Road Racing vs Big Circuit

  • Thread starter United States Racer
  • Start date
U

United States Racer

Guest
We lurk and read, very rarely post. But recently we over heard a debate. Here it is: Euro-type huge tracks (COTA) aka "circuits" ....are bad for American road racing. True or false?

USRC
 
I say false. I like the Tilke-style circuits with the long straightaways and fast corners.
 
How so? Seems the most popular and revered U.S. tracks, like Road America and COTA, are such. I would look first at the mix of classes in a typical event, too much to sort out for either the mainstream American racing fan, or casual sports fan who happens upon it.

This would probably get more attention in the 'Other Racing' section.
 
I wonder what you mean by huge tracks, Miller Motorsports Park is 4.5 miles long, Road America is 4 miles long. Road racing isn't very popular in the U.S. I think road racing is the ultimate form of racing but hard to watch at the track.

Watching a race at a road course you only get to see a small part of the track. Oval racing you can see the whole race; it is probably better live than on TV. I prefer watching a road race on TV because you can see more of the race.

I think The COTA track is the coolest track to date. A colleague attended the F1 race and said all of the seats could see more than one corner.
 
Zerkfitting said:
I wonder what you mean by huge tracks, Miller Motorsports Park is 4.5 miles long, Road America is 4 miles long. Road racing isn't very popular in the U.S. I think road racing is the ultimate form of racing but hard to watch at the track.

Watching a race at a road course you only get to see a small part of the track. Oval racing you can see the whole race; it is probably better live than on TV. I prefer watching a road race on TV because you can see more of the race.

I think The COTA track is the coolest track to date. A colleague attended the F1 race and said all of the seats could see more than one corner.
Click to expand...


I think that United States is the only place around the world where oval racing is so popular. Here in Mexico, for instance, circuits rule; our most important race track, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, is a permanent cicuit.

But...

Mexico is now an oval fan too because of Carlos Contreras, the first Mexican who had the chance to run Nascar. He participated in the truck craftsman series some years ago. When loosing his seat, Carlos returned to Mexico and started the truck series, but mostly running in cicuits, as they were the only ones available. Now Mexican racing organizers and investors have come closer to Nascar and we have the official Nascar Toyota Series, running both in cicuits and in ovals. I think there´s a good balance between ovals that have been built and existing cicuits. Carlos brought the oval idea/concept to Mexico and now there´s tons of believers. Even now, former Nascar Toyota series champ, German Quiroga, participates in camping world truck series.

I totally agree with what you are saying. From the expectator´s point of view, it´s easier to keep track of what´s going on in the race in ovals, both live and on TV; it´s more difficult to do so when live at a circuit.
 
I think the true test of a great driver is one who can win on both superspeedways & road courses. If I were an IndyCar or NASCAR driver I would strive to win everywhere no matter what type of circuit.
 
I'm going to be the voice of dissent here. I do not like Tilke tracks. They are like Supercross tracks in that they consist of the same corners, straights and such. The only difference between tracks is what order the turns and straights come in. Austin is not all that great. First off the straight from the starting grid to the first corner should have been downhill. That way we could see who has the best braking skills, and who has nerves of steel. And since it is an American track it should of had the one feature that is uniquely American, a high banked high speed turn. IMO the designers missed a golden opportunity to build a one of a kind track. I like tracks that take advantage of natural terrain. Austin had nothing to offer in that respect. The natural terrain is flat as a pancake. Tracks like Spa, Road America, and Sonoma, (The full course, not what Nascar runs.) are very entertaining. You cant see the whole track but you do see enough to make it worth going. Street courses are a complete waste of time and effort. They are too narrow and way too bumpy. How many cars have been destroyed because of that combination. Ovals can make for good racing, like Indy and the once great Ontario Motor Speedway. Tracks like Daytona, Michigan, and Talladega bore me to death. There were, at one time, dirt road courses. Yes, believe it or not. You want to talk about some entertaining racing, that right there is it. It reminded me of some of the roads we had in rural Tennessee. I completely agree with RP King that the more varied tracks drivers race on, the better you can see who has the best skills. Now that I have finished my rant, I can answer the OP's question. Euro type tracks make for excellent racing. Unless you have variety it's hard to discern who the better drivers are. Thanks to everyone for putting up with me. Have a safe run to the checkers. Oh, one more thing. The NSA can kiss my a$$.
 
While I think road racing is the ultimate test for a driver but I don't like to attend road races, you pretty much see one corner, I'd rather watch a road race on TV. At an oval you can watch the whole race, you can see the whole track and watch anything you want, it is a better spectator event.
 
Yogisd1 said:
That way we could see who has the best braking skills, and who has nerves of steel. And since it is an American track it should of had the one feature that is uniquely American, a high banked high speed turn.
Click to expand...
After the Indy 2005 debacle, I think any kind of banked high-speed turn is out of the question for Formula One. Look at Silverstone this year.
 
Yeah, the high down force cars have a problem with banking. In Indy they had a tire issue; a technical problem. The IRL had a problem at Texas a few years ago where the drivers had an issue with the g-loads; a problem with the human body (sustained g-force). I didn't follow the Silverstone race, what was the problem there?
 
At Silverstone, the F1 guys had a lot of tire (ahem: "tyre") failures, but I thought it was more due to new construction methods Pirelli were using this year, combined with new (or repaired) curbing that the drivers were hitting at high speed, not banking or other surface conditions.

I never stay in my seat at a race, even the ovals, so not being able to see the whole track isn't a factor to me. I like the uphill run to turn 1 at COTA, the blind exit can be pretty dramatic. Austin isn't pancake flat btw, and they did a pretty good job with what they had. The Turns 16, 17, 18 combination makes a nice arc, but very much banking would sort of run against the nature of modern road racing. As for road racing on dirt, you can't get much closer than World Rally Championship racing. I also have more respect for drivers who succeed at a variety of racing disciplines, something that is becoming more rare these days. All just my opinion.

Welcome to the forum Yogisd1!
 
I like the longer circuit. I had a friend that went to the bike race at COTA, and said you can see about half the track from certain seats. I don't like the smaller road courses or the ring-like ones with no flavor (brands hatch, enna pergusa, ect).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom