Is NASCAR hurting itself moving away from the Historic Tracks?

[tnpartsguy]

Has NASCAR hurt itself moving away from the older, historic Tracks, such as Rockingham in the last few years?10+ years ago it moved away from the old Nashville Fairgrounds Speedway, and that didn't seem to hurt at all, unless you were DW. I just don't care for moving away from the Rock, and Darlington to CA, or NY, or WA. I just feel like as they dilute the racing to try to make it cover the entire country, they are forgetting those great towns and tracks that made them in the 1st place. NASCAR moving away from North Wilksboro has almost killed that town off. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-n...7.htm

[kostby]

EDIT: I just noticed the date on your article link about North Wilkesboro was 1996! Doesn't change my answer though.I voted 'MAYBE'...Does it dilute some of the 'magic' and remove some of the most challenging (and perhaps most dangerous) venues from the schedule? ABSOLUTELY.So, should NASCAR: 1) Cater to this existing fan base who (even though extremely p*ssed-off) will probably NOT STOP being NASCAR fans, or 2) Break into new, relatively untapped markets and expand the fan and advertiser base by moving some dates to new(er) racetracks. If I lived within an hour of one of the historic 'abandoned' tracks, I'd certainly be AGAINST the change! Honestly, NASCAR's decision hurts primarily THOSE DIEHARD FANS who 1) grew up in the south and 2) who live within driving distance of the 'historic' tracks and 3) have been loyal fans forever. All 500,000 of them, by my "w.a.g." estimate.For NASCAR management and multi-car teams, it's an economic no-brainer: 1) Go to a new, relatively smooth modern relatively safe track with great garages and lots of fan parking in a relatively un-tapped market (e.g. Chicago, Kansas) with 100,000 seats, maybe 20% of them still available for walk-up ticket purchase on race day, or2) Go to an historic track probably in need of major resurfacing, garage, parking, and facilities renovation with 50,000 sold-out seats that you have to inherit tickets for in order to see a race.It's not much of an issue for a casual NASCAR fan like me. I can see excellent TV coverage of 85% of NASCAR races on FOX and NBC, with the remainder of the schedule on FX and TNT cable.Although I live within 30 minutes of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, I have yet to purchase Brickyard 400 race tickets for any of the 10 prior races, primarily because the TV coverage is good, and I don't relish fighting the traffic to & from the track and sitting outside for six hours in 90 degree August sun, because the best seats I could afford would be bleachers. I go to the Brickyard 400 practice & qualifying ONLY. I also go to the Craftsman Truck race at Indianapolis Raceway Park during 'NASCAR week' in August.EDIT 2: Fascinating! I did a Google search on Bob Bahre, owner of New Hampshire International Speedway (NHIS), and one of the purchasers of the North Wilkesboro track who was mentioned in tnpartsguy's original story link. It seems Bob had two NASCAR Grand National dates at the old Oxford Plains Speedway in the pre-modern era (before 1971). Those dates disappeared when it became Winston Cup. Bob vowed to return NASCAR racing to the northeast, 'someday'. With the purchase of North Wilkesboro and moving those race dates elsewhere (NHIS), he accomplished his mission, some 25 years later! Link to 2003 story -->http://www.thevintageracer.com/articles/jk002.htm

[Kari]

Those new tracks aren't always better or safer though. When they first built Texas, it was viewed as a death trap by some because there were so many problems with the track surface retaining moisture.The reason I voted "Yes" is because I like short tracks and I think there needs to be some variety in the track designs, because that's the true test of a driver's skill is his ability to adapt to multiple types of tracks. They eliminated North Wilkesboro, a short track, and added a second date to Texas, the first of the "cookie cutter" tracks that all look and seem the same, including Chicagoland, California Speedway, etc. etc.Now, if somebody would build a short track in one of those "untapped markets," I'd be all for it. I'm not against NASCAR branching out into new areas and making fans out of those who once thought it was a redneck, southern, good ol' boy sport. They just need some more variety. And a short track is way more exciting than a 1.5 mi oval anyday, much less one that's just like 3 or 4 other tracks on the circuit. Just ask any of the 120,000+ people who go to Bristol twice a year. One schedule change that really irked me was dropping the Southern 500 at Darlington. I don't understand why they didn't drop the spring date instead, because there was a whole lot more history wrapped up in the Southern 500 at the "track too tough to tame." I'm happy that one of my favorite drivers won the last one, but upset that it had to be the last one.

[tnpartsguy]

The problem with short track is seating. I love Bristol, but if they go up any higher, you're going to need emergency oxegen! I always sit in the Earnhardt Grandstand, and I couldn't imagine sitting any higher up. Plus the walk from parking to the track sucks.....Talledega on the other hand, has lots of closer parking, and lots of seating, plus the infield. That's why all they build now are Cookie-cutters, it's a proven (yet boring) venue.

[joholste]

I personally like the short tracks cuz i like to see the accidents ha ha ha