chas wrote:not to ruffle any feathers, but when was there discussion to get input from the membership about the change to T9? The last I heard was in the summer time when it was said that we would revisit the discussion later on.

I never saw any board notes mention that, and I didn't hear about it at any of the meetings I attended.

Thanks

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the track dictated to us that we had to use the AMA T9 chicane configuration.
No?

No. The track tried to, the club talked them out of it with reasoning. The ball was left up to the club to decide.

If you read the 2/2/05 board meeting minutes in the Announcements forum, apparently Kevin had a meeting with the track and it sounds like they were standing firm about mandating AMA T9.

Personally I think it's sorta interesting that the track is mandating something that they can't prove is safer. They're really only guessing. My own opinion based on my race bike (a 125) is that original T9 is much safer. At higher speeds on bigger bikes, I can see where it gets more dangerous. But the things I don't like about AMA T9 are still issues regardless of bike. Maybe I need to see it after the modifications. Last I remember, there's a k-wall immediately to your right and not more than a few feet off the line in the left hander of the chicane.

Hmm, I guess I got a different impression about the "negotiations" that Kevin had with Inf mang. From how I read it, he "felt" like they might push back, so he didn't try.

Could be wrong, wasn't there, just how I read the notes.

Thanks,

Pity, the old T9 was a hellacious amount of fun. What we'll see more of now is the Duhamel highside exiting T9 and driving towards T10, with more gas through T10 and probably more crashes even though the entry speed may be a bit lower than it was.... Not to mention the pileups entering T9. Safer? You won't risk death crashing into the old T9 wall, but I'd bet money the crash rate in that area of the track will go way up, not down.

But I'm no fan of the old T11, sliding into stacks of tires at speed is not a lot of fun...

I'm not sure how I feel about Infineon Raceway's reasoning with the T9 chicane. Their thoughts are (correctly) that we may have MORE crashes but they'll be less SEVERE.

That's undoubtedly true.

What they're leaving out is that every time someone ends up on the pavement it's a potentially life threatening event. Also, I question the judgement that says many broken collar bones are OK, even if one life is saved. I'd much prefer to see a better solution that has less broken collar bones AND less chance of serious injury and death!

What does that mean for us? It means that the only REAL solution is moving the wall outside Turn 10. Ever been back there? I have. There's the wall, then another 30 feet (with a dirt road) then the property boundary. The wall out there hasn't been moved because it's right at the end of Tenant Row, which to my mind is unacceptable. In other words, they're taking money (in terms of rent from the tenants) over the issue of safety.

Promoting the T9 chicane in the interests of "safety" is laughable -- yes, it's more safe than dying by hitting the wall at T10 but in terms of safe... not at all. Lots of broken bikes and clavicles.

Chris

Chris,

I need to agree with you on this. Any time a rider is going down, the chances of a potential injury are going up. When we have more crashing, the chances of fatal injury are also going up. Just doesn't sit well with me that the board is okay with that.

I guess when you compare death VS the number of crashes, the ratio will look better now

Thanks,

christofu wrote: It means that the only REAL solution is moving the wall outside Turn 10. Ever been back there? I have. There's the wall, then another 30 feet (with a dirt road) then the property boundary. The wall out there hasn't been moved because it's right at the end of Tenant Row, which to my mind is unacceptable. In other words, they're taking money (in terms of rent from the tenants) over the issue of safety.
Chris

Chris,
I have looked at that wall too--its all huge I-BEAM construction and would cost a TON of money to revamp,prolly 100X what they get in "rent" I wouldnt expect that to happen any time soon.

Trackho wrote:
Chris,
I have looked at that wall too--its all huge I-BEAM construction and would cost a TON of money to revamp,prolly 100X what they get in "rent" I wouldnt expect that to happen any time soon.

I guess I would want to know which layout they are mandating NASCAR to use at this year's event. They didn't have any problems with the original layout last year, when this band-aid fix was available.
We saw them move a lot of earth, demolish old tenant space in the paddock and carve seating into the hillsides. I am sure they could have come up with a better solution.
It's a crappy, 'band-aid' fix they are taking, and will continue to take until organizations step up and let them know it sucks.
If they want to keep a historical landmark, there is a way to do it. Sure it will cost money, but in the life of Sears Point, it will be worth it. In 50 years, no one will say they would have rather kept this band-aid, than making more run-off behind turn 10.
How many layers of air fence can we put in turn 10? Whatever AMA used to save Aaron Yates seems like a good start. This new fix didn't help Miguel.

Mark167 wrote:If you read the 2/2/05 board meeting minutes in the Announcements forum, apparently Kevin had a meeting with the track and it sounds like they were standing firm about mandating AMA T9.

That's interesting news. You may remember that the AFM had a meeting with Infineon last fall (9/26, I think...we were there for a track day) about this very topic. The next day I spoke with two Infineon officials who were at that meeting and they each said the AFM would be free to decide the configuration it wanted to race. They were not mandating one. It was a friendly meeting with a lot of open minds.

Sounds like something changed since then.

Seems as though quite a few people here are of the same opinion that AMA T9 is NOT necessarily safer. So is this issue still open to change or is it a done deal? Kevin's original post in this thread sounded decided. If we can still change, I'd like to see what most riders think. I'd go along with whatever the majority feels. Wouldn't even mind giving more weight to the opinions of those in the faster classes (which wouldn't be me). But if most of us feel safer with original T9, seems like WE should be able to make that choice. I'm having a big problem with the so-called logic of this change. We have one fatal crash in old T9 so we change to this other thing as though it will prevent fatalities. There's no guarantee. As Derek said, AMA T9 WILL put more riders on the ground. In that tight section, I think the risk of collecting others in a crash and bikes potentially hitting the downed rider is much greater.

I do feel that it's a done deal that we use the T9 chicane. My understanding of the meeting between the track and the AFM last year was that the track left it up to the AFM to decide the configuration for that one last event. As of this year we were required to run the T9 chicane. Perhaps "required" is too strong a word. "Very strongly encouraged" may be more appropriate. When you're encouraged to do something by a track that basically holds all the cards, it's generally in your best interest to say "yes sir, no problem sir"

I agree with Chris. It is best not to challenge Infineon. The club is extraordinarily lucky to get three weekends a year there.

What's interesting is that new T9 is "very strongly encouraged" but not the new T1. You would think the reasoning would be the same.

I also agree with those who feel there will be more, though perhaps less serious accidents with the new T9 (and the new T1).

I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is because the AFM does not have its own insurance policy and must "latch on" to the track's insurance. Liability claims affect the track's policy rates. This is why Laguna will no longer rent to organizers who don't carry their own policies (a change from year's past). Lawsuits, even unfounded ones that still must be defended, are ridiculously expensive.

Lance.

why is there so much resistance in running ama turn 9?we have not run that turn and people talk how we will be crashing our brains there.are we that careless riders to just run in to each other,T-boning,not braking for turn....
it was same deal with new turn 11 when we switched from old one.
what is big deal about?it is just another turn.

Hmm, I am thinking it's been some time since Zoran has been on the track with the AFM

Hopefully this year he will have a much clearer understanding of what happens on the track.