Gravel Traps In Nascar

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.

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 nasty 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.

it looks nicer on tv, and you cannot paint sponsors on gravel.... -- The first ever pinball ezboard !! http://pub7.ezboard.com/bpinball "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message de news: P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > 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 nasty 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. > >

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 "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > Us thrifty New Englanders use gravel at Watkins Glen and i thought Searshad

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a couple (not sure after the latest makeover). > The rest are ovals, or roval if'n ya count Pocono. But after the nasty 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. > >

id have thought a nascar going sideways into gravel at 150mph on an oval would be liable to flip a few times... pez "elysium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai4hf1$880$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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. > >

I agree, when the body of the car would hit that gravel, it would probably flip the car many times. That may be the reason they dont use gravel traps, especially at a high speed track like Pocono. Even the F1 people are going away from grass and gravel traps now in favor of asphalt in those areas ... Phillip "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai4nmt$ftb$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> id have thought a nascar going sideways into gravel at 150mph on an oval > would be liable to flip a few times... > > pez > > "elysium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ai4hf1$880$[email hidden]... > > 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. Butsurely > > gravel is acceptable also because we don't have the problem of airborne > > wrecks to the degree that single-seater racing, in other words, stockcars > > 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 preventcars > > escaping the trap and resuming the race. > > > > > >

>id have thought a nascar going sideways into gravel at >150mph on an ovalwould be liable to flip a few times... > >pez I forgot to make the point in my original post that roof-flaps et al contribute towards minimising the risk of inversion, though essentially you're probably right.

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 "elysium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai4hf1$880$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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. > >

The drivers life is more important than a 2 hour delay. The 'give' in those guardrails saved Steve Park, and possibly Dale Jr's lives Sunday. I'll never be convinced otherwise after seeing it 25 times. At a BARE MINIMUM Dale's car would have smooshed Steve's car into a pile of junk about 2 feet wide at most. If that would have been a concrete wall, we'd be having a much different, more serious conversation today. I honestly feel that. I got the impression that on Speednews Sunday night, Larry McReynolds felt the same way. -Larry "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> 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 > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > 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 nasty

at

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 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. > > > > > >

i still havent seen the video cuz i cant pay 10 bucks to watch some crash "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:D1n19.163270$%%[email hidden]... > The drivers life is more important than a 2 hour delay. > > The 'give' in those guardrails saved Steve Park, and possibly Dale Jr's > lives Sunday. I'll never be convinced otherwise after seeing it 25 times. > At a BARE MINIMUM Dale's car would have smooshed Steve's car into a pileof

Quoted text (21 lines)

> junk about 2 feet wide at most. > > If that would have been a concrete wall, we'd be having a much different, > more serious conversation today. I honestly feel that. > > I got the impression that on Speednews Sunday night, Larry McReynolds felt > the same way. > > -Larry > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > > 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 thenasty > at > > > said track this weekend, i suppose anything is better than wet turf. > > > Maybe tradition, maybe access or maybe just to keep grass as anescape

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > route instead of a death sentence, like you said. > > > > > > > > > > > >

i still havent seen the video cuz i cant pay 10 bucks to watch some crash "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:D1n19.163270$%%[email hidden]... > The drivers life is more important than a 2 hour delay. > > The 'give' in those guardrails saved Steve Park, and possibly Dale Jr's > lives Sunday. I'll never be convinced otherwise after seeing it 25 times. > At a BARE MINIMUM Dale's car would have smooshed Steve's car into a pileof

Quoted text (21 lines)

> junk about 2 feet wide at most. > > If that would have been a concrete wall, we'd be having a much different, > more serious conversation today. I honestly feel that. > > I got the impression that on Speednews Sunday night, Larry McReynolds felt > the same way. > > -Larry > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > > 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 thenasty > at > > > said track this weekend, i suppose anything is better than wet turf. > > > Maybe tradition, maybe access or maybe just to keep grass as anescape

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > route instead of a death sentence, like you said. > > > > > > > > > > > >

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. "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> 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 > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > 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 nasty

at

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 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. > > > > > >

I agree that the guardrails did their jobs perfectly and may have saved the drivers from serious injury. My point is, they need to find a solution that will do an equally as good or better job then what the guardrails did without the time required to fix them. Energy absorbing walls, tire walls, gravel, or something similarly effective should be looked at IMO. -Tim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:D1n19.163270$%%[email hidden]... > The drivers life is more important than a 2 hour delay. > > The 'give' in those guardrails saved Steve Park, and possibly Dale Jr's > lives Sunday. I'll never be convinced otherwise after seeing it 25 times. > At a BARE MINIMUM Dale's car would have smooshed Steve's car into a pileof

Quoted text (21 lines)

> junk about 2 feet wide at most. > > If that would have been a concrete wall, we'd be having a much different, > more serious conversation today. I honestly feel that. > > I got the impression that on Speednews Sunday night, Larry McReynolds felt > the same way. > > -Larry > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > > 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 thenasty > at > > > said track this weekend, i suppose anything is better than wet turf. > > > Maybe tradition, maybe access or maybe just to keep grass as anescape

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > route instead of a death sentence, like you said. > > > > > > > > > > > >

I agree. But I will also say that if there is ANY increase in potential injury, regardless of how long it takes to fix, the drivers come first and the guard rail stays. -Larry "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DAn19.716325$cQ3.110738@sccrnsc01... > I agree that the guardrails did their jobs perfectly and may have savedthe > drivers from serious injury. My point is, they need to find a solutionthat > will do an equally as good or better job then what the guardrails did > without the time required to fix them. Energy absorbing walls, tirewalls,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> gravel, or something similarly effective should be looked at IMO. > > -Tim > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:D1n19.163270$%%[email hidden]... > > The drivers life is more important than a 2 hour delay. > > > > The 'give' in those guardrails saved Steve Park, and possibly Dale Jr's > > lives Sunday. I'll never be convinced otherwise after seeing it 25

times. > > At a BARE MINIMUM Dale's car would have smooshed Steve's car into a pile > of > > junk about 2 feet wide at most. > > > > If that would have been a concrete wall, we'd be having a muchdifferent, > > more serious conversation today. I honestly feel that. > > > > I got the impression that on Speednews Sunday night, Larry McReynoldsfelt

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > the same way. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > away with those guardrails that need an hour or two to repair! > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > > > 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 > nasty > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

And, much higher CG's. TP "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:q_m19.163260$%%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 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 > > "elysium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ai4hf1$880$[email hidden]... > > 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. Butsurely > > gravel is acceptable also because we don't have the problem of airborne > > wrecks to the degree that single-seater racing, in other words, stockcars > > 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 preventcars > > escaping the trap and resuming the race. > > > > > >

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 actually used that configuration (not knowing at the time that it would actually be the one constructed) to test various run off materials and surfaces.......we ran online races and recorded data about average race length, number of yellows (local and full course) and that sort of thing. We also kept data with regard to incidents and car damage....particularly in the two turns where gravel pits would be used...or could be used. Today, those gravel pits do not exist....primarily because we proved to the Sears Point engineers that the actual track surface itself.....slowed the cars equal to or better than....the gravel traps. Part of the reason this is true....is because you are not taking away the control of the driver over his race car.....by changing the surface to something he is not used to racing on....or has no idea how to control his race car on. The track surface.....is the best place a driver can use his skills....to recover from a spin, slow the car using the throttle/brakes......etc. If he manages to stay off the wall (which is enhanced by moving it way back from the track surface edge....but maintaining "track surface" between the edge of the track and the wall/barrier.....he can simply drive away. He can't do that if trapped in a sand trap. This reduced full-course yellows at Sears Point.....for both WC races that followed installation of "track surface asphalt"....in place of the gravel traps (although, the new T4a......never existed prior to these races....but its run-off area would have been a gravel trap....had this "study" not been so conclusive). It was interesting.....but right near the end of this testing process....after the track had decided to use asphalt run-off areas and no gravel traps.....an inspector from F1 visited Sears Point (unrelated to the new construction....it was an "inspection" trip that had been set up a year earlier.....between F1 and SMI officials....since F1 regularly looks at possible new race sites.....on an ongoing basis). I personally walked the track with him and Bob Davis, the Sears Point engineering department architect. We discussed at length with this F1 official.....the concept of the asphalt run-offs....the data we had collected using the simulators.....and so forth. The guy took copious notes....but he was highly skeptical of the track's decision to remove the gravel traps....and use asphalt track surface. I have no idea if we influenced him.......but I can only observe the fact that F1 began replacing many gravel traps....with asphalt track surface run-offs....over the next two years. Coincidence, maybe? Maybe not. While I will never get public credit for this concept becoming used in real-world racing....I know in my heart when I had the idea.....and when we tested it in our simulators. I really don't care about the public credit anyway....it wouldn't do anything for me or Pabst-Racing that we aren't already doing. I know that prior to this.....we had not found an instance where a gravel trap had been replaced by asphalt track surface at any race track in the world. Today....its rather common. I don't think I was the only person on the planet who had the idea....but it was my idea to try it in the sim....and a lot of the people at Sears Point....thought I was crazy (so did the F1 official....but he took notes about our sim race data anyway). We did prove them wrong....and the gravel traps are gone! I can report the fact that since the gravel traps were removed, there has not been a single full-course yellow....because of a trapped race car.....in a WC race at Sears Point (there have been two of them now on the new "Chute" config...which is where the gravel traps used to be). Prior to this new config......WC races (in the previous five years) averaged 7 full course yellows per race....four of them for trapped cars in gravel traps. That data we had determined as part of our testing....that we presented to the Sears management. I can offer some collaborative proof (so to speak) of all this by the way. During this whole process....I had an extensive discussion with Chris West....via a VROC chat conversation. We discussed at length....a couple of hours worth, via "whisper chat" one night.....about the whole idea of using track surface instead of gravel traps. We even discussed him doing some testing for us using a test track in WSC.....but it turned out we didn't need to do that. I think if Chris happens to read this post......that he will remember this conversation and say so. At least, I'm pretty sure he would remember the conversation.....? There's a couple of things about the asphalt run-off surface that you guys might find of interest: 1. It needs to be kept clean....or relatively clean...during a race. The asphalt can't be allowed to get dirty/dusty or covered with too much debris....between races. Therefore, it needs to be cleaned thoroughly before a race event. Sears used fire trucks....to hose down the surface and clean it prior to both WC races. 2. During the race itself, when ever possible, the marbles and tire debris that could collect on it....needs to be cleaned off. What Sears did....was station sweepers at both areas....and would sweep the marbles and tire debris from the asphalt run-off....during yellows (however, during the first race....there was only one full-course yellow....for an incident in turn one I think...so the run-offs never could get fully swept). 3. Additional "slowing power" can be achieved by banking the asphalt run-off surface slightly.....opposite to the likely travel of race cars sliding or spinning into the zones. You will see this very easily in the asphalt run-off at T4a at Sears....even in N2K2...its very obvious I think. By the way, grass is the worst possible surface you can use to slow race cars. Frankly, its so bad it shouldn't even be allowed to exist anywhere near the racing surface on any race track. But, many race tracks have not figured this out yet.....a few of them have (like California Speedway at Fontana). Not only does it do almost nothing to slow the cars....when its wet or damp...the cars can actually accelerate in the grass. Drivers have almost no control over the race car in a spinning crash....on grass surface.....i.e., no grip....no control! Also, since the grass surface is not solid at all.....holes can hide directly under the surface that can grab the race car's wheels when in a side ways slide or spin.....and flip the car very easily. Even the soft-surface nature of grass.....can easily allow a wheel to dig in.....and flip the car. Grass is terrible...it needs to be removed from the racing surface edge...at all race tracks! But, the nice green look of the grass.....contrasts the dark asphalt racing surface.....quite nicely for the benefit of the TV cameras and racing fans.....and its cheap and relatively easy to install over large surface areas. So, I don't think you will see it disappear....over night. But, my guess is that in five years.....it will be a rarity to see grass infields and so forth. What Sears Point is now considering......since they've moved back the hillsides substantially in the area of the esses.......is actually paving about 60 feet either side of the track as it runs and curves down through the esse turns......and impregnating the asphalt when its laid down.....with some type of "green" dye (can't use paint...it would decrease the friction of the asphalt way too much).....so that this looks like grass....on TV! I'm not kidding you.....look for this at Sears in the next couple of years (budgets allowing it ....of course). Okay.....that's my contribution to the topic of surface types and run-off types....on race tracks. Back to sim racing! .......lol..... Regards, Tom "elysium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai4hf1$880$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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. > >

"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:l4r19.217898$[email hidden]... > since F1 regularly looks at possible new race sites.....on an ongoingbasis Yeah - but not Sears Point. A nice venue - but never to be visited by F1. F1 engineers regularly visit a number of tracks to see what can be learnt from a safety point of view - he certainly wasnt there looking for the next venue for the F1 calender. Doug

"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WDs19.1978$S03.245555@stones...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:l4r19.217898$[email hidden]... > > since F1 regularly looks at possible new race sites.....on an ongoing > basis > > Yeah - but not Sears Point. A nice venue - but never to be visited by F1. > > F1 engineers regularly visit a number of tracks to see what can be learnt > from a safety point of view - he certainly wasnt there looking for the

next > venue for the F1 calender. > > Doug Why not?

Because the track is too narrow, too slow and too dangerous for F1 cars. -- __________ Steve "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hFt19.89687$uh7.14622@sccrnsc03... > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WDs19.1978$S03.245555@stones... > > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:l4r19.217898$[email hidden]... > > > since F1 regularly looks at possible new race sites.....on an ongoing > > basis > > > > Yeah - but not Sears Point. A nice venue - but never to be visited by F1. > > > > F1 engineers regularly visit a number of tracks to see what can be learnt > > from a safety point of view - he certainly wasnt there looking for the > next > > venue for the F1 calender. > > > > Doug > > Why not? > > >

"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hFt19.89687$uh7.14622@sccrnsc03...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WDs19.1978$S03.245555@stones... > > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:l4r19.217898$[email hidden]... > > > since F1 regularly looks at possible new race sites.....on an ongoing > > basis > > > > Yeah - but not Sears Point. A nice venue - but never to be visited by

F1. > > > > F1 engineers regularly visit a number of tracks to see what can belearnt

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > from a safety point of view - he certainly wasnt there looking for the > next > > venue for the F1 calender. > > > > Doug > > Why not? > > >

As Steve said, but also the track is not good enough (they'd have to replace all of it,) not enough run off at points, and the garage area is crap compared to what F1 uses.

> Why not? Too narrow, Too short, No proper pitlane, and frankly - to dangerous. Furthermore - F1 already HAS a venue in the US. Whilst the track might suck there - the facilities are great. Doug

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 Indianapolis....also known as "India-no-place!") In addition, Sears Point is bringing in ultra-high speed fiber optic cable networks......just 200 yards off one of the main trunk data lines to the Internet backbone (runs down Highway #37...right next to the track). That access will be optimized for cable TV transmission as well as data and voice communication.....with all camera stations around the track able to just "plug-in" to the fiber optic network being constructed around the track. The TV companies say it will be the best road racing facility in the world....for television coverage....from a technological standpoint. I think that has gotten F1's attention.......very much! I think you guys might want to re-think whether Sears Point can handle an F1 race! Tom PS: By the way....CART is looking to come back to Sears......and IRL is trying to find a suitable date for themselves as well. Do not forget.....who just spent $30 million dollars....to have their name placed on the Sears Point track. "Infineon"....remember....they are huge and they love racing and they are a European based company with lots of financial and social ties to F1 racing. Do you think Infineon did this for a single NASCAR race....and an NHRA drag race? You would be fooling yourself if you thought that. "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ukw19.2003$S03.248448@stones... > > > Why not? > > Too narrow, Too short, No proper pitlane, and frankly - to dangerous. > > Furthermore - F1 already HAS a venue in the US. Whilst the track mightsuck > there - the facilities are great. > > Doug > >

Watkins Glen rulez! =) -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03... > Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referring to > the "old" Sears Point....which clearly you are. > >

"Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai4nmt$ftb$[email hidden]... > id have thought a nascar going sideways into gravel at 150mph on an oval > would be liable to flip a few times... > > pez > Me too Pez, and I think that is why we only see them at the road courses where speeds are not as great and they more or less act as penalties for over running a corner. We can't forget that Jimmie Johnson flew over the pea trap at T1 at Watkins Glen last year or year before and exploded the styrofoam against the wall, so it also depends on the track layout how effective it would be. His throttle stuck IIRC and he used the slight banking in T1 as a ramp (unwillingly & literally), carried the whole trap in the air and that is no small trap. Nope, they need a wall that can absorb shock like the armco at Pocono this weekend (whatever material they can make work to their satisfaction) AND pavement all the way down to that barrier. This to give the tires something solid to slide on thus scrubbing more speed. I distinctly remember hearing DW and other announcers discussing this at either Daytona or Tally this year, how the extra pavement inside the backstrecth kept someone from hitting the infield wall as hard as they would have in the past at that track and praising the track owners (ISC I guess) for having the foresight to pave the area.

Maybe some sort of hollow metal posting with break points that fit inside a base embedded in concrete. The base doesn't move, and the posts snap at the break points.. Dave "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:v8n19.166360$[email hidden]... > 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 waythey

Quoted text (12 lines)

> can just bolt new ones in quickly and re-weld the rails to them. > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > > 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 thenasty > at > > > said track this weekend, i suppose anything is better than wet turf. > > > Maybe tradition, maybe access or maybe just to keep grass as anescape

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > route instead of a death sentence, like you said. > > > > > > > > > > > >

That was Jimmie Johnson?? I remember the incident, but I didn't know it was him... Dave "SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Vsz19.35249$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ai4nmt$ftb$[email hidden]... > > id have thought a nascar going sideways into gravel at 150mph on an oval > > would be liable to flip a few times... > > > > pez > > > > Me too Pez, and I think that is why we only see them at the road courses > where speeds are not as great and they more or less act as penalties for > over running a corner. We can't forget that Jimmie Johnson flew over the

pea > trap at T1 at Watkins Glen last year or year before and exploded the > styrofoam against the wall, so it also depends on the track layout how > effective it would be. His throttle stuck IIRC and he used the slight > banking in T1 as a ramp (unwillingly & literally), carried the whole trapin > the air and that is no small trap. > > Nope, they need a wall that can absorb shock like the armco at Pocono this > weekend (whatever material they can make work to their satisfaction) AND > pavement all the way down to that barrier. This to give the tiressomething

Quoted text (8 lines)

> solid to slide on thus scrubbing more speed. I distinctly remember hearing > DW and other announcers discussing this at either Daytona or Tally this > year, how the extra pavement inside the backstrecth kept someone from > hitting the infield wall as hard as they would have in the past at that > track and praising the track owners (ISC I guess) for having the foresight > to pave the area. > >

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).

I was at Infineon this year for the Nascar race and concur with Tom, the place is awsome! I sat in the turn 9 terrace and could see about 90% of the entire road course. The sight lines are amazing. The terrace seating is very roomy, no cramped sardine feeling here...plenty of room for your cooler. The start/finish grandstand is both good and bad. The good is there is no better closer place in any racing venue in the world where you are closer to pit road action but the bad is it is the least amount of the track you can see from this area. For those of you familiar with the track, do you think F1 would use the Chute if they raced there? -Tim "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 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 ofdirt > 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....nottoday. > 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 beento > 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 andlengthened.....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 racingtoday. > 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.....wouldbe > 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 cararound > 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 isvery > well known in Europe....they believe the location alone of Sears > Point....would bring many Europeans to the event....and the team'spersonnel > would welcome a visit to this area of the US (unlike Indianapolis....also > known as "India-no-place!") In addition, Sears Point is bringing in > ultra-high speed fiber optic cable networks......just 200 yards off one of > the main trunk data lines to the Internet backbone (runs down Highway > #37...right next to the track). That access will be optimized for cableTV > transmission as well as data and voice communication.....with all camera > stations around the track able to just "plug-in" to the fiber opticnetwork > being constructed around the track. The TV companies say it will be the > best road racing facility in the world....for television coverage....froma > technological standpoint. I think that has gotten F1'sattention.......very > much! > > I think you guys might want to re-think whether Sears Point can handle anF1

Quoted text (8 lines)

> race! > > Tom > > PS: By the way....CART is looking to come back to Sears......and IRL is > trying to find a suitable date for themselves as well. Do not > forget.....who just spent $30 million dollars....to have their name placed > on the Sears Point track. "Infineon"....remember....they are huge and

they > love racing and they are a European based company with lots of financialand > social ties to F1 racing. Do you think Infineon did this for a single > NASCAR race....and an NHRA drag race? You would be fooling yourself ifyou > thought that.

