Why do we not have a genuinely fast circuit anymore?

[stripedcat]

I don't whether or not, the circuit owners take into account whether to place grandstands near the circuit's main overtaking areas? I would have thought, that was a good idea?

Just looking at a previous post mentioning the 'old' Kyalami circuit. That was high speed and provided decent racing. Plus it did seem to have enough space for run-offs. Perhaps there wasn't as much driver skill involved as Österreichring, but some of the corners(Crowthrone and Sunset) were spectacular. Sadly it is a glorified go kart track now.

There doesn't seem to be that much variety in the tracks. Okay, I accept we have to have Monaco(I like that by the way). I think we all accept that overtaking is nigh on impossible there(unless it rains), but it is a street circuit which is an amazing challenge.

Any banking on the corners at new circuits? No. Chicanes, oh yes. High speed corners -well not really(only Malaysia and Turkey's turn 8). Even 130 R has been neutered, at Suzuka. Not many turns allow different lines into them at circuits(I can only really think of La Source at Spa and Tarzan at Zandvoort). Apparently the new Indian circuit is meant to do this, as it is very wide. Plus it is meant to have elevation change as well. We'll wait and see.

[Purist]

Jab, the theory has failed, unfortunately. And as you described it, it makes perfect sense, because there is an inherent and fatal flaw in it. All those niggly complexes, particularly when added together, take such a percentage of the total lap time, that putting on the downforce makes the most sense. And the downforce, in turn, makes cars more stable, braking distances shorter, and top-end speeds lower.

As to the three tracks you mentioned, Silverstone is neither at the best nor the worst end of the spectrum, and it has been the scene of quite a number of spectacular overtakes over the years. My main complaint about Silverstone is that they've made the track too busy overall.

Monza's flow has just been messed with WAY too much. Adding chicanes really broke up the slipstreaming. Then they tightened the Lesmos, and finally tightened the existing chicanes. If you really want to see the full affect of taking off the downforce there, having a few dodgy, higher-speed corners actually helps, because the car is less planted, and so the better driver can actually gain an advantage coming off the corner. Remember at Hockenheim how guys would get real tail-happy coming off the first corner and heading on down the run to the Jim Clark Chicane? THAT instability, and having to drive through it, is something F1 NEEDS back.

As for Barcelona, it's NOT high-speed on the whole; it never really was. And it is even less so because of the reprofiled corner at the end of the back straight, and especially because of the chicane added ahead of the final turn. The biggest issue there, however, is that it is the principle testing venue. I'm firmly in the camp that says circuits that host Grands Prix should NOT be used for testing. If there aren't enough other Grade 1 or 1T circuits, well, you've raised your standards to the point of pointlessness, and I can't feel sorry for you about that.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Purist

Jab, the theory has failed, unfortunately. And as you described it, it makes perfect sense, because there is an inherent and fatal flaw in it. All those niggly complexes, particularly when added together, take such a percentage of the total lap time, that putting on the downforce makes the most sense. And the downforce, in turn, makes cars more stable, braking distances shorter, and top-end speeds lower.

To a certain extent. You're right that they have gone down the high downforce route. But higher downforce settings allow more slipstreaming. If you look at Bahrain, before they messed around with it last year, it was probably the best circuit on the calendar for overtaking. I'd say Shanghai is up there as well for similar reasons, ditto Sepang. Meanwhile, Monza, the only proper high speed circuit we've got left, is one of the worst for overtaking because it's a lot more difficult to slipstream

The great mysteries for me are Valencia and Abu Dhabi - I expected both to provide good racing but they've flopped, so Tilke's not perfect. But I don't think he's a total numpty either. His circuits have traditionally been better for racing than some of the traditional ones

Originally Posted by Purist

As to the three tracks you mentioned, Silverstone is neither at the best nor the worst end of the spectrum, and it has been the scene of quite a number of spectacular overtakes over the years. My main complaint about Silverstone is that they've made the track too busy overall.

Monza's flow has just been messed with WAY too much. Adding chicanes really broke up the slipstreaming. Then they tightened the Lesmos, and finally tightened the existing chicanes. If you really want to see the full affect of taking off the downforce there, having a few dodgy, higher-speed corners actually helps, because the car is less planted, and so the better driver can actually gain an advantage coming off the corner. Remember at Hockenheim how guys would get real tail-happy coming off the first corner and heading on down the run to the Jim Clark Chicane? THAT instability, and having to drive through it, is something F1 NEEDS back.

As for Barcelona, it's NOT high-speed on the whole; it never really was. And it is even less so because of the reprofiled corner at the end of the back straight, and especially because of the chicane added ahead of the final turn. The biggest issue there, however, is that it is the principle testing venue. I'm firmly in the camp that says circuits that host Grands Prix should NOT be used for testing. If there aren't enough other Grade 1 or 1T circuits, well, you've raised your standards to the point of pointlessness, and I can't feel sorry for you about that.

When I said Barcelona and Silverstone were high speed, I was meaning more in their old configurations. The difference is they are/were high speed with lots of fast corners

For me, both have been ruined. It's hard to get romantic about Silverstone now because it has changed beyond what I have grown up with it being like (and I'm still only young). Adding a Tilke-esque bit onto it, even though it wasn't by Tilke, getting rid of Bridge (even though they said they wouldn't), and then moving the pits has just turned it into another bog standard circuit not unlike all the other Tilkedromes. Barcelona's always been boring but the chicane killed it completely. I agree on not testing there

But before they were ruined, they still weren't great for racing either, Silverstone in particular. The racing there had been getting progressively worse from the turn of the century. The 2006 race was perhaps the worst I can remember. If you think, the only decent races there since 2000 were one where there was a safety car because of Neil Horan and one where it rained cats and dogs. The reason those overtakes there have been noteworthy is not just because they're spectacular but because they are so few in number (like F1 in general). I think it's only because it hosted the British GP that allowed people to overlook the fact that the races were generally awful

Monza's always been a flat-out blast rather than a racing circuit. I don't remember a good race there ever. They've always tended to be very processional, even 2008 when it was wet. Hockenheim was too but it did have a tendency to throw up surprise results, because back then some unusual teams came up with very good low downforce packages (I'm thinking Ferrari in 1994 and Benetton in 1997, for instance). That made up for it a bit. Plus they were what they said they were - high speed. It was just something different and I do miss the days of old Hockenheim and really skinny wings twice a year

High speed races have always been more intriguing than exciting. The difference is we have bullet-proof reliability thanks to the rev limit, and fuel strategy was first figured out and then abolished altogether with the fuel ban. I'm not expecting an exciting race at Monza this year, but nothing new really - I think you're perhaps rose-tinting a bit here

[Purist]

Jab, I don't know where you're getting this great impression of Bahrain or Shanghai from. I've been woefully disappointed in both, pretty well throughout their tenures on the calendar.

At Bahrain, the only battle I can recall that has stuck at all was the Renault (possibly Piquet Jr.) and the Toro Rosso (I think) there in 2009 or so, when the Renault was using KERS strategically to avoid being fully overtaken for several laps. The most memorable moments, by far, from Bahrain were Hulkenberg losing it in the endurance part of the course last year, and Alonso climbing on top of Hamilton in 2008. That's it!

As for Shanghai, it's had a couple of races saved by weather, and another one (either 2004 or 2005) saved by a pair of safety car periods, and Michael Schumacher's inability to stay on the road at that track. I've been fairly disappointed by the lack of ability of a car to overtake another of similar pace along that back straight. Turn 1 has been about as good a place often times, and for competitive passes, Turn 5 has been the best, honestly.

For actual racing, I'd place Abu Dhabi with Shanghai, above Bahrain and Valencia, but below Singapore by a bit, and well below Sepang and Istanbul.

[stripedcat]

Can't say I'm that fond of Silverstone's new layout, either. It is still quite difficult to overtake there. I wasn't that impressed with the 1991 redesign actually(Bridge not withstanding), it disrupted the 'flow' of the circuit a bit too much. Although the Maggots and Becketts twists added to it, I admit.

[JeremySmith]

It did not produce as exciting race as I thought it would..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

Can't say I'm that fond of Silverstone's new layout, either. It is still quite difficult to overtake there. I wasn't that impressed with the 1991 redesign actually(Bridge not withstanding), it disrupted the 'flow' of the circuit a bit too much. Although the Maggots and Becketts twists added to it, I admit.

Pitty they didn't alternate the two different layouts every other year; you'd get two tracks in one.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Good point..!

Selby

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Pitty they didn't alternate the two different layouts every other year; you'd get two tracks in one.

Even better, randomly change which layout to use during the race.

Just get some marshalls to rush across the track and move a load of cones.

Sweet!

[hondafan37]

Le Mans 24 hours circuit could be a very fast to the F1.
This circuit must be the future France Grand Prix.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Even better, randomly change which layout to use during the race.

Just get some marshalls to rush across the track and move a load of cones.

Sweet!

Lool!

[Tal Aras]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Even better, randomly change which layout to use during the race.

Just get some marshalls to rush across the track and move a load of cones.

Sweet!

You're mixing GP up with rallying, where the drivers rearrange the cones and the marshals put the cones back (fun doing it with cars coming the wrong way round Paddock Hill Bend on both sides of you).

On a more serious note, most circuits are used for more than just the GP's. What may be a great fast straight for an F1 car might be a long dull stretch for a club man (or even a support race like the Porsches).

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Even better, randomly change which layout to use during the race.

Just get some marshalls to rush across the track and move a load of cones.

Sweet!

Thought that was why Bernie put Virgin, Lotus and HRT on the grid!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thought that was why Bernie put Virgin, Lotus and HRT on the grid!

How harsh.