track data vs. "published" track lengths?

[tom91ita]

interesting observation regarding track lengths vs. data system at:

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=15247&start=10

mid-ohio says the track is 2.4 or 2.25 miles long but one person's traqmate says the chicane only adds 74 feet.

anyone else note major differences between track length per "published" sources vs. their track data systems?

does 74 feet seem correct for mid-ohio?

tom

(plus this post gets rid of that stupid britney post being most recent)

[Daryl DeArman]

go to

www.gmap-pedometer.com

zoom in as close as you can (some areas will let you zoom in much closer than others)

hit "start recording" and click your way around the racing line to see the difference. Track measurements may be down the middle of the track.

I just checked-the Lexington Ohio area doesn't have images close enough for any use--sorry.

[lateapex911]

The loop only adds 75 feet? No way, thats clearly wrong, just by eyeballing it. I think track lengths are not derived from the racing line, but a center line.

[Gary L]

Based on an aerial photograph (Microsoft Virtual Earth) and scaling provided with same, I estimate the difference at around 100 feet, driven down the centerline(s). The traqmate difference of an additional 74 feet, using the racing line, is probably very close.

IMO, Mid-Ohio had an ulterior motive when they advertised the difference at 792 feet (.15 mile). Or they just screwed up... maybe by adding the length of the entire loop to the existing track length of 2.25 miles, instead of adding the difference? Not coincidentally, the length of the loop, from the point you depart the straightaway to the point you rejoin, appears to be roughly 750-800 feet in the aerial photo. :blink: