"Technical circuit"

[Adam43]

You come across the phrase "it is a technical circuit" or "it is a technical corner" a lot in motor racing. My understanding is that this infers that it is a corner that you have to be smooth and get right in. There is one "technically" right way to do it and that is that. No muscling through it. Am I right?

What characteristics do you think make a technical corner or circuit and what is the perfect example of a technical corner or circuit?

During the GP coverage Brundle or Davidson in the lap walk described the new bus stop at Spa as a technical corner. I guess it is. During the GP and because I like to think I am knowledgeable I nodded my head and went "oh yeah" in a manner a bit like the Churchill dog would.

Then I heard Brands Indy described as a technical circuit. I have what I think is the right way to do the corners there, but it never really struck me as "technical". Or at least no more than anywhere else as there is a technique to every corner. Especially Paddock, there is a right way to do it, but it's main characteristic is a great bum clenching smile inducing rollercoaster ride. This got me thinking - what is technical and is it just a racer's 'technical' phrase.

[R59]

A technical circuit is one where the driver's ability is more important than the car, where a power circuit is one where the great goddess of acceleration rules the roost.

Mallory Park is known as a power circuit.

Cadwell & Lydden are technical circuits. Totally different, but both require 100% driver commitment, and control.

The Nurburgring GP circuit is a Technical Drawing Circuit - in that it was designed by a schoolboy with a geometry set.

[zefarelly]

ans snetterton is a pub circuit . . . . . .the shape of a fag packet with some squashed corners

[ianpearson]

I always thought technical covered tight slow to medium speed corners. Technical just sounds beeter than "we could'nt afford much land so we just jammed in as much as possible in the area we could" I would describe the majority of rockingham infeild as being technical, good fun though

[RobC]

Thinking along the same lines that "technical" is a series of corners which are easy to get wrong i.e. slow and require precision to get them right

[Icycool]

This is an interesting question that is posed, the bus stop at spa I would summise is technical for two reasons,

1. The speed it is approached at and the point that you have just exited a sweeping right hand bend before you need to hit the brakes,

and also

2. The fact that the apex's of the left-right corners are close together (although further apart than they used to be) and they are 90' corners.

As someone who has driven on some circuits but now navigates in rallycars a different angle can be looked at, for a navigator, a single venue, air field i.e Smeatharpe, as you do two laps to one stage and as they can only be varied by a certain amount is not technical from a drivers or a navigators aspect, (although there is still plenty of opportunity to get it so, so wrong!) however a venue such a Caerwent at 11-15 miles a stage, is a nightmare on four wheels, as you dont retrace your steps until 20-30mins later (after being in service) those points that you make a mental note of where you could take a cut are not done solely by the driver but also the navigator who will also have to tell the driver so a different angle of technicality arises.

[dtype38]

I think that from a drivers point of view, "technical" means that you actually have to think about the nature of your car and the nature of the track and understand how they interact to get a good lap time. Paddock Hill Bend at Brands is a classic "technical" corner. Yes it needs committment, but it needs understanding as well. You can't just chuck it in and collect it up later if you want a decent lap time. Same applies to corners like Clearways, or Coppice and Craner at Donnington, or the whole sequence of Jim Clarke Esses/Barcroft/Sunny in/Sunny out and the Complex at Croft. I'd also say the the first part of that sequence shows that corners don't have to be slow to be technical.

By contrast, there's very little technical about Gerrards at Mallory, the uncrumpled end of Snetterton or indeed most of Pembrey. That doesn't meany they're not fun to drive. But it does mean that you don't have to think too hard... just keep your foot to the floor to the limit of your grip :-)

[StephenRae]

Perhaps 'technical' is when there is more than one way through a corner or series of bends and the whole thing is a bit of a compromise? Personally they are all an adventure for me

[marcush.]

for me a technical corner or circuit is the one where the ctual setup of the device you are driving is of grearewst importance whereas driver skill ,and commitment do not help you as much as in a ballsout corner.
So as an example,I´d say the nurburgring Grandprix circuit is quite a technical one,where you need a good setup to do a decent lap time,and very often the driver does not really make a huge difference .
On the other hand the Nordschleife where you can have a real good car and setup but may be 30 seconds of the pace because of the driver not knowing the track and its vices.

[goforit500]

Technical is when finesse rewards more than testicle size......

[Hapul]

Sorry to use an Aussie example but barbagallo raceway in perth is a compromise in two places. at turn 2-3 you could jump the kerb or not and yield similar lap times. At Kolb corner you could take the traditional race line or hug the inside to lengthen the back straight. This makes it more technical. To me anyway

[Chris Y]

Originally Posted by dtype38

By contrast, there's very little technical about Gerrards at Mallory

I'm not so sure about that one, but I guess it depends what you drive. I've always thought Gerrards requires some thought to maintain some speed through it and get the best acceleration out of it - it's arguably the most important corner of Mallory, as you can gain/lose huge wads of time through it.

