bcoleman - 14 May 2008 11:08 AM

And yeah I know people sign "waivers" relieving the track/promoter of responsibility. Most lawyers that I have talked to say 99% of "waivers" aren't worth the money it costs to print them.

Spot on. My wife is an attorney and she told me the same thing when we went skydiving.

ilthomson - 14 May 2008 11:26 AM

bcoleman - 14 May 2008 11:08 AM

And yeah I know people sign "waivers" relieving the track/promoter of responsibility. Most lawyers that I have talked to say 99% of "waivers" aren't worth the money it costs to print them.

Spot on. My wife is an attorney and she told me the same thing when we went skydiving.

They can sign anything, you are still responsible for your actions.

bcoleman - 14 May 2008 11:08 AM

More to the point, if you don't like gravel traps try Armco. You can't drive out and rejoin the race - you can't drive at all.

There you go, people quickly forget or never knew just how dangerous things were! The b###hing about gravel traps just makes me laugh. Amputation by armco wasn't a myth it was reality just a few short years ago. For the tracks that don't want to spend money on safety upgrades, do a cost analysis on what a nice wrongful death/negligence lawsuit can set a track back. And yeah I know people sign "waivers" relieving the track/promoter of responsibility. Most lawyers that I have talked to say 99% of "waivers" aren't worth the money it costs to print them. Making steady progress thru the years on areas of concern should be a primary part of any track's business plan.

This is what I am referring to as far as Loudon - again, I haven't been there in a while but it used to look like an Armco farm.

ilthomson - 14 May 2008 11:26 AM

bcoleman - 14 May 2008 11:08 AM

And yeah I know people sign "waivers" relieving the track/promoter of responsibility. Most lawyers that I have talked to say 99% of "waivers" aren't worth the money it costs to print them.

Spot on. My wife is an attorney and she told me the same thing when we went skydiving.

Wow, that feels good to know.

ilthomson - 14 May 2008 10:42 AM

motoho - 14 May 2008 10:15 AM

It isn't the same thing at all. We're not talking about routine maintenance, but MILLIONS of dollars in improvements. What did Laguna spend $6 million the first year? And it wasn't good enough for MotoGP so they had to spend more.

Do you really think that tracks make enough on track days to pay for that? When they don't make enough at large events?

Also, car guys were complaining about the gravel traps at Laguna because they can't run off and get back in the race. They aren't seen as a great thing by all racing organizations.

The basic principles are still the same. If you neglect maintenance and safety improvements for several years, it will quickly turn into a multi-million dollar expense.

Yamaha footed the bill for most of the improvements at Laguna, not SCRAMP, so that isn't the best analogy IMO.

And if you don't like the gravel traps...try staying out of them.

The basic principles are not the same. Constantly maintaining a track is a given. Dropping $5-10 million in one year is not. In order to improve the safety, they'll have to do a little at a time.

I'm well aware of who paid for the Laguna track improvements, but I don't understand what difference it makes. The point was that it costs a lot of money to make those improvements all at once. Money that these tracks don't have. (A point proven by the Yamaha/Laguna deal. Yes, I know SCRAMP is a non-profit.) Do you think they make a $5 million profit on an AMA race?

garyb425 - 14 May 2008 10:51 AM

hi-zoot - 14 May 2008 09:32 AM

i've just been trying to help you out. my bad, shoulda realized you don't need any help.

Appalling, but I really DON'T need help. I am sitting here talking to a former racer and he thinks the concept of 600s only being faster in corners of 50 or less to be hilarious - so it isn't just me.

well there ya go. that should work for ya then

motoho - 14 May 2008 10:15 AM

Ducati Rules - 13 May 2008 08:39 PM

motoho - 13 May 2008 09:34 AM

Track safety is certainly important, but it's a lot more difficult than people realize. It's a huge investment for the track with essentially no return on that investment. .

No return on investment???? That is like saying once I build a track I will never update anything because there will be no return on investment. The return on investment is the continuation of the races they currently have and the prospect of attracting additional events (other races, track day events, auto racing, etc.....)

A track owner needs to promote their venue just like any other business and improving the facilities is one way to promote their venue.

In simple terms if I build a commercial building and I don't keep it up or improve amenities over the years I will lose tenents and over time my building will fall into decay, a track is the same thing.

It isn't the same thing at all. We're not talking about routine maintenance, but MILLIONS of dollars in improvements. What did Laguna spend $6 million the first year? And it wasn't good enough for MotoGP so they had to spend more.

Do you really think that tracks make enough on track days to pay for that? When they don't make enough at large events?

Also, car guys were complaining about the gravel traps at Laguna because they can't run off and get back in the race. They aren't seen as a great thing by all racing organizations.

There are currently maybe 3 tracks that are 'safe', Barber, Miller and Laguna. Do you think the AMA can run an entire series on those?

I'm not saying that these tracks have to do anything and I do understand that it is a lot of money. But the tracks willing to make the investment are going to get the additional events.

Just look at the world superbike round, I am sure other than the three tracks you mentioned there weren't any others considered because they wouldn't meet various requirements. All I am saying is if those other track owners want to attract these other events they will have to put some money into improving their facilities.

Just look at Indy, they made changes to their course layout as well as repaved sections of the track to host the Moto GP race. They were obviously able to figure out the economics to get it done.

As far as the track day comment it is all about economics. A race track is basically an asset and the more it gets utilized the more money it can produce. So if you have 2 large events a year then you have 359 other days to fill and try and generate income (I am assuming the large events are 2 weekend races). It's all about maximizing income and profit. Instead of leaving all those other dates open you fill them with track days, tire test, etc.... just to generate income and pay the bills. Otherwise you still have to pay the bills and have no income. If you are good at it then over time you generate enough profit to make improvements to your track.

In my opinion DMG is trying to write the rules so they don't have to worry about track safety and therefore they can race anywhere they want. I would rather see a series run by the rules they think will make good racing and work with the tracks that want to host the event to develop a plan to improve any issues they have (safety, capacity, traffic, etc....)

If the tracks never get challenged to make improvements then what is the motivation to do so?

motoho - 14 May 2008 12:50 PM

The basic principles are not the same. Constantly maintaining a track is a given. Dropping $5-10 million in one year is not. In order to improve the safety, they'll have to do a little at a time.

That's the whole point. Too many tracks aren't making the small improvements year in and year out. They neglect them for several years, someone gets hurt (Miguel at Road Atlanta for example) and the next thing you know, you have to drop $5 million plus to keep racing coming back to your venue.

motoho - 14 May 2008 12:50 PM

Do you think they make a $5 million profit on an AMA race?

Obviously not, don't be ridiculous. But the AMA had nothing to do with it. They only made all the improvements once the possibility of hosting a MotoGP round came about.

ilthomson - 14 May 2008 06:10 PM

motoho - 14 May 2008 12:50 PM

The basic principles are not the same. Constantly maintaining a track is a given. Dropping $5-10 million in one year is not. In order to improve the safety, they'll have to do a little at a time.

That's the whole point. Too many tracks aren't making the small improvements year in and year out. They neglect them for several years, someone gets hurt (Miguel at Road Atlanta for example) and the next thing you know, you have to drop $5 million plus to keep racing coming back to your venue.

motoho - 14 May 2008 12:50 PM

Do you think they make a $5 million profit on an AMA race?

Obviously not, don't be ridiculous. But the AMA had nothing to do with it. They only made all the improvements once the possibility of hosting a MotoGP round came about.

Adding gravel traps is not a small improvement. Many of the tracks are making small improvements like adding runoff, you just don't hear about it.

Ducati Rules - 14 May 2008 05:54 PM

I'm not saying that these tracks have to do anything and I do understand that it is a lot of money. But the tracks willing to make the investment are going to get the additional events.

Just look at the world superbike round, I am sure other than the three tracks you mentioned there weren't any others considered because they wouldn't meet various requirements. All I am saying is if those other track owners want to attract these other events they will have to put some money into improving their facilities.

Just look at Indy, they made changes to their course layout as well as repaved sections of the track to host the Moto GP race. They were obviously able to figure out the economics to get it done.

As far as the track day comment it is all about economics. A race track is basically an asset and the more it gets utilized the more money it can produce. So if you have 2 large events a year then you have 359 other days to fill and try and generate income (I am assuming the large events are 2 weekend races). It's all about maximizing income and profit. Instead of leaving all those other dates open you fill them with track days, tire test, etc.... just to generate income and pay the bills. Otherwise you still have to pay the bills and have no income. If you are good at it then over time you generate enough profit to make improvements to your track.

In my opinion DMG is trying to write the rules so they don't have to worry about track safety and therefore they can race anywhere they want. I would rather see a series run by the rules they think will make good racing and work with the tracks that want to host the event to develop a plan to improve any issues they have (safety, capacity, traffic, etc....)

If the tracks never get challenged to make improvements then what is the motivation to do so?

Surely, you aren't bringing Indy into this. They lost the F1 event and wanted to add MotoGP. The sanction fee difference alone could pay for the improvements. Any track that can afford to pay an F1 sanction doesn't belong in this conversation.

Laguna is busy EVERY day of the year, except Christmas. They still had to find someone else to pay for the improvements.

Obviously if they want to attract a World Championship race, the tracks would have to make safety improvements. They also have to pay a multi million dollar sanction fee and build garages. It isn't a small undertaking and there isn't a guaranteed profit. I don't think this country will support any more World Championship Events.