What are these "Cookie Cutters" of which you speak?

LewTheShoe

LewTheShoe

Seeking Skill-based Meritocracy... More HP Less DF
Joined
Apr 21, 2016
Messages
4,635
Points
593
There are 9 Nascar tracks of roughly 1.5 miles. They vary in age, location, racing surface, banking. How they race and what it takes to win is different, but all share one big thing... the most compelling skill based racing in Nascar's low downforce era.

The tracks are as unique as golf courses on the PGA Tour. Remember, those are all the same length... 18 holes, par 71-72.

Fast intermediate tracks suffered the most from excessive downforce. It simplified the leader's job, and dirty air tied the hands of those chasing him. Thankfully, Nascar has gone the other way. It's a fair fight now with the cars sliding in the corners and the trailing car able to follow up close and side by side.

The drivers are working hard to make speed now. Last year we saw speed differentials of 40 to 45 mph between straightaway and corner apex. This year we'll see more than that. Serious trail braking.

As a matter of car control, there is nothing as difficult as trail braking into a wickedly fast corner. And it's even harder around other cars, fighting for position. The lower speeds on a short track just don't compare in degree of difficulty. This is why racing at fast intermediate tracks is the heart and soul of Nascar.

I am surprised that people who care about racing enough to visit this forum don't appreciate the subtleties of racing skill that 1.5 mile tracks emphasize. It baffles me when people say that isn't "enough action." I'm glad the schedule includes short tracks and mile tracks, but 6 races on each is quite enough for me.
 
cookiecutters_all_1024x1024.jpg
 
The tracks themselves aren't bad. The problem is there's 7 tracks on the schedule of the same length and same general design. There's 3 2.5 milers and they're vastly different. I still greatly miss the old Atlanta! The redesign there bugs me far more than the 1.5 milers that proceeded it. I actually like Homestead but it's not old Atlanta.

The Kentucky race last year was my first 1.5 miler in person. It was fantastic event throughout. Drivers were having to fight the track, there was strategy and a great finish.
 
LewTheShoe said:
There are 9 Nascar tracks of roughly 1.5 miles. They vary in age, location, racing surface, banking. How they race and what it takes to win is different, but all share one big thing... the most compelling skill based racing in Nascar's low downforce era.

The tracks are as unique as golf courses on the PGA Tour. Remember, those are all the same length... 18 holes, par 71-72.

Fast intermediate tracks suffered the most from excessive downforce. It simplified the leader's job, and dirty air tied the hands of those chasing him. Thankfully, Nascar has gone the other way. It's a fair fight now with the cars sliding in the corners and the trailing car able to follow up close and side by side.

The drivers are working hard to make speed now. Last year we saw speed differentials of 40 to 45 mph between straightaway and corner apex. This year we'll see more than that. Serious trail braking.

As a matter of car control, there is nothing as difficult as trail braking into a wickedly fast corner. And it's even harder around other cars, fighting for position. The lower speeds on a short track just don't compare in degree of difficulty. This is why racing at fast intermediate tracks is the heart and soul of Nascar.

I am surprised that people who care about racing enough to visit this forum don't appreciate the subtleties of racing skill that 1.5 mile tracks emphasize. It baffles me when people say that isn't "enough action." I'm glad the schedule includes short tracks and mile tracks, but 6 races on each is quite enough for me.
Click to expand...

The answer is to obvious, the 1.5 mile tracks built similar to Charlotte are the cookie cutters.
With curvaceous front straights that offer an almost infinite amount of seating capacity. And the seating capacity was the biggest enticement for the shortsighted planning.

I am not worried to much about the driving difficulty but do disagree with an absolute idea that they are the most difficult. It is more subjective, a lot of drivers struggle at Darlington, Martinsville, Road Courses, etc...

But even if your assumption is true, driver difficulty doesnt guarantee the best races. And things like tire management is more discernable from the bleachers or to the consumers, than the scorecards measuring the level of required skills.

Summary the 1.5 mile cookie cutters are more of over an saturation than the heart and soul. Heart and Soul is the last set of descriptors I would use for a generic dysentery.They arent there by popular demand. The prince and company just have to much invested and believe that the brand will eventually overcome the flaw.
A generic disease that had Nascar pursuing higher downfore lower HP, as band a aid. Or trying to fix stupid with more stupid.

More clearly put if Nascar wasnt so integrated to ISC or even Brurton they wouldnt remain with such a failed model. We would not have them forced on us If the tracks themselves were all free agents with awarded dates dispensed strictly on putting on the best races.
 
LewTheShoe said:
There are 9 Nascar tracks of roughly 1.5 miles. They vary in age, location, racing surface, banking. How they race and what it takes to win is different, but all share one big thing... the most compelling skill based racing in Nascar's low downforce era.

The tracks are as unique as golf courses on the PGA Tour. Remember, those are all the same length... 18 holes, par 71-72.

Fast intermediate tracks suffered the most from excessive downforce. It simplified the leader's job, and dirty air tied the hands of those chasing him. Thankfully, Nascar has gone the other way. It's a fair fight now with the cars sliding in the corners and the trailing car able to follow up close and side by side.

The drivers are working hard to make speed now. Last year we saw speed differentials of 40 to 45 mph between straightaway and corner apex. This year we'll see more than that. Serious trail braking.

As a matter of car control, there is nothing as difficult as trail braking into a wickedly fast corner. And it's even harder around other cars, fighting for position. The lower speeds on a short track just don't compare in degree of difficulty. This is why racing at fast intermediate tracks is the heart and soul of Nascar.

I am surprised that people who care about racing enough to visit this forum don't appreciate the subtleties of racing skill that 1.5 mile tracks emphasize. It baffles me when people say that isn't "enough action." I'm glad the schedule includes short tracks and mile tracks, but 6 races on each is quite enough for me.
Click to expand...

But The Brobdingnagians all produce the same style of racing to the naked eye.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
kschilvky.jpg

michca.jpg
Click to expand...
What's your point? That Fontana and Michigan (2 mile tracks) are the same? Ha ha. That Chicago and Kentucky are alike? Ha ha.

If you're trying to illustrate that aerial line diagrams fail to describe racing venues accurately, then mission accomplished.

Atlanta is as unique as it is great. Even with its worn, abrasive surface, Texas never resembles Atlanta.

Darlington is as unique as it is great, and being 236 yards shorter than another 1.5 miler is not the reason why. SportsCenter will treat Darlington and Kansas the same - show the wrecks and the checkered flag in 90 seconds. I guess that's all some fans want. For fans who want more, I suggest paying close attention to Jeff Gordon's comments about the tracks. He was excellent last year at describing the unique character of each, and what that means to the racers. To me, it's worth the effort.
 
Homestead is an awesome race track, a very challenging test of drivers and teams that produces thrilling racing. If Homestead had been on the schedule "back in the day" but then got shut down 20 years ago, its demise would be lamented every bit as much as Rockingham or Wilkesboro.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
But The Brobdingnagians all produce the same style of racing to the naked eye.
Click to expand...
That's the thing. Every time NASCAR goes to one of these tracks the commentators beat it into our head about how "they all drive different", but that means absolutely zero to someone watching at home who wouldn't know the difference between Las Vegas, Texas, or Kentucky if it wasn't painted on the walls.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Homestead is an awesome race track, a very challenging test of drivers and teams that produces thrilling racing. If Homestead had been on the schedule "back in the day" but then got shut down 20 years ago, its demise would be lamented every bit as much as Rockingham or Wilkesboro.
Click to expand...

Which version? They've been through about three now.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Homestead is an awesome race track, a very challenging test of drivers and teams that produces thrilling racing. If Homestead had been on the schedule "back in the day" but then got shut down 20 years ago, its demise would be lamented every bit as much as Rockingham or Wilkesboro.
Click to expand...
I'm a Homestead fan as well. I only wish it were within a day's drive for me.
 
Kansas, Chicagoland, and Kentucky can be turned into landfills. I can't blame the tracks when the cars are producing terrible racing. Maybe in 2018 when the spoiler is 1/4 inch tall and cars are still glued to the track NASCAR will make some changes.
 
ToyYoda said:
That's the thing. Every time NASCAR goes to one of these tracks the commentators beat it into our head about how "they all drive different", but that means absolutely zero to someone watching at home who wouldn't know the difference between Las Vegas, Texas, or Kentucky if it wasn't painted on the walls.
Click to expand...

I am with you as they do all look the same from home and someone always checks out in clean air.
 
Chicago, Kansas, Las Vegas, Texas can all be bulldozed for all I'm concerned. I don't understand why Vegas got rebanked, it was better flat. I liked the Kentucky changes but I don't want to see it at other tracks.

Hopefully we'll be going to the Kansas and/or Charlotte road courses instead soon.
 
I'm starting to disagree about Chicago. Now that the track has weathered in really well, we are starting to see some good racing there. A repave will destroy that, but until then I think the racing at Chicago will be a lot better.
 
Fortunately, there are Monster Girls at Nascar events for those who don't care to pay close attention to the racers at work.
 
I am glad Lew and others can enjoy racing at the cookie cutters but if this board is an indication most people don't care if a car has to slow down 39.6582 mph or 28.5380 from the end of a straightaway to the apex of the corner. The speed of the cars does not translate well on TV unless the race is a short track or road course where it does translates well.

If racing must take place on cookie cutters I would appreciate everything possible to mitigate aero as normally most of the action takes place on pit road or on restarts.
 
ToyYoda said:
Only way I can tell they're racing at Las Vegas is that DW will say "gamble" or some form of the word at least 20 times during the broadcast.
Click to expand...

Or when Adam Alexander or Rick Allen says "the Bluegrass" when they're are Kentucky.

Texas and Atlanta are gonna be ****** identical when the repaves are done which sucks because Atlanta's one of only three good Brobdingnagians (the other two being Homestead and California).
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Or when Adam Alexander or Rick Allen says "the Bluegrass" when they're are Kentucky.

Texas and Atlanta are gonna be ******* identical when the repaves are done which sucks because Atlanta's one of only three good Brobdingnagians (the other two being Homestead and California).
Click to expand...

The Atlanta race was one of my faves last year.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Texas and Atlanta are gonna be ******* identical when the repaves are done which sucks because Atlanta's one of only three good Brobdingnagians (the other two being Homestead and California).
Click to expand...
Darlington is my personal fav among the Brobdingers, but I do agree that Atlanta, Texas, Homestead, and Fontana are all awesome and unique venues for Cup races.

The repaves are regrettable for sure. Texas has never hosted a race with downforce this low, so it will be interesting at the very least.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Darlington doesn't qualify as a brobdingnagian. It's not a mile and a half or larger.
Click to expand...
Darlington is a high speed intermediate track and its character does not derive from measuring 236 yards less than 1.5 miles. Homestead and Kansas measure the same length, and some people try to make them out to be the same thing ("cookie cutters "), which is a ridiculous misnomer.

IMO, if you consider Darlington, Homestead, and Kansas... and ask which ONE is most different... it is Kansas. I believe most Cup drivers would agree.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Darlington is a high speed intermediate track and its character does not derive from measuring 236 yards less than 1.5 miles. Homestead and Kansas measure the same length, and some people try to make them out to be the same thing ("cookie cutters "), which is a ridiculous misnomer.

IMO, if you consider Darlington, Homestead, and Kansas... and ask which ONE is most different... it is Kansas. I believe most Cup drivers would agree.
Click to expand...

The drivers also tell us every time they go to Texas, Michigan or Indianapolis that it'll be the best race of the year and the fans will love it.
 
When the 1.5 mile cookie cutter tracks were built Charlotte had the best racing. I didn't like short tracks at that time because the only way to pass was to push someone out of the way and half the race was under caution. Times change and the cars have changed. Short tracks got more interesting with progressive banking and the 1.5 milers got less interesting because of the of the reasons Lew pointed out. I'm glad NASCAR is reducing down force and I'd like to get the cars off the ground and put the suspension back into play. Seeing the cars glued to the ground with no suspension makes me wonder how the lack of suspension affects the driver's bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom