Conrod / The Chase

[db120176]

I was looking at clips on YouTube earlier today featuring Bathurst in the 70s, and the long version of Conrod Straight. It got me thinking - and I keep on flipping back and forth on my answer - was it a better circuit without The Chase?

[emjaya]

I don't think it is better or, for that matter, any safer, but it does create an extra passing opportunity. We're probably lucky there is only the one chicane on Conrod and not two.

[Wrighty05]

It was all about the second hump. That was the danger point. The second hump has killed a few over the years.

[FPV GTHO]

Although having never seen footage of the Chase-less track, considering all things i think its better having it there. Theres 2 overtaking opportunities instead of one, its alot safer coming into the final corner and pit entry is alot safer as well.

[NewsStalker]

Given some of the incidents involving cars coming into the pits over the last few years, I think it is debatable whether the chase has done anything constructive to pit entry.

Certainly it has stopped more than a few cars heading into Bathurst township for a quick brake check, but there have also been some serious accidents because of the Chase both in the are of the Chase (and its exit) and at the end of COnrod.

[peckstar]

what incidenets involving cars coming into the pits?

imagine the rev limiters on a V8 if there was no chase

[Matt]

Without the chase, Bathurst wouldn't have the fastest corner for touring cars in the world. :P

[NewsStalker]

what incidenets involving cars coming into the pits?

Last two years tapes will show you incidents that don't happen at other tracks. They shouldn't be hard to find - unless, of course, you are simply looking for another verbal stoush?

[peckstar]

no, i really dont know of any and cant think of any? (that is related to the chase)

I would have thought thinks would be safer bcause the cars are not going as quick

I did watch on the weekend GT nearly slam into a wall at sandown though

[MPA]

I like The Chase.

Pretty awesome to stand trackside and watch them turn in.

[racer69]

The chase is just as dangerous as the second hump was for different reasons. The cars still reach top speed on conrod straight.

What they did with the chase wasn't a bad idea though, they could have put in a "Le Mans" style chicane......

It was also cheaper & easier to build the chase than it was to bulldoze some massive run-offs at Murrays, as well as realigning the escape road (again).

Originally Posted by Matt

Without the chase, Bathurst wouldn't have the fastest corner for touring cars in the world. :P

I'd hardly call the entrance to the chase a corner, at most its a kink.

[NewsStalker]

Cars entering the pits pre-Chase stuck to the LHS of the track - this didn;t cause any problems because cars needed to be on the RHS to take the corner at the end of Conrod.

With the Chase, cars tended to be on either side - many sticking to the RHS because of the fast entry to the Chase. But, exiting they were anywhere and, particularly the last two years, there have been some wild entries made to pit entry (from the RHS cutting across traffic, together with a couple of very high speed entries with cars then overshooting the entry all together.

It could be argued these would happen with or without the Chase, but the wild 'change side of the track' entries would, usually, not happen on the original track.

[peckstar]

isnt there (going from memory) a straight pit entrance lane including a blend line of to the side of the road?

[SSbaby]

I don't know how to answer this question.

What I can say is that old Conrod was very dangerous due to its narrow, bumpy nature. Even though the faster cars were maxing out at around 260km/h back then, it was far more bumpy than it is today. I always like to compare the old Bathurst with some of Europe's finest circuits and wonder whether the Chase was ever a good thing.

Personally, I don't believe the Chase is a good thing at all! A big statement you might say but it's really done nothing to improve the safety of the circuit along Conrod. How many near fatal accidents have we seen with cars spearing off and almost collecting (T-bone) another car along the Chase? There have been a few very close calls and I just hope it's never a matter of "when, not if".

It could be argued that the runoff area at the end of Conrod was never very generous either so slowing the cars at the point along the Chase was enough to preserve some of old Conrod's character, while slowing the speeds down to allow shorter braking distances.

I always keep harping on about the same thing but I think the glory days at Bathurst are behind it. The circuit itself needs a major revamp in the interests of driver safety and racing (passing along the top) entertainment. The high speed nature of the cars and the circuit itself are no longer a thrill for me as a spectator. Maybe a topic for another time... Just my 2c.

