The F1 calendar features some of the greatest racing circuits in the world. To become Formula 1 world champion you must prove yourself on the 350kph straights of Monza, the tight confines of Monte-Carlo, and everything in between.
But there’s one type of track missing from F1 racing, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in the sport for decades. Here’s why I think it’s time for F1 drivers to race on ovals.
Ex-F1 driver meets oval
Robert Doornbos last raced in F1 in 2006. He’s experienced the fearsome performance of a Formula 1 car – in fact he did so during the V10 era when the cars were even more powerful than today. And he’s raced at some of the calendar’s most spectacular tracks including Spa-Francorchamps, Suzuka and Interlagos.
After that you might think there isn’t much new left for him to experience in the world of top-line single seater motor sport. But you’d be wrong. He had his first encounter with an oval speedway testing for IndyCar team Newman-Haas-Lanigan this week. Here’s what he had to say:
It felt like going to a new school on the first day. I didn’t really know what to expect but I got a lot of information from the team but you have to do it for yourself.
The first five laps I thought ‘Oh my god, where did I end up?’ But that’s because you have to run at a certain pace and once you reach that pace its actually quite fun so we ended the day on a good note and I can go to bed with a smile.
I already got the bug and want to go faster and faster so that’s a good thing. Today was definitely the fastest I have gone in a race car and I am quite proud.
I have no idea what to expect with traffic. It must be something like driving in the middle of the night in China, the traffic is quite bad there. I will just take it as it comes. It’s a steep learning curve but I enjoy it like this.
Doornbos had just sampled the Miami Homestead oval for the first time. Last year the fastest lap in the IndyCar race at homestead was set by Ryan Briscoe at an average of 343.303kph. The fastest average lap speed typical seen during an F1 season is at Monza – around 250kph.
Oval racing is poorly understood in F1’s European heartland and viewed with some hostility and derision. But those who trot out tired cliches like ‘it’s easy because you only have to turn left’ should listen carefully to Doornbos’s words.
One comment posted here earlier this week when we discussed what F1’s biggest rival is was that ‘F1 is the pinnacle of motor sport‘. I think if F1 is to be the pinnacle of motor sport – and it should be – its calendar should present the ultimate motor racing challenge. Therefore, it has to include at least one oval.
Oval racing in single seaters is every bit as demanding as racing on a street circuit or road course – something Doornbos now has a whole new respect for. But the nature of the challenge is, obviously, very different. The courage required to race at such high average speeds is taken for granted. The skill lies in reading how the grip of the oval changes, working out which groove (racing line) to use, and getting through the inevitable traffic cleanly and quickly.
F1 going oval racing would not be the work of a moment. For example, the cars’ safety structures would probably have to be re-designed to take into account the increased likelihood of striking a wall. Race distances at oval events would have to be doubled at least to ensure a running time comparable to what we get at an average Grand Prix.
But I’m convinced it is a more realistic idea than one might think at first glance. In the early 1990s the possibility of F1 racing on ovals was given serious consideration as the CART-run IndyCar series boomed in popularity. Silverstone looked at constructing an oval circuit using the southern portion of its track including the Stowe and Club corners.
There’s an obvious marketing incentive too: there is no better way F1 could increase its profile in America than by going there and putting on an oval race – in all likelihood at considerably higher speeds than IndyCar or NASCAR can manage.
I wouldn’t want to see too much of the calendar given over to oval racing – perhaps just one or two events in America. Say, Indianapolis plus one other track, perhaps near the putative USF1 team’s base in North Carolina.
I think the positives vastly outweight the negatives and it is in F1’s best interests to take this idea seriously. If not, one day it could find itself facing a rejuvenated IndyCar series with the mix of road, street and oval tracks that F1 lacks.
Do you think F1 should race on ovals? Ever been to an oval race? Have your say in the comments.
- Why Mercedes should block F1’s engine ‘unfreeze’
- It’s time to define and defend the DNA of Formula One
- The strange snobbery about short tracks
- Why Ferrari’s ‘fans poll’ findings can’t be trusted
- F1 should not act in haste over engine noise
162 comments on “Why F1 should race on ovals”
25th February 2009, 7:27
I asked the same question last year after Indy :-) The responses from people were mixed. Myself I would like to see F1 racing on oval perhaps once during the season. But I can’t really imagine how would that work. The regular F1 cars are not built for racing on banked ovals. I am not sure how much work and money would it take to make the current F1 cars oval worthy but it may be quite a waste of resources doing all that work for 1 race only. But who knows, perhaps the commercial benefits from an oval F1 race would outweigh the extra expenses… So, one oval race – why not, if it can be done, would be fun, but no more than that no matter how much money that could potentially generate …
25th February 2009, 7:29
An F1 race at an oval track would be a very welcome sight. I would love to see the front runners constantly challenged by having to work their way through the pack. I’ve been to two Indy races at Texas Motor Speedway and they were great. My only gripe is that the F1 cars would have to be modified significantly. I remember Cart trying to hold a race at TMS back in 2001 and they had to cancel because drivers were beginning to black out due to the high speeds and g-forces. Yes the F1 cars would be faster than the Indy cars, but anything beyond 230 or 240mph isn’t physically sustainable. A compromise would be to do a Roval, like the course the 24 Hours of Daytona uses, part of the oval, the rest on the infield. Could you image how great that would be? F1 cars storming around Daytona?!
25th February 2009, 7:42
for those who wish to watch cars racing round oval tracks should croos the pond and watch indy/cart,there is no place in f1 for such a bore
29th October 2014, 10:33
Then what is Monaco ? if thats not boring as bat s#1t I don’t know what is,
I can imagine 6 Merc powered cars going toe to toe at a decent medium-low banked oval .
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
25th February 2009, 8:59
Averaging 343kph for a lap is not boring.
25th March 2010, 19:02
And it’s not that easy either. I done a driving experience in a Nascar car on a oval and not reaching anywhere near those speeds the lateral loads as increadible. I’m in good physical condition but after 8 laps I was bit tired. After 3 x 8 laps the day after I was sore. It would be really fun to see what a F1 car could do and judging from Indy nobody would complain about overtaking because of the banked corners no worries not be able to follow with a F1 car.
28th June 2011, 14:27
It sure is, watching cars going fast in a straight line and around banked turns is definitely boring. Watching cars go round corners at speed – that’s what’s interesting.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
28th June 2011, 14:54
I don’t know how you’re making the distinction between between a “boring” banked turn on an oval and an “interesting” corner on some other circuit.
30th June 2011, 7:24
Sounds dangerous…. *smiles*
25th February 2009, 11:38
Oval racing is fine, the biggest problem with NASCAR and IRL is that they have far too many oval races. Once you’ve seen one race, you’ve seen all of them.
25th February 2009, 14:44
The Texas track has a very high degree of banking. Generally the higher the banking the faster the track. The key would be to use tracks with a lower banking like Indy or the Milwaukee Mile.
25th February 2009, 7:47
No, no, no!!
F1 is real racing, the Nascar and Indycar series is a spectacle. I really don’t like safety cars, but the oval races depend on them for getting as close a finish as possible. So work for a couple of hours trying to be on the lead lap, then a caution and the lottery begins. No thank you!
Whewbacca the Cookie
25th February 2009, 8:10
Agreed. No need to make F1 look like NASCAR. As many of you already mentioned, even if there was a single oval track in an F1 season it’d require a major redesign of the current F1 cars. Besides any collision would result in a total massacre.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
25th February 2009, 8:58
Don’t mistake all kinds of ‘oval racing’ with ‘NASCAR oval racing’. The sort of pack racing you see in NASCAR that produces the ‘lottery’ effect you accurately describe would not necessarily happen in F1 because the design of the cars is entirely different.
25th February 2009, 9:45
Jesper, that actually sounds like some F1 races. You could also argue that F1 is the biggest spectacle of all them all!
But I also fail to see the appeal of F1 cars on ovals. The deficit between cars is too great for it to be close, and it takes away the fun from watching F1 cars actually take corners at silly speeds. The braking for the corner is also a test of the drivers skill and wit for overtaking/defense, we see mistakes even at this level. Obviously some ovals require some slowing for the corners, but it’s not the same demand on the machine and driver.
Also, can anyone offer an explanation as to why, if you’re in 2nd, you’d want to swipe the lead as soon as possible knowing fine well the guy behind will just slipstream you by the next ‘corner’? Why not wait until the last couple of ‘corners’ on the last lap to swipe the lead and pressure cook your opponent for hundreds of laps?
25th February 2009, 16:41
NASCAR and IRL races are closer on oval more than ever and there are many races that can go quite long without a caution.
29th October 2014, 10:34
Sounds like Singapore 2014 Jesper
25th February 2009, 8:09
Great idea. one big floor in this plan. Refueling is being banned… No way can they run for 2 hours at 250mph on one tank of fuel. Should have suggested it a few years ago!
25th February 2009, 8:48
250mph for 2 hours is what F1 cars do now. I guess you mean 343+mph?
25th February 2009, 9:14
Check your units patrickl
25th February 2009, 8:13
I think it would be cool to see, but I’m not sure it will ever happen. F1 cars would need serious changes to work on ovals: crash structures, and engine reliability (it would be harder on engines than Monza, and would have to be a significantly longer distance race).
Also, would the drivers all have spotters talking to them constantly on the radio?
I would personally be disappointed if, on their annual trip to America, F1 just raced around an oval. If I wanted to see open-wheel oval racing, I’d go to a (probably much cheaper) IndyCar race.
25th February 2009, 8:19
Historically there have been Grand Prix (not necessarily F1) races on ovals – Brooklands in Surrey was the first ever oval, and the original Monza circuit was an oval too.
And I think that it would be a great challenge to the drivers and the teams to have even just one oval race in the season, purely because of the difficulties outlined by those others above, and it would be an easy way to re-introduce F1 into North America without spending huge amounts on new circuits.
25th February 2009, 8:29
The drivers necks would get way sore. What about a figure of 8 circuit?
25th February 2009, 18:35
We’ve already got one, Suzuka.
22nd June 2009, 22:23
How about they go train in the gym?
24th June 2009, 4:07
There’s an oval track in the US where they have something called chain racing. Groups of three cars are chained together. The front acceleraes, the back brakes and the middle on just tries to stay in the line. Try that at 250mph!
17th March 2010, 10:49
What like actually chained?!?
A bit dangerous…. pretty cool but very dangerous surely.
25th February 2009, 8:36
Not so sure I’d want to see an F1 race on an oval…but I get where you’re coming from when you say that if they are to truly represent the whole world of racing then they should have to compete on an oval track.
I just think the costs would be too high to make the cars safe for that race (you’d effectively end up with teams building cars specifically for that one race – in the same way Honda built a special RA106 to try and set a land speed record at the end of 2006)…just wouldn’t gel with the current efforts to cut costs.
Now then, what if they were to hold a special “Race Of Champions” style event where drivers from the 3 categories each took part in 3 races, 1 in F1 spec machinary, 1 in Indycar machinary and 1 in NASCAR machinary… You could hold the event at either Daytona or Indianapolis (or any other Oval with an in-field circuit)… Couldn’t count towards the WDC, but would raise the profile of F1 in the States…
25th February 2009, 8:44
i like oval racing, so i’m pro turning left, it does sort the men from the boys.
Its a completly different discipline, one corner favours one line while another favours a different apex but at those speeds it nigh on impossible to chain together a perfect lap everytime… for a period of 40 minutes even.
25th February 2009, 9:01
I don’t think F1 needs an oval. I guess it would be fun to see, but it’s a pretty dangerous form of racing. It’s also too much dependend on cautions and luck.
25th February 2009, 9:02
i respect the oval racing, i understand the complexity and skill from a drivers position, but as a spectator, its a boring as watching football.
25th February 2009, 9:09
I would be just curious about F1 on an oval, and of course I wouldn’t dislike the chance…
But I think what I really miss now from Formula 1 is racing on very fast tracks, or very fast track parts: I miss long straights of Hockenheim, fast first parts of Buenos Aires and Interlagos in the 70’s configuration, Dottinger Hohe of old Nuerburgring, Mistral of Paul Ricard, rushes in the forest of old Zeltweg.
There’s only Monza left. Too few. I would like to see those flat rear wings more often.
25th March 2010, 18:36
I couldn’t agree more. Despite the 1994 tragedies I miss Imola, too, with Tamburello in its unaltered, chicane-less state. Sometimes fast drivers die while racing. We try to prevent it with reasonable safety precautions. But low-speed processions through narrow, twisty courses with one racing line, no high speed corners, and too few opportunities to pass are BORING. I want to see more flat out racing, at least two racing lines at every circuit, fewer restrictions on engine power and mechanical grip, and more restrictions on aerodynamics. Get rid of the DDDs and elaborate front wings, keep the slicks, make the rear wheels bigger, bring back 3 liter engines, remove the restrictions on engine block design (I want to see V12s and V10s back on the grid) and take the rev limits off! 1000+ bhp or bust! This is Formula ONE, for Pete’s sake!
25th February 2009, 9:43
i was watching ovals and 1/4 mile drag strips since i could walk. then, one sunday, i saw the john player specials and those beautiful red cars tearing up the streets of detroit. only 6 or 7, my eyes were open to a whole new world: monaco, le mans, nordschlife, scandinavians blasting through forests with people willingly standing in the road. don’t make me go back! i won’t go back!!!
in addition to brooklands and monza, the indy 500 paid f1 driver’s championship points from 1950 to 1960. fuji speedway was intended to be an oval, but the money ran out halfway through construction.
i would be very interested in a massive figure eight superspeedway, but i doubt it will happen within 20 years.
25th February 2009, 9:51
I’ve been to the Indy 500 many times. I like oval racing in Indianapolis, but really at no other place.
I wonder if this idea didn’t come up when Tony George and Bernie were originally discussing a USGP? I would be very, very surprised if they hadn’t discussed it. Perhaps the FIA nixed it, but I understand their rule on banking was written so as they could race on the relatively-mild banks of Indianapolis.
I get the feeling that most F1 drivers don’t like ovals. The American press always asked the drivers at the USGP about the 500 and almost always they said no.
25th February 2009, 9:53
I’ve been arguing in favour of this for a while and personally I’m very happy to see one of the most respected F1 sites on the net in favour of it too.
I think two oval races sounds about right (one would certainly have to be at Indianapolis, naturally). As Keith says, the ultimate in open-wheel racing should represent all diciplines and the champion should be somebody who can thrive on any type of circuit.
Even if we just had Indy on the calendar, it would be an instant ‘must-win’ event for the drivers and teams. Having an F1 win at the Brickyard to your name would be akin to having a Monaco GP victory under your belt.
As unlikely as it all looks at this point, I hope it happens some day.
25th February 2009, 20:35
As an added incentive, a driver’s first race win of the season in a given track type should carry bonus points. That way, two drivers might be otherwise tied on points at the end of a season, but the one that has won on more types of track would edge ahead due to these bonuses.
25th February 2009, 10:02
After watching that clip, I still don’t necessarily see the attraction. Trading places for 8 or so laps just because they keep swapping each others slipstream doesn’t quite do it for me. The final lap was fun to watch, but I don’t think the rest of race is particularly relevant.
You can’t argue with the speed, but speed is relative. Going through Eau Rouge with your foot planted is breathless, whereas the much higher top speed is lost to me on a simple oval.
25th February 2009, 10:15
“The final lap was fun to watch, but I don’t think the rest of race is particularly relevant.”
My thoughts exactly!
Make the F1 tracks of today faster instead! I really miss the old Hockenheim for instance.
And for those who like oval racing: what’s wrong with the existing Nascar and Indycar?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
25th February 2009, 14:18
Like I said, I think the ultimate single seater series should include examples of all types of tracks those cars can race on – including an oval or two.
On the Michigan race, what made that so exciting (for me, anyway) was that the two drivers were jostling to be in the best position at the start of the final lap to lead at the finishing line. This is exactly the sort of thing we used to see in F1 – Jackie Stewart once won a classic Monza slipstreamer by running a long fourth gear so he wouldn’t have to shift up between Parabolica and the finish line as he and the inevitable pack of cars hurtled towards the flag.
Here we have two drivers side-by-side at 240mph-plus, one hemmed in by a wall and coming up fast on another car, yet he kept his foot in to win the race. You can’t tell me that’s boring!
I don’t buy “oval racing is boring” any more than when people (often NASCAR fans) say “F1 is boring” – this is just a cultural difference. Both disciplines can produce extremely exciting racing.
25th February 2009, 10:37
Isn’t oval racing designed, like most American sports, around ad breaks, so that spectators can go get another burger and supersize Coke without missing anything? I really can’t see the appeal of F1 racing on ovals. A bit like watching racehorses doing dressage. Brooklands did start as an oval, but in the 1930’s infield sections were built to give the spectators what they wanted to see- European style cicuit racing. They knew back then that oval racing simply did not offer enough entertainment.
25th February 2009, 11:07
Indy was built so the fans could see the whole track instead of a couple of corners. I like the idea of oval racing in F1 as it’s another challange for the drivers. I never used to respect oval racing as being British i thought is was too easy, that was until i watched the homestead highlights in 2006 just to see what it was like. As 2011 is the 100th anniversary since the first indy 500 (i think) it would be nice to have an f1 race then but i can’t see that happaning sadly. Also seing ovals being added will make a nice change to these mega bland Tilke tracks.
25th February 2009, 10:46
Sorry Keith, I can’t think of anything i’d LESS like to see than F1 racing on ovals. To be perfectly frank, I am posting this without even reading the article – I’m sure there are some valid points noted above, but to be honest, I’m just not interested in the slightest. I’m sure that others must agree.
Oval racing belongs in America, and should stay in the history books for Europe.
End of rant.
25th February 2009, 17:39
Aha, and there is one of the fault lines in this debate–should F1 remain a purely European sport, or should it diversify and back up its claim to crowning the “world” drivers champion by hosting a globalised variety of races? Personally, I quite like the variety of having the glamourised vision of night races in Asian metropolises, the idea of an oval race in America, etc.
25th February 2009, 10:51
Really interesting article Keith, Ive never really thought about Oval racing for F1 before, but after reading this I quite like the idea of an oval race on the F1 calendar, but like I think Singapore should remain the only night race, I think, if they were to ever do it, there should only be one, to keep the novelty of it so to speak.
Watching the cars go round the banked Turn 13 at Indy the other year really was amazing, one of my favourite parts of the weekend. I know the cars would have to be completely different to cope with that for an entire race, given that they could barely cope with that small section at Indy, but I would quite like to see a whole race like that. Only one mind – its why Singapore and Monaco are successful despite there being little chance to overtake – the uniqueness. It really would test a drivers all round ability like no other Formula would, as it would include an even wider variety of challenges. As long as it didnt replace a ‘classic’ venue then I would be ok with it!
25th February 2009, 10:56
Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree – what’s exciting about two drivers leapfrogging eachother repeatedly by getting into the others slipstream? That just makes it chance who ends up winning. I was bored after a minute or two.
25th February 2009, 11:01
Really don’t like the idea. From what I’ve seen, it’s so boring. I really like seeing the F1 cars around beautiful, winding, intricate circuits and all the rules and problems around them.
25th February 2009, 11:40
Shame the new circuits are all boring Tilke-a-dromes then isn’t it..!!
25th February 2009, 14:18
I agree Adrian. They’ve lost their touch re. designing great new circuits. I wasn’t even that impressed with Singapore.
25th February 2009, 11:35
I’d love to see it, once or twice a year. Maybe even more – oval tracks have more variety to them than you’d imagine so knocking out some Tilke clones for (say) Indianapolis, Motegi and either Rockingham or the Lausitzring in Europe would be a net gain.
Safety and car design make it next-to impossible, and I’m glad Adam mentioned CART’s Texas debacle, where the drivers were blacking out, because it might be the final stopper on F1-standard cars on ovals.
But you only have to listen to drivers who experience both to see that ovals aren’t the poor relations. Doornbos is just the latest – we spoke to ex-Honda tester Darren Manning when he was still with Foyt Racing last year and he raved about how exciting they were.
The final race of the last IRL season was just edge-of-the seat stuff, with Helio Castroneves having to work his way up from the back row to win the race AND get the bonus points for leading the most laps to stand any chance of winning the title. Scott Dixon only needed to come 8th to be confirmed as champion but he raced Helio side-by-side all the way to the line, mile after mile, with Ryan Briscoe inches behind. Amazing stuff.
25th February 2009, 11:35
The whole going round & round and swapping positions on every 1/2 lap was tiresome, but the final was great and this was because of the backmarker infront of them.
The traffic makes it interesting, which means F1 should field a few more cars at the ovals, maybe, and make sure they do not crash at the start :-)
I’m not entirely convinced about the prospective of 1-1.5h oval racing … :-)
25th February 2009, 11:37
Hmm, I tend to disagree that F1 needs to race on Ovals to prove it is the pinnacle of Motor sport. I mean Rally Driving or Ice racing provides a challenge that needs a unique skill set, but I would not expect F1 to adopt the format of those races just to prove it is the best of the best.
