Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    7,129
    Like
    3
    Liked 22 Times in 14 Posts
    They should use the "Fosters" version again. Cut out the whole Island / Shell Oils completely.

    The shortest version gave great battles, and meant Knickerbrook didn't need the chicane and was flat-out again (albeit from a slower start than pre-1991!). Cascades was a different beast too , having to straighten up on a bumpy dip to brake into a tight right hander, always provoked mistakes.

    Also, it would mean more laps - and therefore more action for spectators.

    I'm sure the reason why they don't use it is because they can't fit as much spectators in.
    Niente è vero, tutto è permesso

  2. #22
    Senior Member MrJan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    8,093
    Like
    28
    Liked 335 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bezza View Post
    They should use the "Fosters" version again. Cut out the whole Island / Shell Oils completely.

    The shortest version gave great battles, and meant Knickerbrook didn't need the chicane and was flat-out again (albeit from a slower start than pre-1991!). Cascades was a different beast too , having to straighten up on a bumpy dip to brake into a tight right hander, always provoked mistakes.

    Also, it would mean more laps - and therefore more action for spectators.

    I'm sure the reason why they don't use it is because they can't fit as much spectators in.
    I agree, also means that the passing is actually a bit more skillful and not just shoving the nose in a non-existent gap and ramming the other guy out the way like you get at hairpins (see also: Knockhill, Rockingham et al)
    You're so beige, you probably think this signature is about someone else.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,105
    Like
    9
    Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MrJan View Post
    I agree, also means that the passing is actually a bit more skillful and not just shoving the nose in a non-existent gap and ramming the other guy out the way like you get at hairpins (see also: Knockhill, Rockingham et al)
    Conversely, I was never keen on the Fosters layout — it seemed just too short. There is no 'perfect' layout for the BTCC at Oulton. The full circuit used to be fine, but that was in the days before live coverage of every race, so maybe judicious editing helped make the races on it look better than they were.

  4. #24
    Senior Member MrJan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    8,093
    Like
    28
    Liked 335 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BDunnell View Post
    Conversely, I was never keen on the Fosters layout — it seemed just too short. There is no 'perfect' layout for the BTCC at Oulton. The full circuit used to be fine, but that was in the days before live coverage of every race, so maybe judicious editing helped make the races on it look better than they were.
    It's definitely short...but think that the corners work and for fans actually at the circuit it would mean more chance to see the cars!
    You're so beige, you probably think this signature is about someone else.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    3,230
    Like
    1
    Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
    I'd rather see fewer laps of a proper circuit, though, than more laps on a short Mickey Mouse track (Silverstone National, anyone?). It's the old quality v quantity debate. Alan Gow often bangs on about more chances to see the cars, at which point I want to ask him why they don't just run on the many quarter-mile ovals that are up and down the country...
    https://wordpress.com/stats/insights/stugrovesf1.wordpress.com

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,105
    Like
    9
    Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by inimitablestoo View Post
    I'd rather see fewer laps of a proper circuit, though, than more laps on a short Mickey Mouse track (Silverstone National, anyone?). It's the old quality v quantity debate. Alan Gow often bangs on about more chances to see the cars, at which point I want to ask him why they don't just run on the many quarter-mile ovals that are up and down the country...
    The full Oulton circuit and the Silverstone GP layout used to be fine for the BTCC in the earlier Super Touring years. What's so different now? Surely it's not that many of its spectators and viewers just want to see loads of contact and nothing more?

  7. Likes: AndyRAC (3rd August 2014)
  8. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    7,129
    Like
    3
    Liked 22 Times in 14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BDunnell View Post
    The full Oulton circuit and the Silverstone GP layout used to be fine for the BTCC in the earlier Super Touring years. What's so different now? Surely it's not that many of its spectators and viewers just want to see loads of contact and nothing more?
    I know what you mean. It is such a shame that spectators don't get to see the cars at Oulton struggling round the two best corners. Druids, which is an awesome corner, has no spectator viewing. Knickerbrook is now a dull chicane. In my eyes, unless they bring in the Fosters circuit again, they need to rejig the track. Move the chicane further away from Knickerbook and allow that corner to be taken at reasonable speed again. It doesn't need to be pre-1991 danger level, but faster would be better. At the moment it is a shadow of the track it once was. Safety has come on leaps and bounds since 1991 so I see no need for the chicane to be so close to the corner thesedays.
    Niente è vero, tutto è permesso

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •