ORP 2014 in reverse?

Complex question. Will ICSCC sanction a championship series event racing in the counter-clockwise direction?
 
Last edited:
Visualizing a pack of cars coming what we think of as turn 2. How many would be able to stay on the track in that tight corner? The brake markers would obviously have to be removed. Are there sockets in the ground for the counter clockwise direction? I've been there for test days back in the beginning when all combinations and directions were tested, but never for a race that direction. I wonder if the Turn 2 stand is in a safe position for a pack of cars racing. Clockwise, the speeds are much slower there. Counter, the approach speed will be 2-3 times faster. A car losing it under braking can go either right or left quite a ways, the more momentum, the further. Food for thought.
 
Great job all. And no one had any injuries to speak of? Not even Bob? Amazing.

Should we wait for the new Steward to take command, then lobby for the T16 station that ORP built last year on (current direction) drivers right?

Tower of scaffolding not withstanding, a railed deck would make an outstanding flag station in either direction... from the ground. Or should I write the current Race Steward about it before the Fall Mtg? Because really there's not much lobbying time at the Fall meeting.
 
I don't care what way we race. ORP is my favorite track but I think you should try to make the paddock situation better before anything else.
 
Better think of what could happen if a car goes off. I remember when we ran Port Orford in the opposite direction a CF went straight out of control and T-boned another CF at about 90mph, hurting the driver and causing serious damage to both cars. Need to think worst case scenario.
 
Yes, please! But everyone's going to have to play nice at race start as Continental corner will now become turn 1 (instead of turn 16) with the green flag dropping at that turn station (I presume) instead of the start/finish tower. Other than that, this course is just as much fun going CCW as it is CW.
 
This is the part that I dread the most.

ICSCC PPM:

27.4 At tracks that have not previously hosted ICSCC sanctioned events, reconfigured
tracks or tracks not running the original direction of travel, it shall be the responsibility of
the hosting club to notify ICSCC headquarters in accordance with 8.1 of the ICSCC Policy
and Procedures Manual. The hosting club shall coordinate with ICSCC headquarters and
track management for the Steward’s review of the track which shall occur at least 75 days
prior to a proposed event. The Steward shall provide Headquarters and the hosting club
with the results of his review a minimum of 60 days prior to the scheduled event. Any
proposed ICSCC sanctioned event at such a track will be listed as “tentative” on the current
year schedule. The ICSCC Executive Board shall confirm or deny the proposed event on
the schedule and notify the hosting club of the confirmation or denial at least 45 days prior
the proposed date. (Spring 2012)

Now the process has been whittled down to the above and it doesn't take an act of ACCUS and $$ of consulting fees and travel expenses. We are only left with the anquish of waiting for the BoD to be satisfied enought to turn off the "tent" sign on the schedule. And that it's not so late that too many volunteers decide that it's not worth the trouble to travel, and budget their time and $ to other pursuits that weekend.
 
Last edited:
Leave ORP the way it is. It's one of the few clockwise running tracks around and makes a refreshing change from all the left-left-left tracks that we run. Real racers turn right.

Paul Whitworth
 
Last edited:
That's right! But I believe that the exercise is to qualify the potential of running one direction one weekend and another direction on some other weekend... when some other weekend might seem feasible. More options available for future seasons, and all. New track records, and such.

Hopefully, ORP will continue to build towards accomodating both directions with more construction in the future beyond window dressing and tire walls. Certainly the club will go through some operational tweeks to present as seamless a schedule that can be met.

We were getting the hang of it pretty good. But that's okay, we'll adapt. We'll have fun, and someone will come up with some new gimmick again in a couple more years.
 
Last edited:
I also think that resources should first be applied to continued paddock improvements, before investing in a CCW configuration. ORP is sufficiently new, different, and challenging in the CW configuration - drawing more entrants and support is predominantly a function of everything else right now, IMO.
 
Ken Killam said:
This is the part that I dread the most.

