:P

Maybe they'll find better venue in the US now, but probably not.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/p ... 070712/SPORTS01/707120523

Most tracks are better than the infield at Indy! I've always like Road America, but it's probably too 'out of date' for F1 these days.

I can't think of anywhere else that F1 could go where it would be up to bewrnie's standards in america. I just wish the num-nuts that wrote that article knew how to spell "louis"

Laguna Seca.


Shame it won't happen due to obvious safety issues.

'Obvious Safety Issues"!!!! What are we watching? The worlds best drivers in the worlds best cars, or a fecking window cleaning competition? They should accept the risk, or stay in FFord!

In my opinion of course!

Quote from tristancliffe :

'Obvious Safety Issues"!!!! What are we watching? The worlds best drivers in the worlds best cars, or a fecking window cleaning competition? They should accept the risk, or stay in FFord!

In my opinion of course!

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure most drivers would accept the risk to race there, and i would love to watch it.

That statment was more from FIA's point of view. I'm sure they would never allow a race there since the run-off areas are very small (for F1 Standarts).

Yeah, pretty much every permanent American road course would need serious work to come up to FIA standards (aside from maybe places like the new Utah track). Road America, Laguna, Sears Point, Watkins Glen, and Mid-Ohio would all make great F1 venues if they were up to spec. Oh well.

Laguna Seca could not be brought up to F1 spec that easily. It would need much more runoff than it currently has. It would be like racing Silverstone but with Monaco barriers. IMO it's a great track, but I'm surprised why CCWS and MotoGP continue to go there.

Maybe Sears Point could hold F1 with some changes. That circuit is very nice, it's got some hilly bits that would be unique in F1, a long carousel corner and 1 or 2 nice fast corners. Facilities are near standard, but to be fair they are used to kissing Brian France's arse than Bernard for Suffolk who parked an F3 car in the car park at Brands. The only issues are one or two safety bits, but it can run ALMS and IRL perfectly safe. It also helds a NASCAR round so the infrastructure could be easily brought up.

Or failing that go back to the early 80's layout in the car park at Caeser's Palace. I'd like to see how that circuit compares in the cornering G stakes to Istanbul. That temporary track (which looked decent from the only arial pic I have seen) looked pretty good, I imagine it's like a lap full of turn 8's with a longish straight.

That said, even if it's a temporary track in the car park of Gillette Stadium or a Casino in Vegas* F1 needs a US Grand Prix.

if f1 went to laguna seca then we would loose the cork screw !! they would flatten it `for safety reasons`. so they wouldnt be much point in racing there then. dont know why but they keep talking about track safety yet they race at montreal(i actually like that circuit!) with concrete walls on the edge of the track and at monaco where theres barriers and almost no chance of overtaking. let f1 race at the boring tracks and let motogp race at phillip island,mugello,assen etc. i would rather have excitement(motogp) rather than huge amounts of money and technology(f1).
Tango

I'm surprised they came back after that mishap with the Michelin tires, especially with all those spectators.

What can you do though? Risk a few million dollar cars just for some tires, and possibly the life of a driver? Sounds a bit steep of a loss if you ask me.

Whatever happened to Watkins Glenn? That's a historic F1 track they should use it. Maybe its to plain of a track.

I know what would be a wild track for F1; Infineon. Ehh... that probably isn't a good idea either.

Quote from Tango :

if f1 went to laguna seca then we would loose the cork screw !! they would flatten it `for safety reasons`.

That's not much of an issue. The issue with the circuit is run-off, or the lack of it. Do you really think that a F1 car moving at 200MPH with a partial brake faliure would be stopped or slowed significantly at T1 there?

Quote :

dont know why but they keep talking about track safety yet they race at montreal(i actually like that circuit!) with concrete walls on the edge of the track and at monaco where theres barriers and almost no chance of overtaking.

Because it's about the speeds and runoff. I think that Montreal is a good track but simply needs some tyres installed over parts where ther are currently concrete walls. No race tracks holding large single seaters should have exposed concrete walls. End of sentence.

Quote :

let f1 race at the boring tracks and let motogp race at phillip island,mugello,assen etc. i would rather have excitement(motogp) rather than huge amounts of money and technology(f1).
Tango

Call Monza boring? Istanbul? Bahrain? Spa? Silverstone?

Sorry, you can't compare motorcycle racing to car racing, like you can't compare football (the one with the overpaid prima donnas kicking a sack of wind around a field for 90 minutes) and baseball, you can't compare motorcycle racing to F1.

Watkins glen would have to replace all the armco and substantially improve the runoff areas in some places, but it could be done. It also has the force of tradition behind it, though it doesn't much resemble the 60s-era F1 track anymore.

America is filled with stock car racing (NASCAR, Arca, USAR, etc). Therefore it is filled with oval tracks. (Great oval tracks might i add )

Currently I think the infield Indy is the best GP type road course the U.S. has to offer.

So unless F1 is willing to race on ovals (which i highly doubt), then I dont think they can find a "better" replacement for Indy.

But right now, I'd like to see them on Streets of St.Petersburg, Las Vegas, and Elkhart Lake. But that's just me

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Watkins glen would have to replace all the armco and substantially improve the runoff areas in some places, but it could be done. It also has the force of tradition behind it, though it doesn't much resemble the 60s-era F1 track anymore.

Is it armco or is it SAFER?

SAFER just on ovals in turns... Armco at road courses.

Quote from srdsprinter :

SAFER just on ovals in turns... Armco at road courses.

I heard something about installing steel and foam energy reduction on circuits, but I'm not sure. It could be done easily and it probably would be appropriate.

The other thing F1 wants is big city life and glamor. Seems like a street circuit in Vegas to me.

Those require the sturdy concrete walls, though. The Armco barriers currently there would not suffice. I don't see the Glen as a valid venue, either, though. The corners are nearly all cambered, and apparently F1 cars don't like that too much. (Everyone was complaining about the banking at Indy, even before the whole Michelin debacle.)

Quite frankly, I Don't think any track in the US, aside from the crappy IndyGP, is fit for F1. Miller Motorsports Park in Utah could possibly be viable with some modifications; like installing walls, for one. The infrastructure may already be there, too, since they recently held the Olympics.

Quote from jimimonet :

The other thing F1 wants is big city life and glamor. Seems like a street circuit in Vegas to me.

For the former, anywhere near LA or New York would be better site, LV is just in the middle of the desert really - the Las Vegas TV market (ok, not got actual populations with however many KM stats) is smaller than Albuquerque and Hartford, Conn.

Venues like Indy and other places on Eastern time have an advantage that places like Las Vegas and California don't. Without doing something like running the race at 10AM, both home and European TV can be pleased - an afternoon race for the US and a prime time race for Europe, something that any thinking championship adminstrator with a major live TV contract would want. That's why Indy gets (IIRC) the highest TV ratings in the UK.

EDIT :

Quote from Our favourite Canadian LFSer [:D :

]Miller Motorsports Park in Utah could possibly be viable with some modifications; like installing walls, for one. The infrastructure may already be there, too, since they recently held the Olympics.

Nah, the lack of walls is a good thing. Bedford Autodrome, which is used for a fair bit of testing as werll as corporate days (it has no stands, it's Jonny Palmer's private test track) prides itself on having no walls. It's better to have a car going in to the desert for a fair bit of a ride rather than having an interface with a piece of steel or concrete.

The FIA wants fans at the track, fans need to be protected by barriers and then kept away from the barriers by fences :P

IIRC there are a few places where a wayward car can cross into another section of the track because there is no walls. F1 cars, being the fastest racers on the planet more or less, need to be kept from doing such things.

Having a wall-less track is great for corporate days/racing schools and some club circuits because they have slower cars so chances are they won't make it to the other sections of track. F1 cars are too quick for such circuits I'd think.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Our favourite Canadian LFSer

Aww, thanks Duke

Quote from MAGGOT :

The FIA wants fans at the track, fans need to be protected by barriers and then kept away from the barriers by fences :P

What sort of capacity does it have at the moment? One minor issue might be the race timing ... a 10 AM start would be possible.

At Assen FWIH they have built a "floating stand" that's built on stilts at the ends and back so that there can be some runoff under them. Interesting thought.

Quote :

IIRC there are a few places where a wayward car can cross into another section of the track because there is no walls. F1 cars, being the fastest racers on the planet more or less, need to be kept from doing such things.

In that case some walls there are needed without a doubt. But where there isn't a risk of that, a large amount of gravel/grass/sand runoff is the best situation.

I think an asphalt runoff would be better, wouldn't it? I seem to recall gravel traps causing some bad wrecks which would have otherwise been a harmless rolling stop for F1 cars.

Quote from duke_toaster :

The issue with the circuit is run-off, or the lack of it.

Safety is just an excuse for running new venues in places that are suitable for Bernie and the teams, ie. big, flat, smooth tracks in countries that have lots to spend on F1. Personally I'd love to see F1 move to some more conventional race circuits again. The real safety issue with F1 and other big single seater championships atm is they're having too many avoidable big crashes, making circuits safer won't stop drivers crashing in the first place.

Quote :

Call Monza boring? Istanbul? Bahrain? Spa? Silverstone?

(Now) Yes, Yes (very), Yes (very very), One of the best tracks in the world, Used to be one of the best tracks in the world.

Ahh Duke/Will, don't you ever shut up. I can't be bothered to sit here reading your nonsense!

It's somewhat a shame to lose Indy in F1, the track did provide us with some entertainment this year!

Laguna is almost like bringing Brands Hatch back up to F1 standard, sadly it won't happen.

Quote from jimimonet :

The other thing F1 wants is big city life and glamor. Seems like a street circuit in Vegas to me.

yup lets use the autocross layout they made in the carpark again.