Sorry for the huge post but…
I have a number of issues with this survey:
First off I want to say that I am in principle in favour of the addition of an alternate route at this corner so that on a given day we may use EITHER the current layout with the curbs in place OR choose to bypass the turns and curbs under discussion.
I hold this view because a significant number of club members want the option – but I do not think that they have in any way justified the need yet. Nor do I think that a survey in this kind of format is beneficial to the club – there is a very limited et of possible answers that does not represent most of the possible options.
Having said that: How big a priority this is to me as an individual depends not on opinions but on data – and we have none.
• I look at the photo on the club page and compare the amount of paving needed to the size of the timing tower sea can 40 x 8ft , that’s 29.7m2. About 3 of these fill up the area of the patch – maybe a little more if you have to allow a little space around the existing curb that’s much closer to 100 sq m. Nathan has estimated this (elsewhere in emails at 30 to 50 sq m) GV paving a Strathmore area company quoted us $99.55 this time last year to do paving so that might well meet a $15,000 estimate – but I am concerned about the apparent discrepancies in estimates of areas. Perhaps we should take the time to better define (and stake out the addition) before taking any surveys.
• The original estimate of 1 day for construction was for that 30 to 50 sq m patch, this is likely to take at least twice as long. If weather issues affect scheduling it may well take much longer – hopefully with a dry spring expected after an El Nino this might not be a problem
• We already have a very significant list of things to get done in the Spring before we (and paying renters) want access to the track. Not as much as last year to be sure but the season starts aa month earlier.
• Equipment must get to the site of the modification – either over the track and the skid steer type of equipment Nathan proposes has already chewed up asphalt paving in the paddock area. We have mostly managed to keep it off the track so far for that reason
If we move it over a possibly somewhat greasy run-off area at the start of the year then volunteers (and I am sure we will find lots of them amongst those who want this upgrade) – will have to fix the damage – and the club will have to restart the grass growing process.
• Timelines – if we rush the process and do not take adequate time to pack the base the new section will heave over the first winter and become significantly bumpy for 2017. Plus doing this work very early in the season before the ground may be suitably dry can make it harder to pack. We have all seen patches on the roads sink shortly after they are filled (admittedly these are generally deeper trenches – but you get the point)
• Bumps and settling – A rule of thumb is that 80% of the remaining settlement happens each year – So 80 % of the bumps appear over the first winter, 96% have appeared after the second winter, 99.2% the third, 99.8% the fourth. So if we want to create this section we would at least want to pack the base of this section in 2017, To get as many winters settlement in as possible before repaving of the track occurs.
Now do we want to create a new section of track at all – I say yes because apparently many members want to see it (although John K has made a good point that we are still learning to drive the track and therefore our opinions of a technical section may change). But no one has shown any data to back up their claims. What happened to all those Mychron 5 GPS dataloggers with video overlays – now is the time to break them out and justify any requested changes. Changes should by hard data and not opinions. for example:
• Two fast drivers in the shifter class say completely contradictory things – Nathan says the fastest line is to attack the curb and gradually damage the axle/frame of the kart - John says the fastest line is to not attack the curb so violently as to upset the kart or cause any damage to it – Video and data-logging proof please. Without any wild claims of tenths faster. The video also shows that this is about the only area of the track where the shifters touch the curb – personally think a track should include a little curb action – but as I said above if members want this option we should entertain it.
• Clearly Rotax drivers do not like to use the 11 tooth front bearing account it wears out (about 3 needed per year according to Mario) and requires more maintenance than the good all year 12 tooth needle bearing sprocket. In the lighter Rotax senior class a 12 tooth gear can maybe be used without the rear sprocket and chain touching the ground. The heavier Rotax Masters class needs a 12 x 89 ratio (per Mario G) and because the track is so bumpy this can break chains thereby wrecking someone’s event. (When the track is repaved this gear combination will be useable – up to a 93 sprocket is available for a smooth track) Alternatively a sprocket protector can be used with the 12 89 combination. If the proposed option will make the 12 tooth gear a more viable option without just adding a sprocket protector (which has its own drawbacks) then it is has obvious advantages to the membership
We need data and analysis that shows the alternate route proposed would allow Rotax to use that 12 tooth gear any way. If the 11 tooth front sprocket is still needed to get around the other slow parts of the track then there is no functional advantage to the change. We would want similar data and analysis for the junior classes too if they have similar issues with the front sprocket
• And we need data and analysis for both track directions – the majority of the complaints / benefits appear to be in the CW direction that we will probably be running only 3 times this year. So there might only be a benefit to a proportion of the club for a small proportion of the races.
All the facility upgrades already mentioned in the first post regarding this on the forum and survey and all the other ones that have not been identified here come from the same pot of money and need to be compared and prioritized in a rational manner. It is very hard to do that without the proper background information which is also hard to be presented in a forum / survey environment, particularly oas unstructured as this. Which is why we agreed at the March club meeting to have an April meeting to discuss these points.
It is completely impossible to prioritize things when the survey does not even include all the items on the wish list and with a reasonable estimate of their costs.
Again – I personally support the proposed addition to the track as long as the current layout is also left in play. But they must be considered with other additions to the track surface such as one track short cut of approximately 130 sq meters that works for KID KART, CW restart option and possibly TAK – and other track options. PLUS all the various upgrades to the facility not even mentioned here
Ideally, I would like to see the base work for all the track options selected placed in 2017 so that they have a chance to settle over a few winters before we repave the entire facility to the same standards we had at the Varsity Track in Calgary