New Crit circuit opening

warrwych said:

Shamelessly stolen from the Caulfield Carnegie webpages:

NEW Grand opening of criterium circuit
Apr 07 2006
by Mal Sawford

You are cordially invited to the official opening of the track at Casey
Fields...

Forecast for Saturday
A few light showers persisting. Cloudy periods with a fresh
southwesterly wind
gradually easing during the day.

It'll be just like Modella, windy ... cold ... wet ... mmmmm ....

warrwych said:

Shamelessly stolen from the Caulfield Carnegie webpages:

NEW Grand opening of criterium circuit
Apr 07 2006
by Mal Sawford

You are cordially invited to the official opening of the track at Casey Fields...

well, that's no good!

I wanna FLAT crit track near ME!!!

F"It's all about ME"Dutch

Southern Vets raced today and all round general consensus is the track at Casey Fields is TOO NARROW, dangersously so!

many stacks, very tight , lots of people being cut off, nowhere to go, road shoulders soft and swallow a wheel...Oh is this Flanders?...no its Casey Fields and seems that although they had in mind building a good servicable, widely used racing track...at this stage it has a long way to go!

granted this is a bit different to what has been used lately...going from a wide road section with virtually both sides of the road available to a narrow, single lane roadway equating to a one way lane isnt well received by the racers so far.

The bunches are 40 plus, this makes for some dangerous scenarios. If three groups are on the track , this too makes it very hard for the groups to stay separated , as req'd by Vets rules , and still allow faster groups to pass a bunch spread across the track...interesting to see what will now happen out there...will it stay as is, OR:

• will the city fathers so proud of there new baby widen it...or
  
• will we see it become a track that only the off the front racers want to use?
  

any thoughts out there?

rooman wrote -

Quoted message said:

Southern Vets raced today and all round general consensus is *the track
at Casey Fields is TOO NARROW,* dangersously so!

Quoted message said:

any thoughts out there?

Any possibility of using an alternative motor racing track out of their
normal hours? - usually good width and surface, correct cambers, lots of
passing room but not in the most convenient places and they often ask
serious $ - but the safest tracks for cycle racing by a country mile imho.

best Andrew

Andrew Price said:

rooman wrote -

Quoted message said:

Southern Vets raced today and all round general consensus is *the track
at Casey Fields is TOO NARROW,* dangersously so!

Quoted message said:

any thoughts out there?

Any possibility of using an alternative motor racing track out of their
normal hours? - usually good width and surface, correct cambers, lots of
passing room but not in the most convenient places and they often ask
serious $ - but the safest tracks for cycle racing by a country mile imho.

We already use Sandown and Philip Island (and the Lang Lang proving
grounds and the Anglesea proving grounds). They're pretty expensive, I
recall Mal Sawford and I discussing Anglesea and it was aparently
around $3000 for the day (or maybe $2000? I can't recall exactly) we
used it last year. CCCC's crit program basically paid for it
(thankyou CCCC).

Re the critisism of the track for being too narrow, it's no worse than
METEC, or most country roads we use for road races. Ride according to
the conditions and it should not be a problem. Ride like idiots ....
It's not Glenvale or Sandown ... so you can't ride it like it is. Race
the grades at different times and you eliminate the issue with
overtaking, as there's no road closures required this shouldn't be a
major issue.

What it can also be is a good training course for juniors etc who live
out that way, but for different reasons than as cited by rooman it's
unlikely to be a successful crit track. It's way too far away from
Melbourne. 2 hours (1hr+ each way for most) driving for a 50min-1hr
crit? At least that'll keep the numbers down ... :-/ Cycle racing
isn't a big sport in the bogan heartland and isn't likely to be, so
it's really in a bad place.

In aus.bicycle on 9 Apr 2006 01:34:47 -0700

Bleve said:

We already use Sandown and Philip Island (and the Lang Lang proving
grounds and the Anglesea proving grounds). They're pretty expensive, I

Broadford maybe? Is Winton still going? Miles from anywhere of
course, but worth a try.

I suspect that Broadford at least is in use most weekends, but if they
have weekends not heavily used then maybe powered and unpowered could
do turn and turn about.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on 9 Apr 2006 01:34:47 -0700

Bleve said:

We already use Sandown and Philip Island (and the Lang Lang proving
grounds and the Anglesea proving grounds). They're pretty expensive, I

Broadford maybe? Is Winton still going? Miles from anywhere of
course, but worth a try.

We don't need them. PI and Sandown and the proving grounds give us
plenty of courses to use off the road, combined with a lot of good
onroad courses. Winton would suck anyway, too short for a RR and too
far away from anywhere for a crit.

"rooman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Southern Vets raced today and all round general consensus is *the track
at Casey Fields is TOO NARROW,* dangersously so!

But now narrow actually is it?
<----looking at design for a local track....

Gemm

Gemma Kernich said:

"rooman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Southern Vets raced today and all round general consensus is *the track
at Casey Fields is TOO NARROW,* dangersously so!

But now narrow actually is it?

6m, I think.

It's not too narrow, they just want another Sandown, and/or are using
it poorly.

Bleve said:

It's not too narrow, they just want another Sandown, and/or are using
it poorly.

more likely they are used to Sandown and CF is much more like some of the narrow tracks found in Eurpope, especially the Classics tracks of Belgium, Holland and NE France.

I dont have a problem with the track, I posed the question for discussion as others voiced their opinion on Sunday in post race discussion & ITO it was too narrow. ( especially by some of those who hit the deck or bogged in the shoulder)

It will certainly sort out the rash and the gung ho!

What I see is that the older guys want to race in a little more relaxed mode and mixing it with the testosterone dudes who want some argy bargy doesnt sit to well with many so it seems.

Sthn Vets do like to send out three grades at a time on their Sunday crits, so this course will probably limit that as it will not allow the grades to be passed without some heavy monitoring by the commissaires or a lot of cooperation from the riders ..which wont be too forthcoming unless they are expecting a shout at the bar!

The future is unknown...lets watch and learn, discuss and drink...and now and then ride it.

But Gemma, I guess what this does say, is in designing any course find out what your potential riders really want as their course, not just the "old club" guys who won't be riding it, or the budget conscious and penny counters who see narrow as lower cost and support it beyond merit on cost alone. ( and I think there was a bit of that when Casey was taken around the "experts" during the consultation phase...I could be wrong but I have asked a few guys in the know and no one seems to know anyone who was consulted about track width.