Grand Prix Rejects

thanks for all the messages guys
to answer dario's question yes i am 15

just some more tracks from the other page to show that i might be able captain hammer said

monaco
http://gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5679017
the track goes straight on after casino square before going on to ave de la costa bfore going onto rue grimaldi, it then loops around onto av prince pierre and then bd rainier III and then onto bd princess charlotte before heading onto av de la madone and then rejoining the circuit , it then goes round the tunnle before arriving at a new, faster chicane, it then sticks to the current track until rascasse where it keeps following the pier and then turns round and goes onto a new section of track before going around the final corner

donnington
http://gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5695730
it starts on the back straight before eventually ending in a haipin in roughly the same place as the one from the 1930's before going through a series of uphill corners before entering a complex like the one hermann tilke was planning to use before rejoining the old track at the main straight at the moment and it stays on the current track until just before the old hairpin where it shall turn left through a turn 8 style corner before a sharp right hand hairpin leading into a sharp, downhill right hand kink leading into starkeys bridge which will now be taken in 5/6th gear and it shall say with the current track until after coppice where the track shall go through a fast left, right chcane before the pit straight

montjuic park
http://gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5653255
the track starts on the old straight from the 1930's and continues arround the old course until they get to this roundabout where the cars shall go down carrer de pierre de coubitan untill the turn onto the passeig del migdia before they head onto the carretera de montjuic before a left hand hairpin takes them onto avinguada de miramar before turning back onto the old circuit at passeig de santa madrona

hope this is better

roblomas52

solarcold wrote:Here's a new project I'm working at: an imaginary Faroe Islands Grand Prix Circuit.
There will be a tunnel going under between the Mazzacane and Diniz turns. The Twin Straights will be very close and divided by the walls low enough to see the cars on the other straight driving fast in the opposite direction.

The layout's epic and all, but I think the "low wall" thing sounds a little unsafe. And where are the pits, exactly? I don't see any obvious place for them.

my take on Hungaroring. I'm usually not a fan of changing the 'original nature' on any track, but couldn't help myself here. Switched the direction clockwise; first and second corner are supposed to be places-to-overtake here, then from the second corner starts the fast part. Approach section to T3 looks for a remotely similar effect as Parabolica with cars going flat out, touching the limit between grass and asphalt on the right, then the long fast lefthander after it leads to downhill straight and a very difficult downhill braking where mistakes should be seen. Last complex tries to mimic Degner a bit in how it allows cars to follow close and manages to create an overtaking spot for Main Straight here.



Silverstone; now I'm not saying this is necessarily a better version than the current one - it's just a way to try to make use of the Bridge corner with modern F1 cars (with the chicane in Abbey it was not too challenging) and the new location of the pit area. Maybe this one is even too fast for f1 cars..?

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

East Londoner wrote:

Captain Hammer wrote:Sorry, Rob, but I'm not a fan - all you're doing is reviving old circuits with only minor changes, and then claiming that they're something new.

But you don't like Kamui, therefore your opinion is invalid.

I think they're pretty damn good circuits. Keep up the good work.

I'm frankly inclined to agree with the Captain here. A lot of the change's Rob's making just seem to be change for change's sake.

Furthermore, they neglect another important factor - that a great number of the circuits that they are applying these changes to have to be compatible with the demands of other racing series too. In the case of Silverstone, for example, the changes to the circuit were driven by the regulations that the FIM (the motorcycling equivalent of the FIA) have instituted, which, due to the fact that the riders are more exposed, are quite strict about what is and isn't acceptable. The modern layout of Silverstone came about because the old Bridge corner was considered to be too dangerous for the MotoGP riders by FIM, and Silverstone wanted to attract motorcycle racing to their circuit too (which is why I suspect giraud's version, which includes the old Bridge corner, would lead to FIM refusing to sanction the circuit).

Equally, just because a modern F1 car may be capable of protecting the drivers within it much more effectively than in the past, that does not mean that other series have been able to keep up in terms of driver protection - the crash protection systems in Abu Dhabi, where they use the Tecpro barriers, are considerably better than at a number of other circuits, yet Natacha Gachnang suffered from severe leg fractures when she crashed in the 2010 GT1 race they held there. Just because something works for a 620kg open wheeled racing car doesn't mean that it'll automatically be OK for, say, an 1100kg GT car, so inevitably there has to be a certain amount of compromise in the design of the circuit to accommodate the requirements of other racing series.

Talking about safety, I made a redesign of sector 3 of Yas Marina, then I realised that there wasn't enough runoff area for the new relatively sweeping turn which was replacing 18/19 to be safe. The new relatively sweeping turn replacing 16/17 was questionable as well. Did they have to build it right next to a harbour?

I decided that I can also do well at redesigning existing circuits. Here's a collection:

A re-done Lausitzring road course: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5713142
A hopefully improved Valencia course: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5713154
A new version of the Nürburgring: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5713160

Ferrarist wrote:I decided that I can also do well at redesigning existing circuits. Here's a collection:

A re-done Lausitzring road course: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5713142
A hopefully improved Valencia course: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5713154
A new version of the Nürburgring: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5713160

All the tracks are definitely improved

I like the kart track at Ricardo Tormo. It recreates the large track much better than the one at Sepang.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

solarcold wrote:Here's a new project I'm working at: an imaginary Faroe Islands Grand Prix Circuit.
There will be a tunnel going under between the Mazzacane and Diniz turns. The Twin Straights will be very close and divided by the walls low enough to see the cars on the other straight driving fast in the opposite direction.

The layout's epic and all, but I think the "low wall" thing sounds a little unsafe. And where are the pits, exactly? I don't see any obvious place for them.

That could be a high wall with tranparent plastic in it, too. Safer.
As for pitlane, it's planned to be at the right side of the main straight. I just didn't put it there yet.

Captain Hammer wrote:Sorry, Rob, but I'm not a fan - all you're doing is reviving old circuits with only minor changes, and then claiming that they're something new.

But you're not a fan of anything. And what you proposed once was just to eliminate corners (mainly what I want since always) and add some corners to tackle straights parallel to the existing straights, like you did in Abu Dhabi. Your Nürburgring changes, except for the last sector, were very bad.

You keep claiming we state "they're brand new" or "revolutionary" when we never did, and you're totally incapable of giving proper feedback.

You just think that tracks must be redesigned to be pure crap like FIA's new tracks and for some reason you are against using old circuits, though nobody knows it. You should be F1Reject's He Whose Oppinions Shall Never Be Properly Explained.

Maybe you can start assuming that if we are all trying to revive old circuits is because old circuits were better.

Dario.

Why does everyone keep trying to comply with those stupid FIA rules? I feel like I failed to prove my point that F1 (I don't watch MotoGP, I know nothing about bikes) has gone west because of FIA's regulations since Senna's death. Tracks don't overtake in Monaco, Monza nor Singapore because they're not allowed to. And drivers are presented with tracks that are just drawn on tarmac, there are no boundaries. They are constantly driving off-road (Variante Ascari exit) in practice, qualifying, race... but if they dare overtake off-road, like Vettel did in the last lap of the German GP 2012 on Button, they're penalised. FIA is stupid, Bernie is a godfather who turns F1 into whatever pleases him for his convenience, and their regulations are moronic. How come overtaking has become a synonim of excitement? I doubt the 1979 or the 1988 seasons, even 1993 season had as many overtakes as 2012 season had with that stupid KERS and DRS combo. Still, I feel sick watching races today. I just keep seeking old videos to avoid commiting suicide.

And, again, lower categories might not have caught up with F1 in safety yet, but everyone's idea is to allow this madness of war on speed in a racetrack to go on instead of accomodating secondary layouts to address lower categories.

Lastly, we racing drivers must admit that racing is a dangerous sport. We must encourage safety standards to go up, always, so we don't lose any more people pointlessly, but we must not for a second think our safety is in hands of a corner. Deaths have been a result of unstable cars, flying debris, badly placed fencing, badly installed barriers, lack of high-friction run-off (asphalt is not the answer: who cares if Hamilton or Alonso have to retire in the first corner if that means actually saving them from dying on high-speed wall impact), lack of fireproof gear or protective gear (HANS, CF helmets) combinations. So stop talking (again, not referring to FIM and MotoGP, just F1 and FIA) about the protocol that demands all corners to be hairpins or have 500m asphalt runoffs and no woods nearby for television purpose, because it's that that's killing F1.

It's that regulation, the ban on protecting your position, the overtaking aids and the extreme Carbon Ceramic Brakes.

Stop confusing causes and consecuences.

Dario

PS: Rob, stop trying to accomodate your tracks to C.Hammer's standards. Nobody knows his standards, not even him, and he won't like them anyway. Besides, your tracks are plain magnificent. I just don't like the Monaco extension... there's nothing wrong with the standard layout. I just would remove the chicanes on the first and last corners. They're too tight for modern cars, they should be wide and fast as they were in the 70's. La Rascasse should be like it was in the early 90's, a double corner, before Tilke came and changed it.

Cheers

legendari25 wrote:Maybe you can start assuming that if we are all trying to revive old circuits is because old circuits were better.

They may be better, but most of what I'm seeing is people re-posting the layouts of old circuits, under the impression that they have improved them. But they haven't improved them, because they weren't the ones who designed the circuit in the first place. This thread was originally intended so that people could put forward ideas for circuit design that were original works.