Infineon has multiple layouts actually. Nascar's layout uses the "chute" which cuts out a considerable lenght of track off the course but even using the chute the course is about 2 miles but could an F1 car do a 120 mph lap on that course? I don't think they could. -Tim "Steve Levett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai6iq8$11q5nb$[email hidden]... > How about too short? All F1 tracks have to have a lap of over 1 minute. Iknow they would be well under that with the current

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 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 F1specs > > after the re-paving is completed (in terms of curbing, width andsafety). > > > > **Too dangerous (not enough run-off): All armco barriers have beenmoved > > back off the track substantially, including moving a bazillion yards ofdirt > > and hillside....back away from the track. The worst area was downthrough > > the esses.....there's more run-off room there now than on most currentF1 > > tracks. > > > > **Bad Paddock/Garage Facilities: That was true two years ago....nottoday. > > The "Winston Cup Garages" as they are named.....were constructed twoyears > > ago. They are equal to many of the current F1 track's garage andpaddock > > area.......and currently much better than Indy's facilities (I have beento > > 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 andlengthened.....it > > now accommodates all 43 WC starters.....is right in front of a 50,000seat > > grandstand....and is one of the best pit lane facilities in WC racingtoday. > > A 21 car F1 field would all be pitted directly in front of the 50,000seat > > grandstand (it has 26 pit boxes....I believe). > > >

In article <7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03>, Tom Pabst <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (10 lines)

>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. >

<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

If a NASCAR can do a lap around 90mph then it will be no problem for a F1 car to do 120mph. -- __________ Steve "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Infineon has multiple layouts actually. Nascar's layout uses the "chute" > which cuts out a considerable lenght of track off the course but even using > the chute the course is about 2 miles but could an F1 car do a 120 mph lap > on that course? I don't think they could. > > -Tim > > "Steve Levett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ai6iq8$11q5nb$[email hidden]... > > 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). > > > > > > > >

"Dave St.Onge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hHz19.122$[email hidden]... > That was Jimmie Johnson?? I remember the incident, but I didn't know itwas > him... > > Dave I am most certain that it was JJ, the current driver of the 48 Lowes Monte Carlo (I got his sponsor plug in for him LOL! and I ain't even a real fan of his...) I will stand corrected if someone can point out factual data that said it wasn't, but would also put up this month's mortgage that it was him.

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 On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Tom Pabst wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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!>

Yep. WC cars are far more capable of tire 'tuck-in' than an Indy, Cart or F1 car. Hell, I don't even think it's _possible_ on one of those cars unless something mechanical breaks. -Larry "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%cq19.168290$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> And, much higher CG's. > > TP > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:q_m19.163260$%%[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > "elysium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:ai4hf1$880$[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Exactly. As Emeril says, "it aint rocket science". The same technology used for highway light poles could be easily converted to the armco barrier to make it ideal for quick replacement. Even further, by controlling the shear force required, you could even make a double armco barrier to absorb the impact in stages. "Dave St.Onge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sGz19.120$[email hidden]... > Maybe some sort of hollow metal posting with break points that fit insidea > base embedded in concrete. The base doesn't move, and the posts snap atthe

Quoted text (15 lines)

> break points.. > > Dave > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:v8n19.166360$[email hidden]... > > 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. > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > away with those guardrails that need an hour or two to repair! > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > "GMpartsguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:P3k19.713833$cQ3.110757@sccrnsc01... > > > > 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 > nasty > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes: >PS: By the way....CART is looking to come back to Sears...... Come *back* to Sears? When did they EVER race there? I don't remember that... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett My .sig file is in the shop for repairs... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <hHz19.122$[email hidden]>, "Dave St.Onge" <[email hidden]> writes: >That was Jimmie Johnson?? I remember the incident, but I didn't know it was >him... I was just gonna say the *same* thing... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett My .sig file is in the shop for repairs... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

lol.... TP "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rfz19.1846$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Watkins Glen rulez! =) > > -- > Scott B. Husted > PA-Scott > ICQ# 4395450 > http://www.Husted.cc > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03... > > Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referring

to > > the "old" Sears Point....which clearly you are. > > > > > > >

lol.... TP

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Watkins Glen rulez! =) > -- > 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.

F1 would most likely use the full "sports car" course.....an Audi R8 turns lap times on that track of about 1:23. I'm not exactly sure how long it is....but its about 2.5 miles with it....give or take a scrinch! TP "Steve Levett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai6iq8$11q5nb$[email hidden]... > How about too short? All F1 tracks have to have a lap of over 1 minute. Iknow they would be well under that with the current

