Hope it happens asap, but if they move to the east coast they will have to make a whole new track, for west coast i would recommend probably redeveloping Infineon raceway(dont touch laguna:schwitz
F1's United States heyday was in the early '80s at Long Beach. Now the American public seem quite indifferent in general to F1. Personally I'd like to see Portugal back on the calendar with the new track they've just made. If it was a choice between Portugal and another (probably failed) attempt at getting F1 into the United States there's no comparison for me.
Road America, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta, Mid Ohio and Virginia could all host Grand Prixs without being micky mouse tracks with little or no development of the tracks themselves. Given the size of the US I should imagine dealing with the logistical issues of a Grand Prix would be much less of an issue than they are in the UK.
Is it? What are you basing that on? In 2007 the US GP had the largest single-day crowd of any race on the calendar.
Actually none of those tracks could. None of them are up to F1's standards, especially Road Atlanta and VIR. None of them have pits, paddock, grandstands, and race control facilities even close to what F1 would require. The runoff areas are nowhere near good enough at any of those tracks. Road America is way too far from a major metro area and the area's infrastructure would be absolutely hopeless for a GP-sized event. Same with VIR. Road Atlanta is too short and would have to be heavily modified.
Those tracks would need some changes to make them suitable for Grade 1 licences.
A return to Indy is sensible. The track has been changed since F1 last went, scrapping the double hairpin section and putting in a bikeable section to bypass the oval. They also reversed the direction. The MotoGP circuit should be usable (although I'd rather they used one corner of the oval than the motorcycle bypass).
Venues on the west coast are not so simple. Laguna Seca is too far from any major city and probably some more run-off - and possibly a bit more length. Sears Point (The proper name for infineon raceway) is a great track, but would need work and probably a bit of lengthening.
Street circuits are an option, as are other temporary circuits. If they want New York - a sensible option - CART ran a race at The Meadowlands in New Jersey around where the Jets and Giants play. It would be sensible choice given it's barely over 30km from JFK Airport.
Don't diss Long Beach, as street circuits go its one of the better ones (although it's been murdered now).
I'd love to see F1 at Road America, can't see it happening though, well most likely see a return to one of the flattest, most dull tracks in all of christendon.
Installing F1 spec facitlities is usually a straight forward question of getting some funds and building things, at a fraction of the cost of building a new venue. Most of them have pits which endurance racing teams seem to be able to cope with, therefore they are plenty good enough to run single seaters from, anybody who tells you otherwise is just whining for no reason. The only facilities a track needs is a good medical centre, basic security, and somewhere for the crowd to watch the race from, other than that all the hospitality suites can be brought in by those who deem them necessary (and they usually are at European Grand Prixs). Run off areas are both easy to extend and current levels are usually safe enough, I think the only major issue with those tracks is the Esses at Watkins Glen which are still very dangerous, but only really from the risk of cars ending back on the track. It has been proved by several huge accidents that somewhere like Road America is perfectly safe enough for modern single seaters and prototypes, the majority of which were caused by avoidable driver error.
The only issue with Laguna Seca is cars might have trouble physically getting through the Corkscrew, at which point the correct response is to tell them to stop moaning and use a bit of common sense to solve the challenges they are presented with. There's no such thing as a track which is too long or too short, you could quite safely run big single seaters round Brands Hatch, the Nordschleife or a hillclimb so long as the drivers take a sensible approach and forget this ridiculous notion that they should be able to have any accident they like anywhere and walk away from it. As for distance, just like in the other thread it is evident you haven't been to America and don't have a clue what you're talking about, Laguna Seca is less than 2 hours from San Francisco and even closer to San Jose, by US standards that really isn't any distance at all.
Yes because several tracks with reasonably genrous run off areas are far more dangerous than a street circuit...
A lot of those tracks have development outside the circuit boundaries. It isn't as simple as just deciding to build things; they have to buy out houses or businesses. It isn't impossible, but it's difficult and expensive.
F1 has specific standards which all venues have to adhere to. Simply telling the teams "here's what you have, deal with it" just isn't how F1 works. Maybe it should, but it isn't. Endurance racing series have much less stringent standards regarding the quality of pit and paddock facilities.
Again, wrong. F1 requires circuits to be within a certain distance range. A 30-second lap would not be allowed. A 4-minute lap would not be allowed.
Sorry, no. Assuming the cars would have trouble physically negotiating the corner, they would have to build a completely new chassis with different characteristics for that track. That isn't how F1 works. It would be like putting a giant speed bump on the straight at Spa and telling the teams to "just deal with it".
It isn't just about distance, it's about the quality of the roads between the city and the track and the amount of development in the area surrounding the track. That's the main problem with Road America - there are no big four-lane highways running right to the circuit. The crushing traffic which accompanies every GP could not be handled by the narrow, twisty roads in the area. The infrastructure just couldn't cope. There aren't enough hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc. in the area to cope with a GP-sized crowd, therefore F1 will not seriously consider it as a venue.
As has already been said, none of those tracks have run-off areas which would be considered "generous" by modern F1 standards. On some corners it would be fine, but others not.
I am fully aware of the farce that is F1, it is meant to be (and was) the pinnacle of motorsport, the cars and tracks should be as important as the drivers, currently you'll get (literally) more technical innovation and true engineering in tightly controlled stock cars racing on ovals, which have a lot more variety and require a redesign of parts of the car for different tracks. F1 should be able to go to any circuit in the world and on billion dollar budgets the teams haven't got any excuse if they can't make a car go round a fixed surface circuit of virtually any description.
A lot of the infrastructure can be put into the area relatively quickly if there is serious interest in doing so. Grand Prixs are going to be chaotic though, by their nature race circuits tend to be positioned away from civilisation. Sitting in queues is something people are used to from attending most major shows/events/race meetings in this country and I'm sure true racing fans in the States would be prepared to do the same, likewise I think most true racing fans in the US won't want to watch F1 on a largely empty oval, if Indy is dull the fans get to see the dullest part of the track, not an appealing prospect.
They have larger run off areas than street circuits and a lot of club circuits, there have been plenty of big moments in recent years that have demonstrated both that modern racing cars can get away with enormous offs at very high speed without having big impacts (was it Kovalainen at Portugal who drove into the tyres without warning at high speed?) and when they do have big impacts they generally can get away without injury (as virtually every single driver seems to have had these days, usually s a result of driver error) and it is now possible to get away by the skin of the teeth from the unthinkable (Kubica, Legge).
Since you basically admit modern pussy F1 will never go to one of these proper tracks, why are you arguing with yourself then?
And after the work (naturally by Tilke) it wouldn't be the same Road Atlanta anymore, so what is the point? Who really wants to see one of world's top 10 tracks destroyed anyway.
Road America would do nice, it has good runoffs with a lot of technical corners and braking zones.
Err Laterus FYI Road America is in the boonies with trees all around, not sure where you are getting that the tracks are near built up areas. Portland I know is in the city, but they would never host anything the state the track is in. Infact they had a deer hit by a single seater a while back and seriously injured a driver.
RA's facilities would need a major facelift, there is no paddok other than a pad of concrete to park semitrailers, but then most teams run out of their trailers that run RA now. There would need to be more stands in place ect. but the track itself IMO is top notch and could handle GP cars, Cart/IRL runs there/used to run there.
Can't be arsed to look for more tracks but to me most of them seem to be out away from built up areas and could easily be upgraded to work well for F1.
Actually that was Road America ironically enough, and if I remember rightly another car ended up in the forest a few years previously after going off track.
Ah yeah I get you. I think the main problem with US tracks is that the pits/paddock system is very different to the European style and therefore any track would require a new pits complex which instantly bumps the cost up.
You're arguing the way you think things should be in F1. I'm explaining how things are. I mostly agree with your general sentiment about how it should be, but it simply isn't the case. And considering the trend of things in F1, it is extremely unlikely to suddenly change direction, so these what-if scenarios aren't of any practical benefit.
Sorry, no. Why would a hotel chain (gas station, restaurant) spend millions of dollars to open a new location which would be swamped for one weekend but deserted for the rest of the year? It has to be financially viable to sustain itself outside GP weekend.
It was at Circuit de Catalunya.
I don't think being able to "generally" get away without injury is acceptable. The safety of drivers and spectators has to be the absolute priority at all tracks and in all situations. I'd rather watch an endless string of "boring" races at a "generic" circuit than ever watch another racing driver die at the wheel. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
