'Boring desert circuits are F1's problem'

[Dare]

Amen



.
     Mike Gascoyne reckons F1 doesn't need new innovations such as moveable rear wings, what it needs are better circuits that facilitate passing.

Although last year's Championship proved be one of the more thrilling with four drivers in the hunt for the World title heading into the final race, Abu Dhabi, it petered out into a boring procession.

Contenders Fernando Alonso and Mark Webber, who were first and second in the title race, chose the wrong strategy and found themselves stuck behind Renault's Vitaly Petrov with no way to overtake.

It was a boring end to a season that suffered far too many processional races.

However, this season, the powers-that-be are hoping for more overtaking after introducing moveable rear wings and bringing back KERS.

Gascoyne, though, feels what F1 really needs it circuits that facilitate passing.

"You can make an argument that says, 'we had a cracking season last year and why would you want to change anything?'," the Team Lotus tech chief told Reuters.

"Then you could say, 'yes but we had three or four incredibly boring races'.

"If on certain circuits you have cracking races every year then why don't we stop going to boring racing circuits?

"The shame is that, Monaco apart, a lot of the races now that are really boring are all the purpose-designed tracks built in deserts where you could have done absolutely anything that you want.

"Bahrain and Abu Dhabi were the two most boring races (of 2010).

"It's pretty disappointing that you've got two massively boring races on circuits where you had literally carte blanche to do anything you liked. You could have had elevation change or moved sand wherever you want it."

As for the use of moveable rear wings, which allow the drivers to open a slot in the wing to give their car better straight-line speed over their rival's, Gascoyne says the concept will still have to be tweaked.

"I think the governing body has to be willing to change how it's implemented to ensure that it works in the way it's meant to. Very often we've done things like this and they've done more harm than good."


.

[Jericoke]

The major detriments to passing are technical, not the track layout.  The cars create 'dirty air' that is difficult to drive through.  The moveable wing actually solves this problem.

The other major problem is the 'marbles' that come off used tires, and accumulate right off the racing line.  Trying to pass means giving up traction, along a less than ideal path.  Until that can be solved, passing is always going to be difficult. 

At the Toronto Indy I saw them use a truck with giant fans to clear the track during yellow flags.  Given the number of yellows and safety cars modern F1 has, that's certainly a possibility.

Besides that, a solution would involve working with Pirelli to create a tire that does not create on track debris (and yet still wears to necessitate pit stops)

[cosworth151]

I'm siding with Gascoyne on this one. And now they want us to have another boring desert circuit in Austin. 

[Williamsfan]

Yeah, I also agree with Mike on this one.  Change the circuits and go to more GOOD tracks!

[Cam]

Im with Jeri on this one.

Question to cosworth151, williamsfan and Mike Gascoyne ( in no particular order ),  define "good", what aspects of track layout facilitate overtaking that the "desert" circuits are lacking?

Cheers,
Cam

[cosworth151]

Using the statistics at Clip the Apex

http://www.cliptheapex.com/community/

the average number of overtaking moves per race over the past few years, by circuit:

Silverstone - 24.92
Interlagos   - 24.25
Spa           - 23.29
Hockenheim - 22.17
Monaco       - 11.11
Singapore    - 6.02
Abu Dahbi   -  6.00
Valencia     -  2.11

Can you name a good race at any of the Tilke-dromes?

[John S]

Using the statistics at Clip the Apex


Can you name a good race at any of the Tilke-dromes?

How about Turkey? The so called 'Diabolica' turn 8 is a match for anything on most classic circuits.

   

[cosworth151]

That's not a circuit, that's a corner. I agree, Turn 8 at Istanbul is a fine corner. Still, I could put Turn 8 on the Route 33 bypass around Lancaster and have just as good a circuit, if not better.

[Cam]

What was it about "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Im sure I could have some fun with those numbers.  However Im not actually questioning the statistics or trying to defend Mr Tilke.

So what is wrong with his layouts that results in his tracks being at the bottom of the list and not the top?  Surely he wouldnt deliberately set out to layout boring tracks.  So what aspects of track design genuinely contribute to overtaking in modern F1, that Mr Tilke has missed? (several times!)

[lkjohnson1950]

Some one convinced Mr. Tilke that passing required long straights leading to slow corners. In fact, the turn that leads onto the straight is more important. A driver should be able to close up on the car in front, or set the car up to gain an advantage. When the cars were less dependent on front wing, there were a number of passing attempts at the Hungaroring down the straight. Drivers would take out a bit of wing to gain top end. Now they can't get close enough at the exit of the last corner to slipstream by. The next generation of cars should be able to pass easier if they are ground effect more than wing cars.

Lonny

[cosworth151]

Tilke is also more interested in "gimick" tracks rather than good racing. I really don't care if the Shanghai track is in the shape of the Chinese character for prosperity. I'll take Monaco, Spa or Indy any day.

[Jericoke]

Tilke is also more interested in "gimick" tracks rather than good racing. I really don't care if the Shanghai track is in the shape of the Chinese character for prosperity. I'll take Monaco, Spa or Indy any day.

There's nothing wrong with a 'gimmick'... after all Indy and Monaco both are.

But I agree, the idea of creating a track into the landscape, rather than carving out an arbitrary shape, is far more romantic.  F1 cars change over time, the rules, the designs; a perfect passing place for one season is useless the next.  Setting out to create a 'passing zone' is a fool's errand.

Find a nice country road, or an abandoned aiport,  put in a grand stand, and you've got your F1 track.   (You'd think Texas would have an abundance of back roads that would be perfect for this?)

[cosworth151]

There's nothing wrong with a 'gimmick'... after all Indy and Monaco both are.

What???? The crown jewel of F1 and the oldest, most honored dedicated motorsports venue on the planet are gimicks?????????

How can you even think of comparing those two great tracks to one that could have been designed by the Chinese equivalent of Big Bird? ("Here's today's letter.  Let's make a track out of it!") 

[Scott]

 (You'd think Texas would have an abundance of back roads that would be perfect for this?)

Most of them are straight lines, flat and dusty...just like the middle east.

[Jericoke]

There's nothing wrong with a 'gimmick'... after all Indy and Monaco both are.

What???? The crown jewel of F1 and the oldest, most honored dedicated motorsports venue on the planet are gimicks?????????

How can you even think of comparing those two great tracks to one that could have been designed by the Chinese equivalent of Big Bird? ("Here's today's letter.  Let's make a track out of it!") 

F1 ran at Indy specifically because its history.  And they included part of the oval in the track design.  I don't know what else to call it besides a gimmick (that is to say, a feature that sets it apart.)

As for Monaco, running cars through downtown of an ultrarich city instead of a dedicated race track?  Who does that?

I'm just suggesting that a gimmick isn't necessarily a bad thing as a starting point:  it just can't be the end point.  After all, a carriage with a motor in place of a horse was once just a gimmick, and that turned out okay.

And a Big Bird track would certainly be a great way to attract more young Americans into the sport