Tilke promises more 'on the edge' tracks

[Birddog07]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86442

"I have discussed a lot of things, and a lot of good ideas come from Bernie Ecclestone," said Tilke, whose designs for the new Austin track in the United States were revealed last week.


"He has a good view on it. Now, we are going much more to the edge than we have some years before - in terms of elevation and the types of corner we have."

So then I guess these good ideas and 'on the edge' track design isn't going into the Austin F1 track? Not too many 'great ideas' in the design. Hairpins, some esses that could be alot more flowing, and a rubbish mickey mouse section into what would otherwise be a fast, challenging corner.

He does make a good defense on runoff when he mentions motorcycles, does have a good point. However alot of tracks run both just fine and they aren't runnoff hogs.

[Sodemo]

The needless run off at places like Fuji is what really bugs me. Ok, at the end of a fast straight, if there needs to be a run off, fair enough, but on the outside of low or medium speed corners, what is the point? For example, the exit of The Bus Stop at Spa now has around 5-6 metres of run off, why may I ask? The same with all the slow corners at Fuji, every one of them has about 20 metres run off, even on the exit of the last corner there is something like a 30 metre run off to the left... How far do they think an F1 car is going to travel there, do they think 30 metres is enough? What about 100 metres, or maybe even 300 metres?

[AndyS]

I think the key point on run off is the one about accommodating the bikes. Reading between the lines I don't think he'd incorporate as much if he didn't need to allow for bike racing, he does say as much. Always made me wonder why there was so much run off with the existence of things like the HANS device and Safer Barriers etc.

Now don't get me wrong I'm his biggest critic and it still doesn't explain why he can't seem to get a circuit right or design very many exciting corners. Cost of building a new circuit and hosting F1 means tracks have to maximise income, so that means accommodating international bike racing and the safety requirements that go with it. He does make the point that he has to work within these constraints and clearly would not have included as much run off at certain corners. I suspect we would see less concrete run off as well.

I'm glad to see the elevation change at Austin, but it doesn't exactly look on the edge. I did find myself watching a race from the new Aragon track recently and thought that's not a bad track. I then discovered to my horror it was a Tilke track, having said that it wasn't finished so it may now have concrete everywhere.

[Birddog07]

I wonder if he ever watches bikes. When riders fall, they hardly reach fences even with runoffs considered 'small' by his huge F1 stadards. And in the event the riders do slide far they have air fences to stop them. MotoGP, WSBK, AMA, etc all race on tracks fine which would be considered 'dangerous' for F1 cars despite bikes apparently needing the larger and safer runoffs.

Either way hopefully he starts making some good designs. The Austun track could be loads better, but just 3 small but major improvments would be to smooth out the esses, redo the hairpin so it's not a carrot, and get rid of that rubbish Hockenhiem stadium section.

[Quintin03]

If he delivers the results he promises, I will immediately stop criticizing him for his tracks and even praise him if he redesigns some of his other tracks that didn't work out that well.

[AndyS]

Check out the Aragon Circuit, this does seem reasonable. As I said the race I saw was before full completion of the facilities so they could well have concreted all the run off by now. I assume the concrete run off for bikes is to stop them tumbling which I understand is a big source of injury. As has been pointed out some bike series seem to manage without though, American Super Bikes and British.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by Quintin03

If he delivers the results he promises, I will immediately stop criticizing him for his tracks and even praise him if he redesigns some of his other tracks that didn't work out that well.

Same here. I know a lot of people partially lay blame of the similarities of his track with the fact that they're all designed by one person, and that is true to an extent. But there are also the other factors like safety constraints - he has all of that to work with as well.

The thing is, like Birddog07 said, only small (yet major) changes are needed to make the circuit half-decent. If it just had one challenging and great corner, thats all it needs like Eau Rouge at Spa, or the imaginatively titled "Turn 8" at Istanbul. Thats a Tilke track, and yet one I think is alright.

I think Tilke knows this, with the Austin track Turn 1 is meant to be the biggie, but somehow I don't think its gonna fit the bill. It needs to be challenging, and I'm not sure Turn 1 will be. And he can't try and achieve this by copying bits from other tracks in my view.

Still, I'll still be interested to see if he makes any changes - it is only a first draft after all...there's hope yet!

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by AndyS

Always made me wonder why there was so much run off with the existence of things like the HANS device and Safer Barriers etc.

Are there actually any FIA, F1 or Tilke with Safer Barriers? Doubt it, which raises more questions.

[Roths]

I dont see anything wrong with run off areas. Better than watching drivers slam in to the walls. Run off's allow the driver to return to the race and the more motors in the race the better, and the more safety there is even better. Can anyone tell me why run off's are a bad thing as i fail to see anything to suggest so?

