Grand Prix Rejects

Joey Zyla wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

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.

I'm guessing you mean Sepang, Istanbul, and Austin? From my experience, those seem to be the three that people generally like the most.

I'd probably throw in Valencia and Buddh.

I wasn't actually thinking of any particular tracks, just making a point, but replace Istanbul with Korea and you're correct by coincidence.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laguna_Seca_%2B_New_Infield.png

How about this - I took Laguna Seca and added a new "outfield" section based on service roads around the track to lengthen it to more F1-suitable standards. It'd be an absolute dream to see F1 cars going through the corkscrew.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:I wasn't actually thinking of any particular tracks, just making a point, but replace Istanbul with Korea and you're correct by coincidence.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote: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.

You two haven't said anything about my Tilkeish Marina Bay. So here it goes, revised as per WaffleCat's suggestions.

WaffleCat wrote: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.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-dY6D-ljT_EM/UO23axIWybI/AAAAAAAAAKE/1lh8rtRxfB4/s1507/SIN+00.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3LDwIjsD4u4/UO23aTX9-KI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/eC9d9FyoYKE/s1507/SIN+01.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--SnHaYGv2cY/UO23Z7ABk_I/AAAAAAAAAJ4/f01bHqdclso/s1507/SIN+02.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cJ5huIkANBc/UO23cw3CxLI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/5DuOhIQaBG4/s1507/SIN+03.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-AxYQd6ltS94/UO23dhPjRxI/AAAAAAAAAKY/Bv33A7AOGk0/s1507/SIN+04.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YKPHzf77o8Q/UO23eatVbdI/AAAAAAAAAKg/i3gDhMYOU1Q/s1256/SIN+05.jpg

This forum cuts images on the right side, so I just put the links. (Since I have uploaded them to google+ which offers more resolution than Facebook)

Specs

Track length: 5.88 km / 3.65 mi
Race length: 52 laps / 305.76 km
Direction: Anticlockwise
Pit Lane Speed Limit: 80 kph / 50 mph
Estimated Laptime: 1:25.000
DRS Zones: 2

Main Straight
Raffles Boulevard

Estimated Top Speed: 320 kph (Turn 1)
Sector 1: S/F Line - Turn 9 (ex Turn 5)
Sector 2: Turn 9 - Turn 18
Sector 3: Turn 18 - S/F Line

legendari25 wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:I wasn't actually thinking of any particular tracks, just making a point, but replace Istanbul with Korea and you're correct by coincidence.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote: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.

You two haven't said anything about my Tilkeish Marina Bay. So here it goes, revised as per WaffleCat's suggestions.

WaffleCat wrote: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.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-dY6D-ljT_EM/UO23axIWybI/AAAAAAAAAKE/1lh8rtRxfB4/s1507/SIN+00.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3LDwIjsD4u4/UO23aTX9-KI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/eC9d9FyoYKE/s1507/SIN+01.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--SnHaYGv2cY/UO23Z7ABk_I/AAAAAAAAAJ4/f01bHqdclso/s1507/SIN+02.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cJ5huIkANBc/UO23cw3CxLI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/5DuOhIQaBG4/s1507/SIN+03.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-AxYQd6ltS94/UO23dhPjRxI/AAAAAAAAAKY/Bv33A7AOGk0/s1507/SIN+04.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YKPHzf77o8Q/UO23eatVbdI/AAAAAAAAAKg/i3gDhMYOU1Q/s1256/SIN+05.jpg

This forum cuts images on the right side, so I just put the links. (Since I have uploaded them to google+ which offers more resolution than Facebook)

Specs

Track length: 5.88 km / 3.65 mi
Race length: 52 laps / 305.76 km
Direction: Anticlockwise
Pit Lane Speed Limit: 80 kph / 50 mph
Estimated Laptime: 1:25.000
DRS Zones: 2

Main Straight
Raffles Boulevard

Estimated Top Speed: 320 kph (Turn 1)
Sector 1: S/F Line - Turn 9 (ex Turn 5)
Sector 2: Turn 9 - Turn 18
Sector 3: Turn 18 - S/F Line

your track actually looks better now with the final turn adjustments and the grandstand section being removed and my Dad thinks the tracks better now as well

very short japanese drift tracks which i've done lately
Asan
length before, less than 1km
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5781323

Inagawa
length before, just over 1km
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5781359

Nakayama
length before, about 2km i think
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5781426

BlindCaveSalamander wrote: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.

we should try to club together one day, design a track and then post it onto Bernies Twitter!!
anyway please comment
peace
Rob

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

Tilke will never be as good as Hanz Hugenholtz. Truth be told, he designed a lot of average racing circuits too, but he did design Suzuka and Zandvoort.

Joey Zyla wrote:Not trying to outdo Tilke here, as Hugenholtz is the only one who could do that.

erm?

I wouldn't say Tilke is an awful designer, he's done many good things on his tracks (the sites he often has to build on are rather hopeless tbh, and the tracks are very much restricted by the safety rules), but you're very much over-estimating him now tbh. (And John Hugenholtz too, regards from Jarama and Nivelles.) Tilke too has some certain bad habits when designing his tracks, well covered by Dario in one of his earlier posts (it emphasizes it that, being a fan of flowing corners, I actually would prefer your modified versions to his tracks lol).

Singapore: I'd keep the corner-before-long-straight in its current form since it now seems to work with allowing overtaking, and extend the straight so the track went round the park, and from there return to your 'inner' track. Otherwise, nice one.

Plus I do like the 90 degree turn part which goes under that bridge as it is, but no one else seems to share my opinion, so guess yours is better

giraurd wrote:Singapore: I'd keep the corner-before-long-straight in its current form since it now seems to work with allowing overtaking, and extend the straight so the track went round the park, and from there return to your 'inner' track. Otherwise, nice one.

Plus I do like the 90 degree turn part which goes under that bridge as it is, but no one else seems to share my opinion, so guess yours is better

Your opinion is completely valid, mate. I just tried to make it less stressing for drivers and a bit more interesting, both from the drivers' point of view as well for spectators, since the speed into the last corner would be higher, therefore needing better throttle control. As it would now require lower downforce settings for the faster bits, it would require more control through the slower bends. At the same time, it would decrease the speed through slower bends, meaning it is a tad less stressing for drivers.

Just don't think that because most people like A or B then they're right!

I just wish that the FIA looked like this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Hockenheim_Decay.jpg

instead of the Ostkurve

Joey Zyla wrote:Shanghai: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5783031
Yas Marina: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5783036

Firstly I would like to congratulate you for joining the dark side, cookies are in the oven right now
Secondly I don't feel you have addressed the main concern with shanghai in that the bloody annoying first turn is still there and secondly what you have done to turn 11 I don't think will premote overtaking because the turn is slightly too fast. What I think need to be done is move turns 9 and 10 further away from turn 8 and keep turn 11 as it is. Alternatively leave the track as it is as it produces great racing

my idea:

more flow. FLOW DAMMIT. TILKE WHY ABU DHABI NO FLOW!?

Joey Zyla wrote:But, but, but... YOU RUINED 15-16-17! Tilke's best corner(s) since Turn 8!

*cough*Valencia's final sector*cough*

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

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.

There have also been quite a few things that have erroneously been ascribed to him - for example, the Marina Bay circuit was only partially designed by Tilke (he started working on the venue, but the project was then passed on to an external consultant and the final design was actually done by KBR).

Part of the problem is the fact that track design is such a small niche within the civil engineering world that there are very few companies that are capable of delivering a workable design - one of the few alternatives are Apex Circuit Design, but because the local authorities only gave permission for a limited number of roads to be shut over the race weekend, their version of the Marina Bay circuit is fairly similar to the current design used now. There isn't a huge amount of choice when it comes to alternative designers, so to a certain extent that is why Tilke has been given so many contracts.

Joey Zyla wrote:What do you mean by that, exactly?

basically that Tilke's not a god without flaws as you seem to imply, and thought that the statement I quoted from you was false (many designers have outdone his tracks.).

Joey Zyla wrote:

giraurd wrote:

Joey Zyla wrote:Not trying to outdo Tilke here, as Hugenholtz is the only one who could do that.

And John Hugenholtz too, regards from Jarama and Nivelles.

What does THAT part mean? 'Regards from'?

You know that Jarama and Nivelles are good tracks, right?

Jarama was OK. Nivelles doesn't exist anymore. And the reason is that it was rubbish. Specially if you place it in the same country as Spa.

Of course, it wasn't as bad as Korea. But he did better.

Would you mind telling us what you think are Tilke's strong points? Maybe with half the details I gave long ago when I said what was wrong with his tracks? Sure Hungenholz was very good, but Tilke is not "just" behind 'Holz. He's a great architect, as evidenced by the magnificence of his every building in Formula 1 (pit lanes, grandstands, etc). But that's it.

I'm sorry but there is a list of tracks you cannot change radically without ruining them (just taking into account tracks used in the last decade - 2000-2009)

- Österreichring
- Hockenheimring
- Monza
- Interlagos
- Suzuka
- Spa Francorchamps
- Imola
- Albert Park
- Silverstone
- Monaco
- Nürburgring

And of that list, he changed 7 (Österreichring, Hockenheimring, Monza (only Turn 1, luckily), Spa, Imola, Monaco and the Nürburgring) with an eighth, Silverstone, being affected by Popolous but in the same way Tilke affected every track he redesigned. Tighter bends, impossible closing corners and 12 extra kilometers of infield sectors, as well as a brand new pit lane FOR NO REASON. Needless to say, that pit lane is the most moronic thing I've ever seen, since you cannot see what happens in there. Genius.

So tell me, please, what is it that Tilke is so great at, other than his architecture.

what i think should happen is Red Bull refurbishing the older sections of the Osterreichring and open those as part of the "full circuit" and keeping the A1/RedBull Ring part for use in the F1 season. i love the A1 ring's passing zones, of which almost every turn is one.

Joey Zyla wrote:Sepang, Shanghai, Istanbul, Valencia, Yeongam, and Austin are some of the best circuits ever.

It's hard to decide which one of those is the best. I'd probably have to go with Sepang. I love driving around that circuit on the F1 video games. It just has a certain flow to it, it's like Tilke's mini Nordschleife. I know, I know, it's not as historic and special as the Nordschleife, but it has a similar feel to it, with constant elevation changes and sweeping, challenging corners. Only safer, suited for modern F1 cars.

Valencia and Yeongam???

Even Tilke fans recognise that those tracks are crap!

And Nivelles wasn't bad but it was dull, featureless, it had super massive runoffs and only 7 corners, of the which only 2 were interesting: the first 2. Maybe that's why you like it, considering your efforts to support Tilke even in his worst work.

every time i drive on yeongam in a simulator i feel as tho i'm typing in a cheat code for mortal combat.

right,right,left,right,left,right,left,right,left,uuuuuuppp,right,uuupppp,left,right,left
Tilke-Mode activated! FINISH HIM

OK guys chill out. this isn't the "argue about tilke's tracks" thread.
my tip? lurk more.
what we don't need is new members recycling old arguements
i'm a proud member since 2010, lurker since 2009

This design is based on Spa Francorchamps and Grand Valley.

Joey Zyla wrote:You're simply a troll who knows absolutely nothing about racing, this forum just happens to be one of the places you have chosen to wreak your havoc on. Good choice, by the way. However, 4chan would be more suited for you.

Let me point out something

Joey Zyla wrote:

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:My vision of a Grand Prix track near Glasgow, so Scotland will finally have a proper racetrack! (Knockhill is a bit sh*t to be honest)



Turn 1 hairpin, Switchback, provides first overtaking spot of the lap. A good exit out of Leslie is essential, to have more speed going through Curva Ecosse and down to the heavy braking zone of Stewart 1, another place to overtake. Then a sweeping downhill righthander at Stewart 2, under the bridge leading into the Epic banked oval of Daytona 1, 2 and 3 where (hopefully) many slipstreaming battles will occur! Then hard on the brakes again for another overtaking zone, at Clark Chicane.
Then a flat out left hander, down to Forest's Edge, and going uphill through the mega Redwater turn (have a guess why its called that, and its not because of the water next to it ) and left at Bridge, down towards Cleland and the final turn, McRae.

FYI, the Grandstand at Redwater is transparent, because its built like the ones at Yas Marina...above the run-off! (Or in this case...gravel trap).

Much better than any Tilkedrome!

Some people like that 'circuit'? Ugh, embarrassing.

Although it needs more work put into it, I like it. It's original, it has a great idea of a transparent grandstand, it has elevation changes, and the even the design scheme looks great. Some corners need some refining, granted. But it's a very good job. And it even features not one, but two overlapping sections. Much better than yours, however:

Joey Zyla wrote:Shanghai: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5783031
Yas Marina: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5783036

The Hockenehimring mod does not even deserve to be mentioned. You just changed a corner and thought you added the cherry that was lacking: the Hockenheimring is nothing without the forest run.

You just did Rob Lomas' Shanghai with the original first complex http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5708275
And Yas Marina, you just went on to eliminate most of Tilke's signature features. Therefore, I ask what is wrong with you. He's your god, and you go on to remove his characteristical features?

And no, I do not know anything about this sort of racing, kid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D5IRprGcCI. Maybe you can teach me, OK?

kevintylerkupiec wrote:

This design is based on Spa Francorchamps and Grand Valley.

What direction is it?

legendari25 wrote:

kevintylerkupiec wrote:

This design is based on Spa Francorchamps and Grand Valley.

What direction is it?

Clockwise

legendari25 wrote:

And of that list, he changed 7 (Österreichring, Hockenheimring, Monza (only Turn 1, luckily), Spa, Imola, Monaco and the Nürburgring) with an eighth, Silverstone, being affected by Popolous but in the same way Tilke affected every track he redesigned. Tighter bends, impossible closing corners and 12 extra kilometers of infield sectors, as well as a brand new pit lane FOR NO REASON. Needless to say, that pit lane is the most moronic thing I've ever seen, since you cannot see what happens in there. Genius.

So tell me, please, what is it that Tilke is so great at, other than his architecture.

To be fair, Monaco isn't particularly good for overtaking and racing, and very little could be done to improve it. (Short of removing the Nouvelle Chicane, but then you'd need a massive run-off area for Tabac)

The A1 Ring was bloody fantastic, people. And I don't understand why people are still moaning about Silverstone's new layout.

Jarama and Nivelles were terrible tracks. The former was the Hungaroring of it's time, and the latter possibly has to rank as the least interesting circuit of them all.

I'll still never forgive Tilke for butchering the Hockenheimring, even if there was no alternative.

Just my two GB pence on the matter...

Nivelles was bathplugging epic imo. Because it was short and not particularly challenging to drive it would lead to a close bunched up field and a lot of action.

eurobrun wrote:Nivelles was bathplugging epic imo. Because it was short and not particularly challenging to drive it would lead to a close bunched up field and a lot of action.

It was the Tilkedrome of its time, really. Loads of run-off, the spectators complaining of being too far from the track, next to no elevation changes and a general feeling of boredom. It was supposed to be at the peak of safety, yet just four years after its opening, it was declared unfit for F1, then for cars (in 1980) and motorbikes (in 1981) in general due to the dangerous surface.

A reject track if ever I saw one.

Joey Zyla wrote:

East Londoner wrote:The A1 Ring was bloody fantastic, people. And I don't understand why people are still moaning about Silverstone's new layout.

Jarama and Nivelles were terrible tracks. The former was the Hungaroring of it's time, and the latter possibly has to rank as the least interesting circuit of them all.

Just my two GB pence on the matter...

Which is a good thing...

There's just one potential overtaking spot that only allows to overtake three or four times a race, with the rest of the track just inducing the drivers to follow the one ahead. How is that a good thing exactly?

andrew2209 wrote:

legendari25 wrote:

And of that list, he changed 7 (Österreichring, Hockenheimring, Monza (only Turn 1, luckily), Spa, Imola, Monaco and the Nürburgring) with an eighth, Silverstone, being affected by Popolous but in the same way Tilke affected every track he redesigned. Tighter bends, impossible closing corners and 12 extra kilometers of infield sectors, as well as a brand new pit lane FOR NO REASON. Needless to say, that pit lane is the most moronic thing I've ever seen, since you cannot see what happens in there. Genius.

So tell me, please, what is it that Tilke is so great at, other than his architecture.

To be fair, Monaco isn't particularly good for overtaking and racing, and very little could be done to improve it. (Short of removing the Nouvelle Chicane, but then you'd need a massive run-off area for Tabac)

The point of the Monaco GP circuit has never been about passing, but about the challenges that the driver and car faces around a tightly confined track. Besides, I thought that it was the Automobile Club de Monaco that ordered the changes to the circuit to be made, with Tilke playing no part in the matter.

As for the other circuits listed, it's worth noting that the chairman of Apex Circuit Design, the rival consortium bidding for that contract, pointed out that the planning regulations effectively dictated the shape of the modern Hockenheimring. As for Imola, you're ascribing changes to Tilke that he never made - Tilke's company were project managers and were responsible for the construction work, but were not responsible for the new design (which I believe was driven by their contract with the World Superbikes Championship and FIM, not the FIA).
Ascribing the modern Nurburgring is also somewhat misleading given that he didn't even found his company until 1984, by which point the modern GP circuit was already complete (his company was responsible for designing the access roads), and to be honest I think that the modern chicane at Monza is a better compromise than the old double chicane (which always struck me as a somewhat clumsy modification).

As for the changes that Populous made to Silverstone, firstly the changes to the garage complex was one of the conditions for Silverstone having its contract renewed in the first place, so the garage modifications were effectively compulsory. Secondly, as I've repeatedly had to point out to you, Silverstone had to make those modifications because FIM insisted on them and the BRDC has been keen to take on the MotoGP event for a number of years, so the twistier infield section was a necessary compromise to satisfy them (the motorsport world doesn't revolve around F1).
Finally, the sunken pit lane was dictated by technical factors - the designers knew that visibility was a problem, but because of a combination of the ground conditions and severe access restrictions, they had no option but to excavate downwards in order to create the pit complex.

I actually like Jarama...

There's always two sides to an arguement.

In this case, the Spectators side and the drivers side.

From a spectators point of view, Tilkes track's generally produce boring races (Pre DRS era) with theoretically challenging corners not punishing the drivers because of the miles of runoff roads. Of course, I don't want to see someone crash or get hurt, but I am a fan of grass/gravel runoff so a driver's mistake can be punished because now we are getting to the point where most drivers are using this runoff road as the racing line/over taking technique on a perminant basis.

From a drivers point of view, Tilke's tracks are challenging, interesting, wide and have a variety of corners to test your nerve/skills. However, as I said, the runoff roads and ultra smooth surfaces limit the challenge. Many of Tilke's circuits are good, Austin was decent, Sepang is decent, A1 Ring was a good compramise also, the problem is that the circuits all look the bloody same! Mainly because it is the same designer! Same thought process, same features, same corners etc...

If I am to be completly honest, since circuits like Suzuka, Fuji, Hockenheim and Spa are losing/have lost their challenging nature - one of my favourite circuits to drive is the Hungaroring, this boring twisty circuit (in the eyes of the spectators) is a never ending complex of corners that will reward drivers who have good focus and consistency I like the challenge the circuit brings because apart from Monaco, the other circuits do not really hold that challenge anymore.

There are two problems with Tilke's circuits

1) The FIA is very strict and so this limits the features he could do.
2) There are so many of his circuit in the calander that it has become the norm rather than the expection! I liked Sepang when it first came out because it was a different type of challenge. Now, they are all the bloody same! (As many of you have mentioned) Long straights, tight corners and twisty infield sections.

RE Silverstone: Having had a chance to drive the new circuit, I must admit - I enjoyed it Of course, I wish they kept the bridge section because that also had it's own unique features. But the new layout does bring up the average speed of the circuit, it is wide, it has 2 flowing corners that move into the village complex... it could have done with that bump in the middle of abbey still as that gave drivers a proper challenge when picking a line for the hairpin

If the spectators want circuits that will be interesting to see, then we are going to end up with the same type of circuits because we know what the "good combination" is. I prefered F1 10-20 years ago because there was more variety. Hockenheim, Monza and Spa were dangerously quick, but they chucked in the ultra slow Hungaroring in the middle of that order. Monaco, high downforce setup followed by Canada (Low Downforce). Catch my drift? The circuits weren't designed (and shouldn't) be designed to please the spectators, it is the drivers who are driving the circuit and I think having a variety of circuits (from different designers, different features etc) is a much better way of running a championship. That way the spectators can appreciate the decent circuits even more and the drivers can have a different set of challenges thrown at them every weekend

Joey Zyla wrote:

I was talking about rob-lomas, we’d have to consider ourselves lucky if he posts a track within the next week. It’s obvious he does it on purpose to troll people, he’s always active, but when he answers correctly on ‘Rolling’ threads, be prepared to have your patience tested.

the reasons why didn't post earlier
1. I was tired
2.The time was 23:00GMT
3.I couldn't think of a track so I waited until I got up and had breakfast on Christmas Day

legendari25 wrote:
Valencia and Yeongam???

Even Tilke fans recognise that those tracks are crap!

FIXED

legendari25 wrote:

Joey Zyla wrote:Shanghai: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5783031
Yas Marina: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5783036

The Hockenehimring mod does not even deserve to be mentioned. You just changed a corner and thought you added the cherry that was lacking: the Hockenheimring is nothing without the forest run.

You just did Rob Lomas' Shanghai with the original first complex http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5708275
And Yas Marina, you just went on to eliminate most of Tilke's signature features. Therefore, I ask what is wrong with you. He's your god, and you go on to remove his characteristical features?

It is a valid point though in that what you did to Shanghai is actually make overtaking impossible in that the corner onto the back straight is now a lot faster, therefore overtaking will be comprimised because of the higher speeds meaning that getting a good exit onto the back straight will now be pointless. When I first saw the design, I didn't think anything had changed

Update of my design

IMO Jarama could be good if the tarnac was wider.

As for Nivelles, for me it's tied with Caesers Palace for being the worst F1 circuit ever used. Flat, featureless, boring, unsafe, too much runoff, all that stuff.

darkapprentice77 wrote:IMO Jarama could be good if the tarnac was wider.

As for Nivelles, for me it's tied with Caesers Palace for being the worst F1 circuit ever used. Flat, featureless, boring, unsafe, too much runoff, all that stuff.

If Jarama had wider tarmac, then we would have never of seen Villeneuve hold onto his win!

There is nothing wrong with twisty narrow circuits..... as I said in my earlier post, variety is good! The problem is when circuits become too similar!

I'll agree with Nivelles though, even Niki Lauda said it was a boring circuit that was "too safe" - this is coming from the man who always said "you can never have too safe in motorsport, I have the scars to prove it!"

The corners on the circuit were quite decent, it's just a shame they were so few of them! Had the circuit of had less run off and a better organisation running it, I reckon it could have still been around today - ala Zolder style.

Joey Zyla wrote:Why do you need wide tarmac? Monaco, Valencia, and Budapest don't necessarily have wide tarmac but are still great circuits. Jarama is not quite as good a circuit as Monaco, Valencia, or Budapest, but those three tracks prove that having wide tarmac is not necessary for a good circuit.

Eh, I guess you're right.

Also may I ask, why do you like Valencia?

JJMonty wrote:I'll agree with Nivelles though, even Niki Lauda said it was a boring circuit that was "too safe" - this is coming from the man who always said "you can never have too safe in motorsport, I have the scars to prove it!"

Which makes its eventual closure on safety grounds (because the track was disintegrating so rapidly) especially ironic...

mario wrote:

JJMonty wrote:I'll agree with Nivelles though, even Niki Lauda said it was a boring circuit that was "too safe" - this is coming from the man who always said "you can never have too safe in motorsport, I have the scars to prove it!"

Which makes its eventual closure on safety grounds (because the track was disintegrating so rapidly) especially ironic...

Why DID the track break up so fast?

pasta_maldonado wrote:

mario wrote:

JJMonty wrote:I'll agree with Nivelles though, even Niki Lauda said it was a boring circuit that was "too safe" - this is coming from the man who always said "you can never have too safe in motorsport, I have the scars to prove it!"

Which makes its eventual closure on safety grounds (because the track was disintegrating so rapidly) especially ironic...

Why DID the track break up so fast?

To get to the other side?


Because of the poor management, they went bust in 1976 I think and so it was never maintained again.

pasta_maldonado wrote:

mario wrote:

JJMonty wrote:I'll agree with Nivelles though, even Niki Lauda said it was a boring circuit that was "too safe" - this is coming from the man who always said "you can never have too safe in motorsport, I have the scars to prove it!"

Which makes its eventual closure on safety grounds (because the track was disintegrating so rapidly) especially ironic...

Why DID the track break up so fast?

JJMonty wrote:To get to the other side?
Because of the poor management, they went bust in 1976 I think and so it was never maintained again.

Pretty much - they were running into financial problems even earlier than that (the circuit owners were declared bankrupt in 1974), so track maintenance was probably neglected as a desperate attempt to save cash.

Have any of you seen this? It's a circuit shaped like, wait for it...Great Britain.

http://wtf1.co.uk/better-than-tilke-bri ... e-britain/

Ataxia [BacLettNinj] wrote:Have any of you seen this? It's a circuit shaped like, wait for it...Great Britain.

http://wtf1.co.uk/better-than-tilke-bri ... e-britain/

It actually doesn't look half bad. Would probably be fun to drive in some simulation.

Nuppiz wrote:

Ataxia [BacLettNinj] wrote:Have any of you seen this? It's a circuit shaped like, wait for it...Great Britain.

http://wtf1.co.uk/better-than-tilke-bri ... e-britain/

It actually doesn't look half bad. Would probably be fun to drive in some simulation.

I'd be keen for driving that