This is my re-design of the Nurburgring:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5709061

And this is why I think it would be better:

Firstly, I think the Mercedes Arena is slow, single-file and pointless. But because of the shape of the circuit, what I could so with it was very limited. I kept the first hairpin in place to allow for a bit more overtaking, and then turned the second corner into a constant-radius bend, cutting out the next two corners in the process. This will allow the drivers to carry more speed onto the following straight, and also to start the straight at a higher speed than they currently do. It may even be possible to add a touch of camber to this corner so as to allow for a little bit more speed.

Next, I tightened the Ford-Kurve. In its current form, it's medium speed and downhill, and nothing particularly spectacular. The drivers just sort of drive through it, unable to do anything. At least now the increased speed of the straight leading out of the Mercedes Arena and the preceding medium-speed corner will force the drivers to react quickly to keep on the best racing line.

I've never really liked the Dunlop-Kehre. It's a giant hairpin, and like Ford-Kurve, it doesn't really produce any passing. I did, however, like the shape that the spectator embankment had been molded to fit to, so I followed it. The cars sweep out of Ford-Kurve, build up some speed, and then enter the first part of the corner. This is designed to promote overtaking because it is a triple-apex bend. The catch is that you hit the first, miss the second and hit the third. The attacking line will give you track position, but it also puts you at a disadvantage, so the defending driver can fight back up through the Schumacher-S, one of the few decent corners on the circuit.

Finally, I believe the final sector of the Nurburgring is the most uninspiring part of the circuit, and the least-deserving of the title "Nurburgring". And with the original Nurburgring right next door, I thought I might as well use it. The final secotr now weaves through the forest until it meets the Nurburgring proper, and takes part of it backwards, culminating in an uphill braking zone at Hatzenbach. This also increases the speed through the final corner, which will hopefully allow cars to follow one another a little bit more down the main straight and give them a chance to parr at the first hairpin, as they are no longer relying on traction to get away.

legendari25 wrote:But you're not a fan of anything.

Okay, let's take your redesign of Albert Park as an example:

Australia: changed the Waite chicane to a fast sweeping left-right bend. There is enough space for run-off to allow cars to tackle flat out this corner. The rest is original design.

Do you know why I'm not a fan of this? It's because you quite literally didn't change anything on the circuit. The cars already take the Waite chicane close to flat out; all you have done is move the apex of the first corner about a metre and a half to the left. That's not going to change anything. And allowing the cars to take that corner totally flat out won't do anything - the big challenge of the corner is that you can't take it flat out, but you have to get as close to flat out as possible to set a good laptime. You've removed all the challenge from the corner.

And here's your redesign of Aintree:

Here's a redesign of an ancient track: Aintree



The main idea was to leave the hippodrome intact. Therefore, the original kink would have needed run-off areas invading the grass racetrack. That's why I added a bus stop before the kink, and then rounded up the corners to make them a bit faster out. I also added a chicane before the fast right hand bend at the lower right corner of the picture to avoid adding extra run-off area at a place there's no room without reprofiling the river. With the purpose of preserving the hippodrome the old pit lane location (far right straight) was also moved to where the red path is, at the uppermost straight.

All you did here was add chicanes and slow corners. Literally. That's all you did.

And then you wonder why I say I'm not a fan of your work. You make minor changes, most of which just restore circuits to their original configurations, then proclaim that you've fixed them as if you've totally reimagined a medicore circuit to become the spiritual successor of Spa. You accuse other people of providing no explanations as to why their circuits are better than their current states, but when you give other people feedback as to why they're no good, the most you can say is "it's not very good".

legendari25 wrote:Why does everyone keep trying to comply with those stupid FIA rules?

Because if the circuits don't comply with those rules, they can't host races.

legendari25 wrote:I feel like I failed to prove my point that F1 (I don't watch MotoGP, I know nothing about bikes) has gone west because of FIA's regulations since Senna's death.

You feel correctly. I wasn't even aware that you were trying to make a point in the first place.

legendari25 wrote:And drivers are presented with tracks that are just drawn on tarmac, there are no boundaries. They are constantly driving off-road (Variante Ascari exit) in practice, qualifying, race... but if they dare overtake off-road, like Vettel did in the last lap of the German GP 2012 on Button, they're penalised.

It is acceptable at Monza, because they are considered to be lengthening the circuit. And unlike Hockenheim, no-one overtakes there. Not unless the driver in front makes a serious mistake or has a problem. Once again, you're dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator, and brazenly ignoring the differences in circumstances that explain the different reactions from the stewards.

Title: 'Beat Tilke in his own game'

FIA Rules are in some parts unnecessary I do agree Dario, but I kind of assumed the point of the thread to be a place for us wannabe designers to show people how much 'better' we are than Tilke. And Tilke is limited by FIA Rules, so why shouldn't we be?

A simple tip I was once told by my first boss...... "If you have to analyse or evaluate something - always find 3 positives first before you dare critasize, that way you know you have evaluated every possible aspect of that project. Otherwise you just become a moaning old sod!"

I agree with both of your statements however.

@Captain Hammer - I am yet to find your approval in any thread or discussion! (e.g. Autosport or it isn't true!) I agree that half of the tracks that have been posted are not good or would not meet FIA standards, but actually giving feedback (as you finally did in your previous post) is more appreciated than "it's rubbish". Constructive critasizum will give people an idea of where to improve for next time.

Also, I thought the idea of beating Tilke at his own game was to come up with a better design than his. Personally, I think it is hard to show a good design from a bird's eye view because it is all just straights and turns - you can't see the undulations, cambers etc...

@ Dario - I can see why you are getting frustrated, but I too have to agree with Captain Hammer. The modifications you have made to a couple of the tracks will make very little difference at all, if anything - it will probably make it worse. It would appear that you are focusing on corners that we think are good corners - and trying to make them even better.... if it ain't broken, don't fix it! A good challenge would be to change circuits that are historically known for being boring races - and come up with alternative layouts/suggestions to make them more interesting. E.g. Hungaroring etc.... Or, go google map hunting for a slab of land (not street circuits) and use the GPS data to design a circuit! That is what I used to do when designing circuits on rFactor

As a Racing Driver..... I am very glad to see safety in circuits have improved! (I've sustained a head injury once because of limited safety equipment). Though, I am not a fan of the asphalt run-off areas because the drivers completly abuse it and now use it as part of the racing line... though then again, the driver's job is to go as fast as possible.

Personally, I am still a fan of Grass, Gravel (regardless if there is a risk of a car flipping) and high friction run off roads. If a driver has gone off the road, they should be punished for their mistakes, not rewarded by finding a "faster alternative around the circuit"... or at the very least, a penelty (thank god Vettel got his in Hockenheim!)
If you don't give drivers the option of "trying to go over the white line", then they can't cheat... simple! Replace astro-turf with strips of grass etc...

Once I get back on my main computer, I'd be happy to upload some of my circuit designs too

legendari25 wrote: I just don't like the Monaco extension... there's nothing wrong with the standard layout. I just would remove the chicanes on the first and last corners. They're too tight for modern cars, they should be wide and fast as they were in the 70's. La Rascasse should be like it was in the early 90's, a double corner, before Tilke came and changed it.

Cheers

ok cheers for the advice dario i am now about to give the actual reason why i did what i did.

it all started on nfs shift 2 on the riviera casino riviera circuit and my car is a nissan gtr spec-v with the gt1 cars v8 and in works spec meaning it's now putting out 1200hp. the corner in question is on avenue de la costa and the entrance is blind as the track suddenly falls away from you at about 290kph ( 180mph ) and it is nearly flat out but if you try to take it flat you will have quite a big accident which is what makes that corner so challenging
hope this answers the questions

cheers

My next attempts at improving some tracks:

My take on the Shanghai International Track: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714310
A revised Yeongam Circuit: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714328
A hopefully much smoother Abu Dhabi: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714354
My take on an actually good track, Interlagos: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714365

Ferrarist wrote:My next attempts at improving some tracks:

My take on the Shanghai International Track: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714310
A revised Yeongam Circuit: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714328
A hopefully much smoother Abu Dhabi: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714354
My take on an actually good track, Interlagos: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714365

I definitely prefer your version of Shanghai, especially as you canned the crapfest of a first corner.

BaconLettuceNinja wrote:

Ferrarist wrote:My next attempts at improving some tracks:

My take on the Shanghai International Track: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714310
A revised Yeongam Circuit: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714328
A hopefully much smoother Abu Dhabi: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714354
My take on an actually good track, Interlagos: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714365

I definitely prefer your version of Shanghai, especially as you canned the crapfest of a first corner.

i definitley prefer your version of Yeongam, especially as you canned the crapfest of turns 4-5-6

i also think abu dhabi is much better with that maggots-becketts section at silverstone

i think what you done to interlagos is very good but if you used the 1st 3 turns from the old circuit it would be perfect imo , also it would look like this
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/racingcir ... d1990.html

but very good overal

Ferrarist wrote:My next attempts at improving some tracks:

My take on the Shanghai International Track: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714310
A revised Yeongam Circuit: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714328
A hopefully much smoother Abu Dhabi: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714354
My take on an actually good track, Interlagos: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714365

The laptimes at Shanghai might be too short.

my next attempts to try and sort some tracks out

japaregua
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714053
i have had to use the banking because of the fact there is a sports stadium on the old track

indy
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714199
turns 2,4 the corner drecly after the 2 mile marker and the corner leading on to the back straight are all slightle banked ti imporve speed and i have got rid of the sillly, slow bit before the final 3 corners and replaced them with a fast left, right leading the cars onto the banking, the direction is clockwise.

talladega
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714385
the circuit follows the course of the original road course in the 1970's but i have added a chicane on the back straight to slow the cars down and provide a chance to overtake the guy in front on the brakes, i have also added a new infield section using perimeter roads and the start finish line is at the 6km mark in the pit lane where the grid shall be located

might be more tracks twomorrow
enjoy roblomas52

roblomas52 wrote:my next attempts to try and sort some tracks out

japaregua
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714053
i have had to use the banking because of the fact there is a sports stadium on the old track

indy
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714199
turns 2,4 the corner drecly after the 2 mile marker and the corner leading on to the back straight are all slightle banked ti imporve speed and i have got rid of the sillly, slow bit before the final 3 corners and replaced them with a fast left, right leading the cars onto the banking, the direction is clockwise.

talladega
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714385
the circuit follows the course of the original road course in the 1970's but i have added a chicane on the back straight to slow the cars down and provide a chance to overtake the guy in front on the brakes, i have also added a new infield section using perimeter roads and the start finish line is at the 6km mark in the pit lane where the grid shall be located

might be more tracks twomorrow
enjoy roblomas52

Your edit to Jacarepagua is quite possibly one of the most creative things I've ever seen in my life. And I like Indianapolis how it is, honestly. An F1 race at Talladega's road course could potentially be interesting, but the lap might be a bit long, the track needs to be widened, I don't know why F1 would want to go to Talladega, and using the banking is probably not something they'd want to do.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The laptimes at Shanghai might be too short.

Perhaps, but it's still within the FIA's requirements for F1 tracks anyway. A longer tracks would have involved involving the butt-ugly straight, which I honestly don't know, what to make out of it.

roblomas52 wrote:i think what you done to interlagos is very good but if you used the 1st 3 turns from the old circuit it would be perfect imo , also it would look like this
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/racingcir ... d1990.html

but very good overal

Thanks. I'd also like to thank you for giving my the link you've set in your post.

There is something I noted with tracks designed by Hermann Tilke. He seems to have to right directions, with where he wants his tracks to go. But the execution is somewhat horrible. It's too much start-stoppy. If he lets the tracks have more flow, the racing would probably be better on these tracks.

This me, trying to improve Istanbul: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714668
And here's another version of Sepang: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714676
And heeeeeeeere's Bahrain: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714688
India: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714696

After the events of Imola 1994, changes had to be made to Tamburello to provide more run-off (not just because of Senna but also because of other crashes there in the years in the lead-up to 1994). But I always wondered why they felt they had to put a chicane in instead of this, just tighten the entry and allow more space on the right? Imola had enough chicanes as it was already. Having a tighter entry would slow the cars down a bit without taking away from the character of the place, while also providing the extra run-off.

Or is there a flaw somewhere? If there is, please explain what it is.

Ferrarist wrote:
This me, trying to improve Istanbul: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714668
And here's another version of Sepang: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714676
And heeeeeeeere's Bahrain: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714688
India: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5714696

i really like what you done to turn 8 at istanbul because i have never got that corner right , is it slightly banked ala peratelta

love bahrain espesally the maggots-beckets-chaple section

india is very good as well becuse of the mods on the back straight

sepang is good IMO because of turn 1 mods

very good overall

My two cents here...

Cap Hammer is right in the fact that the FIA rules are ment to have more secure circuits for both drivers and fans, but there's another issue when the newer tracks are made with the idea of overtaking and/or fast-sweeping sections that help racing are banned. The issue of the disaster of Imola 94 was a simple act of negligence of the circuit administration, the FIA and Williams, but that doesn't mean that the whole concept of racing in F1 is now destinated to be boring.

I concur with Dario in the concept of that the old track layouts of may circuits were better, less twisty and happened to help racing. So why the FIA instead of cutting whole portions of terrain to add chicanes that not help at all, simplified it by upgrading the secirity measures? Tamburello could be reverted to it's old self with the aid of safer-barriers. The old Hockenheim was cutted just because Bernie wanted the change places with Lausizring, not because safety issues. Mont Melo's last "update" is a joke because the FIA doesn't have the balls to admit that they're afraid of speed. That's why Tilke "design" boring layouts, call them "circuits", adds a golden chair for Bernie to sit his old greedy ass and left us fans in despair (yes, I'm looking at you, Korea). That's why secutiry measures tested and proven mostly in the US are not permitted in European scenarios (because the FIA and FOM doesn't like what the US do to add "speed")

How ironic that the agency that should help motorsports is hampering it year after year. Fracking politics...

more circuits here

rockingham
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5715747

rafaela
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5715711
p.s does dario know anything on how steep the banking is or anything

pocono
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5715500

las vegas motorspeedway
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5715471

auto club speedway
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5715445

thats all for now please comment on the tracks more twomorow
roblomas52

SeedStriker wrote:My two cents here...

[...]

How ironic that the agency that should help motorsports is hampering it year after year. Fracking politics...

Seriously, what's it all about with that artificial grass in modern tracks? Yes, I'm referring to Hamilton taking some green carpet for a ride. And that stupid sausage corner in Korea, could it be more dangerous for no reason? I can only think of speed-bumps and traffic lights.

I think hosting a race in Dunsfold Park and commentated by Jeremy Clarkson would be a lot better than racing in Korea. That 8-figure would scare the hell of drivers. Maybe Webber can take off over the Boeing 747 and Grosjean can hit more than just 2 cars...

roblomas52 wrote:
rafaela
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5715711
p.s does dario know anything on how steep the banking is or anything

roblomas52

I do, though I have never been to Rafaela, unfortunately. The track is known here in Argentina as the "Speed Temple". You better see the bankings for yourself.
Here's a race for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8dw46pUZ6Q&feature=related
And here you have a lap at the oval onboard a TC2000 Chevrolet Cruze: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAS-txgB-EM

You're actually posting 80% of all the ideas I had for many tracks!! Specially for Istambul. And that extension at La Rascasse is something I envisioned when I was 15 (back in 2007). Hopefully I have a few notes from high school that'll prove me right. Hopefully for you I didn't register them

Captain Hammer wrote:

legendari25 wrote:Maybe you can start assuming that if we are all trying to revive old circuits is because old circuits were better.

They may be better, but most of what I'm seeing is people re-posting the layouts of old circuits, under the impression that they have improved them. But they haven't improved them, because they weren't the ones who designed the circuit in the first place.

If we can agree that old tracks were better, then reposting layouts of old circuits is, by definition, improving them. No matter who designed the original track in the first place.

Captain Hammer wrote:This thread was originally intended so that people could put forward ideas for circuit design that were original works.

I posted a few of my own scratch creations but you commented nothing.

Captain Hammer wrote: This is my re-design of the Nurburgring

The track itself looks very good, it does look challenging, but I don't see that as an improvement over the current track, which, in turn, was worse than the 1984-2001 track. No matter how funny you found some background shapes. Again, all you can say is "I upgraded this and that to encourage overtaking". You just added overtaking features, like Tilke does. Except for the final sector, which I instantly admired.

We both agree that Mercedes Arena sucks, but instead of eliminating it, you made it even tighter. Imagine 24 cars tackling that double hairpin in the first lap. The old corner was better: right-left and off you go.

Next thing: you tightened a hairpin to make it even more hairpin, but you didn't change the entrance to that more-hairpin. So cars will enter at roughly the same speed, no matter how fast they exit the Mercedes-Arena. And drivers will still be unable to do a thing since it's still downhill and they're slowing more and more from the closing-radius corner you built.

You already changed 2 corners into a hairpin but you dislike the only original hairpin (Dunlop) because it's... a hairpin. Then, do hairpins produce passing or not? Your solution is to provide a much tighter hairpin. That is, I must point out, genius.

You moan about sticking to the safety protocol, but you leave untouched the only really dangerous corner of this track: the Schumacher S. Dangerous corners, then... are decent or not?

The final sector, I said it from the very beggining, is great. I would really love to see that put in order. Though I think the climb to the Nordschleife sector would be a bit steep. But I still like it.

Captain Hammer wrote:Okay, let's take your redesign of Albert Park as an example

I literally did change something, the Waite chicane. Do two downshifts from 7th to 5th in an F1 car seem to you close to flat-out? Seriously, look at both the 2004 and the 2012 pole laps and then commentate. By mentioning Spa later in your commentary, you prove to have no idea what "Flat-out" or even "Close to-flat out" means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTWvN1aFw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZR3bh49xFg

The entrance to Waite chicane is no place for overtaking, but the new faster proposal would lead to some fast slisptream runs between closely following cars, having some real unaided overtaking chance at the end of that run. Also making the back-run much faster. Given there's a lake and no room for runoffs, I didn't use the old Clark corner. Besides, that does, provide some overtaking chances without DRS or hairpins. I think the challenge was improved. But maybe you could have opened your mouth long before, instead of just moaning about my work on small details.

And here's your redesign of Aintree:

Again, the main idea was to leave as much natural green available, and leaving the original hippodrome intact. You seem to be unable to understand that basic idea. And you seem to be unable to see my PS that reads:

PS: I don't like my Aintree redesign, but I wanted to start with something. Please point out any good ideas to revive this brilliant, fast circuit.

Pointing out good ideas can even be "tear down that hippodrome, make the best out of that track". Does "I don't like my redesign" mean "I love my redesign and I think it's revolutionary" to you?

And for the last time, stop putting words on my mouth. I claim that I've fixed some tracks to my point of view. I submit them to public debate expecting feedback. I never claimed they were revolutionary nor that a mediocre circuit has become the successor to Spa.

giraurd wrote:Title: 'Beat Tilke in his own game'

FIA Rules are in some parts unnecessary I do agree Dario, but I kind of assumed the point of the thread to be a place for us wannabe designers to show people how much 'better' we are than Tilke. And Tilke is limited by FIA Rules, so why shouldn't we be?

My original point was that Tilke is bounded by FIA rules. That's why Singapore and Silverstone look like his creation. No matter who designs, if he/she has to stick to that FIA protocol, tracks will be rubbish and all the same. There's no point in trying to be better than him with current enforced rules, and most of all, if we have never seen Tilke design what he really can design, outside the box. The FIA states that the first corner must be within a determinate distance and have a determinate angle. Everything is detailed to great extension, so nothing really new can come up from that. Then we must agree that rules are, in some parts, unnecesary, and then try to design something. However, nothing we proposed in this discussion was out of this world, just a bit more challenging.

Captain Hammer wrote:

legendari25 wrote:I feel like I failed to prove my point that F1 (I don't watch MotoGP, I know nothing about bikes) has gone west because of FIA's regulations since Senna's death.

You feel correctly. I wasn't even aware that you were trying to make a point in the first place.

You should start reading what other people say, then. I recall two people agreeing with me in this point: Giraud and Rob Lomas.

Captain Hammer wrote:

legendari25 wrote:And drivers are presented with tracks that are just drawn on tarmac, there are no boundaries. They are constantly driving off-road (Variante Ascari exit) in practice, qualifying, race... but if they dare overtake off-road, like Vettel did in the last lap of the German GP 2012 on Button, they're penalised.

It is acceptable at Monza, because they are considered to be lengthening the circuit. And unlike Hockenheim, no-one overtakes there. Not unless the driver in front makes a serious mistake or has a problem. Once again, you're dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator, and brazenly ignoring the differences in circumstances that explain the different reactions from the stewards.

It is as acceptable in Monza as it is in Hockehnheim, as Vettel was indeed driving further distance. And Räikkönen was also lengthening the track by running wide in Pouhon with Lewis in 2008. The basis "considered to be lengthening the track" is stupid, because then a single white line should be drawn in a huge field and drivers should be allowed to do driver wherever they wanted without crossing it. There are two lines for a reason. You're the only one claiming the outer line has no purpose, and should continue to not have one.

And the only person in this whole discussion who dumbed things down to the lowest common denominator (whateve you intended to imply towards me) were you, when you designed a bypass version of Fuji, a bypassed version of Yas Island and warmly welcomed a bypassed version of the Hockenehimring.

Now, if you want, we can continue to give each other a hard time, or we can try to solve track design, which I think is the only purpose of this thread. Maybe you can start pointing out what you think is wrong with Tilke's tracks, what's right, what could be done to improve them, and what's wrong and right with the designs we all posted. Because, basically, I want to know what is it you think about Tilke track design and our track design. With real feedback, like you gave on your Nürburgring.

And I sincerely thank you for detailing your feedback on two of my tracks, thogugh unluckily you missed I didn't like one of them to begin with...

Dario.

legendari25 wrote:My original point was that Tilke is bounded by FIA rules. That's why Singapore and Silverstone look like his creation. No matter who designs, if he/she has to stick to that FIA protocol, tracks will be rubbish and all the same. There's no point in trying to be better than him with current enforced rules, and most of all, if we have never seen Tilke design what he really can design, outside the box. The FIA states that the first corner must be within a determinate distance and have a determinate angle. Everything is detailed to great extension, so nothing really new can come up from that. Then we must agree that rules are, in some parts, unnecesary, and then try to design something. However, nothing we proposed in this discussion was out of this world, just a bit more challenging.

The entire point of the thread is to do better than Tilke under the same rules he's restricted by.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:The entire point of the thread is to do better than Tilke under the same rules he's restricted by.

Not possible, mate, sorry. Tilke is one of the best designers in the world under these rules. Besides, I doubt any of us know or have access to the full FIA protocol. So all we can argue here is based in stipulations and assumptions on how the book actually is.

In fact I do think it's very possible to improve Tilke's tracks with FIA boundaries..possible with almost all of them. Tilke is a good designer especially lately but still has some bad habits with profiling his tracks.

edit - google is friend http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 8.2009.pdf

giraurd wrote:In fact I do think it's very possible to improve Tilke's tracks with FIA boundaries..possible with almost all of them. Tilke is a good designer especially lately but still has some bad habits with profiling his tracks.

edit - google is friend http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 8.2009.pdf

also theres this

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... cuits.aspx

roblomas52 wrote:

giraurd wrote:In fact I do think it's very possible to improve Tilke's tracks with FIA boundaries..possible with almost all of them. Tilke is a good designer especially lately but still has some bad habits with profiling his tracks.

edit - google is friend http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 8.2009.pdf

also theres this

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... cuits.aspx

Damn, I don't have AutoCAD. So sorry, I would have really liked to comply with those rules. No, I wouldn't. lol

Seriously, I just found some time to read those regulations, and they do not establish any rules on track design. It's just specifications on how plans and desgins must be submitted, what kind of meshes must be used in AutoCAD, what width must the track have (12m. minimum, 15m. minimum for start/finish line, 20m. maximum) the width transitions, the width of the white border lines, the width of the verges, the slopes of the runoffs, etc. There is a recommendation that the first corner should be at least 250 m away from the start line.

Can anybody explain me why would you want a finish line different from the start line?

There is also a table that standarizes minimum track length for each type of racing category, depending on race duration. Shorter tracks must apply for a special permission.

It also specifies minimum length for the starting grid (6 meters, 8 for F1) and other technicalities.

But every single thing that is explained in there does not rule actual track design. I didn't even find a minimum/maximum length for straights or min/max radius for corners. I'm pretty sure there is a regulaion on all those things, but as I said, it's not available to us. I'm trying to avoid thinking Tilke is that rubbish designer, that he really is bounded.

Garage widths, pit width, slopes, mandatory paint types, location of traffic lights, car-on-fire protocols and every single thing explained there does not concern us when sketching tracks. So we're back at square one. Do we design based on what we think are the rules or based on what we think is best?

I'll go for best. Restarting my work right now.

legendari25 wrote:Can anybody explain me why would you want a finish line different from the start line?

Quite a few tracks around the world have different start and finish lines. I think it's a timing thing, the finish line is almost always before the pit box closest to the entry so every car is recorded as finishing a lap before pitting. But as this often means that a full grid of cars would be parked around the last corner at the start, the actual start line is further forward, but is completely unimportant after the start.

If I'm not completely off, max straight line distance is 2.0km (based on them cutting that Bathurst straight due to its longevity so longest flatout part was only 1.9km).

As for corner regulations....no idea. Probably there is some regulation - would better just see what already exists and create no silly stuff like 3.0km corners with 1300 degree radius or something, it's still enough to let your imagination roam. ^^

giraurd wrote:If I'm not completely off, max straight line distance is 2.0km (based on them cutting that Bathurst straight due to its longevity so longest flatout part was only 1.9km).

Isn't that what caused the random chicanes on the Mulsanne straight too? Or was that a safety thing?

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

giraurd wrote:If I'm not completely off, max straight line distance is 2.0km (based on them cutting that Bathurst straight due to its longevity so longest flatout part was only 1.9km).

Isn't that what caused the random chicanes on the Mulsanne straight too? Or was that a safety thing?

No it was a saftey thing after one of the w-m Peugeot's hit over 400kph on the straight so the organisers put chicanes in there to slow. The cars down

giraurd wrote:If I'm not completely off, max straight line distance is 2.0km (based on them cutting that Bathurst straight due to its longevity so longest flatout part was only 1.9km).

Well the length was part of the issue but the main reason they put the Chase in was because of Mike Burgmann's huge accident at the bridge near pit entry.

A few changes to Buddh:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5720777

I tried to make the first half of the lap a little more interesting, but there wasn't much I could do except turn the final corner into a giant sweeper. I also added a little flick before Turn 4 to make the actual corner a little more interesting, and sharpened the final part of the giant Turn 12 to the point where it can still be taken flat out, but is considerably harder to get right.

And a new Istanbul design:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5717845

I intented this one to be as simple as possible, whilst trying to capture the feel of an old-school circuit, given that I feel it is the closest thing the recent run of new circuit has seen to an old-school design. I'm actually surprised as how well it turned out.

giraurd wrote:(based on them cutting that Bathurst straight due to its longevity so longest flatout part was only 1.9km)

No, Conrod Straight was shortened because the event organisers realised that the sport was getting faster and faster with each passing year. At the bottom of the straight is Murray's Corner, a ninety-degree right-hander with limited run-off, an armco barrier and a spectator embankment. They realised that this was trouble in the making, and so added the Chase in. This being Bathurst, they decided that they didn't want to undo the character of the circuit and so made the entry the fastest touring car corner in the world, because that's just how Australians do it.