There's a couple of points, certainly in my car, through Gerrards where you have to be in approximately the right position (particularly the end of the inside kerb, where the camber changes), and you can't just chuck the car in sideways, or you'll run out of room and be slow through it.

I tend to think very long, smooth corners are more 'technical' than short 90 degree efforts, because you have to set them up right on entry, and get the correct acceleration point - it's hard to judge the last one particularly at Gerrards, because the apex is a long way from the exit, so you have to wait a while before you can tell if you've applied power too late, or much too early!

[stuart05]

I've always regarded The Complex at Thruxton as being a Technical section. The line through Campbell is as you'd expect (unless your name is Rydell) but you then have to make compromises through Cobb to ensure that you get a perfect exit from Segrave. This, to my mind, is the corner that makes or breaks the rest of your lap, and ultimately is the start of an overtaking move into the Club Chicane.

[Tim Draffan]

I would agree with both dtype38 & stuart05, technical to me means where the line is not the obvious fastest line or shorts point from A to B, the entry into Clearways is one that springs to mind and the twisty bits at Rockingham too. I prefer the seat of the pants stuff where it is bravery rather than join the dots myself as they are easier to learn and generaly provide pure racing rather than degems.

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by Chris Y

I'm not so sure about that one, but I guess it depends what you drive. I've always thought Gerrards requires some thought to maintain some speed through it and get the best acceleration out of it - it's arguably the most important corner of Mallory, as you can gain/lose huge wads of time through it.

That's a fair analysis of Gerrards, although in my case I find the entry a bit boring. The track is so wide and the corner so long that you can pretty much throw it in at any speed and angle and gather it up in plenty time to set up the exit. I'd agree that the exit is critical and needs the car setting up properly. My car tends to power-understeer so about 2/3-3/4 way round the bend I set up a bit of pendulum yaw by playing with the throttle. If I time it right the car is at oversteer angle just before the end of the corner, which allows me to feed the throttle in hard to correct and hold it flat from about 20yds earlier than I could otherwise. That's not technical... that's just playing around

[Al Weyman]

Sounds pretty technical to me! I also agree that Gerrards is more complex than it first appears but guess it all depands what you are sitting in.

[R59]

Exactly.

With a FWD car, you can make up so much time in Gerrards, because once you're turned in, you can apply power to the point where it's just starting to understeer, and if set up right, maybe with a bit of drift, and you remain nailed all the way out.

I've driven around many RWD cars around Gerrards in the past in my old trusty Nova.

If technical is about flow, then the old Castle Combe is technical, in that technically, if you had bigger b*lls than some of the others, you'd be faster. I just used to love Old Paddock. Stupid chicanes. Stupid stupid stupid.

Rob.

[Al Weyman]

Same as Oulton Rob, first one, ok fair enough was a bit quick out the back there and people had died, but then they stick a second in (chicane) and completly ruined it. And don't talk about Russell please.

[Eddy V]

I can only agree with the both of you. Aren't those chicanes horrible. The stupid thing is they usually have more than enough room to spare to build a copy of the original corner, with some more run off.
But no.

[dtype38]

Can't completely agree with the above. Not liking chicanes is a bit like not liking racing in the rain... It's a fact of life unless you want to move to the US and drive ovals! Better to learn to do it well and use that as an advantage

[Al Weyman]

Not saying that Dtype just that I personally liked the circuit better before. But as I said I am sure there is justification, I actually lost a friend of mine, Paul Hawkins back in the 60's at Oulton so proof indeed that something should have been done.

[dtype38]

I've haven't been racing long enough to have driven Oulton, Castle Coombe or Snetterton without chicanes, so I can't really compare. What I was getting at was your obvious dislike of some of them. Personally I don't really go in for the big hero stuff and prefer tricky little complicated bits... technical corners you might say

Incidentally, not even the reduced speeds due to the second chicane at Oulton is a guarantee of safety. A friend came over the crest just after the second one and still managed to get airborne in his GT40... followed very closely by a large impact with the tyre wall. Only the car was hurt fortunately

[Tim Falce]

I've driven Combe with and without chicanes and would never go there again whether they are there or not.

[Al Weyman]

Odd you should mention a GT40 as that is what Paul was driving when he met his unfortunate demise.

[dtype38]

Curious indeed... although my friend isn't called Paul. That would be toooo spooky! Anyway, I understand that something about the angle of attack of the very flat floor of the GT40 makes prone to "lift". In development it had to have the flip-up added to the boot to cure this. It seems that this works fine at high speed on the flat, but is less effective if the car is cresting a brow which can cause air to get underneath and quite literally lift the thing off the ground. Not great for steering!