Homestead to add banking in turns.

[Lee]

Saw this at Jayski's the other day. Homestead is considering adding banking to it's turns. Finally, it's about time. It only took them the better part of a decade to figure out that if they want to get rid of the single groove, and have exciting racing, with more than one groove, and passing, that banking was needed. Hopefully they will add 22 to 24 degrees worth of banking in the turns.

[Roselady3]

Change anything or everything---But make it a race that I can stay awake for <<yawn>> Banking would allow them not to have to let up so much in the corners...therefore they could race more side by side.

[Lee]

Exactly Roselady3, that is exactly what it would do. Allow for more than one racing groove, passing in the turns, in other words, a more exciting race! That's why I've been advocating banked turns, since this track was constructed! Las Vegas, Kansas City, Chicagoland, and New Hampshire need to take note, and follow suit as well, flat, single groove, no passing has been/is their trademark as well, and that is not a trademark to be envied!

[Emfa]

This little discussion got me thinking (painful in the morning! ) about banking and racing grooves. Is there a direct correlation? I won't dispute for a moment that Homestead would do well to add some banking, but IIRC there was a lot of 2 wide racing at Phoenix last weekend (especially by Jeff Burton!), and Phoenix is one of the flatest tracks on the circuit.

I guess car setup and track surface also have a lot to do with where cars can run. Is there a recommended level of banking that should guarantee close racing, or is is just a case of 'the more, the better'?

Here is a sample of a few tracks with degrees of banking:
Bristol = 36 (highest)
Charlotte = 24
Chicagoland = 18
Homestead = 8 (lowest)
Kansas City = 15
Las Vegas = 12
New Hampshire = 12
Phoenix = 11
Richmond = 14

[Roselady3]

More is not neccessarily better.
I feel that Daytona has Too much banking- If they lowered the banking there- the speeds would be lowered & reducing (hopefully) the need for restrictor plates.

BTW- Emfa- I don't want your head to hurt- so ya might want to save all that thinking until AFTER coffee.

[Emfa]

Originally posted by Roselady3
...
BTW- Emfa- I don't want your head to hurt- so ya might want to save all that thinking until AFTER coffee.

Yep - good advice - thanks! I'll have to try to remember to be a bit more careful in future.

After I made my first post I thought about our local track - Pikes Peak. It is listed with only 10 degree banking, which surprised me. It is not a one lane track - I distinctly remember Kevin Harvick carving up the field there this year; driving high, low & middle, as did others. One of the things with PPIR is that it is wide. Also the front stretch is not straight and the turns seem fairly long. It would be interesting to make a comparison of the corner radius of the various tracks. I don't know for sure, but don't Homestead and Loudon have relatively long straights and tight corners? I wonder if this factors into the equation.

BTW - I noticed that somebody suggested reducing the banking at Daytona & Talladega during today's "aero" meeting!

[Roselady3]

Originally posted by Emfa

BTW - I noticed that somebody suggested reducing the banking at Daytona & Talladega during today's "aero" meeting!

Would be a possible solution, probabally not the most cost effective.

[Joe Fan]

It is about time.

Lee, regarding Kansas Speedway, the issue of it being a one groove track is more related to the fact that it is new track rather than the banking. It takes a couple of years for a second groove to be worked in from what I have heard. This is the same even on a flat track. Ganassi's 1-mile oval track in Chicago is flatter than a pancake. Wih all the downforce that the CART cars have, they should have been able pass easily in the corners there. However, the first year, they could not. Give it some time before making a judgement.

[Roselady3]

Yes- My local track is The Chicagoland speedway. Brand spanking new. Now it should be capable of 2 wide racing. It is one of the cookie cutter, ISC tracks. But this year the grove was very narrow & they had MANY problems. By the end of the weekend they could start to run a higher grove, yet you could tell it was rough riding up there.
I'm hoping that next years race will be a little more ewxciting with more side by side racing.
Now that I think about it- They had MANY engine problems during that race. I suppose that could be blamed on the newness of the track & the teams NOT having info to go back to. Being a cookie cutter track- you would think that the info from the other tracks would relate. I guess that each of them---even though they are essentually the same, have it's own personality.

[Lee]

Normally I would agree with you about it just being a new track as the reason for there being only one groove Joe, but this time, I don't think that is the case. Las Vegas has been running how long now, 4 or 5 years, if memory serves, and it is still a one groove track. I can't help but think that this is due to the track design, with lack of banking, itself. What I'm afraid is going to prove all too true is that Kansas City and Chicagoland, being formed/molded out of that same cookie-cutter, will, 4 or 5 years down the road, be producing the exact same one groove situation as Las Vegas! That's just what my gut tells me.

[Roselady3]

Hope not.
I was a little disappointed that The Chicagoland track was going to be one of the cookie cutter tracks.
Why they keep building these same tacks? ...when I really want them to build more Bristols!

[Lee]

I think track length has allot to do with how much a track should be banked. Short tracks don't really play into the equation. Bristol is the steepest, and IMO it is too steeply banked. They are just going too fast for that small a track. If you are better than a lap away, when an accident occurs, you stand very little chance of not being involved in it, rarely do you see a single car accident at Bristol. Daytona and Talladega are not banked too steeply for their respective sizes. The problem is the cars, not the tracks. The cars in the late 60s and throughout the 70s and into the 80s ran as fast, or faster that the present day cars, there were very few problems of the nature that you see now, the problem is the cars, not these two tracks. For a 1 1/2 mile track, I think 24 degrees has proven, over the years to be exactly the right banking for that size track, witness Atlanta, both pre and post Smith era, Charlotte, and Texas, although Texas has more problems, non-banking related. Rockingham and Dover are good for their size, then you have Darlington, but this track is an exception to everything, extreamly unique, nothing else is like Darlington, and nothing else should be! All in all, a superspeedway's (track 1 mile or more in length) degree of banking should be dictated by it's length.

[Roselady3]

Too bad they can't fix it before next week!

[Lee]

Roselady3,

Yes, it would be nice if they could fix it before next week. Perhaps the race will be such a snoozer, (due to it being so flat, with one groove and minimum passing) that demands will be made, forcing them to HAVE to fix it before next years races!

[The Beer Baron]

How much Banking should they add ?

Should they make it like the old Atlanta MotorSpeedway?
Though they'd have to mess with the straights to keep the transition of banking as smooth as possible.

Downforce is at a premium here, and with the cars becoming more reliant on running in 'clean-air' , it's the leader who has the quickest car, and the 2nd place guy has to keep back.
Well it's more like an accordion effect, the near you are to the guy in front the slower you corner, the further away the faster you corner.


I don't think the harder tyres helps, the more rubber that gets laid down the sooner the other grooves come into play.

[Lee]

Yes, I'd say 24 degrees, much like the old Atlanta was, I will never forgive O. Bruton Smith for ruining Atlanta, taking a unique track, one of the best on the entire circuit, and turing it into nothing but a Charlotte clone. This would not only make it better, for the track , but would also bring back a track, somewhat reminsent of the good old days at Atlanta!

[The Beer Baron]

I like AMS now 'cos it's superfast, though in '96 Charlotte was one of a kind, now Texas,Atlanta,LV.....

Those cuttie cutters were designed with the Indycars in mind.

NASCAR stockers are more versatile, a little imagination in designing these tracks wouldn't have gone astray!

[Lee]

I agree about the cookie-cutter tracks Beer Baron. NASCAR pays the bills at these places, (largest crowds, most money taken in) the tracks should be designed more for the series that pays it's way, than for the series that NASCAR has to carry on it's back! If I was in charge, I design the tracks more to fit NASCAR races, and let the roller-skates have to deal with it. I'd take care of the "breadwinner" series first!

BTW, the Atlanta track was "superfast" BEFORE Smith ruined it. It was unique then, there was no need to change it.

[The Beer Baron]

Though NASCAR puts on quite a show at those cookie-cutter speedways,

They were put into new markets, maybe something to appeal to the new NASCAR fans, speed with the close racing.


It doesn't give any uniqness to the venues, making one clone is OK but by varying the banking on the 1.5mi doesn't give much variety, and with talk of unique tracks like Pocono and Darlington losing a date to the almighty cookie cutters is frightening!

[Emfa]

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
...
It doesn't give any uniqness to the venues, making one clone is OK but by varying the banking on the 1.5mi doesn't give much variety, and with talk of unique tracks like Pocono and Darlington losing a date to the almighty cookie cutters is frightening!

That is kind of frightening!

Out with the tradition (i.e. good racing) and in with the new marketing opportunities!

[The Beer Baron]

I wonder how much it could effect things, are people going to get out and go to race tracks very similar to the ones they see all the time?

In the short term I doubt it, but if NASCAR add more I wonder?

[Lee]

Benny Parsons pointed it out on the broadcast today, "with NASCAR finishing off three major series here next year, I hope they add some banking to these turns." He showed the difference between the banking at Daytona and Homestead. The apron is banked more at Daytona, that the turns at Homestead, no wonder the racing at Homestead sucks!

[The Beer Baron]

Wow that is amazing, the Daytona Apron has more banking

When they re-configured Homestead for 1998, they reduced the banking to 6 degrees!

How much would suffice?

15 degrees?

[Lee]

Beer Baron,

15 degrees would be better that what is there now, but would not be much of an improvement. Kansas City, Chicagoland, and Las Vegas are all in the 12 to 15 degree range, and they produce the same dull, one groove, lack of passing racing. This place, and those too, need a minimum of 22 degrees. 22 to 24 degrees is what is needed.

[The Beer Baron]

Yeah I agree there Lee, 22 minimum

Should they vary it 22 and 24 ?

Just so no one has the ultimate setup?