F1 Fanatic

With all the talk of Abu Dhabi’s expanses of tarmac runoff, and the possibility of Circuit Paul Ricard returning to the calendar, this one thing piqued my interest.

We know that Paul Ricard has these color-coded run-off areas, consisting of a progressively abrasive asphalt-tungsten mixtures, designed to slow the cars down in the same manner a gravel trap would. The difference is that cars can return to the track, but at the cost of extreme tyre wear.

My question is, why isn’t this abrasive runoff being used at other tracks?

Is it too expensive to manufacture and install? I’m not entirely sure, but given that construction of the circuit was privately financed, it seems unlikely that the runoff would be so uneconomical. Factor in the already astronomical costs of the modern circuits like Yas Marina, and it seems that investing in abrasive runoff wouldn’t break the bank by that much. Is it somehow unsafe? Nope. F1 cars have raced at Paul Ricard before without problem, and the circuit is meets FIA standards.

Hermann Tilke was quoted as saying (from an F1F round-up):

Nobody wants (gravel traps), it will result in less overtaking and less risk taking from drivers because once you’re punished for your mistake it’s race over. Drivers will be too careful.

It would seem that abrasive runoff combines the best of both worlds (asphalt and gravel traps). Have these tungsten-asphalt runoff areas vary in abrasiveness, just as they are at Paul Ricard. Hit a less abrasive area and you can continue racing, but you are still penalized for your mistake as you lose time travelling over the runoff. Make a serious mistake, and you’ll be suitably punished by having your tyres worn to oblivion, forcing you to pit. Have an accident, and the runoff is there to serve its safety purpose – to slow or stop the car before it hits the barriers.

What do you think?

There are many, much cheaper substitutes for tungsten in this application, like ceramic aluminium oxide (used in industrial abrasives). And besides that, why is abrasive runoff, in any of its forms, not being considered by circuit designers?

The fact that Paul Ricard chose to use it in the first place in spite of its cost, rather than sticking to tried and tested gravel traps, seems to prove its feasibility. Or was it conceived as an experimental measure?

What a shame. But where there’s a will, there’s a way. I’m no engineer, but I’m confident that with enough thought and effort, a cheaper substitue to tungsten would be available for the construction of such runoff.

I strongly prefer gravel traps as well. The fact that your race can be over with one tiny mistake makes matters a lot more interesting and when Tilke says it counteracts overtaking, I’d say that’s purely speculation on his part, just like his whole hairpin-before-a-straight idea.

If you look at the practice sessions at Abu Dhabi today, you see many drivers running onto the “abrasive” surfaces without any noticeable damage to their tyres. It is (slightly) more effective at getting cars stopped (if their tyres are still whole), but it does not combine the benefits of tarmac and gravel run-off, because it doesn’t punish mistakes.

@sjm I believe riders prefer gravel, certainly Casey Stoner has expressed that opinion. Though the FIA aren’t alone in the push for asphalt run-off, with moves to change gravel to asphalt for MotoGP at Philip Island

@necrodethmortem gravel traps are preferable from a racing point of view, but there’s little chance they’ll come back. Just as gravel traps replaced catch fencing asphalt has now replaced gravel traps as a safer alternative.
I think they should be exploring options that enforce drivers to use the confines of the track, but have the safety benefits of the asphalt run-off. The Paul Ricard abrasive areas seem to be a decent compromise between punishing errors and safety, I’d love to see these at more tracks.

@zomtec Valencia this year showed what fun a race of attrition can be, that being said if you’re a Vettel or Grojean fan then it was probably pretty painful.