"Technical circuit"

[StephenRae]

Much of the content of the 'Oulton's greatest hits' videos was taken up with cars performing various and often horrific aerobatics at the original Knicker brook. The first chicane was very stop and go, but it is still vital for a decent lap time, to get the present one right. Does this make it more or less technical?

[Eddy V]

Don't misunderstand me as well, dtype. I've nothing against chicanes, some are even quite challenging.
But my point is why put a chicane at Knickerbrook, when they had more than enough room to move the original corner towards the infield? And create more run off by doing this.

[dtype38]

Aaaah... can't answer that I'm afraid. The workings of the minds of track designers is as much a mystery to me as the workings of the minds of race organisers, the goings-on under the cover of my computer, oh, and what my wife is thinking.

Sorry!

[Eddy V]

No need.

[Cameron Winton]

Anyone ever do Ingliston? Most technical track I ever drove. Every corner seemed to have radius changes, camber changes, went on for ever, tighter than you thought and no straight worth calling a straight.
2 lap sprints were exhausting from the concentration required. Every corner felt like you could have done something to make it faster & everytime you tried more commitment you screwed something up. Place had a good "flow" to it so generally felt great. Sad that all you can do is single venue rallies there now.

[DAVID PATERSON]

Nowadays you often hear racers and commentators describe a track as being very technical, or not. I wonder what this term actually means.

Is it a real, meaningful description or just one of those trendy buzzwords that people use when they want to seem clever or with it?

I'm guessing that if i get 20 replies to this thread, there'll be at least a dozen different definitions.

[GORDON STREETER]

My understanding is of a track with many varied corners and undulating terrain, where if you get it wrong on a certain section you are compromised on the next.

[Chris Y]

I'd agree with Gordon. Tracks with twisty bits followed by long straight fit the bill - screw up the corners and you get screwed on the straights

[tristancliffe]

All tracks are technical. If they're not, you're not going fast enough. Some are more undulating (but imo that's no more 'technical'), some are faster, others are slower. I don't see how a twisty bit can be defined as technical. Difficult maybe, but technical - no!

[Raglanparade]

i thought a technical track was one that was more set up reliant..

where a drivers track was more driver reliant.

[275 GTB-4]

Originally Posted by Raglanparade

i thought a technical track was one that was more set up reliant..where a drivers track was more driver reliant.

I think you scimitar be on the right track

[Austinspace75]

I think the descriptions given are about right. But, the key thing here I think is that a technical circuit is possibly best described as one where the majority of the circuit can only be optimised by taking 1 specific line, usually regardless of the car you're driving. In the UK I think the best example of this is Thruxton with its fast flowing 'knife edge' back section and tricky (non-text book entry) chicane, quickly followed by Mallory Park with its singular 'lap time' deciding corner :Gerards. Get these bits wrong and you're lap time is totalled. Your lap time at the less technical circuits such as Brands or Oulton is less dependant on specific knowledge and/or approach and are more forgiving to a driver who doesn't have ultimate speed at a specific corner.

[dtype38]

For my two-penneth, I'd suggest that a "technical" circuit is one that you can't simply BANZAI. Its one where agression will just lose you time, whereas precise, accurate driving will really gain time. Precise and accurate as in a "technical" drawing.

For example I drive Snetterton and Castle Combe with maximum attack because most of the corners will accept the car at pretty much any angle (so aren't technical), but Cadwell and Oulton need to be threaded like a needle and will punish small mistakes (so are).

[terence]

For Technical,try Nurburgring.As has been said,screw up one corner and see you lap time's increase/stuff it into the scenery etc:
I thought the term was in reference to a circuit that has time critical corner's,in as much as the blast out of a corner was vital for influencing you'r lap time?

[AU N EGL]

A good track is where you can set your car up perfectly.

a Technical track is where you can have your car set up for only part of the track. So you have to comprise on your set up.

[graeme]

Originally Posted by Eddy V

Don't misunderstand me as well, dtype. I've nothing against chicanes, some are even quite challenging.
But my point is why put a chicane at Knickerbrook, when they had more than enough room to move the original corner towards the infield? And create more run off by doing this.

I'm not sure there is room for additional runnoff at Knickerbrook - there's grass, armco, narrow pedestrian route then public road outside the circuit. Moving the whole corner infield would just straighten it out = no corner and even higher speeds. With the fatalities there, I'm not going to vote against Knickerbrook chicane, though I think I prefered the old version. (Actually, one of the biggest accidents I've come across when racing was at Knickerbrook - looked like an aircrash - trouble is, you can't see the exit because of the banking on the inside).

I haven't driven Oulton or Combe without chicanes, and don't mind them. Knickerbrook is quite good as you're trying not to let the car run too far at the exit, and I rather like the Esses at Combe (the second chicane is a bit too close to Tower though). A good chicane is a joy to behold - Kirkistown and Knockhill's "Chicane"s, and the 90s version of the Bus Stop.

But back on topic - there's two types of circuit (or at least corner): technical and ballsey. Back of Thruxton and old road sections of Spa are ballsey - you can make time by being brave; Anglesey and Rockingham are technical. Best combination of both is probably Croft - ballsey outer section then tiptoe through the new infield.

[R59]

I would say that the most "Technical" circuit in the UK is Rockingham's infield.
Many drivers complain about it, usually because they go slower there compared to their peers than they would normally, so it must be cr@p! What that really means is the "can't" drive.

It requires commitment, and accurate adherence to the optimum racing line to put in a sparkling time. Get it right and you feel that "ahhhh moment".

Graham, Combe without the Chicanes was fabulous. So was the old Croft (a very similar layout, just colder)

I still maintain that Cadwell is one of the most technical "natural" circuits that we have.

Lydden is just no-remorse!

If you want a circuit which demands smooth driving and accuracy, then it is the Rockingham oval in an ASCAR. 1.5miles 37 seconds. One corner every 9 seconds (or thereabouts). No time to brush your teeth or comb your hair between corners there!!!

Rob.

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by racing59

I would say that the most "Technical" circuit in the UK is Rockingham's infield.

Agree.... but for me it was made considerably easier when I discovered I could complete the whole section in 3rd. That allowed me to slip back into my karting days and drive it left footed on the brake. Opens up all sorts of possibilities for trimming the car mid-corner. Even managed a bit of trail-braking