Future Grands Prix?

[Purist]

Wnut, well I think Tilke's interview may have been revealing in one respect. If you're trying to make the track "challenging" for drivers, that may not necessarily make it better for racing. That said, I'm not sure that calling them "time trial courses" is entirely accurate, either.

Sometimes switchback combinations can work quite well, like the end of the opening sequence at Shanghai, or Turns 3/4 at Istanbul.

Much of the trouble of getting an overtake set up and pulled off would be helped by having the final, slower corner leading onto the stretch be quicker. And it wouldn't have to be huge; the change from an apex speed of 45-60 mph up to the 60-75-mph range wouldn't be a major hindrance with the downforce of the cars, but it would allow the cars to stay closer together in the acceleration zone out onto the straight. The slipstream would then be more effective, and you wouldn't need a 0.75-mile straight to have the required space to pull back the lost ground from the accordion effect and actually make the pass.

BTW, for the main straights, the corners on and off are already in the same direction at Bahrain (all), Shanghai (back stretch), Baku (all), Austin (all), Yas Marina (T1-T5, 1st back stretch), Singapore (front stretch), and Sochi (all).

On the other hand, Sepang worked rather well, and it was the antithesis of your theory. Also, generally, the best overtaking spot at Singapore has been Turn 7, but it's a left-hander, and T5, leading onto the stretch, is a right-hander.

As for challenging corners onto straights, T9/10 and T13 at Bahrain are that way, and it seems like nobody does either one that well very often, so there's rarely an overtake into either T11 or T14. The same is true of T2/3/4 at Hockenheim, and so you don't see the level of overtaking into T6 that you might well expect. Though I think the most frustrating example of this is Turn 13 at Singapore, which changed when they switched the track over to running across the other side of the Anderson Bridge. This change has really hurt overtaking into T14, which used to be at least the equal of T1 in terms of producing successful overtakes. And I suppose I could add that, here again, as with T5 to T7 at that circuit, those two corners are also in opposite directions.

P.S. Please leave Laguna Seca alone. Thank you.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I like the elevation changes in COTA. As for Kuwait, does F1 need another Gulf based GP?

The fact is that it's a fairly large luxury car market.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Purist

If you're trying to make the track "challenging" for drivers, that may not necessarily make it better for racing. That said, I'm not sure that calling them "time trial courses" is entirely accurate, either.

The first sector of Austin seems like a time trial course to me.

Originally Posted by Purist

Sometimes switchback combinations can work quite well, like the end of the opening sequence at Shanghai, or Turns 3/4 at Istanbul.

Originally Posted by Purist

Much of the trouble of getting an overtake set up and pulled off would be helped by having the final, slower corner leading onto the stretch be quicker.

Abu Dhabi tried that and failed miserably. Meanwhile, Sepang's hairpins are much less tight and work fine.

Originally Posted by Purist

BTW, for the main straights, the corners on and off are already in the same direction at Bahrain (all), Shanghai (back stretch), Baku (all), Austin (all), Yas Marina (T1-T5, 1st back stretch), Singapore (front stretch), and Sochi (all).

Sepang worked rather well, and it was the antithesis of your theory. Also, generally, the best overtaking spot at Singapore has been Turn 7, but it's a left-hander, and T5, leading onto the stretch, is a right-hander.

That's why I love Sepang. It requires cars to cross the track to take the next turn. When an overtake is attempted, the decision of when to cross is crucial.

[chunterer]

In brief response to Nabru, i'm not sure that odd kink 2/3 down the back straight helps with the Abu Dhabi layout either. Always thought that was a bit of an afterthought.
Cars running alongside or getting a tow have to move across more than they would normally and arguably onto dirty track which imo makes the whole straight a waste of time.

[S griffin]

I think the straight is long enough at Abu Dhabi. It is hard to overtake though, but that’s the nature of the circuit. It’s for the brave down the second backstraight

[Mike Harte]

First, they need to get rid of the aero.


Then provide a fairly long straight followed by a tightish bend; it always worked in the past. For those in the UK and of a certain age, think Norwich Straight at Snetterton followed by a tight < 90 degree corner (it used to be called a hairpin) or the long straight out the back at Oulton Park followed by a slowish off camber hairpin. Both these allowed cars to slipstream, and lesser powered cars could be "dragged" along and because of better handling/braking slip past on the corner.


Thinking back to the 60s and in saloons, I could could just about keep up with the bigger boys along those straights if I got close enough, and then slip by in to the corner. Conversely, the bigger engined Minis could do the same to me if they could get close enough at the start of the straight.


But first the cars, no matter what they are - saloons or F1 - need to be able to follow in the slipstream. Then they won't need artificial systems such as the DRS.

[S griffin]

Yes aero needs to be cut. But the tracks should keep their own character. Personally different circuits suits different cars/drivers. The thing to watch was F1 in the 60s, you always had overtaking then. But now we have way too much aero and DRS is way too artificial

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chunterer

In brief response to Nabru, i'm not sure that odd kink 2/3 down the back straight helps with the Abu Dhabi layout either. Always thought that was a bit of an afterthought.
Cars running alongside or getting a tow have to move across more than they would normally and arguably onto dirty track which imo makes the whole straight a waste of time.

That kink where the track gets thinner? It is 100% an afterthought. The track was originally full width but then they found out the grandstand that runs alongside it couldn't see the cars because it was too close. It was easier to move the cars away than the grandstand back.

[Purist]

Aero can't be "gotten rid of", only changed. Any object raveling at 150 mph will have aerodynamic characteristics, and unfortunately, those very smooth, trim, minimal 1.5-liter and early 3.0-liter F1 cars were fairly neutrally stable, that is to say, unstable.

Also, if I'm honest, watching the old footage, no, overtaking back then wasn't as common as a lot of people would like to think. On the other hand, the tracks were a lot more interesting on average, and the cars were much more squirrelly, so it was still quite spectacular to watch.

I'm guessing you mean Lodge Corner at Oulton Park? (Shell is a banked hairpin after all.)

And this is where the misinterpretation of aero comes in. Quite a few of those long straights on F1 circuits are followed by slow corners already. On top of that, a number of those straights are preceded by slower corners, too. So the aero shouldn't really be an issue with those anyway. And yet, we still have this problem.

Remember, even with a constant time gap between cars, the physical gap will grow as speed increases. Now, unless the leading car has some kind of failure, or gets an absolutely horrendous exit from a corner, that driver will hit the gas first, in terms of time. Thus, the physical gap opens to the trailing car. Now with modern cars, and especially F1, where they make their lap time is in braking, and acceleration. That incredible acceleration is what opens the visually apparent physical gap so dramatically, particularly when coming out of slower corners onto those straights. It isn't the aero doing that, so taking the wings off won't do a thing to fix that; if the cars continue to accelerate as well as they do now, you'll still have this problem.

And even if you took the wings off, it still wouldn't be like the 1960s. The cars wouldn't be as edgy because the suspensions are so much better now. Also, the chasses are monumentally stiffer than they were 50-60 years ago. So again, the cars wouldn't handle the way they did back then regardless of the wings.

And this is all present, to say nothing of the fact that providing the rollover and side-impact protection required today would make the cars uglier than sin; they'd look nothing like those wonderful machines of the 1960s. Also, that would give the cars a floor area of some size, which could catch air and make lift, even going forward (big problem to have).

And then, you'd have to redesign every circuit, because these courses made expressly for high-downforce cars just aren't that great for driving "classic" machinery. (And this leads into how those old courses had so much in the way of veriable-geometry corners and sequences, where you couldn't really tell where one corner ended and another began. In addition, banked corners were fairly common on those old road courses.)

I'd like not to have DRS as well, but the solution isn't simple to all this. Like I said a little earlier in this thread, making the existing hairpins more rounded and a bit quicker at the apex would definitely help the situation.

[Purist]

In furtherance to Akrapovic's post, they had the same issue with the stands at Mexico City going back to the previous refurbishment that was completed in 2002. So when they redid it again, they moved the first portion of the start/finish straight away from the stands, and also effectively tightened the exit of Peraltada in the process.

[NaBUru38]

Interlagos used to have incredibly exciting F1 races. That's not been the case in the past years. It must be aerodynamic issues.

[S griffin]

It did back in the day. Definitely aero has held it back in the last few seasons

[loon]

the cheapest and easiest way of creating overtaking is to run the F2 race at the same time and get rid of blue flags, 40 cars and endless blocking when overtaking, great fun!!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by loon

the cheapest and easiest way of creating overtaking is to run the F2 race at the same time and get rid of blue flags, 40 cars and endless blocking when overtaking, great fun!!

Pfffft, do it properly and just watch the Nurburgring 24 Hours

[loon]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Pfffft, do it properly and just watch the Nurburgring 24 Hours

No need for that amateur stuff I watch Super Taikyu at Sugo

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by loon

No need for that amateur stuff I watch Super Taikyu at Sugo

That gets the old heart racing. Next you'll be telling me Creventic 24H Series is in your watch list.

[loon]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

That gets the old heart racing. Next you'll be telling me Creventic 24H Series is in your watch list.

A good idea, I got to old for the F1 fanboys years ago

[Purist]

After doing a bit of checking on the 2017 and 2015 runnings, I can't really say that I saw anything particularly problematic at Interlagos; 2016 was the wet race with two red flags, and Max's mad charge through the field on fresher tires.

I think one big thing there for a while was the Pirelli tires were such that guys were afraid to have a go, because even just one lock-up could screw you up for the rest of that stint. This was remedied for the 2017 season.

