>Is it possible to have an asphalt surface durable to support Nationals?
You bet.
> I know there are a lot of asphalt race tracks out there so I would assume
it is,
Makes sense.
> but tight, low-speed turns,
Where is the evidence that low-speed turns are more destructive to pavement
than high-speed turns?
I contend that the high-speed turns on a race track lead a tougher life than
low-speed turns on a flat surface. Race tracks are often banked. I know BIR
is. Also, the cars often have aerodynamic downforce which can add quite a bit
of pressure at higher speeds. I think I read that F1 cars can generate 4 gees
or so. AM cars cannot do that at Solo2 speeds.
> with so many cars varying by just a couple of feet might be pretty tough on
it.
By how much do you expect professional race-car drivers to depart from the ideal
line at a road-racing track?
Autocross lots have different courses on them over their lifetimes, putting
the wear points in different places.
>And in terms of expense, would it be cheaper to build an asphalt surface that
>could stand up to this, or would concrete ultimately be more cost effective?
The concrete industry tries to convince us that concrete is cheaper for highways
than asphalt. In order to do this, they know must claim that concrete highways
last for 50 years without maintenance. Been on any 50-year-old original
concrete
highways lately? How was the ride?
Seriously, race tracks are usually asphalt. The owners were not interested
in throwing money away, so they presumably thought about future costs.
Phil Ethier
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
|