It will be run counter clockwise and have some very interesting corners.
The start is an uphill straight and then one of those wreck producing very sharp corners.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/formula1/promoter-unveils-f1-track-layout-890582.html
-
Sept. 1, 2010 11:01 a.m. carguy123 SuperDork
-
Sept. 1, 2010 11:11 a.m. Slyp_Dawg Reader
that's going to be one hell of a race to watch, I guarantee it. wonder how a Daytona Prototype would do out there?
-
Sept. 1, 2010 11:18 a.m. 4cylndrfury SuperDork
T12-T15 should be the fun ones to watch!
-
Sept. 1, 2010 11:55 a.m. carguy123 SuperDork
I'm wondering how I'm going to do out there. The track is too close not to find some sort of excuse to pilot something around it.
-
Sept. 1, 2010 12:06 p.m. bigbens6 New Reader
FINALLY.... think itll make gt5?!?!?
-
Sept. 1, 2010 2:03 p.m. carguy123 SuperDork
Now that's an interesting thought. I never even thought about the track making it to the video games.
-
Sept. 1, 2010 2:15 p.m. monark192 Reader
I refuse to get excited until it is actually built
-
Sept. 1, 2010 3:15 p.m. Keith SuperDork
That's probably a fair assessment of GT5 as well
-
Sept. 1, 2010 7:25 p.m. NOHOME Reader
Never going to happen. These boys have the BS on the wrong side of the boots.
-
Sept. 1, 2010 7:55 p.m. seeker589 Reader
monark192 wrote:
I refuse to get excited until it is actually built
I gotta agree with you. Read some of the comments on the page. Doesn't sound like Austin wants the track.
-
Sept. 1, 2010 7:56 p.m. seeker589 Reader
bigbens6 wrote:
FINALLY.... think itll make gt5?!?!?
NOOOOOOOO!
That would delay it another five years! OH! The horror!
-
Sept. 1, 2010 8:37 p.m. carguy123 SuperDork
seeker589 wrote:
monark192 wrote:
I refuse to get excited until it is actually built
I gotta agree with you. Read some of the comments on the page. Doesn't sound like Austin wants the track.
You have a couple of dozen people on one Facebook page and it doesn't sound like all of Austin doesn't want the track?
Try reading some of the articles in the papers and you'll get a completely different take on whether Austin wants it or not.
-
Sept. 1, 2010 9:59 p.m. friedgreencorrado SuperDork
Actually, I kinda like it..or would if it would run clockwise instead. let the field get sorted a lil' bit before that turn they're calling "One" in the CCW direction.
Oh, well. At least it's got some elevation change.
-
Sept. 22, 2010 7:47 a.m. racerfink HalfDork
Just flew into Austin last Friday. Passed right over the track. It's layed out in the dirt, but no pavement yet. Pretty far along seeing as this thread was just from three weeks ago.
-
Sept. 22, 2010 12:15 p.m. Slyp_Dawg Reader
layed out in dirt, hmmm..... wonder how much they would need to be bribed to let a few old pikes peak hillclimb cars run before they lay down the tarmac? a bit of rallycross with some old Pikes Peak Grand Vitaras and 406T16s and Pikes Peak Celicas/Tundras could be interesting to watch...
-
Sept. 22, 2010 3:50 p.m. turboswede SuperDork
Slyp_Dawg wrote:
layed out in dirt, hmmm..... wonder how much they would need to be bribed to let a few old pikes peak hillclimb cars run before they lay down the tarmac? a bit of rallycross with some old Pikes Peak Grand Vitaras and 406T16s and Pikes Peak Celicas/Tundras could be interesting to watch...
You sir, are a genious! Any chance on holding a GRM Challenge there? LOL
-
Sept. 23, 2010 8:42 a.m. pigeon Dork
Interestingly there was an article on ESPNF1.com yesterday about the traffic study that the track owners had just submitted (they won't be able to clear the track of spectators in the 3 hour limit that someone's imposed), and the organizers say they need to break ground by December to be on time for track completion. The implication was that they don't have the permits to dig yet.
-
Sept. 23, 2010 9:16 a.m. oldsaw SuperDork
pigeon wrote:
Interestingly there was an article on ESPNF1.com yesterday about the traffic study that the track owners had just submitted (they won't be able to clear the track of spectators in the 3 hour limit that someone's imposed), and the organizers say they need to break ground by December to be on time for track completion. The implication was that they don't have the permits to dig yet.
I found a video-link to a meeting between the county board and an attorney representing the organizers; it wasn't pretty.
The board members were clearly entrenched in following a myriad of procedures dictated by bureaucracy and showed little inclination to expedite the process. The attorney was woefully prepared and offered little more than assurances his clients are certain all hurdles can/will be addressed and are taking steps to do so.
The board wants cost estimates and impact studies, the organizers don't have them - yet. There is reluctance (from the board) in fast-tracking the project because (it seems) of skepticism on how viable the track will be and how it will benefit (if at all) the county.
I also suspect there is a small, but vocal and influential, cadre of people opposed to the track because it doesn't represent the kind of "progress" they support. Money is a key, but there is a lot of politics smoldering under the surface, too.
-
Sept. 23, 2010 10:20 a.m. docwyte Reader
There's a huge question as to who will pay for all the infrastructure needed to support the track. Ie, widening the highways, adding traffic lights, water, etc, etc.
I'm sure the town isn't too thrilled about having to pay for this stuff as is typical in a project like a stadium etc when there isn't a proven record like there is for a sports team..
-
Sept. 23, 2010 11:38 a.m. unevolved HalfDork
They (a vague "they," just people organizing this little block party) are going to some of the local universities with motorsports programs and asking if we would "test" at the track if it were built.
Now obviously we'd take a GRM car or two and some FSAE and FH cars out for a "testing day" if they need some "educational" merit for the place. To me, though, asking universities if we'd use a F1-level track is asking a little-league team if they'd play their games in Cowboy Stadium given the chance. The fact that they're implying they need more reason to keep building it is worrisome.
-
Sept. 23, 2010 12:11 p.m. nderwater HalfDork
docwyte wrote:
There's a huge question as to who will pay for all the infrastructure needed to support the track. Ie, widening the highways, adding traffic lights, water, etc, etc.
I'm sure the town isn't too thrilled about having to pay for this stuff as is typical in a project like a stadium etc when there isn't a proven record like there is for a sports team..
The property the track sits on was zoned residential and slated for tract housing before this project went forward. The infrastructure required for this project is a fraction of what taxpayers would have been burdened with had a new subdivision been built instead.
-
Sept. 23, 2010 1:50 p.m. docwyte Reader
Lots of tax base in a subdivision though
-
Sept. 23, 2010 3:12 p.m. turboswede SuperDork
docwyte wrote:
Lots of tax base in a subdivision though
Not if its all foreclosed on and abandoned. The banks would likely just bulldoze than continue to pay taxes on it.
-
Sept. 23, 2010 3:31 p.m. oldsaw SuperDork
turboswede wrote:
docwyte wrote:
Lots of tax base in a subdivision though
Not if its all foreclosed on and abandoned. The banks would likely just bulldoze than continue to pay taxes on it.
It's far more likely the zoning was changed from "residential" to "commercial" because a county board saw economic realities. The housing bust rendered the land useless and commercial ventures were the next-best alternative.
Ultimately, the county has to weigh the potential long-term tax income from a commercial venture vs. the expense of improving the infrastructure that will support the commercial speculators' plans. I'm betting the boards will demand the track investors to pony-up many more millions to pay for construction.
Funny how money greases the skids.
