Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Mandrake
Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

If you would resurface the Nordschleife you'd take away 50% of its thrill. The fact that the theoretical ideal line is not the best line on the Nordschleife due to heavy bumps is what makes the track special as well. A perfectly flat Nordschleife would still be an impressive track embedded in beautiful nature, but it would be far less amazing to drive there.

User avatar
FW17
171
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

And the cost of resurfacing the 22k will be around $15 million

User avatar
Sebp
15
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 22:52
Location: Surrounded

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Why resurface the track? Let the engineers sort it out! I'd love to see a Nordschleife-speck F1 car with a whopping amount of suspension travel and the then needed greater ride height.
No smartphone was involved in creating this message.

User avatar
FW17
171
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Sebp wrote:Why resurface the track? Let the engineers sort it out! I'd love to see a Nordschleife-speck F1 car with a whopping amount of suspension travel and the then needed greater ride height.
Totally agree with you. Just putting the number in front of people who think it costs a whopping amount to resurface

User avatar
Sebp
15
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 22:52
Location: Surrounded

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

My question was not a direct response to your previous post, Williams. Just asking the crowd :-s

How did you come up with $15 million btw?
No smartphone was involved in creating this message.

User avatar
FW17
171
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Sebp wrote:My question was not a direct response to your previous post, Williams. Just asking the crowd :-s

How did you come up with $15 million btw?
With no sub-base preperation work, an asphalt layer and tac layer for a 11 m track should not cost more than that.

CHT
CHT
-6
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 05:24

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

WilliamsF1 wrote:
Sebp wrote:My question was not a direct response to your previous post, Williams. Just asking the crowd :-s

How did you come up with $15 million btw?
With no sub-base preperation work, an asphalt layer and tac layer for a 11 m track should not cost more than that.

What is your estimate cost/m2 of asphalt?

User avatar
JohnsonsEvilTwin
0
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 11:51
Location: SU 419113

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Mandrake wrote:If you would resurface the Nordschleife you'd take away 50% of its thrill. The fact that the theoretical ideal line is not the best line on
While I agree absolutely with your post, being relevant to production vehicles and tintop racers, Im not sure how F1 cars would do...
Im not a sorcerer, but Im imagining what F1 cars running in anger would be like round this place. And whilst it would be exciting, I cant help feel there would some uneccesary blood shed if one of these guys made a mistake. And you can bet a few will make mistakes.
More could have been done.
David Purley

User avatar
FW17
171
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

CHT wrote:
WilliamsF1 wrote:
Sebp wrote:My question was not a direct response to your previous post, Williams. Just asking the crowd :-s

How did you come up with $15 million btw?
With no sub-base preperation work, an asphalt layer and tac layer for a 11 m track should not cost more than that.

What is your estimate cost/m2 of asphalt?
$60

Mandrake
Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Camera coverage is an issue as well. Stewards at a "normal" race have access to a trizillion angles.....the broadcast for a 24h race doesn't even cover the whole track and requires a huge camera team. Also, the track is so twisty and built into the nature that the camera's cannot cover a large area. You'd need 1 cam per corner at least, plus more cams on the straights.....anyone want to count the total number?

@JET, check your PMs ;)

Giblet
Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:
Mandrake wrote:If you would resurface the Nordschleife you'd take away 50% of its thrill. The fact that the theoretical ideal line is not the best line on
While I agree absolutely with your post, being relevant to production vehicles and tintop racers, Im not sure how F1 cars would do...
Im not a sorcerer, but Im imagining what F1 cars running in anger would be like round this place. And whilst it would be exciting, I cant help feel there would some uneccesary blood shed if one of these guys made a mistake. And you can bet a few will make mistakes.
Imagine one car passing another on the turn on the way up hill the karusel. In the braking zone they touch, and one goes into a spin, hits the karusel, and goes airborne into the trees and a ball of flame.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute

User avatar
FW17
171
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Giblet wrote:
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:
Mandrake wrote:If you would resurface the Nordschleife you'd take away 50% of its thrill. The fact that the theoretical ideal line is not the best line on
While I agree absolutely with your post, being relevant to production vehicles and tintop racers, Im not sure how F1 cars would do...
Im not a sorcerer, but Im imagining what F1 cars running in anger would be like round this place. And whilst it would be exciting, I cant help feel there would some uneccesary blood shed if one of these guys made a mistake. And you can bet a few will make mistakes.
Imagine one car passing another on the turn on the way up hill the karusel. In the braking zone they touch, and one goes into a spin, hits the karusel, and goes airborne into the trees and a ball of flame.
A car can get airborne straight into swimming pool complex and kill a 1000 people. Danger is part of racing to spectators and drivers. Good we have not had fatalities for some time.

I feel if a track like Nordschleife and Mount Panorama are to be considered, modifications to the cars are to be made primarily rather than changing the characteristics of the circuit. In the 70's it was not the case as procedures, Management, technology and material science were not upto the mark were a safe race could be held, now however considerations can be made.

xpensive
xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

I wonder what it would take to bring the old Longford track in Launceston, Tasmania, up to GP standard?

Two railway crossings and a wooden bridge, boy that was a track for men!
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

CHT
CHT
-6
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 05:24

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

F1 is some serious business, if anything that doesnt make $$ sense won’t happen in F1. To me this one sure fall into that category unless someone can convinced me that a race like this will have TV rating shooting through the roof and the track side audience turnout will be 3 times the average size in Europe race, or people willing to pay more just to watch F1 cars passing them just 20 odd laps in a race.

Cost aside, here are some of the operation issues we will also face, and it will definitely make the race bored as hell to watch live and on TV.

1) It will take about 1 to 2 minutes for each sector timing to appear and timing will be pretty meaningless as the time gap will be so big that is become a joke.
2) There will be no chance for back marker to be lapped since each lap is going to be around 6mins
3) If a car has punctured tires, his race will be finished
4) If there is SC it will probably take about 15 mins just to cover 2 laps, which is about 12.5% of the maximum allowable race time of 2 hours. And if HRT or Virgin manage to pit at the right time during the SC period, they might even win the race
5) All drivers will have to stop after chequered flag because they will not have enough fuel to complete 1 more lap. (imagine there will be 5 mins of total silence on the pit lane after the cars finish the race)
6) When driver retires in the middle of the track, they will have to be either air lifted back to the pit, or they will have to remain there till the end of the race
7) Qualifying will have to extend to 2 hours since it will be impossible for them to complete 1 qualifying session in 15mins.

User avatar
JohnsonsEvilTwin
0
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 11:51
Location: SU 419113

Re: Why Monaco and not Nordschleife?

Post

Not that I dont agree CHT, but heres some easy solutions
CHT wrote: 1) It will take about 1 to 2 minutes for each sector timing to appear and timing will be pretty meaningless as the time gap will be so big that is become a joke.
Why would it take so long? Do you mean the actual times between sectors? As this can be improved by having a 6 sector race.
CHT wrote: 2) There will be no chance for back marker to be lapped since each lap is going to be around 6mins
Not really an issue when its the front ten guys that score points and that garner 98% of the interest in F1.
CHT wrote: 3) If a car has punctured tires, his race will be finished
A good point.
CHT wrote: 4) If there is SC it will probably take about 15 mins just to cover 2 laps, which is about 12.5% of the maximum allowable race time of 2 hours. And if HRT or Virgin manage to pit at the right time during the SC period, they might even win the race

Its not really about the pace of the saftey car around the lap, more its to do with how quickly the Marshalls can clear the track for racing.
7mins would be ample time in my view, and that is one lap. If it runs over that, the safety car can come in at the next timed sector, problem solved.
CHT wrote: 5) All drivers will have to stop after chequered flag because they will not have enough fuel to complete 1 more lap. (imagine there will be 5 mins of total silence on the pit lane after the cars finish the race)

Stop directly after the finish line. Its been done before at Spa.
CHT wrote: 6)When driver retires in the middle of the track, they will have to be either air lifted back to the pit, or they will have to remain there till the end of the race

Hmmm not really sure this is a problem as such. Yes its a pain in the ass for drivers, but 25 mins back to pits instead of 10 is no deal breaker.
CHT wrote: 7)Qualifying will have to extend to 2 hours since it will be impossible for them to complete 1 qualifying session in 15mins.
Nope, just extend the break by 5 mins to 10 mins. Teams will run qualy as normal and find solutions to deal with the track...ie 2 lap run or 1 flying lap.
More could have been done.
David Purley