Quieter Please
In the interests of encouraging inter-blog cooperation and promoting an issue, I asked the good people at Quieter Please to write a blog for FrogBlog. Here it is:
Imagine if you will that you’re in charge of the City Plan for your City.
Your City’s ‘Vision for the Future‘ states: “Everyone’s quality of life improves as our region develops “ and : ” Our natural resources (air, land and water) are protected and kept free of pollution ”
A Motor Racing Track is situated on Council owned Recreational Reserve Land on the outskirts of the City. Not only is there an Open Circuit track on this land but also a Speedway Stadium a Drag Strip and a Mini Car Track.
Directly opposite this facility is a Golf Course. Approx 2 km away is an expanding township. There are no Sound Barriers around this track and only a scattering of trees. A small rural community is situated even closer to the track.
The track is situated on top of what is classed as part of the“ Red Zone “ in relation to your City’s Aquifer - there is nothing but shingle between it and your city’s water supply.
Motor Racing interests make submissions asking for the facility to be able to operate for 360 days a year and to more than double its output of noise.
What do you do ?
1. You allow the track to operate but with restrictions, ( after all they do use Leaded Fuel ) and so that the health of nearby residents is taken into consideration you limit their days of use and ensure that noise levels are kept at levels that ensure local residents get a fair amount of quiet time.
2. You allow them to more than double their noise levels, you extend their hours of operation and you let them operate 365 days a year.
The Christchurch City Council chose Option TWO in relation to Ruapuna. Our Blog has been set up to let people know what is happening here and we have uploaded videos to Youtube – watch these for 30 seconds and try to imagine what that noise is like for 8 hours , sometimes 14 hours, a day.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
In addition to option 1, I’d add: stop the “expanding township” from expanding. One of the “many” downsides of urban sprawl and lifestyle blocks is that they east into the space available for activities that are incompatible with residential use. Car racing is one of very dubious environmental value, but think of something like windfarms. Some people say “we’re all in favour of them, but not near us, so they should only be in remote areas”: then they go and live in what were previously “remote areas”.
In the case you mention, if the township keeps expanding, it won’t be long before they go beyond making legitimate complaints about increasing noise, and start to crack down on pre-existing activities.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
From the vantage of Google Maps, I also note there is a Quarry and a Prison in fairly close proximity to the Ruapuna Raceway. It sounds like a fairly good case for restricting the development of residental sprawl in the area,
There is also the PPCS meat plant at islaington which just about abuts the road opposite the golfcourse mentioned,
The residential town nearest the speedway is Templeton, which grew up to service the Templeton hospital, then Centre, and which I beleive is now closed.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
from my understanding of it, the Quarry can’t be heard , even from the Golf Course, The Golf Course was there 30 odd years before the track, the township was there over 100 years before the track. But all of that is irrelevant - just because they dumped sewerage in the Avon 50 years ago doesn’t make it OK to keep doing it does it ? - everywhere businesses and private citizens are being made to “clean up” and lower their emissions - how come the business of Motor”sport” doesn’t have to clean up it’s act ?
February 19th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
The Christchurch city council is to be applauded for this action, it is great to see the fun police lose one for a change.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
thus spake the troll
February 19th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
You could set up a secondary industry of treatment centres for the deaf, and start a double glazing factory nearby. Not only will double glazing help with noise pollution, we could educate Kiwis to the benefits to insulation from double glazed windows.
Opportunities abound.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Frog,
Big Bruv really just seems to want to see his name in print. He adds little of value to this forum, hates most of what we stand for and delights in pi**ing people off. I can’t understand why is here except to entertain himself.
I for one would like to see him asked courteously to cease and desist and go play with his Hummer in Baghdad.
And before you write your diatribe in return BB, be aware that I will in all likeliness print it out and use it for toilet paper.
Cheers.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I did not interpret BB’s above comment as a trolling comment. It seemed to me to merely reflect an opinion against NIMBYism.
