rec.autos.simulators

> -Tim

> > How about too short? All F1 tracks have to have a lap of over 1 minute. I
> know they would be well under that with the current
> > layout.

> > --

> > __________

> > Steve

> > > **Too narrow:  The track has been widened to about 50
> > > feet....everywhere....and the entire racing surface will be repaved
> during
> > > this winter....all new asphalt.  The track will meet or exceed all F1
> specs
> > > after the re-paving is completed (in terms of curbing, width and
> safety).

> > > **Too dangerous (not enough run-off):  All armco barriers have been
> moved
> > > back off the track substantially, including moving a bazillion yards of
> dirt
> > > and hillside....back away from the track.  The worst area was down
> through
> > > the esses.....there's more run-off room there now than on most current
> F1
> > > tracks.

> > > **Bad Paddock/Garage Facilities:  That was true two years ago....not
> today.
> > > The "Winston Cup Garages" as they are named.....were constructed two
> years
> > > ago.  They are equal to many of the current F1 track's garage and
> paddock
> > > area.......and currently much better than Indy's facilities (I have been
> to
> > > both).  And, light years better than Silverstone's garages and
> > > paddock.....which I've been to, also (last year).

> > > **No proper pitlane:  Not true today....it was widened and
> lengthened.....it
> > > now accommodates all 43 WC starters.....is right in front of a 50,000
> seat
> > > grandstand....and is one of the best pit lane facilities in WC racing
> today.
> > > A 21 car F1 field would all be pitted directly in front of the 50,000
> seat
> > > grandstand (it has 26 pit boxes....I believe).

> TP

> > I think _maybe_ they are too heavy, and it may _increase_ dig-ins and
> > rollovers.

> > We're talking about 3400 pounds of metal here, with far more compliant
> > suspensions than are found on F1, Cart or IRL cars.

> > Just a guess...

> > -Larry

> > > Can anyone tell me why gravel traps are a no-no for Nascar? I accept
> that
> > > grass and pavement are perfectly fine for slowing wayward cars. But
> surely
> > > gravel is acceptable also because we don't have the problem of
airborne
> > > wrecks to the degree that single-seater racing, in other words, stock
> cars
> > > are less likely to launch over gravel, catch an edge and flip.

> > > Or is it the case that gravel is not an option because it may prevent
> cars
> > > escaping the trap and resuming the race.

> Dave

> > That guardrail did a hell of a job absorbing Park's car as Junior's car
> > shoved it in there. Maybe they can make those ground posts into a shear
> > device that will breakaway from a mount planted in the ground. That way
> they
> > can just bolt new ones in quickly and re-weld the rails to them.


> > > Yeah, I think about 30 feet of gravel would have helped quite a bit in
> > > slowing down the 1 car on Sunday.  One thing for sure is they need to
do
> > > away with those guardrails that need an hour or two to repair!

> > > -Tim

> > > > Us thrifty New Englanders use gravel at Watkins Glen and i thought
> Sears
> > > had
> > > > a couple (not sure after the latest makeover).
> > > >  The rest are ovals, or roval if'n ya count Pocono. But after the
> ***
> > at
> > > > said track this weekend, i suppose anything is better than wet turf.
> > > >  Maybe tradition, maybe access or maybe just to keep grass as an
> escape
> > > > route instead of a death sentence, like you said.

> --
> Scott B. Husted
> PA-Scott
> ICQ# 4395450
> http://www.Husted.cc

> > Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referring
to
> > the "old" Sears Point....which clearly you are.

> For those of you familiar with the track, do you think F1 would use the
> Chute if they raced there?

> -Tim

> > Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referring
to
> > the "old" Sears Point....which clearly you are.

> > But not correct.....regarding the "new" Sears Point.  When I say "new" I
> > mean not only the current track....but the one that is being constructed
> > still.  The track's "Five Year Plan".....is still three seasons from
> > completion and much of the problems you have pointed out....have already
> > been fixed to F1's liking.

> > **Too narrow:  The track has been widened to about 50
> > feet....everywhere....and the entire racing surface will be repaved
during
> > this winter....all new asphalt.  The track will meet or exceed all F1
> specs
> > after the re-paving is completed (in terms of curbing, width and
safety).

> > **Too dangerous (not enough run-off):  All armco barriers have been
moved
> > back off the track substantially, including moving a bazillion yards of
> dirt
> > and hillside....back away from the track.  The worst area was down
through
> > the esses.....there's more run-off room there now than on most current
F1
> > tracks.

> > **Bad Paddock/Garage Facilities:  That was true two years ago....not
> today.
> > The "Winston Cup Garages" as they are named.....were constructed two
years
> > ago.  They are equal to many of the current F1 track's garage and
paddock
> > area.......and currently much better than Indy's facilities (I have been
> to
> > both).  And, light years better than Silverstone's garages and
> > paddock.....which I've been to, also (last year).

> > **No proper pitlane:  Not true today....it was widened and
> lengthened.....it
> > now accommodates all 43 WC starters.....is right in front of a 50,000
seat
> > grandstand....and is one of the best pit lane facilities in WC racing
> today.
> > A 21 car F1 field would all be pitted directly in front of the 50,000
seat
> > grandstand (it has 26 pit boxes....I believe).

> > Do not count out automatically, a "second" F1 race in the United States!
> F1
> > is looking to minimize the heavy transportation costs of bringing the F1
> > race to Indy (USA).  Adding a second venue, shortly after Indy.....would
> be
> > a way to do that.  With Sears Point essentially now being a road racing
> > track....inside of a "natural earth" stadium.....with spectacular views
of
> > not only the race track (without obstruction....you can follow a car
> around
> > the entire racing surface from 90% of the seats in the house).....but
> > spectacular sweeping horizons of the North Bay of San Francisco and the
> > gorgeous rolling hills of the Sonoma Wine Country.  That in
itself......is
> > very attractive to the F1 promoters....since the Sonoma Wine Country is
> very
> > well known in Europe....they believe the location alone of Sears
> > Point....would bring many Europeans to the event....and the team's
> personnel
> > would welcome a visit to this area of the US (unlike

> >But not correct.....regarding the "new" Sears Point.  When I say "new" I
> >mean not only the current track....but the one that is being constructed
> >still.  The track's "Five Year Plan".....is still three seasons from
> >completion and much of the problems you have pointed out....have already
> >been fixed to F1's liking.

> <points snipped>

> But what about overtaking, Tom?  Surely one F1 priority for any track
> atm is to make sure that there is a remote possibility of overtaking.
> Sears doesn't seem to have that.   More like the Hungaroring than
> Sepang, don't you think?
> --
> Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
> Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
> If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me
> GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

> Just fyi, I've heard John Fitch preach, "pave the gravel traps", for
> several years now, although his first public press releases are from 2
> years ago.  Here is a recent press release that might be of interest:
>   <http://www.racesafety.com/press/gravel_2002.html>

> There is a lot of interesting safety related material on John's site:
>   <http://www.racesafety.com/>

> -- Doug Milliken
>    www.millikenresearch.com

> > Two years ago, when we were helping Sears Point engineering redesign a
new
> > configuration of  "The Chute"....using our simulators and mock races via
> > online to establish "racing data" for various configs of "The
> > Chute".......we also addressed the issue of what type of run offs the
track
> > could alternately install......instead of gravel traps.  The current
> > configuration of "The Chute" was one of the three design choices that we
> > presented to the Winston Cup drivers at the Sears race that year.  We

> <snipped......lots of dots!>