ICSCC PPM:

27.4 At tracks that have not previously hosted ICSCC sanctioned events, reconfigured
tracks or tracks not running the original direction of travel, it shall be the responsibility of
the hosting club to notify ICSCC headquarters in accordance with 8.1 of the ICSCC Policy
and Procedures Manual. The hosting club shall coordinate with ICSCC headquarters and
track management for the Steward’s review of the track which shall occur at least 75 days
prior to a proposed event. The Steward shall provide Headquarters and the hosting club
with the results of his review a minimum of 60 days prior to the scheduled event. Any
proposed ICSCC sanctioned event at such a track will be listed as “tentative” on the current
year schedule. The ICSCC Executive Board shall confirm or deny the proposed event on
the schedule and notify the hosting club of the confirmation or denial at least 45 days prior
the proposed date. (Spring 2012)

Now the process has been whittled down to the above and it doesn't take an act of ACCUS and $$ of consulting fees and travel expenses. We are only left with the anquish of waiting for the BoD to be satisfied enought to turn off the "tent" sign on the schedule. And that it's not so late that too many volunteers decide that it's not worth the trouble to travel, and budget their time and $ to other pursuits that weekend.
Click to expand...


Ken this is on the agenda for the fall meeting Kevin and I have already submitted the official request. Steward review and ICSCC board will be inspecting the track shortly.

Cheers
Pete
 
brucebe said:
I also think that resources should first be applied to continued paddock improvements, before investing in a CCW configuration. ORP is sufficiently new, different, and challenging in the CW configuration - drawing more entrants and support is predominantly a function of everything else right now, IMO.
Click to expand...

Bruce,

I will directly address your request.. and give you the email address info@oregonraceway.com. When you send an email to that address please remember that Brenda receives them (innocent bystander employee).. Make sure to address your email to the owners of ORP and not Brenda.

I want to disclose I do not have any ownership in ORP. There is only one owner of ORP on the TC BOD.

The cost of the improvements you demand is $600,000. This is a direct quote from ORP ownership. If you wish TC (a separate entity of ORP ownership) to make this happen for you your entry will be $2500 per entry in 2014. I have done the math. That's not a threat AT ALL, that's just to bring perspective to what TC has the scope to change at ORP. Paddock issues should be directed at ORP ownership and not the club. There is no realistic race budget that TC can make that will change things in the next 10 years. If you feel we can, I encourage your attendance at a TC meeting to help us solve the problem.

if you want to contact me directly I will be glad to forward any comments to ORP owners at any time. I as race chairman and TC, we do not have the financial resources to effect change on this item.

respectfully yours
Peter Belfanti
TC race chairman 2014
 
brucebe said:
I also think that resources should first be applied to continued paddock improvements, before investing in a CCW configuration. ORP is sufficiently new, different, and challenging in the CW configuration - drawing more entrants and support is predominantly a function of everything else right now, IMO.
Click to expand...

ORP was configured from the start to be run in both directions with no further improvements.. There should be little if any expense at all to configure the track in reverse..

The track is insurable in the reverse direction as already demonstrated by many events at ORP in reverse.

TC has taken on the improvement of adding brake marker footings in the reverse direction at the cost of many hours of donated labor, and less than $1500 in materials.

Best Regards
Peter Belfanti
 
I drove all 4 courses both directions on day 2. The track has fun and challenging aspects both directions. Whether this year or sometime in the future it would be nice to have ORP be sanctioned for both directions. Do we call the reverse track OLP? :)
 
Greg Miller said:
I drove all 4 courses both directions on day 2. The track has fun and challenging aspects both directions. Whether this year or sometime in the future it would be nice to have ORP be sanctioned for both directions. Do we call the reverse track OLP? :)
Click to expand...



Thank you for your support Greg!

See you next weekend!
 
Pete, You knew that, and I knew that. Now everybody knows that.

;-)

That's easy.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top