The track everybody loves to hate more than earned its reputation last week, as NASCAR had arguably its most farcical race since Indianapolis 2008. While much of it may not have been the track's fault, it has its own problems. Can they be solved?
What is so bad about Texas Motor Speedway?
Well, it's never been NASCAR's greatest track, but TMS gets a lot of hate for two reasons. First, its inclusion on the calendar came at the expense of two of NASCAR's classic tracks (North Wilkesboro Speedway and Rockingham Speedway), and second, it produces generally poor racing. We can't solve the first problem, but we can try to tackle the second.
Why is the racing bad?
In my view, there are two reasons the racing is bad; the primary one being that the corners are not profiled correctly, and the other being that NASCAR's intermediate package has accentuated this issue. You see, Texas comes from the late 90s/early 2000s era of "cookie cutter" 1.5-mile tracks which were replacing many older, shorter circuits. This was done because they offered higher speeds (which some argued increased the spectacle) and they could seat many more people. In fact, TMS holds the record for the largest crowd at a 1.5-mile race, at over 200,000 people. The only other NASCAR races to have more people than this took place at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which seats approximately 350,000 people.
The track is referred to as a D-shaped oval, because the front stretch is not straight. Charlotte Motor Speedway and Atlanta Motor Speedway have the same shape. However, compared to say, Charlotte, Texas has larger-radius, wider, more open corners with a shorter front and back straightaway.
What this means is that there is a circular problem, where a) the shorter straightaways mean that the cars don't gain as much speed compared to other tracks, and b) the larger corners mean they don't scrub off as much speed, and there is typically one line through the corner that is the most optimal. So nearly all of the lap is spent at full throttle, meaning that the drivers don't have that much opportunity to get a speed differential compared to the car in front of them. This, combined with the fact that there is usually one line around the track, so a following car has problems with dirty air, means that passing is extremely difficult.
The 2017 problem
You can't mention problems with Texas Motor Speedway and not mention the 2017 repave. From its creation until then, turns 1-2 and 3-4 had virtually identical profiles. Sure, the entry and exit angles were different, but things like the banking were the same. Each corner was roughly 60 feet wide with 24 degrees of banking. But in 2017 they made what seems like the now-inexplicable decision to reprofile turns 1 and 2 by making them even wider, as well as flatter, going from 24 to 20 degrees of banking and going from 60 to 80 feet wide. This has got to be probably the most confusing and resented decision any track has made in recent years.
The reduced banking meant there was now really only one line through the corner, while the extra width was taken from the inside, meaning that drivers could arc the car down even lower than before. Also, there is little to no visual reference point for drivers as they enter the turn, which is annoying to watch and I'm sure annoying to drive. The extra width is not used at all, and is a complete waste.
What needs to be done?
Well, there are a lot of options. Atlanta Motor Speedway was reconfigured into a superspeedway-type racetrack. Other tracks such as Auto Club speedway in Fontana, CA are being configured into short tracks. However, I feel the track could benefit from staying as a traditional intermediate track, but still be unique. In order to make the racing better and to reduce the strain on the cars, the turns need to be tightened. Also this is a textbook case where progressive banking (which varies across the width of the track and encourages different lines) would work nicely. But there are other considerations which any track modifications must take into account.
The limitations of a redesign
The problem with reconfiguring the track completely is that there are quite a few structures in and around the circuit which cannot be moved easily or at all. These include:
Main Grandstand and Suite complex
Turn 1 Tower
Turn 2 Tower
"Big Hoss" TV on backstretch
Garage area/pits
So, I've developed a proposed layout which could potentially save the track, within its existing footprint, and without severely compromising any of the structures above.
The Solution
Here's what I've come up with:
Shape and size
Although similar, I don't really know what the advantage is in having the three-section front straightaway, so I've made it a swooping curve, not unlike Michigan or Fontana. However, the front grandstands would still be perfectly usable in this configuration. Size-wise, the track is a similar size as before, but is slightly smaller. This is because the backstretch is moved inward slightly. This means that the turns have an effectively smaller radius, which should decrease the speeds a bit. The current track is stated by NASCAR to be 1.5 miles in length, although IndyCar states that the track is actually 1.44 miles in length. I would imagine that the new track would probably be about 1.4 miles in length.
As far as width goes, I don't know what the problem was with the original width of 60ft. It's plenty wide for three-wide racing if needed, and would reduce the wasted space in the corners. You could probably even cut it down smaller than that if you wanted.
Alternative layouts
The current circuit had the main track, a short oval on the front straightaway, and an infield road course. The new track would have these as well, although I've changed the road course layout to be a little more interesting. Also, I've added a new chicane at the start-finish line, which should slow the cars down and also make the start/finish an action point. But these aren't really the focal points of the new design.
Pit entry & access roads
Like I said, the new track kind of looks like Fontana from above, albeit smaller. Fontana, unlike Texas, actually produces very good racing, and is loved by many drivers. Another track that often produces good races is Homestead-Miami, which is another 1.5 mile track. Here, I've borrowed the pit entry/exit lanes idea from Homestead, which is also used at Indianapolis. The main reason why I did this is not rally for NASCAR, but primarily for IndyCar. There, it is much safer to have the pit entry/exit lanes than just going directly from the racetrack to the pits and vice-versa.
The corners
This is the main problem with the current track, and it's very important that any new track configuration gets these right. As mentioned, the back straightaway is moved in, so the entry to turn 3 is sharper, and the exit of turn 2 is also tighter. This should reduce corner speeds in general. In the middle of the corners, the track goes out about as wide as the current track is (to the outside wall), but it comes in on exit of turn 4 a little bit, and also does not swing out as far on the entry to turn 1 as the current track. Again, this is all in the name of slightly reducing corner speeds. Off-throttle time typically equals better racing, in NASCAR at least.
Taking it to the bank(ing)
Again, the intermediate track that has consistently produced the best racing is Homestead-Miami, so it makes sense that the reprofiled corners would be kind of similar. At Homestead, the corners are progressively banked, from 18 degrees at the bottom to 20 degrees at the top. It seems like the tack has slowly graduated towards being top-dominated over the years, although the track is still very much multi-groove. In order to make it a little bit different from Homestead, instead of going 18-20 degrees, let's go 17-19 degrees at Texas. This should also reduce cornering speeds a little bit. Yes, the track might be kind of single-groove at the start, but the progressive banking should change that over time, and the hot Texas summers should help age the track quickly.
Summary
Of course, there is the inevitable question of money, and reconfiguring an entire track is NOT cheap. But after the tire farce of the 2022 playoff race, plus the general hatred of TMS, means that we really have kind of reached a critical point in NASCAR's relationship with the venue. Not to mention IndyCar also races there, and although the 2022 edition was unquestionably the best race they've had there in a while, the track is still poorly regarded in terms of racing, and fails to draw in a crowd of any sort.
A reconfiguring of TMS should not be seen as "admitting defeat" by it's owners, but rather "admitting your mistakes" instead. Surely it would be better for them if people actually wanted to go there. And I'm willing to bet that at least the very first race on any reconfigured track would probably command the largest crowd TMS has drawn in many, many years.
Comentarios