F1 circuits the root of all evil? *Updated with #4*

[Scotracer]

One could be convinced otherwise by the results of the past 2 seasons but F1 seems to be taking a downward trend to mediocrity. Sure, one part of that is due to the regulations creating 200mph wind-deflectors but I wish to pose another culprit: modern F1 circuits.

We all have fond memories of races held at Spa, Monaco, Imola, Suzuka, Hockenheim (the real one); they all had distinctive character and were something to really look forward to. That somehow seems to have gone. Bare with me as I try to explain the reason.

After much research and personal interest into F1 circuits I've come up with a number of criteria important to F1 circuit design.

1. Uniqueness

It may seem obvious but it seems to have escaped Herman Tilke. If you think of Spa, what is the first thing you think of? You, like myself, probably think of the 200mph blast from La Source up to Les Combes through the Arden. Imola? The Varianté Alta chicane hopping and Aqua Mineralé sliding are what set its apart. Suzuka has Spoon Curve and 130R and Hockenheim had the 220mph knife-edge wide black-top curving off into obscurity. And finally Monaco has Grand Hotel Hairpin and the Tunnel. Each circuit is remembered for its own unique design, not the racing in particular.

So on that note, a circuit should be designed with spectacular scenery (be it natural or otherwise) rather than trying to create "overtaking opportunities". You don't need overtaking opportunities when you are watching someone slide through Pouhon in the wet. This brings me on to my 2nd criterion.

Circuit maps for all the Tilke tracks:







They may look difference to the casual eye but they all contain the same generic components:

• 1km straight
• followed by a tight corner
• slow-medium speed corners
• 1 or 2 high speed corners
• little elevation change

It really doesn't make you want to watch them as individual events. They are all the same.

2. Nature-determined design, not synthetic.

In recent years with the Tilke-dromes we've had several instances where a cheap, sparse area of land is completely flattened and the builders set about creating a "world class racing circuit". You cannot fool a real fan. A racing circuit should be a ribbon of tarmac draped over the natural landscape with as little human interference as possible. F1 is supposed to be man against the environment in the best machinery - if you just make the track to suit the cars, where is the challenge?

What is more breathtaking:





Or:



Does anyone really care about how many overtaking moves are made on what's basically a car park? I know which I'd rather watch.

3. Elevation Change

This is something distinctly lacking from the Tilke designs and despite there being some in Turkey it isn't enough.

For instance we have Spa, Imola and Brazil all with quite severe elevation change over the course of the lap and they all bring spectacular racing. It really does make a difference to the viewer. The newest addition to the calender, the Yas Marinas circuit in Abu Dhabi features zero elevation change and as such, lacks all character. It doesn't matter how many challenging corners you have, if you don't have elevation change, you're done.

Since there are a number of engineers on here, I thought I'd create an expression for us:



Where:

T is Track success
U is the Uniqueness coefficient of the race
Delta E is the change in elevation
I.t is Herman Tilke involvement
S is the number of 1 km straights
P is the Prestige coefficient of the race

4. Distinct Sections

This one may not be quite so obvious but I think it is equally as important and I only just remembered its importance today when racing rFactor online.

What do I mean by Distinctive Sections?

Here are two Tilke tracks that actually show sections within a track:




They are areas on a track that flows/has similar corners (or straights). This may seem irrelevant but anyone who has played a racing game will know what I mean.

Two Tilke tracks that don't have sections:




Both are basically one long section. This makes the track rather expansive and boring - lacks intricacy.

There are old circuits that definitely feature this:




So, this is the 4th criterion that must be taken into consideration when designing a racing circuit. Just think about some circuits that don't have sections (or at least fairly obvious ones) and you will see how they aren't so fondly remembered.

[Giblet]

Nice, well thought out post.

Turkey almost made up for China and Bahrain, but Bahrain has some interesting things about it, for us the view anyways. Brazil is the only other race I can think of that has such a long camera shot with so many corners on it.

I hope that Abu Dhabi, which is supposed to be spectacular, makes up for the stinkers entirely.

[andartop]

That's a really really interesting post.

Mine might sound just silly in comparison, but I had never before happened to observe the maps of Istanbul Park and Sepang side by side: does anybody else notice how ridiculously similar the layout is?

ie compare the corners:

Turkey 1 to Sepang 4, 2 to 5, 3 to 6, 4 to 4, 5 and 6 to 14, 7 to 11, 8 to 10 and 11, 11 to 12, 12 and 13 to 1 and 2...

(ok, ok, I know, when actually racing they are not so similar as it matters more what comes before each corner!)

Still, from a design point of view it looks like he opened up his "generic F1 track layout.tiff" on photoshop, twisted, flipped, stretched it a little bit and...voila!!!

[WhiteBlue]

Oh big surprise another Tilke bashing fest. When will you guys ever learn that Tilke can only work in the confines of what Bernie allows him to do. If you give Bernie half a chance he would take Spa away as well because it is too long for his TV technology and needs to many marshalls. Same goes for the teams they would shorten the races and make them as similar as possible to avoid the pains of having to design a car for vastly different circuits.

Of course elevation changes are nice to have but you cannot bloody build them on a beach (all Arabian tracks) or in a swamp (Shanghai). Nobody can afford the money to build mountains. Fuji is the perfect example why mountain tracks have no appeal to Bernie. It is difficult to bring the people to the tracks. Same goes for Spa, Nürburgring or that California roller coaster with the cork screw.

Tilke never was involved in some of the most boring tracks like Hungary or Barcelona. If he could do as he likes he would probably build the most monumental mountain tracks possible. Just have a look at Silverstone. It is flat as a pan and too long for Bernie. Some people love it but you seldom get real good races there. If I had as much money as Bill gates I would spend a big portion of it to mak the Nürburgring Norschleife viable for F1 again. It would probably take Billions.

[Chaparral]

Great post Scotracer - I wholeheartedly agree with you the Tilke circuits are so sanitised and all for the sake of safety - Turkey is probably the only Tilke track thats half decent and they also let him ruin Hockenheim as well which is beyond the pale - bring back Imola and Suzuka. Heres a circuit I would dearly love to see open wheelers run on again - Mt Panorama Bathurst 6.3 kms long with an elevation of 800 metres its off topic a little but enjoy the visual with the fastest ever lap of the mountain and its in a sedan - can you see the F1 boys atacking this place with verve - dont think so it would scare the bejesus out of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaNiV7K ... re=related

[xpensive]

Interesting formula you've got there Scot. However, I seem to remember long time ago coming across a mathematical iteration of the same, where the parameter "I", was given the power of three, perhaps four?

Gimme the old Spa, where an aluminum 450 Hp kit-car could average 250 km/h, Elkhart Lake, Targa Florio or Langford for that matter. Be there in a heartbeat, mistresses and all.

[Avto]

The problem here is not so much that Tilke is designing this circuits the problem is the way they are designed. Try designing one yourself and you will immediately start thinking about other famous circuits and their corners and that is why the track you will design will not be unique, a good F1 or any other racing circuit has to be designed almost by accident.
And it's not what Tilke is allowed to do it's his lack of imagination, all of his tracks do look remarkably the same, it's his way of thinking okay a long straight means low downforce setup, add high speed corners you need high downforce setup yeah! I've created a track that requires two drastically different setups, damn I'm good. =D> Thing is the straight is not long enough for teams to prioritize speed over downforce.

[xpensive]

[quote][The problem here is not so much that Tilke is designing this circuits the problem is the way they are designed./quote]


Couldn't have xpressed it better myself. Actually.

[natef1]

Agreed Scot, that's why I'm hoping Donington will go ahead next year. It has some character, at least, to me.

[timbo]

The problem here is not so much that Tilke is designing this circuits the problem is the way they are designed. Try designing one yourself and you will immediately start thinking about other famous circuits and their corners and that is why the track you will design will not be unique, a good F1 or any other racing circuit has to be designed almost by accident.
And it's not what Tilke is allowed to do it's his lack of imagination, all of his tracks do look remarkably the same, it's his way of thinking okay a long straight means low downforce setup, add high speed corners you need high downforce setup yeah! I've created a track that requires two drastically different setups, damn I'm good. =D> Thing is the straight is not long enough for teams to prioritize speed over downforce.

Agreed. Also, how can he add elevation change? He builds his tracks in a place he's given. If it is flat like Keira Knightley, what you gonna do? A fake hills?

[natef1]

The problem here is not so much that Tilke is designing this circuits the problem is the way they are designed. Try designing one yourself and you will immediately start thinking about other famous circuits and their corners and that is why the track you will design will not be unique, a good F1 or any other racing circuit has to be designed almost by accident.
And it's not what Tilke is allowed to do it's his lack of imagination, all of his tracks do look remarkably the same, it's his way of thinking okay a long straight means low downforce setup, add high speed corners you need high downforce setup yeah! I've created a track that requires two drastically different setups, damn I'm good. =D> Thing is the straight is not long enough for teams to prioritize speed over downforce.

Agreed. Also, how can he add elevation change? He builds his tracks in a place he's given. If it is flat like Keira Knightley, what you gonna do? A fake hills?

And also whenever we get a bumpy circuit (last year at Singapore springs to mind), the drivers whinge about it.

Maybe we could add large silicon implants to the circuit in odd places. That might spice it up. Y'know, just a big lump, right on an apex

[gridwalker]

I totally agree.

The greater the variety in the nature of the circuit (not only in design, elevation and environment, but also in the characteristics of the surface) the greater the chance of the circuit being suited to different cars at different times and at different points of a lap, increasing the potential for running orders to be shaken up.

Racing isn't just about an individual lap, but the whole season : even the most boring races are much less dull when someone unexpected is running at the front.

If you build circuits to provide a range of different challenges, there is a much greater prospect of each track matching individual characteristics of certain cars. Uniformity tends to lead to an established running order at every circuit, as the cars suited to one track will suit all of the others.

We are forever hearing about the regulations forcing cars to conform to a very small optimum design window, stifling innovation. Track design will also play a part in this, as the machinery will only need to be designed to operate within the "envelope" provided by the environment that they have to work in on track. If you open up the "envelope" then a variety of differing solutions may be found in the search for the best compromise.

Just my penny's worth.

[timbo]

Another thing to consider - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fo ... e_circuits
here's the list of all F1 circuits. When comparing with Tilkedroms only few names of all pack are mentioned, thing is we compare Sepang, Sakhir etc to the best, history-proved places.
And why there's no A1-ring in the Tilke-designed track list?

[lkocev]

While I don't really like most of the new circuits, I think its really the result of the FIA circuit saftey regulations. I hate the idea of '1000-meter straights' as much as most others do. I read the circuit layout regulations a while back and sure enough, the longest flat-out section cannot be longer than 1.3km... there goes Hockenheim's famous blast through the forest.

Scotracer posted alot about elevation changes, gradients and stuff like that, and how that adds character. I completely agree that circuits like Spa beat the hell out of 'carparks' like the Shanghai circuit. But I think that there have been some pretty OK things what Tilke has done. I'm aware that there was some heavy machinery bull-dozing for Istanbul Park, but most of the gradients are natural as far as I'm aware. I think if that circit had a longer back and front straight it would be an even nicer circuit, but I actually think it fits well in F1 and give it a few decades, it will have its own history and charm like Spa does now. That is if there still racing there...

Another thing on elevation changes, I think that Bahrain has got three nice sloping areas. There is a nice down-hill slope into turn 10, the up-hill string of fast turns 12 & 13, and the down-hill straight run to the final turn. Whilst I like those 3 areas of the track, I would agree that everywhere else it is basicaly a boring carpark, but at least its interesting in three places, rather than boring eveywhere like China, Malaysia, Singapore, Valencia and new Hockenheim.

I don't think that every cicuit needs massive elevation changes and gradients to have character though. In my book, Silverstone, Monza and the old Hockenheim all have/had character in abundance, and they are generally relativley flat. I guess when circuits have such a specific challenge, then that is probably where most of the character comes from.

My favourite circuits as a youngster were always Hockenheim and Monza, I guess I always like the long-straight, maximum speed type circuits. I though it was a discrace what happened to Hockenheim, and I think that they should get rid of that jerk-off chicane breaking the front straight at Monza. But the problem is really the regulations that are set out to new circuits by the FIA, and Bernie's need to keep moving GP's around into "hot-spots" where he can make the most money. Bring some more traditionalist ideas into FOM, get rid of Bernie and his 'maximum value' ideas, get rid of the stupid 1.3km flat out section rule, and the problem is half solved in my book.

[mcdenife]

Avto said:

And it's not what Tilke is allowed to do it's his lack of imagination, all of his tracks do look remarkably the same, it's his way of thinking okay a long straight means low downforce setup, add high speed corners you need high downforce setup yeah! I've created a track that requires two drastically different setups, damn I'm good.

Bravo =D> couldn't have expressed it better.