The AUTOSPORT Bulletin Board > A Return for the US Grand Prix...In Denver!?

Bunchies

Mar 16 2010, 01:42

With new talks of the United States Grand Prix returning to Indianapolis, I figured it would be a good time to throw this into the discussion. There have been numerous Grands Prix held in cities around the US, from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Detroit, etc. However, because the addition of yet another street race might not sit well with the average F1 fanatic, it leaves painfully few true racetracks on which to hold an F1 race. Indianapolis, though centrally located, is far flung from the population centers of the country, which are concentrated on either coast. Tracks in California, the most populous state in the country, are unsuitable for Formula 1. Laguna Seca, our most famous racetrack, is woefully inadequate for a Formula 1 race. It is much too narrow, and the facilities are archaic to say the least. In addition to this, there is a strict 92dB sound limit at Laguna Seca that is enforced for the residents who live near the track. All signs point to a bad venue.

But what of Denver? Colorado is a beautiful state, and Denver seems to be a relatively progressive city. In addition, something new is being built about an hour away from the city. It promises to provide what I believe to be the most potential for a new venue for the United States Grand Prix. Motor Sport Country Club: http://motorsportcc.com/

It is a new motorsport resort being built in the Denver area. It includes multiple tracks with multiple configurations which can be combined into a long, nordschleife-style layout. Surely, there must be a way to layout a grand prix circuit there? However, it is being designed by Hermann Tilke, which might just warrant an automatic veto in some people's eyes. Oh, and it's probably not being built yet.

seltaeb

Mar 16 2010, 04:08

I love Colorado. My parents lived in Boulder the past 5 years. (25 minutes northwest of Denver)...

But I have another question... Why does Tilke get to design all tracks these days?

Marbles

Mar 16 2010, 04:11

Would be interesting to see what effects the mile-high altitude would have on the cars.

Henrytheeigth

Mar 16 2010, 04:13

No chance at Detroit, Michigan? Shouldn't 'Motor City' hold it? Just a thought.

senna da silva

Mar 16 2010, 04:15

QUOTE (Henrytheeigth @ Mar 16 2010, 04:13)

No chance at Detroit, Michigan? Shouldn't 'Motor City' hold it? Just a thought.

Have you been to Michigan lately?

Henrytheeigth

Mar 16 2010, 04:17

QUOTE (senna da silva @ Mar 16 2010, 15:15)

Have you been to Michigan lately?

Nope haha I just love saying motor city is all! I guess it proves that names don't really mean much...

Bunchies

Mar 16 2010, 05:26

QUOTE (Henrytheeigth @ Mar 15 2010, 21:13)

No chance at Detroit, Michigan? Shouldn't 'Motor City' hold it? Just a thought.

Detroit has been dying, and not just because of the American car market. Detroit has been a victim of deindustrialization since, well, the industrial revolution. The city never really recovered from that period, leaving abandoned warehouses, factories, etc. There are also quite a few social problems. The city is largely segregated, as caucasian citizens started moving out into the suburbs due to the influx of african american citizens into the city. Detroit is just not a pretty place to be. Too many holdovers from old America.

edit: And I don't mean segregated in the institutional sense. Race relations were dismal in the United States through the 1960s.

Captain Tightpants

Mar 16 2010, 05:50

QUOTE (seltaeb @ Mar 16 2010, 15:08)

But I have another question... Why does Tilke get to design all tracks these days?

Because there are only two firms in the world that specialise in designing racing circuits: Tilke GmbH and Apex Circuit Design. You'll occasionally get circuits designed by racing drivers or some such - Mark Skaife was a "consultant" to the design of the Townsville Street Circuit and was the lead designer for Homebush Bay - but Tilke and Apex are the only ones who make a business of designing circuits to FIA standards. There's actually a pretty good video on YouTube where Tilke explains his design process. Contrary to popular belief, he's actually a pretty intelligent guy. He can appreciate what makes a good circuit - it's just that the FIA rulebook on the subject of circuit design is incredibly restrictive. I for one would love to see what would happen if he was given a licence of go nuts.

Jazza

Mar 16 2010, 06:07

QUOTE (Captain Tightpants @ Mar 15 2010, 21:50)

Because there are only two firms in the world that specialise in designing racing circuits: Tilke GmbH and Apex Circuit Design. ... but Tilke and Apex are the only ones who make a business of designing circuits to FIA standards.

Isn't this a bit chicken and the egg?

The FIA give Tilke the contract because he is only one of two that design FIA spec tracks.

or

Tilke is only one of two that design FIA spec tracks because the FIA keep giving him the contract.

The later sounds more likely, because there are a lot of large non Tilke tracks out there...

Captain Tightpants

Mar 16 2010, 06:11

The link in the OP isn't working. Well, the site works, but the circuit plan won't load. I found this one, though. Track 01 looks pretty good. The perimeter circuit would be pretty good, too. It'd probably be too long, but the extension of Bahrain might mean the Powers That Be have no problem with longer circuits.

That said, I doubt Denver would host the race.

Captain Tightpants

Mar 16 2010, 06:17

QUOTE (Jazza @ Mar 16 2010, 17:07)

Isn't this a bit chicken and the egg?

The FIA give Tilke the contract because he is only one of two that design FIA spec tracks.

or

Tilke is only one of two that design FIA spec tracks because the FIA keep giving him the contract.

The later sounds more likely, because there are a lot of large non Tilke tracks out there...

If you check out Apex's website, you'll see the submitted a bid for Singapore. They also pitched the planned circuit at Les Flins-Mureaux, before the French decided not to build it. I imagine there is some kind of bid process involved when a new circuit is announced. Hermann Tilke has more experience building circuits to an international circuit, and he can do it for less. When was the last time a race was cancelled or posponed because Tilke didn't get the job done? When have you ever heard of one of his circuits going massively over-budget? The only possible example I can think of is the new Jaypee Group Circuit in India, which was supposed to be on the 2010 calendar, but the race was postponed to 2011 because the Indian government decided that motorsports do not actually fall under the banner of "sports", and then the circuit owners took their time finding a suitable track of land. Now I think they may be in jeopardy again because a part of the circuit encroahes on some kind of burial ground.

It's probably likely that Tilke gets a contract to design and develop a set number of circuits before the bid process is opened up again to other tenders.

superapex

Mar 16 2010, 06:23

that would be a phenomenal venue! One of the tracks will be a "formula 1 inspired 5km" track. apparently they are breaking ground this year with a completion date of 2018 planned. With something of this scale, I would fully expect it to take longer, and not be as grand as initially envisioned (or sold).
In that same time frame, one of the other US tracks could be brought up to par. I do agree, the next F1 race should be on the west coast. The locales are much more exciting, and F1 won't have to compete with nascar and indy.

If they really wanted to promote their club, they should build the F1 circuit first and pitch the 2015 race to Bernie. But, when I reviewed their plans, I don't see any accomidations being made for grandstands.

Redstorm

Mar 16 2010, 07:34

In retrospect Montoya would not be near as funny....

"there's an elk on the track!"
"a what?"
"AN ELK!!!"

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 07:38

Circuit aside, how is Denver closer to a coast than Indianapolis?

hansmann

Mar 16 2010, 07:44

I'd love to see a US GP back !
There have been the rumours of NYC, I'd dig to see that one .

Jazza

Mar 16 2010, 07:45

Maybe he is counting on rising sea levels

.

undersquare

Mar 16 2010, 07:54

There should be 2 races in the USA (one on each coast), none in the Middle East.

Captain Tightpants

Mar 16 2010, 07:56

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 18:38)

Circuit aside, how is Denver closer to a coast than Indianapolis?

The circut shold be held on the best possible circuit regardless of how close it is to the coast.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 08:05

QUOTE (Captain Tightpants @ Mar 16 2010, 08:56)

The circut shold be held on the best possible circuit regardless of how close it is to the coast.

I totally agree, just said that as the OP used that as a reason to cross out Indianapolis.

maximus0206

Mar 16 2010, 08:15

http://motorsportcc.com/track.shtml

"Our track designer, Hermann Tilke..."

