It gets just more daft what has Bernie started?

[Andy B]

I read this http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3261_5860270,00.html and they are talking about round-s-bouts which could be taken on either side, I had to check the date!!

[PG_Gabriel]

Intresting, I like this more than the short cuts at least. It could be a pretty cool specticul to see! Iam for it i guess

[Jericoke]

I don't know, altnerate paths seem like a great idea on the surface.

However, one route will be preferred, and once it rubbers in, will be the better path.  Even if you're stuck behind someone, taking a slower path over 100 meters isn't going to gain an advantage in a modern Formula One car.

For my two cents, allowing cars a more liberal use of run off areas means 'risks' are less risky.  (Remember when a first corner pile up just meant a red flag and everyone getting into the spare cars?)  Obviously this wouldn't help at the street races where this is a bigger problem.

[Scott]

The tracks simply have to be widened in places to allow more than one line through a corner and voilà, you have more overtaking zones.  Giving two paths for drivers to take will only make it more dangerous when they come back together.  That's why they have blue lights at the end of the pit lane - because drivers tend not to know where the other cars are when they re-join the racing line.

[John S]

The tracks simply have to be widened in places to allow more than one line through a corner and voilà, you have more overtaking zones.  Giving two paths for drivers to take will only make it more dangerous when they come back together.  That's why they have blue lights at the end of the pit lane - because drivers tend not to know where the other cars are when they re-join the racing line.

Yeah I agree Scott. The widening needs also to be focused where there is a number of corners close together, cars can run side by side into the early corner with the following car taking a wider outside line then gaining the inside of a corner to come. The widening needs to make it difficult for the lead car to block mid corner and exit, thus preventing loss of momentum for the follwers. I can't see a roundabout however spectacular it may look acheiving this.

[Andy B]

The tracks simply have to be widened in places to allow more than one line through a corner and voilà, you have more overtaking zones.  Giving two paths for drivers to take will only make it more dangerous when they come back together.  That's why they have blue lights at the end of the pit lane - because drivers tend not to know where the other cars are when they re-join the racing line.

Yeah I agree Scott. The widening needs also to be focused where there is a number of corners close together, cars can run side by side into the early corner with the following car taking a wider outside line then gaining the inside of a corner to come. The widening needs to make it difficult for the lead car to block mid corner and exit, thus preventing loss of momentum for the follwers. I can't see a roundabout however spectacular it may look acheiving this.

The trouble is John/Scott if you make the corners wider the shortest line is the shortest line, did'nt they use an airfield in the U.S.A. for Indycar and was marked out with cones and besides being boring it was very wide and did not seem to improve passing on the bends. It would also make them faster and the powers that be want to slow them down.

[John S]

You're example only shows that the track surface and camber also has to be brought into the equation Andy. A dead flat airfield will cause the shortest line racing, however with modern road making technology it should be possible to create wider corners with several possible racing lines.

It's about time Tilke and other track designers start to earn their money, perhaps they should call in a couple of normal road building firms, most new modern roads are cambered to perfection.

[Andy B]

You're example only shows that the track surface and camber also has to be brought into the equation Andy. A dead flat airfield will cause the shortest line racing, however with modern road making technology it should be possible to create wider corners with several possible racing lines.

It's about time Tilke and other track designers start to earn their money, perhaps they should call in a couple of normal road building firms, most new modern roads are cambered to perfection.

You have not seen the roads where I live.

[Scott]

The trouble is John/Scott if you make the corners wider the shortest line is the shortest line, did'nt they use an airfield in the U.S.A. for Indycar and was marked out with cones and besides being boring it was very wide and did not seem to improve passing on the bends. It would also make them faster and the powers that be want to slow them down.

You got the wrong story on that one.  There are currently 2 tracks (Cos and Lonny may want to correct me on this, but I think it's Cleveland and Edmonton) that are on airfields, and they are some of the most exciting road racing in IRL (some ovals are better).  The track and corners are massive, allowing for even outside overtaking.  No Trulli trains in Indy, that's for sure.  Without camber is even better because it causes more driver error and the chance for the driver behind to sneak either inside or in some cases outside.  In the case that the cars and drivers are perfectly matched, then it is more difficult, but we don't have that in F1, and will even less likely have it going into 2010 and beyond.  Open up the corners, and you will have improved racing. 

[PG_Gabriel]

Edmonton is the only true airfield race left, and Yes it is the race i most look forward to besides the 500... St Pete technicly uses a runway but it only the main straight

[lkjohnson1950]

Cleveland was indeed an airport track, and usually produced some interesting racing, at least in the early stages. Milwaukee was a 1 mile, flat oval that also produced some good racing. As the track rubbered in it was entirely possible to pass around the outside at either course. The wide surface allowed for more than one line to be quick. But, I have noticed that IRL cars running on former Champ car circuits are less able to pass. The last 2 Milwaukee races were much more processional. Champ cars used limited ground effects for a significant part of their aero package. When all your down force comes from wings at the extreme ends of the cars, loss of air at either end has a much more drastic effect on the balance of the car. I think the only real solution to the problem is to drastically reduce the aero ala the Rolex Grand American (think Daytona 24 hour) cars, or return to a limited ground effects package that reduces the importance of the front wing. I also think today's drivers are less likely to try a pass when they can wait for a pitstop to get them by. Do you think Vettel would try to pass Schumacher around the outside of the 130R the way Alonso did? I think not.

Lonny.

[cosworth151]

The Burke Lakefront Airport circuit in Cleveland did produce some good racing. It was a Champ Car race that didn't make the cut into IRL. I guess it's too close to Mid Ohio, Indy and a proposed return to Detroit.

One of the few bright spots of the 2005 tire debacle at the USGP was that the Cleveland Champ Car race, held two weeks later, announced that they would accept USGP ticket stubs for race day admission.