I think the F.I.A is possibly interfering too much. I think it may have been mentioned elsewhere (AustinF1?) that the F.I.A wouldn't approve a particular fast corner because although there was adequate run-off, the crowds/grandstands were too distant because of it.
^^^I don;t know of that situation occurring here in Austin, but it could have happened somewhere else. In Austin, their protestations were always about lack of runoff/too much speed for a certain type of corner afaik.
I'm going to have to do some research now to see if that actually occurred or if it was a bad dream.
Austin I can see now that I remembered the excerpt from the article you posted incorrectly. Whiting simply talks about reducing the size of run-off areas where the organisers have made them too large, he does not request that the corners be made slower:
“For example, when you go to Istanbul Park [used by F1 from
2005-11] or Austin [the Circuit of the Americas] you can’t see the
huge elevation changes you have at those two circuits on a twodimensional
drawing. The visit gives you a better feel for things and
you might end up saying ‘that run-off area is too big’ or whatever.”
The prospect of shrinking run-off areas might seem antithetic to
safety but Whiting says that a shift from gravel traps to asphalt
run-off areas and advances in understanding the mechanics of
accidents have led to reassessments of best practice in circuit design.
“I like to get spectators as close as we can to the circuit,” he says.
“You can start off with big run-off areas but they’re seldom used.
Certainly circuits that were designed 12 to 15 years ago have some
run-off areas that are a little too big and they wouldn’t be as big
these days because we have a lot more experience of how cars go off
at certain corners and we have better impact attenuating devices.”
Edited by OO7, 12 October 2015 - 10:53.