Tilke says rules, not tracks, make overtaking hard

74 comments on “Tilke says rules, not tracks, make overtaking hard”

1. 

   Brace (@brace)
   16th July 2015, 12:00

   He does make sense, but some tracks are rubbish; they are too boring to even drive. It’s irony that his best track isn’t on the calender anymore.
   1. 

      jh1806 (@jh1806)
      16th July 2015, 12:24

      I’m assuming you’re talking about Istanbul Park, in which case I totally agree – that track is superb and has produced some fine racing.
      1. 

         Brace (@brace)
         16th July 2015, 12:26

         @jh1806
         Haha, I forgot to write the name of the track, but yes, definitely Istanbul Park! Good for racing and fun to drive (at least in games :)).
      2. 

         PhilEReid (@philereid)
         16th July 2015, 12:27

         Unfortunately it is one of a few tracks completely butchered by DRS. Because it was relatively easy to follow on that circuit, DRS made it far, far too easy to pass.
         1. 

            Eric Morman (@lethalnz)
            16th July 2015, 13:13

            if you put these cars we have now on Istanbul Park, no one could pass anyway with or without DRS,
            DRS has become redundant due to aerodynamics which are stopping cars from following each other close enough to pass,
            did you not see how Merc could not pass Williams on track?
         2. 

            sato113 (@sato113)
            16th July 2015, 13:30

            um in 2010 Hamilton found it very hard to overtake Webber. The overtaking we did see between the mclarens and the red bulls was down to the lead car turning down his engine thinking his team mate had also been instructed to.
   2. 

      pal
      16th July 2015, 13:57

      Istanbul Park was awesome! I wish Turkish GP was still in the calendar… There’s been some exciting races there.
2. 

   Djangles LeVaughn (@royal-spark)
   16th July 2015, 12:04

   Track layout, aerodynamics and tyre condition effect overtaking. In some or most cases one factor effects it more than others do.
3. 

   PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
   16th July 2015, 12:09

   Yeah, the man made sure every track had plenty of long long long straights for DRS.
   1. 

      Irejag (@irejag)
      16th July 2015, 17:49

      Maybe he is compensating for something by having long straights……
      1. 

         DaveD (@daved)
         16th July 2015, 19:09

         LOL Interesting point
   2. 

      Azwing (@azwing)
      16th July 2015, 21:25

      Was wondering the same thing. How many of those passes at Bahrain were DRS overtakes?

      DRS passes just don’t rank very highly in my estimation, and I refuse to give the passer much credit when it is done with DRS.
      1. 

         pal
         16th July 2015, 23:14

         Yeah. People think Bahrain is the type of circuit where it’s “easy” to overtake whereas it’s mediocre at best with DRS and that’s me being generous.
   3. 

      Piotr E. Hogarth (@pehogarth)
      17th July 2015, 12:54

      I believe DRS was not there yet at the time he had designed those tracks. DRS is killing overtaking, although it was designed to increase it (sic!).
      1. 

         Michal (@michal2009b)
         17th July 2015, 14:48

         I don’t know whether I am alone in that but I think DRS is much more powerful now than it was in 2011-2012. Of course they doubled the number of the zones to begin with but also the reduction in rear wing’s size (they are Montreal-like) for 2014 increased the effects of the DRS. Also with these new stupid regulations it’s even harder to follow the other car in the corner which makes passing without DRS very difficult, creating the impression every overtake is done with DRS whereas earlier they was variety in them.
4. 

   PhilEReid (@philereid)
   16th July 2015, 12:16

   If I could, I’d love to ask Tilke to design what would be his dream F1 circuit, just to see what we get. He would have to do it with the same safety regulations but can do whatever he likes with the rest of it. He’s designed good circuits in the past so I’d like to see him try again. I do think he gets quite badly handicapped at the moment, but I also think he could do better.
   1. 

      David (@wushumr2)
      16th July 2015, 19:36

      Didn’t he design the track in India, or am I completely wrong on that one? I thought it was pretty neat, and the drivers also think so.
5. 

   sam3110 (@sam3110)
   16th July 2015, 12:28

   Though they both suffered from lack of spectators and were based on countries with little to no F1 heritage, Turkey and South Korea are probably his best 2 tracks
   1. 

      paul
      16th July 2015, 18:31

      +1 Yeah I agree with you. Maybe Bernie should have done a better job with promoters to keep those circuits. They were better than at least half the tracks currently on the calendar.
6. 

   naz3012 (@naz3012)
   16th July 2015, 12:28

   I so sympathise with Tilke somewhat, he’s given a pretty tight set of constraints and often a flat piece of swampland to try and bring to life. Look at india for example, he said somewhere that he had to put the elevation changes in himself, it’s a major task trying to create elevation change that is meaningful and defines a circuit, as a result, the india circuit was horribly uninspiring.
   Most of F1’s best or so-called “traditional” circuits have so much character because they weren’t designed to be circuits in the first place – Silverstone: Airfield, Spa: Public road, etc etc; they weren’t built on a flat piece of reclaimed land with the vision of being a motor racing circuit.

   I do however take issue with his lack of imagination though… “The simplest way is a long straight followed by a sharp corner, which creates a long brake zone.”. It’s worrying that he’s designing circuits that are basically facilitating DRS/motorway style overtakes. I’m not saying I could do a better job, but why not try adding some interesting features to corners to make them challenging or encourage mistakes, he has done it on some occasions, but not often enough for me.
   1. 

      @HoHum (@hohum)
      17th July 2015, 0:57

      @naz3012, I agree, too often (always?) it’s the simple solution of late braking that defines passing opportunities on Tilkedromes, not only is it not very effective between competitive cars, it’s often messy or over in the blink of an eye, for good racing and exciting overtakes we need a series of bends (not right angles) where the drivers have room to run side by side.
7. 

   frood19 (@frood19)
   16th July 2015, 12:32

   maybe they try too hard to make them good for overtaking – why not try and design some awesome corners instead? if there is lots of elevation change, then that raises the difficulty level and “should” increase the chance of errors.

   we should remember that a lot of Tilke’s tracks were designed and built before the advent of DRS etc.
   1. 

      John H (@john-h)
      16th July 2015, 22:13

      I agree with this. There is no formula for a ‘good track’. Unfortunately Tilke probably doesn’t understand that generic rules do not a good track make.
8. 

   Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
   16th July 2015, 12:38

   Overtaking isn’t difficult. I have no idea where anybody got that idea from. Overtaking is too easy and manufactured, and that’s in part due to DRS.

   Anyhow, I don’t care on the numbers when it comes to overtaking. It’s all about the quality, and it’s impossible to have quality overtaking when drivers don’t bother to overtake because there’s a DRS zone around the corner.
   1. 

      David (@wushumr2)
      16th July 2015, 19:39

      Or they don’t overtake because it’s before the detection zone, thus giving the opponent DRS. I kind of like the situations where you can overtake between the detection point and the DRS zone, giving yourself a little boost if you make the move stick. If we’re going to have tires you can’t really thrash, then it’s a decent reward for taking some life out of your tires to make the move stick. And if you’re a fast car “out of position” then you can get some extra momentum towards your next target.
9. 

   Girts (@girts)
   16th July 2015, 12:56

   But F1 is not just about overtaking. It is about beauty of speed, battles, diversity and many other things. I could watch the race at Suzuka for 90 minutes without seeing a single pass because I just love to watch the cars flying through those fast corners. For sure, F1 needs some overtaking and it is an issue but assuming that a higher number of passes automatically means a better race is probably one of the biggest mistakes made in the modern F1.
   1. 

      John H (@john-h)
      16th July 2015, 22:14

      +1
   2. 

      @HoHum (@hohum)
      17th July 2015, 1:00

      agree, more Ss.
10. 

    sato113 (@sato113)
    16th July 2015, 13:24

    Bahrain 2014 was amazing. And all thanks to DRS. Anyone disagree?
    1. 

       Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
       16th July 2015, 14:38

       @sato113 Disagree. Purely because the majority of the decent moves made were into a corner not preceded by a DRS zone. However, there were plenty into the corners with DRS though.
       1. 

          sato113 (@sato113)
          17th July 2015, 16:41

          @craig-o i believe your talking about turn 4. The moves there wouldn’t have been possible without DRS allowing the following car to get into an overtaking position into turn 1. The overtake sequence then spills onto turn 4. DRS brought drivers closer for endless sector 1 battles.
    2. 

       DaveW (@dmw)
       16th July 2015, 15:29

       Disagree. DRS helped, but it really was because of the strange situation of equal cars but the car behind having both fresher and softer tires, and because said car seemed incapable of making a pass stick despite the advantage.
       1. 

          sato113 (@sato113)
          17th July 2015, 16:42

          @dmw the faster and fresher tyre situation was only towards the end of the race no?
    3. 

       JackySteeg (@jackysteeg)
       16th July 2015, 17:02

       I think it was Maldonado that made it amazing. If he hadn’t sent Gutierrez flying, there would’ve been no safety car, and Nico wouldn’t have been anywhere near Lewis in that final stint.
    4. 

       Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
       16th July 2015, 18:40

       @sato113 Disagree completely – it was thanks to the tyre rules and the Safety Car. If anything Bahrain last year would have been better without DRS – we’d maybe not have had as many moves, but we’d have known they were down to skill and not just drivers jabbing the magic overtaking button.
       1. 

          sato113 (@sato113)
          17th July 2015, 16:44

          @keithcollantine the safety car closed the field for the end excitement yes, but even with that and with, say, rosberg on different tyres, he still needed DRS to be near Hamilton into the turn 1 braking zone. I think DRS forced the car ahead to have to defend into turn 1, which caused all sorts of excitement leading into turn 4. without DRS, I don’t believe the car ahead would have been hassled too much.
    5. 

       speedAddict78 (@speedaddict78)
       17th July 2015, 2:51

       Thanks to Maldonado. The safety car made the race a lot better.
11. 

    Simon (@weeniebeenie)
    16th July 2015, 13:30

    “The simplest way is a long straight followed by a sharp corner, which creates a long brake zone.”

    Ha, I certainly could not tell this was his best idea. No siree, that is not apparent at all. Oh wait…

    Remember that old 90s advert for cereal, “variety comes in packs of 8”? I think he might want to have a think about that.
12. 

    beneboy (@beneboy)
    16th July 2015, 14:19

    Of all of the modern circuits that have been added to the F1 calendar, only Istanbul and COTA are any good. The rest of them are ok or downright boring.
    It’s hard to blame Mr Tilke though, like Pirelli, he’s doing the best he can but he’s working to a set of regulations that don’t suit the needs of F1. The FIA restrictions on camber, the steepness of the track and pretty much every other aspect of the circuit’s design are so restrictive that it’s very difficult to come up with something interesting and different.
    Add in the topography of the land he’s given to develop and the needs of the other series that will be using the circuit too and it must be a pretty difficult job

    The old circuit designers never had all of these problems, as the film about Laguna Seca demonstrates. When they got to the top of the hill the architect told the builders to get back down any way they could, when he got back from lunch they’d built the corkscrew and the world had one of the best corners ever built on a circuit. No CAD, no real plans, no regulations and no health & safety culture telling you it’s too dangerous.
    1. 

       @HoHum (@hohum)
       17th July 2015, 1:03

       +1. Loud applause.
    2. 

       Neel Jani (@neelv27)
       17th July 2015, 9:27

       THIS should have been the COTD @beneboy
13. 

    Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
    16th July 2015, 14:25

    No way he’d come to the press telling them: “I basically ruined F1”. So yeah, we can’t expect him saying anything else than this.

    Some of his work is great tho. Istambul, Sepang, Shangai are prime examples. But others are cathastropically bad: Abu Dhabi, Valencia street track, Sochi… I suppose organizers are partly at fault for choosing very bad locations: Russia wanted a race in Sochi, but that was never going to be a good place for a racetrack. Same with Valencia, it’s hard to come up with an interesting street course layout that fulfills modern F1 safety standards. Singapore turned out alright tho.

    But the iciing on the cake is Yas Marina which is a prime example of how not to design a track. A totally empty land, the biggest budget ever, and all you can think of is million of chicanes, which are normally designed to MODIFY an existing track in order to slow down cars for whatever reason. And he build it in such a way that modifications are impossible. That’s absolutely lame engineering.

    Also, tracks might not get much overtaking but they can still be fantastic places to watch a race. Budapest and the Red Bull Ring look stunning everytime F1 shows up, and those are not overtaking friendly places. They just seem to extract more out of the driver and cars, and that translates into a good sensation for the viewer. Watching a car go through parallel white lines within an acre of tarmac run offs is never going to feel fast or exciting…
    1. 

       Conzo77
       16th July 2015, 21:58

       The more things change … I remember from the early 90s up to the noughties, Hungaroring was blasted by many as boring, processional, etc.

       A couple of seasons ago I noticed that it’s now heralded as an old-school, real driver’s track.

       I happen to agree as I always liked Hungaroring. It throws up fun races more consistently than, say, Monza or Spa, which are awesome tracks in terms of driving a fast car around it, but often serve rather lukewarm races unless it rains or there’s a big crash.

       I find it funny though that yesteryear’s borefest is today’s real racers track :)
14. 

    Dim sim (@dimsim)
    16th July 2015, 14:56

    Of all the things wrong with modern F1 to me the biggest issue is the tracks. The tacks are perfectly smooth, flat kerbed, astro turfed, tarmaced run-off boredom. Watching a single car negotiate a modern circuit is simply not exciting. In many cases it is not even interesting.

    Thus everyone becomes obsessed with over taking because with out overtaking there is nothing else.

    I can watch races from the 70s and 80s all day because watching the cars bump and skip over a surface, on the edge with a high kerb and grass next to the track is interesting and exciting on its own, any over taking was just a bonus.

    It’s why I laugh every time someone says “rose tinted glasses the racing was no better” etc. Well the racing was no better back in the day because it did not need to be, the cars and tracks provided all the drama needed.

    These days watching a single car go around a track like Abu Dabi etc is utterly uninteresting. Hence why people are obsessing on overtaking being the be all and end all, cause it kind of is.
    1. 

       Brace (@brace)
       16th July 2015, 15:55

       I absolutely agree. I can enjoy just cruising on the coastal road, driving 60kmph, with all those elevation changes, long bends along the coast, sharp turns on the edge of the cliff, while I probably couldn’t help feeling bored after few laps of driving 200kmph around that Abu Dhabi parking lot.

       The thing with tracks like Spa, is that it looks like there is a purpose of cars driving there. It looks like they are traveling somewhere through beautiful landscapes, as opposed to Abu Dhabi, Bahrain etc. where it looks like they are just driving around in circles on an oversized go-cart track. Looks pointless.
15. 

    Ciaran (@ciaran)
    16th July 2015, 15:04

    Tilke gets way too much unreasonable hate. I’m sure plenty here like to design their ideal circuits in their heads or whatever, but if you apply the litany of FIA regulations that he has to abide by, I highly doubt any of them are actually feasible. And he still makes some great circuits despite the safety restrictions – Istanbul Park and COTA spring to mind.
    1. 

       PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
       16th July 2015, 15:41

       but if you apply the litany of FIA regulations that he has to abide by

       And let’s not forget budget, physics, lead time and deadline etc…
16. 

    Fletch (@fletchuk)
    16th July 2015, 15:14

    I actually disagree with many of the commenters here. Although I have some sympathy for Tilkes excuses, I do think some of them are cop outs.

    Particularly, I think he has fallen back to a ‘formula’ for his tracks. As he mentions, they all have 1 or 2 long straights going into a sharp corner etc etc. There’s no eau rouges, no maggots/becketts, no 180rs etc
    1. 

       GT Racer (@gt-racer)
       16th July 2015, 16:08

       @fletchuk)

       There’s no eau rouges,

       Modern circuit design regulations don’t allow a corner like Eau Rouge because there are restrictions on how steep an elevation change can happen through a fast corner.

       This was done to avoid situations where cars could launch over steep rises, Same reason places at Le mans were flattened.

       no maggots/becketts

       There’s that section at COTA which was designed based on the maggots/becketts section.

       no 180rs etc

       130r isn’t even 130r anymore, They changed it after Allan McNish’s crash in 2002 & its now far more open & far easier than it used to be.
       1. 

          @HoHum (@hohum)
          17th July 2015, 1:11

          But that section at COTA was designed (or part of the brief), as was the rest of the track, before Tilke got involved.
    2. 

       Simon (@weeniebeenie)
       16th July 2015, 20:58

       Plently of 180r ‘corners’. :p
       1. 

          Fletch (@fletchuk)
          16th July 2015, 21:46

          180r > 130r ;)
17. 

    DaveW (@dmw)
    16th July 2015, 15:24

    Tilke obviously spends a lot of time thinking about this, but I completely disagree with this theory of track passing. Having a long straight followed by a hairpin does NOT foster more overtaking. At an F1 car’s Vmax, the braking zone is still only about 150m, just a few seconds of braking if that. And if a car is defending on the middle or inside the overtaking car needs to be able to brake much harder than usual, i.e., in less time, to make a pass.

    If you want to see the archetype, look at Interlagos, Spa, even Turkey. What you need is a preceding corner with the possibility of multiple fast lines and that put an emphasis on handling. This facilitates passing out of not just into a corner (or into the next corner). This will allow the trailing car to maintain contact, especially if it has superior balance and grip. This is also the scenario on a medium length oval track, which allows a trailing driver to “set up” a pass. Look at an oval like Phoenix or Nazareth—although very short, a trailing driver can harry the car in front into a series of poor lines through corners making him slower on the next straight and apt to an error.

    Tilke seems to think that hairpin-straight-hairpin makes for passing, but to me this just allows the lead car to get away more easily onto the straight and simply cover off a pass on the other end. He can even stymie a car getting a good run on him by running the car off the outside and he can make up for a poor line-in by parking on the apex and then shooting off to the next hairpin corner.

    With regard to braking, I’ve said before that if we really feel that the only solution to passing is to create longer braking zones, then we need to limit braking performance by rule. This could mean getting rid of carbon-carbon brakes. Maybe going to a road car-spec ceramic set up or even “steel” brakes (cast iron rotors). It seems really ridiculous to try to increase braking distance by changing the radii of corners alone.
    1. 

       GT Racer (@gt-racer)
       16th July 2015, 16:11

       Look at an oval like Phoenix or Nazareth

       @dmw I miss Nazareth, Great short oval that produced great races. Shame its been left abandoned for about 10 years.

       Pheonix has been changed recently, Banking is a bit steeper & its faster than it used to be. There is also this absurd situation where Nascar allows drivers to cut the dogleg on the backstretch x times a race…. Bernie’s corner cutting proposal in action!
18. 

    MarkM
    16th July 2015, 16:28

    I honestly don’t care for Tilke designed tracks, I am also not sure why F1 always relies on the same designer? This makes for predictable boring new circuits. Why wouldn’t you have different thought processes and thinking for each and every new track you add in the future? That would give diversity to circuits. This for me is the biggest mistake.

    There is a reason the passionate F1 fans will gravitate to the “classic” circuits of yesterday that F1 still thankfully runs on at this time. (Spa, Silverstone, Suzuka, etc…) I frankly don’t care for the new easy run off, very forgiving circuits that are being designed today. The safety factor they measure to today makes the circuits very boring and little excitement for an “off” by a driver. As they will get back on and continue, you couldn’t do that in the old days.
    1. 

       GT Racer (@gt-racer)
       16th July 2015, 21:20

       Tilke is used as often as he is because he comes with a complete package, His company designs the circuits & they also handle construction with everything done in house.

       Usually you hire a designer & then have to outsource the other elements of building the circuit to contractors which usually means dealing with a couple different companies which add’s an element of complexity you don’t get with Tilke.

       The other advantage of using Tilke is that both him & those within his company know all the rules & regulations & some of the complexities of designing a circuit that may not be apparently to outside people (Best tarmac to use, How to best lay the tarmac, How to prepare the surface underneath, What drainage methods work best for a racetrack etc….).
19. 

    drmouse (@drmouse)
    16th July 2015, 17:07

    I will echo many, in that most Tilke tracks of late have been dull. COTA was a surprise for me, but most have been devoid of any character. Whether this is down to Tilke, the rules, the locations or whatever else doesn’t matter. They just don’t produce any emotional resonance, nor do they promote exciting racing.

    However, I will completely agree with him that car design is the main reason for a lack of overtaking. The emphasis on traditional aero downforce kills the ability of cars to follow closely. This needs fixing, somehow. I don’t know how it could be done safely while still keeping speeds up, but it needs sorting.
    1. 

       @HoHum (@hohum)
       17th July 2015, 1:16

       @drmouse,@gt-racer, how short our memories are, the layout for COTA was devised long before Tilke got involved.
       1. 

          drmouse (@drmouse)
          17th July 2015, 7:57

          the layout for COTA was devised long before Tilke got involved

          I didn’t realise that, @hohum. Thanks :)
20. 

    Harald
    16th July 2015, 18:54

    Just to hear tracks mentioned in the overtaking debate is a breath of fresh air, they are usually the huge elephants in the room.
21. 

    JackySteeg (@jackysteeg)
    16th July 2015, 20:25

    I agree with Tilke, although it is important to remember there is a difference between overtaking and exciting racing. The best Grands Prix are usually exciting due to the circumstances on the day rather than the layout of the circuit itself.

    I’m not as strong a critic of Tilke as others may be. After all, he has a set of guidelines to follow to make sure the circuit meets the FIA’s highest safety standards. I hate mile-long straights as much as anyone, but I understand this to be a demand of the circuit owners, who want the long straights to attract people for track days. I don’t think the tracks are that dull, but they are too similar to each other. If we had 20 Spa clones on the calendar we’d start finding those boring too.
22. 

    SauberS1 (@saubers1)
    16th July 2015, 22:52

    Who is plan to come Hungaroring?
23. 

    spoutnik (@spoutnik)
    16th July 2015, 23:52

    I quite disagree with Tilke’s views about overtaking. Get rid of DRS and then let’s see the best suited for overtaking. Quite fed up about his monopole, actually, time for some change. COTA is clearly one of his best, but come on, let’s get other designers too.
    1. 

       @HoHum (@hohum)
       17th July 2015, 1:19

       COTA is not his.
24. 

    mfreire
    17th July 2015, 0:50

    Track design is one of the biggest problems of Formula One today, I think. There are so many circuits (just about all of the Tilkedromes, that includes COTA) that are so similar to each other and have almost identical average speeds that the groups of engineers for each team, when designing the cars, have an easier time than before because they have greater knowledge of what they have to do in order to create a car that suits all of the circuits. The challenge is narrowed for them. I’ll give you an example: Pretty much every season from 1987 and before- the circuits were all very varied. I’ll use the ’85 season as an example: There were fast circuits with 140+ mph averages (Osterreichring, Spa, Silverstone, Monza, Paul Ricard (with the 1 mile straight), Kyalami, and Brands Hatch), there were the mid-speed circuits (Zandvoort, Imola, Nurburgring GP, Jacarepagua (Rio de Janeiro), and Estoril), and there were the slow, tight and twisty tracks (Monaco, Detroit, Adelaide). Not one of those tracks looked the same back then. There are still some good ones today- Spa, Suzuka, Monaco, Monza, Silverstone, and Interlagos. In addition to different types of engines, Formula One desperately needs a greater average speed variation in all of the circuits it races on. That way, some cars do better on other circuits, worse on others. 1985 is another good example: the Lotus Ayrton Senna drove that year was clearly the best car on slow and bumpy circuits- (as demonstrated by his pole position lap at Adelaide), the McLaren MP4/2B that Alain Prost and Niki Lauda drove that year was clearly the best car through fast corners and the Brabham and Ferrari cars that year were the best cars on the long straights.

    These new, high-tech track layouts are too conservative, don’t flow properly and there are botched attempts to create overtaking (a number of Tilkedromes have that signature feature: hairpin into a long straight which leads into another hairpin). Most of the Tilkedromes feel like lamely designed street circuits that are actually purpose-built circuits (Abu Dhabi is a prime example of this). If there was a fast-ish section that led into a high speed corner which led into a long straight that ended with a hairpin (Silverstone’s Chapel/Hangar Straight section and Shanghai’s back straight are good current examples of what I am talking about; that’s why these circuits (sometimes in Shanghai’s case, often in Silverstone’s case) put on good races), that is, in my opinion, the easiest way to produce overtaking, because that kind of layout design almost always succeeds at that.

    Does anyone wonder why the Abu Dhabi circuit has never put on a good race (2010 wasn’t that great a race; it was only memorable because it was the championship decider that year, and because Petrov kept blocking Alonso the whole race)? Because 1: The layout is pathetically boring and conducive to good motor racing- although the general structure of the layout has potential. The organizers should take out all but one of the slow corners, and replace them with much faster corners while keeping the general route of the layout (like the chicane before the hairpin that leads onto the straight; just make that a long, 3rd or 4th gear constant radius corner, and the double hairpin sequence after that long straight; they should make that into a 5th gear left-right kink or something) And 2: The track is far too forgiving and, like so many F1 circuits now has way, way too much tarmac runoff area. This was demonstrated by Petrov and Alonso in 2010: Petrov was easily able to make it back onto the track in front of Alonso after going off the track multiple times. I feel as though every corner except the first corner or first sequence of corners should not have tarmac run-off area. If a driver goes off, he should be punished. Before Sochi came lumbering around, Abu Dhabi was definitely the worst track on the calendar, with Bahrain and Singapore not far behind.
    1. 

       @HoHum (@hohum)
       17th July 2015, 1:31

       3 cheers for your 1st. paragraph analysis, different tracks encouraged different cars, Enzo stuck with his V12s to ensure victory at Monza while cash strapped Brabham sacrificed ultimate horsepower for low end torque to dominate those slow tracks and surprised everybody with 2 more championships.
       1. 

          mfreire
          17th July 2015, 3:55

          Different tracks inspire different cars. That shoots up the interest factor for me to the stratosphere.
          1. 

             @HoHum (@hohum)
             17th July 2015, 5:00

             Yep, me too, only the promise new PUs for 2014 kept me on board during the equalised v8 era, the virtual straight jacket on the designs was hugely disappointing though.
25. 

    speedAddict78 (@speedaddict78)
    17th July 2015, 3:03

    Disagree. Look at Monaco for example. It’s too narrow to overtake. In this year, the most notable overtaking attempts ended with Verstappen crashing and Ricciardo making a contact with Raikkonen.

    Tracks with too much high speed corners, like in Spanish Grand Prix and more than half of the tracks in this year, are a problem too. For me, the biggest problem are the tracks.
26. 

    Apex Assassin
    17th July 2015, 6:12

    Sochi!
27. 

    Guy (@)
    17th July 2015, 7:50

    There is nothing wrong with Tilke tracks. The problem is they don’t have the history and fanfare that comes with a track that has been around for many years.

    If we applied the same criticism you folks apply to modern Tilke tracks, Monaco would be on the list of bad tracks and perhaps Silverstone. But you’ll never see that. Monaco is on the calendar not because its a good track, but because it has “history” and one other thing….MONEY!

    Good tracks and bad tracks are not defined by their layout, they are defined by moments. They create mystique or whatever you want to call it. If we get more memorable moments from Bahrain, that track will have the allure of tracks like Monza, Spa…etc. Which turns the almost reflex like reaction of “all things Tilke=bad” on its head. Again, tracks are defined by moments or if they are lucky, a geographical feature that is a result of the landscape NOT design. For exampe, turn 1 at COTA or Eau Rouge. Is there anything spectacular in the design of Silverstone? No! Doesn’t matter if old or new Silverstone. What makes Silverstone special is that its the home of some of the sports greatest moments. Once more, moments not layout defines tracks. So lay off the lame fad of complaining about Tilke tracks. If you were lucky enough to drive these tracks yourself, I bet you won’t dare say they are boring.
28. 

    swh1386 (@swh1386)
    17th July 2015, 14:12

    I would dearly love to see modern cars tackling the Curva Peraltada
29. 

    hobo (@hobo)
    17th July 2015, 14:53

    [Apparently I made this comment on the wrong post, sorry for the repeat.]

    To me it’s not just that a lot of the new tracks are boring. Which they are, in my opinion. It’s that so many of them are so much alike. The problem with such similarity is that if a car is dominant on one track, it is dominant on half the season because the characteristics of so many of the circuits favor particular design solutions.

    The Merc of the past two years, and certain other cars, have been so dominant at times that they exceed this and excel everywhere. But just as different conditions can make for closer races or different outcomes — rain, cooler, hotter, greener track surfaces — different track characteristics can make for better races too.

    And while I don’t really want boring track type A followed by boring track type B, and C just to suit different car designs, it would be many times more interesting than track A followed by track A, track A, older track with some character, track A, track A… So if you can’t design some interesting tracks, at least make them different.
30. 

    SauberS1 (@saubers1)
    20th July 2015, 23:18

    I don’t agree this.

Comments are closed.