143 replies to this topic

[ronsingapore]

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

 

for example, the silverstone circuit, when i check for comments on why it is great, responses tend to be "lots of history" and "character", but not so much on the technical aspects like how does it's straights, chicanes compared to circuits such as Yas Marina, Sepang and Shanghai. if Yas Marina is bad, in what technical way is the track there bad? 

[hittheapex]

You raise a good point. History and character, I prefer the word "atmosphere," are important to me as well. I like to see the stands full, I like to see the fans getting excited and waving their colours. In fairness to newer venues, it can take time to build that history, so I wouldn't dismiss a circuit only because of that.

 

I do think it's bad when they can't fill enough seats, though. Yes, Hockenheim attendance wasn't great this year but at least they've had strong attendance in the past and they have more seats to fill than Yas Marina.

 

It annoys me that one of the more successful new venues, India, has not returned to the calendar. i strongly feel that could be a long term success but instead, we're racing around autodromes in the desert with poor attendance and little atmosphere. Circuits need fans for atmosphere. I find it much more dramatic and enjoyable watching sport with other fans around me than watching it with a dozen other people in the stand, as was the case in Korea.

 

As far as the circuit itself goes, a good circuit for me will provide overtaking opportunities outside of the main straight, have corners that are almost-but-not-quite flat, and punish mistakes. That means either little run off for slower circuits/corners, and having something that slows the car down on the outside of the faster corners rather than a simple extension of tarmac. Ideally there will be elevation change and mountains or trees to make a nice background to the cars.

Edited by hittheapex, 17 December 2014 - 03:23.

[aramos]

A lot to me is to do with scenery. A simpl but beautiful track like Austria will always be far more interesting than a inner city concrete wall barrier track like say Valencia even if it is more technically complex.

[ronsingapore]

You raise a good point. History and character, I prefer the word "atmosphere," are important to me as well. I like to see the stands full, I like to see the fans getting excited and waving their colours. In fairness to newer venues, it can take time to build that history, so I wouldn't dismiss a circuit only because of that.

 

I do think it's bad when they can't fill enough seats, though. Yes, Hockenheim attendance wasn't great this year but at least they've had strong attendance in the past and they have more seats to fill than Yas Marina.

 

It annoys me that one of the more successful new venues, India, has not returned to the calendar. i strongly feel that could be a long term success but instead, we're racing around autodromes in the desert with poor attendance and little atmosphere. Circuits need fans for atmosphere. I find it much more dramatic and enjoyable watching sport with other fans around me than watching it with a dozen other people in the stand, as was the case in Korea.

 

As far as the circuit itself goes, a good circuit for me will provide overtaking opportunities outside of the main straight, have corners that are almost-but-not-quite flat, and punish mistakes. That means either little run off for slower circuits/corners, and having something that slows the car down on the outside of the faster corners rather than a simple extension of tarmac. Ideally there will be elevation change and mountains or trees to make a nice background to the cars.

 

Yes, i agree that the spectator element is fantastic; based on the technical aspects of it, why are Tilke circuits getting so much hate?

 

I have been checking up on the designs of his work and he has a fondness for a long, high-speed straight followed by  a steep hairpin and a bunch of chicanes, although i think he has overdid it on the run-offs, they are quite king-sized! 

[hittheapex]

Yes, i agree that the spectator element is fantastic; based on the technical aspects of it, why are Tilke circuits getting so much hate?

 

I have been checking up on the designs of his work and he has a fondness for a long, high-speed straight followed by  a steep hairpin and a bunch of chicanes, although i think he has overdid it on the run-offs, they are quite king-sized! 

In fairness to Tilke, he is largely restricted by the regulations or demands of the FIA for new circuits. I am not satisfied with the runoffs and the continued butchering of once great corners at hte older circuits, but where the new circuits are concerned, he just has to do the best with what he is allowed to do. Which in my opinion he has done. I think Sepang is a very good circuit, of course designed at a time when grass and gravel were still acceptable.

[kedia990]

A lot to me is to do with scenery. A simpl but beautiful track like Austria will always be far more interesting than a inner city concrete wall barrier track like say Valencia even if it is more technically complex.

 

Damn right. The surroundings of Austria are just breathtaking (and I'm generally not a "scenery person"). I remember the first time I drove that track in Codemasters F1 2014, and was just blown off by the view from the car when driving around - what a great place to race!

 

I also think that in the interest of minimizing the impact of dirty air on the following car, newer Tilkedromes are completely doing away with fast, sweeping bends (Austin and India obviously exceptions), which used to make the tracks great fun to drive. Add a bit of width to the track, and you can have cars taking multiple lines and trying all sorts of weird overtaking maneouvres (see: wide corners at Austin).

[ronsingapore]

In fairness to Tilke, he is largely restricted by the regulations or demands of the FIA for new circuits. I am not satisfied with the runoffs and the continued butchering of once great corners at hte older circuits, but where the new circuits are concerned, he just has to do the best with what he is allowed to do. Which in my opinion he has done. I think Sepang is a very good circuit, of course designed at a time when grass and gravel were still acceptable.

 

Yeah, i myself have read a lot of criticism on several forums but when i look at his actual tracks, they are no so bad, although i think his run-offs are way too large; but how would you define what is a great corner? say, for example, how does a corner at Monza compare to a corner at Yas Marina?

[ronsingapore]

Damn right. The surroundings of Austria are just breathtaking (and I'm generally not a "scenery person"). I remember the first time I drove that track in Codemasters F1 2014, and was just blown off by the view from the car when driving around - what a great place to race!

 

I also think that in the interest of minimizing the impact of dirty air on the following car, newer Tilkedromes are completely doing away with fast, sweeping bends (Austin and India obviously exceptions), which used to make the tracks great fun to drive. Add a bit of width to the track, and you can have cars taking multiple lines and trying all sorts of weird overtaking maneouvres (see: wide corners at Austin).

 

I do think that the corners on most tracks could be a lot wider; would help in allowing more overtaking moves; we sure could do with better chicanes.

[ollebompa]

When the track seems built around the other facilities, and not the other way around. That way you can be certain it will lack heart and soul. Recent examples, Abu Dhabi and Sochi.

[GoldenColt]

I love circuits which are embedded into the nature, like Spa or the A1-Ring.

[ronsingapore]

When the track seems built around the other facilities, and not the other way around. That way you can be certain it will lack heart and soul. Recent examples, Abu Dhabi and Sochi.

 

that is the problem, what does "lack heart and soul" exactly mean?? How exactly are track built around facilities poorer than facilities built around tracks?? In my first post, too many criticism center on intangible aspects, with comments like "character" and "history" and a "sense of gritty racing" - but what does it exactly mean?

[ViMaMo]

A bad circuit that produces supposedly great racing is Hockenheim. Its my most hated circuit, its flat, its stop and go, no challenges technically, a mickey mouse circuit in a wide open field. The only reason its liked is because there are lot of overtaking happening.

[Jovanotti]

I had the idea for a similar thread for long time now (i.e. What are the elements of a great racing circuit). Some points I would include in the list:

- overtaking possibilities
- elevation changes
- always good: off-camber corners
- errors must be punished
- and yes: atmosphere, emotions, history

The criteria don't have to be fulfilled comprehensively, a strong point can make up for a weak one. Take Monaco: track is s*** and overtaking non-existent, but I like to watch it purely for the scenery, history and because something unpredictable might always happen.

Also, the last criterion is vague, but you won't be able to avoid it. It's basically all the feelings that are triggered by the scenery and/or by the memories you're associating with the place. Look at Singapore: many hated it at the beginning, and the track itself isn't great, but people have grown fond of it over the years, the races they've seen on it and the emotions they've been through. That's why I don't think we should always judge the new tracks against classics like Spa or Monza which have been around for 70+ years. Give them it some time to impress you.

And of course there is something called character: when I think Silverstone or Spa, I think of fast, flowing corners, when I think Canada and Monza, it's stop-and-go and high top speed. Now what's with the (not all, but many) Tilkedrome's? You have the long straight, the fast corner, the slow corner, the 90 degree corner, the chicane, the hairpin. Almost all of it every time. It's simple, but that's what doesn't help with character.

Edited by Jovanotti, 17 December 2014 - 08:23.

[ronsingapore]

I had the idea for a similar thread for long time now (i.e. What are the elements of a great racing circuit). Some points I would include in the list:

- overtaking possibilities
- elevation changes
- always good: off-camber corners
- errors must be punished
- and yes: atmosphere, emotions, history

The criteria don't have to be fulfilled comprehensively, a strong point can make up for a weak one. Take Monaco: track is s*** and overtaking non-existent, but I like to watch it purely for the scenery, history and because something unpredictable might always happen.

Also, the last criterion is vague, but you won't be able to avoid it. It's basically all the feelings that are triggered by the scenery and/or by the memories you're associating with the place. Look at Singapore: many hated it at the beginning, and the track itself isn't great, but people have grown fond of it over the years, the races they've seen on it and the emotions they've been through. That's why I don't think we should always judge the new tracks against classics like Spa or Monza which have been around for 70+ years. Give them it some time to impress you.

And of course there is something called character: when I think Silverstone or Spa, I think of fast, flowing corners, when I think Canada and Monza, it's stop-and-go and high top speed. Now what's with the (not all, but many) Tilkedrome's? You have the long straight, the fast corner, the slow corner, the 90 degree corner, the chicane, the hairpin. Almost all of it every time. It's simple, but that's what doesn't help with character.

 

what are the circuit elements that help with overtaking? i live in singapore and i've watched every single race since 2008; not much overtaking!

[Jovanotti]

what are the circuit elements that help with overtaking? i live in singapore and i've watched every single race since 2008; not much overtaking!

The classic one is certainly a long straight with a heavy braking at the end. Better though (or in combination with it) are corners that allow for different lines, and I think Tilke has implemented this in all of his better circuits: T1/T12-19 in Austin, the first few turns in Sepang, T12-14 in Istanbul.

 

Re:Singapore: that's why I said the lack of one criterion (SG: overtaking possibilities) can be compensated by the others (SG: probably the night race atmosphere, the fact that it's very exhausting, the packed stands and the great scenery).

Edited by Jovanotti, 17 December 2014 - 09:16.

[SenorSjon]

The track should be challenging and demanding. 

 

Tilkedromes look very much alike

- very wide.

- loads of runoffs.

- tent like canopies at the grandstands in a lot of tracks.

- lack of scenery.

- located in places without any racing history.

 

What made old tracks so great.

Monza

The Lezmo's and pre 2014 Parabolica were corners where you could gain time if done properly and lose a lot of time (and parts) when done wrong. 

 

Hockenheim

Pre 2001 Hockenheim had two distinct sections. The public stadium and the serene forest. Since The Butchering, it has lost its soul. The contrast was nice to see.

 

Spa

Ah, my old love. She has grown old and weary. Then she got plastic surgery and it wasn't an improvement. All the botox (runoffs), surgery (bus-stop & pit entry) and implants (La Source) made the track less and less. It was a very nice contrast between the grass and the speed. But now you see drivers going everywhere without punishment.

 

Silverstone

Not one of my favourites. I think it is to long with the new twisty bits. Again runoffs after Copse really hamper the lush greens in the high speed corner section that used to be nice to look at.

 

Nürburgring

Funny enough there were complaints in the '90s that the audience had to sit to far from the track. Now it seems to be the standard. Still quite a technical track and it was one of Tilke's first works without FIA's guide to track design.

 

Canada

Very nice track to look at. A much better post-Olympic spot than Sochi. It lies in a park, is high-speed and has distinct features.

 

Changeable weather conditions

Almost any track in Europe usually has a rainrace in a season. We now go to places where it rains all the time or absolutely never.

 

Most new tracks just lack the typical surroundings. The look like they could have been placed anywhere in the world.

[Brackets]

The problem with Tilke tracks in two-fold:

1) he is held back by FIA regulations (remember his quote about Suzuka’s 130R requiring a 1.6km (!) runoff area if he were to add that corner to a new track), so we’ll never get another Spa/Suzuka even if he wanted to;
2) He still thinks that drivers cannot turn under braking. It’s really his one trick, and it got old very fast (although in COTA, around the camera-view-blocking-tower art-piece, it does work wonders – love how the lesser Gods wobble through that one. Actually, COTA in its entirity is just brilliant);

I love circuits which are embedded into the nature, like Spa or the A1-Ring.

I love Spa to death (although wheel-to-wheel racing is nowhere more boring than at Spa, unless it rains, but then you can’t see the cars because rain in Spa is usually someone up there practicing the next 40-day flood), but the short-cut of the new track between Combes and Stavelot is anything but “ermbedded into nature” . In fact, geologists still use the area to investigate why Earth didn’t tilt out of angle after all the dirt that was moved there.

[scolbourne]

The ideal is to allow cars to be able to use two lines through corners, S-bends etc so that there are overtaking opportunitiues. A medium fast corner before a straight rewards good  driver skills and can allow overtaking on the straight.

[DampMongoose]

I find it surprising Silverstone is mentioned in the opening post, when it's been spoilt by the latest layout.  Silverstone was a great circuit in the 80's when it was somewhat unique compared to others on the calendar, but for me it has gradually become just one of the rest.  Not that it's as bad as some places obviously. 

[SenorSjon]

The ideal is to allow cars to be able to use two lines through corners, S-bends etc so that there are overtaking opportunitiues. A medium fast corner before a straight rewards good  driver skills and can allow overtaking on the straight.

 

Old La Source had that. Wide in, tight out or right in and wide out. I don't see that a lot anymore in the revamped version though.

[AustinF1]

In fairness to Tilke, he is largely restricted by the regulations or demands of the FIA for new circuits. I am not satisfied with the runoffs and the continued butchering of once great corners at hte older circuits, but where the new circuits are concerned, he just has to do the best with what he is allowed to do. Which in my opinion he has done. I think Sepang is a very good circuit, of course designed at a time when grass and gravel were still acceptable.

 

I've always maintained that Tilke gets too much blame for less desirable circuits (for the reasons above) and too much credit for the better ones. He doesn't pick the land and is a contractor building what the owner wants. He's not an artist with a blank canvas (at least not often) as many often seem to think.

Damn right. The surroundings of Austria are just breathtaking (and I'm generally not a "scenery person"). I remember the first time I drove that track in Codemasters F1 2014, and was just blown off by the view from the car when driving around - what a great place to race!

 

I also think that in the interest of minimizing the impact of dirty air on the following car, newer Tilkedromes are completely doing away with fast, sweeping bends (Austin and India obviously exceptions), which used to make the tracks great fun to drive. Add a bit of width to the track, and you can have cars taking multiple lines and trying all sorts of weird overtaking maneouvres (see: wide corners at Austin).

 

I also love the tracks with the best scenery, a la Spa, etc. COTA's not much on natural scenery. The promoters promised the city they'd plant 800+ trees, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Re: the fast bends at Austin, they were insisted upon by the track's founder, Tavo Hellmund.

The classic one is certainly a long straight with a heavy braking at the end. Better though (or in combination with it) are corners that allow for different lines, and I think Tilke has implemented this in all of his better circuits: T1/T12-19 in Austin, the first few turns in Sepang, T12-14 in Istanbul.

 

Re:Singapore: that's why I said the lack of one criterion (SG: overtaking possibilities) can be compensated by the others (SG: probably the night race atmosphere, the fact that it's very exhausting, the packed stands and the great scenery).

 

COTA 12-19 were Hellmund's idea, too. He wanted to copy some of the best sections from other tracks, with the esses (Silverstone/Suzuka), Istanbul T8, etc. Many panned the idea before they saw the final result, but drivers and fans alike have loved it. T12-15 (the stadium section) are a very popular area with the fans.

The problem with Tilke tracks in two-fold:

1) he is held back by FIA regulations (remember his quote about Suzuka’s 130R requiring a 1.6km (!) runoff area if he were to add that corner to a new track), so we’ll never get another Spa/Suzuka even if he wanted to;
2) He still thinks that drivers cannot turn under braking. It’s really his one trick, and it got old very fast (although in COTA, around the camera-view-blocking-tower art-piece, it does work wonders – love how the lesser Gods wobble through that one. Actually, COTA in its entirity is just brilliant);
 

Having driven COTA a couple of times and having watched every 4-wheel race there in person, I fully agree it is brilliant.

 

But remember, Tilke engineered the track. Hellmund did the layout and fought for challenging turns like the wide entry/narrow exit at T1 (to encourage different lines and tempt drivers to dive down the inside), the uphill braking zone, flattening out in the middle approaching T1, the downhill, off-camber T19, the very quick downhill off-camber T10, the tricky, undulating esses, the multi-apex T15-18, and more. He wanted T1 and 2 to be tighter, allowing for a tougher high-speed T2 and for higher speeds entering the esses. He also wanted the end of the esses (6-8) to be quicker leading to 9-10 going across the top of the hill. The FIA won out on those, but Hellmund wanted a challenging "driver's track", one that punishes drivers for mistakes, and he got it.

 

Having seen what Tilke had proposed for COTA, I'll just say we should be happy he wasn't given carte blanche here.

Edited by AustinF1, 17 December 2014 - 12:21.

[Brackets]

But remember, Tilke engineered [COTA]. Hellmund did the layout and fought for challenging turns

Yup, know all that. I even remember the pictures of the original 'plans' on the back of a coaster/napkin or whatever it was ;). I was merely pointing out that COTA too has a 'turn under braking corner', as do all of the other Tilke tracks. Of course, having been envisioned by Hellmund might explain why that trick actually - only - works in COTA.

(To be fair, ~during qualifying~, this one-trick corner also works at Abu Doubly of all places, when they're virtually plummeting into the side of that large light-fixture hotel, with lots of resulting offs and/or major wobbles)

[AustinF1]

Yup, know all that. I even remember the pictures of the original 'plans' on the back of a coaster/napkin or whatever it was ;). I was merely pointing out that COTA too has a 'turn under braking corner', as do all of the other Tilke tracks. Of course, having been envisioned by Hellmund might explain why that trick actually - only - works in COTA.

(To be fair, ~during qualifying~, this one-trick corner also works at Abu Doubly of all places, when they're virtually plummeting into the side of that large light-fixture hotel, with lots of resulting offs and/or major wobbles)

 

Also, I completely agree re: the silly tower at COTA. That was the current operator's (Epstein's) idea. It ruins sightlines and destroyed what could have been an epic hill for viewing.

[hittheapex]

Yeah, i myself have read a lot of criticism on several forums but when i look at his actual tracks, they are no so bad, although i think his run-offs are way too large; but how would you define what is a great corner? say, for example, how does a corner at Monza compare to a corner at Yas Marina?

 

Very good question. Broadly, a great corner has one of the following, in my opinion: A mistake puts the driver out of the race, or getting it right makes a big difference to lap time. Of course, a driver tries to get every corner right and incrementally it can add up to a few tenths over a lap. If a driver can get a couple of tenths from a single corner though, that makes it special. Chicanes are where more time can be gained in a modern F1 car, but a mistake at a chicane is rarely going to put a driver out of the race these days.

 

The problem is that in the new run off regime, the first of my criteria is almost extinct among the newer circuits. Mistakes that commonly lose drivers a few seconds now would be the end of their race as recently as 10 years ago. I think the tracks are becoming too safe. I want to see grass and gravel back. It gave a much better outline of the circuit, enhanced the sensation of speed and punished mistakes.

 

To add to Jovanotti's point, Monaco is a tough place to overtake, but that's also partly why I like it. An overtaking move at Monaco is often unpredictable, blink and you miss it. Drivers really earn their money around there. Even with more space around St Devote and the Swimming Pool now, a mistake there is more than likely to end a race, or effectively end it thanks to a lengthy pitstop to repair damage. You could probably guess I'm not a fan of DRS.

 

I don't want to come across too much as wearing rose tinted glasses but I do like the circuits from the past better. It hasn't been all bad. I like Austin, India and Singapore. Turkey was decent, too. Lots of run off at Turn 8 but at least that was a corner where not everybody could take it flat.

[ronsingapore]

Very good question. Broadly, a great corner has one of the following, in my opinion: A mistake puts the driver out of the race, or getting it right makes a big difference to lap time. Of course, a driver tries to get every corner right and incrementally it can add up to a few tenths over a lap. If a driver can get a couple of tenths from a single corner though, that makes it special. Chicanes are where more time can be gained in a modern F1 car, but a mistake at a chicane is rarely going to put a driver out of the race these days.

 

The problem is that in the new run off regime, the first of my criteria is almost extinct among the newer circuits. Mistakes that commonly lose drivers a few seconds now would be the end of their race as recently as 10 years ago. I think the tracks are becoming too safe. I want to see grass and gravel back. It gave a much better outline of the circuit, enhanced the sensation of speed and punished mistakes.

 

To add to Jovanotti's point, Monaco is a tough place to overtake, but that's also partly why I like it. An overtaking move at Monaco is often unpredictable, blink and you miss it. Drivers really earn their money around there. Even with more space around St Devote and the Swimming Pool now, a mistake there is more than likely to end a race, or effectively end it thanks to a lengthy pitstop to repair damage. You could probably guess I'm not a fan of DRS.

 

I don't want to come across too much as wearing rose tinted glasses but I do like the circuits from the past better. It hasn't been all bad. I like Austin, India and Singapore. Turkey was decent, too. Lots of run off at Turn 8 but at least that was a corner where not everybody could take it flat.

 

I certainly like the COTA track at austin, i thought there was the right amount of space for the cars to show what they could do, although i thought that the run-offs were again..well.

 

i know that there is a lot of criticism about street circuits, but I think it is good to have bother: track circuits that are great (again, technical definitions are important) and street circuits that involve driver's skill too.

 

I am no expert, but I always thought that the lower speeds and tight spaces at Monaco and Singapore were also a test of driving ability.

[ronsingapore]

Yup, know all that. I even remember the pictures of the original 'plans' on the back of a coaster/napkin or whatever it was ;). I was merely pointing out that COTA too has a 'turn under braking corner', as do all of the other Tilke tracks. Of course, having been envisioned by Hellmund might explain why that trick actually - only - works in COTA.

(To be fair, ~during qualifying~, this one-trick corner also works at Abu Doubly of all places, when they're virtually plummeting into the side of that large light-fixture hotel, with lots of resulting offs and/or major wobbles)

 

Hope you don't mind my amateur question but how does the "turn under braking corner" really works? What would such corners look like?

[noikeee]

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.

[ronsingapore]

The classic one is certainly a long straight with a heavy braking at the end. Better though (or in combination with it) are corners that allow for different lines, and I think Tilke has implemented this in all of his better circuits: T1/T12-19 in Austin, the first few turns in Sepang, T12-14 in Istanbul.

 

Re:Singapore: that's why I said the lack of one criterion (SG: overtaking possibilities) can be compensated by the others (SG: probably the night race atmosphere, the fact that it's very exhausting, the packed stands and the great scenery).

Just to check, when you say different lines, you mean the lines a driver follows? So a corner should be wide enough to allow for different cars to pass through?

[Brackets]

Hope you don't mind my amateur question but how does the "turn under braking corner" really works? What would such corners look like?

There’s no predefined look . You just put a curve in the braking zone of the ‘actual corner’. Drivers will have to brake earlier, or complete the ‘curve’ under heavy braking. I.e., it would “seperate the men from the boys”.

That half the fun of F1 comes from drivers already braking deep into ‘regular’ corners, and that they are therefore unfazed by this little ‘trick’, must have escaped Tilke. In one of his interviews he even explains/excuses it, in mentioning something along the lines of ‘I keep coming up with difficult corners but the drivers are just too good” (paraphrasing, of course, but it’s close).

[03011969]

When the track seems built around the other facilities, and not the other way around. That way you can be certain it will lack heart and soul. Recent examples, Abu Dhabi and Sochi.

That is often the case, but not always, Silverstone and Monaco for example.

[AustinF1]

 

- 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.

 

 

Having watched COTA races in person and on TV, and having driven the track on video games and on-site, I can say the flow and the way the track rises and falls naturally with the terrain is not captured well at all on TV or in racing sims/games. Once you get COTA's rhythm, it has a fantastic 'flow' in sections, imho, and it has many corners that are challenging and fun at the same time.

Edited by AustinF1, 17 December 2014 - 13:49.

[Brackets]

[one of] the main problems with Tilke tracks is:
…
- Lack of flow
...

I ~love~ lack of flow in a race-track. If I wanted flow, I’d watch oval racing. For hours and hours on end.

OK, the above was obviously trolling the NASCAR’ists (but only ever so slightly), but the point remains that lack of flow is often a good thing. Spa is was great, but it wasn’t ~only~ because of Blanchimont and the Raidillon (*). It was ~also~ a true classic because of the original busstop-chicane (including the actual wooden shed thank you very much) and the original La Source hairpin. It does not get any more “unflowing” than those two corners (I mean apart from putting up traffic cones in the middle of Eau Rouge, if this were still 1994), and yet I loved these parts of Spa to death.

Of course, I don’t equate lack of flow being a good thing with a track consisting solely of point-and-shoot corners (which is why I hate Abu Doubly as a track so much), it is ~the combination~ of fast flowing stuff with the little parts that break your rhythm that I like so much. It is, dare I say it, the “Ultimate True Driver Test TM”.


(*) Speaking of which, everybody keeps harping on about Pouhon. And that includes me, as a matter of fact. And I don’t even play harp. But you know what makes Pouhon great (I mean apart from the fact that it sounds like something you wouldn’t call your wife)? It’s not the speed, nor the double apex, it’s the fact that it’s off camber. As is Bruxelles, but I digress. And yet, the off camber trick is held against some of the newer tracks (most notably the wonderful T3 at Sochi). I’m going to generalise here, and I’m going to regret that (at least until I get home to my Pouhon and my bottle of scotch), but this all sounds like many people are living a bit too much in the past.


Oh, and I do watch oval racing. After a bottle of scotch. And after having regained consciousness after the wack on the head with a frying pan by my Pouhon.

[AustinF1]

Good points, esp re: off-camber. That's what makes the double apex T6 in Austin so great, as well a the changes of camber in the esses, the off-camber T19 and T10 (not often mentioned, but a fantastic, hair-raising turn at speed).

[Disgrace]

Buddh is easily my least favourite circuit to have the misfortune to be included on the calendar. It has five consecutive low-speed >90 degree corners, all of which follow or are followed by a long straight. It's three high speed chicanes are also all identical to each another.

 

That leaves basically two actual corners, one of which is a poorer, shameless copy of Turkey's turn 8. That leaves the circuit with one corner of any interest whatsoever, turn five.

 

If any circuit should be nuked, it's Buddh, the absolute nadir of all Tilkedromes. It's a wet fish handshake masquerading as a racing circuit.

[StudMuffin]

For me bad circuit = a street circuit.

Monaco for me is basically a yawn fest when it comes to action, unless someone crashes!

[hittheapex]

I certainly like the COTA track at austin, i thought there was the right amount of space for the cars to show what they could do, although i thought that the run-offs were again..well.

 

i know that there is a lot of criticism about street circuits, but I think it is good to have bother: track circuits that are great (again, technical definitions are important) and street circuits that involve driver's skill too.

 

I am no expert, but I always thought that the lower speeds and tight spaces at Monaco and Singapore were also a test of driving ability.

 

I agree. The faster corners get more attention but the slower corners, in the right circumstances, can also be just as much of a challenge. I think a lot of them come at street circuits by virtue of less run off. I think Turn 1 and Turn 2 at Sepang are superb, because two lines can be taken and when drivers are fighting for position, they need to be very good indeed to prevent a run out of that corner up to Turn 3.

 

Other examples... La Source is a very important corner because it sets up the run to Eau Rouge, Radillion and the straight after. Arguably more challenging when it was a tighter entry but still a challenge in my view. I remember when Coulthard managed to deposit all of his engine's oil on the apex in 2005, that made for some fun. Same for the final chicane at Suzuka actually, just look at Fisichella and Raikkonen's different lines before they started the final lap. Raikkonen set him up beautifully by getting through that final chicane much cleaner.

 

I think the Swimming Pool and the right left that came after in Monaco have been diluted a bit by moving the barriers back. When the barriers were right on the apex, I think those were very challenging indeed, a lot of time could be gained through there. It looks so tight on the old videos compared to now. The "hop, skip jump" in Singapore...is it 3 apexes one after the other? I like that one too. Caught Fisichella and Raikkonen out, then the spoilsports flattened the kerbs, but that was probably right. A brake failure down there would not have been good with high kerbs.

 

I like to have a few street circuits on the calendar because they are a different skill set and provide a fundamentally different challenge to most of the circuits on the calendar. I just couldn't stand Valencia because it was so featureless with the exception of the bridge, which I loved.

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:

 

- 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.

 

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 watched the 1989 Mexican GP today. Before the start they showed an onboard of Capelli's qualifying lap. I know from the famous Mansell pass on Berger that it was a bumpy circuit but its easy to forget. Peratalda in particular was very intimidating but there were bumps all round. It must have been an absolute ****** to drive around there in that heat with manual gearboxes. Mind you, sometimes it can go too far, like that CART/Indycar race somewhere in Brazil where the cars were actually getting air over some of the bumps it was that bad.

 

I also agree on what you wrote about overtaking opportunities. I would probably be happier watching two Suzuka races back to back than watching half of a Bahrain GP. Hungary doesn't have much overtaking, or any famous corners but often throws up a decent race. I'm not sure if it's a great circuit, although I think it's a worthy circuit for the calendar. The corners are tight and often the exit of one sets up the next. The downhill plunge out of Turn 3(?) up to the quick blind left hander where the apex is on the crest is fun, too. I think the biggest weakness is the shortness of the straight.

Edited by hittheapex, 17 December 2014 - 14:51.

[SenorSjon]

Everyone hated Hungary in the past and now everyone think it is a classic.

 

Also funny, it seems like every new track is targetting 100 second laptimes, whereas older tracks are around the 80 second mark. 

 

I love Monaco, very distinct with features around every corner, but I dislike Singapore. Everything looks the same under the floodlights, it is to long and blald so you hardly recognize parts of the track. Even worse, it also has runoffs at some corners where the kerbs lie halfway on the road. Skip over them and then you got a penalty (about the only place you get one...).

 

Brazil is now to clean. It's laptime is bettered by the current cars, helped by the complete resurfacing. It used to be very bumpy. The miles of runoff don't help either.

[HoldenRT]

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.

Edited by HoldenRT, 17 December 2014 - 15:38.

[Atreiu]

Good circuits provide the best racing without the need for any artificial resource, or they present some other sort of challenge which can not easily be replicated. A beautiful or unique setting might contribute to make it better, but it does not make any circuit good on its own.

 

Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is very good circuit because it usually creates terrific racing and is demanding for cars and pilots. Its setting helps it become a more unique venue.

 

Suzuka is terrific because of its fast and flowing nature which demands the best from cars and pilots. No other circuit currently on the calendar is so obviously challenging and exciting. But that doesn't mean every race there is a classic.

 

On the other hand, post-1994 Imola was a poor circuit because it did not allow great racing and neither was it any challenging, it was simply a stop and go circuit with vast run-off. Its setting and atmosphere was unique, but it wasn't enough to make up for poor processional racing.

Edited by Atreiu, 17 December 2014 - 16:58.

[CoolBreeze]

Most modern (Tilke) tracks are rubbish. It's boring, lack of character..

 

Some good designs from Tilke:

1. Sepang

2. Istanbul

3. Cota

 

Rubbish Ones

1. Yas Marina

2. Singapore

3. Sochi

4. Bahrain

5. Modern Hockenheim..

[Risil]

Acid test: watch a few motorcycle races there. If the bikes race closely, it's a good circuit. If they can't, it's not.

Edited by Risil, 17 December 2014 - 18:04.

[Risil]

On the other hand, post-1994 Imola was a poor circuit because it did not allow great racing and neither was it any challenging, it was simply a stop and go circuit with vast run-off. Its setting and atmosphere was unique, but it wasn't enough to make up for poor processional racing.

 

Weirdly enough motorbikes could still race perfectly on the post-1994 circuit. Edwards and Bayliss in 2002 is the classic example but there are others. I suspect that Formula One cars were too powerful for the very short bursts between corners. The fundamentals of the track allowed drivers to get right up close behind the other, but the passing opportunities weren't there.

 

I know DRS and crazy tyres have made such thoughts less fashionable but I still wonder how many "outmoded" tracks could be brought back into service if they reverted to Grand Prix Legends-style aero.

[Nitropower]

If it's Tilke's it's crap, if it's a classic it's good

[charly0418]

Why does no one like Bahrein? I think the first section from turn 1 to turn 8 is absolutely brilliant. In fact we saw some great racing and overtakes this year on those corners

[Risil]

Why does no one like Bahrein? I think the first section from turn 1 to turn 8 is absolutely brilliant. In fact we saw some great racing and overtakes this year on those corners

 

The reasons why Bahrain isn't popular with everyone are not to do with the bit in between the white lines.

[GoldenColt]

I love Spa to death (although wheel-to-wheel racing is nowhere more boring than at Spa, unless it rains, but then you can’t see the cars because rain in Spa is usually someone up there practicing the next 40-day flood), but the short-cut of the new track between Combes and Stavelot is anything but “ermbedded into nature” . In fact, geologists still use the area to investigate why Earth didn’t tilt out of angle after all the dirt that was moved there.

 

I forgot about that, you're absolutely right.

[SlickMick]

Whichever way you look at it, Monaco sucks!

 

Rank - Country/Track - Local Totty - Totty Propensity - Local Joints - Hangover Factor - Value for Money - Totals 

1 China 9 10 9 8 10 46

2 Russia 9 9 9 10 7 44

3 Singapore 8 9 10 10 6 43

4 Malaysia 6 8 9 10 9 42

5 Hungary 8 9 6 9 8 40

6 Australia 7 8 8 9 7 39

6 Germany 8 8 7 8 8 39

8 GB 7 7 7 7 7 35

8 Italy 9 7 6 6 7 35

10 Austria 8 6 7 7 6 34

10 Belgium 6 4 8 9 7 34

12 Japan 7 8 6 8 3 32

13 Spain 4 5 7 8 7 31

14 Canada 7 6 4 6 7 30

15 Bahrain 8 2 5 6 5 26

16 US 5 6 6 4 6 27

17 Abu Dhabi 8 2 5 6 5 26

17 Brazil 6 8 2 5 5 26

19 Monaco 10 0 0 10 0 20

 

Edit - Cant use computers so kid yourself this is excel at its finest!

Edited by SlickMick, 17 December 2014 - 19:58.

[MikeV1987]

Very little to no elevation changes and long straights or fast sections leading to low speed tight chicanes are what ruins a track for me. (turn 5, 6, 8, & 9 at Yas Marina) 

 

 

Scenery is a big deal too, but I don't want to see the same thing at every track. I really like how some of the tracks have a unique setting to them, For example I will always like the scenery in Bahrain more than Abu Dhabi, simply because I love the desert race setting of Bahrain. Not to mention, it has a really good layout.

 

Meanwhile Yas Marina looks like it tries too hard to be flashy while having one of the shittiest layouts around. 

Edited by MikeV1987, 18 December 2014 - 11:25.

[BillBald]

Tarmac runoff ruins a track for me.

 

I want to see who can drive the track, not who can get away with running wide all the time.

[Nemo1965]

It is very simple: Tilke has to make to do with what he is given. Not only regarding the demands of the FIA, but especially WHERE he has to build the damn things. If you give him lots of freedom, an area that is not as flat as a kipper, he can make fantastic tracks: Austin, Istanbul. But everyone who ever gets involved in development knows how you are going to be limited. To name an example: there are fantastic areas in France and Belgium where you could make outstanding, Spa-like F1 tracks... but there is not a chance in hell that is going to happen for all the right and wrong reasons.

 

No, usually it something like: 'Listen, we got this dead-cheap, superflat area with some ugly buildings left over from a failed megalomaniac project. Please build a track around the buildings.'