CCC and bedford autodrome
17 February 2003, 10:29 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is anyone going to write to CCC and give our side of events as basically CCC are saying that its all the owners fault that they didn't make sure their cars met the published limits
as i understand it the limits on the day where lower than those published
as i understand it the limits on the day where lower than those published
)
18 February 2003, 03:17 PM
#4
My letter to CCC
Hello Steve/Mike,
I am writing to you in reference to an article published in the March 2003 edition of CCC magazine with reference to the trackday that took place at Bedford Autodrome. The article is factually incorrect in many ways and I feel it is important for readers of your magazine to be informed of the true events of the day. As a long time reader and an occasional contributor (I organized a test session for mark hales to drive some GT cars, plus you featured some prototype engines I helped build) to your magazine I was very disappointed to see this article published in the way it was.
Your article states that the day was organized by scoobynet, this is not correct. The day was organized by the SIDC (Subaru Impreza Drivers Club).
Your article also states that some of the cars had to leave due to their “performance exhausts” and this meant that those remaining had more track time. This is incorrect, as everyone lost track time, almost the entire morning, due to the decisions made by Bedford Autodrome.
Your article also states that the noise levels are published before arrival at the venue and that the decision to remove certain participants from the track was firm but fair. I would like to point out to you that indeed the noise limits are published on the Bedford autodrome website, however the noise limit applied retrospectively on the day was lower than the published limit. The website says there are two noise tests, one static at 101db (A) and a drive by limit of 87.5db(A). http://www.clubautodrome.com/track_day_faqs.htm#noise
The basic events of the day were as follows.
On arrival all cars were given a static noise test, no car failed the 101db(A) limit.
In the track briefing drivers were informed that the GT track they paid for was closed due to construction work, and a shorter track format was to be used.
Cars were allowed on this shorter track configuration, some of the local residents complained about noise.
All driving on track was stopped.
Jonathan Palmer made the decision to drop the drive by noise limit from 87.5db(A) to 85db(A) and then retest each car individually, not allowing the owners of the cars to drive them, but only allowing the track instructors to drive customers cars, this was not well received but people still allowed this. This process took considerable time with each car being individually driven past the noise meter by an instructor.
Some of the cars failed the revised, lower noise limit and were refused access to the track and told to go home.
One car in particular, an XTR2 Westfield, the first customer built XTR2 with a factory test driver in attendance paid for by the car owners to carry out a shakedown, failed this revised noise limit by just 0.5db(A) and was still refused access to the circuit. This car was well within the published noise limits yet was refused access to the circuit due to the decision of Jonathan Palmer to change the conditions of participation during the day.
The cars that did pass the test were allowed onto the circuit, however the track was again shortened to keep cars away from the village where complaints were made. This meant that the drivers who were still running on track received a much less challenging drive than they paid for, and some drivers received no track time at all.
This is clearly in breach of all published information available to participants in advance and is far from fair.
I think it is very important that your readers are informed of the facts with regards to driving at Bedford Autodrome, and the possibility that they may be refused access, even with a vehicle that meets all published limits. Your article is not a true reflection on the day’s events and I would appreciate that you retracted this in your next publication. I have been a keen participant in your magazine for many years because it has strived to be factually correct and support the amateur racer/enthusiast, this article falls short of your usual standards and does not inform your readers of the possible problems they may face at Bedford should they choose to attend.
The events of the day are well documented on a thread on scoobynet, I suggest you read this in its entirety. http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=155166&Page=1
The outcome of Bedford Autodromes customers questioning Jonathan Palmers decisions and reasoning in his decision has led to the banning of SIDC track events from his venue. This can be read at http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=158060
Yours sincerely
John Felstead
Hello Steve/Mike,
I am writing to you in reference to an article published in the March 2003 edition of CCC magazine with reference to the trackday that took place at Bedford Autodrome. The article is factually incorrect in many ways and I feel it is important for readers of your magazine to be informed of the true events of the day. As a long time reader and an occasional contributor (I organized a test session for mark hales to drive some GT cars, plus you featured some prototype engines I helped build) to your magazine I was very disappointed to see this article published in the way it was.
Your article states that the day was organized by scoobynet, this is not correct. The day was organized by the SIDC (Subaru Impreza Drivers Club).
Your article also states that some of the cars had to leave due to their “performance exhausts” and this meant that those remaining had more track time. This is incorrect, as everyone lost track time, almost the entire morning, due to the decisions made by Bedford Autodrome.
Your article also states that the noise levels are published before arrival at the venue and that the decision to remove certain participants from the track was firm but fair. I would like to point out to you that indeed the noise limits are published on the Bedford autodrome website, however the noise limit applied retrospectively on the day was lower than the published limit. The website says there are two noise tests, one static at 101db (A) and a drive by limit of 87.5db(A). http://www.clubautodrome.com/track_day_faqs.htm#noise
The basic events of the day were as follows.
On arrival all cars were given a static noise test, no car failed the 101db(A) limit.
In the track briefing drivers were informed that the GT track they paid for was closed due to construction work, and a shorter track format was to be used.
Cars were allowed on this shorter track configuration, some of the local residents complained about noise.
All driving on track was stopped.
Jonathan Palmer made the decision to drop the drive by noise limit from 87.5db(A) to 85db(A) and then retest each car individually, not allowing the owners of the cars to drive them, but only allowing the track instructors to drive customers cars, this was not well received but people still allowed this. This process took considerable time with each car being individually driven past the noise meter by an instructor.
Some of the cars failed the revised, lower noise limit and were refused access to the track and told to go home.
One car in particular, an XTR2 Westfield, the first customer built XTR2 with a factory test driver in attendance paid for by the car owners to carry out a shakedown, failed this revised noise limit by just 0.5db(A) and was still refused access to the circuit. This car was well within the published noise limits yet was refused access to the circuit due to the decision of Jonathan Palmer to change the conditions of participation during the day.
The cars that did pass the test were allowed onto the circuit, however the track was again shortened to keep cars away from the village where complaints were made. This meant that the drivers who were still running on track received a much less challenging drive than they paid for, and some drivers received no track time at all.
This is clearly in breach of all published information available to participants in advance and is far from fair.
I think it is very important that your readers are informed of the facts with regards to driving at Bedford Autodrome, and the possibility that they may be refused access, even with a vehicle that meets all published limits. Your article is not a true reflection on the day’s events and I would appreciate that you retracted this in your next publication. I have been a keen participant in your magazine for many years because it has strived to be factually correct and support the amateur racer/enthusiast, this article falls short of your usual standards and does not inform your readers of the possible problems they may face at Bedford should they choose to attend.
The events of the day are well documented on a thread on scoobynet, I suggest you read this in its entirety. http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=155166&Page=1
The outcome of Bedford Autodromes customers questioning Jonathan Palmers decisions and reasoning in his decision has led to the banning of SIDC track events from his venue. This can be read at http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=158060
Yours sincerely
John Felstead
Please post the response here if you get one 
18 February 2003, 04:10 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MY99UK-MY02STi-MY99Type R-MY06 T20-MY11 340R-MY05 TYPE25
Posts: 11,468
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
John,
I can now see why you Totally dis-agreed with my post. Sorry I just went with the flow and had no idea they changed Test specs.
I do just try to ignore things, stay mellow or I'll get infuriated and bite big time
Tony
Living in a world of his own
I can now see why you Totally dis-agreed with my post. Sorry I just went with the flow and had no idea they changed Test specs.
I do just try to ignore things, stay mellow or I'll get infuriated and bite big time
Tony
Living in a world of his own
Trending Topics
18 February 2003, 05:07 PM
#9
i have recieved a response from the editor of CCC magazine as below.
Thought I'd reply personally your email to give you an instant reply.
Firstly, my apologies for printing inaccuracies, or not telling the entire
story as you guys saw it. Your letter will be published in the April issue
of the mag, to set the story straight and clear up any confusion.
The review itself was written by a freelance contributor, not a permanent
member of staff. And because no-one from the mag was actually at the event,
we (back in the office) were not aware of what happened that day. As is the
case with all freelance contributions, we have to believe what our
representatives report from an event, and in this case, we had no reason to
believe anything other than what the freelancer had written in the feature.
In an ideal world we'd be able to check up every fact published with the
original source, but with a small editorial team that's simply impossible.
However, as you rightly comment, CCC prides itself on its ability to deliver
the truth to its readers, and to give a fair account of every
situation/test/race etc. I'm glad you took the time to write to us, because
it gives us the chance to tell the story of the Bedford day from the angle
of a participant.
Again, my apologies if the article caused any upset, and we'll be looking
into the situation at Bedford further. That noise level you describe does
seem a bit extreme for a circuit dedicated to track days and circuit
experiences.
Thanks again for your comments, and please feel free to write to us whenever
you feel the need. We welcome any feedback, positive or negative.
Regards,
Steve Kirk
Editor
Cars & Car Conversions
Tel: 020 8774 0673
Visit http://www.cccmagazine.com to download movies from CCC track tests and
try out free engine management software. Plus, save 20 per cent on a one
year subscription to your favourite mag...
Thought I'd reply personally your email to give you an instant reply.
Firstly, my apologies for printing inaccuracies, or not telling the entire
story as you guys saw it. Your letter will be published in the April issue
of the mag, to set the story straight and clear up any confusion.
The review itself was written by a freelance contributor, not a permanent
member of staff. And because no-one from the mag was actually at the event,
we (back in the office) were not aware of what happened that day. As is the
case with all freelance contributions, we have to believe what our
representatives report from an event, and in this case, we had no reason to
believe anything other than what the freelancer had written in the feature.
In an ideal world we'd be able to check up every fact published with the
original source, but with a small editorial team that's simply impossible.
However, as you rightly comment, CCC prides itself on its ability to deliver
the truth to its readers, and to give a fair account of every
situation/test/race etc. I'm glad you took the time to write to us, because
it gives us the chance to tell the story of the Bedford day from the angle
of a participant.
Again, my apologies if the article caused any upset, and we'll be looking
into the situation at Bedford further. That noise level you describe does
seem a bit extreme for a circuit dedicated to track days and circuit
experiences.
Thanks again for your comments, and please feel free to write to us whenever
you feel the need. We welcome any feedback, positive or negative.
Regards,
Steve Kirk
Editor
Cars & Car Conversions
Tel: 020 8774 0673
Visit http://www.cccmagazine.com to download movies from CCC track tests and
try out free engine management software. Plus, save 20 per cent on a one
year subscription to your favourite mag...
18 February 2003, 05:16 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: In the garage or in bed
Posts: 7,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one John lets see what they put in next months CCC appart from your letter.
And lets see if JP puts any input into it!!!
Huxley
[Edited by Huxley - 2/18/2003 7:20:05 PM]
And lets see if JP puts any input into it!!!
Huxley
[Edited by Huxley - 2/18/2003 7:20:05 PM]
19 February 2003, 12:46 PM
#17
Thanks Craig
I have just recieved a mail from CCC again, i think there is bound to be a response from Bedford to this. I look forward to seeing what they have to say.........
in order to give JP and Bedford Autodrome the right to reply to your letter, we've had to carry it over to the May issue of the mag, out in the shops April. Just thought I'd let you know. We have to do this for legal reasons.
Regards,
Steve
I have just recieved a mail from CCC again, i think there is bound to be a response from Bedford to this. I look forward to seeing what they have to say.........
in order to give JP and Bedford Autodrome the right to reply to your letter, we've had to carry it over to the May issue of the mag, out in the shops April. Just thought I'd let you know. We have to do this for legal reasons.
Regards,
Steve
19 February 2003, 01:09 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Scoobysport, Basildon, UK
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done John
I was trying to take a very diplomatic line over the event but it was clear that when JP rang me it was to tell me that we were banned, not to discuss a way forward.
The more people who know about our treatment on the day the better.
I was trying to take a very diplomatic line over the event but it was clear that when JP rang me it was to tell me that we were banned, not to discuss a way forward.
The more people who know about our treatment on the day the better.
19 February 2003, 02:19 PM
#19
Hi Pete, Thanks.
Just to let you know, i have mailed CCC and suggested they contact you to allow you to give the SIDC's opinion on the events that took place, on what was an SIDC organised trackday.
[Edited by johnfelstead - 2/19/2003 2:20:51 PM]
Just to let you know, i have mailed CCC and suggested they contact you to allow you to give the SIDC's opinion on the events that took place, on what was an SIDC organised trackday.
[Edited by johnfelstead - 2/19/2003 2:20:51 PM]
19 February 2003, 06:28 PM
#22
what do you mean matt? If you mean post this information up, then i dont contribute to those boards so dont know the history there re this event.
I have no objections to you copying my letter or the responses recieved onto other BBS's though. Just mail me the links if you do that please.
I have no objections to you copying my letter or the responses recieved onto other BBS's though. Just mail me the links if you do that please.
19 February 2003, 06:37 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt, I suspect that putting it to Evo would be a waste of time, with them now using Bedford to test their cars I don't think they will be keen to listen to negative comments about it.
19 February 2003, 06:46 PM
#24
ah, you meant the magazines.
No, my letter was in response to an article written in CCC. My aim is to have an inacurate article corrected, that is what is important to me.
No, my letter was in response to an article written in CCC. My aim is to have an inacurate article corrected, that is what is important to me.
19 February 2003, 11:07 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Derby, land of road legal race cars.
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow John,
thanks for sorting out the facts. I haven't got this issue of CCC yet but I look forward to reading the account of the day.
I don't really want to get back into thinking about the finer details of the day - needless to say as the joint owner of the Westfield XTR2 I really wished I could have driven.
I did actually speak directly with JP at the autosport show on trade day. He has actually offered Craig and I the chance to return to the circuit in order to carry out noise tests and testing free of charge and look for ways of getting the car within their operating limits. The conversation was quite brief - but it shows he wants to try. I guess its in his interest to ensure as many cars can attend the complex. The unfortunate thing is our car was within the published noise limits - just not the revised ones we all had to work with on the day.
I look forward to reading CCC and also Palmersports response.
CCC is a great magazine - hopefully Mr Hales will want to pilot our XTR2 in this years trackday car of the year when its completed its current transformation.
Thanks again John
Ian.
thanks for sorting out the facts. I haven't got this issue of CCC yet but I look forward to reading the account of the day.
I don't really want to get back into thinking about the finer details of the day - needless to say as the joint owner of the Westfield XTR2 I really wished I could have driven.
I did actually speak directly with JP at the autosport show on trade day. He has actually offered Craig and I the chance to return to the circuit in order to carry out noise tests and testing free of charge and look for ways of getting the car within their operating limits. The conversation was quite brief - but it shows he wants to try. I guess its in his interest to ensure as many cars can attend the complex. The unfortunate thing is our car was within the published noise limits - just not the revised ones we all had to work with on the day.
I look forward to reading CCC and also Palmersports response.
CCC is a great magazine - hopefully Mr Hales will want to pilot our XTR2 in this years trackday car of the year when its completed its current transformation.
Thanks again John
Ian.
20 February 2003, 01:27 PM
#27
The conversation you had with JP is bizarre, what noise limit does he want you to comply with Ian? You already comply with all published levels.
Your car has the same setup as the factory XTR2 that has run there before, still has the cat and silencer in place. The only real way to lower the noise your car emits now, is to silence the inlet by using a closed airbox and remotely located inlet or by soundproofing the bodywork, you arent going to do that by spending the day sat in front a microphone at Bedford.
Even if you were to take all pre fabricated components with you, what noise level will you be aiming for? you are already quiet enough based on published figures.
It sounds like the guy is still in denial that you meet his limits as published, he certainly wouldnt accept that in the main thread on this topic.
Anyway, i am really glad you got the car to donington and gave it a shake down safely there, that was a great achievement for a first attempt at building a car from scartch, especially so when you had no manuals to work with and were gineua pigs for Westfield.
Your car has the same setup as the factory XTR2 that has run there before, still has the cat and silencer in place. The only real way to lower the noise your car emits now, is to silence the inlet by using a closed airbox and remotely located inlet or by soundproofing the bodywork, you arent going to do that by spending the day sat in front a microphone at Bedford.
Even if you were to take all pre fabricated components with you, what noise level will you be aiming for? you are already quiet enough based on published figures.
It sounds like the guy is still in denial that you meet his limits as published, he certainly wouldnt accept that in the main thread on this topic.
Anyway, i am really glad you got the car to donington and gave it a shake down safely there, that was a great achievement for a first attempt at building a car from scartch, especially so when you had no manuals to work with and were gineua pigs for Westfield.
20 February 2003, 04:52 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John you missed the most important fact.
We knew absolutely **** all and are total monkeys who don't know one end of a spanner from the other
God knows what it'd go like if someone who knew what they're doing did it
We knew absolutely **** all and are total monkeys who don't know one end of a spanner from the other
God knows what it'd go like if someone who knew what they're doing did it
20 February 2003, 06:35 PM
#29
I was being kind Craig.
In all seriousness, i think you both did a remarkable job, i would be very happy to have built that car to the same standard. If i was worried, i wouldnt have lapped Donington in 1min 20secs first ever run the car had on track.
In all seriousness, i think you both did a remarkable job, i would be very happy to have built that car to the same standard. If i was worried, i wouldnt have lapped Donington in 1min 20secs first ever run the car had on track.
