Interest builds around possible changes to NASCAR schedule

kkfan91 said:
Forget what I said @AndyMarquisLive is right minidega

Click to expand...

I see as like a Darlington/Homestead mix.

iRacing honestly is a bit mixed especially with it using the high downforce setup.

Maybe an old Texas? Just because the banking is higher does not automatically mean a Mini-Dega or whatever. If its more like progressive banking, then this track should race like a Homestead or Darlington.

They have the NextGen in mind, so its a wait and see type of deal.
 
Last edited:
Kiante said:
I see as like a Darlington/Homestead mix.

iRacing honestly is a bit mixed especially with it using the high downforce setup.

Maybe an old Texas? Just because the banking is higher does not automatically mean a Mini-Dega or whatever. If its more like progressive banking, then this track should race like a Homestead or Darlington.

They have the NextGen in mind, so its a wait and see type of deal.
Click to expand...
From what I've heard their plan is to use restricted engines at Atlanta with the new car so that it will be similar to a plate race
 
Blaze said:
I’ll actually give it a chance before trying to pass judgment.
Click to expand...
It might end up being the best track on the schedule especially for casual fans. I think NASCAR's entire goal with this car, the new track reconfigurations, addition of rovals and road courses, and a 2022/2023 street course was to reach a wider audience. Their work since Brian was removed may end up being brilliant and could bring the sport back to early 2000 levels
 
Last edited:
Kiante said:
Yep, but I'll wait to see it to judge.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hate Daytona tandem-style racing at Atlanta and that might be the only option with the straights being made so narrow. A mix of that with Indy 500 style racing could actually be quite good
 
gnomesayin said:
On this subject, there is no respect due to these arrogant clowns.

Click to expand...


Denny has a point.

The drivers should ALWAYS be consulted regarding changes like this. Even if you only talk to a few and even if you choose to ignore their feedback, at least hear them out. I think it's NASCAR responsibility to consult all relevant parties before a big decision is made.
 
2 Sweet said:
Denny has a point.

The drivers should ALWAYS be consulted regarding changes like this. Even if you only talk to a few and even if you choose to ignore their feedback, at least hear them out. I think it's NASCAR responsibility to consult all relevant parties before a big decision is made.
Click to expand...

This handful of executives really have themselves convinced that they know better. It's also foolish to keep driving a wedge between "the fans" and the faces of the sport.
 
I don’t know how this width is going to work to be honest. Martinsville is 15 feet wider than this place is going to be. I’m not sure how they’ll even pass to be honest
 
gnomesayin said:
This handful of executives really have themselves convinced that they know better. It's also foolish to keep driving a wedge between "the fans" and the faces of the sport.
Click to expand...

Extremely foolish.

I just don't see how people in their position make these kinds of mistakes. Isn't it common sense to gather as much information and feedback as possible from everyone involved? Even if you think you already have your mind made up.
 
2 Sweet said:
Denny has a point.

The drivers should ALWAYS be consulted regarding changes like this. Even if you only talk to a few and even if you choose to ignore their feedback, at least hear them out. I think it's NASCAR responsibility to consult all relevant parties before a big decision is made.
Click to expand...
Why?? You know every driver's input would be what's best for that driver.
 
I agree 100% that the drivers should be consulted for input, but at the end of the day, the CUSTOMER is what matters. If the fans don't like the product, it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether NASCAR, the drivers, the media or SMI likes it. I'm pretty sure the drivers wouldn't have never approved Darlington either, but there are few places I would rather see a race. My guess is that the planned changes are not EVEN CLOSE to what the fans had in mind.
 
Team Penske said:
Why?? You know every driver's input would be what's best for that driver.
Click to expand...

Out of respect, if nothing else.

Also, what's best for a particular driver and what's best for the fans don't have to be mutually exclusive. And they can talk to inactive drivers as well. Dale Jr. and Bowyer come to mind, especially since they are both involved in the sport from an entertainment perspective.
 
I’m not totally against having input from drivers when changes to tracks are in the planning stages, new tracks being built or changes to schedule being made. Would I totally 100% use all input from drivers? No because for every driver you seek advice from on these matters, odds are they have their own agendas. I don’t think drivers should be shut out 100% though, PGA golfers design courses all the time. I think there is something valuable about seeking input from the people that will actually be plying their craft on these tracks
 
Last edited:
Spotter22 said:
The only time you let your kids pick whats for dinner is if they are buying.
Click to expand...

Don't let them pick, but if they tell you the pot roast tastes like ass, you might want to consider modifying the recipe.

Snappy D said:
I’m not totally against having input from drivers when changes to tracks are in the planning stages, new tracks being built or changes to schedule being made. Would I totally 100% use all input from drivers? No because for every driver you seek advice from on these matters, odds are they have their own agendas. I don’t think drivers should be shut out 100% though, PGA golfers design courses all the time. I think there is something valuable about seeking input from the people that will actually be racing on these tracks
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't think any of the drivers are suggesting they should get to make all the calls. But if NASCAR says they want to do this or that, the drivers should at least have a chance to give feedback. Whatever NASCAR chooses to do with that feedback is 100% up to them.
 
When you let drivers design tracks you end up with Iowa which was a bore despite people pretending it was a short track
 
Snappy D said:
I’m not totally against having input from drivers when changes to tracks are in the planning stages, new tracks being built or changes to schedule being made. Would I totally 100% use all input from drivers? No because for every driver you seek advice from on these matters, odds are they have their own agendas. I don’t think drivers should be shut out 100% though, PGA golfers design courses all the time. I think there is something valuable about seeking input from the people that will actually be plying their craft on these tracks
Click to expand...

The first thing that comes to mind for me is Kentucky with the "DW" shaped garage
 
2 Sweet said:
Don't let them pick, but if they tell you the pot roast tastes like ass, you might want to consider modifying the recipe.



Exactly. I don't think any of the drivers are suggesting they should get to make all the calls. But if NASCAR says they want to do this or that, the drivers should at least have a chance to give feedback. Whatever NASCAR chooses to do with that feedback is 100% up to them.
Click to expand...
SMI made this call and NASCAR already includes the drivers on multiple issues concerning competition.
 
kkfan91 said:
When you let drivers design tracks you end up with Iowa which was a bore despite people pretending it was a short track
Click to expand...
I thought Iowa was a Richmond clone? I agree I’m not letting drivers design the track, but is it so bad to seek out some input or ideas from them?
 
FLRacingFan said:
Daytona is also 40 feet wide, which is seemingly what they’re aiming for but on a smaller scale.
Click to expand...
SMI decided NASCAR shouldn't have a monopoly on pack racing tracks. This may be the first case of a track being designed to require plates, instead of having them forced on an outdated design for spectator safety reasons.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
SMI decided NASCAR shouldn't have a monopoly on pack racing tracks. This may be the first case of a track being designed to require plates, instead of having them forced on an outdated design for spectator safety reasons.
Click to expand...
It sells.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Oh, no doubt. So do those crappy filled-tortilla things on the hot metal rollers at 7-Eleven.

Remind me, were the problems selling the seats at Atlanta pre-COVID? Problems that were noticeably worse than other tracks in the late 20-teens?
Click to expand...
You tell us. Inquiring minds (and R-F posters) need to know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom