Don’t blame Hermann Tilke, blame the rules

Jarno Trulli, Toyota, Bahrain, 2007, 2 | Toyota MediaNew Formula 1 tracks usually have two things in common: they’re designed by Hermann Tilke, and they get criticised by F1 fans and commentators for being dull, sterile and unchallenging.

Inevitably Tilke gets the blame, but I read something in Autosport recently that made me wonder whether that’s fair:

Current F1 track design rules limit the amount of corner banking to just 10 degree (and prohibits other interesting features such as adverse camber).

Is the real cause of boring F1 tracks the unadventurous regulations?

Long straights leading into hairpins. Tight corners that switch back on themselves. Little gradient or camber. Perhaps the odd quick bend.

These are the basic building blocks of Tilke’s Grand Prix circuits be they Sepang or Istanbul (which have earned modest praise), Bahrain or Fuji Speedway (which attracted the most criticism).

Is the problem here that Tilke simply lacks the imagination to create exciting racing circuits? Or are his hands tied by the FIA regulations on circuit design?

Appendix O to the International Sporting Code explains the restrictions on circuit design but it doesn’t make for easy reading for the layman:

7.4 Longitudinal profile

Any change in gradient should be effected using a minimum vertical radius calculated by the formula:

R = V???/K

Where R is the radius in metres, V is the speed in kph and K is a constant equal to 20 in the case of a concave profi le or to 15 in the case of a convex profi le. The value of R should be adequately increased along approach, release, braking and curved sections. Wherever possible, changes in gradient should be avoided
altogether in these sections.

The gradient of the start/finish straight should not exceed 2 %.

And so on. You can read the full article here and if anyone could translate the important passages (section 7) into plain English I’d be very grateful.

I’m sure the rules have not been written this way because the FIA want to be killjoys. No, I’m sure safety is their primary consideration. But could more be done to give circuit designers like Tilke a little more scope for imagination?

For example, here are a few circuits you’ll never see on the F1 calendar (click to view larger images):

Laguna Seca, USA

Jos Verstappen, A1 Grand Prix, Laguna Seca, 2005

Jos Verstappen, Laguna Seca, A1 Grand Prix, 2005

Video of Ricardo Zonta driving a Toyota F1 car around Laguna Seca on a demonstration run last year.

Brands Hatch, UK

Nico H???lkenberg, A1 Grand Prix, Brands Hatch, 2007

Nico H???lkenberg, Brands Hatch, A1 Grand Prix, 2007

Mid-Ohio, USA

Ryan Hunter-Reay, Mid-Ohio, Indy Racing League, 2007

Ryan Hunter-Reay, Mid-Ohio, Indy Racing League, 2007

Infineon Raceway, USA

Infineon Raceway, Indy Racing League, 2007

Infineon Raceway, Indy Racing League, 2007

Photos: Toyota Media | | | IRL | IRL

More on the circuits and the 2008 F1 calendar

Advert | Go Ad-free


24 comments on Don’t blame Hermann Tilke, blame the rules

  1. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 17th December 2007, 15:31

    Your wish is my command! I’ve added a video above.

  2. Number 38 said on 17th December 2007, 15:36

    Looks like all the bases are covered on this thread but no one explained WHY Tilke gets all the design work.

  3. Liked the video at lugana seca Keith and a new lap record as well – but its too interesting a track – not loads of room for hospitality as well from what I see so nix to bernie’s chammpers and costa fortune to be developed/ruined to suit F1

  4. I would much rather be in California than Indy. Indy may have the history and the nice resorts, but in terms of weather and overall appeal, Anywhere in Cali is better then Indy.

    How does the steep turn 4 at Indy fall into the slope calculations that the FiA use? Surely that turn is more than they would allow in a newly made track, if for no other reason than the issues Little Shu had in 04/05.

  5. AmericanTifosi said on 17th December 2007, 17:04

    Thanks for the video! Wow! it would be great to see some great passing moves at the corkscrew. Just as long as no one goes R10 and spins two cars out like the ALMS race this year.

  6. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 17th December 2007, 17:06

    I think the Indianapolis oval is banked at nine degrees which is just below F1’s regulation maximum ten.

  7. ccolanto said on 20th March 2009, 18:57

    don’t forget Dijon-Prenois

  8. Robert said on 24th May 2009, 1:43

    I have to wonder just how concrete a lot of these rules actually are. Technically, Turn 1 alone at Shanghai could be said to violate two of them. The first turn (a rotation for the car of at least 45 degrees) may have a maximum apex speed of 125km/h. Also, a decreasing radius corner may have a maximum apex speed of 75km/h. Spa and Paul Ricard both flaunt the 2km limit on straights, given that current F1 cars can take certain corners flat-out.

    I believe these rules generally apply to both Grade 1 and Grade 2 circuits, which makes me wonder even more. Potrero de los Funes in Argentina is a new Grade 2 circuit (new at least in terms of FIA inspection). Algarve in Portugal is a new Grade 1 circuit, and I would have to think it technically breaks the rules on gradients.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.