The Formula 1 calendar development threadFormula 1 

Blitz24
Seconded on the old Hockenheimring. Its sad that the track is now gone (not even preserved, but completely gone). The fact that there was so limited of viewing areas though did it in.
Click to expand...

No, it was the poor marshalling capabilities at the Nord- and Ostkurv, and the subsequent poor access roads from there back to the pits.

Because, let's not forget, the track went through an actual forest with trees, trees and more trees running alongside it. Nowhere for the cranes or emergency services to go.
 
Isn't this it, Sochi Russia
2012-12-09223357.jpg

2012-12-09223528.jpg

And a confirmation photo
2012-12-09223543.jpg


My favorite thing about this track is the 90 degree elbow turns, they allow better passing oppurtunity's then a bunch of hairpins imo'
 
But they also cut out the right-hand flick before it and turned it into another nienty-degree bend. Which is a shame, because it came after a really long sweeper, so the flick would have been incredibly fast.
 
Blitz24
With New York and Russia in for 2014, does that mean that Japan is out?
Click to expand...

Most likely it would be Korea because of the massive losses from a money stand point. We all know how much Bernie loves his money
 
m8h3r
I hope not. Suzuka is actually a good circuit. Just needs some alterations to the chicane before put straight.
Click to expand...
Was looking at the provisional 2014 calender and didn't see Suzuka so I questioned it.

vetteman24
Most likely it would be Korea because of the massive losses from a money stand point. We all know how much Bernie loves his money
Click to expand...

Without a doubt Korea will not survive unless a change of heart.
 
Jimlaad43
When Tilke has to redesign a track, he does well.
A1-Ring
Hockenheim
Fuji

All are still good tracks and were redesigned by Hermann Tilke. The Red Bull Ring is a good circuit and should host an F1 race.
Click to expand...

Nah, all of those tracks are shadows of their former selves now. I don't think they are really good examples of what Tilke can do because they will always be compared with their old variations which were far superior (though more dangerous or not feasible logistically now).

I'll just leave these here:





 
SimonK
The current Fuji is absolutely terrible IMO, no flow at all and terrible corners, especially the last section.
Click to expand...

I love it in Gran Turismo. The last corners are very technically challenging and I always enjoyed that, but I agree with you. I still love it, though!
 
From what i've seen of the Tilke circuits, and from what i've driven in them in various games, he seems to really love those technical sections.

You don't find many challenging high speed sections in his circuits. Even turn 8 at Instanbul was more technical than anything, there was only really one line to take and it wasn't followed or preceded by a change of direction. A lot of the older circuits had nothing but high speed sections, with the odd chicane to slow it down if there were safety concerns.

Circuits that he has created follow a philosophy he has that circuits must have a number of ingredients to be a 'good circuit'. All of his tracks seem to have a long straight followed by a hairpin to encourage overtaking, they much have the odd high speed corner, but with tight, twisty and technical sections to challenge the driver. As a result none of the circuits really have that character that some of the older circuits do. A lot of the better circuits on the F1 calendar currently have very similar corners or sections all over the track, rather than trying to cover every corner or sector type. Montreal, Monaco, Monza, Spa and Interlagos are prime examples (You could probably add Silverstone and Suzuka in there too as they're both dominated by high speed corners). Tracks that try to cover everything (Korea, China, Istanbul, India etc.) seem to be a little stale. They can still produce exciting races, they can still challenge the drivers etc. But they just don't have the feel of the old circuits.

Track width could also be one aspect. A lot of the newer circuits are wider for safety reasons these days.
 
Centura
I love it in Gran Turismo. The last corners are very technically challenging and I always enjoyed that, but I agree with you. I still love it, though!
Click to expand...

No, that is exactly why I hate it.

I can appreciate that they want to slow down and bunch the cars up before the straight, but they completely disrupt the flow of the course and just make it processional. Beginning with the impossible double hairpin at the foot of the circuit.

Nostalgia or not in my opinion, and I stress that it's my opinion, Fuji, the Hockenheimring and the Oesterreichring were far better tracks which produced far more excited races than their neutered counterparts of today.

Great videos from Ardius. Those are racetracks, as opposed to car parks, but I guess we just have to accept that we live in a different age.
 
Many high-speed corners disappeared over the past twenty years, due to a lack of run-off areas and either truncated circuits prevailed, or sweepers were interrupted with chicanes. I suppose the "natural" evolution of circuit design was to create these circuits with few high-speed turns in them, in the first place.

But the cars are getting more nimble and can change direction and traverse the medium-speed corners like never before. Watch how cars of the past five years or so deal with a couple of ess-bends compared to 15-20 years ago, and you will realize immediately, while the horsepower levels aren't what they were in the space race of the Latter Turbo Era (1985-87) or as technologically imbued as the Driver As Mecha Era (1990-93), but they flick about the esses and sharper corners like nothing before.

Land is also getting more expensive and scarce, especially that tenuous balance between choosing a location that's near a major metropolitan area and its logistical infrastructure, but also not in the boondocks or by a neighborhood of NIMBYs. Thus, a compact circuit is more attractive; a side benefit is that with a more compact track infield, it becomes permissive towards safety and medical staff tending to emergencies quicker.

What irks me is the idea that a tight corner has to be fed by another tight corner, for some oddball reason. There's nothing really gained from it, especially if there's no mechanical risk involved in running wide; I'm not advocating demolition derby, but some semblance of challenge and fear of running off ought to be given a thought for screwing up. Instead, we have to argue whether a pass was 100% legal or not.

I had rather wished for the tracks became wider (which has occurred over the past 10-15 years); admittedly, this was a major fault with a lot of "traditional" circuits, which inhibited passing attempts. But having these overly wide and paved runoffs everywhere is a bit silly...there's a few novel places to put them, but I get the idea there's a few places where actual gravel traps would probably do a far better job of slowing a car down; in return, sometimes those same traps have acted as launching pads for errant machinery in faster corners.

I also feel we characterize these new circuits as bland because they are meticulously planned out; the land is cleared, and nearly everything in the way is removed. Everything else is mitigated or built from scratch. There's no ginormous tree by the hairpin (Buenos Aires), stream crossing (Spa), inactive volcano (Clermont-Ferrand), railway crossing (Oporto), museum (Montjuich), or town square (Rhiems) to get in the way. And that's a visible and distinctive reason that city circuits are somewhat attractive, but by the same token, we don't want to malign the series with a bunch of 90-degree corners that are mostly part of real-world city streets, even if they are a link to the way motor racing was performed in the early-1900s.

With that said, more Spa-Francorchamps and less Singapores, please.
 
Last edited:
Pupik
What irks me is the idea that a tight corner has to be fed by another tight corner, for some oddball reason. There's nothing really gained from it, especially if there's no mechanical risk involved in running wide; I'm not advocating demolition derby, but some semblance of challenge and fear of running off ought to be given a thought for screwing up. Instead, we have to argue whether a pass was 100% legal or not.
Click to expand...

Whereas Fuji has five in succession; painfully slow right-hander, painfully-slow left hander, slow right-hander, painfully slow left-hander, very slow right-hander.

Granted, if you take away the double hairpin, the first right hander at the foot of the circuit is a bit more sweeping but the run off area makes it seem far less impressive. And the two slow corners preceding the final straight are just silly. One would have done.

When I read the point about run off and legal overtakes, Sebastian Vettel immediately sprang to mind. He loves to use all of the track and then some, pretty much because he can. There's far fewer consequences of leaving the race track. Look at La Source these days. Vettel isn't the only one to do this, of course.

Fuji to me is one of the worst car park tracks. Aesthetically, it looks awful. I know the aesthetics of a race track are far from what qualifies as a good race track, but that's still how it looks to me. You can't tell where the track ends, the run off begins and where the edge of the circuit perimetres are. As does Spa, in places. I fully appreciate the efforts to improve driver safety, and the dangers of flipping on gravel, but there surely has to be a compromise somewhere between catch fencing of the 80s, gravel traps of the 90s and the run off areas of the 00s?

Finally, out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know the stats about F1 cars flipping in gravel traps because of the gravel trap itself, rather than flipping into the gravel trap area, or because of an incident where flipping was an unavoidable and unfortunate byproduct.
 
Liquid
Finally, out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know the stats about F1 cars flipping in gravel traps because of the gravel trap itself, rather than flipping into the gravel trap area, or because of an incident where flipping was an unavoidable and unfortunate byproduct.
Click to expand...

Few; mostly, the gravel trap did its job of arresting the forward motion of the car, but would generally tip over with its last bit of momentum at comparatively slow speeds (that is, compared to its entry into "Oh-&%@#" territory).

The start of the 2000 Italian Grand Prix, and subsequent death of the unfortunate track marshal, was supposedly a watershed moment for the removal of many gravel traps. But what's forgotten is that if that ridiculously re-profiled chicane wasn't there (and it's still there), it likely would not have happened in the first place.

Otherwise, very few that I recall...Senna's tip-over at Mexico City in 1991, but I'm not a complete expert on the matter; maybe this was a problem in other formulae and events, so perhaps it wasn't all about what F1 cars were doing.
 
The 2000 Italian GP did spring to mind. It was a tragic event and as an aside, I'm amazed that the race carried on and that there was no red flag.

Chicane reprofiling is another matter all together...

But back to digging in gravel traps, perhaps it was more of an issue for tin tops and closed cockpits. Maybe the side fins or additional bodywork kept getting caught.
 
Pupik
Few; mostly, the gravel trap did its job of arresting the forward motion of the car, but would generally tip over with its last bit of momentum at comparatively slow speeds (that is, compared to its entry into "Oh-&%@#" territory).

The start of the 2000 Italian Grand Prix, and subsequent death of the unfortunate track marshal, was supposedly a watershed moment for the removal of many gravel traps. But what's forgotten is that if that ridiculously re-profiled chicane wasn't there (and it's still there), it likely would not have happened in the first place.

Otherwise, very few that I recall...Senna's tip-over at Mexico City in 1991, but I'm not a complete expert on the matter; maybe this was a problem in other formulae and events, so perhaps it wasn't all about what F1 cars were doing.
Click to expand...
Gravel traps have been problems in closed cockpit cars as well as NASCAR has done away with both gravel traps and grass at many locations due to cars getting airborne. I don't think any death has been directly associated to a gravel track/grass excursion in over 22 years though.
 
I like how the Osterreichring looked, but it seems to me that modern F1 cars would take almost all the corners flat out there. :lol: Perhaps tightening up the slower corners instead of butchering the whole thing, would have been a better solution?

I think the technical stuff added to racing circuits was an inevitable change, sadly. Much like the classic and challenging golf courses of old became too easy with cavity-back irons and metal woods, old racing circuits aren't suited to modern cars either. Unless of course we gave the cars more power and less grip. :D
 
It still needs work done on it anyway, and as PM pointed out, the locals aren't too keen on international racing coming back there, what with their protests after the knocked down the old pit buildings and such. I think DTM went there in 2011, but again, I don't think the A1 Ring/RBR would produce good racing for F1.
 
Liquid
It still needs work done on it anyway, and as PM pointed out, the locals aren't too keen on international racing coming back there, what with their protests after the knocked down the old pit buildings and such. I think DTM went there in 2011, but again, I don't think the A1 Ring/RBR would produce good racing for F1.
Click to expand...

That's understandable, but personally I'd prefer to see them racing there rather than Turkey.
 
Another problem with gravel is that the cars usually just skip over it if the speed is high enough. Schumacher at Silverstone in '99, for example.
Liquid
When I read the point about run off and legal overtakes, Sebastian Vettel immediately sprang to mind. He loves to use all of the track and then some, pretty much because he can. There's far fewer consequences of leaving the race track. Look at La Source these days. Vettel isn't the only one to do this, of course.
Click to expand...

That's something I have noticed, as well. Vettel is extremely greedy when it comes to track width. Much, much more than any other driver. I guess that's why he's so quick, because he makes use of every single piece of tarmac and then some.
 
Liquid
It still needs work done on it anyway, and as PM pointed out, the locals aren't too keen on international racing coming back there, what with their protests after the knocked down the old pit buildings and such. I think DTM went there in 2011, but again, I don't think the A1 Ring/RBR would produce good racing for F1.
Click to expand...
DTM raced there this year as well, and it was one of the better races of the season. It provided a good dry race in a series where Hockenheim (x2), Nurburgring, Oschersleben and Brands Hatch couldn't.

Certainly doesn't mean it would be good for F1, but I think it might be worth a shot.

Turkey is a better track, but has small crowds and F1 has been there more recently. Personally I'm indifferent to whether Redbullring or Istanbulring get the race, I'm just hopeful one of them do. I'd like to see the calendar back up to 20 races.
 
GT racing and F1 racing require different characteristics from a track. And I use the term GT racing because it's laughable to call the DTM a 'touring car' series.

Istanbul was kind of underrated in my opinion, despite the massive run offs I critiqued a few posts back.
 
Grand Prix
I like how the Osterreichring looked, but it seems to me that modern F1 cars would take almost all the corners flat out there. :lol:
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with having a flat out track. Its something we lack these days in F1 but something that used to be quite prevalent back in the 70s. (along with proper street tracks like Long Beach, Dallas, Montjuic Park, Detroit, Adelaide etc).

Monza, Spa and Montreal are the only low downforce tracks on the entire calendar.
It would be nice if a new track gave us some variety and gave us a nice high-speed circuit like the old Hockenheim.

These days it seems "F1 track" just means a circuit with at least 20 corners, with several hairpins, sweepers and technical sections.
Where are the high speed corners, the bumpy tracks, the 90-degree street corners, etc? Variety is quickly starting to disappear from the F1 calendar. Its no wonder that Monza, Spa, Suzuka, Monaco, Montreal, Silverstone, Melbourne and Interlagos are starting to become the focus of most people's attention because they are the most unique tracks on the calendar. Pretty much everything else is the same flavour of track.
 
A lot of the reasoning for that though is most of those tracks were made on public roads. So all the twists, hills and bumps are completely unique. Spa, Melbourne, Monza and Monaco definitely fit this example. I wouldn't be so sure about Silverstone, Nurburgring GP/F and Interlagos and I'm quite sure Istanbul was just made as a track. But that's how they are unique. We need to go out to a countryside and map some of the roads an recreate it in a safer environment to get unique tracks. And uniqueness is partially what makes them so good.
 
On the other hand, old Silverstone was very flat because it was the outer perimetre of an airfield, but very fast and very exciting.

I'm talking pre-1990s Silverstone here.

Such a simple design. No-one would come up with something like this today.

Silverstone_1987.jpg
 

Latest Posts

Back