Why Tilke ?

Sir Jackie has just come out with a statement about how it's not necessarily the cars that are the direct cause of the lack of overtaking .
And , I've got to agree about the lack of punishment the tracks mete out for going wide , off the surface .

When I see a new Herman Tilke track , I expect to see , and am never disappointed , issues that clearly point to difficult to pass scenarios .
I would point to the oft used kink , not far from a hair-pin braking zone , that negates one the the hardest places on any track to defend as a danger zone , as one of the worst "trademarks" of his work .

Why is this man the "go-to" guy for the newest tracks ?

I don't know but I hope they keep him on a short leash in Austin. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

I don't know but I hope they keep him on a short leash in Austin. :mad:

---

No chance , Traz .
Everything's big in Texas .
Long leash , no fences , but long bull whip as well .

Although , they do have Roamy within biting range , and that just might be enough to keep him in line all on it's own .

i've often wondered the same, and assume he must have some kind of long term contract with either the FIA or Bernie for his company to be the designers of all new F1 grade circuits for "x" years. whilst some are decent, and with due regard to the sites, i do think it would be better to have some sort of competition for the contract to design these things.

I don't know why Tilke.

He is better at designing circuits than many people make him out to be, but some variety would be welcome (like the relatively new Portimao circuit could be added to the calendar). But I also guess it is about long-term contract and co-operation between Bernie and Hermann. Both partners trust each other and in this case see no need to loosen the ties.

The problem isn't so much the corners or track surfaces, it's the stupid run off areas. Too much tarmac, too easy to make a major error and still be in a race, sometimes with no position loss.

Tilke is one of only two people that has the required licence to design F1 level race tracks, and unlike the British guy (who did Dubai and re designed Silverstone) he is a good mate of Bernies, which means that every time a new government goes to Bernie and says "we want a race in our country", he'll point them in the direction of Tilke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeper

Tilke is one of only two people that has the required licence to design F1 level race tracks, and unlike the British guy (who did Dubai and re designed Silverstone) he is a good mate of Bernies, which means that every time a new government goes to Bernie and says "we want a race in our country", he'll point them in the direction of Tilke.

---

Ah , I guess that's why . Thanks .
One wonders whether the rough time that Silverstone got was in some way related to them not using Tilke's services .

It then stands to reason that when you apply , your best chance of success is with Hermann's company .
That seems fair . he he .
You only get to play the game if you play the game .

It seems there's no point in anyone else trying to get licensed , then .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I am evil Homer

The problem isn't so much the corners or track surfaces, it's the stupid run off areas. Too much tarmac, too easy to make a major error and still be in a race, sometimes with no position loss.

---

I'd have to disagree with that to an extent. I want to see cars in the race, not sitting in a gravel trap or on a hook, but in many instances of his design, the track itself doesn't lend itself to passing. If they aren't going to take chances, they aren't going to pass. It's not because they aren't wide enough, it's not because there is no penalty for going off. The performance of the cars are out of sync with the tracks. The cars accelerate too damn hard, the semi auto transmissions eliminate missed shifts, they brake way too hard. IMHO, it's also the breed of drivers we have. Agressive drivers are penalized far too often and the rest drive around like panty waists 90% of the time.


Sleeper answered the question though. He's bernie's buddy.

I'm curious to see how Austin turns out. Tilke's designing the track, but not the facilities. IMHO, ther's far better TRACK designers in the world.

In my opinion, his tracks are only as good as the terrain he is given to use, though I think he could make Spa boring. oh wait, wasn't he responsible for eliminating one of the most famous chicanes on the planet and creating one of the most dangerous pit entrances anywhere? Same with Korea.

I think where he has great terrain, nature takes over and masks what would have been bad, but with a flat table, well, you get a flat table that looks like someone gave him a box of AFX track and let him loose.

They have these things called bulldozers. They make hills and valleys as well as they get rid of them. I guess when you give him either a desert floor or reclaimed swampland there is a limit to what one can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeper

Tilke is one of only two people that has the required licence to design F1 level race tracks, and unlike the British guy (who did Dubai and re designed Silverstone) he is a good mate of Bernies, which means that every time a new government goes to Bernie and says "we want a race in our country", he'll point them in the direction of Tilke.

---

The mind boggles. Who issues these licences, the FIA? I wonder if they would have issued licences to the creators of Spa, Monza, Suzuka and all the other traditional tracks that produce good racing and fill their stands every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I'd have to disagree with that to an extent. I want to see cars in the race, not sitting in a gravel trap or on a hook, but in many instances of his design, the track itself doesn't lend itself to passing. If they aren't going to take chances, they aren't going to pass. It's not because they aren't wide enough, it's not because there is no penalty for going off. The performance of the cars are out of sync with the tracks. The cars accelerate too damn hard, the semi auto transmissions eliminate missed shifts, they brake way too hard. IMHO, it's also the breed of drivers we have. Agressive drivers are penalized far too often and the rest drive around like panty waists 90% of the time.

---

This post is correct:


You can't make the curbs to high or they will launch themselves. you probably could however make curbs that will degrade your tires very quickly if you are using them a lot.. Therefor the penalty would be an additional pit stop. Probably need to go back to the old points system and widen the gap between 1st and 2nd. The new points system has created too much "coast and collect" Make them fight for points. I wouldn't even mind seeing points for the first 3 places only. The next item is the automatic trans - go back to manual and don't even allow a sequential shifter. Make the drivers use the clutch. Then you will see some racing and passing. I also want to keep as many cars in the race as possible. If they go into the trap push them out and restart them.

You'll be asking for "medals" next!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

I also want to keep as many cars in the race as possible. If they go into the trap push them out and restart them.

---

See your point, but then your getting into the situation where marshalls are at risk pushing a car towards the race track, or obviously the drivers at risk if you have to bring a crane onto the track.

I suppose you could saftey car while the cars are pushed back on but then if it rains and cars are going off every couple of laps it would be too difficult.

Tricky one.

The new Silverstone was actually designed primarily for MotoGP, wasn't it? After Donington 'gained the rights' to the British GP from Silverstone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aki13

See your point, but then your getting into the situation where marshalls are at risk pushing a car towards the race track, or obviously the drivers at risk if you have to bring a crane onto the track.

I suppose you could saftey car while the cars are pushed back on but then if it rains and cars are going off every couple of laps it would be too difficult.

Tricky one.

---

It's not the least bit tricky. It's worked exactly like that just fine in North America for over 50 years. local yellows for course workers and off course cars, full course caution if ther are safety vehicles on track, but in reality, what tracks still have gravel traps in F1 any longer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I'm curious to see how Austin turns out. Tilke's designing the track, but not the facilities. IMHO, ther's far better TRACK designers in the world.

---

A photo of a scale model of the track features in F1 Racing magazine and its whetted my appetite. The first half reminds of Nurburgring/Suzuka, the ebb and flow of a twisting country road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeper

Tilke is one of only two people that has the required licence to design F1 level race tracks, and unlike the British guy (who did Dubai and re designed Silverstone) he is a good mate of Bernies, which means that every time a new government goes to Bernie and says "we want a race in our country", he'll point them in the direction of Tilke.

---

On top of that Tilke is genuinely very good at the petty stuff that people watching on TV don't see/don't care about but gives the hosts who pay the bills a warm feeling. We're talking about architecture using local influences and tracks supposedly reflecting something local (like the Chinese track resembling the Chinese symbol for the Shang in Shanghai).

Also once a company is a leader in a particular contracting field its hard to dislodge them, after all Tilke already has a competent team working for him that can deliver a new racetrack for anyone anywhere within budget. It would take a rival a huge investment to get a similar structure going, something that would be reflected in the price they'd have to charge to do a similar job which would be higher than Tilke.

Whitmarsh adds his voice to the Tilke question :
"Think of the airport tracks like Cleveland, with the wide corners and more than one possible line, and you can see how easy it can be,".
"On the other hand, you could call it an opportunity missed if [circuits like Abu Dhabi] have one of the longest straights in F1 and a chicane at the end of it with only one possible line."

"Brazil is a good example . The facilities are not good, but the races are fantastic. So, when you start something new in the desert and with no apparent structural or financial limitations, it is a pity that we don't go the easy route and copy some of the greatest corners in the world."

The new track in Croatia is to be a Tilke design , it is being reported .

Anyone know if a tendering process is ever used here ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Anyone know if a tendering process is ever used here ?

---

Yes, they only ever 'tend' to use Tilke.........

Bagwan, you beat me to the Whitmarsh comment about Cleveland. He's right, it CAN be very easy. look how simple the track is in cleveland, yet F1 would never in a million years lower itself to run a race on such a temporary track.


Vettel's comment made me a little sick to be honest.

"World champion Sebastian Vettel admits that he hopes the overtaking aids this year do not make passing in F1 commonplace.

"When you do overtake, it should be something valuable -- a major achievement, like a goal in soccer," he told Sport Bild."

granted that comment is about the soft tires and moveable wings, but good lord. Fans at the track aren't paying hundreds and thousands of dollars/pounds or whatever to see the race reult determined in qualifying! That sounds like a comment from a driver that knows he doesn't have a dominating car like he did last year.

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see, and his example is precisely why I liked to play but can rarely stand watching Soccer/Footbal.l

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see,

---

Yes, you are correct, but artificially facilitated passing, where the press of a button 'makes it happen' rather than the skillful catching, management of the tyres in the dirty air and then the actual pass, from lining it up to pulling it off (steady, phnaar phnaar) successfully.

It was a good interview with Martin Whitmarsh - and i agree entirely about Cleveland, and his comment about AbuDhabi - great facility, but an opportunity missed with the track - a long straight, but with a chicane with 1 ine through it. The 'Tilke-Bernie new track rule' sums up everything wrong with modern day F1. They all look as if they are designed by the same bloke - and that's not good. Where is the variety? Portimao is quite a good one, and Istanbul wasn't bad either, but the rest are.....hmmmm...as for Hockenheim - a travesty, a complete butchering of a track that was completely different from anything else.

What I don't understand with Abu Dhabi is they DO have the option of bypassing that 5-6-7 Chicane. Is the grandstand really that close thet can't take the hairpin straight in?

Tilke does seem adept at placing a kink in a straight just where it shouldn't be for overtaking. I don't want a series of dragstrips linked but corners, but give us some nice double pass opportunities like old tracks do. I think Turkey has proven to be his best work. It's unfortunate the attendance is generally horrible, but that seems to be the case at most of the new tracks he has designed. Not sure if that's totally the track's fault, or F1 for choosing the newest venues in the first place. To a TV fan, most of them just blow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Yes, you are correct, but artificially facilitated passing, where the press of a button 'makes it happen' rather than the skillful catching, management of the tyres in the dirty air and then the actual pass, from lining it up to pulling it off (steady, phnaar phnaar) successfully.

---

:up:

F1 is never (or should never) going to become packed with overtaking just by pushing a button, as said above it has to be a battle, and be earned.

We can't put these gimmicks in place just to have every race as a Villeneuve v Arnoux battle all race.
These moments like Villeneuve v Arnoux should be the pinicle. Yes they are great and we love them when they happen i.e Kubica v Massa, but to try and artifically create these moments is wrong.

Watch the above mentioned battles and you realise the skill, bravery and tactical awareness of F1 drivers.
Then think of a similar battle in F1 2015 and have Hamilton and Vettel sitting back pressing a button every 20 seconds and getting the same result.

I'd rather see one of these battles every 5, 10 years, than see one 10 times a race knowing a computer engineer somewhere is doing a good job.

And beside Some of the best racing is when there is only the potential to overtake.

For example Imola 2005 and 2006. Two cracking battles between Alonso and Schumacher but no actual overtaking took place.

Also when Hakkinen for just one example passed Schumi at Spa in 2000, with Zonta as a mobile chicane, it was epic but after that Hakkinen sped away, so the overtaking wasn't the only excitement but just the climax of 4 or 5 laps of excitement.

So for me an F1 race where people are pressing buttons and pulling levers and overtaking at every corner does not fill me with the same passion as 20+ drivers using their skill and judgement to provide the sort of overtaking we saw at Silverstone 2003 for example.

Football doesn't end 4-4 every game but people don't moan everytime their is a 0-0 and insist on free shots or one team being reduced to 8 players for 10 minutes in order to see lots of goals.

The match itself is what matters not always the content.

F1 has been and should always be a fight between driver and car v driver and car. Simples

Overtaking shouldn't be easy - however if you have a faster car, then you should expect to be able to do this. Too much talk of ovetaking is pandering to 'The Show'.....and the casual TV watcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

Overtaking shouldn't be easy - however if you have a faster car, then you should expect to be able to do this. Too much talk of ovetaking is pandering to 'The Show'.....and the casual TV watcher.

---

These are the audience members that Bernie is trying to grow and keep hooked onto F1. The hardcore race fans are rare, but the casual viewer who decides to watch a race on a Sunday morning make up the bulk of F1 viewers. I see F1 going down the same direction as wrestling did under Vince McMahon. The entertainment factor must take precedence over the racing in order for F1 to be a commercial success.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OMwzMrz5X9...arrior007.jpeg

But history has shown that every time they try to improve the 'show' and the 'package' then the product itself gets worse and people get less interested. Just look at WRC, they meddled and meddled with that to 'improve' it, and now it's a shadow of it's former self.

How far will Bernie go to keep it popular though? Personally, it's been dumbed down too far already.

Racing was better when cars were overpowered, less controlled and tracks were longer, narrower, dictated largely by their surroundings and well, probably less safe. Now we race in tracks in the middle of nowhere,are so wide they may as well be parking lots, the power to downforce balance is totally out of whack, and the drivers are well, not so impressive in their race craft.

But the drivers as a whole grid are more proffesional and of a higher level.

Think back to Rossett 3 point turning at Monaco, and the number of crashes and spins in practice.

Today there seem to be far less.

Personally, I preferred when F1 drivers were more mature, more experienced and somewhat more proven as racing drivers than most of today's teen drivers. Drivers worked their entire carreer to reach F1. Now, half of them practically START at the pinnacle and are done and washed up by 24.