Fail.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 08:18

QUOTE (maximus0206 @ Mar 16 2010, 09:15)

http://motorsportcc.com/track.shtml

"Our track designer, Hermann Tilke..."

Fail.

So give an example of a better designer.

Bunchies

Mar 16 2010, 08:19

It would be great to have the race on the west coast. I can't speak for oregon or washington, but I think that it might be necessary to build an entirely new track to support a race of F1's scale. While the San Francisco bay area would be ideal (I'm biased), there is large population density anywhere within 50 miles of the city. Unurbanized areas are well developed suburbs, in general, with most of the natural landscape protected under the state park system. Unfortunately, this means no passing under the shade of tall redwoods.

The greater Seattle/Tacoma region in Washington might be prime. The scenery consists of lakes and evergreens, which happen to be spectacular. In addition, the Pacific Northwestern states such as Washington experience pretty high amounts of precipitation. A wet race in seattle would probably be the norm rather than the exception.

maximus0206

Mar 16 2010, 08:21

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 02:18)

So give an example of a better designer.

Everyone is already complaining about how boring the racing is this year...now it's not all down to track design, certainly, but the recently added tracks haven't helped...

cformula1

Mar 16 2010, 08:24

QUOTE (maximus0206 @ Mar 16 2010, 19:15)

http://motorsportcc.com/track.shtml

"Our track designer, Hermann Tilke..."

Fail.

I'm afraid you're the one that fails.

Tilke has done good circuits (Istanbul, Sepang, A1-Ring, Hockenheimring) and I reckon that this may be a good circuit.

It'd be good to see a United States GP, anyway.

Bunchies

Mar 16 2010, 08:29

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 00:38)

Circuit aside, how is Denver closer to a coast than Indianapolis?

Well, since it sits further west, it would really just be closer to the west coast. Denver is nearly 1000 miles closer to the west than Indy is. However, the Denver airport also happens to be a major hub for flights around the country. I imagine it would be one of the most accessible, and possibly one of the more affordable, cities to fly to.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 08:30

QUOTE (maximus0206 @ Mar 16 2010, 09:21)

Everyone is already complaining about how boring the racing is this year...now it's not all down to track design, certainly, but the recently added tracks haven't helped...

Some haven't, but some definitely helped. What you're forgetting though are the rules, safety codes, laws and other parameters he has to work with.

For Tilke it's a little bit of a different process than you + MS paint.

It's not just about the 'circuit' either. He has designed jaw dropping venues over the years, which he had to do, for the race venue organizers and more importantly, Bernie.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 08:34

QUOTE (Bunchies @ Mar 16 2010, 09:29)

Well, since it sits further west, it would really just be closer to the west coast. Denver is nearly 1000 miles closer to the west than Indy is. However, the Denver airport also happens to be a major hub for flights around the country. I imagine it would be one of the most accessible, and possibly one of the more affordable, cities to fly to.

That might be right, although Indianapolis is quite close to the east coast. But I guess most spectators have to fly anyway so it's not as relevant as I thought.

Captain Tightpants

Mar 16 2010, 08:43

QUOTE (cformula1 @ Mar 16 2010, 19:24)

I'm afraid you're the one that fails.

Fail indeed:

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 08:45

I have to say: Wow. Hard to look at it detailed as we won't even know what F1 might be running on if it ever does, but it looks challenging. Just hope they make sure there's enough elevation.

Soapy9963

Mar 16 2010, 11:59

That track looks incredible! Track 1 would be the obvious choice for formula, although i wonder if that front straight is too long. It could just be the scale of the plans that make it look so big. Plus its only about a days drive from my house. Id love to see it there down the road.

jeze

Mar 16 2010, 13:07

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 09:18)

So give an example of a better designer.

jeze

chdphd

Mar 16 2010, 14:00

That section on the far left looks a bit like the spoon and 130R corners at Suzuka. Which can't be bad.

BrokenBaculum

Mar 16 2010, 16:00

I followed the link to Apex Design's main site, and some of their projects seem interesting. There is one, Alabama Motorsports Park, which looks quite good.

http://www.alabamamotorsportspark.com/_res...plan-112807.pdf

There's a Nascar/Indy oval, and a proper road course, which seems very Road America-esque, if a little shorter.

A big plus is that it seems that it has an actual paddock - one of the downsides to many US circuits is that don't have specific paddocks and VIP facilites.

Soapy9963

Mar 16 2010, 17:51

QUOTE (BrokenBaculum @ Mar 16 2010, 16:00)

I followed the link to Apex Design's main site, and some of their projects seem interesting. There is one, Alabama Motorsports Park, which looks quite good.

http://www.alabamamotorsportspark.com/_res...plan-112807.pdf

There's a Nascar/Indy oval, and a proper road course, which seems very Road America-esque, if a little shorter.

A big plus is that it seems that it has an actual paddock - one of the downsides to many US circuits is that don't have specific paddocks and VIP facilites.

Hmm.... that track looks interesting also, although I dont know if Alabama is where F1 wants to be. But i must admit the denver track and this one both look like the best canidates for an F1 race that the U.S. may have ever had.

Kaiser

Mar 16 2010, 18:48

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 01:18)

So give an example of a better designer.

http://www.wilsonmotorsport.com/

there ya go

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 19:16

QUOTE (Kaiser @ Mar 16 2010, 19:48)

http://www.wilsonmotorsport.com/

there ya go

Interesting, thanks.

Dissapointed in the tracks though. I thought this guy was supposed to be better? Even though these tracks obviously aren't made under strict FIA regulations, they kinda all look the same to me. Most seem to be 2 short tracks connected to each other. IIRC I've driven at some of them and they did not really interest me.

But anyway, that's my opinion.

Kaiser

Mar 16 2010, 19:58

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 12:16)

Interesting, thanks.

Dissapointed in the tracks though. I thought this guy was supposed to be better? Even though these tracks obviously aren't made under strict FIA regulations, they kinda all look the same to me. Most seem to be 2 short tracks connected to each other. IIRC I've driven at some of them and they did not really interest me.

But anyway, that's my opinion.

Which one have you driven, and in what vehicle? When you write that you've driven them are you refering to a computer game?

GBarclay

Mar 16 2010, 19:59

QUOTE (Bunchies @ Mar 15 2010, 18:42)

With new talks of the United States Grand Prix returning to Indianapolis, I figured it would be a good time to throw this into the discussion. There have been numerous Grands Prix held in cities around the US, from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Detroit, etc. However, because the addition of yet another street race might not sit well with the average F1 fanatic, it leaves painfully few true racetracks on which to hold an F1 race. Indianapolis, though centrally located, is far flung from the population centers of the country, which are concentrated on either coast. Tracks in California, the most populous state in the country, are unsuitable for Formula 1. Laguna Seca, our most famous racetrack, is woefully inadequate for a Formula 1 race. It is much too narrow, and the facilities are archaic to say the least. In addition to this, there is a strict 92dB sound limit at Laguna Seca that is enforced for the residents who live near the track. All signs point to a bad venue.

But what of Denver? Colorado is a beautiful state, and Denver seems to be a relatively progressive city. In addition, something new is being built about an hour away from the city. It promises to provide what I believe to be the most potential for a new venue for the United States Grand Prix. Motor Sport Country Club: http://motorsportcc.com/

It is a new motorsport resort being built in the Denver area. It includes multiple tracks with multiple configurations which can be combined into a long, nordschleife-style layout. Surely, there must be a way to layout a grand prix circuit there? However, it is being designed by Hermann Tilke, which might just warrant an automatic veto in some people's eyes. Oh, and it's probably not being built yet.

My personal opinion is I will believe that track is serious when I see the earth movers show up. There have been at least 3 tracks planned in that area over the last 5 years, Genoa, MSCC and High Plains Raceway. The only one built was the circuit that was financially feasible, High Plains Raceway. MSCC would be out of the price range of 99% of the racers in the Colorado area. Nice club house though.

I wish MSCC the best of luck, but honestly don't believe this project is viable in the current economic climate.

To be clear, the area where this track is proposed is at least an hours drive from the nearest hotels (near Denver Airport, less than 2K rooms total), add Grand Prix traffic to the I-70 and that will quickly become 2 hours or more. The local infrastucture would never be able to handle the traffic or people associated with a GP weekend. The developers have been soliciting money for the last 5 years or so, and not a sod of dirt has been moved, I somehow doubt they will ante up whatever ridiculous amount BE will be asking for, I certainly hope the state of CO is not stupid enough to subsidize another of Bernie's follies.

Dont forget the Denver GP with CART never made an honest dime, and will likely not return.

Denver / Colorado would make a great choice for a WRC event, outstanding roads, great scenery, fantastic other tourist options, but that will never happen. The greens would choke on their latte's if it were ever proposed.

Tilke Tracks are the problem in F1, not the solution.

A far more viable solution would be Miller Motorsports Park less than 30 minutes from Salt Lick City in Utah, a superb existing facility, designed by Alan Wilson, already host to serious racing events, and a proven track. Good spectator viewing of almost the whole track, city and airport relatively close by. Unfortunately the founder and builder of this wonderful facilty passed away a few years ago, so unlikely they would be able to raise the ridiculous amount BE would be asking to bring his circus to town. Now if only MMP had been built in CO, as it was supposed to be (thanks Mead City Council, you stupid pr!cks), then we could have had the best of both worlds. Bitter, you bet.

GBarclay

Mar 16 2010, 20:09

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 12:16)

Interesting, thanks.

Dissapointed in the tracks though. I thought this guy was supposed to be better? Even though these tracks obviously aren't made under strict FIA regulations, they kinda all look the same to me. Most seem to be 2 short tracks connected to each other. IIRC I've driven at some of them and they did not really interest me.

But anyway, that's my opinion.

you do realize that most of those Wilson tracks have a totally different design brief to a stand alone F1 track right? Multiple configurations or smaller seperate tracks are almost de rigeur for the country club style tracks that recently seem to be the only financially feasible option in the US.

I have driven at a number of Wilson tracks, and gokart tracks, and he sure knows what makes a driver smile. He should, being married to Desiree. Now granted I have only experienced Tilke tracks on simulators, but the lack of passing on Tilke tracks is obvious. slow corner, long straight, slow corner, ugh.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 20:45

QUOTE (GBarclay @ Mar 16 2010, 21:09)

you do realize that most of those Wilson tracks have a totally different design brief to a stand alone F1 track right? Multiple configurations or smaller seperate tracks are almost de rigeur for the country club style tracks that recently seem to be the only financially feasible option in the US.

I have driven at a number of Wilson tracks, and gokart tracks, and he sure knows what makes a driver smile. He should, being married to Desiree. Now granted I have only experienced Tilke tracks on simulators, but the lack of passing on Tilke tracks is obvious. slow corner, long straight, slow corner, ugh.

So a mix of fast corner, short straight, fast corner would create more passing opportunities in your opinion?

Yes, I do realize they have a different design to a stand alone F1 track. That's also why I don't think you can really compare the two styles anyway.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 20:47

QUOTE (Kaiser @ Mar 16 2010, 20:58)

Which one have you driven, and in what vehicle? When you write that you've driven them are you refering to a computer game?

Well isn't that disappointing, I was referring to a simulator indeed. So I guess my opinion about it would be worthless to you. I'll stop here then.

GBarclay

Mar 16 2010, 20:53

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 16 2010, 13:45)

So a mix of fast corner, short straight, fast corner would create more passing opportunities in your opinion?

Yes, I do realize they have a different design to a stand alone F1 track. That's also why I don't think you can really compare the two styles anyway.

I think to create passing opportunities for F1 cars you need to create a series of corners that allow the choice of multiple lines (without penalty). Perhaps progressive banking / camber in some turns.

With mostly similar performance, and the reliance on downforce, and dirty air off the diffusers, F1 cars are never going to pass easily on the current crop of Tilke tracks.

Captain Tightpants

Mar 16 2010, 21:19

QUOTE (GBarclay @ Mar 17 2010, 06:59)

Tilke Tracks are the problem in F1, not the solution.

It's pretty plain you don't know how circuits are designed. Tilke doesn't just sit down and draw a line on a page. People complain about Shanghai for being flat and boring, but do you actually think Tilke chose where the circuit was to go? Of course not - the circuit owners purchased the land and he had to work within the bounds of that. It's the same thing with Hockenheim: it's pretty obvious that the only section of land he had to work with was the infield since he didn't extend beyond the old circuit. Sometimes it works out for the better, with tracts of land like Istanbul and Sepang - with natural elevation changes - being set aside for him.

And once he's got the land to work with, he then has to stay within the rules mandated by the FIA, which basically influence every aspect of circuit design. Banking and camber are banned, circuit lengths and widths are regulated, drivers have to be able to take the first corner at a certain speed on the first lap (relative to its distance from the start line). Given the choice, Tilke would probably build something like the Nurburgring. But choice is a luxury he doesn't get. If you think his ethos of a long, fast secton followed by a sharp corner is nothing new, you evidently know nothing of motorsport. It's been a mainstay of circuit design since the earliest of circuits: Le Mans has the Mulsanne, after all. And the Nurburgring has at least four examples of it.

Tilke tracks are not the problem in Formula 1. Ignorance from fans who think they know better is.

highdownforce

Mar 16 2010, 21:20

QUOTE (GBarclay @ Mar 16 2010, 17:53)

I think to create passing opportunities for F1 cars you need to create a series of corners that allow the choice of multiple lines (without penalty). Perhaps progressive banking / camber in some turns.

QUOTE

Appendix O to the International Sporting Code

7) CIRCUIT CONCEPTION

[...]

7.4) Longitudinal profile:
Any change in gradient should be effected using a minimum vertical radius calculated by the formula: R = V²/K
Where R is the radius in metres, V is the speed in kph and K is a constant equal to 20 in the case of a concave profile or to 15 in the case of a convex profile. The value of R should be adequately increased along approach, release, braking and curved sections. Wherever possible, changes in gradient should be avoided altogether in these sections.
The gradient of the start/finish straight should not exceed 2%.

7.5) Transversal inclination:
Along straights, the transversal incline, for drainage purposes, between the two edges of the track or between the centre-line and the edge (camber), should not exceed 3%, or be less than 1,5%.
In curves, the banking (downwards from the outside to the inside of the track) should not exceed 10% (with possible exceptions in special cases, such as speedways). An adverse incline is not generally acceptable unless dictated by special circumstances, in which case the entry speed should not exceed 125kph.
Any variation in transversal incline, particularly along the entry and exit sections of a planimetrical curve, should have adequate altimetrical transitions, based on the trajectory and on consideration of point 7.4.

7.6) Curves:
A curve, or series of curves uninterrupted by a straight, taken at a speed in excess of 125kph, should preferably have an increasing, or at least a constant radius. Curves taken at lower speeds may have a decreasing radius on condition that it is foreseen to provide an adequate safety area, extending beyond the exit of the curve(s).

7.7) Track edges, verges and run-off areas:
The track should be bordered all along its length on both sides by compact verges having an even surface, but more irregular than the track itself. These verges should be free of loose stones or debris and should preferably be grass-covered; they should preferably be a continuation of the transversal profile of the track, with no step between track and verge: any transition should be very gradual.
A run-off area is that section of ground between the verge and the first line of protection and unless otherwise specified should have the same basic characteristics as the verge, although it may be less stabilised. The run-off area should be graded to the verge; if it has a slope, this should not exceed 25% upwards, with a smooth transition from track to run-off area, or 3% downwards, in relation to the lateral projection of the track surface. This paragraph does not apply to gravel beds.

Lights

Mar 16 2010, 21:39

QUOTE (GBarclay @ Mar 16 2010, 21:53)

With mostly similar performance, and the reliance on downforce, and dirty air off the diffusers, F1 cars are never going to pass easily on the current crop of Tilke tracks.

Then you're forgetting Tilke designed the new Hockenheim section, Istanbul, Sepang and Shanghai, where yes indeed, they can most certainly pass.

It's more difficult to pass someone at Barcelona, Silverstone or Monza, than on a track like Sepang or Hockenheim.

How again is Tilke ruining anything?

loki

Mar 16 2010, 23:20

The circuits being designed as country club tracks in the US won't have suitable infrastructure to host an F1 event. Why double or triple the cost of the facility when the payback is so small. It's a sad statement on the economics of promoting an F1 race when the track can make more money from rich guys having track days than from promoting a race. ::shugs::

I don't see Indianapolis hosting another Grand Prix unless they get a sweetheart deal. The Hulman-George family was none too pleased with Anton for building the circuit. That and the IRL is why he no longer runs the family business. As far as being centrally located, Indianapolis has a much great population draw within a few hours drive than Colorado. For the two events where they draw 200,000 plus (the 500 and the Brickyard 400) most of the people arriving drive in for the events. It's the only permanent circuit in the US that is suitable to host a Grand Prix and no one else is going to build one or upgrade their current facilities.

If and that's a big if, there can be a deal where the promoter can make a few bucks the only real chances are Long Beach, Las Vegas and St Petersburg, FL on street circuits.

seltaeb

Mar 16 2010, 23:24

I would love to see Long Beach make a return.

loki

Mar 16 2010, 23:41

QUOTE (BrokenBaculum @ Mar 16 2010, 17:00)

I followed the link to Apex Design's main site, and some of their projects seem interesting. There is one, Alabama Motorsports Park, which looks quite good.

It's already two years late, had some partner changes and has yet to turn a shovel full of dirt. It may not be able to be built at this point as of last fall they were having issues getting funded.

Captain Tightpants

Mar 17 2010, 00:56

QUOTE (Lights @ Mar 17 2010, 08:39)

How again is Tilke ruining anything?

I've ask myself that countless times. The only answer I can think of is that he's to blame because peope think there's a "magic bullet" solution, a change that would instantly make Formula 1 hyper-competitive with a dozen passing moves every other lap.

GBarclay

Mar 17 2010, 15:33

QUOTE (Captain Tightpants @ Mar 16 2010, 14:19)

It's pretty plain you don't know how circuits are designed. Tilke doesn't just sit down and draw a line on a page. People complain about Shanghai for being flat and boring, but do you actually think Tilke chose where the circuit was to go? Of course not - the circuit owners purchased the land and he had to work within the bounds of that. It's the same thing with Hockenheim: it's pretty obvious that the only section of land he had to work with was the infield since he didn't extend beyond the old circuit. Sometimes it works out for the better, with tracts of land like Istanbul and Sepang - with natural elevation changes - being set aside for him.

And once he's got the land to work with, he then has to stay within the rules mandated by the FIA, which basically influence every aspect of circuit design. Banking and camber are banned, circuit lengths and widths are regulated, drivers have to be able to take the first corner at a certain speed on the first lap (relative to its distance from the start line). Given the choice, Tilke would probably build something like the Nurburgring. But choice is a luxury he doesn't get. If you think his ethos of a long, fast secton followed by a sharp corner is nothing new, you evidently know nothing of motorsport. It's been a mainstay of circuit design since the earliest of circuits: Le Mans has the Mulsanne, after all. And the Nurburgring has at least four examples of it.

Tilke tracks are not the problem in Formula 1. Ignorance from fans who think they know better is.

In no way do I claim to know the slightest about the process of track design. and obviously the location and layout and civil engineering restrictions are huge, so is the FIA rule book.

you must however concede, that tracks like the N/Ring, and Le Mans, and Spa, were built when the cars in F1 were very different from the engineering marvels they are today. The exciting racing we remember (Monza when the first 5 cars were in a couple of seconds for example) was as much a product of the cars of the time (now wings intially, then limited downforce in the 70's) as it was a product of the brilliant tracks of the time. Times change, safety standards change, the threat of liability is huge now, of course the modern tracks are going to be sanatized.