The Formula 1 calendar development threadFormula 1

[Ex_Driver]

As I just pointed out, the sport has radically evolved since then, so the comparison that you drew was invalid.


You could have fooled me. And everyone else, or so it would seem.

And as I just pointed out, it's the only comparison we have to go on. It's either compare it to the past and take the fact it's the past into consideration and weigh it accordingly, or just take a shot in the dark. Which seems the more logical to you?

My humour (or more aptly, sardonicism) doesn't translate well to the written word. And for that I apologise.

Omg you actually thought I was proposing for F1 to race on the Super Speedway >.<

Show me ONE single thing that I said that gives any indication that I was making any type of arguement that F1 should make a return to oval racing.

And serious Offense? Please, don't flatter yourself lol. I just can't stand when someone proposes an idea (for fun mostly), and someone else comes along and starts trying to poke holes in the idea...especially when the holes you are attempting to poke are based on non issues.

You've said "ovals didn't work in the 50s" and "Michellin screwed up,"....you have failed to provide any type of logical arguement as to why F1 could/should not return to Daytona.....and your entire arguement has been based on using the Super Speedway. You're basically having a convo with yourself at this point.

Actually, my first message that you responded to specifically mentions F1 at ovals and only F1 at ovals. And your reply didn't clarify the road course, thus implying you were responding to my claim that F1 wouldn't work at ovals. You didn't bring up the road course until several posts later.

And I was being sarcastic with my 'serious offence' remark. Though now I'm doubting that, seeing as how it's bothered you enough to reply with paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove me. In fact you specifically mention it bothered you in the message I'm quoting at this very moment. Way to go, contradicting yourself a sentence after you say something.

My argument was originally against the superspeedway yes, because you didn't clarify that you were talking about the road course until several posts into this discussion. Forgive me for assuming you were referring to it because I specifically mentioned it and you didn't mention the roval until later. At which point I switched my argument to be against the road course as well. You'd know that if you bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post, which you clearly didn't. Also noticed you didn't address your hypocrisy, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[twitcher]

'Flat boring generic car park' the hypocrisy is so strong I can taste it. You are aware that oval racing especially at Daytona is 'floor it, turn left occasionally'? And the road course at Daytona is completely flat and consists only of two 180° hairpins, a flat-out left kink, a 90° left, and a chicane, right? Wanna talk about boring, THAT is boring.

But oh yes, let's have a race at Daytona anyway because 'MURICA #1 or whatever.

You operate on pretty simple principles Ya?

"Indy has banking, Daytona had banking, they're practically the same."

"Paul Ricard is flat, Daytona is flat, they're basically the same."

Smdh. When I talk about "car park", I'm referring to massive paved runoff

Silverstone is flat and a car park, but not boring.

Albert Park is flat, actually is a car park, but is not boring.

Daytona is mostly flat, not a car park, and not boring.

Sochi is flat, is a car park, and is boring.

Paul Ricard is flat, is a car park, and is boring.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you're only real issue with Daytona is that it is 'MURICAN....


Also in your description of the road course, you forgot the majority of sector 1 And while the Bus Stop might be just a flat chicane, show me a series of corners on the F1 calander that involves that rapid of a direction change at those speeds....only thing in the same ballpark is Eau Rouge and Maggots Beckets.

 

[Jimlaad43]

BTW, Daytona would suck for an F1 race mainly because of the track layout, let alone other factors.

Firstly, there's no grid, and nowhere to put it realistically. Secondly, Turn 1 is terrible. Most first corners on oval circuits are samey, flat out bend into tight left-hand corner, like the first corners at Suzuka but much worse. The infield is basically three rubbish irregular hairpins and a left-kink, none of which are inspiring or would be any use to an F1 car.
Next is the banking, which isn't what F1 cars are designed for. The chicane section is confusing and too fast to be anything but a way of stringing out the cars. Also, would you want DRS anywhere near those banked turns?

 

[twitcher]

And as I just pointed out, it's the only comparison we have to go on. It's either compare it to the past and take the fact it's the past into consideration and weigh it accordingly, or just take a shot in the dark. Which seems the more logical to you?

My humour (or more aptly, sardonicism) doesn't translate well to the written word. And for that I apologise.



Actually, my first message that you responded to specifically mentions F1 at ovals and only F1 at ovals. And your reply didn't clarify the road course, thus implying you were responding to my claim that F1 wouldn't work at ovals. You didn't bring up the road course until several posts later.

And I was being sarcastic with my 'serious offence' remark. Though now I'm doubting that, seeing as how it's bothered you enough to reply with paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove me. In fact you specifically mention it bothered you in the message I'm quoting at this very moment. Way to go, contradicting yourself a sentence after you say something.

My argument was originally against the superspeedway yes, because you didn't clarify that you were talking about the road course until several posts into this discussion. Forgive me for assuming you were referring to it because I specifically mentioned it and you didn't mention the roval until later. At which point I switched my argument to be against the road course as well. You'd know that if you bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post, which you clearly didn't. Also noticed you didn't address your hypocrisy, but that's neither here nor there.

This convo started when you quoted my post with a video showing F1 cars and other Fezzas on the road course at Daytona....you needed clarification that I was in fact talking about the road course and not the speedway? Sorry buddy, I don't do hand holding.

As far as being "offended", you know there is a difference between being offended and being annoyed, right? I promise you, there is basically nothing you could do which would offend me. Annoy me though, you're being quite successful.

Lastly, since you seem to think your Dr Phil analysis of the lengths of my posts gives you any insight into my state of mind, I'll let you know I'm commuting home from work, bored out of my tree, and have about an hour to kill. Thought I'd have some fun with a video of some F1 cars on a legendary track....but apparently someone tried it back in the 50s and said it "didn't work"....so we should all just go home.

 

[twitcher]

BTW, Daytona would suck for an F1 race mainly because of the track layout, let alone other factors.

Firstly, there's no grid, and nowhere to put it realistically. Secondly, Turn 1 is terrible. Most first corners on oval circuits are samey, flat out bend into tight left-hand corner, like the first corners at Suzuka but much worse. The infield is basically three rubbish irregular hairpins and a left-kink, none of which are inspiring or would be any use to an F1 car.
Next is the banking, which isn't what F1 cars are designed for. The chicane section is confusing and too fast to be anything but a way of stringing out the cars. Also, would you want DRS anywhere near those banked turns?

....you could put the grid on one of the infield straights, as the pitwall wouldn't work for F1 anyways.

Why would T1 be terrible? Because F1 has so many other oval T1 on the calander, so it would be all the same as everything else right? This arguement just makes no sense, sorry, try again.

3 rubbish hairpins and a left kink, uninspiring for an F1 car - Jim, you just described half the bloody circuits on the calander...

The chicane section is "confusing" and "too fast". One sec *checks we're still in the F1 forum. Yup, ok*. Have you heard of a little bend called Eau Rouge??? Terribly confusing and fast corner who's only purpose is to string out the field.

I'll agree with you that DRS would be scary lol. Get rid of DRS period.


But Jim...you think Suzuka sucks (think that's you, my bad if I'm confused)....so basically your opinion on circuits is of no value just kidding.



You guys are really going to have to try harder. Everyone around here is so expert at poking holes in jdeas and shooting other's ideas down....yet I see very few people proposing ideas of their own.


@Ex_Driver, why not propose an idea for a circuit so I can tell you how terrible it would be and tear it apart based on stuff that happened in 1954.

 

[Ex_Driver]

You operate on pretty simple principles Ya?

"Indy has banking, Daytona had banking, they're practically the same."

"Paul Ricard is flat, Daytona is flat, they're basically the same."

Smdh. When I talk about "car park", I'm referring to massive paved runoff

Silverstone is flat and a car park, but not boring.

Albert Park is flat, actually is a car park, but is not boring.

Daytona is mostly flat, not a car park, and not boring.

Sochi is flat, is a car park, and is boring.

Paul Ricard is flat, is a car park, and is boring.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you're only real issue with Daytona is that it is 'MURICAN....


Also in your description of the road course, you forgot the majority of sector 1 And while the Bus Stop might be just a flat chicane, show me a series of corners on the F1 calander that involves that rapid of a direction change at those speeds....only thing in the same ballpark is Eau Rouge and Maggots Beckets.

What is and is not 'boring' is highly subjective, if you weren't aware. What isn't subjective is that Paul Ricard has much more variety in its layout as compared to Daytona. If you count the banking as a straight (which functionally they are), there are 12 corners. Paul Ricard has 15 in its most basic full layout. And you also have to take into account that again, several corners in Daytona are exactly the same. The two hairpins are mirrored versions of each other. The 4 corners in the chicane are mirrored images of each other.
All your little list proves is what circuits you like. Your opinion does NOT = fact.

What is sector one at Daytona? A 45° left. A flat out right-left wiggle that're barely corners. And an almost constant radius 180° right. All completely flat. What point are you making, again?

You just listed two circuits with similar cornering complex speeds. Bahrain has 5-6-7 complex. Gilles Villeneuve has 3-7. Baku has 13-20. Hungaroring has 8-11. Suzuka has 3-7. Cota has 3-9. Mexico has 7-11. All of those are 3-5th gear corners that go left and right back to back. Again, what point are you making? Daytona should be on the calendar because there's a 4th gear left-right right-left complex?

In fact, let me turn your argument back on you. Why -should- Daytona be on the calendar? What legitimate reasons can you give that don't boil down to 'I think it would be cool to watch them go fast on a banned turn again'. If your whole point was that, I could understand and would drop the subject. But you're defending the idea as if you actually want a race there. So again, why.

 

[twitcher]

What is and is not 'boring' is highly subjective, if you weren't aware. What isn't subjective is that Paul Ricard has much more variety in its layout as compared to Daytona. If you count the banking as a straight (which functionally they are), there are 12 corners. Paul Ricard has 15 in its most basic full layout. And you also have to take into account that again, several corners in Daytona are exactly the same. The two hairpins are mirrored versions of each other. The 4 corners in the chicane are mirrored images of each other.
All your little list proves is what circuits you like. Your opinion does NOT = fact.

What is sector one at Daytona? A 45° left. A flat out right-left wiggle that're barely corners. And an almost constant radius 180° right. All completely flat. What point are you making, again?

You just listed two circuits with similar cornering complex speeds. Bahrain has 5-6-7 complex. Gilles Villeneuve has 3-7. Baku has 13-20. Hungaroring has 8-11. Suzuka has 3-7. Cota has 3-9. Mexico has 7-11. All of those are 3-5th gear corners that go left and right back to back. Again, what point are you making? Daytona should be on the calendar because there's a 4th gear left-right right-left complex?

In fact, let me turn your argument back on you. Why -should- Daytona be on the calendar? What legitimate reasons can you give that don't boil down to 'I think it would be cool to watch them go fast on a banned turn again'. If your whole point was that, I could understand and would drop the subject. But you're defending the idea as if you actually want a race there. So again, why.

....you just said the entrance of the bus stop is the same as its exit....and then compared the bus stop to the esses at Suzuka....FML, I'm out.

And what's with this "what's the point you're making" BS? Need I remind you how this convo started....you saying that "F1 wouldn't work at Daytona because they tried the full oval in the 50s, no one showed up and no one liked it." If anyone needs to be asking the question "what point are you trying to make," it's me.

I also am fully aware that track preference is subjective. For someone who claims to have a sarcasticn style of their own, you sure don't seem to pick up on other's very well.

Anyways, like I said, I'm out.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

A big reason why F1 will never happen at Daytona is safety, and modifying the circuit would change its characteristics. I'm not talking runoff or the typical shortening of corner radii. What I'm referring to is the banking, which far exceeds FIA Grade 1 standards, which must not be more than 10%. Daytona's banking far exceeds those limits.

It's an interesting idea in theory, I loved driving the Ferrari F2007 at Daytona in GT5: Prologue (before they took away the option to adjust steering wheel sensitivity in GT5). I think, for a second US race, F1 would be better off with a new purpose built circuit, even a street circuit as opposed to the potential damage the regulations could do to an existing circuit.

 

[Ex_Driver]

....you just said the entrance of the bus stop is the same as its exit....and then compared the bus stop to the esses at Suzuka....FML, I'm out.

And what's with this "what's the point you're making" BS? Need I remind you how this convo started....you saying that "F1 wouldn't work at Daytona because they tried the full oval in the 50s, no one showed up and no one liked it." If anyone needs to be asking the question "what point are you trying to make," it's me.

I also am fully aware that track preference is subjective. For someone who claims to have a sarcasticn style of their own, you sure don't seem to pick up on other's very well.

Anyways, like I said, I'm out.

You asked me to provide some mid-high speed left and right corners, I provided you some. The Suzuka Esses take a big fat deuce on Daytona.

You ask me my point, and then in the next sentence quote my point. (Though to be fair, that isn't really what I said.) What is 'irony'?

You can't really use sarcasm as the basis of your argument. I hope you aren't in a debate class, because that tactic will get you laughed right out of the lecture.

But I am also calling this a day. You ignore any point I make and the few you do read you prefer to misinterpret and respond with smileys and comments like "are you actually saying this" rather than actual counter points, which says to me you have none. Good day, sir.

 

[Ex_Driver]

A big reason why F1 will never happen at Daytona is safety, and modifying the circuit would change its characteristics. I'm not talking runoff or the typical shortening of corner radii. What I'm referring to is the banking, which far exceeds FIA Grade 1 standards, which must not be more than 10%. Daytona's banking far exceeds those limits.

It's an interesting idea in theory, I loved driving the Ferrari F2007 at Daytona in GT5: Prologue (before they took away the option to adjust steering wheel sensitivity in GT5). I think, for a second US race, F1 would be better off with a new purpose built circuit, even a street circuit as opposed to the potential damage the regulations could do to an existing circuit.

Watkins Glen would be a nice return. Not the most complicated circuit, and due to modern aero it'd mostly just be flat out. But it's the Glen, dammit. Road America is also a possible circuit. Good runoff, good overtaking spots. Fun, fast, flowy. Mid Ohio, too.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Paul Ricard is flat, is a car park, and is boring.

I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to judge, since Formula One hasn't been there in thirty years. The most prominent series to use Paul Ricard at the moment is the WTCC, and they're basically high performance shopping trolleys. Plus, they use a condensed version of the circuit. Formula One will almost certainly use the full configuration, because even with the addition of the Mistral chicane, the short version is probably too short. There's some interesting corners in the full circuit, and while the full circuit precinct is a car park, it has one very unusual feature: tungsten embedded in the run-off areas. It creates an extremely abrasive surface that will scour the tyres of their tread if a car runs wide. Even the ultra-durable Bridgestone tyres from 2010 would need to be changed if a driver ran wide.

Have you heard of a little bend called Eau Rouge??? Terribly confusing and fast corner who's only purpose is to string out the field.

The chicane at Daytona is nothing like Eau Rouge. Eau Rouge is designed to be taken as flat as possible; it rewards the bold, but punishes those who get greedy. The chiance at Daytona is designed to slow the cars down.

I think, for a second US race, F1 would be better off with a new purpose built circuit, even a street circuit as opposed to the potential damage the regulations could do to an existing circuit.

I see no reason why a purpose-built circuit could not include banking. Turn 10 - the long right-hander - at the Buddh International Circuit in India did it, and it was quite a challenging corner because it was a constant-radius corner that opened up with a touch of negative camber that then dipped down into the next left-hander. It was very tricky because the driver had to ride the crown of the road on the exit, which took them off the conventional racing line.

 

[Northstar]

Would a driver even be able to handle Daytona at speed? IndyCar has had issues in the past with G-forces in the past, even cancelling a race, and Daytona would have a much longer load time as the turns are so big.

 

[Ex_Driver]

Would a driver even be able to handle Daytona at speed? IndyCar has had issues in the past with G-forces in the past, even cancelling a race, and Daytona would have a much longer load time as the turns are so big.

The turns are more steeply banked, so the force would be more vertical than lateral like at Indy. And it's doubtful an F1 car would be going 230 through the turns. They might hit 180 one the exit of the first banking, and 200 or so on the exit of the second. Right around were a NASCAR would be at full chat, because they're basically having to accelerate from 3rd gear due to the chicanes.

 

[twitcher]

You asked me to provide some mid-high speed left and right corners, I provided you some. The Suzuka Esses take a big fat deuce on Daytona.

You ask me my point, and then in the next sentence quote my point. (Though to be fair, that isn't really what I said.) What is 'irony'?

You can't really use sarcasm as the basis of your argument. I hope you aren't in a debate class, because that tactic will get you laughed right out of the lecture.

But I am also calling this a day. You ignore any point I make and the few you do read you prefer to misinterpret and respond with smileys and comments like "are you actually saying this" rather than actual counter points, which says to me you have none. Good day, sir.

Last time I swear.

Now youre changing the subject to "is the bus stop s better complex than the Esses". Dude, that is NOT what we're talking about. Of course the esses are better, it's not a contest.

But to say that the bus stop and the esses are similar complexes is beyond crazy. They are night and day different....which gives me some insight into how you look at circuits, which now actually sheds a little light on why you might say the things you have.

And the reason I don't argue your points and respond with "you're actually saying that?" is because I don't think your points are worthy of a rebuttle, and I can't belive you are actually proposing those "arguements" in a publi forum where people can read what your wrote and judge you on it lol.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I see no reason why a purpose-built circuit could not include banking. Turn 10 - the long right-hander - at the Buddh International Circuit in India did it, and it was quite a challenging corner because it was a constant-radius corner that opened up with a touch of negative camber that then dipped down into the next left-hander. It was very tricky because the driver had to ride the crown of the road on the exit, which took them off the conventional racing line.

I'm guessing the regulations are to save tyres from blowing out due to the sheer force being put on them. Which wouldn't be a problem on a short section (unless you're Michelin), but the banking at Daytona lasts for a lifetime. But I don't disagree with you, I do love the idea of some full on banked corners and tricky cambering, but I can't imagine it working at Daytona or anywhere else where a vast majority of the ciucuit is made up of steep banking, not at least without some once-a-year tyres.

 

[Ex_Driver]

Last time I swear.

Now youre changing the subject to "is the bus stop s better complex than the Esses". Dude, that is NOT what we're talking about. Of course the esses are better, it's not a contest.

But to say that the bus stop and the esses are similar complexes is beyond crazy. They are night and day different....which gives me some insight into how you look at circuits, which now actually sheds a little light on why you might say the things you have.

And the reason I don't argue your points and respond with "you're actually saying that?" is because I don't think your points are worthy of a rebuttle, and I can't belive you are actually proposing those "arguements" in a publi forum where people can read what your wrote and judge you on it lol.

What was it you said? "Now you're comparing the Bus Stop to the Suzuka Esses?" I may be a simple hyper chicken from a backwoods asteroid, but that sounds like YOU changing the subject to which corner complex is better. And I was just responding to that. But what do I know?

And once again, you missed my point. The bus stop chicanes in an F1 car would be around 4th gear. You asked me for corner complexes with similar conditions. I gave you a list that do. Quit moving the goal posts.

And again, you miss my point. My whole statement was you skim what I write rather than actually read, guess my meaning from the first sentence or two, and argue the point you think I'm making rather than the point I'm making. How fitting that you would do what I'm criticising you of as I'm criticising you of it. Even then, you are partaking in the 'pooh pooh' fallacy. That is, ridiculing the argument rather than disproving the points made.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I do love the idea of some full on banked corners and tricky cambering

There is something of an aversion to it in modern circuit design. Martin Brundle alluded to it in Abu Dhabi, where the corners under the hotel have mild negative camber. Negative camber interrupts aerodynamic flow and requires a greater dependence on mechanical grip.

 

[twitcher]

What was it you said? "Now you're comparing the Bus Stop to the Suzuka Esses?" I may be a simple hyper chicken from a backwoods asteroid, but that sounds like YOU changing the subject to which corner complex is better. And I was just responding to that. But what do I know?

And once again, you missed my point. The bus stop chicanes in an F1 car would be around 4th gear. You asked me for corner complexes with similar conditions. I gave you a list that do. Quit moving the goal posts.

And again, you miss my point. My whole statement was you skim what I write rather than actually read, guess my meaning from the first sentence or two, and argue the point you think I'm making rather than the point I'm making. How fitting that you would do what I'm criticising you of as I'm criticising you of it. Even then, you are partaking in the 'pooh pooh' fallacy. That is, ridiculing the argument rather than disproving the points made.

Omg dude, read what you write.

You asked me to provide some mid-high speed left and right corners, I provided you some. The Suzuka Esses take a big fat deuce on Daytona.

THAT is YOU turning it into a convo of which is better. How you can get that it's me who is changing the subject is beyond me.

And now you're missing my point. The fact that you think the bus stop and the esses are similar just because they are taken on about 4th gear (just above, you claimed the exit of the bus stop would be in 3rd) indicates to me that we don't really need to be having this convo, and you should stick to arguments revolving around oval racing in the 50s.

And just to be clear, I read your crap 3 or 4 times, it makes so little sense

 

[twitcher]

I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to judge, since Formula One hasn't been there in thirty years. The most prominent series to use Paul Ricard at the moment is the WTCC, and they're basically high performance shopping trolleys. Plus, they use a condensed version of the circuit. Formula One will almost certainly use the full configuration, because even with the addition of the Mistral chicane, the short version is probably too short. There's some interesting corners in the full circuit, and while the full circuit precinct is a car park, it has one very unusual feature: tungsten embedded in the run-off areas. It creates an extremely abrasive surface that will scour the tyres of their tread if a car runs wide. Even the ultra-durable Bridgestone tyres from 2010 would need to be changed if a driver ran wide.

WTCC and F3 used one of the short versions. BlancPain used the full GP layout. Haven't watched the ELMS round yet. To me, none of those are any indication, pro or con, as to how F1 would physically do.

What I can tell you though, that no matter what cars are racing, it is a visually boring circuit to watch racing at. The sense of speed is very low because everything is so far away.

For F1:
-Mistral will be DRS fly-by like China. Personally, I hate those overtakes.
-Signe will be flat out, basically a nothing corner.
-overtaking into Beausette (spelling?) is set up by being brave through Signe...but the F1 cars will do it all the same.
-3rd sector is actually really nice in low downforce cars, as you can set up clever overtakes. In high DF though, the dirty air will be too much.
-because the final corner is so slow, you'll end up with a Spain/Mexico situation, where the gap created by the lead car accelerating one car length sooner than the following car will be too big of a gap to overcome on the straight...plus T1 has relatively light braking.

I'd love to be proven wrong...but unless we get constant wheel to wheel action, watching cars solo lap PR is not entertaining at all.

The chicane at Daytona is nothing like Eau Rouge. Eau Rouge is designed to be taken as flat as possible; it rewards the bold, but punishes those who get greedy. The chiance at Daytona is designed to slow the cars down.

Very true, and a horrible comparison on my part. However it was a response to the idea that the bus stop is "too confusing and too fast"....I thought of the fastest and most "confusing" corners I could...

I see no reason why a purpose-built circuit could not include banking. Turn 10 - the long right-hander - at the Buddh International Circuit in India did it, and it was quite a challenging corner because it was a constant-radius corner that opened up with a touch of negative camber that then dipped down into the next left-hander. It was very tricky because the driver had to ride the crown of the road on the exit, which took them off the conventional racing line.

I'm probably wrong, but I was always under the impression that the corner before the back straight in China had 13' of banking?

A big reason why F1 will never happen at Daytona is safety, and modifying the circuit would change its characteristics. I'm not talking runoff or the typical shortening of corner radii. What I'm referring to is the banking, which far exceeds FIA Grade 1 standards, which must not be more than 10%. Daytona's banking far exceeds those limits.

It's an interesting idea in theory, I loved driving the Ferrari F2007 at Daytona in GT5: Prologue (before they took away the option to adjust steering wheel sensitivity in GT5). I think, for a second US race, F1 would be better off with a new purpose built circuit, even a street circuit as opposed to the potential damage the regulations could do to an existing circuit.

thanks for the sound and logical counter arguement 👍

Watkins Glen would be a nice return. Not the most complicated circuit, and due to modern aero it'd mostly just be flat out. But it's the Glen, dammit. Road America is also a possible circuit. Good runoff, good overtaking spots. Fun, fast, flowy. Mid Ohio, too.

So, the Glen would be "mostly flat out", but the bus stop at Daytona would be 3rd gear (I though you said 4th...oh well)

basically having to accelerate from 3rd gear due to the chicanes.

Roight.

Where are you getting this info and your numbers from???

Edit:

Watkins Glen would be a nice return. Not the most complicated circuit, and due to modern aero it'd mostly just be flat out. But it's the Glen, dammit. Road America is also a possible circuit. Good runoff, good overtaking spots. Fun, fast, flowy. Mid Ohio, too.

And another one! Watch the full thing through until the end when they show the slow motion. You really get a sense for just how good the runnoff is

 

[shoemaker]

Not to mention that oval racing with formula cars is even more dangerous due to the cars being even closer,creating even more dirty air, meaning even less downforce and car unstability. The drivers say they struggle to follow as it is and apparently next year will be even worse.If F1 went back on an oval it would probably lose alot of the European viewers.It really does bore me.I cant see them ever doing it again,even with the new American ownership.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not to mention that oval racing with formula cars is even more dangerous due to the cars being even closer,creating even more dirty air, meaning even less downforce and car unstability. The drivers say they struggle to follow as it is and apparently next year will be even worse.If F1 went back on an oval it would probably lose alot of the European viewers.It really does bore me.I cant see them ever doing it again,even with the new American ownership.

I'm not sure anyone's talking about oval racing...

 

[m8h3r]

According to Top Gear Essex Raceway in Essex was set to host the 2007 round of the F1 championship, alongside the annual Motorhome Racing championship

 

[SagarisGTB]

I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to judge, since Formula One hasn't been there in thirty years. The most prominent series to use Paul Ricard at the moment is the WTCC, and they're basically high performance shopping trolleys. Plus, they use a condensed version of the circuit. Formula One will almost certainly use the full configuration, because even with the addition of the Mistral chicane, the short version is probably too short. There's some interesting corners in the full circuit, and while the full circuit precinct is a car park, ...

Both ELMS and BES (and the 24-hour Series for that matter) run on the full circuit and it's the worst race to watch of each series' respective schedules. The camera positions are always distant from the actual circuit and the background is dull and lifeless. It's aesthetically the most unsatisfying circuit that I regularly watch racing on.

it has one very unusual feature: tungsten embedded in the run-off areas. It creates an extremely abrasive surface that will scour the tyres of their tread if a car runs wide. Even the ultra-durable Bridgestone tyres from 2010 would need to be changed if a driver ran wide.

Nope. In theory that's how its supposed to work, but it doesn't in practice. In both ELMS and BES (particularly the latter) cars run wide constantly with no discernible penalty. In one infamous instance, Nicky Catsburg was running very wide at Signes lap-after-lap in his Z4 GT3 without any apparent detriment to his tyres as he continued to circulate as quickly as anyone else on track.

Edit: Fixed errant comma.

 

[Jimlaad43]

This is the Paul Ricard layout that will host the French Grand Prix

 

[twitcher]

FIA got jokes for days They killed the most interesting aspect of an already extremely boring circuit.

I also agree with @SagarisGTB regarding the track limits. Watch ELMS or BES, you'll see how much the blue stuff dissuades people from using the runnoff as the racing line.

 

[Liquid]

Didn't feel the need to create a 2020 thread just for this:

Sportwash!

*Sweet, sweet blood money is coming to Formula One! Williams might get their sponsor back.



*More

 

[Simmpa]

Didn't feel the need to create a 2020 thread just for this:

Sportwash!

*Sweet, sweet blood money is coming to Formula One! Williams might get their sponsor back.



*More

Wonder whats next? North Korea?

 

[mustafur]

What happens if a Team has a Female racer then?

 

[Jimlaad43]

I'll accept a Saudi Grand Prix if they ditch Bahrain or Abu Dhabi, the Middle East isn't a region that needs three soulless Grand Prix's. Go back to Africa or get another race in South America. This Saudi circuits sounds like it's going to be another Yas Marina - chuck a load of money on a fantastic facility in the middle of nowhere with an awful layout and no chance of rain.

I'm all for expanding to new circuits and new countries, but don't overload an area if you're building new circuits. Western Europe is probably the only area that can get away with a high concentration of races because that's the traditional homeland, all the teams are based there and the circuits are legendary. A new circuit can be built anywhere, so why not host the Saudia Oil Argentinian Grand Prix with that money for example? Go to countries that fans would like to see F1 in.

Europe has near enough the right amount of GPs, East Asia is fine with the addition of Vietnam to replace Thailand, North America probably has enough, South America wouldn't hurt to get a second GP, Oceania probably could host a second GP if New Zealand wanted to and Africa needs a race. But 2 is probably about the right amount for the Middle East, especially as motorsport isn't really associated with the area as much as other areas. No home drivers means small fan turnouts at tracks fans don't really care about. Let's be honest, one race track in a desert looks the same as every other circuit in a desert. If the racing is crap, at least circuits like Spa, Monza, and Suzuka have some interesting Geography around to pan the camera to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What happens if a Team has a Female racer then?

Since 2017 it's (nominally) not a problem if she wishes to use a road car outside the circuit. However true that is for the general populace is an argument for another day but I'm sure the F1 drivers wouldn't have too much trouble.

EDIT: Lifting of the ban was announced 2017, implemented 2018. My other comments stand