[Belatti]

Run offs are OK, what I think its annoying is tarmac runoff.

If a driver goes off track he should be able to bring the car back, but pay it, at least loosing some time. And thats where tarmac fails.

[Sodemo]

I thought with the introduction of the new barriers at Abu Dubai, the run off areas could be a lot smaller?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Belatti

Run offs are OK, what I think its annoying is tarmac runoff.

If a driver goes off track he should be able to bring the car back, but pay it, at least loosing some time. And thats where tarmac fails.

Gravel traps work brilliantly, slow down cars and bikes in a relatively small space in most situations. Every bit as good as a much bigger piece of tarmac.

The runoff has to be big enough to ensure that the following competitors do not hit a vehicle that has bounced back onto the racing line though!
That is where fatalities occur! Horrible and unacceptable!

[Tall Chris]

Apparently even if Tile wanted to recreate Eau Rouge he wouldn't be able to as it would not meet the criteria for new circuits. I've no idea where I got this info from, whether the circuit design spec is available or whether I dreamt the whole thing.
I'm sure someone will let me know fairly soon.

[Purist]

Tall Chris, I think that tidbit was posted here a while back, based on the FIA regs on vertical curvature for tracks. However, I'm not so sure about that statement anymore, especially considering the sudden, high-speed, elevation changes we see at the Algarve Autodrome in Portugal.

AndyS, yes, indeed they have added quite a bit of paved run-off at Motorland Aragon.

Birddog, making those changes will improve the circuit (though I'm not sure it will really do much of anything to change that hairpin at Austin), but that does not mean it will then be a great, or even really good, circuit.

Dye, no, Spa is NOT a one-turn racetrack, and this is crucial. Spa has Eau Rouge, Les Combes, Pouhon, Les Fagnes, Stavelot, and Blanchimont. And before they rebuilt the pit area, La Source, with the old profile of the public road, was an interesting corner as well, with an effectively banked inner line because of the crown in the road.

Making the tracks multi-purpose may well be a moot point. NONE of these tracks can survive without government backing, regardless of how many non-F1 events they manage to pull in. Not all governments are going to keep shelling out for F1 though. Also, the tracks charge such high rental rates, in an attempt to recoup costs, that they are rarely used anyway.

As for run-offs, this has an impact in many areas. Paved run-offs don't punish mistakes enough, and frankly, they encourage reckless driving because of this. Run-offs of the sheer size we see on many newer tracks are wholly unnecessary anyway. This also indirectly can effect track layout if a hillside is very steep to begin with, and thus cannot be extended to provide greater run-off area. And as for preventing rebounds back onto the track, this would require massive push-backs of barriers on straights and "straights" on a great many tracks. in a lot of cases, such measures simply are not possible because of the terrain the track was built on and within.

Run-off also drives the spectators back from the track, not only taking them away from the event, but severely limiting heir frames of reference so that they might form an appreciation for the driver skill involved in the racing. Hving massive gravel or paved run-offs just gives the place a wasteland-like appearance, and with no live viewers close enough to be in sight, the track has no atmosphere, and no soul to speak of. And if you push the barriers back to, in theory, prevent rebounds, even on the "straights", there won't be many, if any, places left where spectators can get a good, close view.

Stadium events are popular across the globe, and oval racing, where there is NO run-off, is very popular here in the States. Why is this? It is because PROXIMITY IS ESSENTIAL! You want to be amongst your fellow spectators at a live event, AND you want to be close enough to feel as though you are a part OF the event, rather than apart FROM it. We want to be close to those racing machines and close to our favorite drivers. We want those cars to be close to one another, after all, this is racing, and a hard dice by definition DEMANDS that the vehicles/drivers doing battle are in close proximity to one another. When the barriers are closer in, we can readily SEE the speed and turning ability of those machines in front of us. Having a barrier closer by DEMANDS greater precision and discretion from the competitors. It REQUIRES demonstration of a greater measure of skill and respect.

Eau Rouge at Spa has a reputation for a reason. Yes, people have died there, but the point is, there was a price to be paid for traversing that section of track poorly, but an equally thrilling/fulfilling reward for nailing it!

[Purist]

Above all though, if tracks have become so "safe" that drivers are willingly taking out their competitors in blatant displays (Senna and Prost at Suzuka, and Edwards and Keselowski at Atlanta), then the tracks have become too safe, and the drivers have become too dangerous. And the only way to change it is to backtrack, at least in some areas.

ANY AND EVERY added safety margin WILL be abused and used up, period! People sacrifice safety because they think they can get away with it, that it just won't happen to them. They may sacrifice it because of their demand for greater convenience. Safety is sacrificed in order for some to try and "get ahead", because of money (or a lack of it), or just because of inherent human error.

