what I thought after trying both. Each seems to be too far in each
direction.
> 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