[Graham]

 Good Morning,

I have received a number of concerns privately similar to those expressed here.

So I would first of all like to make it clear that I have always allowed the hosts to run these Rounds free of restrictions of how they run them, in order to allow divergence in both track types and in the running of the Round themselves (for better or worse). This does have consequences, some can only do this individually as "solo" hosts on home tracks, and clubs have varying levels of support to enable them to run the proxies. Individual home based hosts have generally more time to carry out the Rounds often taking a couple of days over the weekend to do so. Clubs are more restricted in terms of timeframes having to fit these Rounds into their own Club programmes, often within a narrow time margin in the evening after work and mostly at their own expense in terms of transportation to and from the clubs, Club running costs etc.

So I feel extremely grateful for the support and enthusiasm that I have received over these years of running these proxies from both individuals and clubs, without them these proxies would not have existed.

The questions which are raised are valid, as to what degree of freedom should be acceptable in terms of running a proxy round where cars are run in a continuous series where the cars generally cannot be maintained in between rounds by the owners of the cars, and if this distinction should not require a more controlled approach when running a round of the proxy whereby contact and or damage risk is taken into account.

I am not of the opinion that an entire proxy series should solely comprise of Rounds whereby cars are run only individually, I like at least some degree of appearance that the cars are involved in some form of racing competition and some degree of competitive risk. On the otherhand, I would not want to see every round run as with the last one where it "appears" perhaps the driver competitiveness overwhelmed the experience of the drivers (with the unfamiliarity of the cars).
Having said that if you look at the results and the podiums that are not that different then from any other round of the series so far.

So the question I am left with is really about the degree of acceptable inter car collisions and the potential for damage which might effect the outcome for entrants in the overall series. 

I think AdeC makes a clear and sensible suggestion that running the cars competitively whereby the cars must be separated by an empty lane, should lead to a more controlled format with less collisions but still have the element of some degree of race competitive running of the cars.

I think with the level of concern expressed about this current NERCS round (which is entirely my responsibility),  might be off putting for entrants in future proxies, so I do need to introduce a higher degree of control as expressed above for future series. I have not spoken to NERCS club about this as yet, and how difficult it would be for them to run the Round next year using only 2 lanes rather than 4 lane racing, but it would seem to be the right approach.

Also the suggestion that having a higher fence at the end of the main straight seems very good suggestion, especially in the light of my own cars experience, luckily the car body was not damaged, only the 3d printed body chassis support posts which were cleanly sheared off.