[Rules] Todt: "new tracks must create passing"

[Sodemo]

There is a news story over on autosport where Todt says that, well, quite simply, "tracks must create passing".

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88389

They mention the Abu Dhabi track, which I think for a new venue offers perhaps the worst track layout of the season.

Since I had a few minutes to spare, I made a couple of edits to the Yas Marina track to A, actually improve the layout so it flows, creates passing and made sure to ensure there is adequate run off.

Bringing the top hairpin closer to the main straight means that they can bypass that stupid chicane and also means they will have an approach speed of about 180mph down to what I guess is about 60-70mph. Bigger braking zone, better chance of passing into the corner, give the hairpin an ambiguous apex, adding a bit of camber gives it a variety of lines, and a variety of accelleration points. This is the problem with a conventional hairpin, the guy behind is always later getting on the throttle, making this corner faster and a different profile lets drivers have more things to try.

Second, bypass the chicane to produce a long flat out section.

Third, produced another hairpin which should invite passing, have the corner cambered, *think the Dunlop Kehre* at Nurburgring GP. Fast 200mph+ approach into a 80-90mph open hairpin.

[jab]

There's no way you could have a long run that fast, nor would it induce any more overtaking - the straight's too long as it is, due to the rev limit

It's more than just the layout that's the problem at Abu Dhabi. It's too smooth and too wide

[NaBUru38]

Dear Ten-Tenths staff, track design includes many forms of motorsport, not just F1, and currently there isn't a proper place to carry discussions like this one (FIA bashing, manufacturer involvement in world championships, safety, etc).

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Dear Ten-Tenths staff, track design includes many forms of motorsport, not just F1, and currently there isn't a proper place to carry discussions like this one (FIA bashing, manufacturer involvement in world championships, safety, etc).

The My tracks forum regularly hosts discussion on real tracks as well as those created by Tenthers. Indeed it's a place to post your edits of real tracks for constructive criticism as well.
You can find us Here.

There has been posts regarding possible alterations to Abu Dhabi as recent as this week down there as well.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by jab

There's no way you could have a long run that fast, nor would it induce any more overtaking - the straight's too long as it is, due to the rev limit

It's more than just the layout that's the problem at Abu Dhabi. It's too smooth and too wide

Umm its called a gearbox and has things called ratios that can be changed.

A longer straight would make the speed differential between the straight and the corners higher and would force set up compromises between cornering downforce and straight line speed which would be good.

The real point that is being missed is its not the tracks, but the CARS that are incapable of racing one another.

[Gingers4Justice]

I've heard this remark from Jean Todt and held my head in hands!

You must design the cars for the circuits, not the circuits for the cars!

I really hope we get back to proper racing soon. This year's championship was as dull as ever, and we were supposed to be excited by staring at the drivers standings and admiring how close the top 4 were.

[RF_Racer]

The so called big front wing idea and narrow rear wing has not worked. I do not think the return to a single deck diffuser will many any difference at all.

[duke_toaster]

When the aero rules are next looked at, I think the possibility of re-introducing some form of ground effects - think first generation GP2 car, not Lotus 79 - should be reconsidered, as should tilting the balance more towards mechanical grip (larger rear wheels and tyres, perhaps). KERS could be a quick fix solution, but it would be less effective if everyone has it. One thought about cars hitting the rev limiter would be to mandate a specific final drive and seventh gear ratio so that they aren't bouncing on the limiter for the last third of the straight.

Part of the problem is that the quality of the circuits has decreased recently, in addition the season was bookended by two of the worst circuits on the calendar. Tilke's circuits generally have one or two good features (I think I'm the only person that likes the opening complex at China), but some factors that negate that. Big stops are useful for creating overtaking, but a break (pardon the pun) from hairpin-long straight-hairpin pattern would be helpful, something like 300R at Fuji was - chicane-opening corner-long straight-big stop.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I've heard this remark from Jean Todt and held my head in hands!

You must design the cars for the circuits, not the circuits for the cars!

I really hope we get back to proper racing soon. This year's championship was as dull as ever, and we were supposed to be excited by staring at the drivers standings and admiring how close the top 4 were.

Your italics should be put on a brass plaque and hung in Mr. Todt's office.

[Purist]

I wonder what Todt will do when his changes utterly fail to deliver results.

I suppose you might be able to pass that off as not being a "straight", Sodemo, but I wouldn't bet on getting that massive flat-out run approved. Straights are capped at 2000m for new circuits in the FIA regulations, and really, you don't see any new ones with straights of more than 1200m.

[johntt]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

When the aero rules are next looked at, I think the possibility of re-introducing some form of ground effects - think first generation GP2 car, not Lotus 79 - should be reconsidered, as should tilting the balance more towards mechanical grip (larger rear wheels and tyres, perhaps). KERS could be a quick fix solution, but it would be less effective if everyone has it. One thought about cars hitting the rev limiter would be to mandate a specific final drive and seventh gear ratio so that they aren't bouncing on the limiter for the last third of the straight.

Part of the problem is that the quality of the circuits has decreased recently, in addition the season was bookended by two of the worst circuits on the calendar. Tilke's circuits generally have one or two good features (I think I'm the only person that likes the opening complex at China), but some factors that negate that. Big stops are useful for creating overtaking, but a break (pardon the pun) from hairpin-long straight-hairpin pattern would be helpful, something like 300R at Fuji was - chicane-opening corner-long straight-big stop.

Ground effects are exactly what is being planned for the 2013 F1 rules.

[Paradise City]

We need to move away from this Tilke guy. Get ambitious young track designers with imagination. What design skill Tilke had he's lost. He's built a few duds in recent years. No more of him please.

Build 'em like Road America but a bit wider for the F1 cars.

The aeros on the cars are a complete joke too. They had a great build up promising us the world with these new rules and what do they give us? 24 of these ugly scaffoldings on wheels. They then spend time scratching their heads wondering why there is no passing.

Go back to the spirit of the early 90's with the aerodynamics. Cars looked stunning then too. There was only processions back then because of huge gaps in technology (active suspension..etc) but when evenly matched the aero aspects allowed passing. Now it's the exact opposite.

Make the cars look beautiful and make the aeros sensible. I can imagine the sceptical grimaces of the designers but if I've always felt that if you make the cars look beautiful the passing will naturally come too.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I've always felt that if you make the cars look beautiful the passing will naturally come too.

Isn't that like saying a beautiful woman will naturally have personality??

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Purist

I wonder what Todt will do when his changes utterly fail to deliver results.

I suppose you might be able to pass that off as not being a "straight", Sodemo, but I wouldn't bet on getting that massive flat-out run approved. Straights are capped at 2000m for new circuits in the FIA regulations, and really, you don't see any new ones with straights of more than 1200m.

I wasn't aware that there was a set limit for straights in FIA guidelines.

However in the rough adjustments I have submitted in the first post, I think the run from that hairpin to the more open hairpin is perhaps a touch longer than the run from La Source to Les Combes, or maybe Stavelot to the Bus Stop. The common trait between Les Combes and Bus Stop? We always see passing there. The same could be said of the first corner at Indy - a medium speed corner which is followed by what is essentially a long straight with a tight corner at the end, which means losing 150mph+ in a braking zone. The run from Bassa into Tosa was a similar setup at the old Imola, two long straights with a tight corner at the end. The Mark Webber Safety brigade might say well you can't have that speed of corner in F1 now (the flat out one I penned above), but it wasn't a problem when at Indy, or The Tunnel at Monaco, or the final corner(s) at Interlagos, or turn 4 of Montreal, all of which have no run off and are 150mph+ corners.

The cars are however the main problem. If 2013 actually brings some aero rules of benefit I will be very surprised, as so far none of the technical regulation revisions have done much for the racing. If they actually wanted to do some good things like wider slicks, wider cars, drastically reduce the size of the front wing (which seems now to be the new home for all the previously banned winglets) and do some kind of underbody aero type scenario, then twin that with a few track changes, they might be on to something.

[dulon]

Well there were a couple of ex world champions at Brands this week and were heard to comment that the problem with the recent circuits is that they are designed by the same people, when pushed about the final grand prix, the general consensus was that it was a typical go kart circuit.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Isn't that like saying a beautiful woman will naturally have personality??

No, I never said a good looking car would have a good engine. Good aeros, bad engine=no hope.

A better metaphor would be a woman that looks in-shape would be more likely be a good sportswoman.

[Purist]

I think the bigger problem with your assertion is simply this. "What is beautiful?" That is to say, we all have at least slightly different versions of what that particular word means to us in terms of what something beautiful actually looks like.

I think many of us would consider the shape of something like the Maserati 250F to be beautiful. However, for myself at least, when the cars get away from having those more curvy shapes, and/or from having those larger, solid panels of bodywork, I have a much harder time using that particular word to describe them.

In the last few generations of F1 cars, I'd say that I liked the looks of things such as the Arrows A 21 or the McLaren MP4/15. The raised noses on the whole though, just haven't been my thing, so I definitely prefer the general look of F1 cars from before 1995 as compared to the general look since then.

I think the cars from 1987 and '88 have a very clean, simple look that's rather appealing to me. Now, for the ultimate look of aggression and purpose in an F1 car, go back to 1982 and cars like the Renault RE30B or the Lotus 91. I like the shape of the engine cowl on those cars. I like their wide, forward-crouching stance, and those big, skirted sidepods give them wide shoulders to go with that posture. And those cars have fairly simple wings front and rear to provide the finishing touches to that overall wedge shape they have in profile. Heck, the Renault RE30B even has fins on the rear bodywork to extend the lines up to those wing endplates.

I would still contend that the tracks play at least as large a role as the cars. How the aero is produced now is certainly an issue, but it doesn't help when the favored types of corners on new tracks are one-line turns anyway. The tracks are designed with one particular type of overtaking manuever in mind, and that's it. They have a fairly similar make-up in terms of the emphasis on power versus aero downforce. This lends them to all calling for a very similar setup from all the cars, as well as very similar top-end speeds, which actually then hinders the execution of the intended type of overtaking maneuver; admittedly, taking off the rev limiters would help in that department too. In short, the tracks are becoming more homogeneous, and to adapt, the cars are becoming more that way as well.

[ECW Dan Selby]

That's a very full a frank analysis there, Purist.

You sometimes wonder whether they've actually worked that out, or not...

Selby

[Pingguest]

The current breed of circuits are designed around very tight regulations and already have artificial, purposely-designed overtaking spots. The lack of close racing and overtaking on the recently built 'Tilkedromes' proves that the tracks are not the (main) cause of the problem.

The real issue is lack of mechanical diversity, resulting in designers and engineers to produce more or less the same car. Without performance differentials overtaking is going to be very hard. What better argument for opening-up the regulations is thinkable?

[Woolley]

I do wonder if we're looking at this from the wrong place. Aero, tyres, mechanical grip all play a part, but the crucial method for getting evenly matched cars past one another is the driver, and it's now so difficult to make a mistake that makes a difference that overtaking becomes practically impossible. You can't miss a shift, for instance. Make a complete pig's ear of the corner? You don't even need to lift on tarmac - indeed at Copse or Eau Rouge you'll probably exit quicker. And if someone does get a run on you, it's allowable to squeeze them off the track as long as you only do it once. Mistakes need to be punished by a slow exit and poor driving needs to be punished by the stewards.

[Morris Dancer]

Racing cars - wings = overtaking.
QED.

[Purist]

We've all seen winged formula cars overtake, so that statement is patently untrue.

Anyway, there are perceptions in place as far as what is considered "modern" and/or "up-to-date" that effectively make F1 cars WITH wings a requirement. Also, at the speeds of current formula cars (F1 or other categories), having substantial downforce for the car's inherent stability is considered a necessity.

Besides, with current side impact and rollover protection requirements, you can't make a new F1 car without wings that will actually look right. The days of the Maserati 250F or the wingless Lotus 49 are long gone.

Anyway, as long as you have relatively basic wings, compared to what we have presently, the interference to overtaking is pretty minimal; it would certainly have far less impact than does all the blocking that goes on in the races anymore. You could make all the changes in the world to reduce the aero, but you won't notice a damn bit of difference in the races until you crack down heavily on drivers "driving a wide car". It's just that simple.

[Sodemo]

A massive long straight really makes engineers and drivers think twice about having a ton of aero on the car.

Part of the problem in F1 generally is that there are so many tracks with lots of corners. If the F1 calendar consisted of Monza and Spa and that was it, the aero development wouldn't be as critical as those tracks have massive straights where aero isn't needed. Take Indy, that track had a massive straight and it really made engineers compromise setup by using less aero to attain higher top speeds.

If the overall track theme went more towards tracks with long straightaways, the designers would be forced to look at efficiency rather than overall downforce.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If the overall track theme went more towards tracks with long straightaways, the designers would be forced to look at efficiency rather than overall downforce.

Like ovals?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Like ovals?

In a sense, yes. Tracks have been having less and less long straights as years go on. Take Imola for example. Back in the 70's it had some massively long straights, in fact in many ways, it more resembled Monza. Same goes for Spa, the old 60's track was basically a flat out blast from Les Combes to La Source.

The lack of long straights and the introduction of aero into racing has had a big (negative) effect on the quality of racing. That isn't to say that all aero is bad, no, aero developed in the right way can be an aid to overtaking, but F1 and a lot of other formulae have it wrong in my view.