Beat Tilke at his own game

Post by **tommykl** » 30 Dec 2012, 16:01

The problem with most of the changes everyone is making to Sepang is that they're simply not possible. For example, in the last one Dario made, the first corner would not work out, since the drop in elevation would be too high (there's a reason why the track has to fold back on itself). Also, the alterations made to the second-last corner couldn't be made, since a) the area to which the track extends is actually quite a fair bit higher than the track itself, and b) is also the main entrance for fans who have seats in the main grandstand.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 30 Dec 2012, 23:10

legendari25 wrote:Why can't I level up before the service road and then bridge over it? That way none of the three parts are messed with

Because that would only make things worse. The service road is actually the highest part of the 3, or similar to the Grand Prix track, but a lot higher than the nordschleife (well probably only 10 meters, but it's at an angle of more than 45%), so putting a tunnel under the service road it could solve the problem, and not actually changing your lay-out. Building a bridge over it would create some kind of eau rouge-corkscrew-sequence, which is really asking for trouble... The nordschleife is at that part running in some sort of canyon which is in reality a lot deeper than it looks on images. It's too steep to do it safely. It's an angle of more than 45% from what i remember, but it's only a strip from 10 meters wide. Going more to the left, the bottom of canyon gets a little bit wider (but the angle stays the same). So the best thing to do would be something that's in the middle of yours and Hammer's design. This all sounds like whinging, and if i never walked up that hill by foot, i would actually think your design was brilliant

Maybe my explanation is a little confusing, but don't underestimate that 'canyon'

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 30 Dec 2012, 23:39

tommykl wrote:The problem with most of the changes everyone is making to Sepang is that they're simply not possible. For example, in the last one Dario made, the first corner would not work out, since the drop in elevation would be too high (there's a reason why the track has to fold back on itself). Also, the alterations made to the second-last corner couldn't be made, since a) the area to which the track extends is actually quite a fair bit higher than the track itself, and b) is also the main entrance for fans who have seats in the main grandstand.

I'm sorry but Austin was a flat ground and those huge elevation changes existing today were artificially made. My first attempt to remove turn 2 was received with "very big drop". So now I left it as is and just made turn 2 quite wider and faster. There is stil an elevation problem? Oh come on...

This wrote:
legendari25 wrote:Why can't I level up before the service road and then bridge over it? That way none of the three parts are messed with

Because that would only make things worse. The service road is actually the highest part of the 3, or similar to the Grand Prix track, but a lot higher than the nordschleife (well probably only 10 meters, but it's at an angle of more than 45%), so putting a tunnel under the service road it could solve the problem, and not actually changing your lay-out. Building a bridge over it would create some kind of eau rouge-corkscrew-sequence, which is really asking for trouble... The nordschleife is at that part running in some sort of canyon which is in reality a lot deeper than it looks on images. It's too steep to do it safely. It's an angle of more than 45% from what i remember, but it's only a strip from 10 meters wide. Going more to the left, the bottom of canyon gets a little bit wider (but the angle stays the same). So the best thing to do would be something that's in the middle of yours and Hammer's design. This all sounds like whinging, and if i never walked up that hill by foot, i would actually think your design was brilliant Maybe my explanation is a little confusing, but don't underestimate that 'canyon'

Gotcha, mate. Tunnel, bridge, move the entry point to the Nordscleife anywhere else... As I said, there is a lot of fine tuning to make, but the idea of using the Nordschleife backwards is spot on. Thank you for the info on how the surface is there. I just wish Google Earth was a BIT more reliable.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 31 Dec 2012, 00:48

legendari25 wrote:
This wrote:
legendari25 wrote:Why can't I level up before the service road and then bridge over it? That way none of the three parts are messed with

Because that would only make things worse. The service road is actually the highest part of the 3, or similar to the Grand Prix track, but a lot higher than the nordschleife (well probably only 10 meters, but it's at an angle of more than 45%), so putting a tunnel under the service road it could solve the problem, and not actually changing your lay-out. Building a bridge over it would create some kind of eau rouge-corkscrew-sequence, which is really asking for trouble... The nordschleife is at that part running in some sort of canyon which is in reality a lot deeper than it looks on images. It's too steep to do it safely. It's an angle of more than 45% from what i remember, but it's only a strip from 10 meters wide. Going more to the left, the bottom of canyon gets a little bit wider (but the angle stays the same). So the best thing to do would be something that's in the middle of yours and Hammer's design. This all sounds like whinging, and if i never walked up that hill by foot, i would actually think your design was brilliant Maybe my explanation is a little confusing, but don't underestimate that 'canyon'

Gotcha, mate. Tunnel, bridge, move the entry point to the Nordscleife anywhere else... As I said, there is a lot of fine tuning to make, but the idea of using the Nordschleife backwards is spot on. Thank you for the info on how the surface is there. I just wish Google Earth was a BIT more reliable.

I do not mean to criticise you in any way. It's just that it took my quite some effort getting up that hill :lol:

. I can't accurately tell how high it was, because it felt like 100 meter, but 10 meter is what i think it was. After looking some pictures that have a view on the chicane, i even think a tunnel under the service road (Hatzenbachstrasse) would be difficult, because it's very much uphill. It's a complicated part of landscape, and that's probably the reason why the Grand Prix track is like it is now.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 31 Dec 2012, 01:37

I asked myself, could i make a slightly more exciting version of my 'home track' Zolder?
Well, not that impressive:
this one is ridiculously fast, but not exactly safe
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5771771
a slightly safer version, including a suzuka-style cross-section
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5771780
in both versions, i kept in mind the lack of paddock space in the current track

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 31 Dec 2012, 06:05

I replied in a hurry. I did not mean to answer in that tone. I just meant, whatever soultion you find proper is alright, I just wanted to print those ideas on a picture and share it, particularly the final corner and the new use of that stupid Mercedes Arena. Note the faster Schumacher and Ford corners. They should make a better use of the Dunlop hairpin and the Mercedes hairpin.

I JUST WANT THE OLD HOCKENHEIMRING BACK !! :cry:

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 31 Dec 2012, 06:20

This wrote:I asked myself, could i make a slightly more exciting version of my 'home track' Zolder?
Well, not that impressive:
this one is ridiculously fast, but not exactly safe
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5771771
a slightly safer version, including a suzuka-style cross-section
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5771780
in both versions, i kept in mind the lack of paddock space in the current track

I'm sorry... I just HAD to :mrgreen:

But when I read "Suzuka" I really thought you would go for something like that. No, I did not account for lack of space, just showing what I thought you'd draw.

** EDIT ** - The Main straight now goes in the opposite direction. The back straight goes under the cross-section in a slight right-left-kink. The bridge would not be too tall. The back straight would just go into a steep valley, providing a quick change in vertical g.

Post by **tommykl** » 31 Dec 2012, 08:28

legendari25 wrote:
tommykl wrote:The problem with most of the changes everyone is making to Sepang is that they're simply not possible. For example, in the last one Dario made, the first corner would not work out, since the drop in elevation would be too high (there's a reason why the track has to fold back on itself). Also, the alterations made to the second-last corner couldn't be made, since a) the area to which the track extends is actually quite a fair bit higher than the track itself, and b) is also the main entrance for fans who have seats in the main grandstand.

I'm sorry but Austin was a flat ground and those huge elevation changes existing today were artificially made. My first attempt to remove turn 2 was received with "very big drop". So now I left it as is and just made turn 2 quite wider and faster. There is stil an elevation problem? Oh come on...

I've been there three times, and it's pretty safe to say that it's pretty much impossible to make any changes to turn 1 without needing massive earth-and-structure-moving modifications. The only solution would be to slightly lengthen the gap between T1 and T2 and widen the new T2, kind of like this: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5771900

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 31 Dec 2012, 16:28

legendari25 wrote:
This wrote:I asked myself, could i make a slightly more exciting version of my 'home track' Zolder?
Well, not that impressive:
this one is ridiculously fast, but not exactly safe
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5771771
a slightly safer version, including a suzuka-style cross-section
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5771780
in both versions, i kept in mind the lack of paddock space in the current track

I'm sorry... I just HAD to

But when I read "Suzuka" I really thought you would go for something like that. No, I did not account for lack of space, just showing what I thought you'd draw.

** EDIT ** - The Main straight now goes in the opposite direction. The back straight goes under the cross-section in a slight right-left-kink. The bridge would not be too tall. The back straight would just go into a steep valley, providing a quick change in vertical g.

no problem, i put the straights together so the grandstands can look upon both directions. This would create more paddock space, but the space used by spectators remains the same. Now a bridge (this goes over the new pit straight, originally the back straight) would be do-able, because it comes from a downhill section, and the grandstands are built against another hill, simply giving a viaduct-effect. And i also said Suzuka-style because both tracks were originally designed by the same person, Hugenholz (who also designed Zandvoort)
One of the ideas is that the canal section would remain the same direction, but the forest section would be run in opposite direction, to make it possible to do the Villeneuve corner full speed instead of that slightly annoying chicane. I also removed the Ickx Chicane, and instead created a larger Rindt-chicane, after a long straight (basically serving as the first corner), basically to slow down the cars, because my other plan shows that otherwise the entrance to the bolderberg-hairpin would be ridiculously fast. The chicane-chicane is now a 90% corner after a downhill braking zone. Your alternative uses a similar idea for the chicane-chicane, only slighly different. The whole idea is using the few elevations Zolder have, to create a better, but most of all more practical race track. The paddock can now be accesed from behind, where the surrounding areas are flat, and in fact, the path near the Canal can be used as an access road, because there's no industry on the Zolder-side. To make the canal-side less boring, a tilke-esque Marina could be added, creating a nice contrast with the forest section.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 31 Dec 2012, 23:50

This is my last post of 2012 so here goes
Dario's Melbourne is better than the Adelaide he did because the Adelaide measured in at just offer 8km but other than that everything was just typical Dario (AKA awesome)
Anyway happy new year guys
Peace Rob

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 01 Jan 2013, 02:29

roblomas52 wrote:This is my last post of 2012 so here goes
Dario's Melbourne is better than the Adelaide he did because the Adelaide measured in at just offer 8km but other than that everything was just typical Dario (AKA awesome)
Anyway happy new year guys
Peace Rob

xD What's wrong with 8+ km?

Happy new year back to you and everyone in this forum. I'm spending it designing some new tracks (lame... VERY lame, I know).

PS: I sent you a PM Rob.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 01 Jan 2013, 18:37

sorry its a bit late but here goes
wellington WEC circuit
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5749450
looks a bit like the nordschlife in tearms of the corners

hong kong street circuit
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5749902
very fast flowing street circuit

bahrain
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5751479
made the 2010 endurance circuit longer and faster

oulton park
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5760030
amazing british circuit turned into a low downforce, speed fest of a circuit

hockenheim
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5764159
tried to recapture some of the spirit of the original

hockenheim endurance
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5768081
see above but with added gp circuit

valencia cheste
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5769756
modified to add overtaking

lausitzring
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5769877
see valencia

dijon prenois
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5771260
very hard track to modify without ruining the caracter of one of my favourite tracks

andrew2209 · Post by **andrew2209** » 01 Jan 2013, 20:32

My first attempt at building a street circuit from scratch.
Paris Champs-Élysées Circuit:
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5772594

girry · Post by **girry** » 02 Jan 2013, 11:00

@Dario: Interlagos....it currently is great partly because the laptime is so short and the combination of corners already is close to perfect. That's why I'm never going to like any changes on that track :mrgreen:

Nürburgring, I actually think your version would work better than the current one
Sepang, well, you just made it another kind of Sepang, wouldn't really change much of its character apart from eliminating that 4th corner overtaking spot
Shanghai's got Tilke attributes removed and has some technical parts instead, I would maybe make the esses a little bit faster.
Don't know much about Adelaide current version to comment.

@Rob: you're making every track way too similar. Track doesn't necessarily get better if it's longer you know....plus almost all you make is just 180 degree corners and short-ish straights? one can look at Borain as to how fun they're for racing... Ok, your Lausitzring would improve, but that's almost as easy as Buenos Aires =)

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 02 Jan 2013, 16:06

giraurd wrote:@Dario: Interlagos....it currently is great partly because the laptime is so short and the combination of corners already is close to perfect. That's why I'm never going to like any changes on that track
Nürburgring, I actually think your version would work better than the current one
Sepang, well, you just made it another kind of Sepang, wouldn't really change much of its character apart from eliminating that 4th corner overtaking spot
Shanghai's got Tilke attributes removed and has some technical parts instead, I would maybe make the esses a little bit faster.
Don't know much about Adelaide current version to comment.

I agree with you, Interlagos shouldn't be touched. I just sketched something supposing there IS a need for a redesign. But I stated Interlagos is brilliant as is and any changes will surely ruin it. (Though nothing is impossible... maybe we can improve it). Besides that sketch I last posted was crap... I did it before going to bed. I'm about to upload something new I like better. But again, I like the current one. Maybe, just maybe, I would use the old Juncao to have higher speed on the main straight.

Sepang, yes, that was crap as well xD. I just altered it to something I like better. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll upload it as well.

Adelaide was good in the 1985-1993 version. The 1994- version is shorter, not bad, but worse than before. I uploaded a variation to make it slightly longer, but then I realised there are some brilliant streets in a park just next to it that has dense trees, which should give a nice, green "Hockenheim" feel (because of the forest, not the layout, of course), as well as a Montreal style, which is not as tight as Monaco but only has runoffs at some critical places, which is what I last posted.

Rob said it would be more than 8 km long, but it was 7.63 according to my Google Earth. And I still haven't found what's wrong with 8+ km

A thing that really bugs me is that the Hockenheimring was shortened because of "safety", allegedly because everything was too far away from the medical center. Well why on earth didn't you put another medical facility at the other end of the ring, Mosley/Bernie??? No, you had to cut down the forest and make a shitty track... Of course, some people in this very thread like it better, because clearly they aren't real racing drivers. Me... I think cars should be taken to the limit. Korea isn't the limit. It's just a ball pit for the kindergarten era of F1.

My proposal for Korea, Austin, India... Bomb them. I like american ovals better!! Anything but those stupid tracks.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 02 Jan 2013, 16:35

legendari25 wrote:
Rob said it would be more than 8 km long, but it was 7.63 according to my Google Earth. And I still haven't found what's wrong with 8+ km

My proposal for Korea, Austin, India... Bomb them. I like american ovals better!! Anything but those stupid tracks.

i was saying the 8km beeing to long from bernie's slightly wierd perspective
i also have some more tracks to go on to the list of tracks to be destroyed
moscow
abu dhabi
valencia
losail
bahrain
catalunya

might post annother track later
peace rob

girry · Post by **girry** » 02 Jan 2013, 17:51

Tilke really isn't the person to blame of Hockenheimring and what it is nowadays....he said he would have preferred to keep the forest sections, but by some laws wasn't allowed to touch the forest. thus he had to keep the track to the small area which the track is now.

sure, it's quite crap now...but hey what could have been done otherwise...

Plus, Austin is a nice track...at least it has a good site. No bombs there okay?

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 02 Jan 2013, 18:06

giraurd wrote:Tilke really isn't the person to blame of Hockenheimring and what it is nowadays....he said he would have preferred to keep the forest sections, but by some laws wasn't allowed to touch the forest. thus he had to keep the track to the small area which the track is now.

sure, it's quite crap now...but hey what could have been done otherwise...

I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 02 Jan 2013, 20:20

legendari25 wrote:My proposal for Korea, Austin, India... Bomb them.

Korea and India, yes, I agree, but Austin!? That was a great race, what's your problem with it?

roblomas52 wrote:i also have some more tracks to go on to the list of tracks to be destroyed
moscow

What's the problem with Moscow? It looks alright to me.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
giraurd wrote:Tilke really isn't the person to blame of Hockenheimring and what it is nowadays....he said he would have preferred to keep the forest sections, but by some laws wasn't allowed to touch the forest. thus he had to keep the track to the small area which the track is now.

sure, it's quite crap now...but hey what could have been done otherwise...

I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Yeah... I also don't understand the need to tool around with Melbourne, which has happened a couple times now. It's a great track that regularly holds great races, what's the problem with it?

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 02 Jan 2013, 20:25

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
giraurd wrote:Tilke really isn't the person to blame of Hockenheimring and what it is nowadays....he said he would have preferred to keep the forest sections, but by some laws wasn't allowed to touch the forest. thus he had to keep the track to the small area which the track is now.

sure, it's quite crap now...but hey what could have been done otherwise...

I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Says the kid from oval-land.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 02 Jan 2013, 20:27

legendari25 wrote:
UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
giraurd wrote:Tilke really isn't the person to blame of Hockenheimring and what it is nowadays....he said he would have preferred to keep the forest sections, but by some laws wasn't allowed to touch the forest. thus he had to keep the track to the small area which the track is now.

sure, it's quite crap now...but hey what could have been done otherwise...

I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Says the kid from oval-land.

So just because he's American, that completely invalidates his opinion of what makes a good track? Fantastic logic.

Post by **Ataxia** » 02 Jan 2013, 20:38

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
legendari25 wrote:
UgncreativeUsergname wrote:I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Says the kid from oval-land.

So just because he's American, that completely invalidates his opinion of what makes a good track? Fantastic logic.

Especially as 'Murica has great circuits like Laguna Seca, Sonoma, Road America, Sebring, Watkins Glen and COTA to name just a few.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 02 Jan 2013, 20:41

Road atlanta and willow springs are amazing IMO

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 02 Jan 2013, 20:55

Captain Hammer wrote:So here's where you get to put your money where your mouth is. I want you to go into Paint or Photoshop or whatever program you use and draw up a circuit that you would consider to be good for Formula One and better than what Tilke has created. Now, Tilke has to consider the budget he's been given, the size and shape of the land that has been set aside for him to build on (which he doesn't get to choose, by the way) and FIA regualtions that dictate everything from circuit width and length to camber, banking, the entry speed to the first corner relative to the distance to the Start/Finish Line, the size and palcement of run-off areas, the degree of gradient on inclines and pretty much every facet of a circuit. You don't have to worry about any of that, but you know what? I don't think you can do it. I think you're all talk.

Never was it said that we have to comply with any rules.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
legendari25 wrote:My proposal for Korea, Austin, India... Bomb them.

Korea and India, yes, I agree, but Austin!? That was a great race, what's your problem with it?
roblomas52 wrote:i also have some more tracks to go on to the list of tracks to be destroyed
moscow

What's the problem with Moscow? It looks alright to me.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:
giraurd wrote:Tilke really isn't the person to blame of Hockenheimring and what it is nowadays....he said he would have preferred to keep the forest sections, but by some laws wasn't allowed to touch the forest. thus he had to keep the track to the small area which the track is now.

sure, it's quite crap now...but hey what could have been done otherwise...

I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Yeah... I also don't understand the need to tool around with Melbourne, which has happened a couple times now. It's a great track that regularly holds great races, what's the problem with it?

Every great racetrack has been tooled around with. Most times they have been ruined, other times, they got better. The fact that I try to redesign some tracks doesn't mean that the original one is rubbish. In my last take on Melbourne, I tried to make it faster overall, while preserving the character of the track. I tried to make it a bit more challenging. The Waite chicane should definitely be faster, rounder.

With your criterion, Silverstone should still be 6 straights connected with 170 mph corners. Yet changes have been made. It's the only track that had it's pit lane moved twice. The last update was completely moronic, yet all the previous ones developed some interesting corner complexes (like the bridge section and the maggots-chapel section).

Same way, Melbourne is great, maybe it can be made better. There's nothing wrong with trying. Don't like it? Criticise it. I've grown sick with people saying "it's already good, don't mess around with it". I think that of the Interlagos, yet I keep trying. It's not like I'm really modifying it, I'm just sketching some ideas.

The problem with Austin is that that great hill that was made artificially has a corner on top. If an artificial hill was to be made, why didn't they do it before the corner, like in Mont Tremblant? Then it's an infinite sucession of esses. Hairpin, haripin, hairpin, hairpin. Long long straights, yet somehow they aren't really straight. And then, those final corners are disgusting. I have seen no driver during the GP correctly tackling those corners. There is no racing line there, just some mess, and lucky you if you come out the other side. What kind of joke is that? First all of you wave your arms in defence of safety and chicanes, and next you approve that stupid double hairpin, and say there is nothing wrong with it?? That's the place where everyone kept constantly going off.

And the race was interesting because the championship was getting tighter and tighter for Alonso, not because it was a good race. Good race you had in Brazil, end of story.

The funniest thing is that Austin can be mended with a few minor changes, but then again, what was the problem with Indy in the first place?

Anyway, here you have some new ideas:

Sepang

Marina Bay

Buenos Aires

Interlagos (Yellow, my revision only in Juncao - Green, an overpass section just for fun)

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 02 Jan 2013, 21:17

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
legendari25 wrote:
UgncreativeUsergname wrote:I like how playing with the same restrictions he has is the entire point of the thread, yet roblomas and legendari are completely ignoring it and still making worse tracks than him anyway.

Says the kid from oval-land.

So just because he's American, that completely invalidates his opinion of what makes a good track? Fantastic logic.

No. My first post was about 32 km long about what was wrong with Tilke's tracks from my point of view. Then I presented some basic sketches and justified why I thought they were better. I thought that here ideas would be constructively criticised, but the only people that gave extensive reviews (and also positive) were giraud and rob lomas. Everyone else just said "they're worse". Like Captain Hammer or UgncreativeUsergname. Twice I was accused of saying my Aintree ugly design was brilliant, when all I said was "I want ideas, I don't know how to face this legendary track". And now me and Rob face "worse than Tilke even ignoring restrictions" when

A. What restrictions?
B. The track design protocol is not available for the public, just some standards on how to present the AutoCAD .dwg and what color and mesh references to use.
C. I challenge Ugn... whatever to name 5 things that are wrong (worse than Tilke's) technically speaking with my last tracks.
D. C.Hammer's original proposal was to draw tracks without worrying for FIA standards.

Point out what's wrong with our tracks or design something better.

And I wasn't invalidating your opinion for being from the US. I was jokingly replying in the same tone of yours. Of course US has great tracks, and not often, good taste. But if you attack me, I'll defend. I don't find it amusing, after many hours of thinking, sketching and editing, to read I'm worse than Tilke without explicit reasons, specially when I doubt anything can be worse than his latest tracks.

Dario.

girry · Post by **girry** » 02 Jan 2013, 21:38

Yep - attacking americans for their ovals is a bad idea, since it's almost the only place where you can find grass and sand next to a proper racing circuit anymore, at multiple great old school tracks.

---

As regards to there being no racing line in final sector of Austin - it's pretty much what it should be! Didn't you see the race? Unbelievably, in F1 cars, the drivers could actually utilize multiple ways to attack the drivers ahead (in even the Hocke stadium copy lol) since there was NO grip in any point of the track, we saw so many good battles there.

Next season though with the rubber worn in you'll see a racing line and everybody in a typical train again, maybe that makes you happy. :mrgreen:

I give you that the 1st corner hill isn't properly used at all, but other than that the circuit works surprisingly well imo. Never was a fan of rovals so I don't really miss Indianapolis either :p

---

Return those second-to-last and last corners as they currently are, and send that Sepang sketch to Bernie...

---

And, to comply with Dario's complaints and to pre-warn all you eager track designers - I'll now provide you a list of tracks that, should they be touched, will result in angry feedback coming your way (apart from really small things like Juncao thingy):

Brands Hatch
Monte Carlo
Suzuka
Interlagos
Road America
Watkins Glen
Laguna Seca
Bathurst.

All else is safe. :geek:

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 02 Jan 2013, 21:45

Look guys, dario has an extremely valid point in that captain hammer said we did not have to worry about the fia regs so there you go.

Peace Rob

P.S dario my dad like your tracks (i had to show him and he liked them)

Post by **mario** » 02 Jan 2013, 21:49

legendari25 wrote:The funniest thing is that Austin can be mended with a few minor changes, but then again, what was the problem with Indy in the first place?

The accident that Ralf Schumacher had in 2003 that lead to spinal column fractures was one sticking point, since the FIA was pushing for modifications to the barriers around that corner that the track owners were reluctant to make.

roblo97 · Post by **roblo97** » 02 Jan 2013, 22:19

You mean 2004 Mario

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 02 Jan 2013, 22:20

Okay, legendari, I'll admit you make a good point about how I was just whining that "they suck" without actually saying why. I personally don't have a problem with people redesigning good tracks; like you said, it doesn't matter how good or bad a track is before as long as you make it better. But anyway, now I'll take the tracks from your last post and give actual reasons.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/12605_4073532592020_2067541402_n.jpg
First, referring to redesigns in general, I'd like to mention the terrain. It's not an issue to me. With all the terraforming they did with Austin, it's okay to have a little of that yourself. Anyway, regarding this track now: maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I personally like the double hairpin from a driving perspective. It's unique, it's challenging, and it doesn't kill people. It's also great for the start; it doesn't force people to crash into each other like Sainte Devote or Rettifilo for example. My point is that you just ruined a perfectly good couple of corners. That simple kink to the left is much less exciting. That little kink to the right I don't like, I would prefer it just to be straight, but that's minor. I like what you did to replace turns 4/5/6, though, mostly because I love compromise corners that are all connected to each other. The old turns 4-6 are decent, but they don't have anything really special or amazing about them, and with this high-speedish... sweeping... compromise... thing, you did that very well, so good work there. For the double-apex corner, I like it just because I like multi-apexed corners, but you didn't make it better. Sure, you added an overtaking point, but it reminds me a lot of the old turn 4: decent, but hardly incredible, and probably would've been different if not for wanting an overtaking point. Again you do that annoying easy flat kink thing (I hate most of those in purpose-built tracks, maybe it's just me), then it's just some boring 90-degree corner, one of the old turns, and another decent but nothing special turn. Compare that to the old Sepang, which has a hairpin leading right into an uphill decreasing-radius thing (point is that it has something different about it; I’m not saying every corner in the world should be like that, but it’s nice to see bizarre corners like that) and a fast almost flat out kink into one of the most difficult corners on the F1 calendar. After that, ends with a straight then a hairpin, whilst you have a high-speed chicane, a kink that actually works well this time, and a... well, that last turn can’t really be put in a box, which as I’ve mentioned before I like to see. So you replaced an overtaking point which is right before another one anyway with some flowy, unique corners. Good work there, but overall I definitely prefer the old version.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/524843_4073532472017_317360025_n.jpg
The first turn definitely flows better (it reminds me a lot of the first two turns at Suzuka) and probably wouldn’t have a million cars going off the track at the start, so that’s an improvement assuming it’d be practical to build. Then you replace a boringish 90ish-degree corner with a quicker, more exciting turn, leading into a couple boring 90-degree corners. Still better than the original. Then you replace three more 90-degree corners with one, making the track flow better and giving it more overtaking potential. Then you remove the Singapore Sling with a turn too fast to be safe. I know, everyone thinks the Singapore Sling sucks, but we need it for safety. The next change you make is replacing another boring 90-degree corner with another less boring fastish corner, so good for you. Now, regarding the sequence of chicanes you completely cut out, I like said chicanes. The turns are a good drive and they’re not all the same and you just cut them out. Not only are they fun, you need them there to keep the laptime up. Finally, you’ve replaced that double-apex corner with a turn good for overtaking but uninteresting to drive. But the track before the Singapore Sling is actually better, and I’d honestly like to see it raced at least once just to see how it goes.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/735077_4073534592070_578085578_n.jpg
Apart from the lack of any good overtaking spots, Buenos-Aires is a perfectly good track. The only change I would’ve made is to make is to bring out the last hairpin a lot more. But you feel the need to bring back the old part that goes around the lake and add a bunch of unnecessary, unmemorable little corners. But either way, either track, all you’ve done is add a bunch of pointless chicanes and taken out a lot of good corners in the process.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537451_4073534552069_1983296512_n.jpg
Not much to say here, all you’ve changed is Juncao like you said, and the green part is supposed to be wacky and unsafe. Juncao flows a little better, but it’s probably slightly harder how it is, and makes a great desperate-and-crazy overtaking point. It’s hard to say if it's better.

I’ll take more of your tracks and "review" them later. But to summarise how I feel, Sepang sucks because you just took out a bunch of good, unique corners and replaced them with dull ones, Singapore pre-Singapore Sling is better and F1 (or someone) should use it at least once to see what it's like, and Buenos Aires adds a bunch of chicanes and whilst taking out a bunch of nice corners.

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 02 Jan 2013, 22:24

Hungaroring

Longer main straight, Imola-Villenuve kink, extension into the forest cutting out as little as possible, using already existing roads for the first section, giving it a Hockenheimring feel. Two "overtaking spots" already.

Hairpin + slow kink and a complex emulating that of the back run at Montreal. Two more "overtaking spots".

Re-entering the circuit, slightly longer straight, tighter and later ex-turn-5. Fifth "overtaking spot".

Removal of turn-7-8-chicane in favor of a longer straight run ending in a tight round S that develops into th second, existing larger S of turns 10, 11 and 12.

Return of the old final section but with a faster entrance, making a flat out turn ex-turn 13. Removal of the then-following-twist before the hairpin. Straight, flat-out entrance.

Slight change in the exit of the penultimate hairpin, making it more 180° than the old layout (not the current one, of course). Addition of an extra apex to make room for a faster and wider final corner.

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 02 Jan 2013, 23:19

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Okay, legendari, I'll admit you make a good point about how I was just whining that "they suck" without actually saying why. I personally don't have a problem with people redesigning good tracks; like you said, it doesn't matter how good or bad a track is before as long as you make it better. But anyway, now I'll take the tracks from your last post and give actual reasons.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/12605_4073532592020_2067541402_n.jpg
First, referring to redesigns in general, I'd like to mention the terrain. It's not an issue to me. With all the terraforming they did with Austin, it's okay to have a little of that yourself. Anyway, regarding this track now: maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I personally like the double hairpin from a driving perspective. It's unique, it's challenging, and it doesn't kill people. It's also great for the start; it doesn't force people to crash into each other like Sainte Devote or Rettifilo for example. My point is that you just ruined a perfectly good couple of corners. That simple kink to the left is much less exciting. That little kink to the right I don't like, I would prefer it just to be straight, but that's minor. I like what you did to replace turns 4/5/6, though, mostly because I love compromise corners that are all connected to each other. The old turns 4-6 are decent, but they don't have anything really special or amazing about them, and with this high-speedish... sweeping... compromise... thing, you did that very well, so good work there. For the double-apex corner, I like it just because I like multi-apexed corners, but you didn't make it better. Sure, you added an overtaking point, but it reminds me a lot of the old turn 4: decent, but hardly incredible, and probably would've been different if not for wanting an overtaking point. Again you do that annoying easy flat kink thing (I hate most of those in purpose-built tracks, maybe it's just me), then it's just some boring 90-degree corner, one of the old turns, and another decent but nothing special turn. Compare that to the old Sepang, which has a hairpin leading right into an uphill decreasing-radius thing (point is that it has something different about it; I’m not saying every corner in the world should be like that, but it’s nice to see bizarre corners like that) and a fast almost flat out kink into one of the most difficult corners on the F1 calendar. After that, ends with a straight then a hairpin, whilst you have a high-speed chicane, a kink that actually works well this time, and a... well, that last turn can’t really be put in a box, which as I’ve mentioned before I like to see. So you replaced an overtaking point which is right before another one anyway with some flowy, unique corners. Good work there, but overall I definitely prefer the old version.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/524843_4073532472017_317360025_n.jpg
The first turn definitely flows better (it reminds me a lot of the first two turns at Suzuka) and probably wouldn’t have a million cars going off the track at the start, so that’s an improvement assuming it’d be practical to build. Then you replace a boringish 90ish-degree corner with a quicker, more exciting turn, leading into a couple boring 90-degree corners. Still better than the original. Then you replace three more 90-degree corners with one, making the track flow better and giving it more overtaking potential. Then you remove the Singapore Sling with a turn too fast to be safe. I know, everyone thinks the Singapore Sling sucks, but we need it for safety. The next change you make is replacing another boring 90-degree corner with another less boring fastish corner, so good for you. Now, regarding the sequence of chicanes you completely cut out, I like said chicanes. The turns are a good drive and they’re not all the same and you just cut them out. Not only are they fun, you need them there to keep the laptime up. Finally, you’ve replaced that double-apex corner with a turn good for overtaking but uninteresting to drive. But the track before the Singapore Sling is actually better, and I’d honestly like to see it raced at least once just to see how it goes.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/735077_4073534592070_578085578_n.jpg
Apart from the lack of any good overtaking spots, Buenos-Aires is a perfectly good track. The only change I would’ve made is to make is to bring out the last hairpin a lot more. But you feel the need to bring back the old part that goes around the lake and add a bunch of unnecessary, unmemorable little corners. But either way, either track, all you’ve done is add a bunch of pointless chicanes and taken out a lot of good corners in the process.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537451_4073534552069_1983296512_n.jpg
Not much to say here, all you’ve changed is Juncao like you said, and the green part is supposed to be wacky and unsafe. Juncao flows a little better, but it’s probably slightly harder how it is, and makes a great desperate-and-crazy overtaking point. It’s hard to say if it's better.

I’ll take more of your tracks and "review" them later. But to summarise how I feel, Sepang sucks because you just took out a bunch of good, unique corners and replaced them with dull ones, Singapore pre-Singapore Sling is better and F1 (or someone) should use it at least once to see what it's like, and Buenos Aires adds a bunch of chicanes and whilst taking out a bunch of nice corners.

You see?? This is what I expected in this forum. I'm sorry for sounding rude, but it just pissed me off the lack of explanation. I understand now what you feel that's worse.

I beg you all to bear a few things in mind.

A. I do not have access to proper elevation information. Google Earth is better than Apple Maps, but still sucks. For example, take Singapore, I had to retort to 2009 imagery (quite blurry and grayish) because the current images feature 3 twists in the main straight that do not exist. And, as I've mentioned, and thanks for pointing it out, terraforming is not impossible, Austin is the most extreme proof.

B. Although I have the total length of my planned route, I do not have bit-by-bit information on each corner I draw, it's radius or anything. And even if I did, I'm no engineer. Just an evolving racing driver who happens to be obsessive and neat with design software. I am very interested but I'm fully ignorant on how to build a track properly, and what corner radius does the curve I just drove on have. I'm just a driver.

C. Most of the ideas I'm posting and improving constantly are ideas I used to draw on the sides of my papers in high school, a few years ago, and I luckily could recover some of them. Using satellite imagery I try to adapt things, and I also bear in mind as much of reality as I can. I'm not an ecomentalist, but I do care for environment and if it's possible to improve something without decomissioning a race track or tearing down a forest, I'm in favour of it. And if trees can be relocated, I advocate for it. I would have wished they abandoned the Hockenheimring in favor of the more stadiumish Nürburgring GP Strecke (spelled correctly?) and not cut down all those trees which gave the track it's unique character.

However, I post my ideas in expectation for feedback, much like Giraud does in saying "revert the second to last corners and it's great". If you don't like the lake thing in Buenos Aires, then I'm thankful for your feedback, and we can start arguing. Maybe you can give me a better idea for each thing.

I do not post my tracks as if they were finished projects in expectation for total approval. It's just a silly kmz on some rubbish satellite imagery! xD

I'm thankful for your late feedback, because we can now start arguing things for real.

D. Despite whatever is written in the book that none of us have, it's healthier to design tracks as they should be and not as they must be. It would be fantastic if someone with experience and talent would make all these tracks for rFactor so we can try them for real. After all, even if none of our proposals ever reach Formula 1, many of the ideas emerging from here would make fantastic virtual race tracks. And I'm sure more than 95% of us tackle tracks on a simulator rather than real life.

----------

Now, to Argentina.

http://www.jbianchirac.com.ar/pilotos_e_f.html I am Fernández, Darío G. in that list. (not to cock about, just to prove I'm not lying :mrgreen:

)

I participated in that Racing School in September 2010 and February 2011. We tackle on the Buenos Aires circuit with an Alfa 146 (flat out, not fooling around) and after the first part of the academy, a Reynard Formula 1.4 (pictures under "Vehiculos" on the left menu)

The circuit we drive is N° 8 http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff412/MatiRB1987/43.jpg (ref)

Therefore, I have tackled the first section of the 90s circuit and the last secton of the 50s circuit, in a fast straight run towards the hairpin. I have lapped it about 100 times. That and the La Plata (Roberto Mouras) circuit, are the only ones I know from a first person point of view. Spa, Zolder and Hungaroring, I've seen them snowy white from roads far, far away.

Yes, I wanted the old lake section back, because it's very fast, provides slipstream battles and ended (originally, in the 50s) in the fool's corner (Curva de los Giles) which is challenging but not dangerous at all, before the Ascari chicane was introduced in the 70s era. The infield section from the 90s is OK but it's nothing out of this world. The most interesting bit of it is the Reutemann corner, through which you accelerate progressively and achieve good entry speed for the back run. I think adding two kinks not only makes it a bit less boring (the back run) but mantains it both very fast and still safe for the original Ascari corner (now decomissioned, there's some litter mountain there now

) But since they're taken in 4th/5th gear, I do not see them as "chicanes" but rather as kinks. Afterwards, I kept the infield section as original as possible for the second half, but adding a corner that has never been used before in F1 and that could provide veeeery good racing since its violently downhill (and this I know for a fact because I used it as a shortcut when I had to return to the pits with a blown rear tyre :mrgreen:

), and therefore it would provide a disappearing-then-reappearing grip. And I created a fast, inexisting corner to allow entry to that spot from the rear loop. The plan is also to drive between the two or three trees laying in the Ombu corner, to create a Melbourne-like bit, running close to the walls between the trees, and the water in the background.

I also considered Melbourne for the second straight, because I didn't see the need for a straight run if we can surround the lake much like before the Waite chicane, in a fast bending "straight" run.

Other than that, and the new complex behind the hairpin grandstands (which I would make larger and higher, so you drive underneath the people, like in Singapore), I do not know what chicanes you see and what "great" corners am I missing. Seriously, Reutemann isn't that good, and turn 1 from the 90s isn't challenging either.

Here's a top view picture so you can see it properly proportioned and appreciate it better:

---

On the other tracks, I agree in most things with you, but Singapore, for instance, has every single square foot of area built up, so it's hard to make room for better corners. I tried to keep buildings as intact as possible. And yes, I did the first corner emulating Suzuka's first. Thanks for noticing

Hope we can team up given that we have opposite views on tracks and make something that we both like. Sorry for that oval-land remark, it was out of place.

Sincerely,

Dario.

Post by **mario** » 02 Jan 2013, 23:34

roblomas52 wrote:You mean 2004 Mario

Sorry, I do indeed mean 2004, not 2003 (I was a little confused since Ralf also crashed out of that race too, albeit with no injuries) - apologies for being more error prone in recent days, but I've had a few other distractions in the background.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 02 Jan 2013, 23:37

legendari25 wrote:Every great racetrack has been tooled around with. Most times they have been ruined, other times, they got better. The fact that I try to redesign some tracks doesn't mean that the original one is rubbish. In my last take on Melbourne, I tried to make it faster overall, while preserving the character of the track. I tried to make it a bit more challenging. The Waite chicane should definitely be faster, rounder.

Why should it be faster? Why do you think Melbourne as it is is too slow? It's quite a quick track, IMO, and as I've said, regularly has good race

legendari25 wrote:With your criterion, Silverstone should still be 6 straights connected with 170 mph corners.

What criterion, the one where I said if it's exciting don't change it? Yeah, that's one. I didn't say changes shouldn't be made on other grounds, such as safety.

legandari25 wrote:Same way, Melbourne is great, maybe it can be made better. There's nothing wrong with trying. Don't like it? Criticise it. I've grown sick with people saying "it's already good, don't mess around with it". I think that of the Interlagos, yet I keep trying. It's not like I'm really modifying it, I'm just sketching some ideas.

Yes, but changing things seemingly at random likely won't be the way to do it. You mentioned that the Waite chicane was too slow, but without saying why this was a bad thing. You want some criticism? Fine. When I look at your tracks, all I see is an idealised layout circa 1960 which doesn't take into account things like whether or not these would actually be certified for F1 usage by the FIA, or that the best formula for overtaking in modern F1 is the Tilke standard long straight into tight corner. I don't think a single one of your designs would be approved by the FIA - the title of this thread is 'Beat Tilke at his own game'. How are you beating him if he has a track that the FIA would certify and you don't? There's already a thread in the Eric van de Poele Memorial forum (IIRC) for track creation; if you want to just do some idealised sketches, do them there. Also, I believe the point of this thread is to take the horrible tracks Tilke has designed, such as Valencia, Abu Dhabi, India, and Korea, and come up with something better that would be approved for F1 usage. You've focused more on mostly appreciated tracks, as opposed to mostly condemned tracks. Why?

legandari25 wrote:The problem with Austin is that that great hill that was made artificially has a corner on top. If an artificial hill was to be made, why didn't they do it before the corner, like in Mont Tremblant?

Why is that a bad thing? It increases the difficulty of the corner, as the weight shifts up as a result of going over the crest. Increases difficulty of overtaking, without making it impossible, as we saw in the race.

legandari25 wrote:Then it's an infinite sucession of esses.

Not necessarily a bad thing; Suzuka has esses. Besides, Raikkonen passed Hulkenberg there, and it threw up an interesting wrinkle when Karthikeyan was unable to get fully out of Vettel's way - if that hadn't happened, Hamilton would very likely not have won.

legandari25 wrote:Hairpin, haripin, hairpin, hairpin.

You have an odd definition of what constitutes a hairpin. I'm speaking specifically about 13 and 14, that's quite clealy a double-corner. It has a tiny straight between them and everything. /nitpick

legandari25 wrote:Long long straights, yet somehow they aren't really straight.

Yeah, that is a problem - with Valencia. The only one that's not really straight in Austin is between 11 and 12, and that's not really enough to prevent overtakes.

legandari25 wrote:And then, those final corners are disgusting. I have seen no driver during the GP correctly tackling those corners. There is no racing line there, just some mess, and lucky you if you come out the other side. What kind of joke is that? First all of you wave your arms in defence of safety and chicanes, and next you approve that stupid double hairpin, and say there is nothing wrong with it?? That's the place where everyone kept constantly going off.

Did they crash and cause a massive pileup? No. They just went off. That isn't inherently unsafe. It's quite clearly a major challenge to the drivers; what, you think driving around the track should be easy as pie? I think they should work hard for their laptimes. They claim to be the best in the world, let's see them prove it.

legandari25 wrote:And the race was interesting because the championship was getting tighter and tighter for Alonso, not because it was a good race. Good race you had in Brazil, end of story.

I don't know about you, but it was a good race from my point of view. Plenty of tight racing, clearly a challenge to overtake, but not impossible, Hamilton was really on it, so was Grosjean after his spin, Raikkonen made an awesome overtake, it wasn't an all-time classic. It wasn't boring either though. It was pretty decent and I enjoyed watching it.

legandari25 wrote:The funniest thing is that Austin can be mended with a few minor changes, but then again, what was the problem with Indy in the first place?

The problem with Indy was that they really couldn't do much at all, what with only like half of the infield actually being usable what with the garages and facilities and the golf course. It was always going to result in a meh track.

legandari25 wrote:My first post was about 32 km long about what was wrong with Tilke's tracks from my point of view. Then I presented some basic sketches and justified why I thought they were better. I thought that here ideas would be constructively criticised, but the only people that gave extensive reviews (and also positive) were giraud and rob lomas. Everyone else just said "they're worse". Like Captain Hammer or UgncreativeUsergname. Twice I was accused of saying my Aintree ugly design was brilliant, when all I said was "I want ideas, I don't know how to face this legendary track".

Guess what, not everybody reads the whole thread. To somebody just jumping in now, it looks like you're just throwing designs around; you're saying very little about why these are better.

legandari25 wrote:And now me and Rob face "worse than Tilke even ignoring restrictions" when

A. What restrictions?
B. The track design protocol is not available for the public, just some standards on how to present the AutoCAD .dwg and what color and mesh references to use.
C. I challenge Ugn... whatever to name 5 things that are wrong (worse than Tilke's) technically speaking with my last tracks.
D. C.Hammer's original proposal was to draw tracks without worrying for FIA standards.

Yeah, that's Hammer's original proposal. Personally, I think some attempt should be made about worrying for those standards; obviously since they're not open to the public you just really need to guess at them, which I personally would not include extended high speed sections on grounds of safety, and track length, but also extenuating circumstances; for example, if say, you're redesigning Indy, you probably wouldn't be able to build a track over the golf course or the existing garages or the grandstands. If someone did I would call them out on it.

legandari25 wrote:Point out what's wrong with our tracks or design something better.

Alright. Looking at your latest redesigns;
Sepang - The opening section seems to cut over the existing garages, I don't think that would be accepted; the extension past turns 7&8 - I'm pretty sure that place includes some major elevation changes, but I'm not sure if this is the case; personally the turn 12-14 section is great because it's impossible to get completely right. Also why did you mess with the final straight-turn 15-home straight combo? That seemed fine to me, though if your intent was to make the overtaking a bit more difficult, I'd keep the exit of the corner as it is.

Singapore - Not particularly familar with the layout of the city so I can't be too sure of anything, but right away turn 1 and 2 don't look like overtaking opportunities at all. Also the kink on the next 'straight' make an overtaking opportunity at the next braking zone pretty difficult - is that a street? Carrying on past the existing corner doesn't make much sense to me, I don't see any of the added corners being good overtaking spots or challenging corners. Unless it is to allow the next extension, which is fine, and would potentially allow for another overtaking spot at the old Singapore Stupid Chicane, if it was actually possible to do anything with it. Unfortunately, because it runs right past some Parliament buildings or something, you can't really do anything with it - there isn't any room for runoff. The little chicane section just before the final straight, I'd tighten up if possible, and the last corner, well, I don't think the government would reclaim some land just for the sake of runoff. Because that's going to be necessary. It might be plausible, I don't know exactly how expensive it is, but my guess is pretty damn expensive.

Buenos Aires - Well right from the off, you have that massive section right from the last corner all the way around the lake which looks more or less flat out. Tighten up some of those corners, especially the first. Also, exiting the corner on the far end of the lake (that's banked, right? Shouldn't be much more than 10 degrees or so if it is), I'd tighten the first chicane and have that exit right back on to the existing track. Not the best solution, but there's not much land to work with, certainly not enough for runoff on that second chicane. As for the infield, I'd straighten out the chicane after the first hairpin if at all possible - it's completely pointless as far as I can tell. Also, the excursion at the end of the lap looks like it goes around a kart track. Not sure about using that.

Interlagos - The Juncao edit, I really don't see why that needs to be done, the home straight is plenty fast, and Juncao as it is is an occasional auxiliary overtaking spot, you'd probably lose that by opening it up. Since you said the green section was just for fun, I'll limit my comment to saying that it just looks like an overly contrived way to make the track go around the lake again, and that I don't like it at all.

legandari25 wrote:And I wasn't invalidating your opinion for being from the US. I was jokingly replying in the same tone of yours. Of course US has great tracks, and not often, good taste. But if you attack me, I'll defend. I don't find it amusing, after many hours of thinking, sketching and editing, to read I'm worse than Tilke without explicit reasons, specially when I doubt anything can be worse than his latest tracks.

Well, maybe you should explain what your're doing more. You've offered little comments on your motivations and ideas aside from your first post here - what, do you expect us to go trawling back through the thread looking for it and then use it as a reference? Because I'm certainly not going to.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 03 Jan 2013, 00:08

The most boring racetrack ever is - contrary to popular belief - not designed by Tilke. It's Chimay in Belgium!
So i tried to do... well, something... because it's just two squares (the old track and the newer track), so the result is very random
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5774468
Now i'm going to do some blasphemy, one of the untouchable circuits:
Francorchamps club track
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5774482
Francorchamps endurance track. I had to put a lot of Le Mans-style chicanes in it on the straights, because nowadays it would be ridiculously fast, i also altered a little bit so the current track is also used.
I also made sure the famous corners of the old part aren't ruined.
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5774490

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 03 Jan 2013, 00:25

legendari25 wrote:A. Terraforming is okay because it's done in real life
B. I don't have exact measurements for everything ever
C. I try not to explode forests away. Also, give actual feedback, and it's just something I drew so don't explode over it
D. Someone should totally make these tracks for a sim because it would be awesome

(Polite disagreement about Buenos Aires)

I'm sorry I was borderline racist

Just wanted to make that quote shorter but still show I understood it. That doesn't mean I skimmed it, I read the whole thing. But anyway, I'm going to make fun of your track design (or praise it like Singapore, but mostly make fun) some more now.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/262828_4050116366629_1836991148_n.jpg
You brought the old chicane back. There's a reason they changed it, you know. I mean, the old first turns of the GP-Strecke are better from a driving perspective, but in these days of cars that make it so hard to overtake we need something like DRS, I prefer how it is now. If you could keep the hairpin and improve it from there, I'd like that, but admittedly there's not that much room to work with.

Moving on, the turn after the Schumacher-S is just a normal decent but not captivating 90-degree corner and it doesn't do much for overtaking, so I can see why you decided to change it. You put a couple Valencia kink-in-straights, then a changing-radius corner, a type of turn I never get sick of. The second part would probably be easy flat, but you might have to take a funny line through it to prepare for the next corner (I'm not sure if you would or not) so it's not the best thing ever, but it's better than some medium-speed corner with nothing about it. The problem is, any changes you make to that will ruin the Bit-Kurve, which I love. What you replaced the Bit-Kurve with isn't spectacular. Both the old and the new sections are decent and I don't know which one I like more. Yours might have terrain problems but like I said, a little terraforming is possible.

You replace the Veedol chicane and Coca-Cola with part of the Nordschleife and a sweeping high-speed corner. Again, it's weighing driving and overtaking perspectives: what you put is better for driving, but probably not for spectating, which sums up the redesign overall pretty well.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/249897_4054283270799_136763327_n.jpg
The section you tacked on looks fun to drive, but makes the track too long and looks impractical to actually set up for a race. As for Race Course, you took out a 90-degree corner, which Adelaide has way too many of, and replaced it with something good. It has the same problem of being impractical for real life, though, since the runoff you'd need for it is taken by the paddock.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/376701_4054284030818_1422335963_n.jpg
Albert Park is a rare thing. It has a bunch of tight 90-degree corners, but executes it very well and makes a great drive. You just took out a bunch of fun corners and replaced them with easy flat or boring generic ones.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/735227_4054284310825_476091852_n.jpg
Again with changing perfectly good corners into easy flat parts or chicanes. The first part is replacing perfectly good corners with an overtaking point we don't need (especially since turn 1 is good for overtaking anyway) and some easy flat bits. The middle sector is a bunch of chicanes that look the same, plus the last three turns all feel similar. The real Shanghai copies Sepang, but the one you made copies itself.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/382955_4054284510830_577719096_n.jpg
I really like the double hairpin at Sepang, as I've said before, and this isn't better to drive or for passing. Turn 4's been replaced with a unique sweeping flowy thing (I'm sorry I keep using the same words), just another case of you picking fun to drive and Tilke picking fun to watch. The wide, sweeping corner you replaced turns 7/8 with I don't like just because it looks slightly simpler to tackle, but I'm biased in favour of multi-apex corners so maybe it's just me. Turns 9/10 aren't changed really that much and I'd have to take a minute to decide whether it's better, and it'd involve splitting hairs anyway. Turn 11 might be easy flat, but if it's not, I still like the what the old one does with the hills and the weird shape. Your turn 11 needs to be harder to brake for and weirder in its design. For the penultimate turn, one of my favourite turns in F1 since everyone screws it up, you turned it to a decent but not fantastic hairpin. Sepang already has a decent but not fantastic hairpin as its last turn, it doesn't need you ruining one of the best corners ever with something it already has. Maybe it's just because I really like Sepang, but I don't think you improved anything with this one.

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 03 Jan 2013, 01:06

On the topic if this is the right thread for what i do or not; although nobody complained about my work, there are too many threads that look like each other, so i got confused. Usually when i see a thread opened, i forget to look if there's another one that fits better for what i'm doing. So if i'm wrong, just tell me. Obviously my Belgian circuits aren't Tilke-tracks, so you can replace my Zolder,Chimay and Spa proposals to the right topic, if you need to.

Post by **Ataxia** » 03 Jan 2013, 01:38

Seeing as everyone's cracking out the tracks, I thought I'd have a go and give India a little...overhaul.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5774568

The first section is different in an attempt to maximise the opportunity to overtake whilst decreasing the length of that stupidly long straight. The corners are more rounded, and lead into the now shorter straight which should be less monotonous to watch, and more easy on the engines.

I also cut out that Turn 8-wannabe that limply hangs onto the circuit; similarly the start/finish area could be home to a grandstand. Personally, I think that a lot of the dullness of Tilke's circuits comes from the lack of stands, scenery, and that sort of thing which breaks up the sky a little. As all of the tarmac is closer together, it would hopefully produce a circuit that's a little more atmospheric. Also, I propose a stand like the one at Sepang along the straights which covers more tarmac as it would reduce the desolate nature of the track.

Please, feedback is welcome.

legendari25 · Post by **legendari25** » 03 Jan 2013, 02:20

I like what you did with my quote, mocking me.

This is a reply to both of you:

I'm not trying to "mend" the good tracks instead of the "bad" tracks. I'm going to tackle on all major tracks. I just don't have any good ideas for the others, or haven't got to them yet. And I'm not trying to mend them, I'm trying to see how something new looks on them. And share my expermients. If you don't like it, FINE. But stop prohibiting me from trying whichever track I fancy.

You guys clearly like the Formula Tilke of Stupid-Boring combination for drivers that are more focused on their hairstyle rather than being better. I don't. I don't try to make things easier for me. Formula Stupid has mended things in favour of overtaking, ultimately putting a button to give extra bhp and forbidding the driver ahead from defending. And making the abhorrent combination of straight-hairpin 30 meters wide to facilitate things even more. And then it also goes against the experienced, in favour of kids with extreme body fitness with those undriveable corners in Korea or Austin. Or you're planning to tell me that Schumacher is not a good driver that can't keep up with the pack. He was the highest paid and the most succesfull for a reason, in Ferrari. And now he made a complete fool of himself trying to race against kids that were born after he first competed in F1.

I think one of the greatest races ever was the 1979 French GP, because it featured a 3-lap battle between two fantastic drivers on a tight yet sweeping track that allowed them both to keep up side by side constantly. That battle in Fuji or Abu Dhabi would habe simply been 5 seconds long, as René Arnoux charged with DRS through the 13 km long straight and then overtook Villeneuve on the inner side, the latter banned from defending under modern rules, with risk of facing automatic racing ban if he did so.

No, wait, actually the 2012 Korean GP was the best race ever, with the artificial grass wrapping around Hamilton's car, you're absolutely right.

And, definitely, the indian track is 10 times better than Imola. The funniest thing is that you love Formula Stupid Tillke-Style but you then go on saying that the worst tracks that need review are Tilke's.

I find the old Silverstone quite exciting and challenging. That didn't stop anyone from trying and making it slightly slower but a lot more entertaining. I think cars looked better in black and white, but I will concede that the 1991 track is much better than the 1950 layout, because that is true.

You are admitting openly that you only enjoy things that cannot be driven properly, so you are clearly one of those hollow spectators that hope to see some dull overtaking, crashing in the first lap to see a backmarker win the race or spins because of sudden downpour on a track that shifts 173 meters in elevation in one single corner. That's where we differ. I want to see real drivers racing, not putting a ridiculous show. I want the old exciting F1 back, not a kindergarten full of playstations with engines. What's wrong with corners where you can't mess up unless you have a failure, like the old Tamburello? Look at the 1982 San Marino GP, at the 37 times Villeneuve caught up Pironi through Tamburello and went on the outside through Villeneuve to get through at Tosa. Look at the stupid layout that we were given after Senna's death. Solution? Chicane, chicane chicane. You're surely happy with things like that.

In Monaco there isn't a single runoff place. There's like 15 meters at the nouvelle chicane, and that's it. And then you say that there can't be a fast corner in Singapore? That a ridiculously tight chicane is needed? Have you seen how close to an accident they arrive at casino square? Or through the tunnel? Or tabac, maybe. La Rascasse? Apparently you don't watch F1, because if you did, you'd realise you're comments are completely pointless.

I'm sick of people requesting 300 meter run-offs because of "safety" when in the US, races are run next to a wall and people don't die. If they do is because they're collected at 180 mph, and that's perfectly possible to occur in F1 even with runoffs and so on. That's how Zanardi lost his legs, and fortunately survived. He was collected in the main straight. And can you promise that won't happen in Monza? Spa? Abu Dhabi? No, cars do not achieve 180 mph there. Nor 200 mph.

You request run-off areas when you're perfectly in favour of having cars come to a halt for turn 1 in Monza after a 350 kph run? You are completely incoherent. At least I'm sincere, I want old racing back. Todays tech in safety (monocoque, armcos, tyre walls, fireproof wear, fireproof materials on the car, bulletproof fuel tank, bulletproof helmet, HANS, and so on... and old-school tracks with old-school brakes. You are admitting it yourself. The best racing is at Melbourne, for instance, which is old-school. It was one of the last, if not the last, not designed or ruined by Tilke.

Make fun of my tracks all you want. And now show me some creation of yours. But as you are admitting by yourself, my tracks, and you're absolutely right, are designed for being good at driving. I don't care at all for spectators. After all it's a racing sport, not a circus show. Even today with the Formula Stupid you adore so much there is no show at all. I have to search for footage more than 20 years old to enjoy something. And back then, F1 was aimed at speed, speed and speed. Not overtaking, KERS, DRS, racing marshall decisions, aiding Hamilton or Vettel or exhausting the hell out of whoever is not 22 anymore.

Modern drivers will never be such great legends as Fangio, Villeneuve, Moss, Senna, Lauda or Prost are. But you're too short-sighted to see why nobody will care about Hamilton in ten years, just like nobody cares about Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve today.

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 03 Jan 2013, 03:11

legendari25 wrote:I like what you did with my quote, mocking me.

I didn't mean to mock you, I'm sorry if it sounded like that. You had some really good points in that post.

legendari25 wrote:I'm not trying to "mend" the good tracks instead of the "bad" tracks. I'm going to tackle on all major tracks. I just don't have any good ideas for the others, or haven't got to them yet. And I'm not trying to mend them, I'm trying to see how something new looks on them. And share my expermients. If you don't like it, FINE. But stop prohibiting me from trying whichever track I fancy.

You say it's just a personal opinion so it's okay to not like it, yet the entire rest of the post is you insulting people for not liking it.

legendari25 wrote:You guys clearly like the Formula Tilke of Stupid-Boring combination for drivers that are more focused on their hairstyle rather than being better. I don't. I don't try to make things easier for me. Formula Stupid has mended things in favour of overtaking, ultimately putting a button to give extra bhp and forbidding the driver ahead from defending. And making the abhorrent combination of straight-hairpin 30 meters wide to facilitate things even more. And then it also goes against the experienced, in favour of kids with extreme body fitness with those undriveable corners in Korea or Austin. Or you're planning to tell me that Schumacher is not a good driver that can't keep up with the pack. He was the highest paid and the most succesfull for a reason, in Ferrari. And now he made a complete fool of himself trying to race against kids that were born after he first competed in F1.

I think one of the greatest races ever was the 1979 French GP, because it featured a 3-lap battle between two fantastic drivers on a tight yet sweeping track that allowed them both to keep up side by side constantly. That battle in Fuji or Abu Dhabi would habe simply been 5 seconds long, as René Arnoux charged with DRS through the 13 km long straight and then overtook Villeneuve on the inner side, the latter banned from defending under modern rules, with risk of facing automatic racing ban if he did so.

If you hate KERS and DRS, that's all fine and good, but you're going off topic. And careers decline, that's just how it is. I don't think ultra-twisty sections are biased against older drivers, and even if they are, does that mean we can't have any of them? Everything's going to favour someone.

legendari25 wrote:And, definitely, the indian track is 10 times better than Imola. The funniest thing is that you love Formula Stupid Tillke-Style but you then go on saying that the worst tracks that need review are Tilke's.

I thought we had something mature going here. Just a couple posts back, you were being all considerate, and now this.

legendari25 wrote:I find the old Silverstone quite exciting and challenging. That didn't stop anyone from trying and making it slightly slower but a lot more entertaining. I think cars looked better in black and white, but I will concede that the 1991 track is much better than the 1950 layout, because that is true.

You are admitting openly that you only enjoy things that cannot be driven properly, so you are clearly one of those hollow spectators that hope to see some dull overtaking, crashing in the first lap to see a backmarker win the race or spins because of sudden downpour on a track that shifts 173 meters in elevation in one single corner. That's where we differ. I want to see real drivers racing, not putting a ridiculous show. I want the old exciting F1 back, not a kindergarten full of playstations with engines. What's wrong with corners where you can't mess up unless you have a failure, like the old Tamburello? Look at the 1982 San Marino GP, at the 37 times Villeneuve caught up Pironi through Tamburello and went on the outside through Villeneuve to get through at Tosa. Look at the stupid layout that we were given after Senna's death. Solution? Chicane, chicane chicane. You're surely happy with things like that.

I never said every single corner needs to be impossible to drive. And "hollow" spectator? I get your point that overtaking just by itself isn't exciting, but not liking it when a driver who's clearly faster gets stuck behind someone for the entire race because the tracks and rules aren't conducive to overtaking makes me "hollow"? But yes, I'll admit that maybe I was a bit overly negative about the easily flat out corners, they have their uses and they can be done well.

legendari25 wrote:In Monaco there isn't a single runoff place. There's like 15 meters at the nouvelle chicane, and that's it. And then you say that there can't be a fast corner in Singapore? That a ridiculously tight chicane is needed? Have you seen how close to an accident they arrive at casino square? Or through the tunnel? Or tabac, maybe. La Rascasse? Apparently you don't watch F1, because if you did, you'd realise you're comments are completely pointless.

Monaco doesn't fit the FIA's standards for safety, but it's grandfathered in. If it was proposed today, they would never take it seriously.

legendari25 wrote:I'm sick of people requesting 300 meter run-offs because of "safety" when in the US, races are run next to a wall and people don't die. If they do is because they're collected at 180 mph, and that's perfectly possible to occur in F1 even with runoffs and so on. That's how Zanardi lost his legs, and fortunately survived. He was collected in the main straight. And can you promise that won't happen in Monza? Spa? Abu Dhabi? No, cars do not achieve 180 mph there. Nor 200 mph.

So because we can never make racing perfectly safe, we should give up safety entirely? Do you want to go back to the fifties where death was a typical thing?

legendari25 wrote:You request run-off areas when you're perfectly in favour of having cars come to a halt for turn 1 in Monza after a 350 kph run? You are completely incoherent. At least I'm sincere, I want old racing back. Todays tech in safety (monocoque, armcos, tyre walls, fireproof wear, fireproof materials on the car, bulletproof fuel tank, bulletproof helmet, HANS, and so on... and old-school tracks with old-school brakes. You are admitting it yourself. The best racing is at Melbourne, for instance, which is old-school. It was one of the last, if not the last, not designed or ruined by Tilke.

Oh, apparently not. And about the massive braking being unsafe, why is that unsafe as long as you have enough runoff? And if you mention the possibility of high-speed collisions, see my comment on the previous paragraph.

legendari25 wrote:Make fun of my tracks all you want. And now show me some creation of yours. But as you are admitting by yourself, my tracks, and you're absolutely right, are designed for being good at driving. I don't care at all for spectators. After all it's a racing sport, not a circus show. Even today with the Formula Stupid you adore so much there is no show at all. I have to search for footage more than 20 years old to enjoy something. And back then, F1 was aimed at speed, speed and speed. Not overtaking, KERS, DRS, racing marshall decisions, aiding Hamilton or Vettel or exhausting the hell out of whoever is not 22 anymore.

Like I said, I like close battles, but I don't like seeing drivers getting stuck behind someone for half or more of a race because the track doesn't let them pass anywhere. And it's not like corners that are good for overtaking absolutely must be boring.

legendari25 wrote:Modern drivers will never be such great legends as Fangio, Villeneuve, Moss, Senna, Lauda or Prost are. But you're too short-sighted to see why nobody will care about Hamilton in ten years, just like nobody cares about Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve today.

So because of the kinds of tracks they race on and the kinds of cars they race in, something which they don't have that much control over, they won't be remembered? If you're skilled at driving, then you're skilled at driving, no matter what car you're in.