Tracks

[Bononi]

BTW do you like jet skiing ?

We're surrounded by lakes, it's so easy to have fun with them...

[ybee02]

Originally Posted by Muzza

Paulzinho, I follow your vote:

Best current F-1 tracks:
1. Spa.
2. Suzuka.
3. Interlagos (I admit being biased for this one).

Other good current F-1 tracks:
- Sepang, and
- Melbourne.

Current F-1 tracks that I do not like and should be modified are:
- A1 Ring-Spielberg-whatever-it-is-called-today is a joke (bring back old Zeltweg, just by increasing its run-off-areas...)
- Hungaroring (lay-out should be changed, there is space to make a circuit extension and build a second, longer straight at its Northwest corner);
- Indianapolis (the infield is far too tight. Where is the promised figure-of-eight track, that would also use the back stretch?);
- Imola has become ridiculous. It is a go-kart track now.
- Silverstone: take away that almost-chicane turn by the Bridge;
- Magny-Cours to be dropped, bring back full Paul Ricard (Mistral and Les Signes rule);
- Barcelona is just too bad.

Great tracks and lay-outs (circuits to be upgraded) that should be in the calendar (do not change the freakin' lay-out, FIA!) - I am daydreaming now:

- Brands Hatch;
- Brasilia;
- Mugello (what a track);
- Ledenon (France);
- Elkhart Lake, Elkhart Lake, Elkhart Lake!
- Watkins Glen;
- Mo I Rana, Arctic Circle Raceway (Norway);
- Mt. Tremblant, St. Jovite (Canada);
- Wellington (street course, New Zealand);
- the full 11-km track in Lausitzring (Eurospeedway Lausitz, Germany);

Drooling now:
- Macau!
- Bathurst!!
- Nurburgring Nordschleife!!!

(my apologies, I guess the drugs are kicking in now...)

I'm just wondering the arctic circle raceway where are the esses on that circuit is it south of the circuit or where.

[Ciro Pabón]

In case you want to check all tracks in the history of Formula One (since 1950) and most of the old GP tracks, you can download a kml file with all of them at http://www.geocities.com/ciroalberto...cuitos_eng.htm.

You'll need Google Earth. Hope you like it. This is an example of what you'll see:



My personal list of best tracks is:

China
Malaysia
Turkey
Bahrain
Brands Hatch
Interlagos
Paul Ricard

The rest are mediocre, from the point of view of a track designer.

[Knowlesy]

China and Bahrain alongside the likes of Brands Hatch and Interlagos?

Pure madness!

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, Knowlesy, thanks for the compliment...

Reasons: Brands Hatch is one of the few tracks (if not the only one) where an spectator has a view of the whole track, by chance. The trees don't allow you to see all of it, but it is the idea what I like. If you have been to a new track recently, to be able to see just a couple of straights and a curve, you'll understand what I'm talking about. Besides, it has a lot of difficult corners, specially the ones downhill or uphill (I can dig the names if you wish).

Interlagos, being an ancient design, has one of the best records of overtakings in history. I really don't know why, you tell me (perhaps the rain?).

Is that enough to bring my post into the set of the reasonable ones? I did not complain about everybody going gaga on Spa and Monaco...

[Knowlesy]

No, I love Brands and Intelagos, it's the new tracks I deride.

Brands and Interlagos are beautiful, beautiful tracks.

[Bononi]

Wow... 5 years then and I'm sooo far away from all that.






Where's my medication ?

[CampDaddy1990]

I would love to see Daytona's infield road course used for F1.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by CampDaddy1990

I would love to see Daytona's infield road course used for F1.

Maybe they could dig it up and transfer it to 'Indy'.

[Fish_Flake]

Originally Posted by Ciro Pabón

Interlagos, being an ancient design, has one of the best records of overtakings in history. I really don't know why, you tell me (perhaps the rain?).

