[Tech Issue] Wurz - 'Let's get back to more extreme track designs'

[ECW Dan Selby]

http://en.f1i.com/magazine/57699-ale...k-designs.html

Very interesting article about how Wurz thinks the upside to the halo head protection is that we can start to look at the asphalt run-offs and other bits and pieces that have made driving slightly less challenging.

We've seen a gravel trap be reinstated to the Parabolica in Monza, could we see more? What would you like to see change in circuit designs, old and new?

Selby

[pirenzo]

I think circuit design has become more extreme recently, at least in some ways. The attempts to give the track in Korea a 'street circuit' feel with close walls; the genuine street circuits in Singapore and Baku. Fewer tracks are coming on to the calendar in the same mold as Austin or Istanbul.

I think the uninspiring locations and non-existent attempts to give the trackside environs a unique local feel are bigger problems. If FOM continue to insist upon narrow shots focused close-up on the cars, then all of the tracks are going to keep looking like the same blend of tarmac, concrete, and gravel.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The issue these days is that it's very rare that new build circuits are built just as racing circuits. To get planning permision and no doubt funding, they have to be part of a larger complex design that pretty much has to be town sized.

Of those circuit which have been built purely for the circuit, they have to be in the middle of no-where to avoid the Nimby's and the noise-police which in turn makes getting spectators want to travel to the venue difficult. Even though the circuit itself may be tremendous ...Istanbul park. Below F1 levels I'd add Motorland Aragon.

Korea is an example of the part of a larger complex situation, where the circuit was the first part built, and when the money for the rest of the development fell through which iiirc was a marina type development (the reason for the shape of the last corner) with hotels and housing...essentially building a new suburb to the city.

[chillibowl]

im inclined to agree with him that there should be more consequences for mistakes but still unsure where the line should be.

more armco barriers would be on the extreme side for me though but more gravel makes sense as im not entirely convinced tarmac run offs are more safe.

the ability to change it from year to year until the right balance is found so i suppose i would say that i wish new tracks (and old tracks) were designed with more adaptability in mind although im not sure how that would be possible (or at the least very expensive).

but basically i think paved run offs are there to keep cars in the race more then they are there to maintain a safer environment anyways.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Korea is an example of the part of a larger complex situation, where the circuit was the first part built, and when the money for the rest of the development fell through which iiirc was a marina type development (the reason for the shape of the last corner) with hotels and housing...essentially building a new suburb to the city.

It was a crazy idea to even conceive the prospect of it being a successful venue. It is built right next to a heavy industrial site that belongs to part of the Samsung Group of Companies, and is over 400 kms from the nearest international airport. Although the drivers and team bosses may have the option to be helicoptered into the vicinity, for others it's a near 5 hour from Seoul to the nearest decent sized town/city near the circuit.

And that's the problem facing any international spectator wishing to visit. No major airlines fly into anywhere nearer than Seoul, although there are some flights from Japan, China and Vietnam. And if they did make the journey, do they really want to stay in a complex that is surrounded by ocean-going ship building yards and steel foundries?

[Purist]

Well, Chilli, I'd say that street circuits, and a few others with sections in tight confines for other reasons, may be suited to armco. Monaco uses quite a bit of it, and in recent years, it's still works pretty well at Watkins Glen. Funny thing, SAFER barriers are actually closer to armco than a number of the other options.

I tend to agree; the biggest thing with the paved run-offs seems to be to keep cars in the race. I'd rather they keep the gravel, get rid of the "no outside assistance" rule, and have crews be able to re-start the cars after extracting them.

[Greem]

Worth remembering that a lot of FIA Grade 1 and 2 circuits also play host to MotoGP; many circuit changes have come from them rather than F1/FIA/FOM.

The circuits don't exist in complete 4 wheel isolation, which leads to compromises in safety design.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

Worth remembering that a lot of FIA Grade 1 and 2 circuits also play host to MotoGP; many circuit changes have come from them rather than F1/FIA/FOM.

The circuits don't exist in complete 4 wheel isolation, which leads to compromises in safety design.

Great post as you would know, thank you ....

[Purist]

How much paved run-off do Jerez or Mugello have? Answer, not much. Does Qatar have much of any, either?

F1 is responsible for the VAST majority of the stuff.

[Akrapovic]

Qatar has paved run off before gravel traps, very similar to how F1 does it. Silverstone for example, wasn't Woodcote changed to suit bikes?

[Mike E]

On the other hand:
"MotoGP riders will use the Formula 1 layout of the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya for the remainder of this weekend’s Catalan Grand Prix in the wake of Moto2 rider Luis Salom's fatal crash.

The decision was taken following on from the death of Salom during Moto2 practice on Friday, which occurred after the Spaniard fell from his bike at the high-speed right-hander Turn 12.

It is understood that MotoGP riders were unhappy about the prospect of having to use a corner where there is no gravel to slow down the bike in the event of a crash – only tarmac run-off."

http://www.motorsport.com/motogp/new...-death-743318/

[Purist]

It can be difficult to tell, Ak, when all you see on the coverage is the track in the "under the lights" condition. It is an F1 test track, or at least meets the requirements for it; so, I'm not surprised about the paved run-off there, like with Motorland Aragon.

Furthering my last note, Phillip Island is nearly devoid of paved run-off. Going from MotoGP to WSBK, Donington Park has comparatively almost zero paved run-off, also.

Whatever the case, "safety" should not be substituted in place of what is really mere "convenience".

I made a similar note in a WEC-related thread a while back. You push back the surroundings so much that you lose your frames of reference for the speed and maneuverability of the cars. Paving over everything in sight removes so much of the sense of depth because the environment lacks even an apparent texture (MANY more people are FAR more likely to WANT to go to a race in a park-like setting than a carpark or airport ramp.) The drivers can get away with being sloppy, which destroys almost all sense of consequence from an inherently dangerous human pursuit. And it fouls things up further when the stewards even have to get involved with track limits, and can't/won't police that consistently. Given all of this, is it any wonder that motor racing is having difficulty retaining past and current fans, much less making new ones?

(To clarify, YES, even just grass is FAR superior to paved run-off in helping to give some idea of depth and scale when observing a race. VIR may provide the best illustration of this.)

[pirenzo]

Originally Posted by Purist

I made a similar note in a WEC-related thread a while back. You push back the surroundings so much that you lose your frames of reference for the speed and maneuverability of the cars. Paving over everything in sight removes so much of the sense of depth because the environment lacks even an apparent texture

Whether the mechanics of what you are describing are absolutely correct or not, I think you're making a good point; though it probably applies more to TV audiences than spectators (I think the sheer distance from the action is a greater impairment there).

The human eye cannot assess speed, attitude, and momentum in isolation; it uses visual cues from the surrounding context to make an estimation of these things. It makes sense to me that if you reduce the richness of that context, it will be harder to appreciate the dynamism and poise of the cars at speed.

[S griffin]

I would like to see less Tarmac runoff, especially in places where track limit arguments are common. Also you see some of the road/street circuits Indycars use and F1 should be able to handle tracks like that I hope

[ECW Dan Selby]

Honestly, i'd be pretty happy with just a strip of gravel a few meters wide. It's enough to get the car a bit unsteady as it leaves the track, and will make the driver be a little more careful as he rejoins, too.

I do like the concept of drivers making an error and being beached, though! Always added to the unpredictability for me.

Selby

[Purist]

I'm good with, and even prefer, having a few maters of grass before the gravel, so that the smallest mistakes DON'T lead to an instant beaching. However, they DO result in some time lost, which is the whole point; you should be penalized for leaving the track.

Pirenzo, good to see you're still floating about out there.

Yeah, my comments may be more toward the TV-watching end, but do have some impact on the live experience. Also, all that extra tarmac means you can get cooked by convection from below on a warm day, even if there's a cloud overhead.

And yes, the larger distance for how much live spectators are set back does matter, as you said. It really can be the difference between "being a part OF the action" or "being apart FROM the event". And I get it in the extreme version, with 20/400 vision, and only out of one eye. Hence, live viewing at oval speedways, and road courses like NOLA, just doesn't do it for me.

(Put it this way. If you have 20/20 vision, how well can you see an object at 20ft? How well can you see it at 400ft? Now, imagine that you can only see the object that is 20ft away as well as you could see the one 400ft away. Does that make the picture clearer?)

(One other aside, identifying cars takes MUCH less visual detail and focus than picking out the particulars of a given, human face. So in case anyone was going to tell me that some other sport or game would be better for me, think again.)

[Sodemo]

I really don't see how the two things are connected.

So the Halo, which is designed to protect the drivers head in the event of debris becoming airborne, affects the track designs how exactly? I don't get it.

[Roninho]

It doesnt make much sense to me to at the one hand require (new) circuits to have major tarmac runoffs/space that kill off all atmosphere, and a the same time race at Montreal, Monaco, Melbourne, Spa, other street circuits, etc.

Don't get me wrong, i really want them to race at circuits like spa or montreal, i just find it weird that they seem to have two set of rules for circuits.

[Moneyseeker]

He could get his wish at Baku, looking very narrow in some places....

[chillibowl]

very very narrow. Button and Rosberg on F1 safety concerns going backwards at this track.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bu...t-baku-788788/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

very very narrow. Button and Rosberg on F1 safety concerns going backwards at this track.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bu...t-baku-788788/

Brutally frank comments from those two!

Richard

[stripedcat]

Do you think they'll be more street circuits in the future? Is that what Bernie wants? Or what the drivers want?

[bella]

street circuits make better commercial sense (no criminally expensive circuit to build, maintain and turn into a sustainable product), and obviously fans love them, but do fans love them because they're not the norm....?

i'm a little disappointed rosberg's jumped onto the safety bandwagon in that motorsport.com piece, but he articulates his concerns really well and with good context so maybe he's only answering a biased question.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Roninho

It doesnt make much sense to me to at the one hand require (new) circuits to have major tarmac runoffs/space that kill off all atmosphere, and a the same time race at Montreal, Monaco, Melbourne, Spa, other street circuits, etc.

Spa already has huge tarmac runoff areas.

[NaBUru38]

Rosberg also suggested that the venue in its current form might not be up to the general safety standards set by the FIA.


"I really trust the FIA to get the job done, they have all the calculations and the simulations, they know exactly the speeds and everything - there's given rules that they have to make tracks.


"I hope that they stuck to them - I'm doubting it a little bit because, looking at those corners... but let's see."

Of course Baku passed the safety inspection, since the money transfers cleared.