The Place

Auto 66 have finally updated their website

But still showing on their fixture list
http://auto66.com/2018-fixtures/

More hurdles from the acu to stop people racing,who made them what they are today ?

Not sure the finger need be pointed squarely at the ACU in this case.
I'm not trying to launch a political debate, nor name names, it is just that, from what I hear, the ACU are not the vilans here..

Eric & Julie wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:30 am Not sure the finger need be pointed squarely at the ACU in this case.
I'm not trying to launch a political debate, nor name names, it is just that, from what I hear, the ACU are not the vilans here..

Quite right.
It was me that recommended Dave Dearden to chair the initial inquiry,because I knew that he would give a fair hearing to all parties.
Dave (like myself) is not a member of the ACU Road Race Committee and has no axe to grind.
He has experience of the course, having ridden there in the past, and extensive experience of operating on temporary/unusual tracks.

He did an excellent job and everyone knew what needed to be done, including the timescales for completion.
Not only did everyone know what needed to be done, everybody AGREED on what needed to be done.
Completion was not achieved within the time frame and it was the ACU who extended the deadline completely without prejudice.

The statements that:-
1) The work was complete except for some secondary fencing, which is only because the ground is waterlogged.
and
2) Sourcing the amount of Recticel has proven to be unviable as it would cost £90,000.

Are mutually exclusive. It's either one or the other.
Just for interest, £90,000 would buy 216 links of Safeguard Barrier and nobody has demanded that amount.

I really hope the situation can be resolved, but the ACU cannot backtrack on the safety improvements that are required.
If they did and something awful happened, it could potentially render all Road Racing uninsurable.

Do any of you really want that?

Give the ACU a break.
Paul King and Eddie Nelson have both had the courage to back making revisions to the course, rather than taking the easy option of saying that it is no longer viable at all. As the official Track Licencing Officials, they are putting their own necks in the noose by offering that option.

The organising club needs to understand that these people are going out of their way to help and just get on with complying.

FWIW, I visited Olivers Mount in 2016 with a view to using it for an event. My own report lists a lot more infrastructure requirements in order for me to run an event there. That simply has to be included in the budget, as cutting corners always results in poor performance.

I would have been asking for a lot more if I had done the inspection, so the requirements of the current report are actually minimal.

Thanks, you confirm what I heard from a contact inside the club, that the ACU did their best to keep the event alive. I hear it even extended to an offer of assistance in financing the upgrades.

I would imagine that it is no longer simply the decision of the ACU, if their insurer is not on board then they won’t be able to have insurance to run the event..

Lets hope that it gets sorted, because at the moment, until these points are resolved, there will be no more racing at Olivers mount.