educational?

[kerb]

hello all

I when through my first thread (if you are wondering about it, DONT) and I broke so many rule of thumbs, mostly about pit outs and length and expectation vs reality in the case of numeral uno. and I saw other first tracks and some (not all) had similar rookie issues. so I made this thread so experienced users could teach rule of thumbs and tips about placements and definitions and stuff.

this is almost a written podcast

please don't submit circuits on this thread (do your own for that) but if you have a section example about a certain topic like pit out and kerb placement, put them up.

[kerb]

and of course we are going to have different views on topics so it will be interesting to hear what everyone thinks about it


so first topic shall be the grid to turn 1 and if people feel it would be better longer or shorter

[ScotsBrutesFan]

There is already an instructional based on Sketchup, pinned at the top of my track. Some of what's in there will carry over to free hand as well. But any particular questions ask away

[kerb]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

There is already an instructional based on Sketchup, pinned at the top of my track. Some of what's in there will carry over to free hand as well. But any particular questions ask away

I know, and there are several other threads that have bits of this and bits of that, but what I was thinking was to put it all on one thread instead of having something on page 4 (t1 hairpins-AOB?)

[NaBUru38]

I like straights where the previous and next corner are opposite. An example of this is Sepang. It requires vehicles to change sides, which causes interesting moves.

Also, I like not totally straight straights. Red Bull Ring's backstraight and Istanbul's kink are good examples.

[kerb]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

I like straights where the previous and next corner are opposite. An example of this is Sepang. It requires vehicles to change sides, which causes interesting moves.

Also, I like not totally straight straights. Red Bull Ring's backstraight and Istanbul's kink are good examples.

like Surfers Paradise's front straight?

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by kerb

like Surfers Paradise's front straight?

That's not enough. I mean where cars go from one side to the other.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

ok some initial rules of thumb, they aren't set in stone and there are many circuits which contradict them.

1 Pit garages and race control combine = 300m
2 If pit exit is to be on pit straight then it has to be 100m before the T1 apex (I believe that's an FIA rule)
3 Pits on the inside of T1 makes easier design
4 Run offs and travel traps don't need to be as big as you first think, look at some real word circuits on google earth.

[AoB Special Stage]

You think we could merge all these informational threads into one big one and pin it for later use, SBF? Or would that be way too much work for a mere mortal?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

It could be done, but I think kerb had something more as a general rule of thumb thread, rather than a formal instructional.

Kerb?

[kerb]

i intended it to be a rule of thumb thread, but it may be wise to have a full instructional in the top of the page

[ScotsBrutesFan]

So lets add some more things that you have discovered apply regularly to designs and one we are happy I'll lock this off, and someone can formalise it into a new thread that I'll sticky.

[kerb]

there are several points from other threads should be brought up, these being:
difference between bike and car circuits (AOB)
t1 hairpins (also AOB)
FIA standards on length and run offs
notes on track design (purist) would be a nice tutorial.

there could be others that may be on further pages

[SKG]

This is what I usually work to:

Track length - usually on the shorter side, around 3-4km
Track width - around 12 metres -/+ 2m
Kerb width - 1 metre (concrete)
White line width - 0.2 metres (for visibility)
Pit exit line width - 0.3 metres (for visibility)
Pit lane length - between 250m and 300m
Pit fast lane width - 5 metres
Pit slow lane width - 5 metres

I have started using different shades of tarmac, to signify which areas are used more. Darker = standard config, lighter = less used / older config.

Pit exit at least 100m before turn 1, although for me, visibility of cars rejoining, and a gradual blend are more important than the actual distance.

Armco height is 1 metre, concrete pit wall height is 1.3 metres, tire height is 0.9 metres and thickness 2 metres, doubled up at the end of long straights or where required. Fence height (along pit wall, in front of grandstands, and some corners) is 3 metres. These dimensions are more for aesthetics and are not FIA regs.

My general rule for runoffs is as follows:

Depth up to 80m or more if at the end of a long straight, but I normally try to shrink it down to keep it more realistic, In my early designs I always added way to much runoff.

Majority of runoff is tarmac except for gravel deep into a large runoff. From the mid corner around to the exit, at the track edge I normally have 2m of grass, then 3m of gravel to keep cars within track limits. A 4m wide rejoining road is at the end of the runoff area.

In terms of FIA regulation, I think theres lots of info here: http://www.fia.com/circuit-safety

and a pdf for circuit drawing guidelines here: http://www.fia.com/circuit-list-requ...cuit-drawing-0

T1 hairpins: I use them sometimes, as long as they are quite open and not too slow (like Zandvoort or Daytona road, for example).

General notes on track design:

Working in 3D helps me a lot. It's great to be able to get down low, to really understand the flow of a circuit. Being able to put yourself on the track also helps with more logical barrier positioning, and other things like spectator sightlines etc. Adding elevation change is an easy way to add interest, but since I build all my circuits on a flat plane, I feel I have to make my circuits interesting enough that they don't need to have elevation change to be good circuits. This might be a weird concept, but its how I design circuits that I am happy with, within the limitations of SketchUp.

tldr; it's complicated

Feel free to ask questions if there is anything else...

[kerb]

great SKG, there was another point you raised in SBFs thread last year about pit in, about how the lane pulls away from the track. and the reason you raised it was in the case of a sudden downpour and having cars on slicks on a wet track.

I would also like to add having a downhill run into the lane like the Hamilton street circuit, I think it was during the 2011 Saturday race there were incidents into pitlane with the water running down the hill.

and that brings up another point, circuit drainage, cause correct me if I'm wrong, running water would be as bad as standing water, so if someone wants to pursue this as a profession that's another thing to consider. especially following the Japanese GP 2014 where the worlds greatest were aquaplaning under safety car conditions.

[kerb]

this is just a theory, so if I'm wrong you can correct me. whenever I design a circuit I almost always build from a spectators point of view, with lots of passing zones and hills, and I know there are some that of us that do race sometimes and I'm wondering if they build from a racers point of view, with parts that would feel fun to drive.

[AoB Special Stage]

aye mate, myself (sometimes) and Luigi do/did.

[NaBUru38]

Hungaroring and Macau are racers tracks, not spectators tracks.

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Hungaroring and Macau are racers tracks, not spectators tracks.

Having been to Hungaroring once in the 90s as a spectator, I must disagree. From my seat near the top of the main grandstand opposite of the beginning of the pit building, I could see most of the circuit. However, the parts that were missing from view include the track's main overtaking zone in Turn 1 which was too far away down the front straight. But I was amazed that, in the distance, I could see the chicane over the top of the pit building, and long right-hander that comes before it, too.

In the beginning, I used to design my tracks with inspiration from real circuits in mind and tried to emulate the feel of those, such as 80s Silverstone and Monza. Later, I developed a liking for designing conceptual circuits, and part of that is the credo that a racetrack should not have "a bit of everything" to make it unique. For example, at one point, I tried to design the perfect "Mickey Mouse Course". In the mid-90s, I upgraded most of my older tracks with chicanes or added additional loops to make them safer, sometimes changing the character of a circuit. When I came here, my focus first turned to designing circuits from a car setup perspective, so different parts of a track would require setup compromises to be fast over a complete lap. Later, my attention shifted towards natural shapes as souces for track design which culminated in the observation that most of John Hugenholtz's tracks resemble pieces of ginger. ;-)

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Thinking of fans doesn't necessarily mean stadium-like twisty sections.

...

However, Hockenheim's Motodrom is an extremely boring section. Cars can barely overtake there. Fan friendly sections doesn't mean just having grandstands with view to the track, but putting grandstands close to action.

Motodrom is boring now but when Hockenheim still had its long straights, cars were a handful in the twisty Motodrom as they had to go through the hairpins on a low downforce setup that accomodated the straights perfectly but not that slow section. So you could see the drivers' skills up close. Now, no more, as the circuit allows for a boring high downforce setup since the early 2000s.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Building a circuit for spectators you end up with Ricardo Tormo at Valencia, a stadium circuit, that is fine for Bikes and maybe lesser 4 wheel categories, but is too tight to let "big circuit cars" race on.

Designing even a stadium section of a larger track is easy as it inevitably breaks up the flow of the circuit or is little more than a hairpin with horseshoe grandstands (Hockenheim).

I tend to think of the types of corner I want (or over taking points), and then how I'd link them...straights, arcing curves, long esses etc. I usually re-design of atleast 2/3 of it (usually more than once), as I'll only be happy with the flow in parts. Where Granndstands etc then go would fit naturally around the circuit that point.

[NaBUru38]

Thinking of fans doesn't necessarily mean stadium-like twisty sections.

One of the most interesting corners in F1 is the S do Senna at Interlagos. The long straight and three corners make of a perfect overtaking spot. And there's quite a few grandstands around it.

However, Hockenheim's Motodrom is an extremely boring section. Cars can barely overtake there. Fan friendly sections doesn't mean just having grandstands with view to the track, but putting grandstands close to action.

[SKG]

See everyone? This forum isn't dead!

I like building my designs in 3d so I can get down at the drivers eye view to see how the circuit flows, so yes, I always design the circuit thinking about how it will be driven, coupled with it having an interesting layout when seen from above. Spectators are not prioritised.

I have several designs which I have been sitting on which I will share *soon*

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by SKG

See everyone? This forum isn't dead!

I like building my designs in 3d so I can get down at the drivers eye view to see how the circuit flows, so yes, I always design the circuit thinking about how it will be driven, coupled with it having an interesting layout when seen from above. Spectators are not prioritised.

I have several designs which I have been sitting on which I will share *soon*

Sure, Giraffe.

[kerb]

there is mostly 2 types of spectator point of views, either being at the track or watching on TV (or youtube like I do). and there is huge difference between them (experience: oran park). so really there are 3 points of view: racers, tv viewers and fans at the track. and there are only a few I feel are good in all 3.

[SKG]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

Sure, Giraffe.

I think you'll find Giraffe is someone else entirely!