On the Right Track
A NASCAR BLOG BY Jeff Gluck
Chicagoland not a cookie-cutter track
JOLIET, Ill. – The first thing I told pace car driver Brett Bodine when I got in the car for a spin around the speedway was that I thought Chicagoland Speedway was a cookie-cutter track and wondered if I was right or wrong.
"You're wrong," he said. "It's not a cookie-cutter."
Then he showed me why.
On TV, it's hard to see where Chicagoland is any different from Kansas, or even Texas, Las Vegas or Charlotte. The differences seem so subtle between the 1.5-mile tracks – certainly not pronounced like the difference between Homestead and Bristol.
But Bodine said lumping all the tracks together - even Chicagoland and Kansas – and calling them cookie-cutter tracks is a misnomer.
We did three laps around Chicagoland and Bodine was right – it is unique.
First of all, the backstretch is not a backstretch – it's a slight curve all the way around, so drivers are actually never going straight at Chicagoland.
Second, the trioval is much more pronounced than a place like Charlotte, and it's such a sharp turn that it almost acts as Turn 5. I found that part slightly bizarre.
Third, because of the harsh winters, the track is aging very quickly. Bodine said it will eventually be like the track in Atlanta with tire wear, but will offer drivers multiple grooves to use.
"All those things, with the 18 degrees of banking and the transitions, make this the perfect mile-and-a-half layout, in my mind," Bodine said.
Pit road was also surprisingly difficult to get onto without blowing the speed limit (45 mph here). In fact, Bodine missed it by about 20 mph, though I don't think he was really trying that hard.
Before I got out of the car, Bodine looked at me and said, in the manner of a good teacher: "You can't just call these tracks cookie-cutters. They're not all the same. That's like saying all 400-yard Par-Four holes are the same, or all 7,000-yard golf courses are the same. They're not."
I learned something today.
Jeff Gluck
.jpg)
Jeff Gluck has covered NASCAR since 2004. He has worked for NASCAR Scene as an associate editor since 2007.
Poll PositionView All
How should NASCAR penalize Carl Edwards?
Promotions
-
Tweet your thoughts about each race and join the conversation with other fans.
-
Drive an authentic NASCAR Sprint Cup car at the NASCAR Racing Experience.
Comments
7 responses to "Chicagoland not a cookie-cutter track ". Post a Comment.
lanette-w-info said:
Jul 11, 2009 at 3:09 PMJeff, you should have learned that a long time ago instead of falling in lock-step with all the other uninformed who insist on calling the tracks 'cookie cutter.' Fans and media should take the time to learn instead of following the uneducated en masse.
cmwel2000 said:
Jul 11, 2009 at 8:01 PMnone of the tracks are the same but the real conversation to have is why do these track builders insist on building D shaped ovals. they do not produce good racing for stock cars. they sit back and see bristol/richmond/martinsville sell out endlessly, yet they build tracks like fontana, vegas, chicago, texas, and so on. why? its boring racing.
sundaemunny said:
Jul 12, 2009 at 11:24 AMWhat is cookie cutter about several tracks is the fact that they were basically built to try to support both open wheel and stock cars. The type of racing that results tends to be exactly the same. One car gets out front, the field spreads out, and cars are running around single file ad nauseum. While I'm sure there are different nuances to every track, it's the quality of the 'racing' that is 'cookie cutter', aided and abetted by the tracks design. In general, tracks that are good for close racing for stock cars, aren't for open wheel cars. The newer tracks, having so many similarities, tend to produce Nascar races that are drained of any exciting competition. Unless, of course, Nascar decides to throw enough 'debris' cautions to close the field back up before 2/3 of the field has been lapped.
sundaemunny said:
Jul 12, 2009 at 11:24 AMWhat is cookie cutter about several tracks is the fact that they were basically built to try to support both open wheel and stock cars. The type of racing that results tends to be exactly the same. One car gets out front, the field spreads out, and cars are running around single file ad nauseum. While I'm sure there are different nuances to every track, it's the quality of the 'racing' that is 'cookie cutter', aided and abetted by the tracks design. In general, tracks that are good for close racing for stock cars, aren't for open wheel cars. The newer tracks, having so many similarities, tend to produce Nascar races that are drained of any exciting competition. Unless, of course, Nascar decides to throw enough 'debris' cautions to close the field back up before 2/3 of the field has been lapped.
STP43FAN said:
Jul 13, 2009 at 1:19 PMCMWEL2000, The short tracks don't sell out constantly and are inferior racetracks to the intermediates - the short tracks are too small, narrow, and don't offer good racing. The problem with the racing on the intermediates is the cars are too fast, don't generate a drafting effect (and they should be doing so because the intermiedates are big enough for the draft to kick in), and don't have enough grip. Plate the cars from now on; they've got some issues dealt with with double-file restarts.
STP43FAN said:
Jul 13, 2009 at 1:25 PMCMWEL2000, The short tracks don't sell out constantly and are inferior racetracks to the intermediates - the short tracks are too small, narrow, and don't offer good racing. The problem with the racing on the intermediates is the cars are too fast, don't generate a drafting effect (and they should be doing so because the intermiedates are big enough for the draft to kick in), and don't have enough grip. Plate the cars from now on; they've got some issues dealt with with double-file restarts.
STP43FAN said:
Jul 13, 2009 at 1:26 PMSorry for the double-post.