As for aero, the only place it might play a particular role is through the Ferradura and Laranjinha combination, but then you have the three slower corners, where if you're decent on the brakes, you can move back in. Curva do Sol and the second part of Descida do Lago are effectively extensions of the straights that follow.

The tricky part in the infield is that you don't necessarily want to be immediately behind a guy, because then you have to back up your braking zone in order to not run into him. Having a bit more space in the right areas around those slower corners can also really help you maintain better momentum for when you rush down the hill through Mergulho.

[S griffin]

2017 was decent, while 2015 was a Merc demonstration. 2016 was a one off and Max was part of it. Certainly it can hard on tyres there. I think the aero shouldn’t be too much of a factor, but the fact is the cars are too aero dependent. Then we’d see cars get closer, even mid section

[Purist]

The accordion effect means there will inherently be spread and contraction between cars. The leader hits the gas first, chronologically, and for that little bit of time, is going noticeably faster than the trailing car, and this is exaggerated by the insane acceleration of these cars, not by the aero. (This is one phenomenon that the trump card of electric motors, instant torque, will in fact make worse as those cars become faster.)

At the other end, the simply mad braking of these cars means that, unless you're in a position to make the pass, you have to factor in the flip side: a corresponding compression of the physical gap, as the leader hits the brakes that little bit sooner.

There's only so much you can do with that dynamic, reardless of the aero.

Perhaps this illustration will make it clearer. Given the physical size of the car (the Merc is 5.7-meters/18.7-feet long), a time gap of less than 0.255 of a second is guaranteed to see contact in a 50-mph corner like Pinheirinho. And hence, a time gap of less than 0.285 of a second will see contact made in a 45-mph corner, like either Esse or Bico de Pato. Thus, even with no wings or dedicated undertray works at all, a time gap of less than 0.3 of a second is practically impossible to maintain through the tightest part of the infield at Interlagos.

What all this also means is that once you get within a certain time gap, unless you make the move quickly, you are physically forced to give time up and then try to regain it, repeatedly, in order to simply avoid a collision. Again, aero hasn't got a thing to do with the basic mechanics of that fundamental dynamic. And that constant gain and loss of time will eventually knacker your tires.

In the most extreme case, Monaco, even if you were touching the leader's gearbox at the apex of Rascasse or the Hairpin, you'd still be ~0.5 of a second, or a bit more, behind the car that your own nose is literally rubbing against.

So long as things are roughly as they are, maybe some tracks should have an extended DRS detection range. At most standard circuits, it seems like the 1.0-second gap is fine. However, maybe Singapore could use something more like 1.25-1.5 seconds, while perhaps as much as 2.0 seconds wouldn't go amiss at Monaco.

[S griffin]

That will always be a problem. The car will always be on the gas first, ahead of the next car. But yeah braking distances have got shorter. We just need to decrease aero. It's hard to pass in the inner section of Interlagos. But the home straight should be enough for a pass to happen. The thing is though it's very hard for the current cars to get anywhere near close enough.

Monaco though is always going to be hard to pass at. But DRS is not the answer. Just reduce the aero and then we'd see a lot closer racing at most circuits if not all

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by S griffin

2017 was decent, while 2015 was a Merc demonstration. 2016 was a one off and Max was part of it.

You must look further behind.

[Purist]

Other factors play into that, Griffin.

An uphill run will amplify any deficiency in corner launch. On the other hand, a downhill run out of the corner will mitigate a poor exit. This is why, even when cars are fairly close together, it can take so long to move up on someone along the front stretch at Interlagos; the same thing was plain to see, even on the monumental, nearly 3.0-km-long Dottinger Hohe, whether it be with GT3 or TCR machinery. And at the other end, this is why guys get so close on the run from La Source down to Eau Rouge, or exiting Bico de Pato, through Mergulho, and sometimes even make a pass into Juncao.

As I noted in my thread in My Tracks, you can pull a rope (going uphill), but you can't really push a rope (going downhill), when it comes to the gravitational constant.

In a lot of cases, you'll just make more of those harsh compression zones by taking off the aero, which won't help the racing. Along with the aero change, every track would need a comprehensive redesign.

Another key element for tracks with long "straights" is that the quoted output for the ICE component of the powertrain was only 600 hp for 2014-16, and has been upped to 740 hp for 2017-18. Lower top-end speeds will make the slipstream less powerful, and if the base power level is too anemic, even if you draft up to the car in front, you can lack the ability to actually pass after you pull out.

I'm sure we went through this cycle when they changed to the V8s in 2006, and also, to a degree, in 2009 with the aero changes, because less refined aero tends to be more draggy, especially when it's less refined as expressly defined by the rules. That is one area where the legislators aren't helping, because a better L/D value would mean there's relatively less wake turbulence.

[Richard C]

Great couple of posts Purist!

Richard

[Purist]

Glad I could add to the discussion.