Figure-of-8 oval; would it work in real life?

[the_calculator]

I'm sure every fantasy trackmaker has come across this idea once (and quickly passed on).

But would it work in real life???

I'm aiming for indycar/nascar here.
I've connected a 1 mile and a 1,5 mile oval.
pros and cons please?

[Beetle]

Originally Posted by the_calculator

I'm sure every fantasy trackmaker has come across this idea once (and quickly passed on).

But would it work in real life???

I'm aiming for indycar/nascar here.
I've connected a 1 mile and a 1,5 mile oval.
pros and cons please?

No cons accept it is a completely new idea! (says Bernie Ecclestone).

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by the_calculator

I'm sure every fantasy trackmaker has come across this idea once (and quickly passed on).

Well, I have pondered this idea before and did not like my outcome which was basically like a 2 mile oval of similar 180 plus turns which had the crossover of the straights in their middle (where the infield of a common oval would be) and the pitlane to one of the sides. But having the crossover at angles like 30 vs 330 degrees would mean you could not see what's happening on much of the lower straight. And that is just not an option.

Therefore, I actually like your idea to connect 2 ovals on their wider side with each other. This makes much more sense than the concept I tinkered with.
However, what about the banking? At least one of the connecting straights would have to be flat, the lower one. And since the corners on both small ovals before and after the connection to that straight cannot rise abruptly, they also would have to be flat. It remains to be seen if having banking on the other 2 turns which connect the upper straight to the small ovals makes any sense. What do you think?

In the end, you might end up with two small ovals which only have banking on the front stretch of each but no banking in the corners. That is quite unusual and NASCAR will probably consider it somewhat odd.

Yet, it is not certain that the 8-shaped oval would provide better racing since in oval racing, some cars are set up to work better on the outside lane and some are set up to work better on the inside lane. And that promotes overtaking. But here, on the 8-shaped oval, both lanes are upper and lower lane in one of the corners, so there would always have to be a car setup compromise to accomodate both, because, as road circuit specialists might not know, in oval racing it can take a few laps to change from one lane to the other. And if your car works better on, say, the inside lane, you would be forced to change lanes twice every lap or risk losing positions when you cannot get out of the "wrong" lane.

But that does not take into account the fact that race cars for ovals are set up in an asymmetrical way so they could not run the oval in the opposite direction at the same speed without switching the sides of the asymmetrical setup. Same thing goes for spotters and drivers' reflexes: they would have to do things at high speed in the opposite direction in the right turn.

So to make it safe, people would need to start practicing at an early age on an 8 shaped dirt track. Now that would be an entirely new track design challenge!

Edit:
I forgot to mention that bankings only make sense if a car gradually goes up into the banking. The original Fuji Speedway has tragically proven a banking into which cars need to drop down to be too dangerous. Hence, coming off of the bridge and diving down into the 18 track banking of your Turn 4 will not work.

[Peat]

There was a fantasy figure-8 oval on the NASCAR Racing 2003 game if i recall. It produced fun racing but huge crashes in equal measure.

You would need to run a more 'standard' setup on the cars to allow them to turn both ways, not sure how that would effect oval performance.

Also, given the Fuji case-study, you would need to consider the geometry carefully.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

This is something I too have pondered.

The designs that I've come up with have the smaller oval off set slightly left or right as you have drawn them.

It changes the length of the link roads but allows separation for a realistic cross over, with climb to a bridge or drop into a tunnel.

[the_calculator]

figure of 8 oval

Originally Posted by Yannick

However, what about the banking? At least one of the connecting straights would have to be flat, the lower one. And since the corners on both small ovals before and after the connection to that straight cannot rise abruptly, they also would have to be flat. It remains to be seen if having banking on the other 2 turns which connect the upper straight to the small ovals makes any sense. What do you think?

OK, only a tunnel wouldn't probably work.
How about a (less deep) tunnel and a (not so high) bridge to create an elevation change as small as possible on either straight. (ScotsBrutesFan post pointed out this idea)

Originally Posted by Yannick

I forgot to mention that bankings only make sense if a car gradually goes up into the banking. The original Fuji Speedway has tragically proven a banking into which cars need to drop down to be too dangerous. Hence, coming off of the bridge and diving down into the 18 track banking of your Turn 4 will not work.

The descent or rise on the connecting straights don't start before the banking has completely leveled out (this is also is the place where the connecting road for the single oval starts/ends); 18 -> 0 degrees, compared to Atlanta Motor Speedway 24 -> 5 degrees should be realistic.

Originally Posted by Yannick

Yet, it is not certain that the 8-shaped oval would provide better racing since in oval racing, some cars are set up to work better on the outside lane and some are set up to work better on the inside lane. And that promotes overtaking. But here, on the 8-shaped oval, both lanes are upper and lower lane in one of the corners, so there would always have to be a car setup compromise to accomodate both, because, as road circuit specialists might not know, in oval racing it can take a few laps to change from one lane to the other. And if your car works better on, say, the inside lane, you would be forced to change lanes twice every lap or risk losing positions when you cannot get out of the "wrong" lane.

