Fan Commentary

What Makes a Great Track

by Grandstand Bob

It’s probably only a matter of time, but it will be a travesty whenever Rockingham loses a race date. The facility is nice, and the racing ranks in the top half of tracks that the circuit visits. Still, the track will have many points against it, when it comes time for the sanctioning body to assign race dates.

Rockingham is in a relatively remote location smack in the middle of a race-saturated region of the United States. Six other Winston Cup tracks are located within a half-day’s drive from Rockingham, and the track itself is more than an hour from a big city of any type, with ample attractions and lodging. These facts lower the track’s value to those outside the region. In other words, why would someone travel a long distance to see a race under these conditions, when they can go to Charlotte, where there are ample attractions and lodging?

Good racing in a quality atmosphere is the reason I offer. With the exception of the dumbass cooler policy and some admitted traffic problems, the track has a lot to offer. All of the tickets I’ve had to the Rock offer great views of the track, where side-by-side racing and passing are frequent. Furthermore, parking is ample, and the tailgating atmosphere is great. If you haven’t already done it, you need to go to one of the old Southeast racetracks and make it a point to party in the parking lot. These tracks attract high numbers of fans who are as knowledgeable about having a good time as they are about racing.

Looking at tracks like Martinsville, Darlington and Rockingham, and hearing their names frequently mentioned as heading toward the cutting block of Winston Cup scheduling, shows me that there is a huge chasm between what makes a track good in the eyes of fans and what makes it good in the eyes of the sanctioning body.

In my opinion, the most important factor in determining a good track is the quality of racing it hosts. How I define quality racing is the frequency of passing and the ability to run side-by-side most of the way around the track. Every track that I’ve mentioned in this column fits these criteria, and what’s more, they fit these criteria better than most other tracks on the circuit, including ISC’s newest and largest tracks, which are in no danger of losing a race date.

Any track can have good racing at certain points during a race, but a really good track has that type of racing all race long. Remember that while you’re snoozing away during some of the upcoming Sunday afternoons. Imagine how many new fans a 500-mile parade makes, especially if those new fans are tuning in on television. Contrast that with the excitement of Bristol or Martinsville.

Of course, good racing is squandered on fans whose seats don’t offer views of the entire track. I had the misfortune of once attending a race where I could only see the roofs of the cars on the frontstretch and the entire cars only on the turns. It was extremely frustrating to miss passes while following action around the track. There are some seats like this at the tracks that I’ve mentioned in this column, but far fewer of these seats exist at these tracks than exist at some of the newer and larger ISC tracks, and older road courses and tri-ovals.

Even if your seat offers a good view of the track, if you are squashed on all sides, the race still can be miserable. I’ve never, ever been squashed at Martinsville or Rockingham, but I’ve paid more than $100 bucks to be squashed like a bug in the grandstands at a restrictor plate race.

Price is another issue that must be considered. Tracks like Martinsville and Rockingham offer some of the most economical tickets on the circuit. If NASCAR wants to truly reach out, they could do so by not reaching so deeply into the fans’ pockets.

Lastly, the overall experience of attending a race, from traffic and parking to concessions and track personnel, is important to a fan in determining the value of race experience at any particular track. Many of the tracks on the chopping block rate higher in these categories than those with no danger of losing their dates.

So, why are they in danger of losing their race dates? Three reasons: strategy, money and politics. Strategy is the easiest reason to understand and defend. The race experience is one of the most powerful recruiting factors NASCAR has at its disposal. By bringing in new people to new tracks, the sport will grow its fan base. For the sport to reach it’s potential, it must attract fans all over the country, and it must have races all over the country.

Money is also somewhat easy to defend, because racing and racetracks are businesses, which means that they have financial responsibilities to make enough money to grow and support their operations. This isn’t a charity. However, like I’ve argued in this column many times, there is a fine line between making a nice profit and growing and alienating fans. Many old-time fans deeply resent some of the recent moves by the sanctioning body, and cutting one of the venerable old tracks from the race schedule will only rub salt in those wounds. Because the old-time fans are also the most loyal, NASCAR would be well advised to make sure that they address some of these concerns.

The last reason, politics, is probably the most disturbing. It’s no secret that NASCAR seems to favor ISC tracks in granting race dates. Just look at the latest additions to the schedule. It’s also no secret that Speedway Motorsports, Inc. is a vocal rival to ISC. Refer to the Johnny Cochran lawsuit for substantial evidence. Political pressure is a given when the same people who own the sanctioning body also own many of the tracks on the schedule. When you factor in that reality, it becomes a little easier to see why tracks favored by fans are not necessarily those preferred by the sanctioning body.

Hmmm . . . I wonder what would fix that . . .

Grandstand Bob Profile and Past Columns

note: This opinions expressed in this column are those of writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of ARS Racing Outlet or its parent company, amI, Inc.