Yet more fencing at Brands Hatch

[Greem]

I'm pretty sure that was said with the advent of winged cars, the implementation of Armco barriers instead of straw bales, mandatory wearing of seat belts/helmets/race suits etc, Juan Pablo Montoya entering any series he's ever been in (insert the name of any controversial driver there for any reason), over the FISA/FOCA war, the closure of Brooklands... pretty much any change to the racing world.

Ask yourself this: if (let's hope not) a spectator or photographer *does* get hit, injured or killed - what do you think the reaction will be? It'll be much worse than a few people saying "I'll never watch racing again", that's for sure.

[Gingers4Justice]

I'm 17. I've never seen a Grand Prix, or Le Mans, Champ Car race or indeed any significant international or national motor race without watching from behind catch fencing.

The motor racing world you guys grew up in will forever be lost to me and my generation. I was brought up on Group C videos, classic car magazines, 80s Grand Prixs my parents had taped and so on - and so that's the motor racing I fell in love with.

Many of you are resenting the new generation of OTT safety, a sport with less risk than chess, spectator viewing several yards from the "action", the destruction of diversity and innovation through one-make series' and the gradual silencing of the brilliant sound of the racing car - but at least you were around before it was like that. I've seen some of that world, but I've been growing up with a motor racing world which continues to sell its soul and lose the magic it used to have.

The people that run motor sport now seem to have no understanding of why so many people used to love motor racing. People didn't attend the 1950 British Grand Prix worrying about the emmisions from his Alfa, or arriving dissapointed that they'd spent their money and they weren't watching behind a football pitch of gravel and a catchment fence.

I agree you need a certain level of spectator safety, as McNish's crash proved at Le Mans - but whenever something like this at Brands Hatch happens, you're always left wondering how far it's going to go.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I'm 17. I've never seen a Grand Prix, or Le Mans, Champ Car race or indeed any significant international or national motor race without watching from behind catch fencing.

.......


I agree you need a certain level of spectator safety, as McNish's crash proved at Le Mans - but whenever something like this at Brands Hatch happens, you're always left wondering how far it's going to go.

That's a very interesting post given a large generation gap between us on an age basis.

This morning, whilst looking for other images in the archives, I stumbled across some scanned B&W frames I took at Brands Hatch and Silverstone when in my mid teens. You need to see the details in the scans to fully appreciate what they show and the files are far too large to post anywhere.

But there are the straw bales, the wooden stake and wire fencing, the straw bale(s) to protect the marshals and other officials, a few earth banks woth advertising banners pegged over them and large crowds.

OK, the Silverstone shots are a GP meeting and the BH shots are a BOAC sports car race so not exactly clubbies but even so ...

Of course back then there was no TV coverage to speak of and when film was available it would typically be heavily edited (for Pathe news or somwone) and not great quality. Now you may be better off at home for that sort of event with much live coverage and in car feeds.

I suppose that with a decent AV sound system and good neighbours you just might be able to experience something of the noise factor that goes with 'noisy' meetings these days but used to be an experience for all meetings.

And then there are the associated smells of exotic fuels, hot racing oils, burning brake pad materials and tortured rubber. You have to pick meetings quite carefully to get those experiences these days but those are things the TV crews will have some difficulty recreating for remote viewers.

But back then the business model for racing was rather different and encouraging people into the circuit was an important part of that for nearly all the parties involved. These days only a few organisers seem to be that concerned about the gate take. BTCC and BSB seem to be the gate builders for purely domestic punters. F1 charges so much money that organisers who don't have a backer or sponsor with bottomless pockets are forced to maximise the headcount through the gates to stay afloat.

Back when the Stock Car guys had City based stadia to race in all around the country with evening meetings normal there seemed to be healthy crowds turning out to enjoy the event. In some ways the fences added to the ambience of those sorts of meetings. But in their most successful periods the Stock Car organisers had a good grasp of the way to make the events quite effective in an urban marketplace. The nett cost of attending was not great for anyone living locally.

So the gladiatorial model works when the spectators can walk there and expect to need protection in a compact environment. I think people have different expectations when out of town. Once in a while they will accept the containment for a well promoted product (whether it gives value or not is a personal assessment.) If that product also happens to be re-assuringly expensive they might blow a large proportion of their annual spectating budget on being there, to the detriment of other organisers and meetings as far as gate take goes.

I'm guessing that once you get below a certain level of gate income it becomes uneconomic to set up any sort of operation to sell tickets.

So long as the clubs, through their competitors, are paying enough for the hire of the circuit and are happy with the arrangement there is not the need or likely worthwhile additional return from promotion of the meeting. Except, that is, for certain large meetings where one might see an opportunity for significant extra income - and then the series organisers (and their masters, the FiA) gain the upper hand to push for any modifications they deem desirable to protect their 'product' from adverse publicity. If that means they feel the need to introduce wild animals to the circus but then cage them so they can't get into the audience ... then that is what they will try to do.

I can't see the current trend changing direction unless something remarkable happens. Total financial meltdown might result in a re-think but the broader consequences are too unpleasant to make it a supportable option.

G4J - pick your circuit visits carefully and enjoy being unfenced for as long as you can.

[Samoan Attorney]

Bizarre, some of these posts.

Like any other business operating within the EU, MSV have to carry out risk assessments on a regular basis, it is part of Health & Safety legislation.

Given the evidence that has been posted here about cars getting airborne on the approach to Druids it is hardly surprising that additional protection has been put in place for spectators. Anyone getting hit by a car would be reaching for the ambulance chasing lawyers to get some form of compensation. Any serious incidents would be subject to a criminal investigation. Avoiding getting sued or incarcerated is the motivation for the management to spend money to protect the paying spectators, not spoiling their view.

MSV rightly enjoys a good reputation for improving its circuits for those who attend its events. JP is very hands on and his example has raised standards at the MSV tracks in most aspects. Anyone who can remember the old style of catering or even worse, the old toilets, would surely agree.

I too have some images from the first sportscar race I attended, back in 1971. I posted one or two on my blog when marking the 40th anniversary of Pedro Rodriguez' passing.

Have a look at the second image HERE and note where the photographers are standing on what must be lap 2 or 3.

Times change.

A Porsche 917 had zero protection for the driver's feet which were out in front of the wheels. No crashbox, only an oil cooler between the driver and the walls or barriers. Getting in one that is parked up still gives a feeling of vulnerabilty, as I said times change.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Samoan Attorney

Bizarre, some of these posts.

I thought it was just me!

Originally Posted by Samoan Attorney

Avoiding getting sued or incarcerated is the motivation for the management to spend money to protect the paying spectators, not spoiling their view.

...that and maintaining the licences that it has from the various governing bodies.

[rocketcar]

I think what would be great is gaps in the fence (like those for tv cameras) close to the track, but small enough so a wheel couldnt go through it but a chance to give an uniterupted shot for the amateur photographers. When i went to spa in 2007, the green fencing down to the bus stop chicaine had such gaps and is a great compromise.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by rocketcar

I think what would be great is gaps in the fence (like those for tv cameras) close to the track, but small enough so a wheel couldnt go through it but a chance to give an uniterupted shot for the amateur photographers. When i went to spa in 2007, the green fencing down to the bus stop chicaine had such gaps and is a great compromise.

There are several places around Spa with 'Official' (and some unofficial) 'camera slots'. Most of the official slots are in fences a long way above the track and so the fencing at those locations might be as much to stop people from tumbling down to the edge of the track as to stop flying debris. Whilst a wheel might bounce that high but typical debris at that height would be more likely to be smaller fragments and they could be small enough to pass through any fencing.

However the chances of that are small and probably represent a lower risk than, say, riding a bicycle along a cycle lane. Something that is unlikely to be restricted in the near future as far as we can foretell.

The only problem with the slots is that even on averagely busy days they can be fully occupied and one family with several kids and no camera easily fills the slot - especially along that section above the esses whch is popular being close to most of the amenities.

From my point of view I welcome the forethought but found they were mostly about 6 inches too low for anyone of my (average) height. Not something my ageing back would welcome for an extended day. So a good idea but may benefit from further adaptation.

However the only place I have yet found an official slot for photographers (or more likely in this case videographers) in this country is at Silverstone in th area of the new complex that, at least in theory, is usually considered a 'no spectator' zone. It seems to exist for the use of official media people but the snap opinions of those around it seemed to be that it was not an ideal position despite the stepped rostrum provided.

In terms of risk at that point - maybe some if they were using the southern circuit (or whatever it is called) but for most events on the full circuit I can't see anything making it that far even if they were travelling in the right direction.

Of course not having anything in the way of the lens is only part of the concern for a decent snap. Having a half decent background behind the subject is also a consideration. At lesst most of the fence at Spa attempt to blend in somewhat with the surroundings. I'm not sure how easily that could be achieved at most UK tracks.

[Greem]

There's at least one 'tog gap (with a "window" that can be closed) overlooking Clearways at Brands, so given the precedent JP might be convinced that another one would be nice in the new fence. That said, it would probably have to have been designed in rather than retro-fit.

Anyway - I'm with GrantP on the "they get blocked" problem. Last visit I made to Brands there was a particularly aggressive, very large male spectator with an obscenely long lens on a spectacularly expensive camera who made it clear to those of us "amateurs" (note that he wasn't in a media bib and was behind the fence...) that we weren't allowed to shoot through there. Charming chap. I mentioned his attitude to a member of security staff as I walked back round towards the start line... they weren't very happy about it. Watching from a distance he was just as awkward with them as he had been with everyone else, until they obviously told him he could move or leave. He moved.

It only takes one. I'm glad I spend more of my time on the track side of the fence than spectating, anyway

[Paddockman]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I'm 17. I've never seen a Grand Prix, or Le Mans, Champ Car race or indeed any significant international or national motor race without watching from behind catch fencing.

The motor racing world you guys grew up in will forever be lost to me and my generation. I was brought up on Group C videos, classic car magazines, 80s Grand Prixs my parents had taped and so on - and so that's the motor racing I fell in love with.

Many of you are resenting the new generation of OTT safety, a sport with less risk than chess, spectator viewing several yards from the "action", the destruction of diversity and innovation through one-make series' and the gradual silencing of the brilliant sound of the racing car - but at least you were around before it was like that. I've seen some of that world, but I've been growing up with a motor racing world which continues to sell its soul and lose the magic it used to have.

The people that run motor sport now seem to have no understanding of why so many people used to love motor racing. People didn't attend the 1950 British Grand Prix worrying about the emmisions from his Alfa, or arriving dissapointed that they'd spent their money and they weren't watching behind a football pitch of gravel and a catchment fence.

I agree you need a certain level of spectator safety, as McNish's crash proved at Le Mans - but whenever something like this at Brands Hatch happens, you're always left wondering how far it's going to go.

From one so young a simply brilliant post. If I could I would take you back to those days just to see the smile on your face. Well said.

[Paddockman]

Originally Posted by Piglet

I thought it was just me!



...that and maintaining the licences that it has from the various governing bodies.

Yes but (I hope I'm not wrong) but that is your opinion from the standpoint of a marshal. Yes you all do a great job but YOUR enjoyment of the job/sport you love is not so much under threat, although give it 10 years and I think your position might change as well. What I am saying is (And I have to be carefull as this forum is run by marshals) is these spectators who in my opinion should be given the same amount of respect for their views, are each year having the sport they love ruined by constantly far reaching safety measures.

Now I don't want to see spectator casulties or the like but where do you say enough is enough. Yes governing bodies want to take all measures possible at all times to protect absolutely everyone but they never seem to take into account how these measures will affect the enjoyment of the trackside experiance. If say for instance it was deemed too dangerous to have even marshals within 500yds at any point on a circuit and track organisers adopted an American Oval style mobile safety scheme would you still get the same enjoyment from the sport that you give up your time for. An extreme example maybe today, but what about tommorow?

In these days of high technology why are they not looking into ways of keeping safety but at the same time considering the whole point of attending a race meeting rather than watching on TV. As has already been said grass roots motorsport sees virtually no paying spectators, so in the end will we end up with a sport carried out behind virtual closed doors (apart from marshals) that we can all stay at home and watch on TV. Do you want that?

[The SpeCTator]

Over recent times a lot has been done to make tracks safer for those on track with banks moved back giving greater run off areas often gravel filled.
However the spectators lot is not a happy one, with debris fences being installed impeding viewing at most corners.
Often those that make the decisions to install have never bothered to watch a race though the netting, if you look right or left you get a blur of mesh and cables, only when you look straight ahead do you get some sort of view.
At the DTM on Saturday I did a quick estimate from the foot of Paddock Bend to the tree on the rise to Druids, from the standing males approx 25-30% had cameras and were shooting the action with long lenses.
If for instance a debris fence was installed similar to that erected on the inside of the track I would suspect that virtually all these people would think twice about coming.
Motor Sport and photography have been close linked since cameras became household possessions, but the death of this relationship is seriously at risk.
The debris fence is the beginning of the end for so many.

[Paddockman]

Originally Posted by The SpeCTator

Over recent times a lot has been done to make tracks safer for those on track with banks moved back giving greater run off areas often gravel filled.
However the spectators lot is not a happy one, with debris fences being installed impeding viewing at most corners.
Often those that make the decisions to install have never bothered to watch a race though the netting, if you look right or left you get a blur of mesh and cables, only when you look straight ahead do you get some sort of view.
At the DTM on Saturday I did a quick estimate from the foot of Paddock Bend to the tree on the rise to Druids, from the standing males approx 25-30% had cameras and were shooting the action with long lenses.
If for instance a debris fence was installed similar to that erected on the inside of the track I would suspect that virtually all these people would think twice about coming.
Motor Sport and photography have been close linked since cameras became household possessions, but the death of this relationship is seriously at risk.
The debris fence is the beginning of the end for so many.

Nicely put indeed! But you must remember that paying spectators, (with or without cameras and the like) have no voice at all over such issues. More toilets and burger bars are what the powers that be think are all that is of interest.

[dusty]

just watched the two videos that show large crashes at this section of brands hatch. Perhaps instead of debris fencing, the removal of the section of tyre wall ( soft barriers on a straight?) which clearly shows that the car was launched as the barriers deformed under the car. The angle the car hit was shallow and I suspect the car would have slid along the barrier rather than being rolled. The second video shows how armco barriers deform too much. The barrier folds right over and forms a ramp ( similar to what happened at the top of paddock hill bend with the mr2s a little while back. There is no earth banking behind the armco at this point and the barrier merely pushes back to form a ramp rather than containing the accident within the confines of the race circuit itself.

I appreciate that accidents at race circuit are of the "martini" type, anytime anyplace, but surely the basic need is for barriers that do not form ramps is something that needs to be looked at!

As to the point that club racing does not rely on spectators, well this is true. Club racing is for the club members and thats that. Apart from spectators being an added income to the circuit on top of circuit hire fees. Reduce that amount and the circuits will want to make up the shortfall. Who is going to pay the shortfall? Well it won`t be the spectators who are not there will it!

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Paddockman

Nicely put indeed! But you must remember that paying spectators, (with or without cameras and the like) have no voice at all over such issues. More toilets and burger bars are what the powers that be think are all that is of interest.

Well yes .... except that thinking back over the last couple of years to comments on here (and elsewhere) about the Donington fiasco (for example) the primary concerns expressed at the time that come to mind (other than the whole place disappearing as a venue) were the state of the toilets and the lack of suitable value for money eating facilities and access/parking.

I don't have the time or inclination to go back to the old threads and check but I don't recall anyone, myself included, complaining about the containment fences for the proposed development. Perhaps that was because the only time it hit home how thing might be was when sampling the track drive simulator - hardly the precise moment to be looking at the edges of the track to see what the 'simulator' model seemed to be predicting about countainment fences.

In fact it became quite evident that for the track to obtain a licence it would require virtually every inch of both sides to be fencing - much as Silverstone is today.

Perhaps the majority have already accepted that being fenced in (or out depending on your point of view) is acceptable and the concern over toilets and teacakes was being expressed simply because eating might be the best spectator activity in town and the ability to become comfortable before the long queue to leave after an event dictated that toilet facilities were a primary consideration.

JP is clearly setting some great standards around the MSV tracks and is to be applauded for that. However he may not be able to counteract a general exodus of interested visitors in the event that the public protection rules enforced on the circuits result in people staying away. And that might include marshals deciding they will cut back on involvement as well. Not enough marshals > no meeting > no spectators > nobody to care > no Sport.

If they want to cage the FIA series' that is their prerogative but it does seem to offer a lot of potential for unconsidered consequences. Unless of course the consequences have been really muddled. I wonder what the money opportunities are or a place like Silverstone or BH if the places are closed down for racing activity because spetators stopped bothering to turn up on the basis that they could watch a streaming video of some form of fence caged gladiatorial process whilst sitting in front of the TV watching a live feed from somewhere in Outer Mongolia. No need for fences then - a somewhat ironic thought.

If total fencing is the way things are headed then it might be a better commercial model to build some new Stock Racing Tracks in the rather empty looking retail developments around the country and save people having to drive long distances to watch dodgem racing in discomfort.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Paddockman

Yes but (I hope I'm not wrong) but that is your opinion from the standpoint of a marshal. Yes you all do a great job but YOUR enjoyment of the job/sport you love is not so much under threat, although give it 10 years and I think your position might change as well. What I am saying is (And I have to be carefull as this forum is run by marshals) is these spectators who in my opinion should be given the same amount of respect for their views, are each year having the sport they love ruined by constantly far reaching safety measures.

You quoted my comments about circuits having a need to maintain their licences from the governing bodies, I suspect we all have an interest in that, no licence = no racing. It's not something that a circuit owner can debate with the governing bodies.

You are right that I am a marshal, but I'm not a trackside marshal, I'm usally to be found either inside race admin/race control or in a pit lane, startline or paddock - and for the record, I dislike intensly being in a pit lane that does not have debris fencing so no, my opinion isn't coloured by my own view from trackside.

Motorsport as with life is becoming increasingly litigous, the most recent case I am aware of (Fenton (I can't remember the full title and I can't find a free link but it involved Thruxton)) was very clear that circuit owners must give consideration to the safety of spectators and that it is not sufficient for circuit owners/operators to simply follow what is prescribed for them by governing bodies, they must carry out their own risk assessments and act accordingly so even if fencing is not required by the govering bodies (bikes and cars) circuit owners need to consider whether it is appropriate.

Part of the test for negligence is whether something is "reasonably foreseeable", so a circuit owner must be asking itselft is it reasonably foreseeable that a car, bike or debris could end up in a spectator area and cause injury; if the answer in their view is yes, then they have little option but to fence or run the risk of an incident with the attendant bad publicity (for the sport as a whole), insurance costs, legal action etc. and the huge distress for all involved.

In my view we will see an increase in fencing for two reasons, firstly Fenton says circuit owners must take a more critical view and secondly as referred to by Mr Attorney above, there have been a number of incidents over the past couple of years where cars have left the confines circuits, this has and will lead to the FIA carrying out a more critical review and this will filter down to the MSA (and others) as well and circuits will have to comply if they wish to keep their licences.

As a reality, the sport that we love cannot afford to have spectator fatalities or significant injuries at any level, nobody is going to take their children out to a nice day at the races if the popular media convinces them that it is dangerous.

Someone earlier raised the point that motorsport is dangerous and spectators should be able to chose where they stand and what level of risk they accept. Unfortunately this is not a concept that exists in law, circuit owners/operators and the governing bodies have a duty of care to spectators (and to marshals, competitors, media etc.) and this cannot be avoided. Volenti (consenting to risks) does have a place in negligence law but is unlikely to be of much relevance to a spectator injury.

I've seen too many instances of debris flying off cars and into pit lanes which is why I dislike unfenced pit lanes, mainly we've been lucky and serious injury hasn't occured but it is all a matter of luck and when that scenario is translated to spectator areas the courts and the insurers will not accept bad luck as mitigation.

Protecting spectator areas is not optional for circuit owners and I'm fairly sure that none of them approach the situation from a "we don't care about spectators" point of view; they simply do not have a choice.

Photographer holes are a good idea but must be constructed properly, just chopping holes in fencing isn't sufficient, the edges must be ridgid to ensure that they don't deform and let larger pieces of debris (ie wheels) through.

Standard disclaimer - these are my views alone and do not represent the views of any organisation or body that I am involved with

[grantp]

So the risk warnings and liability statements on the backs of the tickets are meaningless if the legal judgements are constantly shifting, as it seems they are across the broad spectrum of our legal system almost as a matter of policy.

It's a brave operator who would look to the long term investments that may be required to minimise negligence claims (I doubt they can ever be avoided in the modern age) just to support a minority activity that is subject to the vagaries of the economy. Both spectators and competitors could well depart the scene for a number of reasons leaving venues with severely reduced level of business despite an apparent need to invest in fencing.

Surely it would be easier just to close off sections of the trackside access (as many locations already do) .

Alternatively re-develop as a private club of some sort where the more affluent motor driving enthusiasts can satisfy their needs in private.

No matter how one sees the issue of risk and liability the potential for shutting down many of the larger motor sport venues in the UK (due to unforeseen consequences of a cascade of supposedly Health and Safety based decisions) seems to be quite high. It seems to me probable that resulting financial issues rather than direct legal action will be the bigger risk to continued operations as the years pass. Those long term effects are not resolvable by errecting or dismantling fences.

Unlike Spa many circuits in the UK do not have the height differences between track and spetator areas that allow them to have photographer slots in the fences at virtually zero risk points. As I have mentioned in the past, the new fencing erected behind the extended gravel trap at Donington has behind it a further barrier to keep people back from the debris fence. Right at the corner, in line withe the start/finish straight, this secondary barrier is a full car length back fron the debris fence and stays at about half that distance as a minimum for the full length of new fencing. No point in considering peep through holes for photographers there. And if that is the latest standard required to get a licence for the circuit then pretty much the entire track is likely to end up the same way.

From the media photographer's perspective the reduced access for the public snappers is no bad thing since it helps to control the growing competition for publishing space from anyone owning a DLSR (or even a camera phone in some circumstances) but the downside is that the backgrounds available for attractive shots that capture the picture editor's attention is greatly reduced. Swings and roundabouts. It's the same making a pitch to a private client. "Car, tarmac, concrete, tyre barrier and fencing again I'm afraid. There's a tatty banner on the background of a few of them that tells you where you were and the remains of the paint on the kerbs might also give a clue. How many copies would you like this time ....?"

Oh well, things change whether the changes are really necessary or not and then move on. Resistance is futile, or so they say.

[Stephen H]

Is this view really good enough? DTM and the top of Paddock Hill Bend, a view that should be classic. Realise it all changed in this area when changes were made to the tunnel. But surely it would not take much effort to improve the view here. A raised spectator terrace or bank. Two layers of debris fencing, a left over from the champ car one -off, and then advertising banners blocking the view directly in front and more on the infield blocking the view of Graham Hill Bend.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Stephen H

Is this view really good enough? DTM and the top of Paddock Hill Bend, a view that should be classic. Realise it all changed in this area when changes were made to the tunnel. But surely it would not take much effort to improve the view here. A raised spectator terrace or bank. Two layers of debris fencing, a left over from the champ car one -off, and then advertising banners blocking the view directly in front and more on the infield blocking the view of Graham Hill Bend.

Well, I doubt that the TV channels care about spectators. Their view of advertising may be different. If the TV cameras pick up the advertising hordings to eliminate the need to explain the absence of spectators ... so be it.

On Sunday I was chatting to a well established photographer who had vacated Brands DTM in favour of whatever was going at Donington for the Masters meeting. I thought that was interesting.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by grantp

On Sunday I was chatting to a well established photographer who had vacated Brands DTM in favour of whatever was going at Donington for the Masters meeting. I thought that was interesting.

Indeed, as was the chat I had with a photographer at Rockingham on Saturday who said that he'd probably make more money (and the travel cost him less too) there than he would have done at the DTM meeting.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Greem

Indeed, as was the chat I had with a photographer at Rockingham on Saturday who said that he'd probably make more money (and the travel cost him less too) there than he would have done at the DTM meeting.

Doubly interesting.

For some reason I have never made it to Rockingham so cannot make any personal observations but I have spoken to others who, photographically speaking, consider it to be something of a wasteland. I hope BH is not rapidly heading the same way. If all goes to plan I will find out on Sunday.

Perhaps it was more a comment about the DTM event rather than the circuit's photographic potential?

[bella]

Originally Posted by grantp

For some reason I have never made it to Rockingham so cannot make any personal observations but I have spoken to others who, photographically speaking, consider it to be something of a wasteland. I hope BH is not rapidly heading the same way. If all goes to plan I will find out on Sunday.

Perhaps it was more a comment about the DTM event rather than the circuit's photographic potential?

from a spectator photographer point of view, rockingham is totally pointless. as a spectator, it's excellent for visibility, almost to the extent that there's too much to see.

the brands hatch dtm race totally lacks the thing that makes the dtm worth a visit - the german fans. without them it all seems a bit all mouth, no trousers.

it doesn't surprise me that circuits are losing photography opportunities, especially on a circuit like brands. i was pleased to see snetterton hasn't felt the need to fence all round the new section, though it's a completely different layout and a completely different landscape.

i suppose it's time to look at why people choose to go to motorsport live - is it to watch the races with your eyes, or through the viewfinder?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by bella

i suppose it's time to look at why people choose to go to motorsport live - is it to watch the races with your eyes, or through the viewfinder?

I think for quite a few it's both.

I know a couple of people who enjoy snapping cars that they have a special interest in whilst in the paddock but have no inclination to photograph the races for themselves although they like to see shots taken by others or in magazines.

Fences change the published images as well. It's not all about basic access restrictions.

And that's the rub. Erecting fences to protect largley non-existent spectators may well may and published stills, video or TV broadcasts less inviting for the viewers too.

The difference is that if you want to take pics of the action you have to be there. If you want full coverage of the races ... potentially you don't have to be there and indeed there may be better options for seeing what is happening if viewing from the comfort of your own sofa. Even more likely in the future I suspect.

[bella]

Originally Posted by grantp

I think for quite a few it's both.

I know a couple of people who enjoy snapping cars that they have a special interest in whilst in the paddock but have no inclination to photograph the races for themselves although they like to see shots taken by others or in magazines.

yeah, this is me. if i'm trackside i watch the races and take some photos to remember the scenery and surroundings and also my view but i like to have my own photos of the cars from the paddock to look back at. if i want a photo of the car on track, i'll find a pro who did it and look at theirs. has that attitude been caused by the lack of photo opportunities in spectator areas? or is it down to the fact that i don't have a couple of grand to spend on a lens to provide photographs worth missing most of the track action for? difficult to say.

[andrewc]

Rockingham is a bit of a wasteland for the amateur photographer because there are limited opportunites - you have a bit of a fence free shot at the Tarzan hairpin, and you can get some quite nice pans from the roof terrace of the pit garages. If you're prepared to climb up the grandstands you can get an atmospheric shot where the car is a lesser element of the photo, but this really needs the crowd you'll only get at BTCC meeting to pull off, otherwise its just rows and rows of empty chairs.

Snetterton is has been graded FIA category 2 which means it can host pretty much anything apart from F1. They've managed to do that with only a tall fence from the back of Tyrrells Restaurant to Agostini hairpin - the paddock does back onto that straight about 10 feet from the track.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by grantp

And that's the rub. Erecting fences to protect largley non-existent spectators may well may and published stills, video or TV broadcasts less inviting for the viewers too.

Take a look at some of the big meetings, such as BTCC & BSB. "Largely non-existent spectators"?