[Pro Racer]

if it's safer or not thats debatable but i think it needs to stay it creates an extra passing opertunity.

[racer69]

SSbaby - Your right particularly about the potential T-boning of cars, we nearly saw that twice in last years race.


Who funded the building of the Chase,

was it Caltex?

BCC?
ARDC?
state government?
the feds?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by racer69

SSbaby - Your right particularly about the potential T-boning of cars, we nearly saw that twice in last years race.

Easy fix. Put a solid, solid concrete wall along the turn in point at the beginning of the whole sequence. That will put an end to that. Drivers will have to question whether to go flat though there and also it will nerf them down the track in another direction away from the flow of traffic on the opposite side.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Easy fix. Put a solid, solid concrete wall along the turn in point at the beginning of the whole sequence. That will put an end to that. Drivers will have to question whether to go flat though there and also it will nerf them down the track in another direction away from the flow of traffic on the opposite side.

The "safety" brigade is gonna be on your ass for that one. I agree with it 100% though.

[Falcadore]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Easy fix. Put a solid, solid concrete wall along the turn in point at the beginning of the whole sequence. That will put an end to that. Drivers will have to question whether to go flat though there and also it will nerf them down the track in another direction away from the flow of traffic on the opposite side.

And when we get a right front/left rear touch spinning a car to the left we can recreate Dale Earnhardts crash. Don't see much of a problem with that.

If I can ask a question, the wall that Don Watson hit was much further back, and the car was I think rolling already, but how much further back?

Really the safest solution would be the Paul Ricard answer, pave the whole lot.

While the reason the Chase was installed was to comply with FIA edict on uninterrupted straight length before the WTCC arrived, but there was also the issue of air getting under cars cresting the second hump and Mark Webbering into the air. This is largely the reason open wheelers and serious sports cars got chucked out of the place and was speculated to be a contributor to Mike Burgmann's accident. Tom Sulman's accident was a demonstration of what could happen at that point of the track.

In 1987, touring car aerodynamics was how much slant your windscreen had, today aerodynamics are a crucial part of V8 Supercar. The prospect of an aerodynamic failure, like what happened to Dick Johnson at the 1995 Bathurst sprint round at a restored second hump...

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Falcadore

While the reason the Chase was installed was to comply with FIA edict on uninterrupted straight length before the WTCC arrived,

In 1987 the FIA had no rule as to uninterrupted straight length. This rule didn't come about until 1990, which forced the ACO that year to put the chicanes in the Mulsanne (the arguing between the FIA and the ACO was at the heart of the rule anyway). I'm not even sure this rule is even enforced anymore, it was looked upon as the time as a "Le Mans" rule.

The Chase was more to do with satisfying the police investigation than to satisfy the FIA.

Originally Posted by Falcadore

but there was also the issue of air getting under cars cresting the second hump and Mark Webbering into the air. This is largely the reason open wheelers and serious sports cars got chucked out of the place and was speculated to be a contributor to Mike Burgmann's accident. Tom Sulman's accident was a demonstration of what could happen at that point of the track.

There had always been the issue with the second hump, made worse when the bridge was built in 1982 just after it.

Burgmann had left the road prior to the hump.



One option would have been to just flatten the hump and leave the straight as it was. But that would also have required (as the years went on) to major works at Murrays. The run-off would have had to have been extended further back pushing the spectators back with it, and the 'escape' road would have had to have been realigned presumebly as well for a second.

What they did was easier to do (buy land next to the track), still allowed the cars to reach close to if not top speed, and wasn't a straight chicane.

The drivers didn't think much of it originally though, from 'The Great Race #8' Dick Johnson is quoted as saying something along the lines of "she's been r00ted"

[Malfunction Junction]

The speed of just about any car through the kink sufficient for their inertia to carry it over the rejoin. Tarmacing the inside sandtrap might produce a variation in trajectory depending on the cause of the departure from the racing surface.

