NASCAR stages road course test at Charlotte Motor Speedway

Formerjackman said:
Because the people who designed it are some kind of experts? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes.
Revman said:
Does Kyle Busch need an advantage on a new road course? No.
Nut up? 2015. Nuts. Up. #Champion
Click to expand...
Aaaand here it comes. He never disappoints.
AndyMarquisLive said:
You really think the most talented driver in all of NASCAR racing needs the course altered just for him? You think the best road course driver in all of NASCAR needs the course altered just for him?
He is far and away the most qualified driver in NASCAR to participate in a road course test and give feedback.
Click to expand...
:XXROFL::XXROFL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdj
gnomesayin said:
The only tracks that are better designs than Iowa Speedway were built in the 1950s and 60s. As a former Kansas City resident, it is a shame that Kansas Speedway has two Cup dates and Iowa zero.
Click to expand...

Its a great track but they have a long way to go to get a Cup race, the track is great but entry and exit is a Problem, unless you are fortunate to use the track airport. :D
 
Formerjackman said:
The Charlotte Roval, brought to you by Speedway Motorsports, co-creator of the McOval. The next original idea they have in track design will likely be the first.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they're smart enough to know their limitations and hire the right experts for the job. And certainly not rely on the so called "experts" from a message board.
 
Johali said:
I'm sure they're smart enough to know their limitations and hire the right experts for the job. And certainly not rely on the so called "experts" from a message board.
Click to expand...

I never SAID I was an expert, although some of the mistakes in the initial design were obvious to anybody who has ever watched a road course race before. I don't think ANYBODY is more qualified to design a race track than the people who actually race on it. Certainly there are practical considerations that would have to involve track management and the people actually tasked with building it, but no design guy ANYWHERE is going to know more about what makes a good track than a driver . If you think the people involved currently are such experts, maybe you could look up their resume and post it here. I for one would love to see it. I also think it is telling that at least so far, SMI management has been willing to make changes, which tells me that even THEY understand that driver input is important. Look, I've been on record since day one that I think this whole thing is a bad idea, but by actually listening to the people who have to figure out how in the hell to drive the thing without getting killed, I think SMI can upgrade this from a complete clusterf*** to just a disappointing race course. .
 
Formerjackman said:
I never SAID I was an expert, although some of the mistakes in the initial design were obvious to anybody who has ever watched a road course race before. I don't think ANYBODY is more qualified to design a race track than the people who actually race on it. Certainly there are practical considerations that would have to involve track management and the people actually tasked with building it, but no design guy ANYWHERE is going to know more about what makes a good track than a driver . If you think the people involved currently are such experts, maybe you could look up their resume and post it here. I for one would love to see it. I also think it is telling that at least so far, SMI management has been willing to make changes, which tells me that even THEY understand that driver input is important. Look, I've been on record since day one that I think this whole thing is a bad idea, but by actually listening to the people who have to figure out how in the hell to drive the thing without getting killed, I think SMI can upgrade this from a complete clusterf*** to just a disappointing race course. .
Click to expand...
This entire post is an opinion as was mine. And I disagree with it.
 
Last edited:
Formerjackman said:
I never SAID I was an expert, although some of the mistakes in the initial design were obvious to anybody who has ever watched a road course race before. I don't think ANYBODY is more qualified to design a race track than the people who actually race on it. Certainly there are practical considerations that would have to involve track management and the people actually tasked with building it, but no design guy ANYWHERE is going to know more about what makes a good track than a driver . If you think the people involved currently are such experts, maybe you could look up their resume and post it here. I for one would love to see it. I also think it is telling that at least so far, SMI management has been willing to make changes, which tells me that even THEY understand that driver input is important. Look, I've been on record since day one that I think this whole thing is a bad idea, but by actually listening to the people who have to figure out how in the hell to drive the thing without getting killed, I think SMI can upgrade this from a complete clusterf*** to just a disappointing race course. .
Click to expand...
You remind me of a fickle football fan who whines about the upcoming game, complains about the coaches, players , offense, defense, then the team wins and you come back with , well I knew if we did this and did that we would have a shot to win blah blah blah. My point, just give them a chance to run the damn thing before you start drawing conclusions.
 
Spotter22 said:
You remind me of a fickle football fan who whines about the upcoming game, complains about the coaches, players , offense, defense, then the team wins and you come back with , well I knew if we did this and did that we would have a shot to win blah blah blah. My point, just give them a chance to run the damn thing before you start drawing conclusions.
Click to expand...

Hell, the course will be his idea if it works
 
Johali said:
This entire post is an opinion as was mine. And I disagree with it.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that. What I what I'm interested in is WHY you disagree. I don't learn a damn thing by people just saying they disagree with me.
 
Formerjackman said:
I'm fine with that. What I what I'm interested in is WHY you disagree. I don't learn a damn thing by people just saying they disagree with me.
Click to expand...
If you can't figure it out from my previous posts then I can't help you any further.
 
What I find rather laughable is that people are arguing over a race that hasn't happened. The characteristics/quirks of the "roval" won't be
fully shown until under race conditions.
Obviously, the designers asked the drivers that they thought would give the best feedback to test the course. Whether we agree
on those choices, it was up to the designers. I don't have a problem with their choices --- the ones they chose are all good
road course drivers.
 
Probably because they have made a number of changes to the original configuration, and what happens 9 times out of ten is that when you make a change, it affects other areas you can't foresee
 
StandOnIt said:
Hell, the course will be his idea if it works
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't work that way. Quite the opposite. I'm making it crystal clear where I stand on this whole thing so when it happens people will either say that guy was dead on, or boy was he ever wrong. It doesn't take much to have a take on an idea AFTER it's happened. The downside of this for me is that we can't even agree on whether Martinsville was a good race or not, so no matter WHAT happens, there will be people here telling me I was full of it.
 
Formerjackman said:
I never SAID I was an expert, although some of the mistakes in the initial design were obvious to anybody who has ever watched a road course race before. I don't think ANYBODY is more qualified to design a race track than the people who actually race on it. Certainly there are practical considerations that would have to involve track management and the people actually tasked with building it, but no design guy ANYWHERE is going to know more about what makes a good track than a driver . If you think the people involved currently are such experts, maybe you could look up their resume and post it here. I for one would love to see it. I also think it is telling that at least so far, SMI management has been willing to make changes, which tells me that even THEY understand that driver input is important. Look, I've been on record since day one that I think this whole thing is a bad idea, but by actually listening to the people who have to figure out how in the hell to drive the thing without getting killed, I think SMI can upgrade this from a complete clusterf*** to just a disappointing race course. .
Click to expand...

I can't say whether it'll be a good race or not. I agree that they should and are taking more driver input right up to the event itself.

Charlotte has a wide berth with this and will be largely forgiven if it is a bumpy start. It needs to be taken into account that the experiment came about because few are fond of the product it replaces: a second (third if you count the All-Star race) oval race at CMS in an environment where a majority of fans and more pointedly NBC (if you pay attention to their public statements about how much they like road courses) feel that there are too many monotonous 1.5 mile "cookie cutters" on the schedule. Not many are going to be missing that and clamoring to get it back. CMS will be given the benefit of the doubt, and the initial event will probably be portrayed as a success unless it is somehow an outright disaster. How the various parties involved will feel after a few years, and whether roval races can stand up to scrutiny over time, remains to be seen.

Think of the reception the Eldora truck race receives because of the uniqueness, vs. how it might be judged if there were 10 similar dates on the schedule.

I'm all for trying. NASCAR needs to shake the schedule up, and they have few options in the next 3 years.
 
Last edited:
gnomesayin said:
I can't say whether it'll be a good race or not. I agree that they should and are taking more driver input right up to the event itself.

Charlotte has a wide berth with this and will be largely forgiven if it is a bumpy start. It needs to be taken into account that the experiment came about because few are fond of the product it replaces: a second (third if you count the All-Star race) oval race at CMS in an environment where a majority of fans and more pointedly NBC (if you pay attention to their public statements about how much they like road courses) feel that there are too many monotonous 1.5 mile "cookie cutters" on the schedule. Not many are going to be missing that and clamoring to get it back. CMS will be given the benefit of the doubt, and the initial event will probably be portrayed as a success unless it is somehow an outright disaster. How the various parties involved will feel after a few years, and whether roval races can stand up to scrutiny over time, remains to be seen.

I'm all for trying. NASCAR needs to shake the schedule up, and they have few options in the next 3 years.
Click to expand...
I agree, I'm all for it but I do think people are over using the "cookie cutter" phrase. Mile and a halfs sure, but we really dont have a cookie cutter track.
 
I hear you, and I hear the drivers when they say none of the 1.5-ers drive the same way. But from the sofa, racing on one sure looks a lot like the others and a lot like the 2-milers, while we're on the subject.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I hear you, and I hear the drivers when they say none of the 1.5-ers drive the same way. But from the sofa, racing on one sure looks a lot like the others and a lot like the 2-milers, while we're on the subject.
Click to expand...
Auto Club and Michigan really do look identical but like you say they dont race the same, Atlanta,Charlotte and Texas look the same but Texas has the new configuration, Charlotte will now have a new RC and Kentucky also has made adjustments in the banking so we really do have a nice variety. jmo
 
The Roval for Charlotte, Texas next week will be the second race on the newly configured track there and the track has the added Big Hoss huge screen. Bristol has added the Colossus, the world's largest outdoor center-hung four-sided video screen. A race moved out west to a much newer and better venue at Las Vegas. Kentucky has been reconfigured and repaved. All of these changes in two years. The SMI side of the equation has been making changes right and left. FWIW.
 
