Atlanta Motor Speedway 2022 update

RacerrecaR

RacerrecaR

*Screams in DW*
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
3,345
Points
593
RacerrecaR said:
www.google.com

Atlanta Motor Speedway set for 2022 repave, reprofiling - NBC Sports

Atlanta Motor Speedway announced Tuesday that a repave and reprofiling of the track will take place ahead of the 2022 NASCAR season.
www.google.com www.google.com

They are essentially raising the banking and making the straights more narrow, along with a new track surface compound.
Click to expand...
The turns are where they really narrowed the thing, 15 feet less. That is two lanes narrower. I don't get it why they would do that :idunno:
 
28 degree banking will only be behind Bristol, Daytona and Dega and the steepest of any intermediate. Combined with new pavement, 650 HP next gen cars are going to be absolutely flying. I bet this becomes the new fastest track in NASCAR.
 
Acs said:
28 degree banking will only be behind Bristol, Daytona and Dega and the steepest of any intermediate. Combined with new pavement, 650 HP next gen cars are going to be absolutely flying. I bet this becomes the new fastest track in NASCAR.
Click to expand...
the only thing that makes that a question mark for me is trying to go two or possibly three wide with only 40 feet to do it in the curves. Looks like a wreck waiting to happen to me
 
My first reaction was, no mention of *progressive* banking, which puzzled and disappointed me. But it does appear in the drawing that there is a flatter bottom lane...

Atlanta-Motor-Speedway-reprofiling.jpg


My second reaction is, heads will explode among those who think the quad-oval shape is somehow a problem and want to see a return to a pure oval shape. Personally, I've never heard any convincing reason why a quad-oval is less good. I believe it's a good thing to have the differences between turns 1 and 3 (and between 2 and 4) that a quad shape gives.

My third reaction... SMI is "all in" on WFO flat-foot racing.. **sigh**
 
Making a track narrower rarely makes racing better. Besides, the first few years of the repave will see cars be on the bottom unless they slap that awful PJ1 on the middle and upper grooves.
 
LewTheShoe said:
My first reaction was, no mention of *progressive* banking, which puzzled and disappointed me. But it does appear in the drawing that there is a flatter bottom lane...

View attachment 56287

My second reaction is, heads will explode among those who think the quad-oval shape is somehow a problem and want to see a return to a pure oval shape. Personally, I've never heard any convincing reason why a quad-oval is less good. I believe it's a good thing to have the differences between turns 1 and 3 (and between 2 and 4) that a quad shape gives.

My third reaction... SMI is "all in" on WFO flat-foot racing.. **sigh**
Click to expand...
there should be plenty of practice for the flatfooters to show their contempt with this setup. It could be the new most hated track.
 
The more unique tracks, the better. I at least applaud them for trying something instead of keeping with the same ol same ol. The only thing keeping Atlanta alive was the old surface and that was bound to change anyway.

Darlington is narrow af and it produces fantastic racing.

Who knows.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
The more unique tracks, the better. I at least applaud them for trying something instead of keeping with the same ol same ol. The only thing keeping Atlanta alive was the old surface and that was bound to change anyway.

Darlington is narrow af and it produces fantastic racing.

Who knows.
Click to expand...

Great observation.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
The more unique tracks, the better. I at least applaud them for trying something instead of keeping with the same ol same ol. The only thing keeping Atlanta alive was the old surface and that was bound to change anyway.

Darlington is narrow af and it produces fantastic racing.

Who knows.
Click to expand...
The catalyst for me will be how they treat the front stretch. If they reconfigure that to be a typical tri-oval or straight design, i won't be happy. I am hoping they keep the quad-oval because that adds an additional passing opportunity
 
RacerrecaR said:
The catalyst for me will be how they treat the front stretch. If they reconfigure that to be a typical tri-oval or straight design, i won't be happy. I am hoping they keep the quad-oval because that adds an additional passing opportunity
Click to expand...
If you like 1.5 mile tracks with doglegs you still have Texas and Charlotte. Having so many identical tracks that race so poorly isn’t smart.
 
Revman said:
Well, Texas widened the track, and that didn't work either.
Click to expand...
“More racing lanes” IMO is detrimental to some quality racing. Tracks like Darlington, Bristol, Martinsville etc... thrive on only have one or two real lanes. The action comes when drivers decide to make their own lanes and own holes to move through. Let the sparks and tempers flare.

Let the superspeedways have their 3 and 4 wide racing. Other tracks should have their own unique identity.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
“More racing lanes” IMO is detrimental to some quality racing. Tracks like Darlington, Bristol, Martinsville etc... thrive on only have one or two real lanes. The action comes when drivers decide to make their own lanes and own holes to move through. Let the sparks and tempers flare.

Let the superspeedways have their 3 and 4 wide racing. Other tracks should have their own unique identity.
Click to expand...
One lane racing on those tracks is good because you can get to a guy's bumper and move him or get him loose. 1.5 miles and up they're going too fast in the corner to even get there because of dirty air. Multiple lanes needed.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
The more unique tracks, the better. I at least applaud them for trying something instead of keeping with the same ol same ol. The only thing keeping Atlanta alive was the old surface and that was bound to change anyway.

Darlington is narrow af and it produces fantastic racing.

Who knows.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I’m waiting to see it in action next year before I judge it.
 
LewTheShoe said:
My first reaction was, no mention of *progressive* banking, which puzzled and disappointed me. But it does appear in the drawing that there is a flatter bottom lane...
Click to expand...
That's not a flatter bottom lane, that 24 degree graphic is telling you what the current banking is vs the new banking in red.
 
Acs said:
28 degree banking will only be behind Bristol, Daytona and Dega and the steepest of any intermediate. Combined with new pavement, 650 HP next gen cars are going to be absolutely flying. I bet this becomes the new fastest track in NASCAR.
Click to expand...

Fastest track in sport is Michigan
 
LewTheShoe said:
My first reaction was, no mention of *progressive* banking, which puzzled and disappointed me. But it does appear in the drawing that there is a flatter bottom lane...

View attachment 56287

My second reaction is, heads will explode among those who think the quad-oval shape is somehow a problem and want to see a return to a pure oval shape. Personally, I've never heard any convincing reason why a quad-oval is less good. I believe it's a good thing to have the differences between turns 1 and 3 (and between 2 and 4) that a quad shape gives.

My third reaction... SMI is "all in" on WFO flat-foot racing.. **sigh**
Click to expand...

Quad Oval designs are the biggest problem with the sport in my opinion. Reason being is that a quad oval chooses the line for you, where a regular oval or oddly shaped one typically allows the driver to pick the line. This is what leads to multi groove racing typically.

On a quad oval you typically run low-mid on exit of Turn 4, glide to the wall on the straight to the stand, dive down into 1-2, back up on backstretch and then dive down for 3-4.
 
Mispeedway15 said:
Fastest track in sport is Michigan
Click to expand...
They were reaching 220 entering turn 1 in testing after the recent repave and I doubt new Atlanta would eclipse that even with the then-Michigan testing package. Even assuming the 500 HP Atlanta rumors are NOT true, I doubt we will see anything above a 185 top speed without a draft.
 
StandOnIt said:
the only thing that makes that a question mark for me is trying to go two or possibly three wide with only 40 feet to do it in the curves. Looks like a wreck waiting to happen to me
Click to expand...
They only need 20' to go 3 wide. That's twice as much. :)
 
I have more hope for this revamp with the new car than I would with the current iteration of the Gen 6. With less aero grip and hopefully somewhere in the 630-670 HP range it could be pretty cool. From some of the comments made during the press conference I’m wary of their intentions though.
 
Swift also said they’re using a different surface mix in hopes of the track debuting as “three or four” years older, since the iRacing sims have shown very little tire wear.

 
I'm sick of iRacing being taken as gospel, and I iRace. It's good *for a video game*, but they've had a years long battle with things like tire behavior at different temps, how tires react to different camber levels, etc. It gets patched a lot to keep improving it, but it still shouldn't be used to guarantee a real life track change in my opinion. I would rather see the drivers get input on a track reconfig than have a bunch of NASCAR execs who have never raced just watch an iRacing demo and high five.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom