

It's a little bit weird that Rockingham has no SAFER barrier though. I wonder how SCSA guys look at it... Hitting a concrete barrier is no joke. We saw it at Silverstone last year too.

[thetrooper_uk]

Yes I have read it and most are going on about having the concrete taken away and put a nice set of shiny barriers. Also if only 1 person says it's dangerous why is this thread so long. How many people does it takes to say it's not dangerous?

[acorn]

It's a little bit weird that Rockingham has no SAFER barrier though. I wonder how SCSA guys look at it... Hitting a concrete barrier is no joke. We saw it at Silverstone last year too.

not wierd at all. safer barrier was not in common use when the speedway was built. to retro fit it would cost a lot of money and with large oval racing in europe(don't forget eurospeedway lausitz) in a fragile state this cost would probably see the end of big oval racing here. the racers probably know this and accept that hitting the wall, though not desirable, is inevitable but the risk of serious injury has to be weighed against seeing the survival of a sport that you WANT to participate in. they know the wall is there and pay it the respect that it is due.

[71minus2]

The argument is valid (albeit on very flimsy and speculative evidence!) but definitely not supported by me!

It is well documented that on an oval using a solid barrier (Safer or just plain concrete) is the SAFEST way to contain a crashing vehicle.

If you want to argue safety then consider the use of Gravel Traps which opens the possibility of a car rolling if it enters at the right speed and the right angle. Is this more or less of a risk?

Richard