A recent letter to the editor of the Everett Herald by yours truely. Hoping for a road course! Published: Friday, November 5, 2004 Track will be good, if it's built correctly After following the many discussions both pro and con about the proposed NASCAR track north of Marysville, I have a comment to the designers and promoters of the track. A three-quarter-mile track isn't going to cut it. It isn't that much bigger than the track at Monroe. Granted, it would be bigger and faster, but considering the high cost of building the track and improving the surrounding roads, including a new freeway overpass, utility upgrades and the cost of environmental considerations, it would seem to me that the track would need to have the strongest draw possible for racing organizations and fans to make the project worthwhile. I feel the track should be at least a banked mile with an integrated road course that would utilize the infield as well part of the oval. The larger size of the track will allow better racing strategy and different race lines as opposed to the typical nose-to-tail freight train of short track which, personally, I find quite boring. This in itself makes for better competition and better racing for the spectator. The road course could bring in racers from all over the Northwest and Canada, further supporting operating costs and stimulating surrounding businesses. So, am I for the track? Let's say I'm not against it if it's done properly. If the developers are going to go at it with a resulting mediocre facility, then don't bother. I doubt it would be the success it could be and would result in being a burden to everyone involved. Dana J. Parks Arlington
DJ, Nice job! I too was a little shocked and dismayed that they were planning a "short track" and thought they were missing a huge opportunity for future racing growth. Maybe someone will listen....
I thinking it would be cool to have at least one of those high speed banked corners as part of a road course through out the infield.
I think nascar scks. What is the point of going around in circles. I mean where is the skill in that.
There is more skill in it than you think. Imagine trying to control an 800 HP car in a corner at 150 MPH (or there abouts) inches away from 4 or 5 other cars while withstanding 5 or 6 G's sideways. The G forces are so high that a driver cannot hold his head up in the corners and relies on a seat bolster to lean against. You are constantly pushing the car to the very edge of losing grip and slamming into the wall on every turn and trying to avoid the other car from putting you there as well. All these guys on the street showing their sh*t drifting in their Toyotas don't know crap about what it really takes to run a car at the ragged edge. Am I a fan of NASCAR? No, but I do have a respect for what these guys do. You can only hope to drive a fraction as well. My hopes of these developers to build a larger track is not so much in the interest of circle track (I like sprint cars better), it is in the hopes of having enough room left over for a ROAD COURSE. (The ulterior motive). I find NASCAR rather boring but I'll take long track versus short track any day. I would rather watch golf than short track..............................
DJ, I agree with you completely, but don't see it happening. Since I am a part time resident of Everett (gawd, don't ask me why), I will get the paper, next time I am up. Though I am not the biggest fan of Nascar, I feel the short tracks in WA and other smaller states are fun for the family and does require skills, unlike what the other poster said. I have spent about 2 years over at the track off exit 88A off I-5 in Rochester/Tenino area, and you can still find me there on a race night (sat usually). It is a lot of fun. Though I think a road course will be fun, the regulars, team owners, and drivers don't really want that (from what I see). These guys still dream of going into the big time someday, and they realize in the big time the road courses are limited. Unless the change comes from top, I don't think you will see a change in the local track structures. I could be wrong, as I often tend to be. However, good writing. One thing I disagree with you is about the drifters in the toyotas. Just like the other poster was incorrect in saying nascar requires no skill, I respectfully disagree that the drift drivers driving the AE86 corrollas don't know anything about driving. Drifting is very difficult. Maybe the talent level in WA is still growing, and thus you made that comment. Come down to CA one of these days, stay at my place, and I will take you out for a new reverance and respect for drifters. I live all motorized things, whether they are cars or bikes, and have equal respect for people who participate in them, whether it be nascar/f1 or wahtever. Different sports require different talents. In my book, they are equal, the love for motorsports is universal. Hope the NW is treating you fairly today. Good day. Your friend, Ryan
Ryan, My apologies about my comments on drifters. I do indeed realize the skill it takes to drift a car with consistancy and control. I retract my statement as being unfair to these talented drivers. Just trying to point out the elevated skill required to swap paint with another car at 150 plus and stay in control. Drifting wasn't invented by the Japenese or the ricer crowd. Look at some old Grand Prix movies and you will see drifting as the common way of cornering and style. Nothing new at all. Another point in defense of NASCAR drivers is watching them run these full bodied cars on a road course like Portland or Monterey. Watching these guys mix it up in the corners is like the movie Thunder Dome, "Two cars enter, one cars leaves". More like four cars enter and four cars leave heading in all different directions. At least when these cars touch each other they don't explode like an F1 car, and they keep racing balls out. Harkening back to the days of Transam.......................
