F1's Chicago Plans: Another Street Track That Could Eliminate An Iconic Venue

F1-Street-Tracks-Trend-1024x576.jpg
Shortly after announcing the move from Catalunya to Madrid, rumors of another F1 street track joining the calendar are circulating. The possible Chicago circuit could spell bad news for real-life Formula One fans as well as for the EA Sports game series.

Image credit: Getty Images / Red Bull Content Pool

There are certain icons in any sport that are simply immovable objects, and racing is no different. Sometimes, there are even multiple examples. IndyCar’s crown jewel races include the Indy 500, Long Beach and Road America. NASCAR would be unthinkable without Daytona, Talladega or Charlotte. The same goes for the World Rally Championship and Rally Finland or Rally Monte Carlo.

Formula One has more than one of these icons, too. There is the undisputed trademark at Monaco, although the races themselves tend to be rather uninspiring these days. The Italian Grand Prix at Monza is almost as legendary. Silverstone has a comparable status for the British Grand Prix. And who could forget the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps on their list of the F1 Icons Trifecta?

F1 Street Tracks: Chicago Could Be Next​

Well, it would seem that the latter might not be around too much longer. Rumors of this are nothing new, but Spa has reportedly inked a deal to host F1 until 2025. The classic Ardennes circuit is a favorite of both drivers and fans, being extremely challenging and spectacular at the same time.

However, shortly after the news of a Madrid street circuit replacing Barcelona-Catalunya as the Spanish Grand Prix venue was met with little enthusiasm from fans, the next track of this kind seems to be waiting in the wings. Reportedly, F1 is flirting with the idea of hosting yet another street race, this time in Chicago. This would make it the fourth Grand Prix in the United States, should the current US races at COTA, Miami and Las Vegas stay on the calendar.

As the schedule is already near the limit of what is possible at 24 races, another event being on the chopping block would seem likely. As Spa only received one-year contract extensions in recent years, it could be a candidate to meet said chopping block.


F1 Street Tracks In The US: Not The First Foray​

This, in turn, would mean that once this change takes place, the official F1 game would lose a classic circuit. In its place would be yet another modern street track. Looking towards 2026, there would be six of these that joined the calendar since Liberty Media took over the reigns.

Of course, F1 is a business first and foremost, and pretending it is too focused on money only since Liberty Media came in would simply be ignorant. It has always been a sport for those with big bank accounts, and it is not even the first time there were multiple street circuits in the US. In fact, the 1984 season even had two consecutive Stateside street races, with the Dallas Grand Prix following the Detroit Grand Prix in the middle of the year.

Multiple Alternatives​

What makes this current street circuit craze so frustrating from a racing fan’s perspective, however, is that there are so many circuits out there that would be worthy of hosting a GP. Sure, it may be idealistic, but venues such as Mugello, Portimão, Hockenheim or the Nürburgring would be much more popular in many fans’ book.

In fact, when Red Bull brought multiple older F1 cars to the Red Bull Formula event happening alongside the NLS 12 Hours in September 2023, the ‘Ring was absolutely packed with fans – even more so than for the actual endurance race that weekend.

Red-Bull-Formula-Nurburgring-2023-1024x683.jpg

Formula One cars still draw people to the Nürburgring, as Red Bull Formula Nürburgring 2023 impressively showed. Image credit: Philip Platzer / Red Bull Content Pool

Then you have the Kyalami Grand Prix circuit, which is still hoping to make its return after last hosting F1 in 1993. It would also be the only race held in Africa, the only continent not currently on the calendar. From 1967 to 1985, Kyalami was among the most popular races each season.

Plus, there is a certain irony in this quest for making Formula One an enormous deal in the United States. Four races, three on them on uninspired street circuits? Sure, no problem. But arguably the biggest name in US racing in Andretti, backed by one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world in General Motors? No, thank you, “we do not believe that the applicant would be a competitive participant.”

F1 Street Tracks: Show Over Racing?​

Should the trend indeed continue, it would be reflected in the EA Sports F1 series, too. Players would get to race at less iconic venues and more very similar street circuits. Newcomers in particular might miss out on great circuits in favor of tracks that are surely challenging and spectacular in some cases, but also sometimes appear to treat the racing aspect of the actual event as a bit of a side note. And that is not what the pinnacle of motorsport should be about, in the author’s humble opinion.

It is also not the case that street circuits are bad per se. Tracks like Adelaide (particularly in its longer layout used in 2000), Long Beach or, to add a more modern example, Baku show that the opposite is true. And even the new breed of street circuits may be fun to drive in games and sims - but them potentially coming in at the expense of a classic venue is a bitter pill to swallow.

Luckily, sim racers can create their own calendars in other titles quite easily. If you think 24 races are too many, you can run a championship on a smaller calendar just as well. Want to substitute a track or two? There is nothing stopping you from doing just that in Assetto Corsa or rFactor 2.

Not Everything Was Better "Back In My Day", Either​

Most F1 fans are not hardcore sim racers, though, so their main point of contact would be the official F1 game. The thought of a new generation growing up on these games and possibly not learning about the icons that made the sport what it is today is weird, to say the least.

I realize that this article may feel like “back in my day, everything was better”. That certainly is not the intention, even though F1 was much more appealing to me personally. Even in the much-revered V10 era, there were some headscratchers, like 2005’s rule that a tire set had to last for the full race or the road course configuration of Indianapolis from 2000 to 2007.

Everyone’s opinion is different, of course. Maybe you agree, maybe you think that the schedule and its development is fine as it is. Feel free to share your ideal F1 schedules in the comments or tell us your opinion on Twitter @OverTake_gg!
About author
Yannik Haustein
Lifelong motorsport enthusiast and sim racing aficionado, walking racing history encyclopedia.

Sim racing editor, streamer and one half of the SimRacing Buddies podcast (warning, German!).

Heel & Toe Gang 4 life :D

Comments

I don't want F1 going near Road America or the others, because they'd insist on butchering those tracks
That's a major issue with F1 and NASCARE, they cannot, or will not, race on a track they did not design. They want to tweak all tracks to make their cars look good; I'm more impressed when a series goes to a track and runs it as it is, adapting the car/setup/driver to it.


F1 cars aren't designed for ovals
A well designed car can run anywhere, just tweak the setup for it. More likely F1 is afraid they wont look good on ovals (when US series run in Europe they're banned from running on any tracks used by F1 ...I wonder why, lol).
 
F1 should invest in a new pen for rule making, claiming the F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport when the only tracks they can race on are billiard board smooth and with much the same corners is a bit silly, they should race at Sebring and Daytona and Monza et all, without the tracks being altered to accommodate them, if the cars break, then that's life, if they need to raise the ride height then so be it,
No inner city track is a green track as is just used once a year and that is in itself wasteful.

So cut the cr*p and race on circuits already in permanent existence, and race till it busts with the winner being the first to cross the line or being the last man standi... running to fall.
Only then can you claim the be the best of the best.
The problem is, "last man standing" doesn't work in the age of TV. We already learned that lesson with certain iterations of LMP675/LMP2.
 
I should point out that this is false. It's an open question how long this interest will last, but in 2022 the US grand prix was the best attended one. The audience for racing at the street tracks is also very much there: Miami got sold out almost instantly.

It is true. How many Americans were following the tour of France when Lance Armstrong was just another anonymous rider among many others, and how many Americans followed the tour of France while he was dominating?, and then how many fans kept watching the tour of France after he retired?. Tribalism isn't a new thing, Netherlands has a population of 17.6 million people, and has TV audiences of about 2.8 million per race, that makes look cute the audiences of an entire 335 million country.

Tracks are getting filled because this is what happens when a new track appears coinciding with a massive media campaign appealing to patriotism, FOMO, and lots of hype in a trendy sport. Miami and Vegas where vastly overhyped and people in europe didn't drink the cool aid, but US people took the bait and thought that europeans where gatekeeping because the hype got push-back.

The tracks filled because it was a novelty and people had fear to missing out, F1 has been hyped on US and it is trendy. For now. But at the end of the day F1 still keeps failing in the US, the US has a 335 million population and a viewership that is small even for vastly smaller countries in where F1 is popular.

After 3 or 4 years the hype is going to fall, they are going to get bored and another newer trendy and more shining thing is going to become popular, so only a minority is going to continue to show interest in the US after the hype passes.

If you want to keep Americans hooked for long, you need to give them a consistent winner, a driver career can extend for 15 years. 15 Years is quite a lot more years than what the current hype is going to last in the US. Midfield drivers and a team with no ambition isn't enough to keep them in the long run, and the novelty of new F1 tracks isn't sustainable in the long run once the hype passes.

My worst F1 fear is a top driver from any of this countries: US, India or China. Why?, gatekeeping, racism or any other ism?. No, it is simple: tribalism, audiences and mountains of money. If a driver of any of those nations start to win championships the audiences are going to increase so unprecedentedly vastly that it is going to dwarf the rest of the world and FOM and teams are going to want to keep that interest very dearly.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that the sport is going to pander to him and his nation like nothing ever seen before. They may go as far as to change regulations to fit that driver team, for that reason I fear it the most. Tribalism keeps an entire country eyes on the sport for the life time of that driver for as long as he keeps competitive, and if you spice it with some drama shenanigans and a good rivalry then the audiences explode even more when people are riled out.
 
Last edited:
Tired of these junk racetracks. 3, 4 or 5 races in the USA yet not a single track is good. COTA is bottom tier as well. Why no racing at Road America? Laguna Seca? There are so many options for tracks. Sure they need to be FIA grade 1 or what not.

As for the recent trend in sports of "let's go to the fans" instead of "let the fans come to us", we can see that it doesn't work. IndyCar in Nashville for example, too expensive for regular people and I live 45min away. NASCAR in Chicago was almost a disaster, NASCAR at the LA Colloseum with an amazing 75 fans in the stands, etc. Nobody wants that stuff.
Because F1 would insist on butchering a track like Road America.

I don't want that, and neither do you. So F1 can stay the hell away.
 
F1 on Sebring... that would need quite a lot of work.
And every car should use two wooden bottom plates for the weekend
The first part of the track is very narrow. the last part is racing on concrete slabs.

In general, they claim the sport is getting greener.
The cars use a few liters of fuel less, they slap a bigger battery on.

But in reality they are only using more recourses, but at other places.

Green is that when you build something it will last, not build bad 1 weekend tracks all around the world.
Spending tons on recourses that will need to get removed again.

They rather throw hundreds of millions in a temporary track that only lives once a year.
Instead of investing in a legendary venue, that could host many events for a long time to come.

You worked your way up for many years at proper tracks to become a F1 driver.
To end up in uninspiring Tilke dromes in the middle east with half empty grandstands.
Or street circuit racing in a DRS train between walls all the time.
Between the Tilkedroems and the "street circuits", I'd tend to take the latter, because those are at least more interesting, actually have surroundings, and in. a number of cases, have features you likely wouldn't get away with on a new, permanent circuit design. For instance, Miami has a de facto decreasing-radius corner.
 
Indycar on street circuits is tons of fun, the new Detroit was one of the best races of the season. And I'm looking forward to seeing F1 on the NASCAR layout—since it was just created last year.


View attachment 729442
F1 will use a different, and almost certainly, substantially longer, layout in Chicago, if they go there. And I'll be glad for that. I've definitely seen worse, but this NASCAR course is hardly inspiring. I would also say it's a pretty darn basic design flaw that you have the 2 longest straights pointed at each other.
 
Adding more & more street circuits is really turning away old time F1 fans and adds Yuppies.
The double yellow lines will be enforced as well (no passing here in the US). If F1 wants to run on narrow roads, cool, Road Atlanta comes to mind. Watkins Glen, yeah, gimme that one.
Personally, I have enjoyed WEC, European Le Mans etc a whole lot more than F1 in the last 10 years. Clean Liberty will run F1 into the ground - it's just a matter of time.
Road Atlanta would be required to put up more debris fencing to host IndyCar, let alone F1.

But more to the point, as I've said to a few others already, F1 would insist on butchering tracks like Watkins Glen to make them "safe enough".
 
That's a major issue with F1 and NASCARE, they cannot, or will not, race on a track they did not design. They want to tweak all tracks to make their cars look good; I'm more impressed when a series goes to a track and runs it as it is, adapting the car/setup/driver to it.



A well designed car can run anywhere, just tweak the setup for it. More likely F1 is afraid they wont look good on ovals (when US series run in Europe they're banned from running on any tracks used by F1 ...I wonder why, lol).
F1 cars simply aren't structurally designed to run on superspeedway ovals. There are special sets of rules in the FIA's Technical Regs, both for cars that are going to run on ovals, and for the design of the ovals themselves (i.e. Appendix O of the FIA regs basically only applies to the design of road courses).

I've not heard of such a ban in terms of anything formal. Historically, I'd just assume that, if anything, IndyCar didn't want to be shown to be slower on road courses, which they are.
 
I've not heard of such a ban in terms of anything formal. Historically, I'd just assume that, if anything, IndyCar didn't want to be shown to be slower on road courses, which they are.
When CART raced in Europe they were told they could not run on any circuits F1 was currently using. In fact the FIA eventually mandated that US series in Europe could only run on ovals. Actually CART and F1 turned similar lap times since the massive ground effects of CART allowed them to carry more speed through the turns, making up for slightly worse acceleration and braking.

and for the design of the ovals themselves
Exactly my point. F1 wants to control track design, to make their cars look good.

But I stand by the concept that any well designed car can be set up to run any track. F1 just doesn't want to run ovals.
 
why are you guys put "safe enough" under quotation marks ?
you think safety is overstated in today's F1 ?
maybe HALO should go too ?
 
it's a pretty darn basic design flaw that you have the 2 longest straights pointed at each other
It's relatively common to do that, on street circuits and airfield circuits. However, normally the track takes only half of the width of the street in each direction, and at the meet point the run-offs can be continued further on to the other side. Idk why this wasn't done in Chicago, especially since the pit lane seems to take a half of the street width next to the straight.

Track map on RacingCircuits suggests that indeed the track is half the width in each direction, so the straights aren't actually pointing at each other. From my limited info, the only thing that would preclude proper run-offs there is the exit from the pits.
 
Last edited:
I am not against anothe street circuit. I am against another US circuit. Miami was fine, but stretching it. Las vegas was too much and they want to add a 4th one?

What's their justification now? "We want to keep races close to each other to save on emissions caused by travel"? They say as they spread the american races between european and asian ones making the same trip several times per year.
 
why are you guys put "safe enough" under quotation marks ?
you think safety is overstated in today's F1 ?
maybe HALO should go too ?
A number of the classic North America road courses already host high-level, open-wheel cars, and/or the top level of Prototype Sportscars. These are vehicles with very similar debris-throwing capabilities and/or that have comparable top speeds at the ends of straights, and in the case of the GTPs, are notably heavier (more kinetic energy).

Also, to be perfectly frank, any number of changes to various F1 circuits I would have to conclude were made primarily for reasons of giving off a consistent, homogeneous, corporate image more than they are about any potential safety hazards.

And then there's the simple matter of blurring the lines between purpose-built and "street circuits" with F1, where it seems like they find ways to use the latter label to get away with things that, if it were officially designated as a permanent circuit, they wouldn't be allowed to do those same things.

For instance:
1. Sochi Turn 3 (actually quite a good, challenging, fast corner) is off-camber.
2. Turns 6/7/8 at Miami constitute a de facto decreasing-radius corner.
3. The proximity of the surroundings at Yas Marina and Yeongam is because they weren't originally intended as wholly permanent when actually constructed.
4. And notice that no new-build, totally permanent Grade 1 circuits have banked corners, but wtih a pre-existing circuit like Zandvoort, or these pseudo-"street circuits", like Yas Marina, Jeddah, or Madrid, you're then permitted to do this stuff.
5. Even for a street circuit, the width of T8/9/10 at Baku shouldn't be acceptable for a new circuit.

Of the recent new-build circuits, so not counting Algarve or Mugello, my pick for the most exciting would have to be Jeddah. That was the first time I'd seen serious, modern open-wheelers hanging the tail out while running in anger since the Champ Cars were slinging it through Turn 5 at Vancouver.

And as a side note, a circuit just with long straights doesn't have the same effect as one with those fearsomely fast sweepers and esses. Just go take a look at the 2009-15 iteration of Marrakech.
 
Last edited:
When CART raced in Europe they were told they could not run on any circuits F1 was currently using. In fact the FIA eventually mandated that US series in Europe could only run on ovals. Actually CART and F1 turned similar lap times since the massive ground effects of CART allowed them to carry more speed through the turns, making up for slightly worse acceleration and braking.


Exactly my point. F1 wants to control track design, to make their cars look good.

But I stand by the concept that any well designed car can be set up to run any track. F1 just doesn't want to run ovals.
If F1 and CART weren't allowed to run the same tracks in anger, how could you possibly claim that they ran similar lap times?

But hey, I can come up with a few things anyway. For instance, there's Mexico City:
F1: 2.747 miles, 1:16.346, 129.531 mph, 1992
CCWS: 2.774 miles, 1:23.558, 119.515 mph, 2007
F1: 2.674 miles, 1:14.758, 128.767 mph, 2019

For 2006-07, CCWS just ran with the little chicane before Peralta(da). And 1992 was past the old F1 turbo era. The 2015-present layout is easily slower than what came before it. The track was also wider for ChampCar than before or after.

And there's Austin:
F1: 3.427 miles, 1:32.029, 134.058 mph, 2019
IndyCar: 3.427 miles, 1:45.454, 116.991 mph, 2019

Plus, the Indy Roval:
F1: 2.605 miles, 1:11.926, 130.384 mph, 2007
IndyCar: 2.435 miles, 1:07.768, 129.353 mph, 2017

The IndyCar layout may not use Oval Turn 1, but it also cuts out part of the main infield section that F1 used, and has a quick esse instead of the old double hairpin.

There's no way the CART machines were that much faster than the current Indy Cars. And really, aside from Road America, the newer Indy Cars should be faster than the CART machines on about any road course. They're definitely faster in the corners.

Also, no, the F1 cars from around 2000 were at least 100 kg lighter, and faster mid-corner than the CART machines. What CART had was respectable cornering speeds, but really it was the straightaways for them, like pushing 210 mph at Road America.

When did the FIA mandate that? CART ran ovals in 2001-03 (Rockingham and Eurospeedway), but also road courses in 2003 and '07 (Brands Hatch Indy, Assen, and Zolder).

I'm talking about the FIA's regs on track design. The FIA and FOM legally aren't allowed to be joined at the hip like was once practically the case.

F1 cars are well-designed to run on conventional road courses. They don't meet the FIA's Technical Regs to be permitted to run oval speedways, however.
 
Last edited:
It's relatively common to do that, on street circuits and airfield circuits. However, normally the track takes only half of the width of the street in each direction, and at the meet point the run-offs can be continued further on to the other side. Idk why this wasn't done in Chicago, especially since the pit lane seems to take a half of the street width next to the straight.

Track map on RacingCircuits suggests that indeed the track is half the width in each direction, so the straights aren't actually pointing at each other. From my limited info, the only thing that would preclude proper run-offs there is the exit from the pits.
On the ground from the race coverage, it looks like there are 2-2.5 lanes of overlap between Turns 1 and 6, which means the racing line approaching both corners is pointed at itself.
 
Staff
Premium
There is one instance of CART and F1 overlapping on the same track using the identical 2.709-mile layout, namely Montreal in 2003.

CART Pole Time: 1:19.665
CART Fastest Lap: 1:20.634

F1 Pole Time: 1:15.529
F1 Fastest Lap: 1:16.040

Note the 100 kg difference in weight, with F1 cars being lighter at just 600 kg compared to the 700 kg Champ Cars, which were technologically way behind F1. Pretty interesting to have this direct comparison on a road course, and just two months apart - the Canadian Grand Prix happened on June 15, the Molson Indy Toronto was held on August 24.
 
There is one instance of CART and F1 overlapping on the same track using the identical 2.709-mile layout, namely Montreal in 2003.

CART Pole Time: 1:19.665
CART Fastest Lap: 1:20.634

F1 Pole Time: 1:15.529
F1 Fastest Lap: 1:16.040

Note the 100 kg difference in weight, with F1 cars being lighter at just 600 kg compared to the 700 kg Champ Cars, which were technologically way behind F1. Pretty interesting to have this direct comparison on a road course, and just two months apart - the Canadian Grand Prix happened on June 15, the Molson Indy Toronto was held on August 24.
Fair enough.

I was probably thinking more about Europe, and permanent road courses, rather than temporary circuits.

As for the ultimate mark of each series there from around that time:
F1: 2.709 miles, 1:12.275, 134.935 mph, 2004
CART: 2.709 miles, 1:18.959, 123.512 mph, 2002
 
If F1 and CART weren't allowed to run the same tracks in anger, how could you possibly claim that they ran similar lap times?
I never said they competed. But many times the cars have run on the same tracks. F1's major advantage back then was lower weight (1400lb vs 1800 for CART, if memory serves me well) not higher tech (F1 did not use turbos or ground effects). Vintage races are also a good way of comparing, you will see all types of cars on the same track in one weekend (and these are not, as many think, exhibition races; these drivers are pushing the cars).

I referenced the CART era because that's when they ran in Europe. To my knowledge modern "Indycar" (since CART and IRL merged to reform the series) has not run in Europe and the modern "Indycars" are certainly not equivalent of F1. But back then the two series were seen as equals; when the reigning F1 champ, Mansell, came to the US to run two seasons of CART, it was viewed as a sideways move; if the current F1 champ were to come to the US and run "Indycar" today it would be seen as a step down.
 
I never said they competed. But many times the cars have run on the same tracks. F1's major advantage back then was lower weight (1400lb vs 1800 for CART, if memory serves me well) not higher tech (F1 did not use turbos or ground effects). Vintage races are also a good way of comparing, you will see all types of cars on the same track in one weekend (and these are not, as many think, exhibition races; these drivers are pushing the cars).

I referenced the CART era because that's when they ran in Europe. To my knowledge modern "Indycar" (since CART and IRL merged to reform the series) has not run in Europe and the modern "Indycars" are certainly not equivalent of F1. But back then the two series were seen as equals; when the reigning F1 champ, Mansell, came to the US to run two seasons of CART, it was viewed as a sideways move; if the current F1 champ were to come to the US and run "Indycar" today it would be seen as a step down.
By 2000, F1 cars were 600 kg (1,320 lb). Back in the mid '90s or so, they could be getting down toward 500 kg. (One specific car was 515 kg, or 1,135 lb.). Indy Cars in that period were 1,550 lb, or ~700 kg. The oval-spec cars may have been ~100 lb heavier still.

F1 had active suspension and other driver aids up until 1994. And the cars continued to have venturis, so they did have ground effects in that regard at least.

Unless I can actually get lap times from those vintages events, it's kind of moot. Also, the drivers may be pushing to the limits of their abilities, but that doesn't mean the cars are at their limits.

Whether the series are seen as equals is a different matter altogether from the outright performance of the cars. I could add, in 1992, at the 4 tracks they ran in common (Portland, Road America, Mid Ohio, Laguna Seca), the IMSA GTPs outpaced the CART Indy Cars.
 
I never said they competed. But many times the cars have run on the same tracks. F1's major advantage back then was lower weight (1400lb vs 1800 for CART, if memory serves me well) not higher tech (F1 did not use turbos or ground effects). Vintage races are also a good way of comparing, you will see all types of cars on the same track in one weekend (and these are not, as many think, exhibition races; these drivers are pushing the cars).

I referenced the CART era because that's when they ran in Europe. To my knowledge modern "Indycar" (since CART and IRL merged to reform the series) has not run in Europe and the modern "Indycars" are certainly not equivalent of F1. But back then the two series were seen as equals; when the reigning F1 champ, Mansell, came to the US to run two seasons of CART, it was viewed as a sideways move; if the current F1 champ were to come to the US and run "Indycar" today it would be seen as a step down.
CART cars in the 90s were heavier, had steel brakes, only had mechanical sequencial gearboxes (so not the super fast semi autos of F1, or today's indycar), and altough they had ground effects, their actual downforce numbers were not much higher than F1, or were even similar, because these ground effects were heavily restricted anyways. F1s also had other tricks up their sleeve, like electronic diffs. CART cars did have more power and torque, but their narrow tires prevented them to put that on the ground so effectively. So in any circuit, they would have been multiple seconds slower than an F1.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
6,002
Comments
92
Last update

What would make you race in our Club events

  • Special events

    Votes: 88 30.3%
  • More leagues

    Votes: 58 20.0%
  • Prizes

    Votes: 63 21.7%
  • Trophies

    Votes: 37 12.8%
  • Forum trophies

    Votes: 18 6.2%
  • Livestreams

    Votes: 48 16.6%
  • Easier access

    Votes: 146 50.3%
  • Other? post your reason

    Votes: 42 14.5%
Back
Top