Safety on tracks.

[Purist]

Needless to say, I was a bit worked up for the above post; I just finished an exam and I'm a bit out of it right now.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

No one sets out to design a dangerous circuit.

I think it all boils down to respect.

A driver or rider has to respect the circuit.

Now for whatever reason a circuit might not have acres of run off, its up to the driver or rider to respect that fact and drive/ride accordingly.

Yes accidents happen, but that is why safety systems within the cars were introduced, or continual improvements in helmet and leathers technology for riders.
Even on the track there is still atleast some run off, the angle of the barriers altered and air fencing added to help prevent injury.

[AU N EGL]

Run offs and safetey?

If you think Monaco is bad, how many of you have seen a race on the Macau street ciruit?


Do the best that you can. Remember gavel traps are on the way OUT for ciruits designs. Grass and here in the States the NASCAR Safe walls are better for cars and emergency personal.

If there is NOT the room for any run off, change the circuit or MAKE the room for a grass run off. Keep the armoco or walls 10 meters away. If you cant, dont put the circuit there.

The smallest circuit I have driven on was 1.7 Miles, ( Putnam Park, Indiana) and I think that is on 75 acres of land.

My home track of VIR is on over 1200 acers of land. Road America is on 1500 acres of land. ( yes I know that is the size of a small country) Dont design a track where you dont have the space.


Why do you guys think that almost any new tracks that are built are in the middle of nowhere? Space and noise.

any time a car or bike goes off into the gravel or Kitty Litter the race goes YELLOW to get the car out. But on Grass, the driver just DRIVES out of danger for the most part

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

I think it all boils down to respect.

A driver or rider has to respect the circuit.

Thank You Sir

[Purist]

That goes back to my question about "natural terrain" road courses. Road America is on a large plot, but from "the Kink" up to Turn 13, the hills are such that it's not feasable to make any more run-off even if they wanted it. Imola isn't exactly small either, but the track was built in the '60s, and Tamburello was just about backed up to the river (and the "greenies" would probably frown upon the Brooklands solution). Watkins Glen, Mosport Park, and Spa Francorchamps in places have similar elevation issues to those at Road America. The funny thing is, these are among the best loved circuits by drivers AND spectators in the world. Even Imola, before the extra chicanes, was well-regarded as a circuit.

You can only do so much in the name of safety and still have a great track. Road America is a great AND safe track, and is NOT a Tilke-drome by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, the drivers don't want to be in inordinate danger, then again, you can bet your butt that they would much rather run at a track that excites them, even if it isn't quite as safe, than at many of these newer "designed" circuits. And that's an integral part of what makes these older circuits so much more charismatic places. It's not just the track itself and having the track fit within its setting, but when the people involved are enthusiastic about being there to race, WOW, the affect of the place just becomes so much richer and worthwhile.

Sadly, that balancing act is one that I don't think most current track designers have mastered to any great extent, and THAT balance of safety and cohesion of the circuit and its surroundings that leads people to LOVe a track is what I INTEND to re-instate into this realm as a track designer, once I've become one perhaps in a few decades.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

any time a car or bike goes off into the gravel or Kitty Litter the race goes YELLOW to get the car out. But on Grass, the driver just DRIVES out of danger for the most part

The exact reason why I designed a course where motorcycles run in a certain direction,facing gravel run offs and the cars run the oposite ,thus facing grass.

[LuiggiSpeed]

About you points,Purist, I don't know, people sometimes understand things,sometimes not.modern day racing has come to technological heigts never before seen,and so the tracks shall follow the evolution,as well .

[Purist]

Not a knock on you Luiggi, but evolution implies improvement. If you're only marginally improving safety given the accidents that are going to happen, but have made changes that are significantly detrimental to those other areas I've been focusing on, the balance is going to be in the negative for that venue. Thus, what is created is worse than what already existed and is a DEvolution in comparison.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by LuiggiSpeed

The exact reason why I designed a course where motorcycles run in a certain direction,facing gravel run offs and the cars run the oposite ,thus facing grass.

I think for all around safety tracks or ciruits should run in one direction. and for the most part that is clock wise.


Flag / marshals stands can be in the same locations. Safey areas are the same, run off areas are the same.

[LuiggiSpeed]

I will come up with a thought design using my principle,I'll see what I can do to make everybody happy.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by LuiggiSpeed

I will come up with a thought design using my principle,I'll see what I can do to make everybody happy.

Luiggi

Not every is going to be happy. For those who love it, GREAT. For those who dont, . .. .

well you know what to tell them


a Professional driver once told me the best tracks are the ones he does not like. why? those tracks are not easy to learn so it takes real driving skill to win.

[atomik99]

Originally Posted by Purist

For practical applications, I don't care for the massive run-offs because they allow the vehicle to assume a more direct impact angle with whatever barriers there may be. And in the case of tarmac run-off, the drivers are not punished properly for mistakes. Having such run-offs also substantially decreases the challenge/difficulty of negotiating such corners.

There definetely needs to be a balance. I'm reminded of the Edmonton Indy this season. It's an airport track, so going out of control and beyond the track just sends you off into an empty field of nothing but 200 metres of grass in some areas. Many drivers did this during the race because they could be less careful. On the other hand, if there were walls/fences/tire barriers/etc around much of the track, they would have to be more cautious and those types of incidents would have been few and far bewteen.

... just my opinion...

So there needs to be a good balance between safety and challenging turns.

[LuiggiSpeed]

There's nothing challenging about colliding with walls.The challenge is to beat your oponent by driving faster and smarter. The presence of walls does nothing to increase the competitiveness nor prevents drivers from getting carried away,as we hardly ever look at the wall,only at the track where we want to go.

No walls means you can pursuit mo' speed.

Punishment?
Why?
This is a sport guys,it's not like if we were at the Roman Coliseum where if you don't run fast enough you got own3d by a lion. Were supposed to go back working on monday.

[atomik99]

Originally Posted by LuiggiSpeed

No walls means you can pursuit mo' speed.

But more walls also means the drivers have to be more cautious and are less likely to make mistakes. Compare Edmonton versus Detroit Belle Isle, for example.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by atomik99

But more walls also means the drivers have to be more cautious and are less likely to make mistakes. Compare Edmonton versus Detroit Belle Isle, for example.

No,no no...I don't think so, when the heat is on, we forget about walls, bumps, people standing on corners(watch rally racing) and evertthing disapears when tunnel vission kicks in. Theré no such thing as "cautious" when you mix testosterone and pride. You just don't see walls at all.

In 06' I was racing against a wall,and while some racers did approach that particular section in a cautious way, some of us used that as an advantage over them because we could dive at the wall at 125mph, passing 1 foot away from it to cut up time,such is the mentality of a racer(a real one) ,Racers use up all the space you give them to their advantage,beliving they do have bigger balls and I lost a friend to that wall on that same afternoon.

NO WALLS.

If you spin on a car or bike,you loose a race.If you hit a wall,you loose your life.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by atomik99

But more walls also means the drivers have to be more cautious and are less likely to make mistakes. Compare Edmonton versus Detroit Belle Isle, for example.

Nope.

Drivers dont look at walls. If a driver is more cautious at one race and not another, he will loose his job.

Not to mention if he wads up a car into a wall, he may also loose his job.

If your looking at walls, you have no business being in the race.

[bio]

Yeah, the old trtuth: you're gonna go where you're looking. So, if you're looking at the walls...

[werner]

Funny to see the differences between bikers and car-racers, amateurs and pro's and spectators.

[Purist]

Like I've said, either a driver is or is not adequately cognizant of the situation, but not both. Either the walls deter them or they don't. However, you cannot deny that those older, more established, historically more dangerous venues have a reputation and demand a respect that no new circuit (as current designs go) can hope to attain.

Yes, some of that reputation is born out of the deaths of those who have gone before, but their memory and the achievements of those few who truly succeeded was the clearest illustration possible of just what challenges those circuits posed, and the imposing cliffs of difficulty men such as Campari, Nuvolari, Villoresi, Fangio, Brabham, Clark and others were able to overcome. The greater the peril, the greater the reward. The greater the struggle, the more inspiring the victory.

I have never here proposed that we wind back the clock 30, 40, 50, or even 75 years. Then again, glorified sandboxes or industrial parks are hardly inspiring settings for races. I've said that I'm happy with the results at tracks like Road America or Brands Hatch GP as far as providing a safe, challenging, and spectacular setting for top-level events. If people wish to build smaller club circuits, that is their initiative, but pro venues ought to demand more of the competitors.

For all this technicality we discuss, that this is a human sport taken up by mortal men. Providing reasonable protection is one thing, but providing a a sad sanitized setting for these competitions separates the participants from the rest of us such that that human connection with them can quite easily be lost. It can seem unreal to those on the outside when the racing environment seems so perfect and controlled. Take it too far, and distance yourself from the identifiable human element too much, and you risk committing the sport to a long, slow death.

No offense intended Luiggi, but I'm surprised at how narrow your view of the human element of racing seems to be. I hope on this matter, that I am simply misunderstanding you. Yes, losing someone we know is unfortunate. Then again, settling for a seemingly lesser standard of excellence seems a poor way to honor our predecessors.

[Purist]

As to the tracks themselves, ask yourselves which ones you regard most highly. Ask yourselves which tracks truly excite and exhilarate you, and get you pumped up as a motor sports enthusiast. And really, does a track like Bahrain or Shanghai stack up against Mosport Park? Does even Istanbul really compare with a track such as Suzuka?

And as for changes made to tracks, does Le Mans offer the unique challenges that it used to in previous guises (specifically pre-1990)? Does Spa-Francorchamps make drivers and spectators alike tense up as strongly or as many times a lap as it used to? And does Monza still provide those legendary high-speed battles that it was known to offer for nearly 50 years?

And for reference, I would say that the best major road courses built in the '70s or later would be Paul Ricard (before it became a parking lot test track), the new Mugello, the new Brno, and Autopolis perhaps.

[werner]

Coincidental, I saw some MotoGP from the eighty's on youtube the other day. I saw races at the Salzburgring and Spa, and I really was hoping that they wouldn't crash. More then 20 years after. When I see a recent motorrace-video otoh, a crash or 2 only spices the races up, and permanent damage to a driver is usually only done when another motor hits the crasher.
When you see the racers of the eighty's it's hard not to think of the fastest driver but as the bravest (crazyest?) Today the winner of a motoGP-race is the very best, and certainly has some bravery, but is fortunately far from crazy. As I like spectacle, I like to see crazy men on a bike. But as a sportfan in general, I prefer to see the best atletes win. And my love for sports are of a higher level then my liking of spectacle. That's why I'm happy to see quite save tracks today, so we really can see the greatest drivers, wether on bikes or in cars, give everything they have, without holding back to increase their chances of survival.
To see crazy drivers you have to go the the Manx TT. A great spectacle. But when I watch the TT, I try not to become attached to the drivers, because they can be gone in the drop of an eye.

[werner]

Best current tracks:
Spa, not the safest, but the most daunting corners eau rouge, pouhon and blanchimont are still a challenge with the tarmac-runoffs. It's fantastic to see drivers push hard at such high speeds, without having to worry about their lives to much.
Istanbul, the best Tilkedrome, has everything from fast bends to tight hairpins in a nice landscape.
Assen, although a bit worse since the last changes, is still the cathedral of motorsports. And still has some of the best corners in MotoGP (ramshoek, mandeveen) and a fantastic atmosphere. And all that in a former moor. And with the latest safetyfeatures.

[LuiggiSpeed]

The best an more challenging tracks are the ones that allow racers to fully exploit the potential of their machines and to fully use their piloting skills. For example,present day MotoGP is far greater sport than it used to be just 10 years ago, faster machines, more extreme lean angles, higer speeds in the straights and in the corners now, with the new 800cc era.

While I still value the Isle de Man for example, I really admire the bravery of the crazy men that race there, but for myself,I'd rather race on Quatar.

If anyone has any dobuts about if I am willing to risk my life while I ride, let me show you some pic of my home "track" ,wich we call "The Fishbowl" because it's almost entirely surrounded by walls,yet we still give our best there:















I hope you (Purist) find these honorable enough,and there you can see why I am always in pursuit of a "safer" track for my country,wich we have none.I think after watching these pics you can tell I'm "certified" to talk about concrete walls, run-off's ,safety or crazy motorcycle racers.

Luiggi

[shambles]

You'd rather race at Qatar than the Isle of Man?

[shambles]

Those are crazy pictures by the way.