Grand Prix Rejects

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.

Well, if that's your goal, perhaps you should take it to the rejectful track design thread, instead of one which is supposed to be more about coming up with alternatives for Tilke's constructions.

legandari25 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.

You, know, I'm trying to see this in a constructive light, but all I can see here is a simple attempt to dismiss us simply because our opinion differs from yours. Classy.

legandari25 wrote:I don't try to make things easier for me.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

legandari25 wrote:Formula Stupid has mended things in favour of overtaking, ultimately putting a button to give extra bhp and forbidding the driver ahead from defending.

Provably wrong - Hamilton was faster than Vettel at Austin, but it took Karthikeyan being in the way for him to pass Vettel.

legandari25 wrote:And making the abhorrent combination of straight-hairpin 30 meters wide to facilitate things even more.

If that's the price we have to pay to not have to sit through constant rehashes of *insert driver name here*WINSLOL, and not have drivers regularly being injured and killed, you know what? That's acceptable. There's still plenty of good racing, from where I'm sitting.

legandari25 wrote: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.

Or maybe he was just slower? Drivers slow down when they get older - this is a fact.

legandari25 wrote: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

I agree that the Villeneuve-Arnoux battle was the best ever. I also recognise that it was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of deal - the only battle that resembled it was the scrap between Kubica and Massa a few years ago. At what track, may you ask? Fuji. It's almost impossible to engineer a situation like that; the best you can do is just encourage overtaking and hope you get a situation where the race is almost over, you have two evenly-matched driver-car combinations, who both refuse to give up.

legandari25 wrote: the latter banned from defending under modern rules, with risk of facing automatic racing ban if he did so.

PROTIP: Exaggerating things doesn't make automatically make your point true. Going back again to the Hamilton-Vettel battle in Austin (not that I think it was a particularly standout battle, it's just a good example that's still fresh in my mind), Vettel was quite clearly defending his position.

legandari25 wrote: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.

How is that relevant to anything ever.

legandari25 wrote:And, definitely, the indian track is 10 times better than Imola.

More rash generalisations and assumptions. Also, as an aside, I never really liked Imola, in either configuration. Monza does the same thing, but better.

legandari25 wrote: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.

Hey, yeah! Wow! That's an incredible observation! It's almost like, I dunno, your generalisation is COMPLETELY WRONG.

legandari25 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.

I never saw the original layout for Silverstone being raced on, so I can't comment on it.

legandari25 wrote:You are admitting openly that you only enjoy things that cannot be driven properly

Yes. Because it forces drivers to comprimise, to think more about how they are going to approach this oncoming series of corners. These guys claim to be the greatest the world has to offer - let's see them work for their money.

legandari25 wrote:so you are clearly one of those hollow spectators

Here we go again with the generalistions. Nice flame, by the way, I've never been called hollow before. That's a new one.

legandari25 wrote: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.

You know what? Prove it. You're claiming I like these things - prove it. Here's a hint - I don't.

legandari25 wrote:That's where we differ. I want to see real drivers racing, not putting a ridiculous show.

No. You want to see what constitutes your opinion of 'real drivers racing'. I want the same thing, under my own definition of the term.

legandari25 wrote:I want the old exciting F1 back, not a kindergarten full of playstations with engines.

And there we go. You want to turn the clock back, essentially. Guess what? That's not ever happening. I want to see the cars look like they did in the 90s. But that's not ever going to happen either. And no amount of complaining will change it. Times change, for better or for worse. That's life.

legandari25 wrote:What's wrong with corners where you can't mess up unless you have a failure, like the old Tamburello?

What's wrong with corners where you can mess up? What's wrong with those?

legandari25 wrote: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.

If it means drivers not dying, yes. Yes I am happy with that. Though as mentioned before, I didn't really like Imola in either configuration - there's just less danger in the newer one.

legandari25 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.

Apparently you've never heard that Monaco is grandfathered in and would never in a million years be approved if it was a new track trying to gain a spot on the calendar. The FIA regulations specify some amount of runoff, and there just isn't room for it, so they have to have the Singapore Stupid Chicane.

legandari25 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.

I'm not requesting the runoffs, the FIA is. Take the issue up with them.

legandari25 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.

I'm just going by what the FIA says. They're the guys setting the rules, and they seem to be working.

legandari25 wrote: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.

Tyre walls are not modern safety tech, not by a long shot. I believe you mean TECPRO or SAFER barriers. /nitpick

Also, old school brakes? What on Earth for?

legandari25 wrote: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.

I never said the best racing was at Melborne, I just said it was a great track that didn't need to be changed. If you want my honest opinion of the best tracks, they would be the current version of Montreal and the A1-Ring. The latter of which is a Tilke track, I might add. Not that I'm entirely defending them, there's some Tilke tracks which are utter rubbish. Hence this thread.

legandari25 wrote:Make fun of my tracks all you want.

When did anybody actually do that? If they did, I'm certain it was unintentional.

legandari25 wrote:And now show me some creation of yours.

No. Because I am not a track designer, nor do I claim to be one, nor do I aspire to design tracks in any fashion. I am simply a person on the internet offering my opinions, who can quite easily be ignored.

legandari25 wrote:But as you are admitting by yourself, my tracks, and you're absolutely right, are designed for being good at driving.

Yet you despise combinations like turns 12-13-14 at Sepang. Why? That is a good test of driver skill in my opinion, forcing a driver to comprimise to achieve the best exit.

legandari25 wrote:I don't care at all for spectators.

And that is the type of thinking that will kill Formula 1. Or would, if anybody in a position of power actually practiced it. If only the die-hard fans watched F1, there would be a hell of a lot less money supporting it, and it'd topple over under it's own weight.

legandari25 wrote: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.

Didn't you admit that Brazil 2012 was a great race? Now it's suddenly no show at all?

legandari25 wrote:I have to search for footage more than 20 years old to enjoy something.

Well, I geninuely feel sorry for you. But F1 is not turning back the clock to accomodate you or those who share your opinion. If that is the racing you want, perhaps you should not watch current F1 and just watch those races. Or find another series which is more to your tastes.

legandari25 wrote:Modern drivers will never be such great legends as Fangio, Villeneuve, Moss, Senna, Lauda or Prost are.

Michael Schumacher is generally considered one of the top five all-time greats. He's a modern driver. I personally place Alonso in the top 10 and Vettel will likely join him before his career is over. I also note that you didn't include Jim Clark in that pantheon - you may be interested to know that Jim Clark is also generally considered to be one of those top five all-time greats. You know which track Clark despised? Spa. A track he won at 4 times, mind you.

legandari25 wrote: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.

I don't care about Hamilton now. But I will tell you who I do care about: Robert Kubica. That man is an absolute genius behind the wheel and I will go to my grave singing his praises.

Here's a redesign of Hockenheim I've made:
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5772286
The first sector is almost the same, with the corners just being made less tighter. However after the Arena section, the cars feed onto a new section where the safety centre currently is. The main feature is the hairpin at the end of the straight, which could be banked, similar to another famous German circuit. The new section then feeds onto the national circuit, before rejoining the GP circuit before the stadium section, ceating a fast, sweeping right hand turn.

Now I think, after reading the extensive essays about tracks, I know where the bottom problem lies:

Dario is a racing driver. As a racing driver he wants tracks that are fun to drive but which also is one where he doesn't spin and crash around.
UgncreativeUsername and BlindCaveSalamander are spectators. As spectators they want tracks that are fun to watch and where the drivers do spin and crash around.

Guess this disagreement is not solvable :p

giraurd wrote:Now I think, after reading the extensive essays about tracks, I know where the bottom problem lies:

Dario is a racing driver. As a racing driver he wants tracks that are fun to drive but which also is one where he doesn't spin and crash around.
UgncreativeUsername and BlindCaveSalamander are spectators. As spectators they want tracks that are fun to watch and where the drivers do spin and crash around.

Guess this disagreement is not solvable :p

I agree with this assessment. Of course, being a spectator doesn't mean you have to hate things with no overtaking points and being a driver doesn't mean you have to hate the opposite, but saying that is just taking you too literally and missing the point of your post. I'd like to say the argument is some ultra-complex thing and you're oversimplifying it, but... it's really not. You've hit the nail on the head with this.

giraurd wrote:Now I think, after reading the extensive essays about tracks, I know where the bottom problem lies:

Dario is a racing driver. As a racing driver he wants tracks that are fun to drive but which also is one where he doesn't spin and crash around.
UgncreativeUsername and BlindCaveSalamander are spectators. As spectators they want tracks that are fun to watch and where the drivers do spin and crash around.

Guess this disagreement is not solvable :p

Yeah, I think you have nailed it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want drivers to spin and crash. I just want the possibility for that so drivers are punished if they make mistakes.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

giraurd wrote:Now I think, after reading the extensive essays about tracks, I know where the bottom problem lies:

Dario is a racing driver. As a racing driver he wants tracks that are fun to drive but which also is one where he doesn't spin and crash around.
UgncreativeUsername and BlindCaveSalamander are spectators. As spectators they want tracks that are fun to watch and where the drivers do spin and crash around.

Guess this disagreement is not solvable :p

Yeah, I think you have nailed it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want drivers to spin and crash. I just want the possibility for that so drivers are punished if they make mistakes.

also the casual gamer like me revels in a decent sized challange be it a really tough boss ( ryo watanabe from NFS pro street ) or challanging physics like they are in real life ( Grand Prix Legends ( which i haven't got yet ) where the cars and tracks are based on the 1968 season ) yet with GPL the designers removed the le mans bugatti circuit as it didn't seem to be keeping with the times so they used Rouen Les Essarts insted so the point i'm making here is the harder a game is, the more rewarding it is and the harder a circuit is, the more rewarding it is

roblomas52 wrote:( Grand Prix Legends ( which i haven't got yet ) where the cars and tracks are based on the 1968 season )

1967, you mean. Probably just a typo, correct?

OK this has gone out of hand (is that the right expression?)

Giraud is totally right, as I've said, I think things from a racing driver point of view, and I know for a fact that lots of people would like to see old-school racing again. You guys admit that the 79 French GP was one of, if not the best ever finish of all times. And I admit that despite being in a Tilkedrome, the Massa-Kubica battle was very good. That was the first season I watched in it's entirety, even though that race was around 2 am in my time zone (If I recall properly).

However, I remember Massa defending outside of the track on the final corner, and that move was subjected to an investigation from the stewards. However, when Vettel did the same in Hockenehim, he was denoted to fifth, in 2012. Of course some fierce battle can arise, after all they have cars, they're human, they can get into intense heat and rivalry, etc. But as I've said at the beggining, the problem with F1 is that after the Villeneuve-Senna tragedies, safety was put in first priority. And I've mentioned lots of deaths that would have simply not occured if those races would have been organised today. Villeneuve had a similar accident to Kubica, whom only had minor concussions, a broken ankle and was unconscious for a while. Tom Pryce would have never encountered marshalls running across the track. Senna would have had a better helmet and only sustain injuries to his head, not death (like Massa) (if we agree that Senna was killed by the spring that penetrated his helmet, not damage to his neck, as I've seen in the recent movie). Ratzenberger would have had HANS, and so on.

So I understand safety was first priority after many great drivers and heroes were lost. Proof is that today, those accidents, despite occuring, take lives no more. And I am grateful for that, because as an upcoming racing driver, though I am really not afraid of hurting myself on the track, I certainly don't want to go and waste my life or end up in a wheelchair or life support.

Today, F1 has got extremely safe, which is good, it must not be unsafe. Drivers have families and friends. And fans too. And none of them enjoy deaths or horrible accidents. But let's be honest, forget if the chicane offers an overtaking spot or not. Let's concentrate on the safety: does Traguardo really have to be there today? At least for F1 (because I don't see why the two alternatives can't coexist, as they do in Monza turn 1), I mean. Suppose a car departs where Senna's did. What would happen? Ralf hit the wall much harder than Senna did, and he only sustained injuries to his back. Sad, but he recovered, and still races in DTM (is that correct?) with a perfectly healthy body. I mean, we enjoy rally or Dakar because they are super dangerous and drivers have to constantly improvise. Deaths occur there. What I'm asking is not for deaths to occur in F1, just bring back the fun bits of the old racing that made it so good, alongside EVERY single achievement in passive and active safety of today. Just not the silly chicanes.

Example: explain me the difference between stopping from 200 mph at todays Bus Stop or stopping from 205 mph at La Source. After all, the Bus stop is a double hairpin. Or the difference between staying 20 or 30 yards away from each other in a fast run through Monza without chicane number one, directly into Lesmos or at least Roggia and coming all togheter into a tight chicane, where distances come to 20 or 30 milimiters, and drivers are prone to end up early their races.

I mean... in the US they're constantly using ovals, and they don't die (I think I said it before, if I did, sorry for repeating). Maybe ocassionaly, but NASCAR hasn't got the same safety standards as F1. And after all, I'm not proposing running on ovals, just erasing, for instance, Bus Stop. Traguardo. Villeneuve. Variante Alta. And so on.

Maybe you don't agree because that's what today brings up the overtaking spots, but you're forgetting that overtaking spots became necessary when F1 got boring with the modern brakes. Carbon ceramic brakes forces drivers to brake the hell out of their cars (due to the incredible non-fatiguing compound) or else, the driver behind will come through. All in all, very high-techy, very exciting. But that made races processional. Look at Dijon 79, and you'll see how far behind was Villeneuve when he tortured his tyres to get side by side with Arnoux, much to Murray Walker's surprise, who loses his breath mid way through the battle. That's the result of Arnoux minding his tyres and brakes, and Villeneuve taking as much as he could in a desperate attempt to get past. Today that doesn't exist. And when a car is overtaking with help from DRS, he's coming through 15 mph faster on the acceleration zone, he's not braking half a second later.

I'll concede that you guys are correct in that F1 has the allegedly best drivers in the world, and as such, they shouldn't be making mistakes, even through the horrid bends. But would you consider Sepang more challenging than the Nordschleife or La Sarthe? And none of them, despite the final two chicanes of La Sarthe, have horrid bends. They're all the "easier" sort I put in my designs. Yet I dare any of the current drivers to tackle them flat out on a modern F1 car. Or side by side. Or find the will to brake later and drift on all 4 wheels like Fangio did. (Yes, I know cars were in black and white back then (?), but there also was no catch fencing or armcos. Just a cliff.)

Can we agree that the roundier corners can still be challenging if laid out properly? Maybe I just need to fine-tune my work, but I seriously think that F1 can be mended with a bit more hardcore on the car and a bit less hardcore on the track, e.g., brakes and shanghai.

However, in part my fault, this thread diverted into areas that are not relevant to the original proposal. So as soon as I'm back from buying food for tonight, I'll draw something on a sheet of paper and share it with you guys.

Cheers.

And here goes the point again: in my point of view too, the biggest problem is in the cars, which should be largely changed in my opinion, to promote the racing side.

But that's the topic of the thread 'Beat FIA in their own game' right? On this thread, we need to remember about the ineptitude of the cars when it comes to promoting racing, it should imo be accounted in the designs here - sure it makes you have to compromise the re-designs, but we're here to claim to be great designers anyway and overcome the difficulty, eh...

I agree that chicanes aren't the only way to make something safe, though your argument, legendari, seems to depend on me thinking chicanes are the only way. I get the point about worse brakes too, but those aren't coming back any time soon, so if we're designing tracks for F1 we have to keep the modern brakes in mind.

legendari25 wrote:I'll concede that you guys are correct in that F1 has the allegedly best drivers in the world, and as such, they shouldn't be making mistakes, even through the horrid bends. But would you consider Sepang more challenging than the Nordschleife or La Sarthe?

That's not a valid comparison. The Nordschleife and la Sarthe take much of their challenge from their length. Many of the individual corners are still tricky, but a lot of it is from the length. F1 isn't ever going to those tracks again, so if you could pick a few tracks which are more challenging and a similar length to Sepang you would have something of a good point. Still, it wouldn't change the fact that complicated corners and complexes are generally more difficult than simple ones.

legendari25 wrote:However, in part my fault, this thread diverted into areas that are not relevant to the original proposal.

It's F1 Rejects, what do you want?

legendari25 wrote:
OK I am sick of this. I finally found some time and redesigned Imola under your Tilkeish standards.



Dario Fernandez

Hahaa

legendari25 wrote:

legendari25 wrote:
OK I am sick of this. I finally found some time and redesigned Imola under your Tilkeish standards.



Dario Fernandez

Hahaa

That's annoying, but it goes really well with your avatar so I'll let it slide.

So true. I forgot about my avatar.

God, I just can't stop laughing about my picture and avatar combo now, you bastard! xD

legendari25 wrote:Maybe you don't agree because that's what today brings up the overtaking spots, but you're forgetting that overtaking spots became necessary when F1 got boring with the modern brakes. Carbon ceramic brakes forces drivers to brake the hell out of their cars (due to the incredible non-fatiguing compound) or else, the driver behind will come through. All in all, very high-techy, very exciting. But that made races processional. Look at Dijon 79, and you'll see how far behind was Villeneuve when he tortured his tyres to get side by side with Arnoux, much to Murray Walker's surprise, who loses his breath mid way through the battle. That's the result of Arnoux minding his tyres and brakes, and Villeneuve taking as much as he could in a desperate attempt to get past. Today that doesn't exist. And when a car is overtaking with help from DRS, he's coming through 15 mph faster on the acceleration zone, he's not braking half a second later.

[...]

Can we agree that the roundier corners can still be challenging if laid out properly? Maybe I just need to fine-tune my work, but I seriously think that F1 can be mended with a bit more hardcore on the car and a bit less hardcore on the track, e.g., brakes and shanghai.

In many ways, though, the battle between Arnoux and Villeneuve was somewhat artificial - Villeneuve was only able to get close to Arnoux down the straights because the fuel pump for Arnoux's right hand cylinder bank was malfunctioning, causing Arnoux to lose a considerable amount of power. If it weren't for the fact that Arnoux car was partially crippled, Gilles probably wouldn't have caught Arnoux in the first place (it's part of the reason why Gilles was notably faster on the main straights than Arnoux was).

As for carbon brakes, that technology has been around for several decades now - Brabham were using carbon brakes back in the 1970's, and by the early 1980's they were in fairly widespread use, so you can't really blame that alone for processional races (though there certainly were a larger number of processional races in the 1970's and 1980's than most seem to recall).
Equally, Davidson mentioned that the prototype cars at Le Mans use the same brake material compounds as in F1, and despite the fact that the cars are significantly heavier and the sheer distance they cover, very few teams have had problems with getting the same set of brake disks through the entire 24 Hours of Le Mans. If you created a track with multiple heavy braking zones, all that the teams would do is simply run with slightly more cooling or buy some other "off the shelf" product that has a slightly higher working temperature range.
Switching out the brake material for something else is unlikely to help either - Jaguar Racing very nearly went with grey iron brake disks when they started out in F1, because, in back to back tests they carried out, they found that grey iron brake disks were just as effective as carbon disks in slowing the car down (but, because the grey iron disks were heavier and required more cooling to prevent the disks from cracking, they were ditched for conventional carbon disks).

mario wrote:(though there certainly were a larger number of processional races in the 1970's and 1980's than most seem to recall).

Certainly so, but that was because of a different reason than nowadays - back then the cars were further apart pace-wise than now, but actually were good for racing. In modern times the circumstances are the opposite: the field is tighter, but the sheer difficulty of getting any close to the modern f1 car ahead (usually it is needed to be significantly faster to have any opportunity to overcome the 'dirty air wall' and attempt an overtake (the artificial DRS stuff is countering this btw)) leads to the original problem; races can't really be done the old way on the old tracks.

giraurd wrote:

mario wrote:(though there certainly were a larger number of processional races in the 1970's and 1980's than most seem to recall).

Certainly so, but that was because of a different reason than nowadays - back then the cars were further apart pace-wise than now, but actually were good for racing. In modern times the circumstances are the opposite: the field is tighter, but the sheer difficulty of getting any close to the modern f1 car ahead (usually it is needed to be significantly faster to have any opportunity to overcome the 'dirty air wall' and attempt an overtake (the artificial DRS stuff is countering this btw)) leads to the original problem; races can't really be done the old way on the old tracks.

Which brings me onto the downforce without drag issue because if teams could exploit ground effect to the maximum, the car could run less wing meaning more slipstreaming and therefore more overtaking

roblomas52 wrote:

giraurd wrote:

mario wrote:(though there certainly were a larger number of processional races in the 1970's and 1980's than most seem to recall).

Certainly so, but that was because of a different reason than nowadays - back then the cars were further apart pace-wise than now, but actually were good for racing. In modern times the circumstances are the opposite: the field is tighter, but the sheer difficulty of getting any close to the modern f1 car ahead (usually it is needed to be significantly faster to have any opportunity to overcome the 'dirty air wall' and attempt an overtake (the artificial DRS stuff is countering this btw)) leads to the original problem; races can't really be done the old way on the old tracks.

Which brings me onto the downforce without drag issue because if teams could exploit ground effect to the maximum, the car could run less wing meaning more slipstreaming and therefore more overtaking

Which shows that there is another critical aspect in the dynamics between the cars and the track, which is the need for that performance differentiator to enable somebody to catch and pass another driver. In the case of modern F1 cars, that performance differentiator has become the DRS, whilst in the past the more common method tended to be an overboost button for the turbocharged cars or being able to slightly over rev and run a more aggressive fuel mixture for the normally aspirated cars that followed.

As for the implementation of ground effects, that may reduce the problem somewhat; the issue of turbulence, however, is always going to be problematic when you have four exposed wheels (the turbulent wake of which is going to be significantly larger than that of the wings and bodywork). Even during the ground effect era, drivers would still notice the effects of being in the turbulent wake of another driver, whilst there are some studies that suggest the overtaking rate actually went up after stepped flat floors were reintroduced in 1983 (perhaps because, in part, the cars of the mid 1980's virtually had the drag coefficients of bricks that would have lead to unusually strong slipstream effects).

Marina Bay -- Singapore
====================

What's wrong with it

It has far too many corners very close from one another, making it an enormously stressing race. Lap times are very slow, thus making it a Grand Prix which will rarely have 100% distance completed. Drivers must face extremely high heat during the race while focusing on an overly complicated layout with no runoff areas.

What can be changed

The first corner looks like a mirrored Turn 1 at Albert Park. The entrance is a bit smaller. The problem is that it's followed by a left hander hairpin, unlke the fast run at Melbourne after Turn 2, making it a place very likely to see crashes or offroad incursions. Despite being hard/challenging, it's a bit dangerous for no reason. This has to change.

Turn 5 (the right hander before the longest straight run) is midway between flat out (if it sticks to the inner wall) and a first-gear bend (if it sticks to the outer wall with a later, tighter kerb). Though this doens't mean too much, either it provides a good fast slipstream point to allow higher speed down the long straight and better overtaking point, or it provides a good overtaking point itself. I'd stick to the latter one.

Turn 10 (the ridiculously small chicane) is ridicolously small. I fear that is more dangerous than a fast run after it. But the lack of space for runoff areas makes it a rather tricky corner to deal with.

Turns 19-22 are completely unnecessary just because it's fun to have cars driving underneath the people. They are far too tight, preceded and followed by such small straight runs, making them useless at overtaking points. Should an accident occur here, there is no way to avoid debris or a wreckage. That could lead to a fatal accident, should a driver try to get out of a burning car whilst another driver carelessly drives past with no room to move over. Because they are also blind corners.

Turns 23-24 are fast enough to be a double-apexed tight turn. They eliminate the chance of having 2 cars side by side entering the straight at the same time. Either flat out and round or slow and hairpinish.

What I did

The first two corners now emulate Melbourne. A wider turn 1, a much faster turn 2, leading to an extension towards the boulevard the comprises the opposite "straight" run. This extension ends up in a hairpin after a flat out kink, emulating Melbourne too. Then it follows the boulevard up to original Turn 5, which is now a hairpin, providing the third overtaking spot of the track, following the longest flat-out run of the track. Top speed should be around 315 kph.

The third flat-out run, first DRS zone has a slower entrance, but cars would be set-up for lower downforce, meaning they will still reach 305 kph in this zone. The following left-hander is left untouched and so is the right-hander. But now there is a new street used for my project. This new run eliminates the need for Turn 10 chicane, because it ends in a closing radius right-hander that enters a left-hander hairpin. Ex-turns 14 and 15 are left unchanged, so are ex-16 17 and 18. The grandstands will be lower, closer to the track level. Turns 19-22 will no longer exist. They will be replaced with a long straight, ending in a tight 90° corner, providing the seventh overtaking spot of the track, also featuring the second DRS zone. Top speed should be around 300 kph in this section.

Given that the two straights between ex turns 18-19 and 22-23 are not colinear, with the latter rather being closer to the pitlane, it will serve as a parallel lane for Pit In. Top speed in the Pit Lane increased from 60 to 80 kph. The exit is now in a Montreal style, jumping the first bend, to prevent possible pile-ups with slow cars, given there is so little room.

Specs

Track Length: 5.97 km / 52 Laps - 305.90 km
Corners: 23
Direction: Anticlockwise
Pit Lane Speed Limit: 80 kph
Estimated Laptime: 1:25.500
DRS Zones: 2 (in green)
Sector 1: Start/finish line - Turn 8
Sector 2: Turn 8 - Turn 18
Sector 3: Turn 18 - Start/finish line

Images

Sorry for Facebook's bad resolution




Hope you enjoy it.

legendari25 wrote:Marina Bay -- Singapore
====================





Hope you enjoy it.

I love your track idea,apart from 2 things.First,I like the last turn and turn 5 just the way they are,though I could see why you tightened turn 5.Second,the straight into the final turn would not work as there is a "Youth Olympic Games Park" (don't ask me why) and a big bridge in thepath of the straight.Instead,I recommend bypassing the grandstand altogether.

Exactly.

your singapore has 9 overtaking spots so therefore the racing should be a lot closer that it is today and the drivers will find it more challanging due to the higher average speeds so therefore the designers will find it more challanging because they will have to design new brakeducts due to the big braking zones at turns 1,3,7,9,14,17,18,20 and 21 so all thing considered, it is a huge improvment over the current circuit. My dad also liked the circuit but would have liked to have seen a couple more sweepers in the circuit layout but all things considered, he really liked it.

Peace Rob

now for my latest batch of tracks

crutibra
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5777155
fast, bumpy 3.7km roval which i have made longer because otherwise it would have been an 81 lap gp , the track has a lot of fast corners which means a lowdownforce setup shall be reqired due to the 1.1km pit straight

gothenburg
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5777194
1.8 km circuit in the port area of the city, built to host the STCC, i have extended so it can host anything apart from F1 and motogp. The track has a variety of corners and has been designed with the STCC and WTCC in mind

sturup raceway
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5777226
2.1km circuit which i have extended and in theory have an FIM 1 licence and an FIA 1T licence although the track has been designed with the STCC and WTCC in mind. A bridge shall be built across the lake in the middle

ebisu
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5777271
cluster of 7 short ciruits with length varying from 0.4km to 2.1km but i have tried to join them together to create a challanging circuit with a elevation change of 200 metres from the lowest point of the circuit to the highest point.

sachsenring
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5777305
3.7 track in germany where they have a round of the motogp every year which i have extended to follow the path of the old track from the 1960's and 1970's. the track also has 57 metres of elevation so hould make a decent challange

andrew2209 wrote:Here's a redesign of Hockenheim I've made:
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5772286
The first sector is almost the same, with the corners just being made less tighter. However after the Arena section, the cars feed onto a new section where the safety centre currently is. The main feature is the hairpin at the end of the straight, which could be banked, similar to another famous German circuit. The new section then feeds onto the national circuit, before rejoining the GP circuit before the stadium section, ceating a fast, sweeping right hand turn.

it looks good to me with a good mixture of corners and you have added 2 new overtaking spots with your redesign

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:( Grand Prix Legends ( which i haven't got yet ) where the cars and tracks are based on the 1968 season )

1967, you mean. Probably just a typo, correct?

yes it was a typo

thats enough from me, please comment
peace, Rob

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Hockenheimring1.png

How about this? A mixture of the current and old Hockenheim tracks, to make, what I think, is a big improvement. I've also moved the first chicane closer to turn one, to allow for great speed buildup into the Ostkurve.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Imola_Fastest_Layout.png

What I think would be the best version of the Imola circuit.

PT8475 wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Hockenheimring1.png

How about this? A mixture of the current and old Hockenheim tracks, to make, what I think, is a big improvement. I've also moved the first chicane closer to turn one, to allow for great speed buildup into the Ostkurve.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Imola_Fastest_Layout.png

What I think would be the best version of the Imola circuit.

buy the way, welcome to the forum mate
your Hockenheim looks reallly good and i especiallly like the section from the Ostkurve to what is currently turn 6 on the gp circuit which is one of my favourite turns in motor racing

your Imola looks like a lot of fun too mate and since the track organisers have now bypassed the final chicane, it's even better

PT8475 wrote:

How about this? A mixture of the current and old Hockenheim tracks, to make, what I think, is a big improvement. I've also moved the first chicane closer to turn one, to allow for great speed buildup into the Ostkurve.

This is what I would like to see:

roblomas52 wrote:

PT8475 wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Hockenheimring1.png

How about this? A mixture of the current and old Hockenheim tracks, to make, what I think, is a big improvement. I've also moved the first chicane closer to turn one, to allow for great speed buildup into the Ostkurve.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Imola_Fastest_Layout.png

What I think would be the best version of the Imola circuit.

buy the way, welcome to the forum mate
your Hockenheim looks reallly good and i especiallly like the section from the Ostkurve to what is currently turn 6 on the gp circuit which is one of my favourite turns in motor racing

your Imola looks like a lot of fun too mate and since the track organisers have now bypassed the final chicane, it's even better

Thanks for the welcome There's a few more ideas I'll try to get down at some point

darkapprentice77 wrote:Hockenheim endurance circuit

funny you posting that as i have been doing something simillar for a while now

proposal 1
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5768081
the first part is normal until we get to turn 2 where the track goes straight as if it is going onto the old circuit which it does until just before the Jim-Clark kurve where it goes through a stadium before rejoing the circuit at the chicane. The ispiration for this is from a proposal to lengthen the circuit in 1982.

Then the circuit carries on towards the Ostkurve but they have annother stadium section in the way turning sharp right then left before exiting the stadium through a fast left-right chicane and the reason i did this, is so I wouldn't have to use the chicane chicane which was at the corner. after the Ostkurve, the track goe through a series of fast esses called the Porsche Kurves berfore heading into a fast chicane due to the current circuit being in the way, then the circuit goes through a flat out left-right beforfore curving round to the right. Then the track turns left as it rejoins the gp circuit. the only other thing I have changed is he tight hairpin at turn 5, I have opened out a bit to make over taking possible and made turn 7 into a Degner style corner, but other than that it is just normal GP circuit.


proposal 2
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5778293
tis is the same as before but turn 7 on the gp circuit has now been reverted back to its original form anh turn 9has been made into a 180 degree corner as the track sweeps through the driver training center before arriving at a haipin which could be banked (Like another famous German corner ), then the cars make there way onto the short circuit and the drivers will go through a sweeping left into a tight right hander bringing the back onto the GP circuit.

please give feedback
peace
Rob

----EDIT: SEVERE CASE OF MUPPETRY----

Think you better re-read Pasta... he did mention that!

JJMonty wrote:Think you better re-read Pasta... he did mention that!

Thanks for that JJ, I didn't read his post properly!

hockenheim proposal 3

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5780198
new infield is the highlight

ansan
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5780106
track has been lengthened to meat basic fia criteria

enjoy
please comment
peace
Rob

roblomas52 wrote:hockenheim proposal 3

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5780198
new infield is the highlight

Thats...... 10 miles of twists and turns I'm getting sea sick just thinking about it!

JJMonty wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:hockenheim proposal 3

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com?r=5780198
new infield is the highlight

Thats...... 10 miles of twists and turns I'm getting sea sick just thinking about it!

Yeah the reason I did this is that I wanted the circuit to be more demanding than Le Mans so the new bit is a bit like the original interlagos in the way that it doubles back on its self. I would also be terraforming the new section as well because Hockenheim is quite flat so the 20 metres of elevation in the infield would make it more challenging thus making it more appealing to the drivers in the WEC which is what I'm targeting here for the Hockenheim 18 hours. Why 18? Because to my Knowlage, it will be a first:D

I'll be first to sign up to that race then

Joey Zyla wrote:I don't understand why so many people criticize Tilke, his tracks are amazing!

Three of his tracks are amazing, but the other ten are copies of said tracks.

Joey Zyla wrote:I don't understand why so many people criticize Tilke, his tracks are amazing!

Are you Hermann Tilke?

Joey Zyla wrote:No, but I'm among his only admirers.

Fixed. You and Bernie.

dr-baker wrote:

Joey Zyla wrote:No, but I'm among his only admirers.

Fixed. You and Bernie.

I wouldn't call myself an admirer of Tilke, but I certainly don't think he's nearly as bad as some people would suggest. Though I think F1 would've been better served by having another track designer on the books, to alleviate the Tilke-saturation we're experiencing these days.