Fat Boy

Oi, MR Levy, pi55 off

CraigH

Sorry Josh disagree.

Was brought up to address (males ) as Mr, not just by their surname. i agree with Claudius and John and others that that was downright rude. How would he react if we said, "Palmer said, Oi Palmer, Palmer you ******* etc etc.

Claudius,

Agree with you then on the arrogance front.

Phil

Was v v v

Phil

Glad you got your car on track at last

Phil

johnfelstead

i think we are getting a little sidetracked.

It doesnt matter what history jonathan has, thats all in the past. What matters is how things will work in the future and that the refunds happen as quickly as posible.

Lisa, SIDC are not being critisized here, Bedford autodrome are.

Hoppy

Okay, I'll conceed. In the context of ScoobyNet, may JP's style was a bit condescending. But credit for him coming on here to face the lions.

JP was a guest speaker at a company conference we had a few years back. He said he'd speak for 45 mins and ended up at least an hour and a half. The girls were bored, but I found his tales of driving an F1 car fascinating and prolonged his talk with questions for another half hour. Dinner was cold; I was not popular JP was generous with his time and enthusiasm.

And he wasn't a bad racer in his day but you don't get to be a champion of any sort without being a bit cocky. I think we should now put this matter to one side.

What I want to hear today (at 127Db ) is that JP has seen the light and done the decent thing in giving refunds. A nice gesture would be a discount on another SIDC/Bedford day for everyone who also lost out on track time.

I truly hope this matter can be settled amicably and that JP welcomes the SIDC to one of the finest facilities in the UK. My favourite, in fact, and I want to go back

Richard.

Josh L

Mr Boy,

Gonads to you, dear boy.

Dave T-S

According to another thread, they just resigned

Fat Boy

MR L

I hope it's not true about Lisa and Lee resigning.

ex-webby

Apologies I haven't been able to read all of this...

but just to make it clear that the post from DavidLewis that I edited at the request of Lee, clearly had no malice / bad feeling associated with it.

I am sure Lisa and Lee would also agree that this was just an out of correct context comment rather than anything even resembling a serious statement.

Perhaps Lee / Lisa would like to add something to confirm this?

All the best

Simon

Fred-Bloggs

johnfelstead

who wrote that article huxley?

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

All,

I had a great day stopped 2 nights in a hotel brilliant circuit and facillities I would have love to do it again, But SIDC can no longer go there due to some comments/attitudes on this BBS IMHO

I was really gutted for the 6 out of 38 that were excluded IIRC but
thought JP and marshels did the best the could to get the Majority on the track

JP explained how he had to comprimise to secure his buisness and the right to continuing doing it there

JP flew up (probably at more cost than profit from the day) to speak to the Natives. IMHO

Tony SIDC member 1347

Ps not sucking up to no one just MHO

johnfelstead

I guess on this you and I will have to disagree 100% Tony.

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

John,
I had guessed that when I wrote it, although, I might be the only one on this board with this opinion and make me as popular as M,jackson at a nursery school.This was never meant as a wind up, it was how I saw it at the time. IMHO

Tony

Ps So apologies to anyone I offended

Huxley

John it says Phil Royal at the begining

like this "Late Last year Phil Royal took in the Scoobynet Track Day at Bedford autodrome, here's his Review of this scooby do"

Matt I will scan it and mail it to you and a copy to John


Huxley

johnfelstead

Thanks.

mutant_matt

Good man

Huxley

YHM John & Matt god knows what size they are

Windows XP [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Huxley

Diesel

Guys does anyone have any details on the refund situation? I have had a partial refund, but no explanation why it was only a partial one?

Cheers

johnfelstead

OK, having read that i will write a letter to the editor. That article is factually incorect in many parts, especially the part about the noise limit in use and the fact the day was organised by scoobynet.

Huxley

John these might be of help if you haven't got the allready !

Steve Kirk-Editor
Mike Breslin-Cheif editor

Editorial tel: 02087740946
Editorial fax: 02087740935
Email ccc@ipcmedia.com


Huxley

GRANT

Nice to hear someone has had a refund,so far heard nothing not even a reply to my e-mails.Seems like money down the drain again.
Grant

johnfelstead

Thanks Huxley.

No worries on the contacts, i have been involved in lots of articles with CCC, they will be featuring something radical i am helping build at the moment pretty soon.

I'll compose a little *cough* letter and get that sent off in the next day or so. That article was so inacurate it's emabarasing.

Huxley

No problem John allways glad to help.

Reporters perhaps he used to work for the Daily sport as we all know everything in it is true




Huxley

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Any pics of any cars?

Wasn't meant to be driving

Huxley

Just a few naf pics Puff

Noble
Blue my02
Intagralie (typo)
silver BMW
Silver Scoob
and a small picture line up from a distance!

Huxley

johnfelstead

my letter to CCC magazine.

Hello Steve/Mike,

I am writing to you in reference to an article published in the March 2003 edition of CCC magazine with reference to the trackday that took place at Bedford Autodrome. The article is factually incorrect in many ways and I feel it is important for readers of your magazine to be informed of the true events of the day. As a long time reader and an occasional contributor (I organized a test session for mark hales to drive some GT cars, plus you featured some prototype engines I helped build) to your magazine I was very disappointed to see this article published in the way it was.

Your article states that the day was organized by scoobynet, this is not correct. The day was organized by the SIDC (Subaru Impreza Drivers Club).

Your article also states that some of the cars had to leave due to their “performance exhausts” and this meant that those remaining had more track time. This is incorrect, as everyone lost track time, almost the entire morning, due to the decisions made by Bedford Autodrome.

Your article also states that the noise levels are published before arrival at the venue and that the decision to remove certain participants from the track was firm but fair. I would like to point out to you that indeed the noise limits are published on the Bedford autodrome website, however the noise limit applied retrospectively on the day was lower than the published limit. The website says there are two noise tests, one static at 101db (A) and a drive by limit of 87.5db(A). http://www.clubautodrome.com/track_day_faqs.htm#noise

The basic events of the day were as follows.

On arrival all cars were given a static noise test, no car failed the 101db(A) limit.
In the track briefing drivers were informed that the GT track they paid for was closed due to construction work, and a shorter track format was to be used.
Cars were allowed on this shorter track configuration, some of the local residents complained about noise.
All driving on track was stopped.
Jonathan Palmer made the decision to drop the drive by noise limit from 87.5db(A) to 85db(A) and then retest each car individually, not allowing the owners of the cars to drive them, but only allowing the track instructors to drive customers cars, this was not well received but people still allowed this. This process took considerable time with each car being individually driven past the noise meter by an instructor.
Some of the cars failed the revised, lower noise limit and were refused access to the track and told to go home.
One car in particular, an XTR2 Westfield, the first customer built XTR2 with a factory test driver in attendance paid for by the car owners to carry out a shakedown, failed this revised noise limit by just 0.5db(A) and was still refused access to the circuit. This car was well within the published noise limits yet was refused access to the circuit due to the decision of Jonathan Palmer to change the conditions of participation during the day.
The cars that did pass the test were allowed onto the circuit, however the track was again shortened to keep cars away from the village where complaints were made. This meant that the drivers who were still running on track received a much less challenging drive than they paid for, and some drivers received no track time at all.
This is clearly in breach of all published information available to participants in advance and is far from fair.

I think it is very important that your readers are informed of the facts with regards to driving at Bedford Autodrome, and the possibility that they may be refused access, even with a vehicle that meets all published limits. Your article is not a true reflection on the day’s events and I would appreciate that you retracted this in your next publication. I have been a keen participant in your magazine for many years because it has strived to be factually correct and support the amateur racer/enthusiast, this article falls short of your usual standards and does not inform your readers of the possible problems they may face at Bedford should they choose to attend.

The events of the day are well documented on a thread on scoobynet, I suggest you read this in its entirety. http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=155166&Page=1

The outcome of Bedford Autodromes customers questioning Jonathan Palmers decisions and reasoning in his decision has led to the banning of SIDC track events from his venue. This can be read at http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=158060

Yours sincerely
John Felstead

Jeff Wiltshire

Firm but fair I would say.

TopBanana

I very much doubt they'll run anything to that effect John. They probably don't want to rub people like Palmer up the wrong way.

johnfelstead

they have the oportunity to do the right thing, we shall see if they take that oportunity or decide otherwise.