Chase, this is precisely why, for short tracks, I picked the ones I did. Given the current state of the cars, I don't believe (and I say this as a person who specializes in fluid physics) that SAFER barriers are absolutely necessary. Gateway and the road courses are already at the necessary level. It's the amenities that need help, as you said the WiFi, bathrooms, etc. That's where NASCAR needs to make a multi-year binding deal with these tracks to have a race and give the tracks some kind of help in making such improvements. NASCAR needs to be willing to give its tracks a helping hand. Is BZF really going to die if his paycheck decreases from $250,000,000 to $150,000,000? If he really cares about the sport, he won't.
I think pitching a zero-based approach to setting NASCAR tracks and schedules is fun for sites like this and bench racing. But the realities are far more complex than most are willing to accept. I'm not trying to be a shill for NASCAR, SMI, ISC, the TV networks, etc., but it isn't easy at all to on-board a new facility or trim a race from an existing one.
Economically, race teams seem to operate on an insatiable need for operating expenses - primarily people and engines. Yes, they buy equipment, haulers, steel, etc. But what they really need is access to more engineers, talented but expensive drivers, and fast and durable engines.
Race tracks, however, are far more capital intensive. It takes cubic dollars to build and later upgrade facilities. Revenue - and more critically PROFITS - are needed to help fund the debt generally incurred up front to build tracks and their upgrades. SMI and ISC are now publicly traded companies whose investors are expecting a sustained return on their purchase of stock and bonds. Cut revenue/profits/cash flow - and their market price sinks. That reduces opportunities for additional borrowing and track upgrades.
For tracks NOT currently on NASCAR's Cup schedule, many tracks don't yet have expected and current features such as SAFER barriers, adequate garage space, media centers, WiFi, concessions and bathrooms, fencing, etc. The costs to add all of that and more are often a non-starter. Independently owned tracks don't have the borrowing capacity to make those kinds of investments. Even if they did, they won't do so unless they get a multi-year race commitment from NASCAR to ensure they'll recoup enough profits to pay for those upfront costs.
With the current State of the Nation for all forms of US racing (can't speak to F1 / international scene), I don't expect to see any new tracks or significant modifications made to non-Cup or non-Indy tracks over the next 10 years. Consequently, the tracks we now have for both sanctioning bodies are likely the same tracks we'll have in 2027. If anything, a couple of tracks will fold vs. new ones being added.
When I think of Childress and The Phoenix, I'm more inclined to think of Earnhardt's "rising of the bird" after Jeremy Mayfield got the best of him at Pocono in 2000.
