The Formula 1 calendar development threadFormula 1 

TenEightyOne
@twitcher, I quite agree with most of what you say... the thing that I most disagreed with was your impression of speed - "what happens when they get faster?". Speed has always been limited in F1, this current regulation set demonstrates only one of many "resets" that have occurred through history. I daresay the cars could already be halving 90s lap times if development (and the Formula) had been unfettered.
Click to expand...
Good points, I can't really disagree with any of that. Funny thing is there were probably people having this same discussion the last time Zandvoort was redone, same with Spa.

I guess I'm finally getting to the stage where I'm that grumpy old guy who doesn't want things to change :grumpy: ...which is usually a stance I disagree with. It's not that I'm against change, and I'm not against safety, I just have some issue with the current approach (ie the trend of angular corners with massive runoff, where no one respects track limits)

If I really think about it, I'm actually quite conflicted :lol: On one hand, I don't like when old circuits are "updated" to FIA Grade 1 standards just so they can host one F1 race once (Juan?;)) a year, especially if the upgrades include changes which, while enhance the safety for F1, detract from other forms of racing which use the circuit on a more frequent bases.

Buuut, when I really think about it, while it's easy to complain that "it's not the same :(", maybe the big runoffs are better for other forms of racing in the long run. While TC or GT cars might not necessarily need the runoff for safety, I don't think it's ever a bad thing avoiding a big shunt (or even getting stuck in the gravel) simply in the name of keeping repair costs down, and also in helping the race itself run smoother and more efficiently. While the repair thing might not be a huge deal for top tier teams, I imagine it is for a lot of the teams who compete in lower level series, down to the Pro-Am and Club levels. Who knows, more runoff may end up encouraging more people to take interest in track days, which is never a bad thing for motorsport in general.

There's a point where you have to accept that some racing conditions aren't sustainable over 200 miles (or maybe even survivable), there's a point where you have to mitigate insurance liability for the people who actually pay for the race to happen (the spectators), there's a point where you have to say that failing to mitigate against conditions with clearly lethal potential goes beyond simple oversight and becomes a wilfully dangerous lack of responsibility ;)
Click to expand...
Again, I can't disagree with any of this, but just to play devil's advocate, you can only go so far in one direction before it starts comprimising the...allure? spectacle?...can't think of a good word :lol:

Edit:
Northstar
There is such a thing as overkill though. I also wonder how many of those deaths would have happened even on the safest modern track as the car's were seemingly extremely unsafe in the past.
Click to expand...
That's a great point.

How many of those deaths were a result purely of track design / layout / runoff?

How many of those deaths were a result of other factors such as the construction of the cars, the fuel! (those crazy bastards!!), and general track procedure (things like flagging and marshalling procedures).
 
twitcher
I'm not against safety, I just have some issue with the current approach (ie the trend of angular corners with massive runoff, where no one respects track limits)
Click to expand...
The FIA is looking at a few options there. GPS tracking is one, as is segmented kerbs (where the first half is flat, but the second is raised; it allows drivers to take some kerb without punishing them or offering an advantage, and is motorcycle-friendly). But the one that I find most interesting is a high-speed camera triggered by a pressure plate in the kerbs. If a driver crosses the line, the weight of the car activates a high-speed camera trained on the corner, with the footage automatically sent to the stewards.
 
What if we solved the problem of cars not being to follow each other on rounded curves by simply... removing wings? Crazy idea, right? :lol: But when you really think about it, it would actually improve the racing, by quite a bit: Cars could follow each other in any type of corner, at any distance; slipstream would be more pronounced; cornering speeds would be safer; fewer carbon bits to break off and smash against a driver's helmet, or litter the track causing a safety car period; no more instances of wing end plates causing a puncture on the tires of another car.

Obviously, no one today has the balls to actually do it. We have become so used to seeing cars taking corners at insane speeds, and more importantly, it would be a loss of advertising space. It's interesting though, that no one thought of doing it in the late 60s when wings were held high up in the air above a driver's head and looked totally ridiculous.
 
TenEightyOne
Although the facts say otherwise...
Click to expand...
That was an interesting read 👍

I like both ideas, hard tires and manual gearboxes...but I think hard tires is much more realistic than manual gearboxes.

There is reason to put R&D into developing hard tires. That translates to other racing and to street cars.

Manual gearboxes though, that's hanging on to old technology for the sake of racing...like NASCAR. It may work in the short term to improve racing, but hanging on to outdate tech will only hurt the sport in the long run. Eventually, pretty much every new car (except a handful of enthusiast cars) will be semi auto or full auto, so I can't see Ferrari or Mercedes or anyone wanting to spend resources developing a trick manual gearbox.

So I vote yay on the hard tires, nay on the manual gearboxes (as much as it actually pains me to say that, because I really do love dipping a clutch :))
 
prisonermonkeys
Nope. 2017 aero regulations are looking to simplify wings and generate downforce through the floor.
Click to expand...

I'm advocating the idea of removing downforce entirely. :D

Could use harder tires as well of course. That would also require downgrading the entire motorsports tree and removing wings from every series so F1 can remain on top. :lol:
 
If the Dutch want to come back (and on the off-chance they're reading this), then here's what they need to do: from the start, the drivers continue straight on past Tarzanbocht. They then do a lap of Pukekohe Park - which has been re-created adjacent to the circuit - starting from the back straight. They rejoin the Zandvoort circuit at Tarzanbocht after completing what is now Turn 2 of Pukekohe.
 
daan
And the other half of the track is like this... I seriously cannot comprehend that someone can watch the Jordan going round the track and think it is wide enough, and safe enough, for an F1 race.

View attachment 475909 View attachment 475910 View attachment 475911 View attachment 475912 View attachment 475913


Yes, he made it round the hairpin, but he had to coast to do it. There are also buildings all round it so it's not a simple job to make it wider.

Note the real pinch point too, which is where the white car is behind the light blue one.

View attachment 475914

You also cannot use Monaco as an example as we all know that if the race didn't exist and they were to turn up today with the idea of holding a race round that circuit they would be laughed at, and even Monaco isn't as tight and narrow as that.

Hosting an F1 race at the Guia circuit in Macau is a ludicrous suggestion.
Click to expand...

You argument centres around size/space issues yet they host F3 races there every year and the cars are pretty much the same dimensions as F1 cars. If huge touring cars and even Lamborghini's can get round there is no problem at all.
 
Last edited:
Again, F1 has much stricter safety regulations than F3, touring cars, or any other formula because of their speed and cornering ability.
 
Robin.
You argument centres around size/space issues yet they host F3 races there every year and the cars are pretty much the same dimensions as F1 cars. If huge touring cars and even Lamborghini's can get round there is no problem at all.
Click to expand...
And every year, there is a massive crash. Now double the speed that crash happens at, and stick Pastor into the mix, and you have a cataclysm.
 
To be honest, in regard to street circuits, I would change Melbourne to Surfers Paradise or Adelaide in a heartbeat. :D

Problem is that Surfers can't be run on the full circuit anymore. :(
 
No way!! Albert park is way better than both of those tracks for F1.

Surfer's is great for touring cars and GT cars. Maybe the old full layout would be good for F1, but like you said, not possible anymore.

Adelaide is pretty good too, but to me, it's more point and squirt than Albert Park, not as much flow. Albert Park has a pretty nice variety of corners, with some great high speed curving sections. Other than T9, Adelaide is rather "square".
 
twitcher
Other than T9, Adelaide is rather "square".
Click to expand...
I think that's the current V8 track you're thinking of. The original GP track only had 4 90 degree corners.

640px-Adelaide_%28long_route%29.svg.png
 
daan
I think that's the current V8 track you're thinking of. The original GP track only had 4 90 degree corners.

640px-Adelaide_%28long_route%29.svg.png
Click to expand...
Oh you're right, I was thinking of the V8 layout :dopey:

That said, I think I still like Albert Park a little more
 
As much as I love the Adelaide Parklands Circuit (being my 'local' track), Albert Park is so much better for modern day F1. I love Surfers Paradise too, those chicanes are amongst the best corners in V8 Supercars but it just wouldn't suit F1.
 
HELLAFLUSH240SX
F1 at Road America, or VIR? Why not?
Click to expand...
Why not?
-The tracks would first have to upgrade themselves to Grade 1, which means adding lots of runoff areas, improved barriers (removing the concrete walls), building lots of grandstands, a professional paddock/pit complex, and countless other things. This would cost them millions of dollars. I think Road America is already getting strained by the slight safety improvements to make it Grade 2 or 3 to have Indycar or even NASCAR there.

-Fees. To my knowledge, hosting an F1 Grand Prix means paying massive fees which these two venues would not be able to afford.
 
ukfan758
Why not?
-The tracks would first have to upgrade themselves to Grade 1, which means adding lots of runoff areas, improved barriers (removing the concrete walls), building lots of grandstands, a professional paddock/pit complex, and countless other things. This would cost them millions of dollars. I think Road America is already getting strained by the slight safety improvements to make it Grade 2 or 3 to have Indycar or even NASCAR there.

-Fees. To my knowledge, hosting an F1 Grand Prix means paying massive fees which these two venues would not be able to afford.
Click to expand...
Sand traps aren't good enough? I'm ignorant in terms of f1 track rules. Do you know of any American tracks beside COTA that could handle F1?
 
HELLAFLUSH240SX
Sand traps aren't good enough? I'm ignorant in terms of f1 track rules. Do you know of any American tracks beside COTA that could handle F1?
Click to expand...
Another thing Road America and VIR have against them is location and local infrastructure. In other words, both tracks are in the boonies.

The town of Elkhart Lake would be annihilated by the F1 circus. There's not enough hotel beds, camp grounds, or eggs in the grocery store to handle that kind of event.

Back in the day, tracks like Watkins Glen, Östereichring, and Kyalami were known for their "country" atmosphere. People would camp at the track for the whole weekend as a family outting. Very similar to what we see at the Nurb 24 hour now.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that it's impossible to have a modern F1 race in that sort of environment, but it's not likely to happen for any number of reasons. The only way I see something like that working is if it was somehow combined with a music festival, and it would have to be in Europe, maybe South America. Fact is though, in North America, no one tents anymore. Everyone goes camping in RVs. You think a modern track is expensive, try building an RV park for a 100000 people.

This is why we see most modern F1 races taking place on tracks which are close to major cities, and usually ritzy cities.
 
Last edited:
Ok that makes sense. I always wondered why F1 seemed to ignore the U.S market. Seems that will continue, as I see COTA being one of those replaceable tracks they have plugged in to the season. Will it last like Suzuka, Spa, Monaco, etc? Probably not. They should have 2 or 3 races in the states I say.
 
HELLAFLUSH240SX
Ok that makes sense. I always wondered why F1 seemed to ignore the U.S market. Seems that will continue, as I see COTA being one of those replaceable tracks they have plugged in to the season. Will it last like Suzuka, Spa, Monaco, etc? Probably not. They should have 2 or 3 races in the states I say.
Click to expand...
Find a couple hundred thousand people in 2 or 3 places in the States, who are interested in F1, and it just might happen. You also need tracks which are grade one. Either a new facility, or upgrading one, you're looking at hundreds of millions to billions. The there's the fees you need to pay to F1 to host a F1 race, and you're looking at another few hundred million. If you want 3 races in the US, you basically need to find 3 different organizations/corporations/billionare F1 enthusiasts who would be willing to pony up that kind of cash....and then like I said, find people to fill the stands so some money can be made. Much easier said than done, unfortunately.

As far as COTA lasting, it's possible. There's nothing terrible about the track itself. Most accounts from driver's that I've heard is that they like it. What it needs to survive is a passionate motorsport fanbase to support it, as well as some better management.

Tracks like Spa, Suzuka, Silverstone, etc, don't last "just because" - they last because of the fans who support those tracks. There is an organic passion and years of motorsport heritage in the areas those tracks are located. When I think of Silverstone, it hosts F1, MotoGP, WEC, BSB, BTCC, and pretty much every event is a full house (even in crappy British weather!). I can't think of any tracks in America that have that kind of fanbase, where they can pack the house multiple times per year. NASCAR can do it, but NASCAR is so different from F1 that the fans don't tend to be F1 fans, so it's not like you can just dump a F1 track in North Carolina or Georgia and expect it to be successful. Daytona is maybe the closest thing, between all the NASCAR events, the 24hr, and Bike Week, that might be comparable to the type of support the major European tracks get.

When the tracks are profitable, they can afford to stay updated, which enhances everyone's experience, from the sanctioning body, to the teams, to the fans. In the context of this conversation, I don't think the phrase "build it and they will come" really works. In my opinion, it needs to be an organic growth over time.
 
twitcher
Daytona is maybe the closest thing, between all the NASCAR events, the 24hr, and Bike Week, that might be comparable to the type of support the major European tracks get.
Click to expand...

When F1 raced the Indianapolis infield it was horrid... Daytona isn't a great deal better, much as I love the place...
 

Latest Posts

Back