Safety on tracks.

[atomik99]

Scenario: Formula 1 car traveling down a 570 meter (0.35 mile) long straight, into a sharp 90 degree turn. How much gravel runoff area should I have directly ahead of the straight?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by atomik99

Scenario: Formula 1 car traveling down a 570 meter (0.35 mile) long straight, into a sharp 90 degree turn. How much gravel runoff area should I have directly ahead of the straight?

As none of us are experts in this area, a way to judge this might be using Google Earth or similar and using the measuring tool on real circuits to get an idea of what sizes the gravel traps really are.

Additionally there is the point at which you start to measure...is it the turn in point on the track? the outside of the track at the apex? Is there tarmac run-off or grass prior to the gravel?

Best bet is to look at some real world circuits and solutions and take the best option.

Edit: at Silverstone, from Club to the Abbey Chicane is 470m. From the turn in point to the barrier is 105m but this narrows down through the corner.

[atomik99]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Additionally there is the point at which you start to measure...is it the turn in point on the track? the outside of the track at the apex? Is there tarmac run-off or grass prior to the gravel?

I was thinking right at the edge of the tarmac, like in the attached image below of Sepang turn 1.

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Edit: at Silverstone, from Club to the Abbey Chicane is 470m. From the turn in point to the barrier is 105m but this narrows down through the corner.

If I continue with the attached example, it is about 930 meter straight into about 67 meters of runoff (a few meters of grass, and the rest gravel).

In comparison with your Silverstone example (and just now checking a bunch of circuits with google earth), there seems to be a lot of varied examples of required runoff length. I was a little worried that I was not putting enough runoff in one of my track recreations (60 meter runoff after 570 meter straight), but I think this will be sufficient.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Purist

To go with what I said about chicanes elsewhere today, make the racing safer, but without making it easier. This ought to be a sport, NOT merely a game. The less "stupid stuff" drivers/riders feel they can get away with, the better. The less that officials get involved, the better. If you want to watch judged competition, there's always the Olympics, which I do watch. Auto racing is a sport based on direct competition where he who wins is he who actually finishes first (and deserved to finish in that place), and ought not be reduced to such petty standards.

If you bobble at Eau Rouge, that should be it for your race; them's the breaks. I don't want to see anyone killed by a mechanical failures, but this is racing, and this is supposed to be real life. So let's face it, "**** happens". Get used to it and get over it.

People are so often so protected nowadays that things that were commonplace not so long ago are considered too hazardous. Kids, with some help, actually used to make/build things (soapbox derby for instance), and were allowed a certain level of exploration. And sometimes that meant somebody fell out of a tree and broke an arm. That's life. We learn from our mistakes, learn where the boundaries are, and learn to respect them. Now, if someone is adventurous enough, but has been cooped up, he or she may well try or "experiment" with things that are FAR MORE dangerous than the aforementioned: things like drugs, alcohol, sex, you name it. You make one misstep with some of those things, and it could be the last thing you ever do.

Sorry, but the absurdly large run-offs, particularly the paved ones, don't even serve to slap the wrists of errant drivers. There are no lessons to be learned, only lenience that can so easily be taken advantage of. And I expect more of top-tier riders and drivers, and they were perfectly able to race their hearts out for decades while maintaining that high standard of excellence in their race craft.

It's my respect for the great racers that leads me to have such high standards for on-track conduct. And if the drivers are truly that exceptional, to expect less of them would be disrespectful. However, it also means that it is highly disappointing when drivers regularly fall short of those expectations. Sadly, I don't see the quality of race craft getting any better with the increasing number of "shortcuts", "loopholes", and "cheats" open to drivers/riders on "modern" racing circuits. These run-offs let so many drivers "get out of jail free" so easily that it's pathetic what can be gotten away with.

That's pretty much nail on the head material for me.

Selby

[bio]

I think the dreaded Tilke-dromes are best for reference. Theyve been purpose designed recently. More classic venues are often horrible in this respect.

bio

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by atomik99

Scenario: Formula 1 car traveling down a 570 meter (0.35 mile) long straight, into a sharp 90 degree turn. How much gravel runoff area should I have directly ahead of the straight?

That all depends on the predicted speed of the vehicles against that particular place, the kind of energy absorbing material and where are they headed to.

[Purist]

There are a few things I was thinking about recently.

What are peoples thoughts on off-camber corners and their associated potential hazards (thinking of Turn 2 at Mosport off the top of my head)? Also, are quicker, decreasing radius corners really considered to be that inherently dangerous (things like the old 300R at Fuji or Espiral at Mexico City)?

On a larger scale, it seems like a couple of new circuits must skirt, if not outright break, the FIA rules in a number of respects. The circuits in question are Potrero de los Funes in Argentina and Algarve in Portugal. Can anyone perhaps shed some light on what the deal is and whether there's something I'm missing here?

[jab]

Originally Posted by Purist

Also, are quicker, decreasing radius corners really considered to be that inherently dangerous (things like the old 300R at Fuji or Espiral at Mexico City)?

Well, Tilke thought Shanghai's Turn 1 was OK, so maybe not, but I think you're right about it being a cause for concern. Another one is the really long left-hander at Sonoma

Originally Posted by Purist

On a larger scale, it seems like a couple of new circuits must skirt, if not outright break, the FIA rules in a number of respects. The circuits in question are Potrero de los Funes in Argentina and Algarve in Portugal. Can anyone perhaps shed some light on what the deal is and whether there's something I'm missing here?

Potrero wasn't strictly a new circuit, and I don't see it too far off what Valencia's like

What are you referring to with Algarve, though?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The new Algarve circuit has to be one of the lumpiest circuits I've seen in a long time, the gradient is constantly changing as I assume from the TV pictures that the camber is as well.
I think it's an example of how it can be done safely as I think it's now got F1T (Testing ) status.

[Purist]

Technically San Luis was not new; however, it only hosted the one race meeting in 1987, IIRC. Considering the time gap and the modifications to the layout, I'm quite certain the circuit would have required a whole new FIA inspection, especially to be approved at Grade 2 status (the level required for an FIA GT Championship event).

[Purist]

Long delay, I know, but apparently, we all forgot about this thread at some stage.

Jab, if you're still in the sub-forum, there are a number of relatively abrupt crests and valleys on the Algarve circuit. One such crest requires the WSBK riders to lift in order to comfortably avoid doing a backflip over one of the hills.

[jab]

I see. Well, I guess they can't be that abrupt as we haven't seen any cars take off there yet