Tarmac Runoff Areas

[ShiftingGears]

IMO don't punish mistakes. I don't think their installation at Spa (or at any circuit) was a good idea at all. Because it facilitates an inability to stay on the circuit more than grass or gravel. If the final chicane was grass like the Bus Stop was then there would be no drama about the racing incident that occured. Thoughts?

[Viktory]

Also gravel is better when wet (Hamilton at Nurburgring last year)
Surely they can get some kind of mix? a bit of gravel, and some tarmac, or would that be even more dangerous?

[Knock-on]

I think tarmac is there because it slows cars down quicker.

[ArrowsFA1]

Drivers will always use what is available to them, and the tarmac run-offs do allow them to 'get away' with mistakes, mistakes that the Spa of the 60's, for example, would penalise, sometimes fatally. Trees and buildings lined the track then and perhaps the drivers had more 'respect' for the circuit and their fellow competitors as a result.

But that was a different world. Safety is paramount in F1 today.

[wedge]

IMO don't punish mistakes. I don't think their installation at Spa (or at any circuit) was a good idea at all. Because it facilitates an inability to stay on the circuit more than grass or gravel. If the final chicane was grass like the Bus Stop was then there would be no drama about the racing incident that occured. Thoughts?

If you've been watching racing long enough then you'll know that in the dry asphalt works better than gravel because flat bottomed cars are likely to skate across gravel.

I'm in favour because it is more likely Greg Moore would probably be still alive if we had asphalt run off on race tracks at the turn of the decade. (yes I know, ovals and road courses is like apples and oranges.)

As I mentioned in another thread, part of the problem is that its a good excuse for the GPDA to keep the race track in pristine condition even when cars go off track. I don't like the idea that they're used on the inside of corners as seen in Magny Cours and Hungary.

[BDunnell]

I don't like the idea that they're used on the inside of corners as seen in Magny Cours and Hungary.

Nor do I.

Instinctively, I prefer gravel because it punishes mistakes more, but I can see the point of tarmac.

[ioan]

All fast bends should be lined by grass/gravel traps followed by a tarmac run off for the case where the car is going to fast to be stopped in the kitty litter.

Chicanes and hairpins should however only use grass or gravel traps.

Let's see if you see them use the run off areas as Kimi and Lewis did yesterday on several occasions.

[BDunnell]

All fast bends should be lined by grass/gravel traps followed by a tarmac run off for the case where the car is going to fast to be stopped in the kitty litter.

Chicanes and hairpins should however only use grass or gravel traps.

Let's see if you see them use the run off areas as Kimi and Lewis did yesterday on several occasions.

Sounds fair to me, though I'm sure there would have to be exceptions. I don't know much about the relative merits of each from a safety perspective, apart from the obvious.

[Daniel]

All fast bends should be lined by grass/gravel traps followed by a tarmac run off for the case where the car is going to fast to be stopped in the kitty litter.

Chicanes and hairpins should however only use grass or gravel traps.

Let's see if you see them use the run off areas as Kimi and Lewis did yesterday on several occasions.

I agree. Safety must of course be paramount but I do think that certain things like the tarmac that caused the incident yesterday have a very limited safety benefit and ruin the racing.

[wedge]

All fast bends should be lined by grass/gravel traps followed by a tarmac run off for the case where the car is going to fast to be stopped in the kitty litter.

Chicanes and hairpins should however only use grass or gravel traps.

Let's see if you see them use the run off areas as Kimi and Lewis did yesterday on several occasions.

True but would that increase the overall size of the run off area?

Safety is paramount but at what cost? Half of Silverstone (and most F1 standard tracks) is a sea of asphalt and the spectators stand/sit further and further away from the action. Because of this I never understood why some people regard Copse as a favourite viewing spot.

[Daniel]

True but would that increase the overall size of the run off area?

Safety is paramount but at what cost? Half of Silverstone (and most F1 standard tracks) is a sea of asphalt and the spectators stand/sit further and further away from the action. Because of this I never understood why some people regard Copse as a favourite viewing spot.

The thing is spectator enjoyment must always come 2nd to making the track reasonably safe and also making it a track where the cars can race properly.

[Miatanut]

All fast bends should be lined by grass/gravel traps followed by a tarmac run off for the case where the car is going to fast to be stopped in the kitty litter.

Chicanes and hairpins should however only use grass or gravel traps.

Let's see if you see them use the run off areas as Kimi and Lewis did yesterday on several occasions.

and to 'squirrel's original post. :up:

When I'm out having fun in the mountains, I approach things quite differently when running wide means going over a couple hundred foot wide drop than when it means going over a painted line. More and more, F1 it just about keeping it in the painted line, and if you go over, no problem unless the stewards object, which most of the time, they don't.

[leopard]

Still, the use of gravel trap for hairpins and chicanes may generate those getting used to cutting it off more marble into the track. Surely we had strong complaint that more marble at the track would always mean trouble for driver and costing the car with extra maintenance for some damage on the body. Not sure that it is also an advantage for drivers behind. ;)

[wmcot]

Nor do I.

Instinctively, I prefer gravel because it punishes mistakes more, but I can see the point of tarmac.

If you want to "punish" drivers, plant trees - that will also offset F1's carbon footprint. ;)

[Knock-on]

If you want to "punish" drivers, plant trees - that will also offset F1's carbon footprint. ;)

:laugh: Love it :D

Problem with gravel or grass is that there is no control when flying over it. The whole idea of tarmac is to allow cars to slow down as safely as possible.

They are not there to allow cars back on but to stop them crashing in the first place.

Look for a silly knee jerk rule after this farce.

[Daniel]

:laugh: Love it :D

Problem with gravel or grass is that there is no control when flying over it. The whole idea of tarmac is to allow cars to slow down as safely as possible.

They are not there to allow cars back on but to stop them crashing in the first place.

Yup. I think though that going off there should be more kerbing, speed bumps and other measures to ensure that going off the road isn't the easy option. You can't blame lewis for taking the easy option but the tracks should be geared towards encouraging drivers to stay on the track. Safety as always needs to be paramount....

[wmcot]

:laugh: Love it :D

Problem with gravel or grass is that there is no control when flying over it. The whole idea of tarmac is to allow cars to slow down as safely as possible.

They are not there to allow cars back on but to stop them crashing in the first place.

Look for a silly knee jerk rule after this farce.

Something like, "If all four wheels leave the racing surface, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty?" That would allow the tarmac to keep the drivers safe, but make them think twice about cutting chicanes or corners.

[ioan]

Something like, "If all four wheels leave the racing surface, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty?" That would allow the tarmac to keep the drivers safe, but make them think twice about cutting chicanes or corners.

I would rather put it like this:

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty."

or

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty if the offending driver didn't restrain from any passing moves on direct competitors for an entire lap following the infraction."

[Daniel]

I would rather put it like this:

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty."

or

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty if the offending driver didn't restrain from any passing moves on direct competitors for an entire lap following the infraction."
Then you create the situation whereby a driver could create a situation whereby the other driver goes off on the last lap and can't overtake. I prefer to have circuits which punish drivers in terms of time if they go off the track.

[Knock-on]

Yup. I think though that going off there should be more kerbing, speed bumps and other measures to ensure that going off the road isn't the easy option. You can't blame lewis for taking the easy option but the tracks should be geared towards encouraging drivers to stay on the track. Safety as always needs to be paramount....

I personally hate run off tarmac as it makes a nonsense of having a track in the first place. Might as well hold the race in a Car Park and let them navigate it how they wish.

Problem with kerbing is that it negates the effectivness of the runoff area.

If you have kerbs, two things can happen.

1. The car can be damaged so if the suspension brakes for example, it is less able to slow down hence it's more dangerous.

2. The car is less in contact with the tarmac, wheels in the air stop spinning and the car slides more on landing until corrected hence more dangerous.

Difficult one isn't it?

[Knock-on]

I would rather put it like this:

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty."

or

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty if the offending driver didn't restrain from any passing moves on direct competitors for an entire lap following the infraction."


I cant help but think you're trying to invent a law for this specific situation retrospectivly.

We want drivers to overtake and not lessen it. There's barely any overtaking in a GP as it is and when drivers do try, they get penalised.

Then we have things like the current points system that makes drivers not want to risk overtaking because there's very little gain but don't score and kiss goodbye to your title charge (Kimi)

I would rather go the other way a bit and say that drivers need to give competitors racing room and not force them off track.

That way, we will get more overtaking and "Oh, I didn't see you" will stop overnight.

These rules are already in place but are not enforced.

Basically, if a driver has a wheel alongside, you don't have the right to chop it off but must give them room.

My work here is done, thankyou <takes applause>

[Daniel]

I personally hate run off tarmac as it makes a nonsense of having a track in the first place. Might as well hold the race in a Car Park and let them navigate it how they wish.

Problem with kerbing is that it negates the effectivness of the runoff area.

If you have kerbs, two things can happen.

1. The car can be damaged so if the suspension brakes for example, it is less able to slow down hence it's more dangerous.

2. The car is less in contact with the tarmac, wheels in the air stop spinning and the car slides more on landing until corrected hence more dangerous.

Difficult one isn't it?

Yup.

Perhaps speed bumps and kerbing on the places where the cars return to the track would be a better option? At this point you would expect the car to be under control and they would be able to negotiate bumps more safely and at the same time this would penalise the drivers for going off which is the way it should be.

[Daniel]

I cant help but think you're trying to invent a law for this specific situation retrospectivly.

We want drivers to overtake and not lessen it. There's barely any overtaking in a GP as it is and when drivers do try, they get penalised.

Then we have things like the current points system that makes drivers not want to risk overtaking because there's very little gain but don't score and kiss goodbye to your title charge (Kimi)

I would rather go the other way a bit and say that drivers need to give competitors racing room and not force them off track.

That way, we will get more overtaking and "Oh, I didn't see you" will stop overnight.

These rules are already in place but are not enforced.

Basically, if a driver has a wheel alongside, you don't have the right to chop it off but must give them room.

My work here is done, thankyou <takes applause>

*boos knock on*

That would mean that you just need to chuck a wheel in and you're let past without needing to make a proper overtake.

I can't help but think that if the cars were running Le Mans prototype style bodywork that you'd probably see more passing because the cars wouldn't be as fragile. But then a lot of people wouldn't consider that Formula 1 now would they.

[ioan]

Then you create the situation whereby a driver could create a situation whereby the other driver goes off on the last lap and can't overtake. I prefer to have circuits which punish drivers in terms of time if they go off the track.

The interesting part is the one in bold, and the telemetry can be used to decide about it:

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty."

or

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty if the offending driver didn't restrain from any passing moves on direct competitors for an entire lap following the infraction."

[ioan]

I cant help but think you're trying to invent a law for this specific situation retrospectivly.

That's because you are biased about this specific situation. But still you should see that we need to invent a law for such situation, even if for only for shutting up the fanatics on the next occurance.



Basically, if a driver has a wheel alongside, you don't have the right to chop it off but must give them room.

So we want artificially created overtaking situations, NO THANKS.



My work here is done, thankyou <takes applause>

I have a doubt about the "applause" part. :p :

[Knock-on]

The interesting part is the one in bold, and the telemetry can be used to decide about it:

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty."

or

"If all four wheels leave the racing surface because of the drivers own decision, the driver is given an automatic drive-thru penalty if the offending driver didn't restrain from any passing moves on direct competitors for an entire lap following the infraction."

What is the interpretation of "their own decision"?

Avoiding an accident with another competitor can be classed as "their own decision" or going around a corner too fast and sliding off is "their own decision".

It's horrible and murky and against overtaking. There is too much ambiguity in the Regs as there is but this would be worse.

[Knock-on]

That's because you are biased about this specific situation. But still you should see that we need to invent a law for such situation, even if for only for shutting up the fanatics on the next occurance.


So, you would be quite happy for Kimi to have got one of your Drive thru's at the start?

[Knock-on]

*boos knock on*

That would mean that you just need to chuck a wheel in and you're let past without needing to make a proper overtake.

I can't help but think that if the cars were running Le Mans prototype style bodywork that you'd probably see more passing because the cars wouldn't be as fragile. But then a lot of people wouldn't consider that Formula 1 now would they.

You can't have it all ways.

The rules are already in place to stop drivers shutting the door and pushing competitors off.

The good old days of wheel to wheel racing were exciting and dramatic. We still see it on occassions but too often, a driver just moves over and pushes the competitor off.

Either the FIA want overtaking and stop this sort of "overtake me and you're off" type of racing or they want racing where drivers have a go at overtaking without getting punted off.

[ioan]

What is the interpretation of "their own decision"?

Avoiding an accident with another competitor can be classed as "their own decision"

No if there was no other way to do it (like braking or going around on the other side).



or going around a corner too fast and sliding off is "their own decision".

If they do get sideways and lock brakes and all the rest than it's called a mistake. :rolleyes:




It's horrible and murky and against overtaking. There is too much ambiguity in the Regs as there is but this would be worse.

Yeah we better go with your proposition to create artificial overtaking situation. The guy behind just brakes a bit later into a chicane and the other driver who has the correct racing line will have to give up his right to take the 2nd apex because of it?! What a bloody joke if that would be still called racing! :laugh:

[Knock-on]

No if there was no other way to do it (like braking or going around on the other side).



If they do get sideways and lock brakes and all the rest than it's called a mistake. :rolleyes:




Yeah we better go with your proposition to create artificial overtaking situation. The guy behind just brakes a bit later into a chicane and the other driver who has the correct racing line will have to give up his right to take the 2nd apex because of it?! What a bloody joke if that would be still called racing! :laugh:

You're being silly again.

Having a wheel alongside is vastly different to what you are suggesting.

A wheel alongside is not having a wheel of the edge of the gearbox but having it forward of the rear wheels.

In this situation, Kimi know Lewis was there and just closed the door forcing him to crash or bail. He bailed.

I have posted the rules on this before but because you don't like them, you ignore them.

[ioan]

A wheel alongside is not having a wheel of the edge of the gearbox but having it forward of the rear wheels.

I think that your "wheel alongside" idea can be a very subjective and impossible to enforce rule. And at what moment exactly should that wheel alongside occur?! Just out of curiosity.



In this situation, Kimi know Lewis was there and just closed the door forcing him to crash or bail. He bailed.


You're biased. if you watch the replay you'll see that they never touched and Lewis could have backed off at any moment even when he decided to cut the chicane.
It wasn't Kimi's fault, as it wasn't Kimi's fault in the Canadian pit lane episode either, still you kept coming up with it.

[Knock-on]

I think that your "wheel alongside" idea can be a very subjective and impossible to enforce rule. And at what moment exactly should that wheel alongside occur?! Just out of curiosity.



You're biased. if you watch the replay you'll see that they never touched and Lewis could have backed off at any moment even when he decided to cut the chicane.
It wasn't Kimi's fault, as it wasn't Kimi's fault in the Canadian pit lane episode either, still you kept coming up with it.

ioan. STOP LYING

I have never said that the Canadian pit incident was Kimi's fault. I have always said it was Lewis's fault.

What I did say was that if they were lined up as they should have been, then Kimi wouldn't have been hit and Lewis would have overshot the red light and been penalised.

Please stop lying. I have pointed this out many times and you still seem to have a problem comprehending basic English as you accused PolePosition of a moment ago.

I don't know why the Mods let you get away with this but for the last time, either prove I'm lying or STFU.


As for the rest of your post, it's not worth commenting on.

[wedge]

You're biased. if you watch the replay you'll see that they never touched and Lewis could have backed off at any moment even when he decided to cut the chicane.
It wasn't Kimi's fault, as it wasn't Kimi's fault in the Canadian pit lane episode either, still you kept coming up with it.

It's almost Adelaide 1994 all over again because Lewis and Kimi were racing extremely close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70rXr2Mkq_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpqlEg19NK0

If you watch carefully, LH's right-front wheel is in danger of making contact with Kimi's left rear wheel. There was no-where else for Lewis to go because Kimi had the inside line covered

Who knows what the consequences had been if backed off mid-corner and the two wheel inter-locked?

[ioan]

ioan. STOP LYING

I have never said that the Canadian pit incident was Kimi's fault. I have always said it was Lewis's fault.

What I did say was that if they were lined up as they should have been, then Kimi wouldn't have been hit and Lewis would have overshot the red light and been penalised.

So you were basically partly blaming Kimi for what Lewy did! And you call others liars?! :laugh:

[Knock-on]

So basically you were basically partly blaming Kimi for what Lewy did! And you call others liars?! :laugh:

For the hard of understanding, I will say again.

The blame, fault etc was with Lewis. He had the accident because he failed to notice the pit exit was shut.

If Kimi was where he should of been, he would have been fine.

It was Lewises fault but Kimi being in the wrong place exacerbated the situation.

If you don't know the difference, read a dictionary.

At no time have I said that it was Kimi's fault so I am not lying.

You continue to claim that I have and are lying.

I have no more to say on this as it has nothing to do with this thread.

-end-

[ioan]

For the hard of understanding, I will say again.

Sorry man, I stopped reading at this point.
And I won't bother reading anymore of your posts that start with such personal attacks, it's not worth losing my time.

[MrJan]

I'm too lazy to read the whole thread but it looks like it's gone OT so I'll reel it back a bit.

I'm not a fan of the tarmac run offs because they only slow cars quicker if it is possible to hit the brakes so in some cases they are a lot more dangerous. I know from the BBC MotoGP coverage that bikers don't like tarmac run off because it pretty much means that they're heading fo the tyres.

And Ioan you seem to be missing Knockie's point because he's not blaming Kimi but saying that IF the cars weren't side by side then Lewis wouldn't have hit them, that's not blame it's just a fact that it's easier to hit an area if it is twice as big. Surely you can see that if Raikkonen was over to the right then he might not have been hit?

Doesn't really matter because Kimi wasn't on the right and Lewis made a ridiculous error and punted him and is 100% to blame which I think everyone accepts.

[ioan]

And Ioan you seem to be missing Knockie's point because he's not blaming Kimi but saying that IF the cars weren't side by side then Lewis wouldn't have hit them, that's not blame it's just a fact that it's easier to hit an area if it is twice as big. Surely you can see that if Raikkonen was over to the right then he might not have been hit?

If it's not blaming him then what would you call it?
I call it blame and, if you go back and read what Knockie posted back when it happened, you will see what he was thinking and is still thinking about the matter.

[schmenke]

Regulations that rely on the interpretation of drivers’ decisions will never work. Far too much ambiguity. Similarly, enforcing regulations based on the analysis of telemetry should be avoided. It would simply be impossible to apply the penalty during the race :mark: .

Speed bumps on chicanes, à la Monza, would be reasonable. True run off areas could remain bare tarmac.

I've always thought that a narrow strip of gravel and/or grass between the curbs and the tarmac is good idea. It would certainly encourage drivers to keep their wheels on the track.

[schmenke]

(double post, sorry)

[MrJan]

If it's not blaming him then what would you call it?
I call it blame and, if you go back and read what Knockie posted back when it happened, you will see what he was thinking and is still thinking about the matter.

Not blame :D If you crashed your car and hit a pedestrian then you are to blame, but you can still say that if the pedestrian was stood somewhere else then they wouldn't have been hit without blaming them. That's certainly how I read Knockie's post above.

[Knock-on]

If it's not blaming him then what would you call it?
I call it blame and, if you go back and read what Knockie posted back when it happened, you will see what he was thinking and is still thinking about the matter.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127623&page=3&highlight=canada


He cocked up, he apologised, he has been penalised but it was a mistake at the end of the day.

End of story really.



It is refreshing to see he is mortal.

Let's not forget he outqualified the 2nd place man by 6/10s of a second on similar fuel which seems amazing in itself so a cock-up or 2 should help build him as a driver.

Lets not be too hard on the boy. Everyone makes mistakes and try to keep it in perspective. If I remember correctly, the people calling for Kimi's head are the same screaming now whereas the more balanced of us pointed out it was just one of those things.

Well, this is all I said on tit at the time that I can find.

Can you find anything to back up your claims or are they mere flights of fantasy?

I really do get fed up with your continual lying about what I have written and now consider it character assasignation and a personal attack.

As I am not allowed to say what I think of you so will let the Mods deal with it.

[janneppi]

ioan, knockie, tell, you what, talk it amongst yourselves, who's said what and when.
Me and I would imagine rest of the forum is sick you two going about the samer bloody issue. If you can't be bothered, don't bring it up in the first place and if brought up by the other one, ignore the other poster.

[Rollo]

IMO don't punish mistakes. I don't think their installation at Spa (or at any circuit) was a good idea at all. Because it facilitates an inability to stay on the circuit more than grass or gravel. If the final chicane was grass like the Bus Stop was then there would be no drama about the racing incident that occured. Thoughts?

Route d'Eau Rouge runs from Francorchamps to Cheneux and then to Stavelot. Most of the year it's a public road and a truck route. Whilst your idea works on a racetrack, Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps is for 330 days of the year not a racetrack.

In all due respects, the wishes of motorists who regularly use the road and who pay their road taxes for their upkeep, have more rights than the FIA who it must be said disenfranchise them of the road.
Your opinion (and indeed 99.9% of the race fans around the world) insofar as much they relate directly to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps unfortunately is worthless.

[ShiftingGears]

Route d'Eau Rouge runs from Francorchamps to Cheneux and then to Stavelot. Most of the year it's a public road and a truck route. Whilst your idea works on a racetrack, Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps is for 330 days of the year not a racetrack.
.

The Spa Francorchamps Circuit was bought out by the FIA at least 5 years ago (read: permanent racetrack).

[wmcot]

I propose that we go back to the old system where the inside of corners were lined with half-buried tires - a bit more difficult to run over than kerbs!!! ;)

[Rollo]

:D

[Rollo]

The Spa Francorchamps Circuit was bought out by the FIA at least 5 years ago (read: permanent racetrack).

Um no.

Firstly:
http://www.f1technical.net/news/3515

With the renovation works, the Walloon government* wants to bring F1 back to Spa in 2007.
*Specifically the Province of Liège

Second of all you'd think that there'd be a shread of evidence on the tracks official website but there isn't:
http://www.spa-francorchamps.be/en07/circuit/presentation_circuit.php
Find it please.

Plus:http://www.wallonie.be/fr/actualites/archives-des-actualites/succes-de-l-edition-2007-du-grand-prix-de-f1-a-spa-francorchamps.html

continuer à confier à Spa Grand Prix l'organisation et la promotion du Grand Prix F1 pour l'année 2008.
Le 20 septmbre dernier, le Gouvernement wallon a décidé de confier à Spa Grand Prix, l'organisation et la promotion du Grand Prix F1 à Spa-Francorchamps pour l'année 2008, en invitant celle-ci à prendre toutes dispositions pour améliorer le résultat financier de l'édition 2008 par rapport à celle de 2007.

The organisation of the Grand Prix itself is done by NEWCO which is a division of the FOA which itself is owned by the FIA, but your theory that the FIA somehow bought the track is a blatant lie.

The road, it's upkeep and maintenace is was and will continue to be the domain of Province of Liège and the Wallon Region not the FIA.

[Miatanut]

I propose that we go back to the old system where the inside of corners were lined with half-buried tires - a bit more difficult to run over than kerbs!!! ;)

OK. I'll bite. Why not? Is the issue that they would launch cars?

[Miatanut]

Um no.....
We heard you the first time! :p :

[ShiftingGears]

Um no.

Firstly:
http://www.f1technical.net/news/3515

*Specifically the Province of Liège

Second of all you'd think that there'd be a shread of evidence on the tracks official website but there isn't:
http://www.spa-francorchamps.be/en07/circuit/presentation_circuit.php
Find it please.

Plus:http://www.wallonie.be/fr/actualites/archives-des-actualites/succes-de-l-edition-2007-du-grand-prix-de-f1-a-spa-francorchamps.html


The organisation of the Grand Prix itself is done by NEWCO which is a division of the FOA which itself is owned by the FIA, but your theory that the FIA somehow bought the track is a blatant lie.

The road, it's upkeep and maintenace is was and will continue to be the domain of Province of Liège and the Wallon Region not the FIA.

It's been a permanent racetrack since 2000, which is why theres no road markings on the racetrack, like there was prior to 2000.


At the beginning of the 21st century Spa finally became a permanent race track. With a length of 6.968 kilometres Spa-Francorchamps is the longest track in the Grand Prix calendar. At the beginning of the 21st century Spa finally became a permanent race track. With a length of 6,968 kilometres Spa-Francorchamps is the longest track in the Grand Prix calendar

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.klaus-ewald.de/spa.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dspa%2Bfrancorchamps%2B%2522permanent% 2Brace%2Btrack%2522%2B2000%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DAAU%26sa%3DN

[wmcot]

OK. I'll bite. Why not? Is the issue that they would launch cars?

Nah, the problem is that it would slow them down a bit too much! ;)

[Rollo]

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.klaus-ewald.de/spa.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dspa%2Bfrancorchamps%2B%2522permanent% 2Brace%2Btrack%2522%2B2000%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DAAU%26sa%3DN

Nice try, yet somehow I think I prefer to trust the official websites than a half-assed thrown together one which I might add isn't even Belgian.

Especially when you consider that the track still has street names listed in Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&q=francorchamps&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl
Then there is the small problem that my Michelin map of Europe published in 2005 also lists them as streets.

In the words of someone greater than I - USEFUL LINK PLEASE :D

[ShiftingGears]

Nice try, yet somehow I think I prefer to trust the official websites than a half-assed thrown together one which I might add isn't even Belgian.

http://www.spa-francorchamps.be/en07/calendrier/meeting.php

Well you probably should've looked at the official websites first.

[Dreaduk]

Hi, new to the forum and interested to see a number of posts discussing new laws and tyres for kerbing etc.

As I see it, the problem isn't proposing new laws, its reducing the requirement for laws which are turning F1 into nothing more than a contentious legal minefield and whenever there is some close racing someone complains and there is all sorts of appeals.

My belief is that F1 would be far better served by reducing run off areas, tarmac, gravel or custard (and I'll lay claim to that one if anyone ever invents a viscous liquid run off!) as they ruin the sport from both a spectators and a competitors perspective.

The problem with that is the speed cars leave the track at, they are going so quickly when they hit gravel traps they are skipping over them and reaching the tyre walls anyway, often at enormous velocity. The cause of the speed is the loss of downforce from both positive wing and bodywork pressure and the still present ground effect both of which contribute to an F1 car being able to be driven on the ceiling at 60mph.

If we think back to when full ground effect was legal one of the reasons it was banned was because the cars leaving the track were accelerating as soon as they lost traction and the trip to the wall was faster than if they had remained on all 4 wheels. Nothing has really changed other than there are no side skirts, aerodynamics have progressed so much that there is probably as much downforce on the cars as there was back then.

To alleviate the problem of reaching the tyre walls/walls/grass etc. run off's have gotton bigger and bigger and the latest thinking is to use tarmac so the drivers can 'control' their cars rather than beaching them or crashing them. As demonstrated by Raikkonen, drivers will start using them as an extension to the track and then we will get more disputed penalties, appeals etc.

The 2009 car design rules will do little to alleviate the problem either, already predicted to make the cars unstable because of uneven aero distribution the clever bods will have them sticking to the ground just as effectivly within a year and the holy grail of overtaking, which is what it's supposed to help with, will be back to square one.

My proposal is to abandon the search for great overtaking, historically F1 has never had good overtaking, virtually every year since the 60's there have been seasonally dominant teams that scurry off into the distance and it's the Senna's, Mansell's and Schumachers that make the difference, couragous, calculating and sometimes downright reckless. Lets get the downforce reduced to a neutral level i.e. at any given speed a car's lift should be within prescribed limits to ensure safety and avoid the flying Le Mans Mercedes episode (a fat lot of good downforce did them!) which means the cars could not corner as fast. Approach speed, an important reason for run offs would be dramatically reduced as would ultimate corner speed. Spectators would get back, closer to the action and encouraged to come back to the tracks instead of being F1 couch potatoes.

By default, overtaking will become more viable for the skilled driver, it will still never be easy but the real drivers would shine, teams with smaller budgets and talented drivers (come back Eddie Jordan) and the requirement for massive aerodynamic research would be reduced.

F1 is a very odd animal really, it influences every other type of racing in Europe by dictating track & safety design even at tracks where there is no chance of F1 ever getting there. Massive run off areas with little spectator involvement, more and more rules and regulations to confuse issues all of which cascade down to lesser formulas; no wonder the public is falling out of love with it. The US on the other hand race on confined ovals that have a moderatly good safety record and not that I would want to see oval racing but compare ovals to Monaco; walls, barriers, ocean! The speeds are generally slower but going through the tunnel at 170mph is no different from any other track at 170mph and yet everyone is happy with track safety despite there being a tyre wall directly ahead of them as they exit the tunnel.

Tuppence worth but F1 has to do something.

[Daniel]

Hi, new to the forum and interested to see a number of posts discussing new laws and tyres for kerbing etc.

As I see it, the problem isn't proposing new laws, its reducing the requirement for laws which are turning F1 into nothing more than a contentious legal minefield and whenever there is some close racing someone complains and there is all sorts of appeals.

My belief is that F1 would be far better served by reducing run off areas, tarmac, gravel or custard (and I'll lay claim to that one if anyone ever invents a viscous liquid run off!) as they ruin the sport from both a spectators and a competitors perspective.

The problem with that is the speed cars leave the track at, they are going so quickly when they hit gravel traps they are skipping over them and reaching the tyre walls anyway, often at enormous velocity. The cause of the speed is the loss of downforce from both positive wing and bodywork pressure and the still present ground effect both of which contribute to an F1 car being able to be driven on the ceiling at 60mph.

If we think back to when full ground effect was legal one of the reasons it was banned was because the cars leaving the track were accelerating as soon as they lost traction and the trip to the wall was faster than if they had remained on all 4 wheels. Nothing has really changed other than there are no side skirts, aerodynamics have progressed so much that there is probably as much downforce on the cars as there was back then.

To alleviate the problem of reaching the tyre walls/walls/grass etc. run off's have gotton bigger and bigger and the latest thinking is to use tarmac so the drivers can 'control' their cars rather than beaching them or crashing them. As demonstrated by Raikkonen, drivers will start using them as an extension to the track and then we will get more disputed penalties, appeals etc.

The 2009 car design rules will do little to alleviate the problem either, already predicted to make the cars unstable because of uneven aero distribution the clever bods will have them sticking to the ground just as effectivly within a year and the holy grail of overtaking, which is what it's supposed to help with, will be back to square one.

My proposal is to abandon the search for great overtaking, historically F1 has never had good overtaking, virtually every year since the 60's there have been seasonally dominant teams that scurry off into the distance and it's the Senna's, Mansell's and Schumachers that make the difference, couragous, calculating and sometimes downright reckless. Lets get the downforce reduced to a neutral level i.e. at any given speed a car's lift should be within prescribed limits to ensure safety and avoid the flying Le Mans Mercedes episode (a fat lot of good downforce did them!) which means the cars could not corner as fast. Approach speed, an important reason for run offs would be dramatically reduced as would ultimate corner speed. Spectators would get back, closer to the action and encouraged to come back to the tracks instead of being F1 couch potatoes.

By default, overtaking will become more viable for the skilled driver, it will still never be easy but the real drivers would shine, teams with smaller budgets and talented drivers (come back Eddie Jordan) and the requirement for massive aerodynamic research would be reduced.

F1 is a very odd animal really, it influences every other type of racing in Europe by dictating track & safety design even at tracks where there is no chance of F1 ever getting there. Massive run off areas with little spectator involvement, more and more rules and regulations to confuse issues all of which cascade down to lesser formulas; no wonder the public is falling out of love with it. The US on the other hand race on confined ovals that have a moderatly good safety record and not that I would want to see oval racing but compare ovals to Monaco; walls, barriers, ocean! The speeds are generally slower but going through the tunnel at 170mph is no different from any other track at 170mph and yet everyone is happy with track safety despite there being a tyre wall directly ahead of them as they exit the tunnel.

Tuppence worth but F1 has to do something.
Excellent first post :up:

Welcome to the forum :wave:

[Knock-on]

Great first post :up:

I like the idea of having no more than X KG's of downforce at a specific speed but feel it would be impossible to police as to scrutineer a car, you would need a wind tunnel at each track.

I think you should give all teams a standard front and rear wing which has limited adjustment. Then, ban any additional aero and specify that bodywork effect can only produce X kg of downforce which can then be checked before the season starts.

Any change to the bodywork from the beginning of the season results in the team and drivers being disqualified for that season.

Lets get back to mechanical grip and see what happens :)

[AndyRAC]

Hi, new to the forum and interested to see a number of posts discussing new laws and tyres for kerbing etc.

As I see it, the problem isn't proposing new laws, its reducing the requirement for laws which are turning F1 into nothing more than a contentious legal minefield and whenever there is some close racing someone complains and there is all sorts of appeals.

My belief is that F1 would be far better served by reducing run off areas, tarmac, gravel or custard (and I'll lay claim to that one if anyone ever invents a viscous liquid run off!) as they ruin the sport from both a spectators and a competitors perspective.

The problem with that is the speed cars leave the track at, they are going so quickly when they hit gravel traps they are skipping over them and reaching the tyre walls anyway, often at enormous velocity. The cause of the speed is the loss of downforce from both positive wing and bodywork pressure and the still present ground effect both of which contribute to an F1 car being able to be driven on the ceiling at 60mph.

If we think back to when full ground effect was legal one of the reasons it was banned was because the cars leaving the track were accelerating as soon as they lost traction and the trip to the wall was faster than if they had remained on all 4 wheels. Nothing has really changed other than there are no side skirts, aerodynamics have progressed so much that there is probably as much downforce on the cars as there was back then.

To alleviate the problem of reaching the tyre walls/walls/grass etc. run off's have gotton bigger and bigger and the latest thinking is to use tarmac so the drivers can 'control' their cars rather than beaching them or crashing them. As demonstrated by Raikkonen, drivers will start using them as an extension to the track and then we will get more disputed penalties, appeals etc.

The 2009 car design rules will do little to alleviate the problem either, already predicted to make the cars unstable because of uneven aero distribution the clever bods will have them sticking to the ground just as effectivly within a year and the holy grail of overtaking, which is what it's supposed to help with, will be back to square one.

My proposal is to abandon the search for great overtaking, historically F1 has never had good overtaking, virtually every year since the 60's there have been seasonally dominant teams that scurry off into the distance and it's the Senna's, Mansell's and Schumachers that make the difference, couragous, calculating and sometimes downright reckless. Lets get the downforce reduced to a neutral level i.e. at any given speed a car's lift should be within prescribed limits to ensure safety and avoid the flying Le Mans Mercedes episode (a fat lot of good downforce did them!) which means the cars could not corner as fast. Approach speed, an important reason for run offs would be dramatically reduced as would ultimate corner speed. Spectators would get back, closer to the action and encouraged to come back to the tracks instead of being F1 couch potatoes.

By default, overtaking will become more viable for the skilled driver, it will still never be easy but the real drivers would shine, teams with smaller budgets and talented drivers (come back Eddie Jordan) and the requirement for massive aerodynamic research would be reduced.

F1 is a very odd animal really, it influences every other type of racing in Europe by dictating track & safety design even at tracks where there is no chance of F1 ever getting there. Massive run off areas with little spectator involvement, more and more rules and regulations to confuse issues all of which cascade down to lesser formulas; no wonder the public is falling out of love with it. The US on the other hand race on confined ovals that have a moderatly good safety record and not that I would want to see oval racing but compare ovals to Monaco; walls, barriers, ocean! The speeds are generally slower but going through the tunnel at 170mph is no different from any other track at 170mph and yet everyone is happy with track safety despite there being a tyre wall directly ahead of them as they exit the tunnel.

Tuppence worth but F1 has to do something.

Too true, some good point raised.
Also, the more professional it's become, the less it's become a sport.

[Daniel]

Great first post :up:

I like the idea of having no more than X KG's of downforce at a specific speed but feel it would be impossible to police as to scrutineer a car, you would need a wind tunnel at each track.

I think you should give all teams a standard front and rear wing which has limited adjustment. Then, ban any additional aero and specify that bodywork effect can only produce X kg of downforce which can then be checked before the season starts.

Any change to the bodywork from the beginning of the season results in the team and drivers being disqualified for that season.

Lets get back to mechanical grip and see what happens :)

You could go down the route of freezing aero development just as they've frozen engine development.

There is also the messy area of "ummm err that winglet helps with cooling.... honest" aerodynamics but I'm sure this could be mandated against by dictating a standard postion for air inlets for the radiators as well as a standard size of inlet.

I also think that the cars should be tested in a wind tunnel and be shown to have a laminar airflow x metres behind the car as this would help immensely with overtaking as opposed to the dirty air we have now......

[Knock-on]

You could go down the route of freezing aero development just as they've frozen engine development.

There is also the messy area of "ummm err that winglet helps with cooling.... honest" aerodynamics but I'm sure this could be mandated against by dictating a standard postion for air inlets for the radiators as well as a standard size of inlet.

I also think that the cars should be tested in a wind tunnel and be shown to have a laminar airflow x metres behind the car as this would help immensely with overtaking as opposed to the dirty air we have now......

If we've leart anything, it's that trying to tailor rules doesn't work.

Standard Front and Rear wing will ensure everyone has the same.

Then you give them a further amount of downforce they can implement and let them do with it what they will.

[Daniel]

If we've leart anything, it's that trying to tailor rules doesn't work.

Standard Front and Rear wing will ensure everyone has the same.

Then you give them a further amount of downforce they can implement and let them do with it what they will.

Oh I agree with that :) i'm just talking about what they do with the rest of the car and how that influences the air behind the car. We don't want a situation where we've got the mechanical/aero grip balance right but the cars are still designed in such a way as to intentionally kill the downforce of the car behind. That's why I was saying that perhaps there should be a rule to say that the cars should have a laminar airflow x metres behind the car. I hope that makes sense :)

[Miatanut]

I like the idea of having no more than X KG's of downforce at a specific speed but feel it would be impossible to police as to scrutineer a car, you would need a wind tunnel at each track.

This has been proposed in the past, and I think it's the best possible route if it could be policed. Suddenly, with downforce limited to a given level, the whole challenge shifts from generating as much downforce as possible with drag a secondary consideration, to generating a given amount of downforce (much less than now), with as little drag as possible. Something which could be useful to road cars.

How to police it? Pondering this question (I make my living as a designer, so this is the sort of thing I love), I think one possible route could be to put a load sensor on the pushrods (the teams already use them in testing) which would be owned and calibrated by FIA. Working from the suspension geometry, it would be possible to then determine the load at the tire. With rising rate suspension designs, and teams constantly adjusting ride heights (so the monitoring equipment would also need to keep track of ride height) it would get very complicated, and teams would need to be locked into a limited number of suspension geometries to make it even possible to police. Bumps impose much higher forces, so the system would need to be geared to monitoring near steady state conditions, like when the car is at peak speed on the longest straight. With all four wheels being monitored, it would be possible to account for roll, dive and squat. They all cancel each other out, so it's only aero and bumps that can impose increased vertical loads on the car.

The ideal solution would be to keep track of how much load the car is imposing on the wheel rim, but I don't know of any system for doing that.

And yes, Dreaduk, GREAT first post! :up:

[wmcot]

This has been proposed in the past, and I think it's the best possible route if it could be policed. Suddenly, with downforce limited to a given level, the whole challenge shifts from generating as much downforce as possible with drag a secondary consideration, to generating a given amount of downforce (much less than now), with as little drag as possible. Something which could be useful to road cars.

How to police it? Pondering this question (I make my living as a designer, so this is the sort of thing I love), I think one possible route could be to put a load sensor on the pushrods (the teams already use them in testing) which would be owned and calibrated by FIA.

Good idea, but they already have enough problem with their fuel rig thermometers! ;)