The near ideal (nothing is really ideal) tarmacing solution based on overseas experience appears to be approximately 5-10 metres of golf course standard grass followed by tarmac with a dimpled or even stony surface roughly approximating blue metal tarmac. Obviously you wouldn't use blue metal, I'm just illustrating the point. The advantages are;

- Nobody's going to cross 5 metres of grass to get to a low grip surface and gain time.
- There is high friction that will slow the car down. Possibly less than sand will, but we've seen that sand is ineffective.
- The uncontrolled car will be much more stable, leading to much reduced danger of it bouncing or rolling.
- The reduced friction may be a good thing, allowing a car to be separated from those around it and pass over the rejoin away from those it was in company with.

The disadvantages;
- Not going to slow it down anything like quickly enough to prevent a T-bone, meaning a car may end up impeding or contacting a car 5 or 10 places ahead of it on the road.
- Huge amounts of tyre smoke may present a hazard to those approaching the braking point.
- Keeping the surface smooth enough to maintain the stability of an uncontrolled car may be difficult over time.
- There are other parts of the circuit that require more attention sooner (like virtually the entire top).


Alternately, a concrete wall preventing the cars rejoining the circuit, fronted by a SAFER barrier could prove effective. It would however turn a wild ride with potential for escape into a car destroyer, doing nothing to reduce costs, but might be worth a look. A SAFER barrier should have been installed at the bridge already.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Falcadore

And when we get a right front/left rear touch spinning a car to the left we can recreate Dale Earnhardts crash. Don't see much of a problem with that.

And what run off room exists at the end of Mountain Straight? A solid wall with tire bundles. You can recreate Dale's crash almost anywhere at Bathurst.

[Falcadore]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

And what run off room exists at the end of Mountain Straight? A solid wall with tire bundles. You can recreate Dale's crash almost anywhere at Bathurst.

The discussion wasn't about Bathurst's other corners, just the Chase. Comparing to other corners is not really relevant. There used to be a wall at the Chase, not close to the racing surface, and it was demo'ed for good reason after Don Watson's crash. Almost any variation of a wall is not going to be a good thing.

Not knowing much about SAFER barriers, would a car launched into them protrude back into or worse bounce back across into traffic? That could create a worse situation than a cross-over t-bone. A stationary car presented to traffic was how Mark Porter was killed. The Chase is a lot faster than Reid Park.

Bearing in mind Jim Keogh's big Commodore lose in about 82/83 when he spun infield of Conrod, coming back across Murray's Corner. The cross over T-bone was not created by the Chase, just shifted further back up the Hill.

[NewsStalker]

Bearing in mind Jim Keogh's big Commodore lose in about 82/83 when he spun infield of Conrod, coming back across Murray's Corner. The cross over T-bone was not created by the Chase, just shifted further back up the Hill.

This wasn't caused by the design of the circuit though - it was caused by the drivers and, like you replied before - this discussion is about the Chase. This type of incident (Keogh's) can, and has, happened almost anywhere on any race track - the T-Boning's being mentioned here are because of the DESIGN of the Chase.

[Malfunction Junction]

Originally Posted by Falcadore

Not knowing much about SAFER barriers, would a car launched into them protrude back into or worse bounce back across into traffic? That could create a worse situation than a cross-over t-bone. A stationary car presented to traffic was how Mark Porter was killed. The Chase is a lot faster than Reid Park.

SAFER barriers tend to absorb the inertia of a car, spreading the initial impact and tending to reduce bounce. It is essentially an adaptation of the principle as used for decades in helmets. Analysis of the speeds, angles and distances will produce the best orientation of a barrier.

There are lessons learned from Porter's accident other than circuit design, but I did mention earlier that other parts of the circuit may be higher priorities for attention.

Technology has progressed to the point where the wall could be revisited. The topography of the area would allow spare SAFER sections to be stored on the inside of the circuit and run out for fitting should they be damaged. In theory, this should require no more than 5 paced laps (15 minutes).