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 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 F1specs > > after the re-paving is completed (in terms of curbing, width andsafety). > > > > **Too dangerous (not enough run-off): All armco barriers have beenmoved > > back off the track substantially, including moving a bazillion yards ofdirt > > and hillside....back away from the track. The worst area was downthrough > > the esses.....there's more run-off room there now than on most currentF1 > > tracks. > > > > **Bad Paddock/Garage Facilities: That was true two years ago....nottoday. > > The "Winston Cup Garages" as they are named.....were constructed twoyears > > ago. They are equal to many of the current F1 track's garage andpaddock > > area.......and currently much better than Indy's facilities (I have beento > > 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 andlengthened.....it > > now accommodates all 43 WC starters.....is right in front of a 50,000seat > > grandstand....and is one of the best pit lane facilities in WC racingtoday. > > A 21 car F1 field would all be pitted directly in front of the 50,000seat > > grandstand (it has 26 pit boxes....I believe). > > >

Tim... Agree that the main grandstand offers the least (all over view) view of the entire course....but that view of the cars coming down through the esses nearly straight at you is pretty cool. And, having the pit action directly at your feet......that's worth giving up a few sections of track view. Don't you think? So, in the terrace seating....you gain "view" but loose the pit action. Kind of a good trade I think. I would guess that F1 would use the carousel turn....the full "sports car" course. TP "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I was at Infineon this year for the Nascar race and concur with Tom, the > place is awsome! I sat in the turn 9 terrace and could see about 90% ofthe > entire road course. The sight lines are amazing. The terrace seating is > very roomy, no cramped sardine feeling here...plenty of room for your > cooler. The start/finish grandstand is both good and bad. The good is > there is no better closer place in any racing venue in the world where you > are closer to pit road action but the bad is it is the least amount ofthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> track you can see from this area. > > For those of you familiar with the track, do you think F1 would use the > Chute if they raced there? > > -Tim > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03... > > Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referring

to

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > 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 andsafety). > > > > **Too dangerous (not enough run-off): All armco barriers have beenmoved > > back off the track substantially, including moving a bazillion yards of > dirt > > and hillside....back away from the track. The worst area was downthrough > > the esses.....there's more run-off room there now than on most currentF1 > > tracks. > > > > **Bad Paddock/Garage Facilities: That was true two years ago....not > today. > > The "Winston Cup Garages" as they are named.....were constructed twoyears > > ago. They are equal to many of the current F1 track's garage andpaddock

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 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 50,000seat

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 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 initself......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 (unlikeIndianapolis....also > > known as "India-no-place!") In addition, Sears Point is bringing in > > ultra-high speed fiber optic cable networks......just 200 yards off oneof

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > the main trunk data lines to the Internet backbone (runs down Highway > > #37...right next to the track). That access will be optimized for cable > TV > > transmission as well as data and voice communication.....with all camera > > stations around the track able to just "plug-in" to the fiber optic > network > > being constructed around the track. The TV companies say it will be the > > best road racing facility in the world....for television

coverage....from > a > > technological standpoint. I think that has gotten F1's > attention.......very > > much! > > > > I think you guys might want to re-think whether Sears Point can handlean

Quoted text (8 lines)

> F1 > > race! > > > > Tom > > > > PS: By the way....CART is looking to come back to Sears......and IRL is > > trying to find a suitable date for themselves as well. Do not > > forget.....who just spent $30 million dollars....to have their name

placed

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > on the Sears Point track. "Infineon"....remember....they are huge and > they > > love racing and they are a European based company with lots of financial > and > > social ties to F1 racing. Do you think Infineon did this for a single > > NASCAR race....and an NHRA drag race? You would be fooling yourself if > you > > thought that. > > >

Well....in the full "sports car" track.....there's as much overtaking possibilities as any track I've driven in F1-2001.....so I'd have to disagree with your assessment on a lack of passing zones. TP "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03>, Tom Pabst > <[email hidden]> writes > >Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referringto

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >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. > > > > <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

Eldred....I don't remember the exact years....but CART did run at Sears. Seems like it was for only like 3 years, though. But I could be wrong. It was back when Mario was younger....maybe late 70's early 80's maybe? There should be something on the CART website about historical races....or such? TP "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03>, "Tom Pabst"<[email hidden]> > writes: > > >PS: By the way....CART is looking to come back to Sears...... > > Come *back* to Sears? When did they EVER race there? I don't rememberthat...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > My .sig file is in the shop for repairs... > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Dang it, Doug. Wished I'd known about Fitch 2 years ago.....I could have used that stuff to stop the Sears people from laughing at me......about paving the sand traps. They don't laugh now....but they sure got bellies full of it two years ago (at my expense)! ....lol... TP "Doug Milliken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > 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 > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Tom Pabst wrote: > > > 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 thetrack > > 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!> >

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:17:37 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >By the way, grass is the worst possible surface you can use to slow race >cars. Frankly, its so bad it shouldn't even be allowed to exist anywhere >near the racing surface on any race track. But, many race tracks have not >figured this out yet.....a few of them have (like California Speedway at >Fontana). Not only does it do almost nothing to slow the cars....when its >wet or damp...the cars can actually accelerate in the grass. Can you explain the mechanism by which that occurs? I can imagine that it sure as heck *feels* like you are accelerating when you suddenly lose all braking capability (and much directional control) going from pavement to wet grass, but do the cars actually increase in velocity? "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >By the way, grass is the worst possible surface you can use to slow race > >cars. Frankly, its so bad it shouldn't even be allowed to exist anywhere > >near the racing surface on any race track. But, many race tracks have not > >figured this out yet.....a few of them have (like California Speedway at > >Fontana). Not only does it do almost nothing to slow the cars....when its > >wet or damp...the cars can actually accelerate in the grass. > > Can you explain the mechanism by which that occurs? > > I can imagine that it sure as heck *feels* like you are > accelerating when you suddenly lose all braking capability (and much > directional control) going from pavement to wet grass, but do the cars > actually increase in velocity?

Well, the car wouldn't accelerate in the grass unless the car was heading downhill. Maybe that's what Tom means. - Michael

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <hHz19.122$[email hidden]>, "Dave St.Onge" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >That was Jimmie Johnson?? I remember the incident, but I didn't know itwas

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >him... > > I was just gonna say the *same* thing... > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > My .sig file is in the shop for repairs... > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Here is a link that is about Kenny Irwin's wreck, but near the bottom they talk about foam walls and Jimme Johnson hitting one at Watkins Glen: http://espn.go.com/auto/columns/weber_bill/623396.html Here is another one along the same lines, mention JJ hitting the wall at the Glen head-on: http://espn.go.com/auto/mcreynolds22.html AND here is one with a photo, so yeah, I was thinking right, it was JJ: http://www.freep.com/sports/othersports/autos17_20000817.htm Now, about my mortgage payment ;-) LOL!!

It's not like John Fitch has been hiding out! After his race driving years for Mercedes/Cunningham/etc in the 1950's he has had quite a career. His interest in safety goes back to that horrible crash at LeMans (car in the crowd) which involved his co-driver. He's the inventor of the staged yellow plastic crash "barrels" that work so well -- because there was some serious engineering that went into their design and testing. Another thread is discussing the Park/Little E accident at Pocono and someone suggested using guardrail posts that shear off. This is the design of the posts under the "box-beam" highway barrier (invented in the 1960's)--a beam of known stiffness and unlikely to kink, mounted on very small posts. In the Pocono crash I'm guessing that after the two cars slowed down a certain amount, then one (or more) of those heavy posts DIDN'T give-way. At that point the Armco "pocketed" and the sudden deceleration may have been the start of Park's flip. If that barrier had been stiff enough to not "pocket", and been supported on small posts it might have kept on deflecting and kept Park's car on the ground?? As I watched the replay, I was fairly amazed that the Cup cars didn't jump over the Armco, given the way the posts and Armco were being pushed over at an angle. In test crashes that I've seen, the little posts under the box beam type of barrier just break off and the stiffness of the whole long beam keeps it from falling (tilting) over and turning into a launching ramp... There are specialists who study these things, I'm just speculating... Have you ever tried to do a proper literature search? Not on the public www but in a _real_ research library! On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Pabst wrote:

Quoted text (41 lines)

> Dang it, Doug. Wished I'd known about Fitch 2 years ago.....I could have > used that stuff to stop the Sears people from laughing at me......about > paving the sand traps. They don't laugh now....but they sure got bellies > full of it two years ago (at my expense)! ....lol... > > TP > > > "Doug Milliken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > 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 > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Tom Pabst wrote: > > > > > 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!> > > > > > >

That was him, I thought he was dead. Popped right out of the car though. Thank god for styrofoam. Boy, what an impact too. Looked like a bomb went off when he hit. "SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bnD19.35673$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Dave St.Onge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hHz19.122$[email hidden]... > > That was Jimmie Johnson?? I remember the incident, but I didn't know it > was > > him... > > > > Dave > > I am most certain that it was JJ, the current driver of the 48 Lowes Monte > Carlo (I got his sponsor plug in for him LOL! and I ain't even a real fan

of > his...) I will stand corrected if someone can point out factual data that > said it wasn't, but would also put up this month's mortgage that it washim. > >

Sounds as though Sears would fit into the plan of a remote possibility of a pass happening during a race. Gotta love a F1 parade. "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <7az19.92339$uh7.14696@sccrnsc03>, Tom Pabst > <[email hidden]> writes > >Well guys....you would be collectively correct.....if you are referringto

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >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. > > > > <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

Doug... Well, its "water under the bridge" now......the idea of paving the sandtraps, I mean. However, I agree with your assessment of the armco and the posts. The purpose of the posts should be nothing further than holding the armco beams in place - until there's a crash into it. Then, the posts need to shear off, and release the armco beam to become a giant rubber band, and not cause the armco beam to deflect horizontally (so cars can't get launched over the top of it, or easily submarine it). You are right, Park's car still had too much forward velocity when the posts stopped shearing. Thus, the armco became the effect of a concrete barrier (as it pocketed Park's car) - and Park's car was then launched into the air! Armco was probably not "high-tech" tested and designed when it was first invented. So, along the way, somebody probably said, "Hey, lets make the posts stronger so the barrier will be stronger!" And so, many armco barriers now have posts that are too strong/stiff - don't shear off the way they should. The problem with this system as I see it (though I believe this is the best barrier to use for protecting the interior perimeter of tracks) is that how far can the barrier/beam deflect inward - in a high speed crash? You would need to calculate that and make sure no parked cars, fans, workers, etc. - could be inside that "deflection zone" during a race. That deflection zone could be a substantial number of feet! Could all race tracks accommodate it? Maybe not. Remember, not only must the interior barrier (and to a large extent, the exterior wall/barrier too) provide a safe stopping of the race car crash, it must prevent intrusion of the race car into the fans, workers, parked vehicles, etc.! Its a complicated issue. TP "Doug Milliken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > It's not like John Fitch has been hiding out! After his race drivingyears

