e-KMI.com Inside Info

International Karting Industry Buyer's Guide

GO KARTING!
A Guide To The World's Most Popular Motorsport.

Kart Expo International

INSIDE INFO

INDOOR KARTING – SOME BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
- PART ONE -
Opinion by Peter F. Olesen P.E.

Author Note: This article is written with the assumption that the primary purpose for developing indoor karting facilities is to create a profit center. Should the reader only be interested in club or purist operations, none of our comments will have any impact on the direction they take. While kart racing enthusiasts may disagree with this article, or at least portions of it, we feel it is prudent to give very consideration to the points we seek to make.

Publisher note: When the ASTM voted on voluntary concession karting standards on January 28, 2000, the ASTM F24 Committee established a new work group which would allow the indoor karting industry to establish its own criteria which may result in changes, exceptions and/or additions to the newly established standards.

The indoor go-kart market is still evolving throughout the United States: both in the number of facilities and the concepts being applied. There are facilities that have operated for many years as indoor concession go-kart tracks as well as others following the indoor kart racing concepts similar to those used in Europe. Some are successful while others have not been. Detailed information is scarce, as both successful and failed operators are reluctant to share specific data.

A wide range of design concepts are being applied to indoor track design and operation with no current consistent industry-accepted standards. This has occurred, in part, due to some members of the indoor karting industry feeling that outdoor concession karting standards do not apply to them. Whether or not this is the case depends on the individual circumstances for any given site. City, county and state regulations vary widely throughout the United States. In many areas there are no defined set of regulations or standards being applied, while other areas have very detailed regulations.

There are individuals in the industry that feel very strongly that the European concepts are the only ones that can be successful. We differ, as we feel the driving skills or lack thereof, of the people that walk in to open karting sessions will result in higher injury rates, more liability claims and greater equipment maintenance costs using the concept of the “Euro” format.

Many states are either looking closely at the (new) ASTM guidelines as potential standards to apply to both outdoor and indoor karting or are already in the process of making them their standards. To date, we are not aware of any realistic alternative set of standards for indoor karting.

There are many steps that should be taken prior to making any final commitment to opening an indoor go-kart operation. Most of the steps may seem to be simple and unnecessary, but they have been ignored by others and often with devastating results. Among the first items to be considered are the following overall questions:

1. Which karting format will be used?
2. Where will the facility be located?
3. Is there a sufficient market to support the proposed format?
4. Is there sufficient funding available to cover the first year construction and operating costs?

Each of the above questions represent a tip of the proverbial “iceberg”. Once they’ve been addressed, they raise many other issues that must be addressed in order for a project to have a potential for success.

ESTABLISHING THE OPERATING FORMAT – There are several approaches being followed in developing indoor go-kart facilities. These include the following:

1. Conventional concession go-kart operations, following guidelines developed by the IRGA and largely echoed in the recently adopted ATSM guidelines. These call for seat belts and roll bars.
2. European indoor racing go-kart and track design criteria and operating formats. Under this concept we have a number of different approaches being taken. Many of these facilities utilize karts that have neither seat belts nor roll bars. The acceptance of these differences, in many cases, is a result of the developers being associated with outdoor kart racing where karts don’t have seat belts or roll bars.

NOTE: The pursuit of the European concept is not part of our philosophy and approach to developing track facilities. Therefore, this article will contain no specific design concepts to be used in the development of such facilities, other than the concepts used for conventional concession kart facilities.

Many people choose to ignore the fact that the basic difference between concession go-kart operations and competition kart racing is, other than the speeds and kart configuration, that racing karts are usually owned by the driver, while concession karts are rented from the track operator for the period of once specific driving experience. In the case of indoor tracks, application of the “racing” format increases the potential for injuries to inexperienced drivers.

Most, if not all, of the current indoor karting facilities permit members of the public to “rent” their karts for specific times and/or specific periods. This puts these operations into the concession go-kart business, with all of the associated legal nuances. The “renting” of racing go-karts in this venue brings with it the inherent liability the owner of the facility faces in the event of serious injuries.

The legal profession (including some elements with “bottom-feeding” mentalities) has certainly discovered concession go-karting. Their attention will soon reach the indoor karting segment, which still feels it is outside of the concession kart definition. There is really no difference when the indoor facility rents karts out by the ride or time segment. The definition of the attraction as concession karting can easily be made.

The relative driving skills and the sense of responsibility required of drivers in the two venues varies significantly. Unfortunately, no one, to this writer’s satisfaction, has established satisfactory definitions that could be used to effectively differentiate the two, in the event of liability litigation, not only against the track operator, but the kart manufacturer as well. There may well be an additional issue in terms of manufacturer product liability in the event of equipment-related issues when the equipment is imported. These issues especially apply to dedicated kart racers who seek to recreate the outdoor experience on an indoor track.

The casual (inexperienced) driver coming into a racing environment with rental karts may have no dedication to racing ethics nor possibly the skills to drive in this environment. Many such drivers look on go-karting as a mild form of “demolition derby”. Others become bored in the middle of their run and decide to start nudging others or testing the safety barrier systems.

This can result in much higher maintenance cost (especially in the lighter Euro karts), as well as greatly increasing the potential for injury and possible litigation. With the greater apparent potential for injuries using European concepts, we fail to see any benefits in selecting karts that don’t conform to ASTM guidelines.

For most facilities, the casual driver (in either environment) will constitute a major portion of the people using the facility’s karts. Therefore, the speeds, track regulations and control, as well as the safety provisions of the karts can all contribute to the potential for injuries. The legal profession has certainly become aware of the potential market.

We fail to understand the strong resistance on the part of some operators and drivers to incorporating the ASTM and IRGA published recommended guidelines. They do not impede the creation of interesting and challenging track designs and seat belts and roll bars certainly don’t diminish the driving experience.

In our opinion, it is only a matter of time before most of the bodies having jurisdiction over indoor karting will adopt the ASTM guidelines or a close facsimile thereof. With the costs involved in leasing or purchasing a building, constructing the karting facilities and purchasing karts and related equipment, it would seem far more prudent to refer to, and follow, the ASTM guidelines. This would avoid the potential of having to upgrade or completely replace an initial facility not constructed in accordance with the guidelines.

SITE ENVIRONMENT – The major differences that really impact the bottom line of any facility are those of site location, format, public perception, quality of equipment, and people services. The general public is not as concerned with the kart configuration as enthusiasts are. Insurance carriers and the bottom feeding lawyers have a strong interest in which ones you operate (for different reasons).

Consideration must be given to the location, accessibility and perceived safety of any site you give serious attention to. This is especially true for any site that is anticipated to attract family units. Nothing will reduce attendance faster than a location whose environment makes families or even adults feel uneasy. This, unfortunately, disqualifies some of the most reasonably priced building in any community.

When seeking a building for an indoor facility, we recommend that consideration be given to the following items:
1. Ease in customers finding the facility
2. Access from area travel corridors
3. Parking lot capacity and available site lighting
4. The physical appearance of the building’s façade
5. Appearance of the surrounding neighborhood
6. The proximity of competing attractions

The above items consider the desirability of a given building or site. There are also many specific issues that become associated with determining a given building’s suitability for developing the go-kart facility.

The overall feasibility of any given building being suitable can also be greatly affected by the following:
1. Applicable state, county and local building codes, regulations and ordinances
2. OSHA and public health codes, standards and regulations
3. Overall space available and configuration of that space
4. Column spacing, location of doors and stairways
5. Existing air handling system and associated ventilation
6. Available electrical service

Information on each of the above should be obtained and reviewed prior to proceeding with any design. Failure to become aware of all the hoops you may have to jump through from a bureaucratic standpoint, as well as design-wise, can result in unnecessary costs, time delays and possible rejections.

NEXT MONTH: PART TWO – THE DESIGN PROCESS AND MUCH MORE

About the author: Peter Olesen is a Licensed Professional Engineer in eight states and President of Peter F. Olesen and Associates, Inc. 500 West Central Road, Suite 205, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 USA. The firm provides consulting services to concession go-kart and Family Entertainment Center clients. Project span 35 states, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico and Brunei. Service range from preliminary site evaluations, feasibility studies, concept development, master planning, design and construction engineering services for project that include concession go-kart tracks, miniature golf courses, indoor and outdoor family entertainment centers and theme parks. These services apply to new facilities as well as renovation or expansion of existing facilities. Mr. Olesen has written many magazine articles on the industry and has made presentations at numerous industry seminars.

END

View Past "The Inside Info" Articles

Kart Marketing Group, Inc.
Post Office Box 101
Wheaton, IL 60189 USA
Telephone: 630-653-7368
Fax: 630-653-2637
Email: karting@msn.com

Back to Home Page

Neatconcept, Inc