There is a lot of talk about wider tracks to promote overtaking (which they do), but there is still only one racing line and cars that leave that line will lose time. One solution would be progressive banking - increasing slope as you move away from the apex, so that the outside line can be just as fast as the inside. Of course there are corners like this already but why not incorporate more of these (scientifically designed of course) to increase the number of overtaking opportunities? Safety might even improve - the outside line would be used more often, removing the marbles that are responsible for many crashes.

I agree with that.

Just how much banking does there need to be before the outside line is as fast as the inside?

I think at least 21 degrees are necessary.

You do realise that ultimately all you end up with is a drag race if yuo calaculate it exactly? FWIW I can drive right around the outer lane of our high speed track at 180 kph moving the steering wheel by less than the width of a fingertip.

The task of converting a GP circuit into a drag strip via computer designed banking would be impossible - even if that's what you set out to achieve.

I reckon 90° should do it... Un-banked, or partially, mildly banked tracks ( Brands Hatch) have provided some fantastic racing in the past, the circuits normally voted the best by drivers and spectators alike tend to be based on existing roads or very similar, i.e., look as if they could be/have been roads. Change in elevation is always a help. The latest cars, running on the latest tracks seems to be the problem.

I am not anti-banked-oval racing by any means, I just regard it as different, neither better nor worse, but it is nice to see some 'naturally' banked turns on an otherwise traditional road course.

Since I have provided a real life example of admittedly an oval circuit where that was achievable without computers at all I think you'd need a better argument than "Tain't so".

I will back my opinion on this one and as someone who can probably recognise the complexity of that task, I suspect you had your tongue firmly in your cheek while typing the above.

The other point is that one would hardly choose to take the circuit design to that limit anyway.

I should have titled the thread "Progressive Banking" because the main point is to speed up the outside driving line by providing more road camber there. This could even mean a slight negative camber near the apex and zero camber out wide. The corner doesn't have to end up faster than it was before modification.

Perhaps we could see a German GP on the 'August Mobiusring'. We'd also find out if the F1 boffins are right when they say their cars generate enough down-force to be able to run upside-down!

Just make it rain at every track for a period of the race - that'll sort out the men from the quiche-eating skirt-wearing poodle-walking nancy-boys!

But seriously, yes it's an interesting idea though as mentioned above you would have to limit the amount of banking otherwise it's simply a power show. I'd also worry a little about the radius of the curve, if it were too small then the gap under the middle of the cars would be too large and they'd lose some downforce. (is that a bad thing .... ?)

Sprinkler systems huh?

If the banked turn leads into an important straight then I guess that all would use the outside line, as the advantage of the extra speed off the banking will be important.

The US GP at Indy used the banked turn, albeit a smaller angle.

The optimum camber angle would be less to account for this.

Formula 1 unveils new tracks

As Tony alludes to the answer lay in making the tracks less clinical and more imposing. I go the opposite way, some off camber corners especially over crests to put more emphisis on diving skills and show the flaws in cars that are otherwise perfect on perfect tracks. Nurburgring and the fore mentioned Brands are good examples for this.

I agree, Cheapy, I would have added that to my short list of Things Circuits Need to Make Them Interesting, but tried to keep my post short. There is a bend near my home, not that acute, but blind, drops slightly immediately after the apex so the car goes light, and slightly off-camber. It concentrates the mind,,,

The Rockville Grand Prix?

Tilke tried something like this in China.



http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/4/9164.html

I think that having more driving line options through some (perhaps not all) corners is a good idea.

However, for what it's worth, it is my suspicion that the main problem with overtaking in F1 is not the aerodynamics so much as the aerodynamicists. They, as a breed, are so focused on "optimizing" aerodynamics that suspension set-ups are a long way from achieving any kind of mechanical compromise, with the result that reducing down force when following another makes a vehicle increasingly difficult to drive. Some have commented that overtaking is possible (& happens) in GP2, so why not F1? The differences start with front spring strategy, with F1 using springs around 3 (three) times the rates used in GP2 (bump rubbers are used for high down force support in GP2). They continue with rear dampers that are around half the strength of the GP2 equivalents (this despite F1 using more than 2 dampers, etc.). Finally, tyre stiffness splits are quite different (GP2 being conventional, F1 very much not - I suspect that was driven originally by aero considerations too).

Personally, I think that a "shoot out" between a GP2 vehicle & a power (& gismo) restricted F1 vehicle could be very revealing, despite the differences in weight & c.g. height.

We need to think bigger! The Inovagent Grand Prix of Maryland! 1080 degrees of turning per lap!

The Dizzyland Grand Prix!

Banked circuits are nothing new to GP racing.
The old Monza, Monthlery and AVUS were such examples.
Even the Ring had the Indy section.

Well, you don't say! I didn't know that - in fact, probably nobody but you knew that! Thank you, very interesting.

Reductio ad absurdum time.

If flat tracks lead to very few options in racing line, and perfectly banked circuits lead to an arbitrary choice of racing line, ie it makes no odds what line you take as the cunning designers have ensured that the net effect izs zero, then wouldn't negatively banked circuits lead to only one viable racing line?

By negatively banked I assume you mean banking which reduces as you move away from the apex? ie you are talking about a convex cross-section as opposed to the concave cross-section of the ideally banked corner.

I wish there was a term for this (the first derivative of banking angle).

The answer to your question is obviously yes - likewise a corner with constant banking also has only one line.

I'll have to disagree with that - There can be at least three lines through nearly every corner.

Yes, but not distinct ones that can be taken by cars side-by-side without disadvantage or collision.

Fairy nuff.
Though on tracks such as the US super-speedways it's possible to take high & low lines, etc.

er.........are we still talking about motor racing??

That's exactly what I'm on about - make some of the turns on GP circuits work like that using progressive banking.

In other words, effectively straighten them out.

So let's race on flat ovals.

I will readily admit to being a banked track sprint car racing fanatic but one of the interesting things about the sprint car dirt tracks is that the surface is constantly changing.

In case anybody does not know the surface is a kind of clay which is conditioned before the nights racing by watering and rolling. The hope is to produce a plastic high grip surface that will not break up too quickly. In practice the track does change grip over the series of races and this change is not consistent around the track. Also the wheels throw up a band of dirt outside the main line which to some extent the cars can "ride".

The good thing is that sometimes there is only one racing line but other times the line changes or moves resulting in the need for the drivers to "read " the track and change line. This helps keep everything exciting on a good night.

So it would be a bit like the suggestion above of sprinklers but the drivers would not know in advance which sprinklers are to be turned on, they would only know that every, say, 10 laps a new set would come on!

Not at all. As I said in an earlier post, progressive banking could be negative near the apex with zero out wide. Still very much a corner you need to slow down for.


Not sure how you get to there from here-

"make some of the turns on GP circuits work like that using progressive banking"

What tracks are you talking about? Las Vegas and Homestead are the only ones I know of. The latter has only 2 degrees difference. Michigan and Fontana don't have progressive banking, yet there are different lines that work.

Other possibility is to have a less grippy surface on the otherwise optimal line. This would also be easier to adjust.

If we could have tires that when "rubbering in" would reduce track grip, it would create an interesting dynamic.

No, look at the title of this thread.

Excuse me but i think maybe we're confusing lap time and overtaking?

I mean: Even if you have only one line through a corner, that's not a problem because if you're on the outside of the leading car, you'll be slower in the first part, but since you block that same outside on the exit he'll be slower...thus you can overtake.

One should not forget that overtaking someone means being faster at the precise point you overtake it. After and before are question of having the possibility to place yourself along side the other one..which supposes you can get close enough in the first place.

Well then, okay banked turns can add overtaking option (why not, i recall austria GP having those kind of baking in the last turn and that do provided two lines) but in F1 you've seen a lot of overtakings in corners (i bet relatively more than in any other for of racecar racing) because F1 cars are nimble, brake late and accelerate very fast.

Agreed. I think that's why Bathurst is such an appealing track.

Yep. I think it's because originally enthusiasts would find a great piece of road and say "Wouldn't this make a fantastic race track!" I keep hoping to go back to Bathurst, especially as it falls on or near my birthday, almost as if it was a celebration of... no, it couldn't be!

It is a great track but unless you have more HP (or is that torque?) than the other bloke it is very hard to pass them. There is not many corners that you can get two cars to go around side by side, but that said I did manage to pass 15 cars in one lap once (and then the red flag came out! )

It is a bit narrow!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhyyFr-LS9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3pXXIIzvI8

How much banking do we need before drivers start blanking out and passing out while on the track?

CART, Texas, 24°.

Something I should have mentioned in the OP. In favour of progressive banking and speeding up the outside line - the outside overtaking move (most commonly seen in speedway) is one of the most exciting manoeuvres for motor racing spectators.

Surely it isn't just the angle of the banking but the combination with the radius of the turns that matters.

I think banking is a way to provide equal lines thus making ovetaking easier.

Equal lines can also be provided by having a series of S turns although often these result in crossing of the other line which means it is critical to be past the opponent at the correct point.

It is also possible to design so that the entry and exit speeds can provide two different best lines.

Track designers should put a lot more work into providing overtaking points on their tracks for similar paced cars.

Obviously. And speed. Comes down to vertical G's. Lateral isn't going to suck the blood down from the brain.