Why do we not have a genuinely fast circuit anymore?

[ECW Dan Selby]

Hi all,

This is a question i've been asking for some time, and I really hope someone can give me a good answer!

I know we have Monza, and we have Silverstone. They're both vintage tracks that have undergone changes to slow them down over the years, whilst retaining the characteristic of being fast.

My question is, why do we not have any genuinely fast circuits being created now?

I know we're health and safety paranoid these days, but that's all the more reason to go ahead and create one. Due to the research and development in safety, we've now figured the best run-off material, along with some great developments in barriers. The FIA now use mathematics to calculate exactly how long a run-off needs to be in relation to the corner infront of it.

So why do we not see a track like the old Silverstone layout?

It'd be one of the highlights of the calendar, no doubt. Keep it a fairly short track, high speed turns, no slow turns at all.

All the new circuits are a pick and mix of all different turns, thus making them all essentially pretty similar.

Counter arguments (that I can foresee):
*Spectators will be too far away from the action.
True, but could we not use an Abu Dhabi/Assen style elevated grandstand? Offers a unique slightly overhead view. Could also offer an opportunity to create some really innovative views. How about a grandstand going over the track (almost like a bridge)? Tilke would surely relish this task. Plus, with alot of these new tracks, they seem to struggle to attract fans. At least they could advertise this event as the fastest F1 circuit in the world, with the most cutting-edge spectator facilities.

*It's an accident waiting to happen:
Possibly, but without huge consequences given the developments in run-off/barriers. They'd surely be overcautious on the run-offs and make sure they are entirely sufficient for a big accident.

*It'd favour the Mercedes engines:
To be honest, this should matter even less these days with all the equalisation rubbish that's been going on! Plus, there'd still be DRS, and plenty of slipstreaming. If anything, it'd offer the lower teams a joker card to run barely any wing at all and try and get competitive down the long straights. If anything, I could have seen more of an argument against this track say, 20 years ago, when teams would be saying 'But this favours Ferrari!!'.

So what do you guys think? I'd love to hear some opinions!

Selby

[Marbot]

Safety Paranoia?

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Safety Paranoia?

I answered my own question, didn't I?

But seriously though - I do understand that. But is it really H&S paranoia that we don't have a super quick track, or is it the rumour in regards to advertising?

Do we have lots of slow corners to show off the advertising hoardings/on-car sponsorship?

Selby
--
And just a quick addition to that - Wouldn't the money lost through lack of slow corners be regained by the track being known as the quickest F1 track on the calendar?? I would have thought that's an advertiser's dream, really...

[Marbot]

I know that Bernie didn't like the old Hockenheim track because for 80-90% of the time the majority of the spectators couldn't see anything. Sponsors also pointed out that for 80-90% of the time the TV cameras were mostly filming trees! Definitely a track for TV.

I suppose that if it's just speed that you're after, you could always watch oval racing.

[wnut]

2 reasons:

Some moron keeps erecting chicanes before the interesting bits.

Really fast corners show up the sad pedestrian drivers against the brilliant!

[JackN]

Overtaking. No braking zones = no overtaking. You could argue that higher speeds means greater slipstreaming, but really all the circuit changes made recently at Silverstone and Hockenheim in particular were to improve overtaking.

[duke_toaster]

I'm not sure how relevant it this is, but the race would be shorter.

EDIT : Surely for overtaking you will have slow corners as well, think of Monza and Old Hockenheim, you could overtake there, there were big straights but also some big stops where you can overtake.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Really fast corners show up the sad pedestrian drivers against the brilliant!

I would disagree with that. The drivers all want a car like the Red Bull that can do the fast corners while changing up through the gears! Not a car like the HRT that would probably terrify some of the drivers used to a front running car.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Interesting stuff, guys.

What i'd argue is that these tracks were built 40 years or so ago. We had to adapt to the problems (ie. butcher the track and create a shorter version). This way, we could build around these potential problems for the get-go. Huge advertising hoardings down the straights. Camera angles to 'pick up' the cars down the straights. We now have cable line cameras (such as at Silverstone and Hockenheim) that could follow the cars side on, as well as head-on cameras that could easily pick up the rear wing sponsors.

I hope people see my point here... I just don't feel, as designers, they're probably doing enough to modernise. Pointy buildings are all well and good, but how about bringing the speed back and actually facilitating it?

I hope people don't think i'm just being ignorant here lol

Selby

[PenelopePitstop]

We don't have realy fast turns anymore, because drivers black out, especially on banked ones.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitstop

We don't have realy fast turns anymore, because drivers black out, especially on banked ones.

This is true. The drivers ability to withstand G-force is the ultimate limiting factor, and it will not necessarily be one of the 'best' drivers that is able to withstand the most. Straight lines, on the other hand, demand little in the way of skill from the driver.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

This is true. The drivers ability to withstand G-force is the ultimate limiting factor, and it will not necessarily be one of the 'best' drivers that is able to withstand the most. Straight lines, on the other hand, demand little in the way of skill from the driver.

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

[ECW Dan Selby]

Yeh definitely on banked sections, I agree. There was a huge safety issue in Indy Cars a few years back, if I remember correctly.

But that's what I mean - we have the technologies to pre-determine this. You'd simply not use banking in a section where it could be potentially dangerous.

Again, please don't think i'm just trying to fire back with an answer to be ignorant, i'm just genuinely curious.

Selby

[ECW Dan Selby]

Marbot, I do see what you're saying.

But straights don't have to be 'straight'. Quick sweeps can still be a challenge, even in this day and age of aero.

I had a theory not too long back that argued against this very topic (). My argument was that perhaps we needed tighter corners because aero had become so advanced, it was the only way to still challenge to drivers (if that makes sense).

Perhaps 'the old' Silverstone would be a breeze for the drivers in these cars. People would surely say 'oh well the Red bull would muller Stowe/Farm/Maggots''. Yeh, they probably would. But what about the straights?

That's what I mean. Teams could really throw a spanner in the works by setting their car up to be lightning quick down the straights, but struggling through the curves. It'd create perhaps an almost DRS-like effect of back and fourth action.

Selby

[JamesH]

Castle Combe is a bit like that - almost all full speed corners.

Mostly very boring racing, IIRC.

[ECW Dan Selby]

How about in single seaters?

Selby

[stripedcat]

I think the main reason is the FIA is concerned with safety. Okay, I can see their point, but safety has improved immensely in F1.

Sadly, we have lost a lot of old decent high speed circuits(namely Hockenheim and the Österreichring). I think in the case of the Österreichring it could of been made safer. Even Alain Prost said that with decent run-offs, plus moving some of the barriers back, it could be used.

Hockenheim(old layout) was a great track. There is an argument, that less driver skill there, with the long straights. It did however have long enough straights to make slipstreaming effective. A shame that the Ost curve had to go(although I can see the safety concerns over that one, would be valid, even with better run-offs). Another thing that made it a great track, was it was so long that when it rained, half of it could be wet, the other half dry. Like what happens at Spa, sometimes.

I think having more high speed corners at new tracks would be nice to see. I don't think Mr. Tilke likes them though.

[ECW Dan Selby]

His favourite track being the Nordschliefe, which has some real high speed sections!

I couldn't agree more.

What's stopping there being another Osterreichring but with adequet run-off? That was a nigh on flatout circuit, which was STILL a huge challenge, and quite the spectacle.

I just can't see how that doesn't tick all the boxes?

Selby

[Sodemo]

What happened to the Osterreichring was a total travesty. In my view, the Osterreichring was the best track in the world, bar none. Not the Nordschliefe, but Osterreichring.
It had a great flow and was a total balls-out blast. You could overtake too, easily into the first corner and even around the back. Don't forget, when F1 used to race at this track it was during the 80s (and earlier) and cars could follow much closer and had less turbulent air to battle with.

Salzburgring reminds me a bit of the Osterreichring, and parts of the Sachsenring remind me as well. If I was a billionaire I would pour 10m into re-creating the Osterreichring into what it should have remained as. People also forget that when the Osterreichring was butchered in 1996, it had already undergone many changes to its run off, notably the Bosch Kurve; which had its barrier pushed right back and gravel placed as a run off zone.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What happened to the Osterreichring was a total travesty. In my view, the Osterreichring was the best track in the world, bar none. Not the Nordschliefe, but Osterreichring.
It had a great flow and was a total balls-out blast. You could overtake too, easily into the first corner and even around the back. Don't forget, when F1 used to race at this track it was during the 80s (and earlier) and cars could follow much closer and had less turbulent air to battle with.

Salzburgring reminds me a bit of the Osterreichring, and parts of the Sachsenring remind me as well. If I was a billionaire I would pour 10m into re-creating the Osterreichring into what it should have remained as. People also forget that when the Osterreichring was butchered in 1996, it had already undergone many changes to its run off, notably the Bosch Kurve; which had its barrier pushed right back and gravel placed as a run off zone.

Yeh this is basically my point! What's stopping anyone creating another Osterreichring?

Perhaps that's a better example than the old Silverstone. That, even now, would still be a fairly adequet challenge, would it not?

Perhaps tighten it ever so slightly with the modern day aero...

Selby

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

That's what I mean. Teams could really throw a spanner in the works by setting their car up to be lightning quick down the straights, but struggling through the curves. It'd create perhaps an almost DRS-like effect of back and fourth action.

Selby

Here you have what the problem with the modern tracks is.
The speed variance is not big enough, so it is easy to set the optimum aero. It is unnecessary to compromise straight line speed or really fast corner speed for the ability to go around slow/medium corners that require much more downforce.
Monza last year was interesting from a McLaren point of view though as Jensen went with a high downforce high drag wing whereas Lewis chose the low downforce low drag configuration.

The difference is when you get a very high speed corner is that there is a much higher fear factor to entering the corner at very high speed or flat, which separates the men from the boys, the corner requires far more precision, and when you make a mistake the car goes off for miles, and does not just have a quick "flick" and control is regained almost instantaneously. 10/10 ths on a 240mph sweeper is much more difficult than 40 mph around even the tightest hairpin!

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by wnut

Here you have what the problem with the modern tracks is.
The speed variance is not big enough, so it is easy to set the optimum aero. It is unnecessary to compromise straight line speed or really fast corner speed for the ability to go around slow/medium corners that require much more downforce.
Monza last year was interesting from a McLaren point of view though as Jensen went with a high downforce high drag wing whereas Lewis chose the low downforce low drag configuration.

The difference is when you get a very high speed corner is that there is a much higher fear factor to entering the corner at very high speed or flat, which separates the men from the boys, the corner requires far more precision, and when you make a mistake the car goes off for miles, and does not just have a quick "flick" and control is regained almost instantaneously. 10/10 ths on a 240mph sweeper is much more difficult than 40 mph around even the tightest hairpin!

This second paragraph is it for me. Teams could perhaps split their drivers by having one running more wing and one less alá Monza last year.

I think I may have to whip something up on the track builder and demonstrate what I mean. I'd like to simulate a race (just AI perhaps) to see how it all works. rFactor is pretty accurate (alright, i'm not saying it's a simulator, but you get my jist!) and perhaps better than my guess work. Afterall, according to Apex Circuit Design, some teams use rFactor Pro for sim work.

Ideally, i'd love to be able to load legit tracks in to the track build and give them a modern feel (run offs, barriers, curbs etc). That'd be great fun!

Selby
--
If anyone's interested, I may do a little competition where people can submit their 'modern day' fast track, with the best one being created for rFactor!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

This second paragraph is it for me. Teams could perhaps split their drivers by having one running more wing and one less alá Monza last year.

I think I may have to whip something up on the track builder and demonstrate what I mean. I'd like to simulate a race (just AI perhaps) to see how it all works. rFactor is pretty accurate (alright, i'm not saying it's a simulator, but you get my jist!) and perhaps better than my guess work. Afterall, according to Apex Circuit Design, some teams use rFactor Pro for sim work.

Ideally, i'd love to be able to load legit tracks in to the track build and give them a modern feel (run offs, barriers, curbs etc). That'd be great fun!

Selby
--
If anyone's interested, I may do a little competition where people can submit their 'modern day' fast track, with the best one being created for rFactor!

It would certainly give you the feel and the feel for how precise you have to be at very high speed, and how precise you have to be!

On modern cars the wake turbulence at very high speed would be horrendous. Some of the LeMans accidents show these problems and add "blow over" which may enter F1 too at very high speed with aero.

[Woolley]

Downforce. I suspect the old Osterreich Ring would be easily flat all the way round. I'd advocate taking the wings off and return the tracks to their former glory.

Can you imagine the old Hockenheim under current regs? It'd just be one long DRS zone...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Downforce. I suspect the old Osterreich Ring would be easily flat all the way round. I'd advocate taking the wings off and return the tracks to their former glory.

Can you imagine the old Hockenheim under current regs? It'd just be one long DRS zone...

Now you are talking!

Ah but only if you were a second behind someone!