Did any of the Original/City tracks meets real life track regulations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FoRiZon
  • 19 comments
  • 2,004 views
F

FoRiZon

(Banned)
Messages
8,645
Singapore
Singapore
Ive been thinking, can any original/city tracks (except Cote D Azur because it has been made) can be built in reality and race the FIA races there? Im not actually knew what are the regulation contains. So im just gonna ask. Perhaps handful of the tracks can be built i think.
 


I remember watching videos of some guys driving on the Tokyo R246 in Real life

EDIT: Ops my bad, i thought you meant city tracks that you could drive on it just like in GT6.

Well sadly i can't answer that.
 
GTPorsche
I'd think not. There's no runoff on any of the city tracks to make them viable the way they are for real world racing.
Click to expand...
PD could make runoff area in circuit versions for GT7 if they want to mach FIA regulation...
 
R246 lacks a lot of safety barriers in the 3rd straight, looks more of a real life street than one that is the setting of a street course. If you've watched any of Formula E races, the tracks look walled in.

Original tracks on the otherhand, it might follow the regulations. Some are even Tilke-fied, like Midfield and Cape Ring.
 
I would think they would add the barriers and runoffs just like they do everywhere else in real life. Those barriers you see on TV aren't permanent ya know... ;)

I'm gonna tentatively say "yes", to the OP. Idk which tracks eaxactly, or what would stop some of them (if any) from being "usable" per se in reality, but I imagine most if not all "could" be used for reals.
 
I can't imagine most, if any, of the original circuits being feasible in real life. Many of them feature some ridiculous sections and would need extensive modifications if they were to be built in real life. For instance, the downhill chicane into the hairpin at Midfield has absolutely no run off (okay, a few feet of grass), or the left hander into the steep downhill section at Matterhorn Rotenboden. Out of all of the original circuits, I think Autumn Ring is probably the 'safest' in-game as it features a decent amount of run-off and is a relatively low speed track, although the run off at the first turn is a bit iffy, being on a hill. In my opinion, it would need the least safety upgrades if it were to be duplicated in real life.

On a side note, for no particular reason (actually probably stems from it being my favourite circuit in GT3) I've always wanted to see what Grand Valley would look like if PD made it comply with, at least, FIA grade 3 (essentially safe enough for touring, GT and smaller open-wheelers) regulations. And as a reference, here's a list of real life circuits (as of 2012) and their current FIA grading, and see Appendix O of the FIA International Sporting Regulations for car grading categories.
 
Last edited:
Well if you think about them Tracks a bit some realy are on the edge and some are clearly not safe enough.

Grand Valley: I think it would be fine, maybe make a larger 1st Turn runoff and straighten the 1st turn Braking zone a bit, but rest of the Track is almost fine (compared to Tracks like Norisring where the DTM and Formula3 drives at).

Apricot Hill: Just Build it :D

Autumn Ring: Is fine too.

Midfield: 1st Turn Runoff, first Chicane runoff, 4th Turn runoff after that highspeed section, the chicane into hairpin section needs runoffs too. So needs some work but technically should be possible.

Deep Forrest: 1st Turn needs Runoff, probably 2nd and 3rd turn too, the Double left too, same goes for the last 2 turns.
All-in-all it just needs runoff areas and bam a fine Track ;)

Tokyo: It sounds really like a Theme alert :D RUNOFFS are missing :D Compare it to Valencia and you get where runoffs should be added. But apart from that could be realized.

Cape Ring: No just no. Fun Track in game but the changes that would have to be made are too big I guess just skip that one. Maybe Cape inside or Cape South but that Loop and the "jump" .... no.

Trial Mountain: Really dangerous as it is but building it with fitting Runoffs would be possible.

Madrid/Rome/London: cf. Tokyo.
 
I am sure that you are aware the FIA gives a grade (here is a list from 2010) depending on the circuit, with 1 being needed to host a F1 race. Take the likes of Macau for example. That hosts the World Touring Car Championship as well as the premier Formula 3 event, both FIA championship events. Anybody would be silly to think that F1 could go there however.

I am sure that some of the tracks would be fine as they are for some of the lower category racing, Tokyo would definitely be an option, whilst Rome would make a decent track for low-power touring cars too.
 
Any large scale landscaping to build a track would be about as welcome to a location as a mining operation. :scared:
So the challenge, if the topology were to be copied, would be to find the right place where it's also less expensive.
 
CraigHyphenO
I am sure that you are aware the FIA gives a grade (here is a list from 2010) depending on the circuit, with 1 being needed to host a F1 race. Take the likes of Macau for example. That hosts the World Touring Car Championship as well as the premier Formula 3 event, both FIA championship events. Anybody would be silly to think that F1 could go there however.

I am sure that some of the tracks would be fine as they are for some of the lower category racing, Tokyo would definitely be an option, whilst Rome would make a decent track for low-power touring cars too.
Click to expand...

Realy ?? Tokyo ??
Wow look at the 1km main straight and without a runwide option a little pileup would cause major DEATH !!
Even Macau´s corners have those options, maybe not everywhere but after highspeed passages surely !!
 
I am sure FIA regulation include more technicalities than runoffs. :D
I could be wrong though...
 
kolio123
I am sure FIA regulation include more technicalities than runoffs. :D
I could be wrong though...
Click to expand...
They do - look at Bathurst and the addition of the Chase into Conrod straight in the middle 1980's - contrary to popular myth and wisdom it was not a result of the death of a driver in something like 1985 (will have to check that year) but because they were going to the Group A rules for Touring cars which mandated things like maximum straight length and also affected maximum achievable speeds (is about 300km/h and still applies today). Similar rules added the kinks into Le Mans as well.
 
funkydunk
They do - look at Bathurst and the addition of the Chase into Conrod straight in the middle 1980's - contrary to popular myth and wisdom it was not a result of the death of a driver in something like 1985 (will have to check that year) but because they were going to the Group A rules for Touring cars which mandated things like maximum straight length and also affected maximum achievable speeds (is about 300km/h and still applies today). Similar rules added the kinks into Le Mans as well.
Click to expand...

If I remember rightly, the FIA refused to grade a circuit with a straight of more than two kilometres. As the Mulsanne Straight was almost six kilometres, this obviously posed an issue for the FIA Sportscar Championship, so they added two chicanes. I'm unsure whether this is still in effect however, as the FIA World Touring Car Championship returns to the Green Hell this year.
 
GT6's Cote D'Azur is considerably different than the track that's used in F1 races. PD needs to update it and include dynamic weather.
 
Thematic
They wouldn't exceed 300 km/h much though?
Click to expand...

These days a part of the rules in a lot of these competitions (like V8 Supercars) limit the gear ratios to help keep this in check (V8 Supercars use a specific ratio set just for Bathurst which on a flat without draft limits a car to something like 297km/h, but with the downhill run on Conrod they often get just over 300km/h and with a draft will get closer to 310km/h). Touring cars in the 80s could top 300km/h and with modern design with more effective aerodynamics and better gearing and fuel injected engines a modern car can actually go faster but is often held back by various sections of the rulebook.
 
KingSakery
Well if you think about them Tracks a bit some realy are on the edge and some are clearly not safe enough.

Grand Valley: I think it would be fine, maybe make a larger 1st Turn runoff and straighten the 1st turn Braking zone a bit, but rest of the Track is almost fine (compared to Tracks like Norisring where the DTM and Formula3 drives at).

Apricot Hill: Just Build it :D

Autumn Ring: Is fine too.

Midfield: 1st Turn Runoff, first Chicane runoff, 4th Turn runoff after that highspeed section, the chicane into hairpin section needs runoffs too. So needs some work but technically should be possible.

Deep Forrest: 1st Turn needs Runoff, probably 2nd and 3rd turn too, the Double left too, same goes for the last 2 turns.
All-in-all it just needs runoff areas and bam a fine Track ;)

Tokyo: It sounds really like a Theme alert :D RUNOFFS are missing :D Compare it to Valencia and you get where runoffs should be added. But apart from that could be realized.

Cape Ring: No just no. Fun Track in game but the changes that would have to be made are too big I guess just skip that one. Maybe Cape inside or Cape South but that Loop and the "jump" .... no.

Trial Mountain: Really dangerous as it is but building it with fitting Runoffs would be possible.

Madrid/Rome/London: cf. Tokyo.
Click to expand...
Those tunnels and Rock cuts would be prohibitive for a real track, but probably not really needed as the layouts themselves could be done in a desert or farm fields.
 
Back