How can the rule book be the problem. hair are some great tracks like spa that comply to rules, they are safe, they have overtaking places and they produce great races. If good tracks comply to the rules then you cannot blame the rules for creating bad tracks.
Because the rules are written specifically for new circuit design, not for existing circuits. There is a separate set of rules for bringing existing circuits in line with safety requirements.
Also, it’s a myth that “good” circuits always produce good races. Spa and Silverstone have produce some real stinkers over the years. Likewise, Bahrain and Shanghai have given us the odd good race. Most people who criticise circuit design generally have no idea what they are talking about, as if there is some empirical absolute that will guarantee a good race every time. Hermann Tilke’s basic circuit design philosophy of a heavy braking zone after a long straight can be seen in the earliest of racing circuits. There are no less than four examples of this on the Nurburgring Nordschleife alone.
When Populous were asked to develop Silverstone did they not have to take into consideration MotoGP’s requirements?
The reconfiguration was originally designed for MotoGP. When it was decided that the circuit would be re-routed, the British Grand Prix had already moved to Donington. If the British Grand Prix had not moved, it’s unlikely Populous would have gotten the design contract. However, it should be noted that 2010 was not the first time the “Arena” configuration had ben kicked about. Hermann Tilke drew up some preliminary draft designs (then known as “Arrowhead”) as early as 2003 that utilised the same ideas as Populous did, though his was more of a simple triangle shape, using a single double-apex corner where Populous created Village, the Loop and Aintree, with Abbey being re-styled as a prototypical Tilke passing zone. He also hit upon the idea of moving the pits, first to Hangar Straight, and then to their current (new) location between Club and Abbey. See for yourself: