[Purist]

Sorry, TF110, but I just have to let out a long one here.

I've seen Grade 1 proposals and circuits, as well as 1T circuits, that certainly ought to be able to get a full Grade 1 as a formality. A number of those from other firms do NOT look like Tilke's cookie-cutter affairs. So, yes, a fair bit of criticism CAN be laid at his feet. Dubai Autodrome and the French GP proposal from Apex don't look like Tilke designs. Paolo Pinheiro came up with the Autodromo Internacional do Algarve, which most certainly does NOT resemble any of Hermann's efforts.

In addition, a number of Tilke's circuits patently violate the FIA's own circuit guidelines, and still get approved.

1. Turns 1, 3, and 4 at Istanbul appear to be off-camber, which is to be avoided altogether, if at all possible. The same can be said of a few of the esse bends, and the exit of Turn 19, at Austin. The exit of Turn 2 at Shanghai is off-camber as well.

2. Turn 8 at Istanbul, and its reverse "copy" at Austin, are cheats to get around the rules on decreasing-radius corners. Turn 4 at Sochi is a blatant rule-breaker on that front. The same is true of the Turn 1/2 combination at Shanghai, and Turn 10/11 at Buddh does very much the same. To top it off, Turns 12-13, 14-15, and 16 at Fuji don't follow the FIA rules regarding decreasing-radius corners, either.

3. Eau Rouge/Raidillion has been flat-out for some time, so that flaunts the 2km limit on straights, since from La Source to Les Combes is now 100m more than that; I bring this one up because the round of changes from 2006/07 made that stretch longer.

4. I'm not sure that the narrowing of the front straight at Fuji before Turn 1 is in keeping with FIA rules. I have a similar concern with the narrowing of the road after Turn 1 at both Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, especially with them coming right where pit-out rejoins the track. Turn 2 at Sochi sees a norrowing in the road, which should be inadmissible under FIA rules. Yes, there IS room there to have a different corner profile to eliminate this issue; they CHOSE to NOT do so.

5. (A.) The pit exits at Hockenheim, Nurburgring, and Abu Dhabi have some real, potential safety issues, with the main one being unusual, possible/probable interference with cars on the racing line when re-entering the track. Abu Dhabi also has that drop into a very tight turn and the very confining tunnel/channel as it comes back up to track level.
(B.) The pit entries at Catalunya, Red Bull Ring, Shanghai, Singapore, and Spa-Francorchamps have problems, too. For Catalunya, Red Bull Ring, and Singapore, it is a matter of possibly interfering with cars on the racing line as a driver swings abruptly to the inside. At Singapore, I'm surprised I haven't seen someone lose control trying to make the pits, and since that whole part of the track is purpose-built, what's their excuse for this? Shanghai has that fairly sharp corner at the end of a high-speed run in the middle of its pit entry. The new-for-2007 pit-in at Spa-Francorchamps is simply, dangerously narrow, in addition to the approach for it through that double-hairpin being hazardous in its own right when there's traffic around.
(C.) Both the pit-in and pit-out at Korea are unacceptably problematic. Pit-in has the issues of line interference, and just being so fast while the guys are incredibly on edge. Pit-out is vulnerable to line interference and incursions from cars running wide at Turn 1.

6. They make all the fuss about huge run-offs being necessary, and then find excuses to blow that one off at their convenience, too. Abu Dhabi is a purpose-built circuit, yet how many of its turns have "compromised" run-off space? Half of Korea was supposed to be a street circuit, so they just built it with Turn 2 and 13-17 with fairly minimal run-off. Turn 3 at Singapore (still part of the new construction for the track) has quite limited room. Valencia, not technically a street circuit, had several high-speed corners with little to no run-off. I will have to see more photos of Sochi to give a full report, but I can see several potential locations for nasty impacts into armco already.

7. Though not mentioned among the codified FIA circuit guidelines, several spots on some of Tilke's more recent tracks violate one of the general, cardinal rules of track design. That is, you do not, intentionally, design a corner wherein the exit is narrower than the entry. Turns 3, 4, and 16 at Buddh break this stipulation, as do Turns 1, 11, and 12 at Austin. Turn 1 at Singapore (part of the permanent facilities) does this, and it sounds like Turn 2 at Sochi does, also.

8. With the 2006/07 re-work, I'm not sure that there is 250m of straight from the start to La Source at Spa-Francorchamps, as is supposed to be the case for new F1 circuits. And now that I think about it, I'm wondering if the re-done Hockenheim is cutting it close on that one.

9. Are there any of the rules that Monaco doesn't break? (Remember, several corners at Monaco have been modified since the current rules framework was enacted.) And if these "safety" provisions are truly necessary, then street circuits simply CAN'T be considered admissible, period. (Baku, anybody?)

So, Tilke actually has quite a history of walking right past, or even through, the FIA's own circuit rules, guidelines, and/or recommendations, and getting his designs approved anyway. So, whether it's saying that Tilke is limited by the rules, other firms would do exactly the same things with their designs, the FIA uses some apparent rhyme or reason, or that this is because of "safety", NONE of these arguments holds any water, based on the evident record we have before us.