I'd be glad to explain. Interlagos contains two very long full-throttle sections, the first upon exiting Juncao that continues uphill past the pits, and the second upon exiting the Senna S, through Curva do Sol, and down the Reta Oposta. In both sections, if a following driver can take the preceding corner in a fashion that he can accelerate out of the corner just a bit earlier than the driver in front of him, he can carry much more momentum through the high-speed turns that follow, and gain a great slipstream down the ensuing straight. As a result, the braking zones into the turns at the end of each section (the Senna S and Subida do Lago, respectively) provide a premium overtaking opportunity.

Now, that is great in itself, but that is not the end of why Interlagos is a wonderful track for overtaking. Unlike the typical overbraking opportunities at modern, Tilke-designed circuits, which consist of a tight hairpin where the passing car merely needs to hold the inside line to take the position, Interlagos actually provides the other driver to fight back. If the passing car is not clear of the other vehicle after the first part of the Senna S, the other car has the apex in the second, right-hand segment, and forces the car attempting to pass onto the dirty part of the track. So, with the preferred line, the defending car can still make his way back in front. Meanwhile, Subida do Lago is a double-apex, increasing-radius left. Tightening one's line while overtaking forces an early apex at the entry and a wide exit, which leads to a later acceleration through the second apex. If the passing driver makes a miscue at the entry, the defending driver can move to the inside at the exit to regain the position, or at least get back on the throttle to have a slight advantage into the next short straight and the tricky Mergulho corner that follows.

To add to these facts, the rest of Interlagos consists of slow, tight turns and severe grade changes. Aerodynamic grip is at far less of an advantage through this section, especially as the teams set up their cars with a lower downforce setting to improve top speed on the straights. The result is that precise driving is of a higher importance than the performance of the car, further equalizing the machinery and increasing on-track competition.

[Ciro Pabón]

Fish Flake: thank you, thank you, thank you. You made my day better.

Knowlesy: yes, I know Tilke's designs are easy to bash, I don't comprehend well the reason for the hairpins. They are straightforward and lack subtlety. But the number one spiral curve at China is much, much better than the usual chicane. If there is a thing I hate more than hairpins are chicanes. At least they dont put a couple of barrels to "enhance" the safety, like in the old times, but chicanes are an insult to a road designer, if you follow my drift. I have explained before (not that anybody cared!) why transition curves are extremely important to have a correct sideslope transition, in case you are interested on my reasoning about Turkey curve 8. You can read it here at the middle of the page, in the improbable case you wish to understand how roads have been designed since 1980. Given my training on road design, circular simple curves seem to me as quaint as drum brakes. All Tilke's tracks avoid (at least) this mistake.

[Purist]

You made comments about various sorts of banking on the other thread, and I'll just ask my questions here. The road can transition on the straights or in the corner itself, and the road can rise on the outside and/or drop to the inside.

My questions are, what is the "old" method of banking and why do you take issue with it? What method of banking do you recommend and why? Finally, what was the deal that comment about comtempt toward track design?

"Most F1 tracks (except the new ones) use the old way to bank the road, a fact I find incredible and that I've argued shows the contempt with which track design is held."

I intend to be a track designer, and honestly, except for Istanbul, I don't care for the new F1 circuits. The run-offs are huge (unnecessarily so in many cases I think, and it hurts spectating), and with paved run-offs, drivers can often get away with too much "stupid stuff" (complacent driving is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than a perceived lack of run-off). And I'd trade being able to see virtually all the course at Bahrain for a seat at the top of Eau Rouge any day. Besides, my relatively poor eyesight means that all that potential visibility is wasted on me, because I cannot take advantage of it. Thus, I'll take the scenery/environment/atmosphere hands down over visibility over a bland autodrome (truly great road courses are NOT flat and have some greenery within reasonable proximity of the track itself).

My only complaints about Spa currently are that a few places are too sanitized now (Eau Rouge and soon Pouhon), and I REALLY do not like the realignment of the F1 start/finish stretch. The overall layout is great, and it's not really in a class with most newer circuits seeing as it wasn't designed per se (certainly not in the terms that we think of today).

I suppose you could explain to me the "faults" of tracks like Spa, Suzuka, Bathurst, Mosport Park, and Road America? Not an insult, I just want to have a better idea of what your thinking is.

Finally, I'd like to note that, if you have a "formula" for track design, your courses are going to start resembling one another, and that gets rather boring/monotonous after a while (Herman Tilke, could you perhaps call a halt already?!).

[Teretonga]

Spa
Ricard
Jerez
Suzuka
Adelaide
Silverstone
Brands Hatch
Mexico City

[Ciro Pabón]

Originally Posted by Purist

My questions are, what is the "old" method of banking and why do you take issue with it? What method of banking do you recommend and why? Finally, what was the deal that comment about comtempt toward track design?
...

I suppose you could explain to me the "faults" of tracks like Spa, Suzuka, Bathurst, Mosport Park, and Road America? Not an insult, I just want to have a better idea of what your thinking is.

Thank God, someone that can digest a short answer!

First two questions:

The "old" method of banking is: use only straights and circular curves. This way you have to make the transition on the straights. It has two implications: the cars will swerve on the entrance AND you will develop long tracts that are essentially flat: not a good thing when it rains. Talk to your geometric design teacher about the strict regulations on most countries about this "old" and unsafe (when black ice develops) method, specially in "flat" countries, like Germany and Holland.

The "new" method: use spiral curves to go from straight to curve and develop banking on it. Please, check this AutoCAD file I made (I've already gave this link, sorry) to prove yourself that a track like Catalunya has the same design that the backward roads have in my country (not precisely the most "road-advanced" country in the world).

Third one (sorry, longer, almost ranting answer): track funding comes only from tickets. This means most tracks are underfunded. I know of no sport whose installations don't share TV money...

Add to this the fact that you can see the race better (if having a less emotional experience) at home, on your TV and the fact that F1 has reached a limited audience in USA (ehem...) and you have a recipe for disaster: costlier tickets and few spectators, wich takes you to a "vicious" circle. For example, Australian GP lost sixteen million dollars last year. China gave away half its tickets last year.

FIA's promotion of TV rights (they have to pay a staggering 2.9 billion in the next 10 years to the lenders who provided the money to buy out the Ecclestone Bambino Fund) does not precisely help track owners, which means that tracks have become a "government turist attraction" and most fans are TV fans, not karting fans. At least, FIFA promotes people playing soccer. In my ignorance, I don't see the same intentions by FIA: how many of you, forum people, do karting? The connection between national associations and FIA "elite" seems thin to me (I concede happily I might be wrong, but it reminds me of the "disconnection" between Europe government at Brussels and national parliaments in European nations).

This brings me to your last comment (this is going to be long, sorry again): what's wrong with Spa, Suzuka and the like? They are extremely old and there is no money to modernize them, period. Why would FIA "throw away" Suzuka? Manufacturers invest 2 billion yearly on the cars but no one cent on tracks. The tracks have not been able to keep the pace, simply. Spa, always overrated (sorry, I don't want to offend anybody), or Laguna Seca corkscrew are not that difficult, just difficult "at first sight".

For example, the fact that most tracks have been resurfaced years ago with less than optimal "closed asphalt" (plus the long flat "old" transitions) will give you huge clouds of water when raining. I remember vaguely the comment of... Prost (?) about driving in the rain (I paraphrase) "trying to guess where the car in front is by the sound of its engine, because the spray didn't allow me to see it". You must know that damage to the asphalt is proportional to the fourth power of the load. With the light racing cars and no trucks racing, tracks rarely needs resurfacing and besides, most owners don't have the money to do it. Only when an "investor" (why always a dictator or a bank? ) puts the money, the track gets its new "open" asphalt.

It seems to me you dismiss paved run-off areas, and even run-off areas, period, as "sissy". Dale Earhanrdt thought the same about HANS devices. Please, please, if you are going into track design, check this (not all racing cars are made of carbon fiber or have such an "intelligent design" as F1 cars) by no one less than the incomparable Jhon Fitch (supported by Mario Andretti, Dan Gurney, Carroll Shelby, Stirling Moss, Phil Hill and other less recognizable track designers):

http://www.racesafety.com/news_detail.html?NEWSID=313

I quote from this link: "When a driver gets into the gravel," says Fitch, "he becomes a passenger, unable to brake or steer. Schumacher could easily have turned away from the wall well within the radius F1 cars can negotiate on pavement, if not for the gravel trap. But instead his momentum carried him arrow straight across a wide gravel trap and head-on into the barrier with little loss in speed despite locked brakes. When Hakkinen blew a tire, he was unable to turn away, exactly as in Schumacher's case."

Thanks for your concern about insults, but in engineering there is no "authority": you can't claim you are right based on your resumé. Either you give good explanations or you don't. Ignorance shows itself, you know...

Double thanks for asking, most people here seems to think track design is so low tech it does not deserve a second thought (with notable exceptions, of course ) AND then complain about the race at Imola.... sigh. Look at the answers given in this thread: totally "preference" based. The best way I can think of for getting different tracks and not the cookie cutter Tilke's designs is promoting other designers: I'll wait for your designs with enthusiasm!

[Last2LiftOff]

I get you Ciro but, please forgive me, a couple of engineer-jokes just came to mind

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Ciro Pabón

...most people here seems to think track design is so low tech it does not deserve a second thought (with notable exceptions, of course ) AND then complain about the race at Imola.... sigh. Look at the answers given in this thread: totally "preference" based.

I guess he's suggesting we get a degree in engineering instead of "prefer" any track.



And...





People should begin reading the technnical forum to choose what is good to like.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, Bononi, this is at least the fourth time I say I'm sorry: I'm sorry for having an opinion that strong. I have nothing against preferences. Now that I read what I wrote I cannot avoid to think a couple of things sound terribly pedant.

However, I bet some racers here cannnot avoid to sigh when they see the list of "the best drivers of all time", made by people that doesn't race and never raced against them.

[Alwaysfirst]

Yeah, but for racers you have to show such potential at a young age + the marketability. It has never been the case that all the best drivers have got into F1.....but that is what the average motorsport fan will watch. Obviously this means that they are going to judge the skill of the driver from what they see, not from a national championship that they don't, no matter how talented the driver. And you can't just say that they should be better motorsport fans then. It just doesn't work like that.

In the same way the track design is about so much more than just the track.....but this doesn't mean the focus should be taken away from the track. When you say Spa is overrated you are plain wrong. Not because the track is or isn't the best in the world but because of the atmosphere of the place. Even the lovely Belgian police can't put most people off the place. For this reason no track designed in the 'modern' way will ever become 'great' because there is simply no atmosphere when, due to excessive run-off, you are half a kilometer from the circuit. It does help as well if the circuit is great to race on as well, rather than just interesting from a designers point of view.

And yes, tarmac run-off is great BUT there should be a strip of grass or some more sophisticated way of stopping the driver just being able to get away with a poor judgement of what the car can do. Then you have the tarmac run-off after this strip of grass (or whatever) to allow drivers who get it seriously wrong or have a failure on the car to steer away from the barriers.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Ciro Pabón

Well, Bononi, this is at least the fourth time I say I'm sorry: I'm sorry for having an opinion that strong. I have nothing against preferences. Now that I read what I wrote I cannot avoid to think a couple of things sound terribly pedant.

However, I bet some racers here cannnot avoid to sigh when they see the list of "the best drivers of all time", made by people that doesn't race and never raced against them.

Uhn... at least they never sent a "formal complaint", and actually some of them share the same liking. But looking at the big picture this is an F1 fan forum, so I suppose you know what I mean