Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Circuits and tracks: how do you tell a circuit is bad


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#101 RosannaG

RosannaG
  • Member

  • 1,121 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 20 December 2014 - 00:42

Easy, when I fall asleep between lap 5 and 10, the track is rubbish!  :lol:



Advertisement

#102 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 20 December 2014 - 12:11

Honestly you could have stopped there. Whenever i see a TILKE track i want to chop out half a dozen corners. Way, way, way too much fiddly rubbish. Tracks are too long too. 

 

But even that is subjective. Suzuka has a ton of corners. Spa is longer than most Tilke tracks. Yet both are brilliant. The reasons add up, and some are subtler than they seem at first glance...



#103 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,842 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 December 2014 - 12:23

But even that is subjective. Suzuka has a ton of corners. Spa is longer than most Tilke tracks. Yet both are brilliant. The reasons add up, and some are subtler than they seem at first glance...


Suzuka is brilliant. Spa on the otherhand, with the widened La Source, cookie cutter final chicane replacing the old bus stop, years passed since Eau Rouge was a real challenge, the acres of tarmac run-off at Pouhon.... it has nice scenery, elevation changes and past glory (emphasis on past). It's only interesting when it rains.

#104 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 20 December 2014 - 12:28

I'm not going to argue this version of Spa is better than some of its past versions, but it's still a much better circuit than every single Tilkedrome in my opinion, including his best such as Istanbul, Sepang or Austin. Might not throw the greatest modern races in the dry, but it's just one of the better driving circuits in the F1 calendar by a mile.



#105 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 December 2014 - 13:08

On Yas Marina, I feel that what totally ruins that track is the turn 5 and 6 chicane.

 

It's just totally pointless. The length between the two apex's is far too large meaning the car behind is at such a disadvantage overtaking on the back straights is difficult and few drivers make mistakes through there that it does not add anything at all.

 

It would be a lot better if they just cut out that chicane and there was a straight run down to the hairpin. This would provide a new overtaking opportunity and enables a chance to setup an overtake down the back straights.

 

Tilke seems unable to learn from what he does that works.

 

Last few corners at Istanbul makes the relatively short pit straight a surprisingly good overtaking spot. At Bahrain, a similar but shallower and faster complex at the beginning of the lap makes Turn 4 a common place to overtake.

 

In his new tracks, do we see any of these features? Nope.

 

A good example of this is Buddh, which I dont understand why some people like. He ruins the two best overtaking spots on the circuit by giving it a nice wide entry but a very narrow exit which makes side by side action fairly impossible. Another mistake of him doing this is Sochi at turn 2. He puts the exit sausage kerb at such a tight angle that it is so hard to overtake into it. Any side by side action going into there that we saw this year resulted in one car going off pretty much every time since there is no room for two cars. The only time a wide entry works is when the corner is a hairpin and has a fairly wide exit too (Turn 1 Austin)

 

Another reason turn 4 at Bahrain is a success is because of its wide exit allowing multiple choices of line. You can go up the inside there, you can go round the outside if the defending car doesn't remember he is allowed to run you wide and you can undercut. All of these we saw at that corner this year at Bahrain.

 

---

 

So yeah, vote Sabjit for new FIA track designer.


Edited by sabjit, 20 December 2014 - 13:09.


#106 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 20 December 2014 - 13:13

But even that is subjective. Suzuka has a ton of corners. Spa is longer than most Tilke tracks. Yet both are brilliant. The reasons add up, and some are subtler than they seem at first glance...

 

Subtle is the word, very Book of Genesis. :)

 

"Now Suzuka was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made."


Edited by Risil, 20 December 2014 - 13:13.


#107 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 20 December 2014 - 15:00

On Yas Marina, I feel that what totally ruins that track is the turn 5 and 6 chicane.

 

It's just totally pointless. The length between the two apex's is far too large meaning the car behind is at such a disadvantage overtaking on the back straights is difficult and few drivers make mistakes through there that it does not add anything at all.

 

It would be a lot better if they just cut out that chicane and there was a straight run down to the hairpin. This would provide a new overtaking opportunity and enables a chance to setup an overtake down the back straights.

Yep. every time Abu Dhabi comes around and I see that chicane again for the first time that season, I just cringe at how much better it could be without it.



#108 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 258 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:41

Yep. every time Abu Dhabi comes around and I see that chicane again for the first time that season, I just cringe at how much better it could be without it.

Unless my memory fails me, the chicane at Abu Dhabi was created because there is a quite solid building right outside turn 7. So no space at all for the necesary safety precautions, had the circuit designers omitted turns 5 and 6...



#109 HuddersfieldTerrier1986

HuddersfieldTerrier1986
  • Member

  • 2,712 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:19

Talking of new tracks, 1 thing I wish would change is the length. They're all the same. Must be what, at least half of the tracks on the calendar now that are anywhere between 52-58 laps for a race? How about a different length track, leading to (for example) a 64 lap race or a 72 lap race?



#110 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:46

Unless my memory fails me, the chicane at Abu Dhabi was created because there is a quite solid building right outside turn 7. So no space at all for the necesary safety precautions, had the circuit designers omitted turns 5 and 6...

 

If that's the case, he still made a mess of it. The chicane could be a little further forward and much shorter distances between the apexes. The distance between turn 6 and the hairpin should be much shorter. At the minute it's too long and any mistake through the chicane can go unpunished, making the chicane a mickey mouse section.



#111 ch103

ch103
  • Member

  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 22 December 2014 - 13:25

As many have said, Tilke gets blasted for having "cookie cutter" track layouts but he has his hands tied to some degree. 

 

There are some circuits that inspire drivers and fans alike.  These tracks are Spa, Suzuka, Monza and Monaco.  While there is not much passing at Monaco, the sights and glamor of the event make it worthwhile.  Spa, the king of all race tracks, undoubtedly always produces fantastic racing.  Eau Rouge, Kimmel Straight, Pouhon, Blanchimont - the entire circuit in awe inspiring.  Mix in the Ardennes rain forest, unpredictable weather and high speeds; Spa should be the blue print for any proper racing circuit - IMO. 

 

Suzuka - another track which has all of the elements of Spa, just less elevation changes.  The esses are classic but the hairpin leading into them, as well as the spoon curve and the 130-R are classic.  Both Spa and Suzuka provide a track which enables drivers to provide the Nth % which is needed to outperform.

 

Compare that to Bahrain, Shanghai, Valencia, New Hockenheim, New Silverstone, India, Korea or whichever new Tilke circuit we've got.  They are are so similar it takes a big part of the uniqueness of each track away.  What do we have to differentiate them from one another?  The new fashion of Tilke tracks require a single, best set up to achieve the best lap time.  Kimi Raikkonen's 2005 Suzuka race is not possible at a Tilke track.  At least, not the ones I have listed.  

 

Road racing aside, I think an Oval like the Indianapolis 500 triumphs over the oval at Texas but it is the 1 mile ovals like Milwaukee and Richmond that I think provide the most entertaining racing.    


Edited by ch103, 22 December 2014 - 13:27.


#112 anneomoly

anneomoly
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 19:37

I'm sure that one of the other things that's mentioned in limiting track design - as well as location/funds/etc, is that most organisers want to conform to FIA AND FIM standards.



#113 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 December 2014 - 15:34

Unless my memory fails me, the chicane at Abu Dhabi was created because there is a quite solid building right outside turn 7. So no space at all for the necesary safety precautions, had the circuit designers omitted turns 5 and 6...

Ferrari World is in that direction, yes. But these kind of things that should have been known when the circuit is designed.



#114 ronsingapore

ronsingapore
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 23 December 2014 - 16:27

How do you tell a song is bad?  How do you tell a movie is bad?  How do you tell a dish of food is bad?

 

Some of it can be debated but a lot of it is just preference.  There's two main schools of thought though.

 

The driving aspect and the spectator aspect.  There is crossover obviously because even the drivers spectate while driving and an onboard lap through Spa or Imola looks different to an onboard lap at Bahrain or in a car park.

 

Spectators want overtaking, nice scenery, full crowds and exciting strategies/races etc.

 

Drivers want a adrenaline rush, a challenge and a flow to the circuit that feels natural.  A track that is flat like a car park with the same radiused corners as every other track is a bit dull.

 

A good mix of fast and slow corners and lots of elevation changes, a track that's easy to learn but hard to get the last tenths from.  Long braking zones or blind corners that are a challenge.  So that you don't fall asleep behind the wheel, but still can get into a flow and enjoy pushing the limit lap after lap.  Fast and medium speed corners to enjoy the rush and fast entry into them, but also a long braking zone or two so that overtaking is possible.  A track can be dull in traffic if you have to follow for the whole lap unless it's one overtaking spot but sometimes this is good from a spectator point of view (building anticipation for when they hit that point of the track).

 

Sometimes there are tracks that are dull in a race, but are amazing over one qualifying lap.  Some tracks, there can be a bit bland over one lap but produce great races.

 

It's hard to pick just one thing, and there's a different perspective when "battling the circuit" vs watching someone else doing it.  It depends if you view it from drivers POV or spectator.  Monaco for example is an amazing track and nearly all drivers love it.  The run to up Casino Square and the braking zone out of the tunnel and the swimming pool chicane are some of the best corners in F1.  Similar with Imola and a lot of other tracks that spectators don't like so much, because of the processions that they usually produce in the race.

 

This is one of the better replies I've seen since I started this thread; I've seen differing answers and all seems to have their own unique taste when it came to what makes a great tracks.

 

Just to check:

 

1) What is the difference between a fast corner and a slow corner - I know this refers to speed; but how would such a corner look it? More parabolic than sharp?

 

2)what are long braking zones?

 

3) What are blind corners?



#115 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 258 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 23 December 2014 - 16:41

Ferrari World is in that direction, yes. But these kind of things that should have been known when the circuit is designed.

Thanks - I seem to recall the silly turns 8 and 9 being created for the same reason, but couldn't remember the exact location of Ferrari World.

 

And of course you're right, these things should've been taken into consideration when the circuit was constructed.

 

----

 

btw - blind corners are corners where the apex or exit can't be seen on entry - for example Paddock Hill Bend at Brands Hatch, where there is a crest in the middle of the corner, or the swimming pool bends at Monaco before they created the present day run-off areas.



#116 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 24 December 2014 - 15:36

Thanks - I seem to recall the silly turns 8 and 9 being created for the same reason, but couldn't remember the exact location of Ferrari World.

 

And of course you're right, these things should've been taken into consideration when the circuit was constructed.

 

----

 

btw - blind corners are corners where the apex or exit can't be seen on entry - for example Paddock Hill Bend at Brands Hatch, where there is a crest in the middle of the corner, or the swimming pool bends at Monaco before they created the present day run-off areas.

I also like Turn 1 at COTA, with the blind apex and the crest in the middle of the braking zone. Very tricky. Pretty interesting to watch them try to figure it out in FP.



#117 ronsingapore

ronsingapore
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 24 December 2014 - 15:53

I remembering watching the first race on TV at marina bay circuit and remember thinking that the cars were a lot slower than I expected - given how much noise they were making during the qualifying (I was walking outside the circuit) - this was in 2009. If there is one problem with street circuits, its that the vehicles are not as fast as I expected.



#118 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 25 December 2014 - 18:15

It needs to be somewhat visually appealing to start. It should also have a good mix of high speed and slower speed sections. Most important thing is that it should have some personality to it. I'm not talking about how it looks, rather, the corners themselves need some originality to them. We need to get away from the stock medium speed 90 degree turns that are too prevalent in tilke's designs. They corners should be challenging as well with a natural flow to them. I'm thinking of Silverstone and suzuka here, which I rate very highly.

#119 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 December 2014 - 19:16



The main problem with Tilke tracks is that they look too much alike to each other. That's what people mostly mean by "lack of character", it's the lack of any defining characteristics that you look at, and immediately associate with that particular circuit and no other, be it a particularly unique corner, unique scenery, a danger element, a relic of history. Truly great tracks have it.

 

But, there are other, many problems:

 

- Tilke tracks are just too wide. This was originally thought a good idea to promote overtaking and multiple lines, but greatly reduces the sense of speed on camera which makes it look unexciting.

 

- A recurrent pattern of a hairpin leading to a long straight leading to a hairpin. Again this was initially thought that it would promote overtaking, but empirical evidence over the last few years tells us otherwise, apart from a few exceptions. By forcefully introducing at least 1 section like this in every one of his tracks, not only he makes them lose uniqueness, it also constraints the layout as instead of this standard section you could've had far more interesting corners. And nowadays it's pointless to design tracks to induce overtaking as DRS takes care of that anyway.

 

- A billiard smooth track surface. This is now seen as the norm for every permanent F1 circuit but again makes it look unexciting on TV. Tracks with bumps and natural, not carefully designed, camber changes, just look far better and are more interesting from a drivers' point of view.

 

- Lack of flow. It's hard to pin down exactly what makes Tilke tracks flow poorly (you can check this out in driving games/simulators), as "flow" is always a subjective thing, but they are just not that enjoyable to drive, even COTA who is acclaimed as one of Tilke's best is clearly one of the most annoying circuits in my iRacing collection. I'd say it's a combination of having too many corners (almost every single Tilke circuit has more than 20 corners!!), too many of them being too slow, an unenjoyable exccess of short radius corners (where have long constant radius corners gone in modern circuit design?), too many corners designed "to force driver's mistakes" by having blind apexes or awkward approaches, the aforementioned lack of natural camber/elevation changes, and the massive runoffs that not only again contribute to the lack of sense of speed, but also make it more difficult to find references for your driving such as braking markers.

 

I think there's also been a lot of misconceptions in this thread:

 

- Overtaking opportunities are way overrated as a key factor to a circuit being great, I'd much rather have an enjoyable challenging layout than one that promotes overtaking but is sterile. Bahrain has lots of overtaking, and is a piece of crap. Whereas a onboard lap of Monaco by a powerful car at the limit will keep any true motorsport fan in awe. There's a difference between great circuits and circuits that promote great races.

 

- Corners that promote or punish driving mistakes aren't necessarily great. Tilke tracks are full of them, the awkward corner entries I've mentioned before. They are challenging but they aren't fun. Truly great corners are challenging AND fun, like Eau Rouge or Pouhon. These are corners that are fast, entertaining and not awkward.

 

I could write about circuit design all day but you get the general idea by now.

 

I know this is an old post, but this absolutely echoes my views on circuit design.  I strongly dislike those short radius corners which seemingly never fail to mske F1 cars appear clumsy and ungainly.  Slow corners can be reasonable if they have some kind of lengthened apex, so it isn't a dislike of slow corners per se.  I also agree on corner number.  Austria works IMO because it has relatively few corners (though it would be much better with a couple being longer radius) - by contrast, Abu Dabi is awful as it seems that some of the corners were included for the sake of it - what that awful chicane out around the back is doing is anyone's guess - I know runoff is limited there as the inlet for the Marina is in the way, but Tilke could have shortened the preceding straight slightly to eliminate it.


Edited by cpbell, 25 December 2014 - 19:17.


Advertisement

#120 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 258 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 December 2014 - 14:12

Instead of naming all the boring circuits, I'd rather post my fantasy calendar, with only good circuits:

 

Australian GP: Bathurst. Way more interesting than city street circuits like Melbourne. The Mountain in F1s would be something to see! Anyway, if considering only the circuits actually used for an F1 WC GP, I'd take Adelaide rather than Melbourne, but it's probably a "feel" thing more than anything.

 

Austrian GP: Österreichring. The original circuit - long straights, wide open sweepers, elevation changes, great scenery, often very good races, for example 1972 and 1976.

 

Belgian GP: Spa. I'd prefere the old 14+ km monster, as it held more daunting challenges like the Burnenville sweeper and the Masta Kink. Elevation changes, fast corners, great scenery.

 

Brazil GP: Interlagos. The original eight km circuit, with the mighty turns 1 and 2, and the very long back straight. Lots of changes in elevation, a great variety of corners - just like today, actually, just more so.

 

British GP: Brands Hatch. It really has it all, and great for spectators too, with large parts of the circuit visible from the stands.

 

Canadian GP: Montreal. It's flat, but it has character, with lots of green scenery very close to the track, decent opportunities for overtaking, and the wall of champions to keep everybody honest. And of course, it might rain. Honorary mentioning for St. Jovite - every picture I've seen from the two GPs held there in 1968 and 1970 presents it as a very picturesque circuit with different corners, elevation changes and such things.

 

Dutch GP: Zandvoort. Great for spectators - go for he dunes above Tarzan, you don't need a grandstand ticket for the best view here. But definitely a mirage, at the area covered by the southern part of the circuit now is a holiday resort, and the banked Tarzan hairpin wouldn't have the same impact with the present much shorter start-finishing straight prceding it. Oh, and nice corners around theback as well - blind corners and all. 

 

French GP: Rouen. Those downhill-sweepers from the start to the Nouvelle Monde hairpin were hairraising - and the scene of one of Fangio's greatest moments, powersliding his 250F to victory in the 1957 French GP. But it's close between Rouen and Clermont-Ferrand, eight km of nausea-inflicting mini-Nurburgring in the Massive Central.

 

German GP: The Nurburgring Nordschleife. No need to elaborate....

 

Italian GP: Monza. No chicanes, just 5,75 km x the number of laps of slipstreaming madness.

 

Japanese GP: Suzuka. The reasons already mentioned quite a few times in this thread. Great circuit!

 

Portuguese GP: Oporto. A marvellous street circuit, quite fast, tram lines presenting extra hazards.

 

South African GP: Kyalami. Used from 1967 until 1985. Massive straight, so overtaking always possible, challenging sweepers and - yes also here - elevation changes. Saw some excellent racing - everybody knows about Arnoux and Villeneuve at Dijon 1979, but if you get a chance to watch Villeneuve, Scheckter and Jabouille fighting it out on the opening laps of the same year's SA GP, you should jump at it!

 

Spanish GP: Montjuich. The most scenic of any circuit. It seems like it was impossible to snap a bad picture there. It was quite short, but still very varied, the high point being a jump near the end of the main straight, just as the cars swept left and had to be positioned correctly for the next corner, a hairpin.

 

Swiss GP: Bremgarten. A unique challenge. A great variety of corners, some elevation changes, lots of trees close to the circuit casting shadows on the circuit so the drivers drove in the shade one moment and got blinded by the sun the next. Throw in quite narrow parts and a bit of cobblestone, and you have a 7+ km circuit mastered only be the greatest champions!

 

US GP: Watkins Glen. Fast and challenging. In particular the Esses before the Scheckter chicane was created... Austin is nice as well, though.

 

----

 

That's 16 GPs, which should be enough, but if more are to be added, there is Monaco (which doesn't make it into my fantasy calendar due to the lack of actual racing that can be done at the place. It must be 30 years or more since anybody succeeded in overtaking anybody cleanly at that particular circuit), Istanbul and Sepang to consider. The Indian GP circuit seemed pretty nice too, but it vanished from the calendar, before I got to see it in action... Oh, and the Moroccan circuit, visited in 1958, might be a candidate as well.

 

But really I would prefere a second Italian (at Pescara!), German (at the old Hockenheim) or French (at the ultra-fast Reims circuit or whatever of Rouen and Clermont-Ferrand that didn't get the French GP) to most of the also-rans.



#121 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 December 2014 - 16:30

Easy, when I fall asleep between lap 5 and 10, the track is rubbish!  :lol:

 

But the drivers sitting in the car could be having a ball.  There's a huge difference between the viewing experience vs the participating experience.  It's sad that sometimes a driver can have the most interesting or intense race but due to lack of TV coverage it can be hidden.  It's only through live timing or a certain type of attention that you can even notice it or appreciate it.  Lots of onboard shots and good commentary help to bridge the gap, but a lot of the time certain TV coverages just focus on 'their driver' rather than the race as a whole.  If you separate yourself from that and follow the race/live timing in a neutral way you can notice that more, but a lot of people don't have the patience for that.  In a lot of ways, qualifying is more intense in terms of appreciate the circuit and the drivers perspective, especially back in the one lap qualifying days.. where you'd watch every driver do a lap individually.  But it's hard to have that type of coverage during a race.

 

As a final point, sometimes a circuit can be average but the random circumstances set up a situation where the race is dynamic, unpredictable and awesome.  Especially during wet races.  People need to remember that a race is a sporting event, not a scripted Hollywood movie or WWE wresting event.  Sometimes it's magic and sometimes it's dull, regardless of the circuit.

 

I wish everyone could be made to drive the circuit in a sim before watching the event, because it'd gve more of an appreciation and relatability to the driver before the race starts.  That's not practical but it's a constant thing in sport where if you play the same sport yourself.. you appreciate or enjoy it more when watching others do the same thing.
 



#122 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 26 December 2014 - 16:50

A "good" circuit has a special challenge. Laguna Seca has it's corkscrew, Spa has Eau Rouge, Monaco has it's tunnel, Silverstone has Maggots, Becketts and Chapel, Monza had Curva Grande and Parabolica, Imola had Tamburello and so on. The new tracks surely have corners that could become something you talk about over a beer, but it takes time. When it is just "that difficult corner in Sotchi" or, "after the long straight at COTA", it never really triggers any memories and feelings.

 

Had Silverstone been built today, with it's current layout, it's name would not mean much, it would just be another circuit. To me, after the last changes, it has already lost its appeal.

 

But a "good" track in general presents a variation of corners and opportunity to use different lines in order to overtake. It also offers risk and reward.

Imagine Circuit Gilles Villenueve without the wall of champions.



#123 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 December 2014 - 16:59

This is one of the better replies I've seen since I started this thread; I've seen differing answers and all seems to have their own unique taste when it came to what makes a great tracks.

 

Just to check:

 

1) What is the difference between a fast corner and a slow corner - I know this refers to speed; but how would such a corner look it? More parabolic than sharp?

 

2)what are long braking zones?

 

3) What are blind corners?

 

1) It just means that you can carry more speed into the corner and the car doesn't slow down as much in the middle of the corner, before it starts to accelerate again on the exit.  There is 3 phases.. the braking.. the positioning and balancing of the car (front to rear) in the middle (apex) and the exit of the corner which leads onto the next straight.  A fast corner just means that it will be 250km/h at the slowest point (2.5 times what we drive on the highway) instead of 150km/h or 100km/h.

 

It's not so much about the shape of the corner, more just how it's layed out in terms of bumps, kerbs, and the corner that proceeds it and the corner that follows after it.  Corners on a track are like a puzzle and you need to compromise one and plan ahead for the next.  You have to balance entry and exit speed depending on what follows.  This is what people refer to as "flow".  In sector one at Suzuka for example it's very flowing where you need to think about the average speed of all corners, instead of going too fast into one and compromising the next.  So if there is a long straight after a corner, exit speed is a higher priority.  If there is a sharp slow corner after a previous corner, you can carry more speed into it and go deep because you will be heavily braking shortly anyway.  It's all about the fastest average between all of the corners.  Fast corners are usually the kind of corners there is a gradual apex and a straight following it but there are exceptions.  The fastest corners in F1 are like S2 in Istanbul or S1 in Suzuka or most corners at Silverstone.  Or S1 of COTA.  A big part of it is the speed you already have (before entering the corner) because if you have a high speed on entry, the car is already loaded up with downforce which allows the car to carry more speed because the downforce offers more grip.. where as if that same corner was after a slow corner the entry speed would be less, so it would be easily flat out but the apex speed would be lower.

 

2)  Where you have a very high speed on the exit of a corner or a long straight, but the apex of the next corner.. the maximum speed you can carry is very low.  Monza turn one, and Shanghai in S3 have extremely long straights but the following corner is so sharp and narrow, that it requires heavy braking and high G forces to stop the car so quickly.  Long braking zones mean the car has to spend 100m+ to stop the car going from 330+km'h down to 60 or 80km/h.  It's more noticeable in road cars or sports cars because of steel brakes and heavier car weight because in F1, the carbon brakes are so effecient and stop the car so quickly with the brakes going to 1000 deg Celcuis in a few seconds.  F1 cars are light so they also stop quicker.  It's the long braking zones that give the drivers a chance to overtake each other, because the more seconds that are spent in braking, the more chance it gives for one driver to gain an advantage over the other.  If there is a short braking zone of 30m (going from 250 to 180km/h etc) there isn't enough time or chance for one driver to pass another.  If a braking zone is 150m, it gives a faster driver a chance to gain 3 or 5 tenths in the braking zone as opposed to 1 tenth.  You can have a car behind being 1 second quicker but if the braking zone isn't long enough, they don't have enough time to make up the advantage and become stuck behind the slower car because the braking zone isn't long enough to make up the difference.

 

3) Like someone else said, it means that when you approach the corner you can't see where the corner leads until you are already turning.  You are turning based off of faith and memory of having taken the corner on previous laps.  It's like when you fall backwards on your back and hope that someone will catch you.  You brake, and turn in and then the corner reveals itself after you have already turned and pointed it in the right direction do you see where it leads.  It's usually because there is a sideways or uphill camber/elevation in the road, that hides the downhill section on the other side.  But because you have experienced and remember when the corner is, you can turn in at the right moment, without actually being able to see that it's the right direction.  It's very rhythmic and based on muscle memory.

 

"Technical corners" like this can be seen as dull from the outside but stimulate the drivers and keep them intensely concentrated while driving them.  Sometimes corners can have multiple ways of achieving the same result so that there is 2 or 3 different ways to approach them and it's down to the drivers style or the car setup (which prefers one approach over another) which enables a driver to do well in that corner.  It's impossible to setup a race car to be 100% effective in all corners.  It's a series of compromises and that's why 2 cars can be equally fast over a lap, but be strong in different areas of the circuit.  Most people put that down to engine power or aero performance but the car setup is much more complicated than that.  It can be differential settings, gear ratios, suspension, ride height or even just driver preference.  When you have a wide circuit like Sepang and multiple ways to succeed into a certain corner (like the final corner) it makes for very interesting racing.  When everyone drives every corner the exact same way with a similar car setup, it can be very dull.



#124 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 26 December 2014 - 17:30

I'd like to go back to Silverstone, before it's last changes, which was my favorite circuit. Part of it was of course the history, but the biggest reason I loved it was because each and every corner was relevant, each corner (yes, even Abbey) was interesting. No, I have never driven it in "real", but many many times in various simulators.

It starts with Copse, a reasonably straightforward corner but it takes a lot of dedication and precision to get it right.

Next up is the Maggots, Becketts and Chapel combination. A marvellous sequence that is almost impossible to get 100% right. You must work with the steering, the throttle and the brakes all the way through to keep the car in line, prevents it from understeering and finally get a good exit to the hangar straight.

The hangar straight leads to Stowe, a very nice high speed corner where you can really push the car, it allows for some mistkes, but it also allows for that "weightless" feeling when all 4 wheels are drifting while you have the hurry pedal all the way down, gazing at the breaking point for....

Vale. Vale is in itself just a tight corner, but it is a very important one since it leads directly into...
Club, the corner that never ends. Again, you must get the entry right, you must balance the car with all the controls you have available so that you have some speed when you come to the straight that lead to Abbey.

Abbey is not so much actually, it is mostly a reminder that you are about to approach my favourite section - Bridge and Priory!

Bridge is a very easy corner, no doubt about that, you can carry a whole lot of speed through it, but it is made interesting by Priory. Priory iis still fast, but slower and you must have a perfect line otherwise it bites you. So pushing through Bridge you must keep pushing, inwards, and start braking when you do not want to. There is so much weight transition going on that that you feel more like a balance artist than a racing driver.

After making Priory, there is just the twisty bits left, Brookland and Luffield. They are a tad boring, but very important for the lap times since they are quite tricky and any mistake cost a lot when your car is going slow.

Lap ends with Woodcote, a corner that is not a corner for high downforce cars.

 

I'm sure there are many tracks that could be listed as great with more or less exactly the same arguments I used above. Personal preference, memories and personal experience are deciding factors.

 

EDIT: Added bolding


Edited by ardbeg, 26 December 2014 - 17:47.


#125 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 December 2014 - 22:19

It starts with Copse, a reasonably straightforward corner but it takes a lot of dedication and precision to get it right.

 

You understate Copse a bit. It's one of my favourite corners on the calendar. It's so fast and overtakes into there are possible but requires skill.



#126 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 27 December 2014 - 03:33

You understate Copse a bit. It's one of my favourite corners on the calendar. It's so fast and overtakes into there are possible but requires skill.

I don't think I did, I simply meant that there is no real trickery with it and anyone can make it. To make fast though, is another matter and that is what makes it interesting. It is mainly a kink, so if you go in there with full attack you do not get any second chances after turn in.



#127 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 December 2014 - 09:37

Some of you need to get over the run off areas, you are just going to see more and more of them so you might as well get used to it.



#128 John B

John B
  • Member

  • 7,952 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 28 December 2014 - 01:28

I remember being disappointed when the Hungaroring replaced Zaandvoort in 1986......while it won't wind up on many great circuits list it has had an uncanny knack for unusual, unpredictable races and winners for nearly 30 years now...



#129 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 28 December 2014 - 02:14

Tilke has kind of used up all his ideas already, every one of his new tracks is essentially the same.

Malaysia has a good flow to it with a few flourishes (T1 complex) that were overused in later tracks.

Bahrain is more lacking but it still has a degree of flow. Crap scenery though.

Turkey is far and away his best, almost uninterrupted flow and nicest surroundings.

China feels like a second edition of Malaysia but still maintains a good feeling of flow with good overtaking spots.

Unfortunately the others are crap because Korea, Abu Dhabi and Russia have attempted to add street circuit 90 degree corners and garbage for no logical reason. India is like a poor man's Turkey and Austin is decidedly bland, although better than the previous 4.

Honestly if the calendar only featured Malaysia, China, Turkey and Austin by Tilke it would be fine, but we have half a dozen derivative others.

#130 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 December 2014 - 10:32

Unfortunately the others are crap because Korea, Abu Dhabi and Russia have attempted to add street circuit 90 degree corners and garbage for no logical reason.

 

 

Well two were meant to be running through a town that was supposed to be built on site, and the third is an actual street circuit, so the logic is sound.

 

Now that neither of those building complexes are going ahead, Korea and Abu Dhabi could be modified to make them better.



#131 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 29 December 2014 - 11:06

Abu Dhabi might not have a full town around it, but they did build a massive color-changing hotel. You gonna move that? As it is, it's a more interesting feature than any of its 75 2nd gear corners.



#132 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 December 2014 - 11:13

The track doesn't have to go under the hotel.

 

Edit: Plus they aren't exactly strapped for cash over there. If anyone could afford to tear down and rebuild an entire circuit it's the Gulf states.


Edited by PayasYouRace, 29 December 2014 - 11:14.


#133 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 29 December 2014 - 11:44

Well two were meant to be running through a town that was supposed to be built on site, and the third is an actual street circuit, so the logic is sound.

Now that neither of those building complexes are going ahead, Korea and Abu Dhabi could be modified to make them better.


Building a city around a track is a god awful idea. The logic is flawed.

#134 ronsingapore

ronsingapore
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 31 December 2014 - 05:56

Some of you need to get over the run off areas, you are just going to see more and more of them so you might as well get used to it.

 

I don't mind run-off areas (but maybe because i am from gen-Y), but I thought run-offs were a safety feature?



#135 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 December 2014 - 07:22

Hi, I just want to get some feedback and ideas here; on what makes a good or bad circuit?

 

 

A good circuit is thrilling!  :clap:  Like a rollercoaster.

 

 

 

A bad circuit is not.  ):  It's flat and dull, and even the F1 drivers are bored going at 300 km/hr...

 

:|


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 31 December 2014 - 07:24.


#136 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 December 2014 - 07:30

Has Tilke ever been asked what kind of track he would design if there weren't any constraints? I'd like to see that.

 

 

Several possible (and similarly quick) routes through a corner for better and longer wheel-to-wheel action.

He (Tilke) did made this club circuit which is OK.. It's made of combining corners from other famous circuits! 



#137 The Kanisteri

The Kanisteri
  • Member

  • 11,192 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 December 2014 - 09:08

"Circuits and tracks: how do you tell a circuit is bad?"

 

I personally split these into two categories. Moral and sport - reasons.

 

Moral reasons why some tracks are bad:

- F1 is expensive sport for priviledged people. One driver might earn more money in year than questionable host country's millions of own people through entire year. Is it really fair middle of these poor people are hold event of few rich people?

- Some hosts just give **** about human rights and labour rights. New tracks are built with fatalities during track contstruction or people living on area are violently evicted from their homes where track is going to be built.

 

Examples: Russian GP, Brazilian GP, Indian GP, Dubai GP

 

Sporty reasons.

-F1 as motorsport should be drivers with their teams competing against other drivers and teams. So track should allow this. Track should allow overtakings, It should have variations of curves and elevation changes so setups of cars are compromised and no car got superior advantage on other (One team could be better on straights, one on fast corners and other better up on slow corners etc..

- Unfortunately some tracks are so narrow and short they barely allow any of competition. We have seen GPs where positions doesn't change due overtaking is nearly impossible. Is this what we want? Because traditions?

- Boring tracks. Excuse me, my american friends, but ovals are very boring. Of course they fullfill everyones need for speed, but is it very exciting to watch few hundreds lap race which is not much different than after work rush hour on freeways - (well of course on race track speed it greater and they have stickers on their cars)?. I hate driving on heavy traffic since every other car there is potential running catastrofe. You can trust only on yourself .- unles you yourself are bad driver. If I would be pro driver on these ovals it would drain my nerves somebody slipstreaming withing meter from your rear bumber at speed of 300-400kph.

 

Examples: Any oval. Monago GP, Hungarian GP, Argentina GP (Buenos Aires) 



#138 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 8,255 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 31 December 2014 - 09:25

Instead of naming all the boring circuits, I'd rather post my fantasy calendar, with only good circuits:

You are listing many great circuits which are amazing to drive on your own and/or have lots of history, but imo 80% of them wouldn't work as modern F1 circuits (e.g. Zandvoort, Nordschleife, Bathurst, Rouen, Bremgarten (!), Brands). Those tracks are either very micky-mousey or way too narrow for creating good racing, but I see your point of course.


Edited by Jovanotti, 31 December 2014 - 09:26.


#139 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 3,226 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 31 December 2014 - 09:35

How do you tell a circuit is bad?
- Simple, it's designed by Tilke.



Advertisement

#140 GoldenColt

GoldenColt
  • Member

  • 6,254 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 31 December 2014 - 10:51

I don't think Kuala Lumpur is that bad tbh.

 

Same goes for Austin.

 

And Istanbul was amazing too.

 

Turn 8. :love:


Edited by GoldenColt, 31 December 2014 - 10:54.


#141 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 258 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 31 December 2014 - 12:31

You are listing many great circuits which are amazing to drive on your own and/or have lots of history, but imo 80% of them wouldn't work as modern F1 circuits (e.g. Zandvoort, Nordschleife, Bathurst, Rouen, Bremgarten (!), Brands). Those tracks are either very micky-mousey or way too narrow for creating good racing, but I see your point of course.

I watched the 1983 Race of Champions the other day, and even though it was diificult to overtake (as Sullivan found out trying to make it past Rosberg!) it certainly wasn't impossible.

 

btw & completely off topic: Nice nick - Jovanotti is great :up:



#142 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 258 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 31 December 2014 - 15:07

"Circuits and tracks: how do you tell a circuit is bad?"

 

I personally split these into two categories. Moral and sport - reasons.

 

Moral reasons why some tracks are bad:

- F1 is expensive sport for priviledged people. One driver might earn more money in year than questionable host country's millions of own people through entire year. Is it really fair middle of these poor people are hold event of few rich people?

- Some hosts just give **** about human rights and labour rights. New tracks are built with fatalities during track contstruction or people living on area are violently evicted from their homes where track is going to be built.

 

Examples: Russian GP, Brazilian GP, Indian GP, Dubai GP

 

Sporty reasons.

-F1 as motorsport should be drivers with their teams competing against other drivers and teams. So track should allow this. Track should allow overtakings, It should have variations of curves and elevation changes so setups of cars are compromised and no car got superior advantage on other (One team could be better on straights, one on fast corners and other better up on slow corners etc..

- Unfortunately some tracks are so narrow and short they barely allow any of competition. We have seen GPs where positions doesn't change due overtaking is nearly impossible. Is this what we want? Because traditions?

- Boring tracks. Excuse me, my american friends, but ovals are very boring. Of course they fullfill everyones need for speed, but is it very exciting to watch few hundreds lap race which is not much different than after work rush hour on freeways - (well of course on race track speed it greater and they have stickers on their cars)?. I hate driving on heavy traffic since every other car there is potential running catastrofe. You can trust only on yourself .- unles you yourself are bad driver. If I would be pro driver on these ovals it would drain my nerves somebody slipstreaming withing meter from your rear bumber at speed of 300-400kph.

 

Examples: Any oval. Monago GP, Hungarian GP, Argentina GP (Buenos Aires) 

I agree with most of this except the highlighted part:

 

Interlagos is an old circuit. Yes, it is right next to a very poor neighbourhood, but when the circuit was renewed (and shortened), it was the old back straight rather than poor people's homes that had to make way for new grandstands. And even though the Brazilian police force doesn't live up to (percieved) European standards, they aren't any worse than, say, the police in Ferguson (the suburb of St.Louis where an unarmed youngster was gunned down by the local police.

 

But, as stated, apart from that I agree.



#143 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 December 2014 - 17:57

"Circuits and tracks: how do you tell a circuit is bad?"

 

I personally split these into two categories. Moral and sport - reasons.

 

Moral reasons why some tracks are bad:

- F1 is expensive sport for priviledged people. One driver might earn more money in year than questionable host country's millions of own people through entire year. Is it really fair middle of these poor people are hold event of few rich people?

- Some hosts just give **** about human rights and labour rights. New tracks are built with fatalities during track contstruction or people living on area are violently evicted from their homes where track is going to be built.

 

Examples: Russian GP, Brazilian GP, Indian GP, Dubai GP

 

Sporty reasons.

-F1 as motorsport should be drivers with their teams competing against other drivers and teams. So track should allow this. Track should allow overtakings, It should have variations of curves and elevation changes so setups of cars are compromised and no car got superior advantage on other (One team could be better on straights, one on fast corners and other better up on slow corners etc..

- Unfortunately some tracks are so narrow and short they barely allow any of competition. We have seen GPs where positions doesn't change due overtaking is nearly impossible. Is this what we want? Because traditions?

- Boring tracks. Excuse me, my american friends, but ovals are very boring. Of course they fullfill everyones need for speed, but is it very exciting to watch few hundreds lap race which is not much different than after work rush hour on freeways - (well of course on race track speed it greater and they have stickers on their cars)?. I hate driving on heavy traffic since every other car there is potential running catastrofe. You can trust only on yourself .- unles you yourself are bad driver. If I would be pro driver on these ovals it would drain my nerves somebody slipstreaming withing meter from your rear bumber at speed of 300-400kph.

 

Examples: Any oval. Monago GP, Hungarian GP, Argentina GP (Buenos Aires) 

 

Disagree with the moral reasons. Saying that a GP shouldn't happen is because the country is too poor is worse IMO.

 

Also, the Brazillian GP does not fit what you have described.

 

Onto sporting reasons, arrrrghh, it's really annoying when people jump on the wide track bandwagon. All it does is reduce minimum corner speed and therefore braking distance which sees less overtaking. Wider does not equal better. Monza has a narrow track but sees plenty of overtaking. Wide tracks only work for hairpins.

 

Also, Hungary is not like Monaco in the race spectacle department because it tends to throw up good races. The karting circuit nature means that we can see a lot of drivers in lesser cars perform well (Alonso was only a few laps away from winning the race in the worst Ferrari for 20 years). Also, overtaking there is not as hard as Monaco, it just requires imagination. Hamilton and Riccardo prove that considering they have both in the last two years there pulled off moves coming through the field with relative ease. It just requires skill to overtake at Hungary, which is a skill that has been missing in F1 since the introduction of DRS, Hungary is the last refuge of the skilled overtake.

 

Getting rid of Monaco is like getting rid of the football world cup. The Football WC is much more boring than other football matches because the games tend to be approached negatively and defensively compared to other levels of football.

 

Monaco is the same but is so because of the layout and not how it's approached. But it has a place in F1 that it would not be the same without Monaco. Remember it forms one of the triple crown of Motorsport. If you kicked it off the calendar it will only still be held as an independant round anyway simply because it has to be. So you might as well include it whilst it's there.



#144 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 December 2014 - 18:02

I don't think Kuala Lumpur is that bad tbh.

 

Same goes for Austin.

 

And Istanbul was amazing too.

 

Turn 8. :love:

 

Sector 1 at KL is great, you can have a continuous duel all the way through it. Sector 2 and 3 are unnecessary fluff.

 

Corners are too long which prevents cut-back manoeuvres making setting up a pass hard, it's better for motorbikes than cars.