I think Doornbos’s comments can be taken with a pinch of salt, he is bound to big up Indycar as all the doors in F1 have been closed to him, and he can say whatever he wants to makes him feel better when he goes to sleep at night!
There are a couple of practicle & Financial reason’s why this concept falls over. It has been mentioned by Adrian earlier, the costs to convert the F1 cars to be aerodynamically efficient on an oval would mean almost a second car being created, and in a time that F1 needs to cut costs that poses a bit of a conflict.
Secondly, I think it would do nothing to enhance F1’s reputation in North America. If what you are looking for is global acceptance of F1 as being the best and most challenging form of racing then we are pretty much there, the only people that tend not to buy in to this is the American’s who has been brought up with Oval racing all their lives. Now if F1 were to attempt to copy Oval racing by just dipping it’s toe in the water with one or two races, it would be dilutting it’s unique brand strength, because F1 on Ovals would just not be American oval racing to the North American Public, therefore giving the American’s another reason to critise F1. I believe if you cannot do anything extremely well then don’t do it, as someone else will, and the American’s have Oval racing nailed, right the way down to the way they broadcast the race to the public to the mass amount of access to the sport they open up to everyone.
I enjoy Oval racing occasionally, some races are exciting at the end, mainly due to the long caution periods that bunch the cars up. But I feel it is very dangerous and would not want to see any more crashes that we currently already have in F1.
25th February 2009, 12:02
Some people are stating that the cars swap positions too much, making the outcome almost random. I’ll be honest, a few years back I used to view oval racing in much the same way. But after following it for a while I came to really appreciate its virtues.
One of the joys of oval racing is the strategy, knowing when to push and move forward and when to hold back, save fuel and the car by running in other car’s slipstreams. Its a bit like a Tour de France rider knowing when to make a break from the peleton and go for a stage win, I suppose. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be absolutely [i]fascinated[/i] to see how the current crop of F1 talent coped with this challenge.
I’m sure the race would churn up some unusual results, playing to different strengths of cars and drivers, which is always a bonus for motorsport spectators.
25th February 2009, 12:21
Keith – Here is an interesting argument about overtaking from SpeedTV – Interestingly Peter Windsor here argues for F1 and not Indycar
26th February 2009, 0:15
i wish that discussion went on for another 10 minutes. both windsor and waltrip make strong arguments. obviously, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
25th February 2009, 12:46
Back in the 60s they used to do a 1000km Monza sportscar race using the FULL circuit – i.e., one lap of the ‘normal’ Monza circuit, then one lap of the oval & so on. I’d pay good money to see modern F1 cars attempt that!
25th February 2009, 12:54
I think F1 should race on 1 oval and that’s Indy. We go back to when the Indy 500 was part of F1. However, given the IRL use the Indy 500 I’d settle for a 2nd 500 for F1. You can’t expect a miracle and have a giant mixed field of cars for the Indy 500 as much as some of us would like to see it.
The problems with F1 on an oval:
Now as Keith points out the F1 cars would need to be built to withstand a crash test on an oval, but given the strength of a F1 car this should not be a problem.
Re-passing slipstream racing:
The main point most of you have raised is to do with the endless passing and re-passing. Nascar didn’t used to be like this until they had to introduce restrictor plates for the super speedways, as the cars were getting too fast. Pre restrictor plate racing was IMHO much better as the really quick drivers could break away from the pack. If F1 can run on an oval without restrictor plates, then you would not get a bunched field.
Re-fuelling and race distance:
The main problem would be designing a car that could run on an oval without having to refuel as refuelling will be banned soon. If that’s the case, you’d probably find that the race would be too short and this is the only drawback to the plan.
25th February 2009, 13:00
No no no no no no no no no no no please no. I would rather have F1 cars race underwater than on an oval.
25th February 2009, 13:02
F1 fans moaning about the possibility of too much overtaking?! I thought I’d never see the day.
I’d like to see one race a year on an oval circuit, probably Indy, just to see what would happen.
25th February 2009, 13:10
Terrible idea. I used to watch the Champ Cars back in the day, and would happily watch a full race from a road course, but only the highlights from an oval (and even then I’d make sure I had something else to do at the same time).
F1 can race on an oval as soon as they’ve raced around Road America.
25th February 2009, 13:33
Here, Here! Awesome track!
25th February 2009, 13:21
About a race being ‘too short’ if it wasn’t possible to refuel the