COTA Austin - construction and infrastructure

[doink]

Rather than spend all this cash to develop a new track, why isn't an existing track upgraded? Surely there must be some decent non-oval tracks that can be upgraded.

That said, even if the American public don't take to it, BE will still insist on flogging it to death. See Turkey for a prime example.

[Ray]

Rather than spend all this cash to develop a new track, why isn't an existing track upgraded? Surely there must be some decent non-oval tracks that can be upgraded.

That said, even if the American public don't take to it, BE will still insist on flogging it to death. See Turkey for a prime example.

Most of them are away from glitz and glam that Formula 1, for some horrendously stupid reason, requires. Road America would be a fantastic track, but it's in the middle of nowhere. Laguna Seca is another, I don't see why that one won't work either. Watkins Glen probably wouldn't be a bad idea either but it's not up to standard either. I can think of no other track but RA that I'd like to see F1 cars scream around. It's all high speed and gutsy driving there. But it'll never happen.

Bernie wants government money, and this is a good way to get it. He's all about squeezing ridiculous amounts of money out of organizers for a 4-5 day event that's held once a year and for some reason he thinks every country has vast amounts of oil money spend. I can't understand why anyone would do business with him.

[hairy_scotsman]

OK then. Which one of you is going to spend the money for these upgrades?

If not you, then where are the respective track owners going to get the money, if they indeed even desire such upgrades?

You make it all seem so much simpler than it really is. F1 isn't going to pay to build a track or to upgrade one, so it's not like Bernie can just sit back and say "OK Road America" or "OK Laguna Seca, time for you to check off this list of the necessary upgrades, because we're ready to race there". It just does not work that way.

[scuderiafan]

Rather than spend all this cash to develop a new track, why isn't an existing track upgraded? Surely there must be some decent non-oval tracks that can be upgraded.

That said, even if the American public don't take to it, BE will still insist on flogging it to death. See Turkey for a prime example.

Most of them are away from glitz and glam that Formula 1, for some horrendously stupid reason, requires. Road America would be a fantastic track, but it's in the middle of nowhere. Laguna Seca is another, I don't see why that one won't work either. Watkins Glen probably wouldn't be a bad idea either but it's not up to standard either. I can think of no other track but RA that I'd like to see F1 cars scream around. It's all high speed and gutsy driving there. But it'll never happen.

Bernie wants government money, and this is a good way to get it. He's all about squeezing ridiculous amounts of money out of organizers for a 4-5 day event that's held once a year and for some reason he thinks every country has vast amounts of oil money spend. I can't understand why anyone would do business with him.

That's what I thought, but a race at Long Beach would be suitable in the whole "glamour" category. Not sure about safety and everything else.

[Richard]

it's not like Bernie can just sit back and say "OK Road America" or "OK Laguna Seca, time for you to check off this list of the necessary upgrades, because we're ready to race there". It just does not work that way.

That's pretty close to how it does work. Bernie sits back and says "anyone who can meet these technical and financial criteria can have an F1 race"

As it happens, Austin was quicker to rise to the challenge that other locations.

[strad]

Because people would rather spend 200 million and get some place shiney and new than spend 100 million to upgrade someplace tried and true.

[Richard]

I suspect existing circuits are less willing to gamble their heirlooms for F1 compared to a promoter conjouring up finance deals based using someone else's money. That was the problem at Silverstone, Bernie wanted them to gamble more than would have been responsible for an existing business, while the promoter at Donnington gambled because he had nothing to lose.

Also, it takes a larger than life personality to land an F1 deal, and they probably don't get on with the management at long standing circuits.

[xpensive]

It's not like people haven't lost a ton of money on Formula 1 circuits in the past.

This is a white elephant.

FOM and MrE's whole idea is drive circuits near bancruptcy, unless they can suck money from the government, which is why I don't believe in this t all.

OK, other than your beliefs, on what grounds do you think this will fail?

I'm not offering an opinion either way, I'd just like to see the basis of your argument.

Because whenever Tilke designs new track, typically in the middle east, the total costs for the race becomes outrageous.

I doubt if the cost will be less in the Lone star state, while I doubt if their government is as generous as in Dubai?

[Richard]

I don't see how Tilke is relevant to that? Surely the outrageous costs are predominantly a function of Bernie rather than whoever happens to do the construction drawings?

Anyway, to get to your main point ... The deal with Bernie is now fixed, the funders say they have viable finances, the state have agreed the $25m aid, the cost of construction will be pretty much certain now. So where is the big risk?

[WhiteBlue]

... whenever Tilke designs new track, typically in the middle east, the total costs for the race becomes outrageous.

Another typical Tilke bashing. How often do we need to point out that the modern F1 track designer has very little influence on the way the track is build. The FiA, FOM and the owners issue him with a bunch of requirements and there are usually very few things that the designer can do to make a track more or less exciting, fast or expensive. The owners decide the piece of real estate the circuit is build on and that has many consequences from existence or lack of elevation changes to the corners and run offs of a street circuit. Naturally such circumstances and the depth of the owner's pockets have a far greater influence on the nature and cost of the track than design decisions.

You just have to look at Istanbul park and Valencia to recognize that fact. Istanbul is probably one of Tilke's finest tracks and it did not even cost an awful lot. Valencia was surely a lot more expensive and everybody hates it. I bet another designer would have probably come up with the same or very similar design for Valencia as Tilke has. There is simply not enough degree of freedom to play with. The area is bland and unimaginative. If you compare the venue to a place like Singapore you will probably find that the cost was similar but Singapore has character in tons compared with Valencia and they embraced the concept of night racing with a vengeance. The designers made some blunders in Singapore as well. The pit entrance and exit were very poorly designed and had to be changed. By comparison Valencia had no safety problems at all. The criticism is mainly based on the fact that it is simply unsuitable as a venue and produces boring races.

[xpensive]

Oh, I forgot that Tilke is German, isn't he?

20 MUSD in support to build a modern F1 track, that will of course be a enormous help, surely pays for grandstands, access roads, parking lot and all the other facilities of a modern F1 track, try 200 millions for starters.

Believe my, this is not serious a all.

[WhiteBlue]

The METF money is estimated at $250m over the period of 10 years. Naturally it will be less now that the race was awarded for a shorter period. It should still be a considerable sum of money and the justification is convincing.

[xpensive]

250 MUSD, that's supposed to cover for a brand new track and ten races?

Happy amateurs, reminds me of the F1 "team" someone dreamed up in Charlotte?

[hairy_scotsman]

... whenever Tilke designs new track, typically in the middle east, the total costs for the race becomes outrageous.

Another typical Tilke bashing. How often do we need to point out that the modern F1 track designer has very little influence on the way the track is build. The FiA, FOM and the owners issue him with a bunch of requirements and there are usually very few things that the designer can do to make a track more or less exciting, fast or expensive. The owners decide the piece of real estate the circuit is build on and that has many consequences from existence or lack of elevation changes to the corners and run offs of a street circuit. Naturally such circumstances and the depth of the owner's pockets have a far greater influence on the nature and cost of the track than design decisions.

You just have to look at Istanbul park and Valencia to recognize that fact. Istanbul is probably one of Tilke's finest tracks and it did not even cost an awful lot. Valencia was surely a lot more expensive and everybody hates it. I bet another designer would have probably come up with the same or very similar design for Valencia as Tilke has. There is simply not enough degree of freedom to play with. The area is bland and unimaginative. If you compare the venue to a place like Singapore you will probably find that the cost was similar but Singapore has character in tons compared with Valencia and they embraced the concept of night racing with a vengeance. The designers made some blunders in Singapore as well. The pit entrance and exit were very poorly designed and had to be changed. By comparison Valencia had no safety problems at all. The criticism is mainly based on the fact that it is simply unsuitable as a venue and produces boring races.

Exactly.

People seem to think Tilke has a blank canvas on which to design his tracks, when in actuality nothing could be further from the truth. Think of him as more architect than designer. If you were going to build a house, you'd probably have a basic design in mind and a piece of land that might limit you in ways. You still need an experienced architect to take care of all the small details.

Hellmund designed this circuit, with help from Kevin Schwantz. Tilke is filling in the details.

[WhiteBlue]

250 MUSD, that's supposed to cover for a brand new track and ten races?

Happy amateurs, reminds me of the F1 "team" someone dreamed up in Charlotte?

The METF money was never meant to cover the total investment. It was intended to give up additional tax revenues directly generated by the F1 race. $250m is an impressive contribution when you face total bills of $750m over ten years. If you add revenues from three to six races per year and other activities you can imagine that the total investment could be paid back over ten years time. It is not inconceivable that they will make $50m a year when the thing is running at full capacity. The plan for Austin is to be bigger than Silverstone. How will it look if they have F1, MotoGP, V8 super cars, ALMS, IRL and NASCAR? If the circuit turns out nice there is no reason why they should not attract 600,000 visitors per year. The average ticket would be $80 with F1 probably twice that amount.