65 replies to this topic

[JeordieX]

Found this list of technical regulations regarding circuits on another forum, and was wondering was corners or track sections on the F1 calendar (or other circuits) break these rules.

 

1. The start/finish straight of a GP circuit should have a slope of no more than 2%.

2. It is preferable to have at least 250m from the start line to the first corner.

3. The first corner (a turn of more than 45 degrees) should have an apex speed not exceeding 125kph.

4. Off-camber corners are to be avoided if at all possible, and if unavoidable, can have an apex speed of no more than 125kph.
5. Corner banking may be no more than 10 degrees without specific FIA approval.
6. It is preferable that corners NOT include elevation changes.
7. Decreasing radius corners should be avoided, but if present, should have an apex speed of no more than 75kph.

8. The track width foreseen should be at least 12 m.

9. Where the track width changes, the transition should be made as gradually as possible, at a rate not greater than 1 m in 20 m total width. 

Edited by JeordieX, 25 February 2014 - 22:29.

[Andrew Hope]

Oh Rouge <3

[Ross Stonefeld]

Why are off-camber corners a problem? They lower cornering speeds...

[bogi]

Found this list of technical regulations regarding circuits on another forum, and was wondering was corners or track sections on the F1 calendar (or other circuits) break these rules.

 

1. The start/finish straight of a GP circuit should have a slope of no more than 2%.

2. It is preferable to have at least 250m from the start line to the first corner.

3.. The first corner (a turn of more than 45 degrees) should have an apex speed not exceeding 125kph.

4. Off-camber corners are to be avoided if at all possible, and if unavoidable, can have an apex speed of no more than 125kph.
5. Corner banking may be no more than 10 degrees without specific FIA approval.
6. It is preferable that corners NOT include elevation changes.
7. (This last one I haven't read in a while, and have had a hard time finding of late). Decreasing radius corners should be avoided, but if present, should have an apex speed of no more than 75kph.

 

That's why we have Yas Marina and other Tilkedromes.

 

 

edit:

 

does it comply?

http://bitchslapmag....n_live_news.gif

Edited by bogi, 25 February 2014 - 23:13.

[Risil]

I'd like to see the specific rationale behind each of the rules.

 

Yes, I have got all day.

[Markn93]

Jeez it's a wonder we don't have square racetracks given how many parameters there are. I bet Tilke would love to design a 'real' circuit hejust has not really had the chance. 

[scheivlak]

Oh Rouge <3

The first corner is La Source - no problem!

 

That said, I wonder if Spa doensn't have a problem with (1) and a few other ones as well.

[travbrad]

I would imagine Suzuka breaks many of these rules.

 

The first corner alone breaks 2 or 3 of those.

[midgrid]

Monaco.

[Hellenic tifosi]

Copse is also much faster than 125 km/h.

What is the rationale behind avoiding decreasing radius corners?

[Richard T]

How is it even possible to limit cars to 125kph if the turn is, let's say 46 degrees, and 12 meters wide? F1 cars would do 250 trough that! (Hockenheim T1)

[PLAYLIFE]

I've never seen these tech regs before. I'd like to see an official source because they appear to have been transgressed many times.

[Risil]

What is the rationale behind avoiding decreasing radius corners?

 

It's a little-known fact that between 1992 and 2000 there was a US Grand Prix circuit in construction. Due to a cock-up in the draughtsman's office they built a decreasing radius corner where instead of straightening out eventually, the radius kept decreasing in an endless spiral. Apparently the building crew is still out there, although whether the track is now a) nanometers wide, b) deep underground or c) sharing a parallel universe with the Flushing Meadows street circuit, the Donington infield extension and South Korea's Champ Car track, is unrecorded.

 

Thankfully Max hushed the scandal up and Bernie distracted everyone's attention by saying something about the Nazis breaking a few eggs but getting things done. But from then on the decreasing radius corner was declared angulus non grata.

Edited by Risil, 25 February 2014 - 23:30.

[OvDrone]

All of them corners who's entire personality can be summed up in a single digit number. The loss of imagination is our real Predator style killer. Except turn #8, I miss that wonderful Tilkewhatever.

[KingTiger]

The FIA are useless chumps. 

[scg92]

Those rules make it hard to have any interesting corners :/

[Doughnut King]

http://www.fia.com/s...cembre 2013.pdf

 

Article 7 onwards seems the relevant bit.

[MLC]

Decreasing radius, off-camber, elevation changes... These are what makes a corner challenging for drivers. 

[Seano]

I think all circuits that aspire to host a GP should have examples of at least 3~4 challenges on the list. Its supposed to be a sporting challenge for the best drivers in the world to exhibit their skills.

 

If I became such a tormented soul that I actually wanted to watch an economy run on a parking lot, I'd get a gun and take my own pain away.

 

Seano

[Kristian]

I thought Tilke had purposfully built off-camber corners into Abu Dhabi? 

 

But to be honest no wonder the soul is being sucked out of F1 if these are the rules that are being adhered to.... 

[Morbus]

Those rules are the reason F1 is no longer about the venues...

[Fastcake]

These are more what you'll call guidelines, than actual rules, especially when it comes to existing circuits.

[August]

Copse is also much faster than 125 km/h.

What is the rationale behind avoiding decreasing radius corners?

 

It's not anymore the T1 of Silverstone but I think Copse, followed by the Becketts corners and Stowe before the first huge braking at Club, was the best start for the lap. Huge breakings at the beginning of the lap are crash traps on the 1st lap, Silverstone had the first huge breaking after half a lap.

[noikeee]

I've got a lot of sympathy for Tilke after reading that list. I've done my share of designing fantasy mod tracks for computer games, and from testing all kinds of corner combinations and alternatives on completely blank canvas of terrain (not real terrain with real tight constraints like real life architechts deal with), I can guarantee you it's really tough to design any kind of interesting circuit without breaking any of those rules. Those little anomalies are what gives a circuit its character. By such a tight list of rules you also ensure all circuits built to them look like each other.

 

I can think of a lot of examples that break the rules in the F1 calendar but they are all old ones as you'd expect. Eau Rouge, several Monaco corners, several corners in Suzuka, T1 in the previous Silverstone layout, etc. Although I question for example Shanghai's turn 1, how did that get approved under Tilke's reign already. Bahrain's long radius corner that tightens before the final backstraight.

 

I've long wanted to see a really quick long corner that tightens just slightly, imagine something that starts on 6th gear then they've got to drop to 4th as it goes along. That kind of thing would be fantastic to watch but apparently ruled out. Actually long radius corners appear to have been wiped out in recent decades after being widely popular up to until the 80s or so. Things like the Parabolica in Estoril and turn 2 in Magny-Cours. I think the theory is that they kill overtaking but with DRS the hell with that as it's no longer a concern, we need to bring those corners back.

[Andrew Hope]

Essentially it seems the FIA encourage track builders to construct any type of corner they want, provided nothing you can do there is fun.

[HaydenFan]

Copse is also much faster than 125 km/h.

What is the rationale behind avoiding decreasing radius corners?

 

They require a bit of skill to master. 

 

Copse isn't exactly 90 degrees though. 

[SR388]

Awesome! I think martinsville complies!

[saudoso]

I'd say Interlagos old start/finish is way more than 2%.

[Afterburner]

Essentially it seems the FIA encourage track builders to construct any type of corner they want, provided nothing you can do there is fun.

Can't help but agree, reading these rules. What pains me is this: what does it take to reverse rules like this?

[SR388]

Are these rules for safety or tv viewing angles?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I assume these are guidelines for new circuits. 

[OO7]

Copse is also much faster than 125 km/h.

What is the rationale behind avoiding decreasing radius corners?

You mean Abbey 

[ElDictatore]

Phrases like "preferable", "but or "to be avoided if possible" make it more like guidlines more than anything. But still, I don't get most of them. 

[charly0418]

Regualtion no.1 for all F1 circuits:

 

1- Pay Bernie

[Cool Beans]

Remove the words "NO" and "NOT" from the checklist and you have a list describing the most epic track in the universe.

[mistareno]

I guess they won't be staging an F1 race at Bathurst any time soon....which would be ptetty epic btw...

[muramasa]

wow.

 

bye bye Suzuka then

[zdzisio]

I guess they won't be staging an F1 race at Bathurst any time soon....which would be ptetty epic btw...

 

A lot of mindless overtaking on the straits due to DRS and a lot of safety cars or even red flags due to crashes in downhill mountain section, so no, not really.

[Hellenic tifosi]

You mean Abbey 

 

Wow, I had no idea that they moved the S/F line. You see, my interest in F1 has dwindled over the past few years, only to be re-invigorated by the new Turbo regulations

 

In any case, I find these "guidelines" completely absurd. I can understand for example why they would want to have a wide track, but avoiding off camber corners, elevation changes, radius changes is totally wrong in my opinion.

[muramasa]

I would imagine Suzuka breaks many of these rules.

 

The first corner alone breaks 2 or 3 of those.

 

yes.

 

Suzuka Circuit;

 

1. The start/finish straight of a GP circuit should have a slope of no more than 2%.

> 2.8%

 

3. The first corner (a turn of more than 45 degrees) should have an apex speed not exceeding 125kph.

> technically T1 angle is around 50 degrees with apex speed of more than 260km/h

 

4. Off-camber corners are to be avoided if at all possible, and if unavoidable, can have an apex speed of no more than 125kph.

> Spoon is off-camber corner(s), with apex speed of at least 180km/h

 

6. It is preferable that corners NOT include elevation changes.

> Almost all corners is consisted of elevation change.

 

7. Decreasing radius corners should be avoided, but if present, should have an apex speed of no more than 75kph.

> Does that mean a corner or corner complex sharpening? If so, Spoon complex, T1-2 complex, Degner complex, and S complex possibly conflict with it. Also slowest apex speed at any point is way more than 75kmph.

 

8. The track width foreseen should be at least 12 m.

> minimum track width at Suzuka is 10m

 

9. Where the track width changes, the transition should be made as gradually as possible, at a rate not greater than 1 m in 20 m total width.

> I'm not so sure about this but the track narrowing down at T1 looks sudden and abrupt, rate greater than 1m per 20m.

[JeePee]

The guy who wrote these rules probably crashed his family car in a tourist lap around the Nordschleife.

[PayasYouRace]

Found this list of technical regulations regarding circuits on another forum, and was wondering was corners or track sections on the F1 calendar (or other circuits) break these rules.

 

3. The first corner (a turn of more than 45 degrees) should have an apex speed not exceeding 125kph.

 

 

I find this one particularly odd. When thinking of first corner accidents I think of Ste. Devote, La Source, Long Beach, Monza, Montreal, etc. Very rarely do/did you see big first lap crashes at Abbey, Copse, Tamburello, Estoril T1 (in F1 days), etc.

 

If anything having a faster T1 allows cars to spead out, thinning the pack at the first braking point.

[Jovanotti]

The guy(s) who came up and approved these guidelines deserve a massive slap in their crown jewels (if there are any).

Seriously, some time ago I thought about starting a thread about which elements make for a good racing circuit, and many of those I imagined are included in this list. What a joke Might think about starting the thread after all, simply as an anti-thesis to this bullcrap.

Edited by Jovanotti, 26 February 2014 - 08:10.

[Impellam]

This actually makes sense for the FIA to provide such guidance. Think corporate manslaughter. Think insurance and liability. Whether you like it or not, it's a fact of life and the FIA must mitigate its risk the same as any other organisation these days. Just remember all of those hideously naff "where there's a claim, there's blame" commercials issued by the bottom feeder's of the legal industry and it becomes clear what the motive is, whether as 'purists' we like it or not. It's just a sign of the times we live in.

[Rinehart]

Turkey, India, Austin and Korea, NEW circuits, break some of these rules, in all cases more than once (corner elevation, reduced radius, camber apex). 

 

I have therefore concluded that these rules are the work of a jobsworth and indeed bollocks (they really exist, just nobody cares). 

[fluffy38]

Turkey, India, Austin and Korea, NEW circuits, break some of these rules, in all cases more than once (corner elevation, reduced radius, camber apex). 

 

I have therefore concluded that these rules are the work of a jobsworth and indeed bollocks (they really exist, just nobody cares). 

 

yup! pretty sure the slope change on the straight at austin is more than 2%

[HeidfeldsBeard]

I think they are definitely more guidelines than rules. As long as they are respected and not recklessly abused the FIA will turn a blind eye. - a bit like the speed limit on the Motorway.

[Tenmantaylor]

It's interesting to see how Tilke has challenged these and still created tracks that are great for racing if not for driving. Malyasia, China, Bahrain have all created some great racing but are ultimately boring to drive. The possible exception was Turkey which was a great track to drive.

 

Overall these are ridiculous rules don't necessarily create safer racing tracks OR better racing. What's the point when guys like Maldonado and Grosjean can get into F1? Like legislating the China Shop to suit the Bull.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 26 February 2014 - 11:47.

[wj_gibson]

Suzuka breaks all of those rules, but I think they apply only to new circuits, no? I don't think they're meant to be retroactively applied to existing circuits.

[HaydenFan]

So I was playing Brands Hatch on GT6. And thought of this thread. So, pretty much the entire track would be illegal. Every corner has elevation change for the most part. Look at Paddock Hill (T1)! A sloping downward right. Totally illegal for F1. Maybe more so than any corner in motorsport. Definitely not seeing that small British circuit back on the grand prix calender.