Today, drivers the age of Schummi or Rubens are considered ancient. In the 80's and 90's, F1 drivers first breaking into F1 in their late 20's and 30's were more or less normal. It would have been virtually unheard of to even consider a driver in their teens for F1. I guess that's a product of the play station age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Personally, I preferred when F1 drivers were more mature, more experienced and somewhat more proven as racing drivers than most of today's teen drivers. Drivers worked their entire carreer to reach F1. Now, half of them practically START at the pinnacle and are done and washed up by 24.

Today, drivers the age of Schummi or Rubens are considered ancient. In the 80's and 90's, F1 drivers first breaking into F1 in their late 20's and 30's were more or less normal. It would have been virtually unheard of to even consider a driver in their teens for F1. I guess that's a product of the play station age.

---

Two words, Mike Thakwell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see, and his example is precisely why I liked to play but can rarely stand watching Soccer/Footbal.l

---

Closer racing, not necessarily more passing. A dogfight is just as exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Racing was better when cars were overpowered, less controlled and tracks were longer, narrower, dictated largely by their surroundings and well, probably less safe. Now we race in tracks in the middle of nowhere,are so wide they may as well be parking lots, the power to downforce balance is totally out of whack, and the drivers are well, not so impressive in their race craft.

---

The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

The problem with no overtaking in F1 is the downforce the cars create and the excellent brakes. Braking 100-150 meters before a corner from 300 km/h is rediculous. Downgrade the brakes so they have to brake from 200-250 meters out and the driver behind has at least some chance. Half the overtaking issues would be solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

---

To some extent, I agree. It is probable that there has never been an era in which there has been loads of overtaking. However, I would say that looking at coverage of old races online, even the original live coverage, may be slightly misleading because the footage available is always limited. Far fewer cameras were used and much will have been missed. I'd also add that, in spite of the rose-tinted spectacles some people look through, it is genuinely impossible to imagine certain things happening these days. The dice, which I have never seen but read much about, between Stewart and Rindt in the 1969 British GP, for instance; similarly, John Watson coming from 17th and 22nd to win at Detroit and Long Beach in 1982 and '83 respectively, almost all as a result of dynamic passing moves rather than attrition ahead of him. We need to be asking ourselves why such events have been rendered a thing of the past. No-one would suggest that the circuits on which Watson scored those two incredible victories should in any sense be models for the future, but I think the point holds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Closer racing, not necessarily more passing. A dogfight is just as exciting.


i agree, and in a dogfight, rarely does the same plane always maintain the advantage. I want to see passes, counter passes, fights for the lead throughout the race. etc.
what we have ve now is a combination of desperation attempts, chop blocks worthy of a texas chainsaw movie, and drivers that feel they should be handed a pass by everyone on hte race track because they are a former school crossing guard.



The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

---

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I have watched damn near every F1 race over the last 30 years live, and the racing was better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

To some extent, I agree. It is probable that there has never been an era in which there has been loads of overtaking. However, I would say that looking at coverage of old races online, even the original live coverage, may be slightly misleading because the footage available is always limited. Far fewer cameras were used and much will have been missed. I'd also add that, in spite of the rose-tinted spectacles some people look through, it is genuinely impossible to imagine certain things happening these days. The dice, which I have never seen but read much about, between Stewart and Rindt in the 1969 British GP, for instance; similarly, John Watson coming from 17th and 22nd to win at Detroit and Long Beach in 1982 and '83 respectively, almost all as a result of dynamic passing moves rather than attrition ahead of him. We need to be asking ourselves why such events have been rendered a thing of the past. No-one would suggest that the circuits on which Watson scored those two incredible victories should in any sense be models for the future, but I think the point holds.

---

I wholeheartedly agree. There were dull races. Take for example Dijon '79 - Gilles Villenueve vs. Arnoux is raved about but the race was no different to watching paint dry.

Aero was a still a problem even in the turbo era.

I've been an advocate of venturi floors but watching some races of the early '80s James Hunt regularly complained the cars had too much grip and appeared so in some races.

Pat Symonds and Jock Clear have said these things are all relative (the former agreed to an extent) and yet I fully agree that the sophomore Abu Dabi GP showed that there is something inherently wrong with F1

I don't have much of problem with so called hard racing/dirty driving. Motorsport would be nothing if designers and driver didn't push boundaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

I wholeheartedly agree. There were dull races. Take for example Dijon '79 - Gilles Villenueve vs. Arnoux is raved about but the race was no different to watching paint dry.

---

I assume you mean 'the rest of the race'? I must say, that dice (a word you never hear nowadays) does rather render the whole thing different for me. But point very much taken. There are reasons why people recall events like that, or the Brabham versus Surtees scrap on the last lap of the 1967 Italian GP, to give another example — because they were exceptional, i.e. exceptions to the rule.