US Grand Prix- Austin (USA)

[fieldodreams79]

please....no more oval or roval talk when it concerns a purpose built Formula 1 track. i for one would be embarrassed if the best we could come up with is a purpose built F1 track with an oval "forced" into the mix. maybe there could be an oval built along with the road course, maybe a drag strip, maybe a dirt oval, maybe a moto cross course, all good things, but build a track that serves the purpose of road racing, specifically F1 and maybe ALMS.

[wnut]

Anything that forces the F1 teams to build a proper road racing car rather than time trial machinery is in, in my book!

[BobHWS]

Here's my 100% confident prediction about the proposed F1 track and race in Austin: it will never happen.

Why? Two words: Tavo Hellmund.

Simply put, this guy is a nobody in the world of racing. He's a failed, wannabe, NASCAR driver with apparently no background in race promotion and management. This short blog entry says it all.

An unbelievable weekend with Bernie
By Dave Kallmann of the Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee)
May 25, 2010 |

...According to this 5 -year-old local newspaper story, then Hellmund was born in Mexico, competed locally and in Europe and once drove for Texas businessman Tim Beverly, one of those here-today-gone-tomorrow NASCAR team owners who succumbed to legal troubles. Hellmund's father worked in racing promotions.

Hmmm . . . I wonder if Bernie Ecclestone is familiar enough with the area to understand the phrase "all hat, and no cattle."

All the place lacks is the amenities of a big city, a racetrack and an obvious means of support.

This venture has even less chance of succeeding than the doomed- from-the-start USF1 fiasco. Why does Bernie get involved with these charlatans? Ultimately the blame for F1's failure in the US falls squarely on the shoulders of Bernie.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Motominded

The Indy 500 was an official F1 race in the 50's and counted for points. But, oval racing isn't what F1 wanted then or needs today.

More importantly, the cars are not designed for it. I can remember the havoc on tires the Indy banking did.

I think that was mainly due to logistics and cost. Air transport was still in its infancy and racing at Indy in the 1950's would have been a major undertaking for an F1 team in those days.

The first US FI GP was held at Sebring in 1959 in December. The problem with the Indy 500 wasn't the lack of F1 interest in racing on ovals, it was the dates clashing. In '59 the 500 clashed with the Dutch GP, in 1960 it clashed with Monaco. By 1961 the Indy 500 had gone from the calendar and the US GP was now firmly in place, at the end of the season, which is perfect for F1 as it was Eurocentric.

The Dallara's not designed for road coarses but it can still race on them.

[AndyS]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Laguna Seca is fantastic. I don't want to see Bernie or Tilke anywhere near it.

If Tilke must build the track I'd like to see him build an oval for F1.

Here, here! I don't want to see him near any of the classic tracks or the majority of existing non Tilke tracks for that matter. He's taken the edge of Spa with some totally unneccessary changes and completely murdered Hockenheim. I think he may have also been responsible for the changes at Fuji. Thank god the re development at Donnington didn't go ahead. There should be a list of protected circuits from him.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by AndyS

There should be a list of protected circuits from him.

That's excellent.

[AUTOLEGEND]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think that was mainly due to logistics and cost. Air transport was still in its infancy and racing at Indy in the 1950's would have been a major undertaking for an F1 team in those days.

The first US FI GP was held at Sebring in 1959 in December. The problem with the Indy 500 wasn't the lack of F1 interest in racing on ovals, it was the dates clashing. In '59 the 500 clashed with the Dutch GP, in 1960 it clashed with Monaco. By 1961 the Indy 500 had gone from the calendar and the US GP was now firmly in place, at the end of the season, which is perfect for F1 as it was Eurocentric.

The Dallara's not designed for road coarses but it can still race on them.

Even in the 50's, there were races held on our side of the world. Argentina for example.

The only oval race that has mattered throughout the world over the last century has been the Indy 500. It's only recently that the Daytona 500 has raised in prestige but that is only due to the turmoil Indy car has been in since 1996.

If you ask someone in Europe, the three most important car races in the world are the Indy 500, the Monaco GP, and the Le Mans 24. Therefore, Indy can stand on its own and doesn't need F1. Indy also represents oval racing as a whole in the same way Le Mans represents sports cars. There are no oval sports car racing championships and for that reason F1 doesn't need oval. Sorry if it seems like i'm beating a dead horse.

[strider]

It's confirmed that Tilke will build the track, which feels me with foreboding No dount someone has posted the link already, but I missed it.

The only thing that I find encouraging is this quote:

Race promoters said the track would be "one of the finest permanent road course facilities in the world. Fans should expect the craftsmanship Tilke is famous for, with a priority placed on green building and a track similar to the great grand prix tracks of previous generations."

I wish...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Motominded

Even in the 50's, there were races held on our side of the world. Argentina for example.

The only oval race that has mattered throughout the world over the last century has been the Indy 500. It's only recently that the Daytona 500 has raised in prestige but that is only due to the turmoil Indy car has been in since 1996.

If you ask someone in Europe, the three most important car races in the world are the Indy 500, the Monaco GP, and the Le Mans 24. Therefore, Indy can stand on its own and doesn't need F1. Indy also represents oval racing as a whole in the same way Le Mans represents sports cars. There are no oval sports car racing championships and for that reason F1 doesn't need oval. Sorry if it seems like i'm beating a dead horse.

The Argentine GP was held in January, so the logistical problems didn't present themselves.

Those three races are the Triple Crown in racing and only one person has ever achieved that and those tracks do represent their particular forms of motorsport. As to why there are no ovals in sports car racing, that's due to it's European heritage. One of the most famous sports car races was the Mille Miglia and that wasn't raced on a circuit.

Whether F1 needs ovals or not is an entirely different matter. All I said was that it would add another dimension to F1 and another driving style and that would be great to see.

[jab]

Well, we'll see. For me the most pressing issue is the construction of the track in the first place, not how good it's going to be

[Purist]

Yes, the Indy Car Dallaras are not designed for road courses, but make due on them. However, the crash structure of a current F1 car is entirely inadequate for running on ovals, much less American superspeedways.

Selby, the oval you are trying to remember is Trenton, New Jersey. It was originally a 1.0-mile, dirt oval, but then was reconfigured into a 1.5-mile, paved, kidney-shaped oval with a right-hand kink in the back straight. The path of the old front straight became the new pit road.

As to the restrictive track design rules, Tilke has seen fit to break a number of them, so I honestly think it's a matter of how far Tilke is willing to push the boundaries more than anything. His track designs get effectively automatic approval from the FIA, so I don't think his shackles are as tight as we would be led to believe. Also, Tilke is first and foremost an architect. His formal training is neither in engineering nor racetrack design, hence why he puts so much attention into the buildings around the circuits.

Jab, who cares if the place gets built if it's crap? I mean, if it's an awful track and produces pathetic racing, I see no purpose for the track having been built in the first place, and would have preferred the US not have a GP at all if this is all the circuit we're going to get.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

Yes, the Indy Car Dallaras are not designed for road courses, but make due on them. However, the crash structure of a current F1 car is entirely inadequate for running on ovals, much less American superspeedways.

Selby, the oval you are trying to remember is Trenton, New Jersey. It was originally a 1.0-mile, dirt oval, but then was reconfigured into a 1.5-mile, paved, kidney-shaped oval with a right-hand kink in the back straight. The path of the old front straight became the new pit road.

As to the restrictive track design rules, Tilke has seen fit to break a number of them, so I honestly think it's a matter of how far Tilke is willing to push the boundaries more than anything. His track designs get effectively automatic approval from the FIA, so I don't think his shackles are as tight as we would be led to believe. Also, Tilke is first and foremost an architect. His formal training is neither in engineering nor racetrack design, hence why he puts so much attention into the buildings around the circuits.

Jab, who cares if the place gets built if it's crap? I mean, if it's an awful track and produces pathetic racing, I see no purpose for the track having been built in the first place, and would have preferred the US not have a GP at all if this is all the circuit we're going to get.

That's why I would have liked to see an Tilke designed oval, for F1.

I'm not surprised his tracks get automatic approval. He is an architect by trade, which probaly explains alot about his track designs. However, you would have thought that he might have learnt something about race tracks, he races at Nordschleife.

If it's crap it's crap and it won't be the first crap Tilke track. The only person to benefit from it will be Bernie because of his fee, which is probably what alot of this is about anyway.

[AUTOLEGEND]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's why I would have liked to see an Tilke designed oval, for F1.

I'm not surprised his tracks get automatic approval. He is an architect by trade, which probaly explains alot about his track designs. However, you would have thought that he might have learnt something about race tracks, he races at Nordschleife.

If it's crap it's crap and it won't be the first crap Tilke track. The only person to benefit from it will be Bernie because of his fee, which is probably what alot of this is about anyway.

You've already said an F1 oval will not happen so why not just go to the Indy car section and discuss and Tilke oval there?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Motominded

You've already said an F1 oval will not happen so why not just go to the Indy car section and discuss and Tilke oval there?

Because I was talking about a Tilke oval in relation to the US GP, not Indy Cars.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Purist

Jab, who cares if the place gets built if it's crap?

That's pretty much what I said, yes. It's more important that it is built rather than how good it is

However, they are going to be in competition with Canada for Europeans willing to do a race in North America, and as we saw with Indy, the novelty factor wears off quite quickly. And that was Indy

[fieldodreams79]

Indy is Indy and should always be Indy ONLY.

The fact that we have forced and stuffed the past USGPs into circuits that were not specifically built with F1 in mind is where the USGP has faltered in the past, no?

This all sounds very serious, but why do others more knowledgeable in the "new F1 circuit" ranks than I feel this is going to fail when they have a site selected, apparently "THE MAN" when comes to designing circuits, apparently deep pockets, a contract in place and a willing city/state to help promote it? As an simple minded American, I usually care only about spectating fast cars, but this is something I feel Americans should be more interested; that and Team US beating England in a couple of weeks (where are the WC smiles, BTW).

Autosport:

Fans should expect the craftsmanship Tilke is famous for, with a priority placed on green building and a track similar to the great grand prix tracks of previous generations."

similar to which tracks and which previous generations?

[duke_toaster]

Hermann Tilke is great as an architect (and I mean that), but terrible as a circuit designer. Let someone else design the actual track, and leave Hermann to crack on with the bits around it.

[jab]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

This all sounds very serious, but why do others more knowledgeable in the "new F1 circuit" ranks than I feel this is going to fail when they have a site selected, apparently "THE MAN" when comes to designing circuits, apparently deep pockets, a contract in place and a willing city/state to help promote it?

Because saying and doing/having are 2 different things

One day, the guy in charge says they haven't chosen a site yet with 3 alternatives. The next day, he says they've had a site for ages, it's been in planning for years and Tilke's been visiting regularly. Eh? Something doesn't add up

This bloke sounds suspiciously like a certain S Gillett, Esq in his raving optimism and claims that it'll all work out even though he can't say much

[F1 Prospects]

Originally Posted by strider

It's confirmed that Tilke will build the track, which feels me with foreboding No dount someone has posted the link already, but I missed it.

The only thing that I find encouraging is this quote:I wish...

One positive thing to note is that with the new Indian track for example, the current design has been loaded into a number of F1 team simulators and the drivers and teams have been giving input as to the layout and changes are being made on an ongoing basis. So if the track sucks there will be plenty of blame to go around, not just on Tilke.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Indy is Indy and should always be Indy ONLY.

The fact that we have forced and stuffed the past USGPs into circuits that were not specifically built with F1 in mind is where the USGP has faltered in the past, no?

This all sounds very serious, but why do others more knowledgeable in the "new F1 circuit" ranks than I feel this is going to fail when they have a site selected, apparently "THE MAN" when comes to designing circuits, apparently deep pockets, a contract in place and a willing city/state to help promote it? As an simple minded American, I usually care only about spectating fast cars, but this is something I feel Americans should be more interested; that and Team US beating England in a couple of weeks (where are the WC smiles, BTW).

Autosport:


similar to which tracks and which previous generations?

They race NASCAR at Indy and Moto GP at Indy, with the current economic climate you can't be selective.

The problem with Tilke is his tracks tend to be very 2 dimensional and that the modifications that have been made to tracks like Spa and Hockenheim have taken away something from what many people in F1 and those who follow it believe were the elements that made for exciting racing.

As an American I feel we're missing out in not having a GP. At one point we had three in one season; maybe too many. This is the world's largest economy and many sponsors in F1 would love get more exposure and a shot at the US market. I think Bernie understands the importance of the US, however he wants it on his terms, hence his falling out with Tony George.

[Purist]

Jab, I think you missed what I meant. My point was, I see no reason in building the track to begin with if it's almost a foregone conclusion that it is going to be awful. If the choice is between adding ANOTHER lackluster venue, or keeping the calendar as it is, I vote for the latter.

Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd throw out the current schedule and pick the "best" venues, in my mind at least, from around the world.

F1P, the question is, do the teams look at ways to improve the competition, or to just change the track to better suit their specific car's strengths?

[jab]

Originally Posted by Purist

Jab, I think you missed what I meant. My point was, I see no reason in building the track to begin with if it's almost a foregone conclusion that it is going to be awful. If the choice is between adding ANOTHER lackluster venue, or keeping the calendar as it is, I vote for the latter.

Ah, I see. Well, in that case, I disagree

[el_cat]

Its a rather simplistic view I know, but I'd much rather let the FIA let someone else "have a go". I mean they have 4 approved circuit design firms, yet only 1 of them gets to do any F1 stuff. As I think has been said above, Silverstone is the only significantly new section of track that hasn't been "Tilke'd" since Melbourne opened (although that is slightly glossing over fairly major reprofiling at Spa - not sure who was on that?)

I don't have any particular ill-feeling towards Tilke tracks as I don't think they produce that bad racing. But it would be nice to see what someone else can do.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

If the choice is between adding ANOTHER lackluster venue, or keeping the calendar as it is, I vote for the latter.

I hope it's not another lacklustre venue. It won't bode well for F1 and it certainly won't bode well for the future of F1 in the US if it is. It will be a right turn off.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Purist

F1P, the question is, do the teams look at ways to improve the competition, or to just change the track to better suit their specific car's strengths?

This is the showstopper and I believe exactly what the teams are doing.
Getting Tilke to design the circuits with the teams' input just leads us further down the anti-racing aero god rules dead end.
In fairness to Tilke the quality of F1 racing on his tracks cannot be a measure of how good the track is because the cars are incapable of racing and overtaking. Until a real effort is made to reduce downforce and wake sensitivity everything else is just fiddling whike Rome burns.