Why do we not have a genuinely fast circuit anymore?

[NaBUru38]

With so much downforce in F1, the only way to have long braking distances (to enourage overtakes) is to build long straights and tight hairpins / chicanes. With 310 km/h straights and 180-240 km/h corners, drivers would brake only a little, and there wouldn't be any passing. In contrast, my fellow Argentine track designers have lots of room and build very fast circuits, with (for TC2000, for example) 220 km/h straights and 120-150 km/h corners. Cars brake much less thn an F1, so they can overtake at those places.

[ECW Dan Selby]

@wnut - That's what I mean - obviously you may have to tighten those turns slightly, just to offer a bit of a challenge for the drivers.

Here's a rough sketch up I was just doing to try and demonstrate my idea... It's really very rough! But it's more the concept...



Hope that works...

Selby

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Better hope there are no dragster drivers listening.....

I'm looking at this purely from an F1 drivers point of view.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I'm looking at this purely from an F1 drivers point of view.

Yeh and that's why i've stuck it in the F1 section. I totally understand why people would think this should be in the My Tracks section, but it's actually a Formula One debate

Selby

[Purist]

Hmm, if the prevailing theory on overtaking in F1 were true, Les Combes (205mph to 110mph) and Parabolica (210mph to 110+mph) would NEVER be overtaking zones, yet Les Combes certainly is as good an overtaking point as any on the calendar.

At the Osterreichring in 1986-87, you had guys making dives to overtake into the Bosch Kurve (160mph), the Texaco Bends (140mph), and the Jochen Rindt Kurve (130+mph).

The changes to Silverstone I don't think added any overtaking zones, though I don't think any were lost either, but with a longer lap, and fewer laps in a GP, it may have hurth things slightly. And the changes to Hockenheim failed, period! Overtaking was MUCH more possible on the old circuit, even with the lower lap count. And no, not every circuit needs to be a great technical challenge in the standard sense. How many classic races have we had at the Hungaroring anyway?

[Sodemo]

I agree, we dont really have the cars now for a race to "succeed" on the old Osterriechring. If they cleaned the cars up, gave them teeny tiny wings and big fat slicks, stick them back to a 2200jmm track, then we might have cars that can actually follow and race one another, and then a track like Zeltweg might actually work.

[Mr Pink]

Of course there's a risk a fast track like that would not be very good for overtaking, I for one would think it's worth it to have one race a year on a track completly different from the others on the calender.

There's definatly some very good circuits on the calender but still i miss variety.

[deeks6]

Bathurst!

[Bononi]

Which one is the fastest track in F1 ?


Monza ?

[JeremySmith]

Monza,Spa,or Silverstone Bon ?

[Marbot]

Monza always seems to be the shortest race of the year, in terms of time taken to complete the required distance (dry race).

[Purist]

Yes, Monza is a step above Spa or Silverstone in terms of average speed.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Monza always seems to be the shortest race of the year, in terms of time taken to complete the required distance (dry race).

Are you going to come to our Grand Prix from Sheffield...

[JeremySmith]

Monza is just smoking...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Are you going to come to our Grand Prix from Sheffield...

At the moment I can barely make it to the end of the garden path. But I do have some spare cash......and some relatives in Houston.

But unfortunately, Guillain Barre Syndrome can take months or even years to go away.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

At the moment I can barely make it to the end of the garden path. But I do have some spare cash......and some relatives in Houston.

But unfortunately, Guillain Barre Syndrome can take months or even years to go away.

If you are better by that time, and I do hope you are...

I will make you welcome in Austin, anytime...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

If you are better by that time, and I do hope you are...

I will make you welcome in Austin, anytime...

[jab]

Another theory: compromised set-ups

Tilke has spent the last few years obsessing about getting the right balance of fast and slow corners in his circuits mainly because the goal for creating overtaking these days is creating an ideal set-up that is a compromise of fast and slow - high downforce but with straights and heavy braking zones. Hence why circuits like Fuji, Shanghai, Valencia, Austin - you name it - all have fiddly little slow complexes to negotiate, which forces the teams to add downforce, and also allows the packs to bunch up in the races. I reckon it has worked, although I don't like them. Meanwhile the high speed circuits like Monza, Barcelona and Silverstone have produced some of the worst racing

Also the more cynical among us may suggest that these slow complexes are requested by a certain F1 mogul who wants the cameras to get a good shot of sponsors' logos

[ECW Dan Selby]

Interesting thoughts, jab.

But as I said, we have the cameras/technology to now pick up the sponsors quite easily. Also, they could use some very large advertising hoardings to compensate for that.

And Monza's had some good races imo. Silverstone not so much, because I think the layout just doesn't lend itself to overtaking (however, it does now with Brooklands/Village, one quick, one very slow).

Besides, there's nothing stopping them creating some variety. What's the point in having a calendar full of 'comprimised set up's?

I do see the idea behind it, but it's no good if they're all like that.

Like I said, I don't think we've had an opportunity to see 'modern day' F1 cars on a genuinely high speed track..?

Selby

[NewYankee01]

we all have to bear in mind f1 and other types of motorsport have changed immensely, just look at how unviable having f1 turn up to most circuits used in the 60s/70s/80s and see if they can stand up to modern f1 spectator standards (need for improved facilities, more grandstands, viewing areas, better road access).

add to this most tracks back in the day were updated runway tracks instead of purpose built places like tilke designs, so obviously long fast tracks were always going to be the norm instead of now.

the fia/fisa has always wanted to reduce speeds when the cars get too fast so why fly in the face of all that and create a high speed track,

high speed makes huge tracks, sure you could have a track like monza again but that means you have boring races and lots of laps which sure gives the same spectators more views but with the cost of setting up longer tracks factoring infrastructure and buying land at premium rates (if its not already owned by the circuit) tarmacing/manning it, and surely bernie would want more paying customers?

you try and put spectators on straights in crap viewing areas you have to charge naff all, so a circuit punctuated by a few chicanes slow corners, 60/70/80% or more of the circuit would be of poor standards for spectators which for most circuits case in point china that sees little interest for most of the year, circuits must be able to rake in cash maybe 4 decent money flowing days like a gp by having 150000 people paying £ 40-300 per day or more instead of 40000 paying £50...
chinese grand stand being used as an advertising hoarding?

circuit ownership is a dodgy thing, tracks that have been tried testing and set up like former gp circuit brands hatch, they "struggled" for a time and keep struggling to keep hold of high profile events, whats it like trying to set up a new high speed track in some countries where there could be a small following.

making a new track costs sometimes hundreds of millions, its better than modifying an old track because people can complain the circuit may have lost its original feeling. new tracks depend on bernie giving the go ahead, so if he thought its not lucrative to have a gp in abu dhabi then that means gt1 wouldnt have raced there abu dhabi would remain to have a tiny motorsport following, gt1 dont have enough money to build it etc. 1 man sanctions the creation of new tracks, thats the only guy that has the money to influence it, thing is he dont like fast tracks.

[Marbot]

Of course, the other obvious thing about very fast circuits is that it takes a much shorter time to complete the 305 km (give or take a lap) maximum race distance. Therefore sponsors, spectators and others will lose out.

I can't be the only one that thinks that the Italian GP is over and done with far too quickly? And there was talk of making the race distances shorter!

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Of course, the other obvious thing about very fast circuits is that it takes a much shorter time to complete the 305 km (give or take a lap) maximum race distance. Therefore sponsors, spectators and others will lose out.

I can't be the only one that thinks that the Italian GP is over and done with far too quickly? And there was talk of making the race distances shorter!

Fortunately that seems to have gone away, I quote agree that the faster races are already too short, although I do realise that they can't be any longer without redesigning the cars to carry more fuel.

The most important thing about the calender is that it should be varied. That's why I loved the old Hockenheim so much, not because it was especially good in some objective sense but because it was different. Sadly the circuits used for F1 are converging on a very mediocre average.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Well guys, the circuit I designed tries to take spectators in to consideration.

All the grandstands have a view that's:
1) Safe
2) Has at LEAST 2 different parts of the track on show...

I simply can't see how these billionaires can't fund a track to have some nice changes in elevation (nothing TOO extreme, but just to add some variety to some of the corners. Downhill in to a breaking zone increases the braking zone, so that's a possibility for more challenge). I totally take all the arguments in to consideration, but I can't help but feel if this was a new, purpose built track, they could find ways to counteract these difficulties that we've seen arise in dangerously quick tracks from the past.

I've already explained how I feel sponsorship could be compensated. Huge hoardings in different areas (which they wouldn't normally have on any other track), also paired with the fact you'd be calling this race track 'The Fastest in the World Today' or something along those lines, it's all marketing.

It's literally an open door for companies like Monster and Red Bull. It goes in perfectly with their image.

The one thing I could see an issue with is the race distance/length.

The track i've made is 5km in length (3.1 miles), and you're doing lap times in around just over 1 minute (usually about 1.03). I appreciate that this is too short, but by the same token, I don't see why there's such an issue about it?

Why can the rules not be re-written (and let's face it, if they can do it mid-season, then I can't see why this'd be an issue..) to allow more flexibility in regards to race distances? I'm pretty sure there's some rules in there that states it must be no longer than X amount of laps/X amount of time. I would have thought if say, 90 laps is going to be around about an hour and a half, then what's the issue there? If there's a safety car, we have the two hour time limit.

Forgive me if i'm being completely ignorant fellas but i'm still not convinced as to why we don't have a track like this on the calendar..

Great debate!

Selby

[Purist]

NY01, There were a lot of airfield circuits in the 1950s, but the vast majority were very short-lived, and nobody remembers them. The principle country with a significant number of established airfield circuits, both then and now, is the UK. A lot of permanent road courses were built in the '5t0s, '60s, and '70s, with quite a few of them still being around. A fair number of the major circuits in use in the '50s and '60s were also of the road circuit type, like Rouen, Bremgarten, Pescara, etc. And actually, that's how Hockenheim and Spa started out.

No, a high-speed circuit does NOT need to be that massive, and back then, Monza was NOT a long circuit, even compared to a track like the original Interlagos; F1 only used the combined circuit at Monza 4 times. Brands Hatch though can certainly be considered high-speed circuit, but it's not quite in the same vein as what we're thinking. The old Kyalami, is a very good example of a high-speed circuit that has relatively little complexity, had some good scope for racing, and wasn't all that massive by any means, at 2.55 miles around.

And no, Barcelona most definitely does NOT qualify as a high-speed circuit, especially since they tightened the corner at the end of the back straight and added that chicane before New Holland.

On a side note, all these added complexes and the associated run-offs actually make a certain lap length and the amount of space used greater. The average lap in F1 is now roughly 3.4 miles, and with Monza at 3.6, well, it's NOT looking so outlandish, is it. And that 3.4 isn't simply the result of a few outliers (Spa and the old Hockenheim). Sepang, Istanbul, Shanghai, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Valencia, and Yeongam are all 3.3-3.5 miles around. If they ever added Losail (Qatar) or Dubai, both of those are in that same length range.

Hockenheim was shortened (4.239 to 2.842 miles), but that's been the exception to the rule of late. They wanted to add half a mile to Donington. Fuji was made marginally longer. Silverstone added nearly half a mile (now up to 3.667 miles), which puts it in fairly close company with Monza and Suzuka. Nurburgring, with the added Mercedes Arena, went from 2.831 miles to 3.199 miles. Tilke's proposals for Cape Town (not developed thus far anyway) and Sochi are actually even longer than the aforementioned circuits, at 3.542 miles (Cape Town proposal) and 3.696 miles (Sochi).

Finally, apart from Britain (Silverstone) and Germany (Hockenheim/Nurburgring), I don't think any GP brings in 150,000 people on race day. A majority of the present F1 circuits simply can't hold that many people, at least not officially. And I would say the spectator situation is six one, half a dozen the other when thinking of high-speed circuits. Spectators at Monza or the old hockenheim got to see some great slipstreaming battles. If looking down the straights a ways is an issue, bring binoculars. The trade-off with the new tracks is that, unless you have a view of the first corner in the complex, you won't see an actual overtake occur, probably, and the nearest you'll be to the cars is so much further away that you NEED the binoculars by default.

[ECW Dan Selby]

So for me to get just over a minute on a circuit that's 3 miles long (only a little shorter than the new averages...!!) with an average speed of around about 150mph, isn't that bad??

Like I said, i've made sure there's plenty of spectator positives. Plus, with these tracks, it just needs a few carefully thought out big screens to help. Obviously I don't expect fans at the southern part of the circuit to be able to see the start of the race, so aids like that will be necessary.

Selby