Doing the Nimby's job for them

I had one of those coincidences this Monday, having taken my Multisport trackcar to Croft over the weekend, and fallen foul of their noise testing regime, I was flicking through some old paperwork destined for recycling and came across an article that I had written in 2005. This was before I took over editing Startline and currently I cannot remember if this article was submitted, submitted and rejected or published. I recycled the ideas after the meeting at Croft in 2006, so I will apologise in advance to those of you that have read this before.

Back in 2005 my Swift was noise tested three times within 24 hours at the Croft meeting: 104db for Friday testing, 108db prior to Saturday qualifying and 106db after Saturday's race. The decibel unit is on a logarithmic scale so the difference between the lowest and highest readings suggest that the amount of noise energy has doubled. What really annoyed me at the time is that all these measurements were passes for a racing car, so when a noise test marshal tried to noise test me, prior to Saturday's race, I saw it as an unwarranted attempt to exclude me and voiced my disagreement to those involved forcefully. It is worth pointing out that I was far from being the only MRC competitor having these problems, there was soon great demand for silencer wadding and auxiliary silencers. Additionally, this is the only occasion that my Swift has failed a noise test, its exhaust system has not been touched since I bought the car four years ago.

Deja vu, last Sunday my trackday Multisport visited Croft and was welcomed by noise marshals who failed it along with many other cars. My family group had five people at the circuit, two drivers and three passengers, none of us was pleased. My wife and I had left Boston at 0430hrs and driven 150miles to get to the Croft at 0800hrs. Too early to be dealing with self righteous, intransigent noise marshals that Croft seems to specialise in. These could well be the same individuals that deal with noise testing at race meetings.

Decibel limits for trackdays are more complicated than for racing, they vary from circuit to circuit & from day to day but the Multisport had never failed a noise test before and is one of the quietest cars on track being recorded at 94db at Donington.

So how did our day fare? After missing the first session, and without a retest, we, and all the others 'failures' were allowed on track. I am sworn to secrecy but can say that the fault was not with our cars. The following Wednesday the Multisport was out at Cadwell, there was no problem with noise testing as Ian Hughes will testify...........

Naturally, the inconvenienced caused to participants at Croft did not merit an apology or any recompense for track time lost.

Croft authorities may have good reason to be paranoid about noise. There was talk of a six figure law case (is there any other type of law case?) but mistreating competitors or participants is not an appropriate response to this problem. Noise testing equipment and the marshals operating it are supplied by the circuit. The static noise testing procedure used is presumably negotiated between the circuit and the council. The procedure used at Croft, it is so inappropriate that it could have been negotiated by the blond bimbo manning reception at the council offices (thought, is Croft twinned with Homer’s Springfield). Standing at the pit wall one thing was obvious, some cars that had passed the test were extremely noisy, i.e. even I thought that they were noisy, yet they had passed the prescribed static test! Static tests are easily administered but are a hopelessly inaccurate way of assessing the noise energy produced by a track or race car. 'Drive by' measurements are the only appropriate way to measure the amount of noise produced. A suggestion, for competition cars, link the noise meter to the output from timing transponder so transgressors can be identified and black flagged.

In ten years of track and race driving my cars have only failed two noise tests (see above) but I was present when my brother's single seater failed a test at Goodwood. Our treatment that day was such that I vowed never to return to Goodwood. Croft is on the threshold of being included on the same list. The Croft weekend coincided with the directors discussing circuits for 2009. No prizes for guessing which circuit is not on my short list.

As has been said many times 'the law is an ass' and the problems that circuits have with noise is a consequence of certain individuals being empowered to close circuits down. On some occasions it may be the local gentry or the local nouveau riche who don't wish their area to be associated with any sport not involved with killing wild animals or riding nags. On other occasions one suspects that the motives are more mercenary, an individual anticipating an increase in the value of their house or a developer seeing a circuit (or a small airfield, where the problems are identical) as profitable building land that will become available if the established activity can be made unprofitable. It can be no coincidence that long term residents of both Croft and Castle Combe have told me that the sources of complaints are owners of new build.

With the future of our sport in mind I urge you to sign the petition put on the Forum by Stephen Brooks. Put briefly, this petition seeks to introduce a 'Grandfather clause' i.e. if the activity was established before you moved in, you have no right to try and stop it.

Meanwhile anticipate the way noise testing is managed at Croft, at Goodwood and at some other Circuits doing the nimby’s biding, by driving away the paying customers that make the circuits financially viable.

And so to Cadwell, a delightful circuit in a delightful part of Lincolnshire, an excellent circuit to drive but a more difficult circuit to race on because of its width, i.e. it's narrow. Or to quote Geoff Fern on his first visit to the circuit, 'Its easy to see where you overtake, its on the green bits'.

Cadwell is my local and my favourite circuit but not since the Silverstone International meeting last year have I approached a meeting with such foreboding. When arrangements start unravelling before we get to the circuit it does not inspire confidence.

The provisional instructions do not contain a paddock plan. A rather important omission at Cadwell as the paddock is one of the most difficult in the country being formed from 'terraces' on a hillside, there is no large flat area, Cadwell has only a small tarmac area. Much of the area designated paddock is more suited to a 4 x 4 rather than a formula car. Thus we are not in the situation that prevailed at Rockingham, where the outer paddock was a large flat blank canvas that we could select a Monoposto area.

Overall, there are loose ends and the more loose ends the more potential problems. Some are now sorted. Your editor is looking forward to Cadwell but with his fingers and toes crossed.

Patrick Huston

Nicholas Ridley(a member of Mrs T's cabinet) had a reputation for Nimbyism

The editorial multisports

A budget noisemeter.

Is Croft twinned with Springfield?

Wonder if a 24litre Napier SeaLion engined Bentley on open pipes had any noise problems at Goodwood?

Cadwell, from the Huston Learjet

"Its easy to see where you overtake, its on the green bits."