Quoted text (9 lines)

> for Mercedes/Cunningham/etc in the 1950's he has had quite a career. His > interest in safety goes back to that horrible crash at LeMans (car in the > crowd) which involved his co-driver. He's the inventor of the staged > yellow plastic crash "barrels" that work so well -- because there was some > serious engineering that went into their design and testing. > > > Another thread is discussing the Park/Little E accident at Pocono and > someone suggested using guardrail posts that shear off. This is the

design

Quoted text (13 lines)

> of the posts under the "box-beam" highway barrier (invented in the > 1960's)--a beam of known stiffness and unlikely to kink, mounted on very > small posts. > > In the Pocono crash I'm guessing that after the two cars slowed down a > certain amount, then one (or more) of those heavy posts DIDN'T give-way. > At that point the Armco "pocketed" and the sudden deceleration may have > been the start of Park's flip. If that barrier had been stiff enough to > not "pocket", and been supported on small posts it might have kept on > deflecting and kept Park's car on the ground?? > > As I watched the replay, I was fairly amazed that the Cup cars didn't jump > over the Armco, given the way the posts and Armco were being pushed over

at

Quoted text (13 lines)

> an angle. In test crashes that I've seen, the little posts under the box > beam type of barrier just break off and the stiffness of the whole long > beam keeps it from falling (tilting) over and turning into a launching > ramp... > > There are specialists who study these things, I'm just speculating... > Have you ever tried to do a proper literature search? Not on the public > www but in a _real_ research library! > > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Pabst wrote: > > > Dang it, Doug. Wished I'd known about Fitch 2 years ago.....I could

have > > used that stuff to stop the Sears people from laughing at me......about > > paving the sand traps. They don't laugh now....but they sure gotbellies

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > full of it two years ago (at my expense)! ....lol... > > > > TP > > > > > > "Doug Milliken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Tom Pabst wrote: > > > > > > > Two years ago, when we were helping Sears Point engineering redesign

a > > new > > > > configuration of "The Chute"....using our simulators and mock racesvia > > > > online to establish "racing data" for various configs of "The > > > > Chute".......we also addressed the issue of what type of run offsthe > > track > > > > could alternately install......instead of gravel traps. The current > > > > configuration of "The Chute" was one of the three design choicesthat we > > > > presented to the Winston Cup drivers at the Sears race that year.We

Quoted text (8 lines)

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

The cars do not "accelerate".....that is correct. But where that term comes from is how it feels to you (the driver) when you hit the wet grass. It does feel like you accelerate. But what you are actually feeling is the sudden "decrease" in the rate of deceleration. That feels like you are accelerating.....but you are actually not. Hope that makes sense? TP "MichaelJP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >By the way, grass is the worst possible surface you can use to slowrace > > >cars. Frankly, its so bad it shouldn't even be allowed to existanywhere > > >near the racing surface on any race track. But, many race tracks havenot > > >figured this out yet.....a few of them have (like California Speedwayat > > >Fontana). Not only does it do almost nothing to slow the cars....whenits

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >wet or damp...the cars can actually accelerate in the grass. > > > > Can you explain the mechanism by which that occurs? > > > > I can imagine that it sure as heck *feels* like you are > > accelerating when you suddenly lose all braking capability (and much > > directional control) going from pavement to wet grass, but do the cars > > actually increase in velocity? > > Well, the car wouldn't accelerate in the grass unless the car was > heading downhill. Maybe that's what Tom means. > > - Michael > >

On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 05:51:55 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The cars do not "accelerate".....that is correct. But where that term comes >from is how it feels to you (the driver) when you hit the wet grass. It >does feel like you accelerate. But what you are actually feeling is the >sudden "decrease" in the rate of deceleration. That feels like you are >accelerating.....but you are actually not. > >Hope that makes sense?

S'alright. :) Unlikely some others in the group, you're usually pretty precise in your language, so that quote (taken precisely) surprised me. "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

In article <[email hidden]>, Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> writes >I agree, when the body of the car would hit that gravel, it would probably >flip the car many times. That may be the reason they dont use gravel traps, >especially at a high speed track like Pocono. Even the F1 people are going >away from grass and gravel traps now in favor of asphalt in those areas ... > I was just watching a British Touring Cars race on tv at Snetterton which has plenty of grass if a car goes off and came to a realisation. I believe that one possible reason that grass was put around most circuits was to help impose some kind of time penalty to the driver who goes off - one of the cars went too wide and it took the driver a good few seconds to get the car back onto the track, losing several places. Now, here's a for instance: A driver is some 2 to 3 seconds up on the guy behind and runs wide in a corner, but the run-off area is now asphalt so he is able to keep the car under control without difficulty and then get the car back onto the circuit, possibly only losing between a second or 2. No places dropped and along he goes on his merry way. No major penalty for the mistake that was made. I'm all for making tracks safer, and on ovals I don't see a problem with removing grass, but at road coarses where the gaps between one car and the next can be quite a few seconds this would need to be addressed, surely. You can't just have big wide asphalt run off areas that allows a driver to make an error that isn't going to be costly in 'some' way. -- 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