Three questions please, to the left-leaning visitors about this post:
1. WHY do you think the Council voted for option #2.
2. Do you think that Motor sports should be banned?
3. If not, where would a good place be for a motor race track?
February 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
PS: With regard to Ruapuna - I think the residents have a good case to take to Ch-Ch council, but I am still interested in people’s response to the above questions.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
ZT,
As no one else is jumping up I’ll leap in and take a shot:
1. No idea - more votes in that one?
2. Nope, just should have some reasonable fuel efficiency standards imposed (i.e. they should actually get somewhere when the burn up all that fuel rather than just go round in circles)
3. I hear that Salt Lake City is a pretty good spot, some old codger from Invercargill did pretty well there on a motorbike a few years back..
I’ll leave it to others to come up with some serious answers - just thought someone should confirm a few prejudices before we all get too PC about it.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
ZT - a guess at Q1: financial benefits to city of Chch? $$$$
February 20th, 2007 at 1:12 am
For the best of both worlds, let them do what they want at the track, as long as they do it at 50km/L (or BTU equivalent) or better. Fuel efficient vehicles make less noise, less smog, and help the industry develop.
Of course, we don’t have a motor vehicle industry here, and it’s technically quite challenging to go 200km/h at 50km/L, but other than that, it’s all good. Hell, forcing them to no less than 5 km/L would be a good start.
KT. 1: They like the vroom vrooms (or the $ $s, or the voter votes). 2: No, but they could be made more productive to society. 3: Everywhere they’re allowed to be. Cars go fast, make noise. Huzzah!
February 20th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Tigger :
1) I guess the number of their constituents who like motor sports and don’t live within earshot, is greater than the number of constituents inconvenienced by the track. But the fact that a majority votes to oppress a minority doesn’t make it right.
2) No, I wouldn’t want motor sports banned, but it’s legitimate to bring in enviro regs to restrict what they can do. They already have to live with safety regs, after all — there would still be people willing to race if there were no limits and frequent deaths : racing is one of those activities that inherently need heavy regulation.
My personal preference would be for electric-only racing. Pretty exciting, massive acceleration, but not much in the way of vroom vroom, which is a drawback I suppose.
3) Depends on what the status quo was. My opinion is that established usage should be respected. The se two letters on the “Quieter Please!” blog both make valid points : nobody could have moved to the area without being aware of the track and the noise issue; however the frequency and noise level seem to have increased markedly in recent years.
If the Council has indeed doubled the allowable noise level and allowed them to operate 365 days a year, then that is a major change, and a major imposition on residents. As a former resident of Western Springs, I benefited from free/compulsory Elton John concerts, plus occasional speedway, and I accepted that it went with the territory. But if there were to be speedway and concerts five nights a week, then there would be riots.
I think they need to establish what the historic level of noise and frequency was, and formalize an arrangement based on that. Any substantial increase would need to be negotiated with residents — perhaps in terms of financial payments to residents to compensate both for the nuisance, and for the loss of property value.
All things considered, it’s a commons problem. The track operators want to make money by using a limited resource : peace and quiet. Let the user pay.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:17 am
This really deserves to be in an open thread, but I wanted you to know that this article on Slashdot has caused me to come around on the GM issue.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/18/0431243&from=rss
February 20th, 2007 at 6:25 am
The track can stay and operate 24×7x365. The council is negligent for zoning residential near the track. Should be zoned industrial. The purchasers are dumb for buying housing near a noisy event centre.
Reminds me of the Auckland second runway proposal. As soon as it was announced we sold and moved from directly under the new flight path.
Despite knowing that the new runway will be built in the future, the Manukau City Council has permitted new subdivisions throughout Mangere under the new flight path.
Guess who will be complainng when the domestic flights take off from the new runway?
Bit of thought is required by purchasers and more responsibilities needs to be shown by the local bodies.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:54 am
brian..!..
next you’ll be telling us the penny has (finally!) dropped for you re farming animals for food..
and you’ve gone vegan..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 20th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Sorry, OT. Brian: The penny will not drop until we stop experimenting on animals to predict human responses to the same substances.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
This isn’t a matter of people moving IN to an area and then complaining - people have lived alongside Ruapuna for decades and tolerated a FAIR amount of noise. In the past 2-3 years however the noise has quite literally been a daily occurance - it is totally unneccessary and wasteful.While many of us do our best to reduce emissions we have a group of people driving around in circles for hours on end in gas guzzling loud cars , isn’t it time the Motor Racing Industry got with the times , left this behaviour behind and lead the world in developing and racing Green Cars ? There was a time when the Motor Racing Industry was a leader in development - now they’re stuck back in the 60’s and the rest of the world has moved on.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Define a “green” car and your answer will be as varied as models of car on the road.
Motor racing is still a leader in car developemnt, any suggestion it is not?
Lap times of the sixties cars were much slower then todays ones. Racing car development has a lot to do with that.
Be interesting to quantify how many people are directly or indirectly employed by the total motor racing industry (rallying, circuit, speedway, stockcars, karting, etc.)
Not to mention the enjoyment the participants and spectators get from the motor racing business.
Guess we can all go back to watching horses race boringly around a track!
But they fart and belch methane so are not as “green” as could be.
On a serious note I have been following the advent of compressed air powered cars. No fuel costs except the power required to compress the air. Commercially nearly available. Hybrid cars using a small petrol air compressor will run 2000 K’s on a tank of fuel. Straight compressed air cars about 200 K’s. Topping up the compressed air tanks takes around four minutes.
Tanks have to be made from carbon fibre to prevent a serious explosion if the vehicle is in a collision. Carbon fibre will crak and disipitate the air slowly. Similarly in a fire the resin will melt and let the compressed air slowly.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
While Big Bruv is clearly pushing a sadly depleted argument, Smokey needs to exhale.
While you would have dissenters thrown out of the room, I would much rather keep the dissenters than the church choir.
Leave views of motor racing out of it. It’s not going anywhere.
My guess to #1: because the CCC legally could? If so, this would make a significant difference to Western Springs, where the speedway is exceeding local noise limits, and has been doing so for years with noncholant disregard to anyone.
So, Quiter Please, why (and how) did the CCC do it?
February 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Also: congrats Frog for inviting input from another source. nice format.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
James
Given that the residents living in and around Western Springs and I imagine those living near the raceway in Christchurch moved there well after the track was first built they have no grounds for complaint at all.
It really is simple, if you don’t like the noise purchase a property somewhere else.
The real problem we have in NZ is that a few (usually those who dismiss the argument as “depleted”) are hell bent on ruining anybody else’s fun, I can only assume they get off on the power trip.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The answer is quite simple. Built a sound proof wall aound the facilities. This is going to happen at Western Springs I believe but guess who are objecting to the wall? And who wont issue a permit for what needs to be a high wall up on the hill?
Walls are built along motorway in build up area’s in Sydney, Melbourne Brisbane, etc. to keep the sound in so why not around Ruapuna. Would not be need to be too high but if angled right deflects the noise up and over the residential houses where wind will dissipitate it.
If the income generated at Ruapuna warrants it I’m sure the owners will put it up and the council wont object.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
big bruv maybe you need to get your facts straight once and for all.From what I can understand from relatives living even further out from Templeton and STILL suffering from noise pollution, many houses in the vicinity of Ruapuna were there long before the Raceway. Hundreds of residents lived uncomplainingly until ChCh City Council, WITHOUT notification, changed both the hours of operation and the noise level which now far exceeds W.H.O guidelines.Even the Templeton Golf Course was long before the Raceway and I’m sure that those who play there will remember if they wrack their brains hard enough they will remember that Golf USED to be a QUIET SPORT
February 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Woof woof
Read it again, nowhere did I state for an absolute fact that the people living near Ruapuna moved there before the track was built, I merely suggested it might be a possibility.
I note that you do not make any mention of Western Springs in your post.
This does not lessen the fact that many people are bloody determined to ruin the fun of others simply because they do not like motor sport.
I am sure that I could make a case for the opera in the park or the carols by candlelight breaching some wet WHO noise levels yet I chosse not to do so.
I detest opera and all things “arty” yet I do not try and stop those events going ahead simply because I do not like them.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Green Cars you ask … check out this article http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_2001_August_1/ai_76 998959 written WAY back in 2001 - also how about some money being tipped into quiet vehicles and developing mufflers for race cars - even the good folk around Monza recently won a court battle to shut that track up there is absolutely NO need for what is essentially a hobby for a lot of people to impinge so much on the lives of others. To Quote : ” Noise, more than most pollutants, is closely related to manners. Good neighbors keep their noise to themselves; bad neighbors don’t “
February 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Big Bruv,
Now that you DO have the absolute fact that people WERE living in the area BEFORE Ruapuna, let me ask you this question.
If YOU had Opera in the Park (now isn’t that and also Carols by Candlelight held but once a year ?) every blasted day wouldn’t you be complaining too? I bet you would, go on, admit it, you would.
Western Springs is a totally different issue, the promotors were breaking the Noise Rules. Are they above the Law?
Ruapuna ‘complies’, the sky’s the limit for them.
Ruapuna is a case where ChCh City Council has been negligent in its duty to protect the living conditions of people living in over 600 homes within earshot - homes they seem more than happy to collect rates from.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Woofwoof, While you say it is a hobby for most people in motorsport I dont think that is an actual fact. While the drivers - owners might considered it a hobby there is a significant industry build up around it.
Not to mention the global exposure that an international event like the A1 GP at Taupo generates for New Zealand. Very similar numbers to the Rugby World Cup (even higher I would think).
It would seem that the idea of building a sound deadening wall around the section of Ruapuna facing the golf club and residential areas is not an option.
Auckland has the problem sorted by potentially moving the speedway and other dirt track racing to near the airport in Puhinui. Drag racing is at Merereme and the new racing circuit is being built at Hampton Downs.
While the neighbours at Western Springs will be happy, the carbon footprint to attend the events at the new venues will climb as spectators, competitors and organisers have to travel further.
Any noise complaints in Christchurch against flight operations at the Airport?
February 20th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I’d imagine if planes started to circle houses for 8 hours a day there might be ! i think there is a difference between a transitory noise like a plane ( which in Chch use 3-4 different flight paths ) and a continuous monotonous sound like that of a loud car driving in circles.
let me state here : ” I HATE Motor Racing ” - I refuse to call it a “sport” because I think its more of a global advertising industry. For Oil companies , Car and Tyre manufacturers. And I don’t know that you CAN seperate out this issue by taking away the ” i hate motor racing ” equation.
I’ll tell you why I hate it : While me , my family and friends do our most to reduce our footprint on this planet, these people glory in conspicuous consumption - the fuel used at Bathhurst alone in one day is enough to keep a regular family car going for a bloody long time ( I forget the actual figure but its mind boggling ).
Racing is a very near-sighted form of entertainment, and many of its proponents and fans look to me to have no awareness of the state of this planet. Do we just look away and accept that the dollar rules or do we take action that can ultimately preserve the planet, decrease pollution and leave some of that fuel for something of practical use?
February 20th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Haz, we cost in the externalities and give people free choice on what they chose to spend their money on.
It’s a bad idea to ban things because some people dont like it, or approve of it. Or we could go back to banning homosexuality, rock concerts (especially the upcoming “Live Earth” concerts) and voting Labour (and other socially unacceptable behaviour)
In this case, sound is a major output that has not been properly costed, and local rights have been trampled on. The first step is to go back to the council and seek a solution.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I’m not actually talking about banning it - and on reading the Quieter Please blog I see that they’re not asking for a shutdown - just a FAIR GO. I’m not silly enough to think you could ban it but I am sure, that in my lifetime, people will look back in amazement that we tolerated Noisey Cars both on the track and on our roads ( hands up all those bloody sick of these so called “sports exhausts ” - which to me seem to be nothing more than some kind of pathetic atttempt to compensate for small…small… brains ) and that such squandering of fossil fuels was encouraged .Especially when you add into the equation that these people use LEADED fuel - they’re not performing heart surgery there,or even finding a way to make cars run more efficiently, in fact most race cars run the opposite of efficient - and by the look of that Noise Diary on the Blog there are days when there are joy riders just circling the track for hours on end.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Bro :
I detest opera and all things “arty� yet I do not try and stop those events going ahead simply because I do not like them.
I love opera and all things “arty”, but if these outdoor events are amplified, I would ban them… On aesthetic grounds. Opera is meant to be loud, but in a specially designed confined space where the acoustics are good (and doesn’t inconvenience opera-haters). Amplified opera is an abomination.
Gerrit :
Motor racing is still a leader in car developemnt, any suggestion it is not?
Yes, I suggest it is not. You’re living in the past. The technical improvements it brings (higher speeds mostly) are not actual progress of any useful sort. You give the example that racing cars go much faster now than they did in the 60s… well here’s a clue… they were already going quite fast enough in the 60s! I don’t want a car that can go 300 km/h, I want a car that consumes as little energy as possible.
What would bring useful technological innovation would be alternative-energy racing. The “which car can go furthest on a litre of gas” style doesn’t actually cut it as a spectator sport… there’s a need for speed.
By the way : have you got a link to your compressed-air car thing?
February 21st, 2007 at 6:24 am
Alistair,
http://www.theaircar.com/
Also seen info on an Australian designed rotary compressed air engine which is even more efficient then the conrod and piston french design.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EngineAir
The Australian engine neds a car while the french have sorted the storage capacity, recharging sorted but are a bit underpowered. Maybe the Greens could get the two to cooperate and design a 99% no carbon footprint car.
Motor racing technology has increased the spped around the track but you are just thinking straight line speed. The actual top speed in the straight line is incrementally faster. The Mustangs in the 60 were hitting 150 mph in the 60’s. The Falcons today dont go much faster. What they do do is stop and corner faster. Suspension development on the race track, better brake design (drum versus 4 and 6 pot discs) have been transferred to the road cars for improved (and saver) handling and cornering. Remember back in the 60’s having to pull motors apart to “do” rings and bearings? My Toyota now runs for 300,000 click without a rebuild. Must be an energy saving there in skinned knuckles alone!
Motor racing developments saw the introduction of engine management computorisation. This has been transferred to road cars for greater fuel and engine life efficiency.
I guess you could argue that these would have occured anyway. But I think they are directly sourced from factory involvement in motor racing.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
When you consider that the racers are a minority, and that the majority would prefer to enjoy peaceful activities in the absence of noise, then who is the minority BB is talking about that is spoiling peoples’ fun?
I ws involved in a similar RMA consent hearing in Carterton, where Reids piggery (trading under “Premiere Bacon”) wanted to expand their factory farm to produce even more odour. While my own objections were over animal welfare and environmental destruction, a lot of neighbours objected to the odour. The pro-factory farming lobby trotted out the same sort of tired argument that if you buy in the coutnry you should expect farm odour, but they also failed to take into account exactly the same sort of concrns the Christchurch anti noise people are making.
1. Most objectors were in fact long term residents who had been in the area longer than the factory farm.
2. While some farmyard odour is to be expected in the country, the odour has been getting steadily worse since the piggery changed from free range to factory farming. A free range piggery produces a slight animal odour that most people did not consider unpleasant. The factory farm on the other hand produces more raw sewerage than the city of Wanganui, most of which is sprayed directly on to the land.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
February 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am
In response to comparisons between Western Springs and Ruapuna :
I’m not ENTIRELY sure of the rules regarding WS but i THINK their levels are 85 dBA and they can hold approx 12 meetings a year.
Ruapuna’s Rules are :
Operational noise levels of 90dBA Lmax and 65dBA L10 (1 hour)
to apply between the hours of 0900 and 2200 hours on ANY day of the calendar year, except that:
.for up to 200 days in any calendar year, the permitted levels
shall be 95dBA Lmax and 80dBA L10 (1 hour), between the hours of
0900 and 2300;
.for up to 15 of those 200 days, these activities shall be
permitted up to 2400 hours;On up to 5 of those 200 days, NO L _max level shall be applied.
Now 95 dBA is TWICE as loud as 85 dBA. It has been established that hearng damage can occur at 85dBA
There are homes within 400 metres of this noise - two of which were there first- the rest are approx 40 years old. The noise is very often loud enough to be heard 1.6 km away by a person wearing grade 5 industrial ear muffs - the noise from a SINGLE ” hire a ride in a race car ” can be heard 5 km away - which is the smarter solution - demolish the hundreds upon hundreds of homes in this radius or fit decent mufflers to the cars ?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
QP
Or build a sound deadening wall which may be visual intrusion into peoples vista?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am
The track is situated on wide open plain - a sound deadening wall is not viable and apparently wouldn’t work. In more enlightened/smarter situations noisy facilities such as Ruapuna are surrounded by VERY dense tree plantings/ in the middle of large forests or often placed into old quarries. We continue to reiterate : a facility like this, so close to housing and without any sound buffers at all should NEVER have been granted such lax noise “rules”. Overseas Noise experts that we have contacted have - without exception - been appalled at the decibel levels granted in this case, and the fact that they can do this EVERY SINGLE DAY
February 21st, 2007 at 10:55 am
kiore1
Interesting that you are concerned about the (so called) minority being allowed to continue their legitimate sport while the majority appose it.
Today we have Bradford’s section 59 bill being read in the house again, 80%+ of NZ parents do not want this bill to be changed at all yet Bradford continues to push ahead with it.
You cannot have it both ways Kiore.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
If you’re talking about leaded fuels it has to be drag racing or some fairly primitive stock-cars.
Haz, you’re wrong about fuel efficiency being unimportant to the racers in general. It is not important to these categories, but F1 and Indy racing both make no allowance for pit-stops, so the time spent in the pits is time lost on the track. There’s a weight advantage too. You want to motor across the line with a dry tank… and you know how much the engine burns per lap to the ml (well maybe not that close
The dragsters don’t care and loud is good. Mufflers would be almost impossible… at least I can’t imagine one that would work. The engines are so stressed that they are often rebuilt completely between races.
I sympathize.
The sound deadening “mound of earth” between the houses and the track would also need to be covered with trees. It’d be visually obtrusive to be sure but it’d reduce noise. I’d suggest that and some sanity with respect to the hours of operation.
I don’t think you can insist on mufflers. Also I don’t think you should imply that the sound levels at 400 meters are the same as where the statutory measurement is taken… though I don’t doubt that they render the houses marginal habitations for humans (humans who are not already deaf at any rate). One has to hear a fuel dragster to believe it.
Sounds like a problem that’ll get sorted in the courts.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
QP
Until now I never knew exactly what the Rules were. Now that I do, I am astounded at the hours and noise levels allowed. If they were increased without the neighbourly courtesy of consultation from both Ruapuna and CCC then without a doubt the residents in surrounding areas have been well and truly shafted.This is beyond belief that councillors pandering to motor racing have allowed this to happen completely ignoring the health and well being of the ratepayers.This is Election Year, make those City Councillors earn their keep and fulfil their empty promises to “work tirelessly” and “your concern is my concern”
February 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Can anyone demonstrate how the Green Charter applies in this case?:
Appropriate Decision-making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
jh
February 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
BJ
Dragsters use either ethanol (gas classes) or Nitromethanal (Fuel classes).
Neither use lead.
To the best of my knowledge most racing cars use high octane aviation gas or Shell No1 Racing Fuel both which I understand are unleaded. I could be proven wrong.
Top Fuel cars produce in excess of 8000 HP and mufflers would simply be blown off.
There are two sounds in racing which are unforgetable. One is a Top Fueller leaving the line. A controlled explosion is the correct term and the boom is terrific. (standing at the finish line and listen to the supercharger whine at over 20000 rpm is awesome)
Second best sound was the standing at the end of the straight at the Adelaide track and listening to the FI cars come down from full noise in sixth gear and slam through the gears down to second or first to negatiate the hairpin. Five gears in the space of a second (and 70 metres of track)
And a third for good measure is the high pitched thrill sound the 2.5 litre Tasman Dino Ferrari made around the track back in the sixties driven by Chris Amon and the following year by Graeme Lawrence.
Enough to bring goosebumps to the skin. God, I’m a petrolhead!
February 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Gerrit
I was going to say the same thing “they don’t use it”, but I’m careful about statements like that. I had to look it up to believe that there was any leaded for sale, but it is still shipped about by the bbl for these specific things. Yeah, the big fuel dragsters use nitro, but apparently some of the “lesser” classes do not go the whole way. The older engines still “need” the lead, and this is apparently older-engine-racing being practiced.
To know what’s on at that track would have to know what the racers are actually running. The people making the complaint may not be the best source of information about the fuels in use. Still, their real point is the noise and there’s no denying the noise.
I didn’t hear the Dino, but I DID hear the F1 in Adelaide in ‘89 or ‘90 when I was there. Heard the Dino and some others at Bridgehampton Racetrack in New York. That was a long time ago.
You could hear the practice laps clearly in Sag Harbour.
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
jh Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Can anyone demonstrate how the Green Charter applies in this case?:
—————————————————————-
‘thought so
jh