[Souporscotty]

I just saw this on another board; If you could do away with any track (or race), what would it be? Loudon comes to mind.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Souporscotty

I just saw this on another board; If you could do away with any track (or race), what would it be? Loudon comes to mind.

I'm hoping you are referring to a race versus the track itself. You're in my back yard now !!!!! Personally I don't care to see more than 1 race at any track

[Souporscotty]

I agree with the one race idea, but that might be kinda hard with races in Feb./Mar. and Oct./Nov.

[Mike24]

I agree. If NASCAR did this, some of the older tracks would have to come back to fill in some races, or NASCAR may build new tracks, but I would love to see some of the old tracks come back. I would do away with California, Rockingham did not deserve to lose a race to that track.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I'm hoping you are referring to a race versus the track itself. You're in my back yard now !!!!! Personally I don't care to see more than 1 race at any track

Hmmm.... How bout moving the labor day race away from California(which it never shouldv'e went ) and move it back where it belongs.... or give it to Kentucky, most preferably where it belongs.

[Lefturn]

I would get rid of Loudon and bring back Rockingham.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Souporscotty

I agree with the one race idea, but that might be kinda hard with races in Feb./Mar. and Oct./Nov.

One race is in mid summer and the other is in Sept. The Sept one has never been a problem. In 2001 it was delayed due to 9/11 and was run in Oct or Nov. There was threats of snow but it still went off OK. I'm agreeable to giving up Sept. race. I don't know about the owners of th etrack but I'm sure they'll be OK with my choice !!!

[oncea3fan]

I'd take away a race from loudon and pocono.
loudon just seems to be a boring race, they should have reconfigured to 3/4 banked track when they had the chance.

pocono races are to close together and can also be a boring race.

now I know anytrack can produce a boring racing, but these two seem to do it more often.

just my opinion!

[LSC9901]

I do agree with the Pocono assessment. I'm not a big fan of the 2 1/2 mile tracks. At least not with the restrictor plates. The accidents are a sight to behold but just about everything inbetween the accidents is a real sleeper .... generally.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Mike24

. I would do away with California, Rockingham did not deserve to lose a race to that track.

I agree on California. It was a more interesting site when it was still a deserted steel mill.

Rockingham... The racing at Rockingham was definitely better. No comparison, as a matter of fact. However, NASCAR set Rockingham up to fail completely. It scheduled the first race the week after Daytona, usually the last week in February. It was usually around 40 degrees with a 10 knot plus wind blowing from the east. Can you say COLD?
The second race was scheduled usually the last of October, which also can get pretty chilly.

So, people just wouldn't make plans to attend the race even when the weather was good. I remember the last race they held there in February of '04. It was a warm, picture-perfect day and the stands were about half full.

NA$CAR killed Rockingham in order to justify a race at California. I think they killed the place as surely as if they'd put a gun to its head and shot it.

[BringBackWilkesboro]

I'd pull a Pocono race and umm... Bring Back Wilkesboro! A more realistic replacement would be Kentucky. I'd also like to see the cup guys at Mesa Marin or South Boston.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

NA$CAR killed Rockingham in order to justify a race at California. I think they killed the place as surely as if they'd put a gun to its head and shot it.

Yeah... justify a race track that still has not produced a sell out. BULLFEATHERS!