As Dan Olbuck stated in the readme, his version is a mishmash of several
eras, but the "distressed" track surface ("...memories of the demise of
Riverside are presented as a jagged tarmac loath with neglect, including
cracks oozing tar and slightly earthquaken [sic] bumps and grinds...grass
and dust invades the edge of the pit stalls and peeks through the concrete
and at the bottom of the walls...") seems wildly overdone, as if the track
had simply been abandoned (like Reims or Meadowdale) and not razed
altogether. The PWF version. OTOH, looks overly sanitized.
Olbuck's version seems based on Noonan's conversion of the Papyrus track in
NASCAR Legends, which I consulted on, but most of it except the back stretch
seems way too narrow. The elevation changes seem somewhat exaggerated (as
opposed to PWF's, which seem understated), but like so many trackmakers this
track seems sunken in its surroundings--almost as if in a shallow
trench--whereas the real track simply lay on the desert floor like a ribbon.
Turn 9 was recontoured a couple of times during the life of the track; it's
impossible to tell which variation Olbuck has chosen for his, um,
interpretation, but it was certainly a lot more steeply banked in 1970 (the
ostensible year of Olbuck's track) than it appears here.
Fans of the track should have a look at "Riverside Raceway: Palace of
Speed," a 346-page paen of praise self-published by*** Wallen (Box10561,
Glendale AZ, 85318) with hundreds of stats & photos. 'Spensive but worth
it.
> Yes it seemed to be less dusty through the Ss than I recall seeing on TV
but
> it had a more realistic feel to it than the PWF version I thought, maybe
it
> was just the worn look as apposed to the PWF one that seemed newly built.
> Track shape/design wise which one do you think is closer to what the real
> thing was? Seem to be some major difference between the 2 for sure,
> elevation changes being one of the noticeable ones.
> > Not even close. Mr. Olbuck's Riverside looks no more like the real
> > Riverside than his Lime Rock bore any resemblance to that circuit. He
> just
> > doesn't seem to have the knack of capturing the feel of a place. It
isn't
> > just the obvious mistakes (he makes Riverside look like it's in
> Shang-ri-la;
> > in fact it was in the middle of a windswept desert and the only
mountains
> on
> > the horizon were the San Gabriels to the north); he hasn't captured the
> > sights, the textures, the rhythm, the Zeitgeist or the soul of the
place.
> > (And worst of all, he removed Dave Noonan's off-course sandstorms!)
> > I have the advantage of doing hundreds of laps of both Riverside and
Lime
> > Rock when I was the Editor of Car and Driver (testing both street cars
and
> > race cars). The memories are indelible, as are memories of the other
> tracks
> > I drove: Bridgehampton, Laguna Seca, Watkins Glen, Sebring, Mosport,
> > Mid-Ohio, Willow Springs, Santa Barbara, Marlboro, Cumberland, Thompson
> and
> > the rest. I can still visualize laps of all these tracks with my eyes
> > closed and be within a second or two of my actual laptimes there. I
can't
> > vouch for tracks I haven't driven (the only tracks I drove in Europe
were
> > Solitude and Hockenheim), but I can tell when the tracks I that do know
> are
> > right and when they're wrong. This Riverside ain't it.
> > > Thx, Achim - will have a look.
> > > > > The wild boys at PWF have released an alleged "beta" version of
> > > > > Riverside...only there's nothing beta about it...
> > > > > I only wish PWF (or *somebody*) had done the far-more-interesting
> > > 2.55-mile
> > > > > "short sports car course" instead of the 2.62-mile NASCAR
course...
> > > > The Pits have also released a new version of Riverside. Have a look,
> its
> > > > quite interesting.
> > > > Achim
