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.
. 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.
) 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 
