Ovals VS Road Courses

  • Thread starter Sam48
  • 726 comments
  • 42,472 views

Which would you like to see more of, ovals or road courses?


  • Total voters
    549
Well if we're going to include test ovals and what not, the Nardo Ring is the ultimate for top speed testing and it has the history to it. Millbrook oval/ring is just as pointless.
 
Well if we're going to include test ovals and what not, the Nardo Ring is the ultimate for top speed testing and it has the history to it. Millbrook oval/ring is just as pointless.

I guessed that the attraction to Millbrook would be the Alpine Test Course.

Nardo might make a suitable replacement for the Test Ring Oval though.
 
Millbrook Proving Ground? Its not really for racing, its purely a testing location. If you're going to start including places like that, surely the Nardo Ring is a must.

I just like the track a lot, that's all.
 
If you like that, check out Oulton Park and Cadwell Park 👍

Oulton is one of the BEST reasons why I don't really give a damn about getting "historic" tracks with lots of "prestige" in computer games.

I first saw Oulton Park in TOCA 3, I thought it was a great to drive round... so last year I went there for the first time to watch the BTCC, and it's a great track. You don't need big name tracks in computer games to give a good experience, and putting in lesser known tracks helps to expand peoples knowledge. (Sandown Park in Australia was another great TOCA 3 track IMO)
 
Oulton is one of the BEST reasons why I don't really give a damn about getting "historic" tracks with lots of "prestige" in computer games.

I first saw Oulton Park in TOCA 3, I thought it was a great to drive round... so last year I went there for the first time to watch the BTCC, and it's a great track. You don't need big name tracks in computer games to give a good experience, and putting in lesser known tracks helps to expand peoples knowledge. (Sandown Park in Australia was another great TOCA 3 track IMO)

Er, Oulton is a historic track with a fair bit of its own prestige.....not really sure why you don't like such tracks anyway (I can't think of many prestiguous tracks that are bad).
Ironically, I'm going to assume you're referring to tracks here that are boring for some reason (like lack of overtaking opportunities) that are put in games because of their prestige? Oulton isn't the best for overtaking ;) but its exciting for other reasons.
 
That's what someone was saying. That's it's a dump with no modern conveniences or anything like that but because it's silverstone, people flock to it like no other.
 
Whoever said that (no one in this thread) is quite the idiot. Sure, Silverstone isn't Old Trafford, but it doesn't need to be. The circuit layout, the facilities and the racing events are all world class, it just seems some people think "world class" means Abu Dhabi.

I imagine such people would also be as critcial of Spa-Francorchamps? Or Monza? Or Interlagos? None of these have spectacular facilities and infastructure either, doesn't mean they are "dog poop".
 
Okay.. Ardius, I should clarify.. sorry, but on the global scale that GT has, most people won't have heard of Oulton Park - Most will have heard of Silverstone. If you were to compare the two in historic value and prestige, which do you think would win?

I go to Silverstone regularly, I live 20 mins from the circuit, and lets just say I have a 'personal interest' in it. But, sorry, it is massively overly rated, of all the circuits in the UK I've been too it is the most over-rated, my point is, if the global scene was exposed to more UK based circuits than just Silverstone, they'd probably start to favour the less dull circuits, which is....errrrm, most of them.. From Knockhill to Angelssey to Thruxton to Snetterton, Silverstone is a long way from the best spectators or drivers circuit in the UK.

Ardius
Whoever said that (no one in this thread) is quite the idiot. Sure, Silverstone isn't Old Trafford, but it doesn't need to be. The circuit layout, the facilities and the racing events are all world class, it just seems some people think "world class" means Abu Dhabi.

I imagine such people would also be as critcial of Spa-Francorchamps? Or Monza? Or Interlagos? None of these have spectacular facilities and infastructure either, doesn't mean they are "dog poop".

I'm sure some people would think that the bright lights of Abu Dhabi does make it world class, but there's equally a bigger group that jumps on the "Because it's Silverstone" bandwagon (can you believe that was the circuits official tagline!!!!)... Spa is an interesting circuit, interlagos produces great races, Monza - I could take or leave, the only Monza race that I ever enjoyed was Vettel in the STR, in the rain... and actually last years V8Superstars race..

People get too caught up in Chavvy-wonderment of well known circuits.. even if they are 🤬
 
Last edited:
even if Silverstone was "dog poop" or the facilities were out of date I'd rather do 500 laps around Silverstone than 500 around an oval ;)

Personal opinion though.
 
I don't think game developers are choosing between places like Oulton and Silverstone at all though - its a by-product of popularity and recognition but not necessarily the reason they chose the tracks, they may not know others exist or do not have the time to model more interesting tracks from a specific country.

I'll agree that Silverstone is over-rated....but only as over-rated as any "world class" venue is. Its certainly not "dog poop" and it certainly has a place in racing games for me.
I have enjoyed it in many games and I enjoy the racing action it produces. This is all a circuit needs to do, at least in this context.

In my opinion Silverstone's layout has always been fine and the racing I have watched has always been enjoyable, nothing like "dull". Dull is Catalunya. Dull is Valencia Streets...
 
Why people says circles? Oval is not a circle

Technically every closed course is a "circle". If you get lost in the woods you dont have to follow a perfect circle to go in "circles". That's why I find the "'it's just going in circle" argument so rediculous, because all closed course racing is just going in circles. They idea there are a few right hand turns sprinkled into roadcourses does little to change the fact your just going in circles

What about this Hallered track for a test track. I cant find a length for it, but it looks pretty big and seems more suited as a GT test track as there is a straight for quarter mile times etc. Maybe it was the inspiration of GT's test course?

http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/8729

As for Oval racing being boring, well it may be to alot of people, but it packs in the crowds so something interesting must be happening

Worldwide Motor Racing Tracks Seating,

Oval = Red
Roadcourse = Blue

#1 - 250,000 - Indianapolis Motor Speedway
#2 - 200,000 - Shanghai International Circuit
#3 - 168,000 - Daytona International Speedway
#4 - 167,000 - Lowes Motor Speedway
#5 - 160,000 - Bristol Motor Speedway
#6 - 155,000 - Suzuka Circuit
#7 - 155,000 - Istanbul
#8 - 154,000 - Texas Motorspeedway
#9 - 150,000 - Nurburgring
#10 - 143,000 - Talladega Superspeedway
#11 - 142,000 - Las Vegas Motorspeedway
#12 - 140,000 - Dover International Speedway
#12 - 140,000 - Fuji Speedway
#14 - 137,000 - Michigan International Speedway
#15 - 130,000 - Sepang


Oval tracks occupy 26 of the top 62 tracks in terms of seating capacity, that was just the top 15

Pretty odd that that the relatively few ovals, when compared to the amount of roadcourses in the world, have such large seating capacity. True,
 
Last edited:
Seating capacity is again a rather void argument, of course an oval is going to have more seats!
Its rather difficult to setup stadia on terrain like Eau Rouge!

Not to mention you can build a track that has millions of seats, doesn't mean poeple are sitting on them! The perfect example is Shanghai! :lol:
 
Not to mention a lot of ovals have infield road courses, meaning that they can be classified as both.
 
Earth:
the best thing about some ovals (especially Bristol) is that you can see all the action from your seat, rather than just two corners worth.. it's like a stadium event.

Ardius:
All I can say is that watching is different from racing...
 
Seating capacity is again a rather void argument, of course an oval is going to have more seats!

So is the number of right hand turns.. road circuits have more of 'em but can still be boring as being dead.

Not that I wanted to bring up the thread topic again.
 
Seating capacity is again a rather void argument, of course an oval is going to have more seats!
Its rather difficult to setup stadia on terrain like Eau Rouge!

Not to mention you can build a track that has millions of seats, doesn't mean poeple are sitting on them! The perfect example is Shanghai! :lol:

That source also probably doesn't take in the fact that many folks will sit on the grass, in their chairs, or on a RV at a road course.
Example: The Daytona 500 has 168,000 spectators per the race (it's normally near sold out by race day).
The Le Mans 24 Hours has a usual record of 250,000 people per year despite their only being 9 official seating areas, all within the start/finish straight & following curves.

Thus, a better argument would be the number of ticket sales per event.
 
Last edited:
Seating capacity is again a rather void argument, of course an oval is going to have more seats!
Its rather difficult to setup stadia on terrain like Eau Rouge!

Not to mention you can build a track that has millions of seats, doesn't mean poeple are sitting on them! The perfect example is Shanghai! :lol:

If it's Bristol it does. I think there was a waiting list for tickets to races there a few years back.

Most any mile and a half track you can see everything from your seats. Even at Daytona, the reserved upper grandstand in the tri-oval, you see just about everything but low side, and the exit of turn two and the entrance to turn three. Of course you only see a gaggle of florescent colors and reflections down the super stretch...
 
LSX
Most any mile and a half track you can see everything from your seats. Even at Daytona, the reserved upper grandstand in the tri-oval, you see just about everything but low side, and the exit of turn two and the entrance to turn three. Of course you only see a gaggle of florescent colors and reflections down the super stretch...

Daaaaaaayyyyyummmm, sounds like car porn to me!
 
Seating capacity is again a rather void argument, of course an oval is going to have more seats!
Its rather difficult to setup stadia on terrain like Eau Rouge!

Not to mention you can build a track that has millions of seats, doesn't mean poeple are sitting on them! The perfect example is Shanghai! :lol:

According to what some have aid in this thread oval racing is garbage and road racing is many many times better, so shouldn't that mean the crowds should be many times bigger? True, it is more difficult to build seating around a roadcourse, but if they could would they fill up more then what they have now? According to how much better some say road racing is then oval racing you'd think the Nurburgring and Spa could fit 1,000,000 people if they could.

If your watching a car at Eau Rouge you have to wait 2+ minutes to see that same car again. At the same time your visibility of 90% of the track is blocked. People talk so much about the left and right turns of roadcourses yet they dont mention how most of the stands and spectators are situated on a straightaway. However thats not a problem on a oval as laptimes are usually around 30 seconds so your constantly seeing the cars and you have great visibility of most of the track.

Until recently with the economy every NASCAR oval was packed

Joey D
Not to mention a lot of ovals have infield road courses, meaning that they can be classified as both.

Of the ovals in the top 15 I listed none of them have a roadcourse that attracts any type of crowd , except for Daytona's 24 hrroadcourse, but the crowd there stays in the infield and the stadium seating is empty.

MatskiMonk
Earth:
the best thing about some ovals (especially Bristol) is that you can see all the action from your seat, rather than just two corners worth.. it's like a stadium event.

168,000 setting guiness world record for the wave

 
Of the ovals in the top 15 I listed none of them have a roadcourse that attracts any type of crowd , except for Daytona's 24 hrroadcourse, but the crowd there stays in the infield and the stadium seating is empty.

That still doesn't make them any less of a road course now does it? I was pointing our your classification isn't exactly accurate since a lot of ovals double as road courses.

And actually right there would be a good compromise with GT's tracks, do some ovals but give players the options to use the infield as well.
 
According to what some have aid in this thread oval racing is garbage and road racing is many many times better, so shouldn't that mean the crowds should be many times bigger? True, it is more difficult to build seating around a roadcourse, but if they could would they fill up more then what they have now? According to how much better some say road racing is then oval racing you'd think the Nurburgring and Spa could fit 1,000,000 people if they could.

If your watching a car at Eau Rouge you have to wait 2+ minutes to see that same car again. At the same time your visibility of 90% of the track is blocked. People talk so much about the left and right turns of roadcourses yet they dont mention how most of the stands and spectators are situated on a straightaway. However thats not a problem on a oval as laptimes are usually around 30 seconds so your constantly seeing the cars and you have great visibility of most of the track.

I was not arguing against you that ovals are boring - I was simply pointing out that your argument was flawed.
You also miss my main point with that whole seating thing, much of circuit racing is watched from standing, sitting on grass, sitting at the top of hills, sitting on bridges, sitting on old pieces of circuit....on so on (this is also what I was referring to when talking about Silverstone not really having horrible facilities, it has its green grass like everywhere else :P). But also you can build thousands of seats at a circuit, doesn't mean its necessarily a popular track. Like I said, Shanghai and Istanbul are the best examples, thousands of seats and no one there, really popular, eh?
Ovals are natural stadiums, but more importantly, I don't think its as easy to stand at the side of the track and watch, its better if you're in tiered seating like that so you can see more.
Its basically just a different style of spectating, both have the strengths and weaknesses, I don't think Oval racing is particularly better just because I can see the whole track.

You want to use ticket sales or, even better, tv ratings if you're going to start arguing popularity. But I really don't see the point, popularity doesn't prove quality and those that think oval racing is rubbish are probably not going to be simply convinced like that.

Ardius:
All I can say is that watching is different from racing...

Yes indeed, but what are we really talking about here? Playing the track in a game or rating it in real life? Because I was always assuming we were arguing the former, not the latter ;)
dave_sz mentioned the facilities being rubbish, which I disagree with considering other circuits, and you appeared to be disliking the real racing action it produces.
Neither of which impact the circuit in a game so much, the racing action though I think is there, I watched the Renault Clio Cup, Formula Renault and BTCC last year on TV and there was plenty. But in any case, the track really comes into its own when you drive it. Becketts and Maggotts is so very much fun in any car on any game. I love the whole layout, it really flows well for me at least.
 
Last edited:
Ardius- "I don't think its as easy to stand at the side of the track and watch."
No you can't stand by the fence and watch Nascar races, I can't vouch for IRL. The workers will move you back from the fence, but people mob the fence at the start finish sometimes. You can however, walk slowly close to the fence, allll the way down the track, and as long as you are attempting to move, they don't bother you. Last year at the Bud Shootout in Daytona, they could not possibly have move us all away from the fence, besides they are usually watching themselves at that point. :lol: No one sits down at a Nascar race anyhow. Unless it goes green for way too long. But in my experience, seats are more for holding your beer.
 
That source also probably doesn't take in the fact that many folks will sit on the grass, in their chairs, or on a RV at a road course.
Example: The Daytona 500 has 168,000 spectators per the race (it's normally near sold out by race day).
The Le Mans 24 Hours has a usual record of 250,000 people per year despite their only being 9 official seating areas, all within the start/finish straight & following curves.

Thus, a better argument would be the number of ticket sales per event.

A large amount of people sit in the infield during the oval races as well.

 
Back