[Official] Round 19: United States Grand Prix

[Greem]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

For last season that was true, but not this year. I wonder where you got that idea.

I did say "seems to". Watching the onboards this year he's been wrestling with his car a lot less than, well, everyone apart from Button. It suits him, which (at times this year) the other cars have not with their respective drivers.

Remind me to define "best" in future

[jedrinck]

I am not sure the onboard wrestling thing is always a good indicator of a car's "goodness", I described my doubts in post #243. If that were so Button would always be the one with the best car. He is just a smooth kid!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

I am not sure the onboard wrestling thing is always a good indicator of a car's "goodness", I described my doubts in post #243. If that were so Button would always be the one with the best car. He is just a smooth kid!

Button's biggest problem is that he cannot run supersoft tyres because Pirelli decides the compounds. With Button's driving style he should be able to run a softer compound than just about anybody else and this would be his competitive advantage.

Vettel is also naturally very smooth and easy on the tyres.

Perez also seems to be able to draw huge life out of tyres, smooth style.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

I think the comments about the Ferrari being 'a handful' because you see more steering motion in the on board footage don't tell the whole story. It's very much a matter of a driver's technique how much he moves the steering wheel upon corner entry and exit. Alonso's style has always been very jerky with Button being the other extreme. Maybe one reason why people think he is a magician who wrestles mediocre cars to 'where they have no right to be'. Don't get me wrong, I think Alonso is worth his money and probably the least prone to errors of the entire field but I don't think he has an edge in actual pace over Vettel or Hamilton.

Agreed - the biggest thing about Alonso is his consistency, he never has off days!

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Senna, Prost, etc gloated and moaned. Maybe to differing degrees, but they all gloated and moaned. It's all very, 'human'.

Senna was a melodramatic so-and-so at times. His strop in the drivers' with all that "Last year it was really bad for me" was a bit like taking your ball home.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Greem

I tend to agree (with your choice, not the OTT comment).

Vettel seems to have had the best car all season; the McLaren & Ferrari in-season developments have caught up to a degree but they're still not quite there. In both Hamilton's and Alonso's cases they've been wrestling with cars that have some underlying problems that don't suit them, yet they've both achieved far more than their team mates. As far as I can tell it says as much about them as drivers as it does the car, or team tactics in the case of Ferrari.

As for eulogising - I said earlier in the year that I didn't like Alonso but he'd impressed me so far. I still don't like him much (never really have, and the McLaren years made it worse) but my respect for him as a driver has grown immensely this year. If you want to describe that as a eulogy, so be it.

I was playing Devil's Advocate a bit (hopefully considered more sophisticated than trolling!). Alonso has been mighty this year no doubt, possibly the best driver. He's actually been phenomenal and I think he's improved and matured. I guess I'm just not quite sure the Ferrari is so bad, particularly recently with Massa's inconsistent return to form, but a return to form somewhat nonetheless. I just feel he's praised a bit too much vis-a-vis Vettel or Hamilton this year, relatively speaking. But there's no doubt he's been brilliant.

Such is the nature of F1 that it's difficult for us armchair experts to accurately assess the relative merits of cars.

[Purist]

It's not surprising that many dismissed Austin as "just another Tilkedrome". The track has many of his hallmarks: that "copy" of Turn 8 from Istanbul (Tower Turn they were calling this one), slow corners at both ends of each major straight, those wide corner entries at the main braking zones (carried over from India), the use of pronounced kinks in many places instead of more flowing corners, and those painted and astroturferd verges right there on either side of the designated track surface all come to mind. Tilke's firm came up with the master plan, so his was the principal, guiding hand in executing the project.

Again, for a Tilke track, it's not bad; I put it third behind Istanbul and Sepang. Those esses in the first sector is clearly the best segment of the lap. I think Turn 1 (Phil Hill) got too much attention, both in the media, and in the design process. It just seems like, next to the first sector, other parts of the lap "weren't getting the love", and thus kind of feel like afterthoughts by comparison. I'm fine having all those apexes in the stadium, but it would have been an improement to have the corners be more flowing through there, which would increase the potential for side-by-side running, as well as just improve the look of that section. I also found there to be a lack of imagination with the plan form shape of Turns 1, 11, 12, 19, and 20. Let's face it, the elevation changes almost single-handedly save this circuit's ass!

As for the passing we saw, there were a few main factors at work. The generally low grip probably increased the number of viable lines in a number of places. The hard tires augmented this feature of the Austin track. The third is something that is somewhat clear in a few spots, but harder to pinpoint in many other areas: cambered corners. The Turn 1 hairpin is banked, as are Turns 11 and 12 to lesser degrees; Turn 12 has that dip on the inside in the middle of the turn, more like the old La Source hairpin than a conventional speedway turn. So, for the people lauding those wide corner entries, which hardly got any use that I could see, those did NOT make those overtaking maneuvers; it was those key, banked turns that really did it. And considering the failure that those wide entries have been twice now at India, I'm not surprised.

Along with those three main overtaking zones, I highly suspect that Turns 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, and 15 are all marginally banked; with all that paved run-off around, it's kind of difficult to tell in some places. Given where the cars slow for the first time in the sequence, it wouldn't surprise me if Turn 4 is just a tad off-camber, and I'm confident in saying that Turn 6 is off-camber. As for the Turn 10 kink, I'm not entirely sure. Given the slope of the hill, it could be adversely cambered just because it's following the natural topography. Having watched the Speed coverage of all sessions, I think the final few corners quite possibly have some really interesting characteristics. The Turn 16-18 combination, I think, may start off just slightly off-camber, but then transition to being somewhat banked in the latter portion. The infamous Turn 19 seems to be a bit banked on entry, but then that drops away as you traverse the corner. I think Turn 20 then is the flip side of that, starting with a touch of adverse camber, with the outside of the road steadily coming back up to meet you on exit, if you don't understeer off before that.

I think it's good that they made interesting use of elevation changes, and opportunities to manipulate the camber of the road. However, it remains to be seen what happens to all those alternative lines once the track rubbers in, and once F1 returns, presumably with softer tire compounds. I think a number of areas are likely to become much more single-file in nature going forward, and again, I would expect no small part of that to be down to the use of more acutely-radiused kinks, rather than fairly open, flowing corners.

The first race was good, and I expect future ones will still likely be much better than what we often see at Korea, India, Shanghai, Bahrain, etc. However, my biggest issue is one that I think others can certainly agree about with me. That is, to get the racing we got, we had banked hairpins, long straights with slow corners at either end (theoretically, tailor-made for overtaking), AND wide corner entries at key outbraking/overtaking zones (which don't really do anything for the racing in actuality), AND the aid of DRS, AND, well, you get the picture. The level of absurdity just boggles the mind. I mean, it shouldn't be this hard to have good racing, AND the fastest circuit, road racing cars on the planet. Something is wrong with this picture.

Finally, the pitfalls of ultra-wide corner entries should be quite clear to anyone who used to watch CART in its heyday. Go look up the Turn 1, Lap 1 antics from Cleveland on YouTube.

[wnut]

For me the introduction of off camber corners is really interesting.
They were apparently banned from F1 circuits for many years.

One of the most interesting off camber corners was Leeuwkop, the corner leading onto the OLD Kyalami straight. Can still be seen on 70s GP footage.
If you got the corner right you were quick down the straight, but if you fell off the camber; very easy to do; you were very slow down the straight which lead to many overtaking opportunities. Good for racing!

Does anyone know of other reverse camber corners other than those at Austin?

[Adam43]

I agree with that, off camber corners tend to be harder, especially if the is a mix in a circuit. They should be encouraged!

The corner with no name before Pouhon at Spa might be? Although not drastically.

[Peter Mallett]

I've often thought so, but I think it just an optical illusion.

[Purist]

I think Turns 1 and 5 at Istanbul are a bit off-camber.

The most famous example of adverse camber that comes to mind is Turn 2 at Mosport Park.

I'm sure they've done a huge amount of work to level things at Spa, as most of the corners there used to be banked, as they were based on the public roads, which were cambered to ease things for road cars, and probably also to aid drainage.

Off-camber corners weren't outright banned entirely, but it has been recommended that they be avoided, and that if they are present, the apex speed be rather low. To my knowledge, this has not changed. Austin certainly violates several of the design guidelines set out in the FIA regulations. This raises the question though, that if Tilke can have basically free reign, so long as he doesn't design something blatantly stupid/hazardous, why the heck hasn't he been able to do a better job on more of his designs?!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Clearways at Brands was a great anti-camber corner, it would be cool if that could be incorporated into a future track.

[wolfhound]

I see that the US GP is looking for a date change to avoid a clash with football and the NASCAR final for next year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104741

If they cannot move something RV's will be the way to go next year.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I've often thought so, but I think it just an optical illusion.

It is trickier than it ought to be, but I suspect you're right. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about the next corner!

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Purist

I think Turns 1 and 5 at Istanbul are a bit off-camber.

The most famous example of adverse camber that comes to mind is Turn 2 at Mosport Park.

I'm sure they've done a huge amount of work to level things at Spa, as most of the corners there used to be banked, as they were based on the public roads, which were cambered to ease things for road cars, and probably also to aid drainage.

Off-camber corners weren't outright banned entirely, but it has been recommended that they be avoided, and that if they are present, the apex speed be rather low. To my knowledge, this has not changed. Austin certainly violates several of the design guidelines set out in the FIA regulations. This raises the question though, that if Tilke can have basically free reign, so long as he doesn't design something blatantly stupid/hazardous, why the heck hasn't he been able to do a better job on more of his designs?!

He just isn't a good designer.

I often think he lucks into some of his better work. And then, when he miraculously hits on something, he repeats it on other tracks (see Turkey Turn 8, which was transplanted onto Austin).

Absolute chancer.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

He just isn't a good designer.

I often think he lucks into some of his better work. And then, when he miraculously hits on something, he repeats it on other tracks (see Turkey Turn 8, which was transplanted onto Austin).

Absolute chancer.

I think some of his designs are influenced by his racing touring cars in the VLN series, which is maybe why his tracks don't translate so well when it comes to F1.