F1 F1 2024 thread

[Vader]

I wouldn't be surprised if the grading is done reactionary to the cars supposed to be racing on the circuit and some of the parameters of the track itself come down to "the vibe" at the time.

I did read a recent article stating that the Bathurst City Council are re-surfacing the entire track at Mt Panorama, as the existing surface is starting to crack up and they need to do it just to keep the Grade 3 rating.

I also remember reading an article (a while ago), which stated that Mt Panorama didn't make the Grade 1 standard because of some of the track gradients - most notably through The Dipper.

No doubt there are some technical regulations involved - but I suspect there's a bit of "the vible" also involved.

 

[Jatz]

It's probably a good thing they can't race F1 at Bathurst, there'd have been several fatalities over the years.

 

[Vader]

It's probably a good thing they can't race F1 at Bathurst, there'd have been several fatalities over the years.

I remember watching the Bathurst 1000 on TV, as a kid, when Denny Hulme died on the track. From memory, he had a heart attack while driving down Conrod Straight. The car then veered off the side of the road, without a live driver to control it.

Wikipedia says he died in 1992, so I must have been watching it while I was at university - not quite as young as I first thought.

 

[Vader]

I just found the following list of technical reasons why Bathurst can't become an F1 track, on reddit:

• Too narrow (fails FIA reg 7.3)
• Skyline and the Dipper are too steep (fails FIA Reg 7.4)
• The Cutting is too steep (1:6.13, fails FIA Reg 7.4)
• Limited pit area for teams
• Over 100 miles from nearest international airport (Sydney)
• Zero run-off at Griffin's Bend after a long straight. Same with Murray's Corner.
• Kamikaze kangaroos.
• Gravel trap at the Chase throws you into the path of other cars.

I must admit, the thought of an F1 car hitting a kangaroo on Conrod is absolutely terrifying.

 

[Jatz]

I just found the following list of technical reasons why Bathurst can't become an F1 track, on reddit:

• Too narrow (fails FIA reg 7.3)
• Skyline and the Dipper are too steep (fails FIA Reg 7.4)
• The Cutting is too steep (1:6.13, fails FIA Reg 7.4)
• Limited pit area for teams
• Over 100 miles from nearest international airport (Sydney)
• Zero run-off at Griffin's Bend after a long straight. Same with Murray's Corner.
• Kamikaze kangaroos.
• Gravel trap at the Chase throws you into the path of other cars.

I must admit, the thought of an F1 car hitting a kangaroo on Conrod is absolutely terrifying.

Too narrow?! Monaco or any other number of street circuits...

There's some interesting criteria in there I'd have never thought about.

Limited pit area - is it really that much smaller?

Kamikaze kangaroos is a very good point haha.

Wasn't aware of the 100 miles from airport rule either - I suppose with F1's, the sheer size of the logistics would make it problematic.

 

[happy_eagle]

The closest thing you'll get are the PR events like below

 

[Vader]

Too narrow?! Monaco or any other number of street circuits...

There's some interesting criteria in there I'd have never thought about.

Limited pit area - is it really that much smaller?

Kamikaze kangaroos is a very good point haha.

Wasn't aware of the 100 miles from airport rule either - I suppose with F1's, the sheer size of the logistics would make it problematic.

Looking at Appendix O of the Technical Regulations, I note the following:

7.3 Width
When planning new permanent circuits, the track width foreseen should be at least 12 m. Where the track width changes, the transition should be made as gradually as possible, at a rate not greater than 1 m in 20 m total width.

The width of the starting grid should be at least 15 m; this width must be maintained through to the exit of the first corner (as indicated by the racing line). Existing circuits requesting international recognition but which are narrower, may be approved if national competitions have regularly been organised on them.

7.4 Longitudinal profile
Changes in gradient, either convex or concave, must be made using vertical radii adequate for the performance of the cars. In general, changes in gradient should be avoided in high speed braking or curved sectors or where acceleration is strongest.

The gradient of the start/finish straight should not exceed 2%.

Note these regulations mostly apply to new circuits. Old circuits, such as Monaco, can apparently get away with murder. There are a LOT of regulations which Monaco would fail, if it were being assessed as a new circuit.

 

[drd23]

I just found the following list of technical reasons why Bathurst can't become an F1 track, on reddit:

• Too narrow (fails FIA reg 7.3)
• Skyline and the Dipper are too steep (fails FIA Reg 7.4)
• The Cutting is too steep (1:6.13, fails FIA Reg 7.4)
• Limited pit area for teams
• Over 100 miles from nearest international airport (Sydney)
• Zero run-off at Griffin's Bend after a long straight. Same with Murray's Corner.
• Kamikaze kangaroos.
• Gravel trap at the Chase throws you into the path of other cars.

I must admit, the thought of an F1 car hitting a kangaroo on Conrod is absolutely terrifying.

I would have thought that distance from a trauma center hospital would be a disqualifying characteristic for Bathurst too?

Too narrow?! Monaco or any other number of street circuits...

Fairly certain that some tracks get grandfathered in as being Grade 1 - Monaco being the most obvious

 

[Vader]

Note that those regulations are contextual - changes in gradient must be "adequate for the performance of the cars", noting that Grade 1 circuits have to be suitable for cars with a weight/power ratio < 1, while Grade 3 only requires them to be suitable for cars with weight/power between 2-3.

It would be nice to have these regulations spelled out, but I can't find anywhere that it does so.

 

[Vader]

I would have thought that distance from a trauma center hospital would be a disqualifying characteristic for Bathurst too?

Grade 1 tracks are required to have a Medical Centre, with at least 2x doctors and 2x surgeons. I don't know what the requirements are for Grade 2 & 3 tracks.

3 points here...

• I assume the trauma centre requirements are lower for Grade 3 track, compared to Grade 1, though this isn't spelled out anywhere that I can find.
• The Mt Panorama track does have a medical centre, though I don't know how well it's equipped and/or staffed.
• The Mt Panorama is only 5km from the Bathurst Base Hospital. Once again, I don't know how well the hospital is equipped or staffed.

 

[Forward Press]

Fairly certain that some tracks get grandfathered in as being Grade 1 - Monaco being the most obvious

Apart from Monaco, wonder which other tracks would have been grandfathered in.

Vader, would Eau Rouge/Radillon at Spa fail the steepness clause? Imola and Interlagos for narrowness?

 

[Vader]

Apart from Monaco, wonder which other tracks would have been grandfathered in.

Vader, would Eau Rouge/Radillon at Spa fail the steepness clause? Imola and Interlagos for narrowness?

I don't know... especially given that I can't find out where these regulations are specifically spelled out.

Another regulation I discovered is that the minimum track length for a Grade 1 track is supposed to be 3.5 km. Monaco is only 3.3 km long.

 

[Vader]

Apart from Monaco, wonder which other tracks would have been grandfathered in.

Vader, would Eau Rouge/Radillon at Spa fail the steepness clause? Imola and Interlagos for narrowness?

This article suggests that Baku has been allowed to break the track width regulations:
https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-track-grades-requirements-f1-potential/6508332/

It’s recommended that new circuits don’t exceed 7km in length. Permanent tracks must be at least 12 metres wide at all points, although there are some ways around this for temporary tracks and those that host national competitions on a regular basis. Think of Baku’s temporary street circuit, which is 7.6 metres wide at its narrowest point.

... and Zandvoort's banked turns:

Banking shouldn’t exceed 5.7 degrees, although the FIA does allow for ‘possible exceptions in special cases’. Turns 3 and 14 of the refurbished track at Zandvoort are two such examples, with banking of 18 and 19 degrees respectively. Although no longer on the F1 calendar, the Grand Prix Circuit at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway features a nine degree corner and remains a Grade 1 listed venue.

With regards to medical facilities:

For F1, WEC and WRC events, the medical centre must include at least two doctors proficient in resuscitation and at least two surgeons. One must be skilled at the initial treatment of burns and another must be able to manage spinal injuries and concussion. Multiple members of the medical team must speak English well, and all must be experienced dealing with trauma patients.

 

[Jatz]

This article suggests that Baku has been allowed to break the track width regulations:
https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-track-grades-requirements-f1-potential/6508332/


... and Zandvoort's banked turns:


With regards to medical facilities:

That's crazy how far past the allowed banking Zandvoort is.

It's not even close.

 

[Vader]

That's crazy how far past the allowed banking Zandvoort is.

It's not even close.

Here's what the regulations say, taken from Appendix O (previously linked):

In curves, the banking (downwards from the outside to the inside of the track) should not exceed 10% (5.7o) (with possible exceptions in special cases, such as speedways or oval tracks). An adverse incline is not generally acceptable unless dictated by special circumstances.

I don't have any problem with Zandvoort being given an exception, given the wording of that particular regulation.

 

[Forward Press]

I like Zandvoort, completely different kind of track than the rest. Even when Max retires, I hope they retain it (I think one of the reasons why they brought it in was because of his massive Dutch support).

 

[drd23]

Grade 1 tracks are required to have a Medical Centre, with at least 2x doctors and 2x surgeons. I don't know what the requirements are for Grade 2 & 3 tracks.

3 points here...

• I assume the trauma centre requirements are lower for Grade 3 track, compared to Grade 1, though this isn't spelled out anywhere that I can find.
• The Mt Panorama track does have a medical centre, though I don't know how well it's equipped and/or staffed.
• The Mt Panorama is only 5km from the Bathurst Base Hospital. Once again, I don't know how well the hospital is equipped or staffed.

That is for the medical center at the track.

The requirements for a nearby hospital for F1, WEC and FE are pretty stringent, and ones that only a major metropolitan hospital would have. I also found a 5 year old document that specifies that such a hospital has to be within 20mins flight time of the track



I couldn't find anything for Grade 2 or 3 tracks, but obviously it'd be less strict

 

[gaskin]

 

[FR0GGY]

 

[happy_eagle]

View attachment 2017578

Didn't Sargeant get Albon once in quali this year ?

(Might have been sprint quali)

 

[FR0GGY]

Didn't Sargeant get Albon once in quali this year ?

(Might have been sprint quali)

I don’t claim to fact check my stolen pics

 

[Vader]

Didn't Sargeant get Albon once in quali this year ?

(Might have been sprint quali)

Yes - Sargeant beat Albon in the Miami Sprint Qualifying. Sargeant qualified 19th, to Albon's 20th.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Regarding JV crapping on Ricciardo. He made a point about the time Ricciardo was beating Vettel and how Vettel was trying things to make the car quicker, but it wasn't working. As if to say Ricciardo didn't beat Vettel on merit.

That reminds me of Villeneuve and Button in 2003. Button looked better and finished far higher up in the standings that year. But that was a time of mixed-up qualifying and variable fuel loads. Villeneuve would typically qualify with a heavier fuel load that put him back in the pack. Something would then happen to him (mechanical failure, crash, etc.) before he could make the most of his plan. But the weekend would show Button qualified ahead of him, raced ahead of him, while Villeneuve was looking like he was floundering before a dnf or worse finish.

I wonder if he's carrying a sore bottom still because of that?

 

[skam85]

Regarding JV crapping on Ricciardo. He made a point about the time Ricciardo was beating Vettel and how Vettel was trying things to make the car quicker, but it wasn't working. As if to say Ricciardo didn't beat Vettel on merit.

That reminds me of Villeneuve and Button in 2003. Button looked better and finished far higher up in the standings that year. But that was a time of mixed-up qualifying and variable fuel loads. Villeneuve would typically qualify with a heavier fuel load that put him back in the pack. Something would then happen to him (mechanical failure, crash, etc.) before he could make the most of his plan. But the weekend would show Button qualified ahead of him, raced ahead of him, while Villeneuve was looking like he was floundering before a dnf or worse finish.

I wonder if he's carrying a sore bottom still because of that?

That and one shot qualifying didn't suit JV at all.

Ricciardo smashed Vettel in the early part of 2014, then Vettel checked out and essentially tanked the rest of the season so he didn't reach a performance clause and be forced to stay at Red Bull.

 

[DamoESP]

I would be pretty excited about seeing a resurgent Williams with a Sainz, Albon and Vowles partnership