Well what does he say??

Phil G

 

Sorry I don't buy the CCC 'Mag' so can someone post up the artical are we all still banned from Bedford ??

I hope we are all going to 'Kiss and make up' sorry but I love happy endings

Tony,

Who ws also there that day

 

Read Palmers reply in CCC. Couple of points I couldnt work out.

1, Where did he spend 1,000,000 on the circuit? New hospitality suites, pits, etc.

They are the same as last years.

2, This sum was spent on his CIRCUITS!!!!

How many does he own?

Dan

 

I was there and i really want to hear his side of the story,

I travelled a 600 mile round trip for that day, only for it to decend into total confusion, without so much of an appology,

is it still all our own fault??

Phil G

 

Can some nice person paste up the reply please.

Ian

 

I am quite prepared to type up his reply verbatum...it is quite long....however before doing so can one of the moderators/webmaster confirm there will be copyright issues in so doing

Steve

 

Steve,
Good piont

Phil,
I also did 550 mile round trip and spent 2 nights in Hotels there adding to the local economy and beer shares

Tony

 

I think the gist of Jonathan's reply was that certain people that were well over the limit tried to take the p1ss by lifting off the throttle whilst passing the circuit noise meter, and probably wouldn't have passed the original limit, never mind the revised one - that then spoilt it for everyone

As I said previously there were some genuine hardship cases though.

Didn't everyone that didn't get a run get a refund anyway?!

Still, the SIDC might be banned, but I shan't be in my VX220 Turbo when I go to Bedford in June on a freebie courtesy of Vauxhall - it was the right time to ditch the STi


[Edited by Dave T-S - 4/15/2003 9:45:44 PM]

 

Dave, between you and 5 Chins, you keep Subaru UK in business.

Hope you and Mrs Muppet are good.

Dan

 

Dan
Not any more mate, I got fed up with lining Swatman and co's pockets - Carolyn's STi went a month ago, and mine goes tomorrow - the hack (the Seat Leon Cupra) has around 1500 miles on now, and my VX220 Turbo STi eater is on the Lotus production line being built as we speak, should collect it in around 10 days

We are fine, ta, hope you are too, let us know when the next shooting day is as I only come over here occasionally to cause mischief these days

 

I knew a few SIDC members there and IMHO none were taking the 'Mick' out of the noise Regs.

There wasn't Std exhausts being taken off after static noise testing and then running 'Firestorm' type ones on the track if there were spare 'quite exhausts' there, there wouldn't have been an issue the 6 exlcuded ones back onto the track. (The Bedford guys did the static tests checking RPM and then later drove our cars around the track past the noise meter so, we were unable to influence the tests)


I did half a trackday but paid for a full day. The whole day cost me around £800 with fuel/hotel/insurance/. I haven't asked for a refund, I never slated Mr. Palmer off, excepted the Marshels decissions on best way to get most out onto the track ( I didn't know they lowered the noise limit though.) Yet I am Banned

Tony

 

Richie.

 

Dave, its YOUR turn to organise a shoot.

Dan

 

Tony
Which is my point that the minority spoil it for the majority

 

Dave,(sorry not picking on you)

I can't honestly say how, the 6 failed cars, passed the static and then failed the Drive by Test. The static test might be not be so relevent to very high performance cars ( I don't class my STiPPP in this) once pulling high loads and very high RPM (Bike engine) seems loads more inductionand exhaust noise

Maybe Mr Palmer could as a standard, do a general Static test say a low 92db, any cars deemed 5krpm is under 50% of full RPM or over 92db do a Drive-by dynamic noise Test up to, say 96db this would then only involve a small amount off time consumming drive-by Tests. At least everyone going there will know the score is

I personaly believe, and hope, no SIDC members there did nothing sinister to get past the static Tests.

The other piont I was trying to make was the 'SIDC' isn't 'SCOOBYNET' and 'SCOOBYNET' isn't the 'SIDC'

Perhaps I am just a simple country lad and too trusting and just being rolled over by city slickers LOL

Surely time to move on

 

Well done John, Mr Palmer I beleive has a tendancy to throw his rattle out of his pram, good on you for sticking up for the guys, lets hope he see's sense and allows the SIDC back to the Autodrome, I mean after all it is a race track for gods sake.
Cheers
Colin

 

Dr Jonathan Palmer states in his reply

“although cars had technically passed the noise limits, a number had done so by cheating the system by not using full throttle, revs or boost past the monitor”

“in view of the lack of trust in some participants integrity in complying with the principle of our noise limits, I did indeed decide that all cars should be re-tested at an 85db (A) level – just 2db (A) lower – to provide a margin.”

“It was a shame that a few noisy cars disrupted the day for the many that were well within the limits.”

“I am committed to making Bedford Autodrome the best circuit in the country for corporate motorsport events and track days for those who wish to comply with our noise limits and respect them”

No surprises there, according to Dr Palmer you are cheats, untrustworthy, have no integrity and have no respect.

CCC did not print my letter in its entirety and did not print the fact the SIDC have been banned from Bedford. CCC stated they would look into the noise limits further, as posted in the email from the editor. There is nothing in CCC to that effect.

 

i remember reading this fiasco but i wasnt there to see it. Is it my understanding that the drive by tests were undertaken by Palmers boys themselves, if this was correct then how can he say:

“although cars had technically passed the noise limits, a number had done so by cheating the system by not using full throttle, revs or boost past the monitor”

“in view of the lack of trust in some participants integrity in complying with the principle of our noise limits, I did indeed decide that all cars should be re-tested at an 85db (A) level – just 2db (A) lower – to provide a margin.”

And if this is the case then is he defaming or slandering (im no expert on this as u may tell )? Is he leaving himself open to a court action by the people hes 'possibly' slurring the character of?

 

any lawyers in the house? I wouldnt want to comment further on the afair, i said all i had to say in the first threads.

 

LOL
I look forward to the court action - you lot with only a few brass farthings to rub together, and JP who might not be short of a bob or two.

I get involved in corporate litigation on a frequent basis, and golden rule no.1 is don't get involved in litigation if you cannot afford to lose and pay both sides' costs

If Bedford is so bad, why not just put it behind you and go somewhere else?

I ask the question again, has anybody asked Bedford for a refund (lately) for the day in question and been refused it?

[Edited by Dave T-S - 4/16/2003 10:00:55 PM]

 

I have put it behind me Dave, i wont be using that venue again irespective of how suitable it may or may not be. I dont spend my money with people who change the rules as and when it pleases them and then doesnt respect people when they have genuine greavences.

It is an interesting question a lawyer could answer though. Just curious

 

I am not a lawyer but I would venture that it would be difficult to pursue defamation claims when no-one was specifically named...the persons involved are only referred to by inference.
In addition you would need to demonstrate that 'damage' has ocurred.
Just my view
I have a personal view of JP emanating from his time in F1 then rallycross...I would not swell his coffers...there are plenty of alternatives
Steve

 

He might be a hot racing driver, but he has no idea how decibels work
By my reckoning, 85dB(A) is about 60% of 87dB(A).

 

Useless


My granny could drive better


Huxley