StandOnIt said:
The Roval for Charlotte, Texas next week will be the second race on the newly configured track there and the track has the added Big Hoss huge screen. Bristol has added the Colossus, the world's largest outdoor center-hung four-sided video screen. A race moved out west to a much newer and better venue at Las Vegas. Kentucky has been reconfigured and repaved. All of these changes in two years. The SMI side of the equation has been making changes right and left. FWIW.
Click to expand...
Gotta give props to ISC too, 400 Million dollar Daytona makeover, 178 million dollar Phoenix makeover and improvements and Darlington making Major changes in the seating area and concourses.
 
StandOnIt said:
... the track has the added Big Hoss huge screen. Bristol has added the Colossus, ...
Click to expand...
Spotter22 said:
Gotta give props to ISC too, 400 Million dollar Daytona makeover, 178 million dollar Phoenix makeover and improvements and Darlington making Major changes in the seating area and concourses.
Click to expand...
And like the 1.5-ers, those things don't make a bit of difference to the majority at home in the La-Z-Boys, especially since they don't even affect the racing.

EDIT: I take part of that back. We have yet to see the effects of moving the S/F line at Phoenix.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
And like the 1.5-ers, those things don't make a bit of difference to the majority at home in the La-Z-Boys, especially since they don't even affect the racing.

EDIT: I take part of that back. We have yet to see the effects of moving the S/F line at Phoenix.
Click to expand...
I believe we are talking improvements not just racing.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
You really think the most talented driver in all of NASCAR racing needs the course altered just for him? You think the best road course driver in all of NASCAR needs the course altered just for him?

He is far and away the most qualified driver in NASCAR to participate in a road course test and give feedback.
Click to expand...

Boooooooom. Shaka-laka. Kyle Busch has won on more individual NASCAR racetracks than Jimmie Johnson, himself. Kyle Busch, I believe, can adapt to any type of racetrack faster than any other driver. Love him or hate him, you can not deny that there is no one in NASCAR who is more versatile than KyBu.

gnomesayin said:
How so? What the heck is wrong with Iowa Speedway?
Click to expand...
aunty dive said:
Not a thing.
Click to expand...
I love Iowa Speedway. :wub:
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I hear you, and I hear the drivers when they say none of the 1.5-ers drive the same way. But from the sofa, racing on one sure looks a lot like the others and a lot like the 2-milers, while we're on the subject.
Click to expand...
This is equally as valid as saying all golf courses on the PGA tour are cookie cutters... all have 18 holes with par of 71-72. At some basic, dumbed down level it is true, but to those who understand and appreciate what is happening, it isn't valid at all. I believe most complaints about "cookie cutters" are just a way of saying, "I don't really like racing except beating, banging, and wrecking."
 
LewTheShoe said:
This is equally as valid as saying all golf courses on the PGA tour are cookie cutters... all have 18 holes with par of 71-72. At some basic, dumbed down level it is true, but to those who understand and appreciate what is happening, it isn't valid at all. I believe most complaints about "cookie cutters" are just a way of saying, "I don't really like racing except beating, banging, and wrecking."
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully disagree with that characterization. I put "cookie cutters" in quotes in my post because, yes, I think it is an oversimplification, and I believe some of those tracks clearly race better with the current generation of cars than others. However, I also don't think the common fatigue many feel regarding them is without merit, and I see quite clearly why casual fans have difficulty differentiating them.

There is an expectation of variety in a top level racing series that I don't think is misplaced. I believe the design trend that led to the proliferation of 1.5 mile D- and tri-shaped ovals in the '90s and '00s had less to do with what was believed to put on the best races, and more to do with what was viewed as the most commercially viable at the time. If there is an apt comparison to other sports to be made, I would argue that it's to the phase of mixed-use football / baseball combo stadiums in the '60s and '70s that with the benefit of hindsight became unpopular due to their lack of character. I don't mean to say that some of the "cookie cutters" aren't very fine race tracks and among the best on the circuit. It's the oversaturation of these broadly similar tracks that is the problem. Replace your least favorite two with something strikingly different, and I think you've improved the schedule in a meaningful way to the bulk of both casual and core fans.
 
LewTheShoe said:
This is equally as valid as saying all golf courses on the PGA tour are cookie cutters... all have 18 holes with par of 71-72. At some basic, dumbed down level it is true, but to those who understand and appreciate what is happening, it isn't valid at all. I believe most complaints about "cookie cutters" are just a way of saying, "I don't really like racing except beating, banging, and wrecking."
Click to expand...


I can look at any two golf course layouts and easily see multiple differences. I can't look at unlabeled diagrams of the quad-ovals at Charlotte, Atlanta, Vegas, and Texas and tell which is which. Put cars on them and it becomes easier - Atlanta and Vegas put on a pretty good show; Texas and Charlotte can be often be snoozers.
 
LewTheShoe said:
This is equally as valid as saying all golf courses on the PGA tour are cookie cutters... all have 18 holes with par of 71-72. At some basic, dumbed down level it is true, but to those who understand and appreciate what is happening, it isn't valid at all. I believe most complaints about "cookie cutters" are just a way of saying, "I don't really like racing except beating, banging, and wrecking."
Click to expand...
True, but if the cars raced better on the 1.5s, the aero issues weren't forefront, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I can look at any two golf course layouts and easily see multiple differences. I can't look at unlabeled diagrams of the quad-ovals at Charlotte, Atlanta, Vegas, and Texas and tell which is which...
Click to expand...
As I posted above, "At some basic, dumbed down level this is true." But I never anticipated that anyone would actually dumb things down so far as to judge the racing product by unlabeled lines from an overhead perspective. That is pure folly... where Michigan looks like Fontana; and Bristol looks like Martinsville, and Dover is the same as Loudon.
 
gnomesayin said:
I have to respectfully disagree with that characterization. I put "cookie cutters" in quotes in my post because, yes, I think it is an oversimplification, and I believe some of those tracks clearly race better with the current generation of cars than others. However, I also don't think the common fatigue many feel regarding them is without merit, and I see quite clearly why casual fans have difficulty differentiating them.

There is an expectation of variety in a top level racing series that I don't think is misplaced. I believe the design trend that led to the proliferation of 1.5 mile D- and tri-shaped ovals in the '90s and '00s had less to do with what was believed to put on the best races, and more to do with what was viewed as the most commercially viable at the time. If there is an apt comparison to other sports to be made, I would argue that it's to the phase of mixed-use football / baseball combo stadiums in the '60s and '70s that with the benefit of hindsight became unpopular due to their lack of character. I don't mean to say that some of the "cookie cutters" aren't very fine race tracks and among the best on the circuit. It's the oversaturation of these broadly similar tracks that is the problem. Replace your least favorite two with something strikingly different, and I think you've improved the schedule in a meaningful way to the bulk of both casual and core fans.
Click to expand...
I don't think most fans see a difference between the cookie cutter tracks. Except the color of the walls.
 
The Nature Boy said:
Charlotte painting their walls yellow was a god send to those folks.
Click to expand...

Yep.

In all seriousness, you could post photos video clips of races from some of these tracks and confuse them.

Even a lot of football stadiums are distinguishable (except the ****** ****** domes). When you turn on the TV, even as a casual fan, you know when you're watching a game at Lambeau Field, Soldier Field, CenturyLink (Seattle), Heinz Field (Jacksonville North), The Death Star (New England) or FedEx Field (Landover, Maryland).
 
gnomesayin said:
The only tracks that are better designs than Iowa Speedway were built in the 1950s and 60s. As a former Kansas City resident, it is a shame that Kansas Speedway has two Cup dates and Iowa zero.
Click to expand...

As someone who went to Kansas Speedway in 2016 and really enjoyed myself, but Kansas does not deserve 2 dates and one of the dates should be shifted to another midwest track: Iowa or Gateway or Road America.
 
I actually like the variety in switching Texas and Kentucky, and I feel like many of us are unfair in giving those tracks a chance to wear in, but Michigan, Charlotte, other recent repaves have not aged at all.

However there is 1-3 too many 1.5 mile tracks regardless if they are unique(r) now or not.
 
LewTheShoe said:
As I posted above, "At some basic, dumbed down level this is true." But I never anticipated that anyone would actually dumb things down so far as to judge the racing product by unlabeled lines from an overhead perspective. That is pure folly... where Michigan looks like Fontana; and Bristol looks like Martinsville, and Dover is the same as Loudon.
Click to expand...
I can see I'm not making my point well. The racing on most of these tracks looks the same to me. It's easy to tell Atlanta because of the tire wear. As to the rest, they all blend together. I can remember that egg-shaped Darlington has a preferred high line, or that Dover's concrete and high-banked layout produces different racing from Bristol's shorter, rounder configuration. But there's nothing about most of the 1.5ers that sticks in my memory. We haven't see the Kentucky and Texas reconfig's enough times yet for anything about them to stand out in my mind.
 
Anyone manage to find video of Rowdy's test crash yesterday? Looked like he killed the right side pretty good from what I could make out in photos. Don't know what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom