Run-Off Area Alternatives

[ecapox]

I think you need a little asphalt area after the curbs to allow some agressive moves.

1m to the outside of the curbs is asphalt. The next 2m outward are gravel (cheapest surface available and quickly implemented) with the remainder of the run off being abrasive asphalt like Paul Ricard. You cannot have those flexible bollards because when you hit them they go airborne. They arent a safety risk when you hit them because they are light but they could cause problems for others (unintended consequences of someone else affecting an unrelated party) if they get tossed onto the track.

[pyrosian]

How about leaving the asphalt as it is at the moment so that you have the safety aspect it provides and just line the egde of the track (maybe 800mm from the white line) in hay-bails old school silverstone style? That should provide an incentive to stay on track.

[FW17]

How are asphalt runoffs signed off by the FIM? Quiet a few tracks share both bikes and cars, what is good for cars (asphalt runoff) is definitely not good for bikes. Does the FIM just compromise?

[ChipAyten]

How about astroturf or some other high grip, high coefficient of friction surface? It allows the car to run off the track a little and is rather forgiving. If the driver was to go off it would slow him down substantially before the barriers. It works rather well at Valencia. And IMO on the current F1 schedule Valencia is the most likely circuit to result in a fatal crash, but the turf does a good job at mitigating crash damage. Valencia combines high speeds and scary walls in a way no other circuit does.

[Lurk]

I think after the curbs, there should be a 1m width of asphalt and then a 2m width of gravel. After the gravel it should be abrasive asphalt. This would allow the same level of runoffs and speed decreases, while also "penalising" drivers that get a little too agressive when exiting turns or attempting to pass.

Problem is 2m of gravel is sufficent to make a car roll. 2m width grass strip instead of gravel, maybe half abrasive asphalt then half gravel (for cars not on their wheels, abrasive asphalt is useless I think) and it should be great.
And soft wall instad of tyres.

one of the biggest issues with run-off areas is fans being too far from the action. maybe grandstands could be built closer to the track but raised perhaps 5 meters off the ground, that way the fans are closer but the run-off area is preserved.

A turn (#8 or 11) of Yas Marina Circuit is build like that if I remember correctly.

[WhiteBlue]

one of the biggest issues with run-off areas is fans being too far from the action. maybe grandstands could be built closer to the track but raised perhaps 5 meters off the ground, that way the fans are closer but the run-off area is preserved.

A turn (#8 or 11) of Yas Marina Circuit is build like that if I remember correctly.

The real problem is that you would have to have a cantilevered or a huge bridge design because no pillars would be allowed for safety reasons. Both methods are prohibitively expensive unless you own an oil well. So basically you still have the the eternal problem that a higher performance necessitates deeper run offs for the same safety. Everybody wants more downforce and cornering performance but they seldonly think what it costs in terms of safety measures. Contemporary tracks are hugely expensive compared to tracks like Suzuka which would never get a license if it was build today.

I remember that Silverstone had to re profile the track in Copse corner in 1995 to improve the safety. It has cost them a an arm and a leg at the time but they had to do it in order to keep their license. Run off length is a parameter that the FiA will never compromise on and really should not.

[ecapox]

Actually, in the first few meters pas the curbs, they should just toss rolled up tire marbles on top of the asphalt. This would severly compromise the driver for the next few turns until he rubbed off the marbles.

[Just_a_fan]

How about an induction loop in the run off area? If the car goes over the loop, a sensor picks up the fact and the ECU limits the throttle for e.g. 5 seconds. It would also help to prevent the drivers short cutting at key moments e.g. Vettel during qualifying.

You'd need to leave sufficient throttle repsonse to allow a driver to use it to maintain control, but you'd reduce the performance enough to make running over the loop a real penalty.

Everyone gets safe run off areas and the drivers don't get to cheat by using them as race track. Be relatively cheap to implement too.

[WhiteBlue]

That is not a good idea IMO. Much to complicated with too much opportunity to go wrong.

[bhall]

[...]
Run off length is a parameter that the FiA will never compromise on and really should not.

Nonsense. Montreal, Monaco, Monza and Suzuka are all afforded compromises for the sake of their "legacies" in F1. Singapore and Valencia are afforded compromises apparently due to their willingness to pay current fees. If either rationale is worthy, so is fan interest. After all, misfortune doesn't discriminate.

[WhiteBlue]

Nonsense. Montreal, Monaco, Monza and Suzuka are all afforded compromises for the sake of their "legacies" in F1. Singapore and Valencia are afforded compromises apparently due to their willingness to pay current fees. If either rationale is worthy, so is fan interest. After all, misfortune doesn't discriminate.

Thanks for your exquisite politeness. Your examples are all either historic or street circuits that do not fall under the rules that apply for new circuits. I did already point out that historic circuits are treated somewhat different compared to new tracks. But even those have to fulfil certain safety criteria in terms of run off vs speed. If they did not they got chicanes to deal with the problem after 1994.

Safety Analysis System (CSAS)
The CSAS is a computer tool which integrates detailed electronic image maps for the circuits with lap profile data from sensors fitted to the cars. Further information, regarding the performance of run-off areas has been collected in real accidents when cars run off the track. The CSAS tool is used to evaluate and specify the run-off areas and safety barriers at all Grand Prix circuits.

7.6 Track edges, verges and run-off areas
Unless otherwise indicated because of features such as pit exit and entry roads, a permanent track should be bordered along its entire length on both sides by continuous white lines clearly marked in anti-skid paint, minimum 10 cm wide, and compact verges, usually between 1 m and 5 m wide, having an even surface. These verges should be a continuation of the transversal profile of the track, with no step between track and verge: any transition should be very gradual.
A run-off area is an area of ground between the verge and the first line of protection. A run-off area should be graded to the verge. If the area has a slope, this should not exceed 25% upwards (does not apply to gravel beds) or 3% downwards, with a smooth transition from track to run-off area, in relation to the lateral projection of the track surface.
7.8 Protective measures
When determining measures intended for the protection of spectators, drivers, race officials and service personnel during
competitions, the characteristics of the course should be taken into consideration (track layout and profile; topography; racing trajectories; adjacent areas, buildings and constructions) as well as the speed attained at any point of the track. Although when circumstances permit it may be appropriate to provide sufficient obstacle- and spectator-free spaces for the energy of a car leaving the track out of control to be completely expended, it is most frequently necessary or preferable to contain an accident in relative proximity to the trackside, by absorbing the car’s energy and/or providing conditions for the driver to regain control. In order to achieve this, various deceleration systems and energy-dissipating and stopping barriers may be installed to constitute a first line of protection. The type of installation to be considered is dependent on the available space and the likely impact angle. As a general principle, where the estimated impact angle is low a continuous, smooth, vertical barrier is preferable, and where it is high energy dissipating devices and/or stopping barriers should be used, combined with a run-off area and deceleration system if there is sufficient suitable ground available. It is therefore indispensable to provide for sufficient space at such points in the planning stage. Such areas will be principally situated on the exterior of the corners and may typically have depths from around 30 m to 100 m, according to the approach and cornering speeds expected on the track.

The run off evaluations are not done willy nilly. There is a scientific approach behind it and there are real standards that are being applied to new and old circuits. One only has to take a look at what CoTA has done or what was done over the last 10 years in Spa to understand how hugely expensive it is to bring new and existing circuits up to the ever evolving safety standards.

If that work hadn't been done by the FiA Institute (under Prof Sid Watkins founded by Max Mosley) there would be several F1 drivers dead who still live to entertain us and to testify to the effectiveness of the FiA safety policies.

[bhall]

Hey, I'm here to please. And I'm also here to say that a compromise is a compromise is a compromise. Whether a circuit is "grandfathered in" or is otherwise exempted from safety requirements for any reason whatsoever, the net result is a compromised safety standard. So, let's not be so quick to dismiss fan-friendly ideas on the basis that safety is paramount, because it's not. There are a half dozen races every year in which safety ranks no higher than third on F1's list of priorities.

[WhiteBlue]

If you read the procedures for the recognition of motor racing circuits you find all the information that is required. It clearly spells out a requirement for the run offs in newly planned circuits to be deep enough to stop a car completely. Naturally existing circuits cannot be subjected to such stringent requirements from a pure practical point of view. Nevertheless more stringent safety requirements are usually being imposed when accident analysis makes it prudent to do so. Safety is never ranked third on the FiA's list of objectives. It always takes first priority to ensure appropriate safety. Races have been postponed, interrupted or restricted in order to comply with that top priority.

[bhall]

You missed a spot.

[...]

Safety Analysis System (CSAS)
[...]

[...] when circumstances permit it may be appropriate to provide sufficient obstacle- and spectator-free spaces for the energy of a car leaving the track out of control to be completely expended, it is most frequently necessary or preferable to contain an accident in relative proximity to the trackside, by absorbing the car’s energy and/or providing conditions for the driver to regain control. In order to achieve this, various deceleration systems and energy-dissipating and stopping barriers may be installed to constitute a first line of protection.
[...]
As a general principle, where the estimated impact angle is low a continuous, smooth, vertical barrier is preferable, and where it is high energy dissipating devices and/or stopping barriers should be used, combined with a run-off area and deceleration system if there is sufficient suitable ground available. It is therefore indispensable to provide for sufficient space at such points in the planning stage. Such areas will be principally situated on the exterior of the corners and may typically have depths from around 30 m to 100 m, according to the approach and cornering speeds expected on the track.

The run off evaluations are not done willy nilly. There is a scientific approach behind it and there are real standards that are being applied to new and old circuits. One only has to take a look at what CoTA has done or what was done over the last 10 years in Spa to understand how hugely expensive it is to bring new and existing circuits up to the ever evolving safety standards.

If that work hadn't been done by the FiA Institute (under Prof Sid Watkins founded by Max Mosley) there would be several F1 drivers dead who still live to entertain us and to testify to the effectiveness of the FiA safety policies.

I like the things I highlighted a lot more than the things you highlighted. That's probably because they clearly show that safety compromises are actually codified in the regulations. The definitions of "standard" and "compromise" being what they are, I think the rules would look a tad different if safety was always the FIA's highest priority.

Instead, concessions are made for one reason or another (in no way is that meant to imply gross negligence, though). So, why not have one of those reasons be fan interest?

(In other words, I'm still right. )

[Just_a_fan]

That is not a good idea IMO. Much to complicated with too much opportunity to go wrong.

It's almost exactly the system that is used at the starting grid for every GP except you link it to the throttle too. Dead easy to do and very little to go wrong. If you're worried that the ECU might trigger by accident, then just have it light a light on the wheel informing the driver to back off the throttle. Log the event and the driver's action. Easy to interogate afterwards if required.

A hell of a lot easy and cheaper to implement than some of the ideas being put around in this thread and it has the benefit of not altering the track adversely for other users e.g. motorbikes.