Desert Circuits are boring...
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
I think so. I think they were there from build but designed for endurance and longer distance races. I think they were only used last year because they thought it would add an overtaking opportunity.
I like to think some power-crazed Sheikh sat down and came up with the ENDURANCE LAYOUT when deluded on oil fumes or something. It was at least instigated by the Crown Prince, and apparently celebrated 60 years of Formula One by deliberately producing the dullest race of those 60 years!
The Bahrain circuit hasn't been all bad since it came in, but the less said about sticking in a Hungaroringesque section 2, the better!
I seem to remember Sato having a storming drive in Bahrain in 2004.
My Bahrain memories are essentially de la Rosa in 2005 and Rosberg on début in 2006. I think I may have given up on 2004 by race 4! I think the circuit's reputation has been damaged immensely by that mess of a track layout and race last year, just as everyone (OK, many people) were getting excited that a new era may be upon us.
I don't think if you look at the twistiest tracks (Singapore, Monaco, Hungaroring) you tend to find less overtaking than in say Spa, Montreal etc., so adding a twisty section to increase overtaking is not a good idea.
A hell of a lot of the new tracks are trying to emulate the Monaco Grand Prix, which I find a foolhardy mission. I don't particularly like Monaco, as I think I've made clear before, but love it or loathe it, the Monaco Grand Prix is unique and doesn't stand emulation. If the circuits were trying to emulate the faster circuits, maybe we wouldn't complain about boredom so much!
The old circuits can stay in your heart if they're not getting the best racing, but the challenge for the post-'99 circuits is that they need some fond memories to become accepted, and the only way to create them is to run every race in the wet (China, Malaysia try this one) or to create great racing. Singapore and Abu Dhabi's hospitality looks fantastic, but there haven't been any great moments in the dark or semi-dark.
Valencia has recieved most of the opprobrium from fans, including this poster, but it seems to me that the heartstring pull that compensates for a poor Monaco race is missing from all the post-99 tracks as well as Barcelona, new Hockenheim and the Hungaroring.
The new circuits are not as bad as popular opinion would have you believe, but only Istanbul is a circuit which appeals to the fan, as it produces good racing and a wonderful balls-out racing corner. Quite often, one bad race can damn a circuit if it is new, and Bahrain 2010 is the best example of how this can happen.
I don't think if you look at the twistiest tracks (Singapore, Monaco, Hungaroring) you tend to find less overtaking than in say Spa, Montreal etc., so adding a twisty section to increase overtaking is not a good idea.
A hell of a lot of the new tracks are trying to emulate the Monaco Grand Prix, which I find a foolhardy mission. I don't particularly like Monaco, as I think I've made clear before, but love it or loathe it, the Monaco Grand Prix is unique and doesn't stand emulation. If the circuits were trying to emulate the faster circuits, maybe we wouldn't complain about boredom so much!
The old circuits can stay in your heart if they're not getting the best racing, but the challenge for the post-'99 circuits is that they need some fond memories to become accepted, and the only way to create them is to run every race in the wet (China, Malaysia try this one) or to create great racing. Singapore and Abu Dhabi's hospitality looks fantastic, but there haven't been any great moments in the dark or semi-dark.
Valencia has recieved most of the opprobrium from fans, including this poster, but it seems to me that the heartstring pull that compensates for a poor Monaco race is missing from all the post-99 tracks as well as Barcelona, new Hockenheim and the Hungaroring.
The new circuits are not as bad as popular opinion would have you believe, but only Istanbul is a circuit which appeals to the fan, as it produces good racing and a wonderful balls-out racing corner. Quite often, one bad race can damn a circuit if it is new, and Bahrain 2010 is the best example of how this can happen.
Andyoak
Champion Elect
I really do think it is wrong to blame 'desert' or 'Gulf State' circuits.
Neither should we blame placing a priority to include a nice prawn sandwich.
I think we can blame circuit design that 'forgives' going off and allows you to carry on because it takes away the sense of risk and danger.
I also don't like circuits that have twisty sections in one place and then a blast of flat out for the rest; it doesn't give a circuit character other than a sense of schizophrenic personality.
What definately doesn't help is the idea that you should see the whole circuit from anwhere; it will always mean no elevation changes are acceptable and therefore remove the sense of racing in a landscape. In a way this is like town planning... without landscape you are reliant on architecture to define place. But great architecture is a rare thing and is usually surrounded by other buildings that are transient... in many ways the constructed landscape is moving and changing to the needs of the city. This doesn't happen with race circuits; or if it will it is too soon to start happening yet.
My problem, if it is that, is the new circuits lack a sense of place and therefore a character of their own. Spa has a sense of place, as does Montreal, Melbourne, Interlagos, Suzuka and Monaco. It may be almost blasphemous but I'm not convinced Silverstone does (although I have stood at Copse and loved it) and many others are second tier in this sense. Some circuits are just awful... Barcelona is my worst circuit for failing to ever give a good race (with the exception of Schumi's wet one) but there are many others that are just consistently average or worse. These should be removed and replaced and we should give new circuits the benefit of the doubt for at least five years. But these new circuits should also respond to feedback and be allowed to adapt. Unfortunately the budget is usually destroyed by the time it is clear that changes need to be made.
Finally, can people please stop picking on Hungary? I actually like it and it has thrown up some seriously memorable races.
Neither should we blame placing a priority to include a nice prawn sandwich.
I think we can blame circuit design that 'forgives' going off and allows you to carry on because it takes away the sense of risk and danger.
I also don't like circuits that have twisty sections in one place and then a blast of flat out for the rest; it doesn't give a circuit character other than a sense of schizophrenic personality.
What definately doesn't help is the idea that you should see the whole circuit from anwhere; it will always mean no elevation changes are acceptable and therefore remove the sense of racing in a landscape. In a way this is like town planning... without landscape you are reliant on architecture to define place. But great architecture is a rare thing and is usually surrounded by other buildings that are transient... in many ways the constructed landscape is moving and changing to the needs of the city. This doesn't happen with race circuits; or if it will it is too soon to start happening yet.
My problem, if it is that, is the new circuits lack a sense of place and therefore a character of their own. Spa has a sense of place, as does Montreal, Melbourne, Interlagos, Suzuka and Monaco. It may be almost blasphemous but I'm not convinced Silverstone does (although I have stood at Copse and loved it) and many others are second tier in this sense. Some circuits are just awful... Barcelona is my worst circuit for failing to ever give a good race (with the exception of Schumi's wet one) but there are many others that are just consistently average or worse. These should be removed and replaced and we should give new circuits the benefit of the doubt for at least five years. But these new circuits should also respond to feedback and be allowed to adapt. Unfortunately the budget is usually destroyed by the time it is clear that changes need to be made.
Finally, can people please stop picking on Hungary? I actually like it and it has thrown up some seriously memorable races.
Read my posts fully.
I've said they're all to blame, and no factor is responsible just by itself.
"Forgiveness" ?!
In that case Monaco and Singapore should offer the best racing, yet they offer some of the worst.
And Monaco has a long history of almost always producing boring racing (long before the aero mess), unless you mention the wet races and the 34 or was it 33 race between Nuvolari and Varzi.
If you don't like schizophrenic track then you must love Valencia.
Actually, Andy, I mentioned the Hungaroring just as the meta-example of a tight twisty track, I seriously think it deserves a place on the calendar.
I think Silverstone's place on the calendar is equivalent to the British GP's place on the calendar; historically the association between the race and the track is not as strong as Monza/Italy, Monaco etc., but I don't think you could reasonably expect to hold F1 at Brands, and Donnington blew their chance.
The main 2 circuits that should be off the calendar are the Spanish ones, neither have produced a decent dry race in my memory, and while I support one Spanish Grand Prix, I think the arrangement with two 'German' Grands Prix worked better, as did the two 'Italian' Grands Prix. It seemed like progress in 2007 when one per country came in, only for FOM to change that for 2008. The wording 'Abu Dhabi GP' rather than 'UAE GP' makes me worry Dubai is in line too.
To summarise, I'd have a new Spanish GP circuit.
I'd like to see Grand Prix racing back in France, maybe by airlifting the Istanbul Park Circuit into a field on the outskirts of Lyon!
With Abu Dhabi vs UAE as the circuit name, it could be due to the desire for city rather than country advertising. In golf the European tour runs the race to Dubai rather than the race to UAE (I think, not a big golf fan). Either way I wouldn't read it as meaning that there will be a race in Dubai just yet (though if they have money I wouldn't rule it out!)
But they're not going to...
Maybe, but I do think the name is a little strange on that basis. The quasi-independence of each Emirate is clearly the reason for this, but there is no English Grand Prix at Silverstone.
When I say I'm worried Dubai is in line, I feel only that any Dubai track will be another soulless dustbowl, but I'm willing to give it a chance if it comes along!
Yeah, I do believe there was some sort of "ours is bigger than yours" contest between Abu Dhabi and Dubai about getting F1 which Abu Dhabi won. The huge problem for Dubai at the moment is that they are short of cash. The had to appeal to Abu Dhabi for money to help comlete the Burj Khalifa which is a bit like Microsoft asking to borrow money from Apple to complete a project.
Muddytalker
Points Scorer
I agree totally.
I disagree totally. Silverstone is flat and you can barely see more than one corner/straight combo. Likewise Monza.
Interlagos is set in a natural bowl, and I understand that from the various places, such as the main straight, you can see plenty of the circuit; From experience, this is also the case with Brands' Indy circuit, Donington and Oulton Park, all circuits with elevation. I would imagine the original Osterreichring and Dijon were similar? The point being that elevated areas around the perimeter of the circuit, and good banked areas for spectators allows for several things
1: Spectators closer to the circuit
2: Better viewing across the circuit
3: Usually better/closer racing - *gets hobby horse out from the shed again* I am convinced that the occurence of gradient when braking or accelerating, whether it be uphill or downhill, has a significant reduction on the negative wake/turbulent air effects generated by a leading car on the following car.