So this design basicly kills ovalracing and make it more of a roadcourse.

[S.Moss]

Originally Posted by Peat

There was a fantasy figure-8 oval on the NASCAR Racing 2003 game if i recall. It produced fun racing but huge crashes in equal measure.

You would need to run a more 'standard' setup on the cars to allow them to turn both ways, not sure how that would effect oval performance.

Also, given the Fuji case-study, you would need to consider the geometry carefully.

Apparently it was called Eight Bowl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS3a9S8QZI

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by the_calculator

So this design basicly kills ovalracing and make it more of a roadcourse.

Well, I'm not entirely sure about that because the Indianapolis oval for example, also often gets called a road course with 4 left turns. In the same fashion, your concept could very well turn into a road course with 2 left and 2 right turns.
But the 8-shaped track certainly would require a more neutral setup than an oval. I have never heard about the above mentioned NASCAR game which has such a track but for a first assumption of how it would work out with 2 wide racing, the game should suffice.

[the_calculator]

Originally Posted by S.Moss

Apparently it was called Eight Bowl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS3a9S8QZI

This track is quite different than mine.
In my track I think I've solved the unsafe pit entry and/or exit.
I can't see any way how to do this with the Eight Bowl geometry.

However I found something about how (online-)racing on the Eight Bowl track would be like;
http://www.kiwisimracing.net.nz/foru...c.php?f=4&t=63
This probably would apply to my track.

[IceMan_PJN]

Originally Posted by the_calculator

Figure-of-8 oval; would it work in real life?

I don't think it would fit the definition of an oval track. "Ovals" don't have to be banked, and sometimes aren't, and they don't have to be limited in their number of turns, as you could have a giant octagon (eight turns) and it be an oval track. To be an oval it must have all turns in just one direction. Once there is a turn in the other direction, it is no longer an oval track, no matter how basic its layout might be.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Given both arguments as to what constitutes an oval and looking to make it Figure 8.

Here is what I've come up with... whilst it's not a figure 8 but it does have the cross over element.



Please note the Diagram is not to scale, but if it were to be based on real track, In terms of corner Radius, the lower half of the circuit would be something akin to T4 the front straight (probably a bit longer) and T1 of the Milwaukee Mile set within the infield of T2 the back straight and T3 of Talladega.

The Start finish is on the Big Straight, the pit stop would take place during the Lap rather than at the end of a Lap.


A Lap...

The S/F straight would have some camber but the approach to T1 would be much like approaching T3 of Talladega, The Outer Banking is elevated, so coming off T2 as it would be, the camber equalises off from bith sides of the track, resulting in a gentle down hill over the bridge before the camber begins again for the banking into the Short corner of T3 and T4.
The short pit straight leads into T5 which is the tightest corner on the circuit, T6 Opens out but rather than the right hand side coming down (as banking normally would) the inside rises to level the the camber as the track then gently climbs uphill under the bridge before the right hand side of the track starts to camber up into T7 and then around into T8 before back over the S/F

[Yannick]

That's quite the unique double-oval concept you have come up with there, SBF.
Thank you for your contribution. My ficticious "series" would have it on its shortlist for additions to its next calendar, if I were still to do such a series.
Maybe one day, I should start a thread and link to all my favourite tracks by other designers here on MyTracks;-)

Your double-oval could actually work well in the US if the inner oval was actually situated somewhat lower inside a "bowl" so people in the stands of the outer oval could also see what's going on inside.

[the_calculator]

I've created the track in my first post for a racegame (Racer).
It turned out to be a very boring, very unchallenging drive.

Here's what I came up with to make things more interesting;
- lengthen the straights
- thighten the turns
- lower the banking
- use different curve radius within the turn
- elevation within the turn
But none of these in extreme; I wanted to keep the "oval feel".
I didn't want to turn it into a road course.

I also realise by doing this it's deviating from realism.
There are a few absolute no-go's on this track for real oval racing; The
downhill, decreasing radius turn 1 and 2 (most difficult one on the track).

I made a quick video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKNmZq4XnOg

Hope you like it, please comment.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I've been fiddling around with my crossover design above adjusting the scale etc and generally crunching some numbers.
At 20m (60+ ft) wide, to scale it would be around 2.33 miles.

Allowing for a 1.5m (4.5 ft) deep bridge deck, and a minimum of 5m (15+ ft) of clearance

The vertical difference between the inside curves of the inner and out ovals would need to be approx 12m (40ft)
If the inner curves are to be highly angled then the vertical differnece would go up to allow spectators on the outer banking a view down.