Should NASCAR have another road course?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quick informal poll. I was listening to NASCAR radio all day yesterday, and I couldn't believe the number of callers calling in wanting another road course in the sched and many feel there should be one in the chase.

I have my own thoughts on the subject, and for anyone who was listening on the Sirius/XM, I actually called in, but I wont tell you one way or the other how I feel yet here.

So the question is: Should NASCAR have another road course race and/or should there be a road course in the Chase?

For those who hate the Chase, spare us the tirade...we get it....

[muggle not]

I am all in favor of one more road course race and I am also in favor of having one in the chase. The chase should have at least one of all the different type of tracks.

[inimitablestoo]

There's room for one more, maximum. Portland, perhaps, which has hosted lower-level NASCAR races and doesn't seem to have attracted the interest of the IndyCar people, despite its Champ Car history. It was always a favourite track of mine from Champ Car, and has some nice fast blasts, and although it lacks the elevation changes of Sears Point (I refuse to call it anything else :p : ) or Watkins Glen, that in itself would provide some variety.

Or there's always the possibility of doing something completely different and adding a street track. Not exactly something that you'd associate with NASCAR, but it would be interesting to see if they could draw a decent crowd, perhaps in a state that doesn't have a suitable oval.

As for a Chase race... I'd put one in, probably around third of the ten. I know NASCAR changes the schedule about once every ice age, but I think I'd move Watkins Glen into the Chase and put the new race roughly where the Glen is now.

[muggle not]

wondering out loud. If a third race was added, what tracks would realistically be candidates.

I would hate to see a street course in a Nascar schedule, they are just not my cup of tea.

[Sparky1329]

I am all in favor of one more road course race and I am also in favor of having one in the chase. The chase should have at least one of all the different type of tracks.

Absolutely! The champ should be proficient on all types of tracks.

[harvick#1]

have them race at Miller Motorsports Park :D :up:

[Chaparral66]

I'd love to see another roadcourse race. Why not? If NASCAR wants to grab more of a foothold on the motorsports world stage, and attract more manufacturers, they need to embrace more roadcourse racing. Portland would be cool (how about NASCAR on the corkscrew at Laguna Seca?), and so would Road America. I think having a chase race at Watkins Glen, especially during the fall foliage, would the ultimate.

[muggle not]

LaGuna Seca

Road America

Miller Motorsport Park

Portland

Mid-Ohio

Mosport

Any others to add to the list to choose from.

[Jonesi]

Yes at least one more road course and if there's a chase one should be in it. Portland would be very good and it's in an area Nascar has said they want to expand onto. Also I'm surprised Montreal hasn't be added yet. The Busch/Nationwide races have been very popular, the drivers like it the fans fill the stands, what's the hold up? ;-)

[Wade91]

nascar should replace the fall californa race with a race at montreal, that way there would be every type of track in the chase

[Sparky1329]

The track in Montreal is beautiful. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if NASCAR would schedule a Cup race there.

[Sparky1329]

nascar should replace the fall californa race with a race at montreal, that way there would be every type of track in the chase

Fontana should definitely lose one of their races. That experiment was a failure in my opinion.

[colinspooky]

I came in to say no to this, but having read the comments, I can't help thinking a RC should be in the chase. Like idea of Laguna

[call_me_andrew]

I think Loudon should lose a date for Montreal. I base this on geography, and tv ratings. Not sure how I'd get the date from Bruton Smith.

Laguna is only a few miles away from Sears Point so it would be silly to race at both tracks. Portland doesn't have the facilities to host a Sprint Cup race.

Miller Motorsports Park could work. I'm not so sure about Lime Rock Park.

EDIT: But I am not looking forward to redoing this map.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/US_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series_Track_Location.PNG

[muggle not]

I don't thik it would make much difference by having LaGuna and Infineon together on the schedule as long as they aren't on consecutive weekends.

I may be mistaken but doesn't Portland and Lime Rock have noise restrictions on weekends.

my preference is Road America or Laguna Seca. I also like Mosport.

[Jonesi]

Fontana should definitely lose one of their races. That experiment was a failure in my opinion.

This year will be the first time they will race in the fall there. It was insane to schedule a major race there on Labor Day weekend, when almost anyone in S Cal knows it would be between 90-115 degrees then.

[Jonesi]

snip...I may be mistaken but doesn't Portland and Lime Rock have noise restrictions on weekends.snip..

I thought Portland was like Laguna where they have a certain number of noisy weekends a year (5 for Laguna). I suspect any event that could bring in +$30mil in a weekend to the track and who knows how much to the city, could get an exemption.

[call_me_andrew]

$30 million? I believe I once read a report that claimed both Pocono races brought about $375 million to the area.

[Jonesi]

$30 million? I believe I once read a report that claimed both Pocono races brought about $375 million to the area.

I've never been comfortable with those types of figures, it's the same type of fuzzy math that said the US economy, real estate & stock market was doing just fine last fall. ;-) I was figuring things you can see: turnstyle, parking, food, TV, corporate suites/tents, etc.

[e2mtt]

YES


Another 2 road courses would make me happy. One thing to keep in mind... you want to have a relativly short road course for the best show with stock cars. Road America would probably be way too long... there is a reason why they skip the boot at Watkins Glen and the inner loop at Infineon. Portland would probably be a good choice for one.

[call_me_andrew]

They skip the boot because they want to increase the number of laps. Same with the carousel at Sears Point.

[dj4monie]

I vote for Road America. Its not too long. Run it about 300km and have at it.

Its a super fast track, great passing points, turn 1, turn 3 and Canada Corner. Of course you have talent you can pass anywhere...

But consider this -

How about four events in Europe?

2 on road course and 2 on ovals

We already know which ovals and the Germanys and Brits would go NUTZ!

Even Laswitz and Rockingham would be PERFECT

Then how about Brands Hatch GP or Silverstone National and wait - Monza!

I would say Spa, but you know... Somebody might kill themselves, Eau Rouge is NOT the place to try something stupid.

But that place is old school fast...

[muggle not]

Naw, I vote for keeping nascar in North America. Enough good tracks here.

[jeffmr2]

Using the road course at Indy wouldnt be a bad idea as nearly every year the brickyard 400 is a dissapointing quite boring race.
The trouble then is however we would have to endure Boris Said at least 3 times a year!!

[ShiftingGears]

Montreal.

[e2mtt]

Montreal would be OK, if it drew well. It is kind of long, and has poor spectator sightlines compared to many tracks.

About 1-1/2 ~ 2 miles is the optimum road course length for stock cars, I think.

[call_me_andrew]

I don't think NASCAR has its sights set on Europe. If they did, they would produce a world feed.

[muggle not]

Montreal would be OK, if it drew well. It is kind of long, and has poor spectator sightlines compared to many tracks.

About 1-1/2 ~ 2 miles is the optimum road course length for stock cars, I think.
Watkins Glen is pretty good at 2.49 mile.

[wedge]

Miller though I'd hate to see the long track go to waste. A damn ALMS ditched it and NASCAR will blatantly use a short version.

Mosport

Montreal

Barber

Cleveland - if IRL don't want it then give it to NASCAR

Road Atlanta - perfect for NASCAR but its Atlanta so no go.

[call_me_andrew]

A 350 km race on the long course at Miller would be 49 laps long. I don't see NASCAR wanting a race that short. The outer course (which is already used by the Camping World West Series) would be 72 laps long. I doubt they would use the East or West Courses. And a 350 km race should last about 2 1/2 hours.

[Lee Roy]

Naw, I vote for keeping nascar in North America. Enough good tracks here.


Agreed. There's enough interst here in N/A to keep NASCAR racing nearly every weekend from mid-February until the week before Thanksgiving.

On another note, I do wish they would add Motreal as a Sprint Cup event. (And yes, I know that Montreal is in North America.)

[Lee Roy]

Or there's always the possibility of doing something completely different and adding a street track. Not exactly something that you'd associate with NASCAR, but it would be interesting to see if they could draw a decent crowd, perhaps in a state that doesn't have a suitable oval.

In North America, street races are for series that can't attract enough people to attend a race at a proper race track.

[jonv]

All for additional road races (love the europe idea) but can we get some wet tyres sorted out?

[nigelred5]

They would also have to be ready to run in the rain if they added Montreal during the Chase. I thought the Busch series races on the shortened course in Mexico City were pretty entertaining. Lime rock would be too small IMHO for a full field of 43 cup cars.

I suspect they also found the long course at the Glen was too challenging and long for the drivers in a heavy stock car.

How about running the 24 hour course at Daytona?

[dj4monie]

Agreed. There's enough interst here in N/A to keep NASCAR racing nearly every weekend from mid-February until the week before Thanksgiving.

On another note, I do wish they would add Motreal as a Sprint Cup event. (And yes, I know that Montreal is in North America.)

Ah selfish aren't we?

Not ever race has been packed this year, blame it on the economy if you want.

There is enough interest in Europe to bring the series there for a month and why not?

You afraid they would drop another cookie-cutter oval off the schedule?

Trust me, they would love it, only two or three regulars would complain but everybody else would love it. The complainers can stay home, Freedom Fries right?

If they thought The Glen was fast, hustle it up Eau Rouge that will make a "man" out of you, ask Jackie Ickx.

[Lee Roy]

Ah selfish aren't we?

Not ever race has been packed this year, blame it on the economy if you want.

There is enough interest in Europe to bring the series there for a month and why not?

You afraid they would drop another cookie-cutter oval off the schedule?

Trust me, they would love it, only two or three regulars would complain but everybody else would love it. The complainers can stay home, Freedom Fries right?

If they thought The Glen was fast, hustle it up Eau Rouge that will make a "man" out of you, ask Jackie Ickx.

Not selfish, just realistic.

It would be cool, but unecessary. NASCAR get's sued by tracks here in N/A for additional dates they can't accomodate due to there not being enough weekends to fit them in.

BTW, CART/Champ Car thought there was enough interest in Europe, too. Turned out to be a fantasy.

[dj4monie]

All for additional road races (love the europe idea) but can we get some wet tyres sorted out?

They are sorted out, Goodyear would LOVE to try. Its management in Cup as I said doesn't want to give an unfair advantage to road "ringers". Why on earth did you think they threw a "competition" yellow in Canada last year? Because do a normal four tire stop, with fuel, add a wiper, and send them back out, as I said, Ambrose, Fellows, Pruett and Patrick CHECKED OUT easily once they threw the green flag anyway.

They didn't crash heavily (going too slow) I don't see what the problem is. I'd say Montreal is quite a bit faster in some areas than the Glen. The Glen isn't slow, F1 stop running here because it was TOO fast, same with Group C.

I love the Europe idea, they would pack them in at Rockingham and Brits would love it. Put them on the Brands Hatch GP circuit and OH would that be wild. Again another "throw back" track, seriously fast in a few places, the WTCC put on a whale of a race late last month, Cup cars would only be faster in the straight line.

Luckily we don't have to wait on NASCAR to have one of the few if ever "bright" ideas as they are not out of the box thinkers by nature. We can run these tracks with PC Simulations....

HA, The Pits use to put on an entire series based on the F1 mod...

[nigelred5]

I'd love to see them trying to shoehorn 43 sstock cars in a couple 747's. You have to think about the logistics of transporting the Nascar circus. Those cars don't just dissasemble and pack up into little crates like F1 and indycars. Even when they went to Suzuka, it was a very limited number of teams and IIRC, those cars were sent by ship far ahead of time.

[muggle not]

I'd love to see them trying to shoehorn 43 sstock cars in a couple 747's. You have to think about the logistics of transporting the Nascar circus. Those cars don't just dissasemble and pack up into little crates like F1 and indycars. Even when they went to Suzuka, it was a very limited number of teams and IIRC, those cars were sent by ship far ahead of time.
More like 86 cars, minimum.

Forget the rain tires. This is Nascar not OW. Jeff Gordon and some of the others actually laugh at the suggestion of running rain tires on the Cup cars.

[nigelred5]

Personally, I think NASCAR has needed to consider eliminating a lot of the second race dates at tracks outside of their traditional core market in the south for a while. There is clearlys till demand for races at many more existing tracks that don't have race dates. They could return to some of the traditional tracks they abandoned for bigger markets like North Wilkesboro, restore the Southern 500 at Darlington, and add events at several of the existing tracks that have never had an event. Far too many of their tracks with two dates have never been able to fill the seats for even one race, let alone two a year. Fontana barely justifies one race and Atlanta has had problems with attendance and weather for ages.

As much turmoil as it has already caused, I think Kentucky has always had a very valid anti-trust case against NASCAR and the ISC and I'd actually prefer to see Kentucky Speedway prevail.

[call_me_andrew]

Looking at the map, I think it's safe to say NASCAR has saturated the east coast. Considering 18 of 36 races are still in states* that joined the Confederacy, I'd hardly call the south "abandoned".

The west coast and Canada are the best places for expansion. We know ISC can't build anything in Washington, so that leaves Oregon (which kills two birds with one stone). Denver and Salt Lake City seem pretty well isolated. In Canada the best places to expand are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia (which doubles as a west coast race). I think the best solution would be to drop one race from Loudon, Michigan, and Charlotte or Atlanta and add new dates to Montreal, Kentucky, and Miller Motorsport Park.

*While Kansas was claimed by the Confederacy, it was an unincorporated territory, not a state.

[UltimateDanGTR]

Id like to see the second races at Loudon and Pocono taken away, and replaced by at least one canadian race, montreal being my favourite, and this should be in the chase, while another road course race either in mosport or another place that can help spread the geographic locations of nascar races.

Putting an RC in the chase is needed i think, like people have said before because the champ needs to be an all rounder and deserve it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well I am shocked that NOT one (Stan even?) of you guys said no to the idea of another road course.

First off, NASCAR I suspect will ONLY add another one to fill in a market they are not currently in and ONLY if they can pry a date away from the existing 36. The teams and drivers have been pretty steadfast no more new points races and since ISC and SMI seem to be the two big players, they wont give up dates, and Pocono, Indy and Dover being the last of the independents wont give up their dates. NASCAR is scared to death of more lawsuits (Kentucky is a great big WASTE of everyone's time) so they wont pull a date away from Bruton Smith's empire, and they wont screw over the Mattioli's in Pocono because THAT is serving the New York City market. Dover...well Dover packs in around 140000 people twice a year, so I don't think they can justify taking a date away from them.

ISC will have to go to one date instead of two at Fontana, Michigan, Martinsville, Richmond or Daytona. Cant see anyone of those tracks giving up a date. They want a second date for Kansas so I suspect THAT will get the one they will likely take from Fontana. So we still have an impasse to fit in a new track.

The only way they will come to Canada is on a road course. Since ISC nor Bruton owns anything up here, you wont get much luck taking dates from their tracks. However, because ISC is owned by the other Frances not running NASCAR, something could happen I suppose. That said, it would be Montreal unless the Panoz family sold Mosport, and the new owners put in garages and upgraded the whole facility. Would I love to see the Cup cars at Mosport over Montreal? Oh ya, but I live 20 mins from the front gates. Logically though I know it wont happen, the Panoz's and the Frances didn't get along when that GrandAM thing came along so unless Don Panoz sells Mosport to ISC, it aint happening.

Portland and Miller would be also good picks to fill in holes in the marketplace not being filled, but again, NASCAR style garages are a must for the Cup series. NASCAR doesn't like to have the teams working out and way from each other. They like the large garage concept mainly for rule enforcement (no one can cheat when everyone you compete with is watching).

I think one more date could be squeezed in somehow, and someone may have to give up a race, and I hope like heck Canada has a venue besides Montreal as an option. It isn't that I hate Montreal, but I think the track doesn't suit these cars. Too many bog slow corners eat brakes. These cars are best shown on roadcourses like the Glen, that is FAST. Mosport would work as a track, although the safety would need a lot of upgrading for 3400 lbs of stock cars bouncing off things.

AS for street races, it wont happen. Stockcars on street courses are not the image NASCAR would like, and as for Cup cars with rain tires on, that wont happen either. NASCAR is too conservative to try it without testing, and some would be needed since 850 hp cars on tires this small would be a handful. The Nationwide cars were just on the edge of being undriveable, and they have about 500hp. God knows what kind of evil handling and scary stuff would you find in a COT.

I don't see another race being added to the series, much less a road course for the next 5 years, but if it happens, better than even money it is Montreal. Either that, or ISC gets tired of NYC and Washington kicking them in the face and finally faces the reality that Southern Ontario would EAGERLY let them build a nice 7/8 mile oval.....

[call_me_andrew]

Why the feud with Panoz and France? Wasn't Bill France Sr. one of the founding members of IMSA?

Martinsville would probably be the easiest track Mark listed to take a race from. Why wouldn't ISC take a race from Phoenix?

How about Sanair Speedway or Mont-Tremblant?

Technically Montreal is a street course since it's a public park. And Daytona started off as a street course.

Rain tires in Cup will take testing, yes. But when you go to these more "exotic" tracks, you don't have the luxury of a rain date. That would force NASCAR to invest the money in testing the tires. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Copse]

Well I am shocked that NOT one (Stan even?) of you guys said no to the idea of another road course.


It seems your main point against whether NASCAR should have another road race is not at all related to if it would be good for the series, drivers or fans, but because of the current contracts with track owners. That does not really address the should, only whether it is likely to happen in the near future.

Are SMI and ISC really that powerful? Powerful enough to keep NASCAR racing on tracks that they don't really want to go to twice, that produce boring races and don't draw crowds that their potential replacements would?

[muggle not]

SMI and ISC "ARE" that powerful, no question about it.

[call_me_andrew]

Well ISC is NASCAR's puppet.

Does Stan even show up here anymore?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why the feud with Panoz and France? Wasn't Bill France Sr. one of the founding members of IMSA?.

Panoz bought IMSA basically but was a big wheel there before he bought it. Where the trouble started was when the Rolex was run under a coalistion of IMSA and ISC people (Grand AM was a year or two away) and Panoz had his batmobile GT1 car. The Frances being promotors didn't want that car beating all the prototype cars, and it was clear it might so they told the Panoz people that car had to run on a much smaller tire to slow it down. It wasn't engineered for that smaller tire and really was taken out of the running and THAT ticked Don off.


Martinsville would probably be the easiest track Mark listed to take a race from. Why wouldn't ISC take a race from Phoenix?.

Everyone says that, but NASCAR has shown great loyalty to Martinsville because they were there ahead of all the tracks. I suspect Fontana deserves to lose a date first.

How about Sanair Speedway or Mont-Tremblant?. Sanair was tried by Indycar and a few stock series, and it has been found wanting. Not sure why but that's the story on that one. Tremblant? Too tight, and not an option facility wise. Montreal's Ile Notre Dame is right downtown, has the ingress and egress for fans and garages built already. NASCAR looked at every major facility in Canada when they decided to come north. Montreal has the facilities that they wanted in terms of garages and press facilities. Mosport is a better track, but lacking in the style of garage and infrastructure for fans and press.


Technically Montreal is a street course since it's a public park. And Daytona started off as a street course..Daytona's old street course has nothing to do with the current track other than the promotor.

Montreal isn't a true street course like Long Beach or Toronto.


Rain tires in Cup will take testing, yes. But when you go to these more "exotic" tracks, you don't have the luxury of a rain date. That would force NASCAR to invest the money in testing the tires. Necessity is the mother of invention.They have the luxury of rain dates. They wait til it stops raining, that was shown in the latest race at the Glen. NASCAR will not spend a lot of money testing rain tires on the COT. They know it is a handful in the dry, so 850hp on those small tires in the rain would just be a handful plus...

[Mark in Oshawa]

It seems your main point against whether NASCAR should have another road race is not at all related to if it would be good for the series, drivers or fans, but because of the current contracts with track owners. That does not really address the should, only whether it is likely to happen in the near future.

I am thinking it isn't going to happen because NASCAR need to find a way to make a date to add ANY race to the sched, not just a road course. I think to get that road course on the sched, it would have to fill two criteria: 1) to enter a market NASCAR doesn't have a footprint in now (Canada, Pacific Northwest, Denver/Utah) and 2) be to the standard of the other Cup tracks.

Brian France isn't a Bernie Ecclestone, but he is going to want the amenties that all the Cup tracks have, that is 70000 to 160000 seats or capacity to have that level of attendance, the revenue streams to pay the purse required; the garage facilities to host at least two of the series (Cup always has a support series, either the Nationwide, Trucks or Camping World East/West, and they all need garages). OW series don't use the garages, nor does ALMS or Grand AM. The garages are unique to NASCAR really and they adapt to the f1 style ones in Montreal, but they like the one large open garage for their teams. None of the circuits mentioned for road courses have this so to get NASCAR, having the garage built is step one.


Are SMI and ISC really that powerful? Powerful enough to keep NASCAR racing on tracks that they don't really want to go to twice, that produce boring races and don't draw crowds that their potential replacements would?

ISC is owned by other members of the France family, so you know they have the pull to protect their dates. It is this relationship that causes controversay but there is nothing illegal since there is no law a series promotor cannot also own racetracks. That said, they protect ISC tracks and dates.

SMI has pull because they host half the sched, and many of their events are staples of NASCAR, mainly Bristol, Vegas, Lowes/Charlotte, Texas, Atlanta and New Hampshire. Out of all of those tracks, Atlanta is the only one with attendance issues, and they still put 100000 people in the track. It is only the reality of having overbuilt with 150000 seats that makes Atlanta look suspect.

Now you may say, what does this have to do with anything, but the point is these large companies have influence and to make money, they have built business models on the two race per year schedule. ISC isn't going to give up a date unless it owns the new track, and they wont take them from SMI because Bruton Smith would likely make life miserable for them with his tracks. He has the potential to split the series wide open and make his own series. It isn't like he doesn't have the tracks. An IRL/CART split in stock car racing might happen and is too scary to conteplate, so keeping Bruton Smith happy is the best plan. It is the bain now of NASCAR because it makes it hard to get to new markets when you are running 36 dates a year PLUS two non points races.

To add a road course, someone will likely lose a date, and Kentucky is on line and ready to take one, just needing some legalities and changes made by Bruton Smith to get a date likely from Atlanta. It still doesn't mean a road course cant be added, but it will require the facilities, be the right type of track, and in a market NASCAR isn't really serving. Montreal would be the best bet but it would need more work I suspect for a Cup Date and I think if we get a Cup Date in Canada, it will be because a new track is built and owned by either ISC or SMI. Montreal is a city park, so THAT is the road block it would have to making that step.

[call_me_andrew]

They have the luxury of rain dates. They wait til it stops raining, that was shown in the latest race at the Glen. NASCAR will not spend a lot of money testing rain tires on the COT. They know it is a handful in the dry, so 850hp on those small tires in the rain would just be a handful plus...

I was talking about rain dates at future tracks like Montrea... where they can't have a rain date.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I was talking about rain dates at future tracks like Montrea... where they can't have a rain date.

They can. They book the track for two extra days. Montreal is not so temporary that something cant be arranged. It isn't like a regular street race. I can tell you, forget seeing Sprint Cup cars on rain tires. It wont happen. If they didn't do it with the old car, they wont chance it on this one.

[muggle not]

I will be honest, I simply don't understand the insistence by some that nascar race on rain tires. Why, what is the big deal. There is much at stake in a nascar race and why should they race in less than good conditions. If you want to see racing in rain then watch a different racing series, for sure, they could use more fans.

[call_me_andrew]

I can tell you, forget seeing Sprint Cup cars on rain tires. It wont happen. If they didn't do it with the old car, they wont chance it on this one.

But they did do it with the old car.

http://www.autoracing1.com/images/2001/nascar/martinrain.JPG


I will be honest, I simply don't understand the insistence by some that nascar race on rain tires. Why, what is the big deal. There is much at stake in a nascar race and why should they race in less than good conditions. If you want to see racing in rain then watch a different racing series, for sure, they could use more fans.

I insist on rain tires because I would rather watch something than nothing at all.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But they did do it with the old car.

http://www.autoracing1.com/images/2001/nascar/martinrain.JPG



I insist on rain tires because I would rather watch something than nothing at all.

NASCAR disagree's. They would rather give the fans a full race under optimum conditions. I would love to see them run on a road course in the rain, but since the only real threat for that is the Glen in Cup racing, I suspect they wont bother. Furthermore, when Mark and Dale Sr. did their rain tests, that car had more downforce, less power than this car and a CG about 6 inches lower than the COT. The new car would be a handful, and most of the race would be under yellows because I don't think 90 laps at the Glen in a COT in the rain would be much more than one wreck after another.

[The instant classic]

i say let the NWS race more road course just to see how the fans take to it

[call_me_andrew]

Yes, they wouldn't bother if it's just the Glen, but the point of this thread is to find more road courses to race at.

I wouldn't say the CG was that far off. I think that picture was made before teams started to manipulate the frame rail height. Plus, even the truck series has used them.

http://i.cnn.net/nascar/2003/news/headlines/wc/08/09/darby_rain/rain_trucks.jpg

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, they wouldn't bother if it's just the Glen, but the point of this thread is to find more road courses to race at.

I wouldn't say the CG was that far off. I think that picture was made before teams started to manipulate the frame rail height. Plus, even the truck series has used them.

http://i.cnn.net/nascar/2003/news/headlines/wc/08/09/darby_rain/rain_trucks.jpg

Andrew, the truck's are about 300hp less than a cup car. No other car racing has that much power, so little tire and that high Cg. I would like them to try maybe once, but I can understand why it wouldn't make fiscal sense for them with only one race where it is a possibility.

If another road course went on the sched, I suspect NASCAR still wouldn't go there. It isn't what they like in their races. They want the race conditions to be fair to all, and not have to subject their fans to the rain as well. When you have an oval only series, you will look at rain and the race track with a different mentality than say the ALMS or IRL would when it comes to rain and road courses.

In short, they don't see racing in the rain as giving the paying spectator his money's worth.

[call_me_andrew]

If you're so worried about the extra power: pop the hood, disconnect two spark plug wires, and ground them.

One way or another: the fans are going to be in the rain. It's a matter of watching cars vs. watching jet dryers.

[harvick#1]

if Goodyear made "new" rain tires and said they are ready to go, then let them race, I would really like Nascar fans to have Brian and Mike run out of town much like the F1 teams did to "max and bernie". its just getting more and more annoying to see Nascar be WWE

[Mark in Oshawa]

If you're so worried about the extra power: pop the hood, disconnect two spark plug wires, and ground them.

One way or another: the fans are going to be in the rain. It's a matter of watching cars vs. watching jet dryers.

No team will neuter their race engines like that...

You guys can hope, but I think for one or maybe two weekends a year, they will just wait til Monday. It worked pretty well this last week...