There's always two sides to an arguement.
In this case, the Spectators side and the drivers side.
From a spectators point of view, Tilkes track's generally produce boring races (Pre DRS era) with theoretically challenging corners not punishing the drivers because of the miles of runoff roads. Of course, I don't want to see someone crash or get hurt, but I am a fan of grass/gravel runoff so a driver's mistake can be punished because now we are getting to the point where most drivers are using this runoff road as the racing line/over taking technique on a perminant basis.
From a drivers point of view, Tilke's tracks are challenging, interesting, wide and have a variety of corners to test your nerve/skills. However, as I said, the runoff roads and ultra smooth surfaces limit the challenge. Many of Tilke's circuits are good, Austin was decent, Sepang is decent, A1 Ring was a good compramise also, the problem is that the circuits all look the bloody same! Mainly because it is the same designer! Same thought process, same features, same corners etc...
If I am to be completly honest, since circuits like Suzuka, Fuji, Hockenheim and Spa are losing/have lost their challenging nature - one of my favourite circuits to drive is the Hungaroring, this boring twisty circuit (in the eyes of the spectators) is a never ending complex of corners that will reward drivers who have good focus and consistency
I like the challenge the circuit brings because apart from Monaco, the other circuits do not really hold that challenge anymore.
There are two problems with Tilke's circuits
1) The FIA is very strict and so this limits the features he could do.
2) There are so many of his circuit in the calander that it has become the norm rather than the expection! I liked Sepang when it first came out because it was a different type of challenge. Now, they are all the bloody same! (As many of you have mentioned) Long straights, tight corners and twisty infield sections.
RE Silverstone: Having had a chance to drive the new circuit, I must admit - I enjoyed it
Of course, I wish they kept the bridge section because that also had it's own unique features. But the new layout does bring up the average speed of the circuit, it is wide, it has 2 flowing corners that move into the village complex... it could have done with that bump in the middle of abbey still as that gave drivers a proper challenge when picking a line for the hairpin
If the spectators want circuits that will be interesting to see, then we are going to end up with the same type of circuits because we know what the "good combination" is. I prefered F1 10-20 years ago because there was more variety. Hockenheim, Monza and Spa were dangerously quick, but they chucked in the ultra slow Hungaroring in the middle of that order. Monaco, high downforce setup followed by Canada (Low Downforce). Catch my drift?
The circuits weren't designed (and shouldn't) be designed to please the spectators, it is the drivers who are driving the circuit and I think having a variety of circuits (from different designers, different features etc) is a much better way of running a championship. That way the spectators can appreciate the decent circuits even more and the drivers can have a different set of challenges thrown at them every weekend
) and left at Bridge, down towards Cleland and the final turn, McRae.