It's apparent EVERY DAY on our public roads, because of just how distracted drivers think they can afford to be and still be "safe". People who have ABS or automatic transmissions are, generally, more careless drivers; they take more risks because they think they can get away with it. Scary as it sounds, EVERY feature that makes the driving experience "easier", while making the road or the machine safer, makes the human being behind the wheel into a less competent driver.

[AndyS]

I think that Purist sums it up perfectly. I have said on here before I think the concrete run off is in directly causing more accidents of late, as drivers are taking reckless risks as they have got used to being able to drive straight back on the track. They go off and there is no consequence and I think there has been a general decline in driving standards as a result. This is spilling over on to tracks where there is no concrete run off with the inevitable consequences. Witness the Seat Leon jumping the barrier at Brands this year, could have been very nasty. As to the point about being near the action couldn't have put it better my self.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I'm still not sure as to why they arn't using more of the Paul Ricard style run-off. That seems to work nicely (I was watching a GT race there). Drivers are punished for going off/wide, and it something like F1, it'll ruine that set of tyres. That's heavy punishment in Formula 1.

I agree that there shouldn't be huge run-offs for the slower speed corners. If you mess up there and nail a barrier, you'll have to expect to lose a car part/gain some damage.

Brands Hatch, as mentioned above, is a good example. Paddock Hill and Druids are respected corners. Would they be quite so respected with a 50 meter run off? Probably not.

Selby

[Yannick]

What Bernie has done to Hockenheim clearly shows that he does not want long tracks or fast tracks. That may be the sole reason why F1 has not gotten tracks from Tilke that only have corners that are as fast and exciting as Parabolica, Peraltada, Stowe Corner, Copse Corner, Curva do Sol, Les Combes, Pouhon, Turn 1 of Suzuka, Turn 1 of Dijon Prenois, The 90 of Watkins Glen.

You know what kind of overtaking opportunities the F1 calendar has gotten instead.
For a change, I'd like to list the best ones he has created: the section of Turns 15 and 1 of Sepang, Memorial Corner of Singapore, the 2 chicanes of Turn 8 and Turn 11 that are following after one another at Abu Dhabi, and the backstretch of Istambul Park which begins with Turn 9 and ends at the penultimate corner.
Feel free to discuss.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Might be one to draw up, that.

Selby

[ECW Dan Selby]

And Purist, some interesting points made there.

I think it's a good point to bring up the whole 'every track including a bit of everything'. I think i'm guilty of that in some of my creations, too.

Selby

[stripedcat]

I think the biggest problem with track design nowadays is that circuits don't have very good corners. The obsession with the chicane is what is killing it, okay I accept that safety aspects are a concern - however there has to be balance as F1 needs decent circuits.

The only one of Tilke's circuits I like is Malaysia. That has a good flow to it. The rest are pretty naff. I hope he can do better for the Austin track.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

I think the biggest problem with track design nowadays is that circuits don't have very good corners. The obsession with the chicane is what is killing it, okay I accept that safety aspects are a concern - however there has to be balance as F1 needs decent circuits.

The only one of Tilke's circuits I like is Malaysia. That has a good flow to it. The rest are pretty naff. I hope he can do better for the Austin track.

I agree, although I'd say it is an obsession with hairpins-and-straights-and-hairpins that's killing it.

Although chicanes are just as bad at killing flow.

[Purist]

Well, Yannick, I'm not sure about the not wanting long tracks part at this juncture. Silverstone and Bahrain (for this year anyway) seem to fly in the face of that.

It's more like Bernie just wants tracks of fairly uniform length (5.3-5.6km) and moderate speed in F1 terms (125-132mph average speed on a real flier of a lap).

[foreversideways]

Even fast corners are meaningless if the driver isn't punished for making a mistake. It takes no bravery at all to push the limit if you have a car park to go off onto. From my own experience, you respected Cascades on the Foster's circuit at Oulton Park a lot more when the barrier was at the edge of the track, or Castle Coombe before they put the ridiculous chicanes in.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I'm still not sure as to why they arn't using more of the Paul Ricard style run-off. That seems to work nicely (I was watching a GT race there). Drivers are punished for going off/wide, and it something like F1, it'll ruine that set of tyres. That's heavy punishment in Formula 1.


Selby

"Heavy punishment" - not long ago they would hve been dead!

This business of go off drive around the car park, come back on and win the race is ridiculous!

Maybe they should make up a whole bunch of polystyrene trees and buildings and stand them in the run off areas. Once you hit a fake tree you are out for the race! (I am a safety nut, but the lack of precision is detracting from the art of race driving - as is the lack of overtaking and racing skill - time trial experts are not racing drivers!