[WEC] 2014 FIA World Endurance Championship

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

Asphalt on the run to indianapolis from mulsanne corner. Thats not everywhere. Its a flat out part of track. Paving it will make it about as wide as the other straights. Theres still guardrails on either side and imo just makes more room for faster cars to pass on a straight instead of being held up by lower classes running side by side. Not much we can do about it.

The plan is to install full tarmac runoff from Mulsanne corner to Indy AS WELL as to the rundown from Arnage to start of the Porsche Curves.

Also now that the Indy-Arnage section is being removed from the public road map it probably also gives them excuse to asphaltize all of that too. It's happening everywhere else so why not there too.

[deggis]

iirc there are only two references to the tarmac plan, both from DSC and the latter one only mentions "between Mulsanne and Indianapolis".

http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=273
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=354

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by deggis

iirc there are only two references to the tarmac plan, both from DSC and the latter one only mentions "between Mulsanne and Indianapolis".

http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=273
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=354

http://www.24h-lemans.com/en/news/20...746_15219.html

The implementation of a gravel trap at the "Virage Corvette", requested by the FIA, is estimated to cost 620,000 € and the reinforcement of the RD 140 and 139 asphalt shoulders between Mulsanne, Arnage and the "Virage Porsche" 450,000 €.

[deggis]

Odd how it is saying "the" since currently it's just grass (so are they "shoulders" by definition at all). Unfortunately could be just crappy translation.

[TF110]

Those are straights anyway. As you can see the slow turn of arnage already has more paved run off. Indianapolis being paved to its right would probably be the biggest impact. If the gravel is replaced that will be a big loss, but the paved straights in between I dont think is a huge deal, just cuts back on the 'scenery'

[Deleted]

But again, why does there need to be asphalt outside the white lines on straights I'm dead sure it's just manufacturers lobbying it to pass lower classes more easily...

Yes Arnage got some asphalt extension when the corner was modified in 2012 but that was relatively small in comparison to most of the new 2013/2014 pavings such as re-extension of the Mulsanne chicanes, Dunlop esses, Curves and rundown to Ford chicanes etc.

With Dunlop esses now starting to get extensions as well the only remaining large area without asphalt runoff is the large bit between Mulsanne corner and middleway of Curves (apart from said Arnage rework and left side of upon arrival to Indy). And now that will be gone too...

[TF110]

Oh well. Times change, so do tracks. Just have to get on with it I guess.

[Deleted]

Tracks have to evolve of course but they should concentrate of barrier upgrades and catch fencing, as well as the safety of the cars itself, not in things like these or tilke-reprofilings...

But yeah it is what is it. Thankfully we still have some areas in the world not following the madness yet

[Pontlieue]

I don't get it. What is the reason to pave the grass next to the straights, unless you want to make the road wider? And if they do it, then the drivers will use all the space available to lap slower cars, so they'll get much closer to the barriers while lapping cars. In which way is that a safety improvement?

Of course safety at Le Mans needs to be improved, but they should work on the barriers. What use is a tarmac runoff, if at the end of it there's a concrete wall? More modern barriers can improve driver safety a lot without changing the character of the circuit.

[Pandemonium]

The grass will be paved??? AWESOME!!!! More safety!!

[Maelochs]

"At some point, the onus HAS TO BE on the DRIVERS to drive responsibly and respectfully."

I respect and (I think) understand this view, but these are racing drivers. In their eyes the only onus on them is to go faster.

There are only two ways to slow them down---make the track unacceptably dangerous and lose a few (not acceptable at all) or ... have Race Officials call Every car, Every time, for Every track-limit infraction.

Let Audi, Toyota, or Porsche lose a race for running wide and once the howls die down, the drivers will smarten up.

Last weekend F1 threw out some qualifying times for drivers going off-track. Seemed to get the message across.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"At some point, the onus HAS TO BE on the DRIVERS to drive responsibly and respectfully."

I respect and (I think) understand this view, but these are racing drivers. In their eyes the only onus on them is to go faster.

There are only two ways to slow them down---make the track unacceptably dangerous and lose a few (not acceptable at all) or ... have Race Officials call Every car, Every time, for Every track-limit infraction.

Let Audi, Toyota, or Porsche lose a race for running wide and once the howls die down, the drivers will smarten up.

Last weekend F1 threw out some qualifying times for drivers going off-track. Seemed to get the message across.

Or, option 3) just don't have asphalt runoffs having grass or gravel is neither unacceptably dangerous or something that needs constant babysitting (which ACO isn't even doing...) as people aren't dumb enough to try cutting through them.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Or, option 3) just don't have asphalt runoffs having grass or gravel is neither unacceptably dangerous or something that needs constant babysitting (which ACO isn't even doing...) as people aren't dumb enough to try cutting through them.

O yes, they are. Drivers that is.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"At some point, the onus HAS TO BE on the DRIVERS to drive responsibly and respectfully."

I respect and (I think) understand this view, but these are racing drivers. In their eyes the only onus on them is to go faster.

There are only two ways to slow them down---make the track unacceptably dangerous and lose a few (not acceptable at all) or ... have Race Officials call Every car, Every time, for Every track-limit infraction.

Let Audi, Toyota, or Porsche lose a race for running wide and once the howls die down, the drivers will smarten up.

Last weekend F1 threw out some qualifying times for drivers going off-track. Seemed to get the message across.

You would also lose one those manufacturers, seriously damaging your own championship that is largely founded on those same manufacturers needs and demands...

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

You would also lose one those manufacturers, seriously damaging your own championship that is largely founded on those same manufacturers needs and demands...

I don't buy it. With the hundreds of millions these factories have invested, there is no way they could sell their own accountants on pulling out of the series based on losing one race---else they might all have fled after losing their first race.

Being scared of losing manufacturers is silly. Audi, Porsche, and Toyota aren't in WEC because the FIA begged---the factories begged FIA to set up a world championship. (And yes, I know they begged Toyota after Peugeot pulled out, but Toyota was already in by then, just not signed on for the full world championship schedule by then---the factory had already decided on a minimum two-year involvement.)

If the FIA screwed over one manufacturer repeatedly and exclusively (say, giving diesels a huge break against a gasoline-powered competitor) then sure, that factory would cut its losses after a couple seasons ... but we saw how FIA adjusted its regs to accommodate gas engines once a factory said it wanted to sign up with a petrol engine.

No way a factory writes of hundreds of millions of dollars and years of development over one race. No way.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

O yes, they are. Drivers that is.

They might still attempt to ride kerbs as aggressively as ever but no-one runs over grass or gravel on purpose to gain better lap time or to pass someone, unlike with asphalt runoff

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Pandemonium

The grass will be paved??? AWESOME!!!! More safety!!

You know I was ready to put the "not sure if serious" cliche image here, but then I remembered some of your previous comments

As for making La Sarthe a private track. It would truly be the best. You can have tire barriers and etc all along mulsanne.

-Make La Sarthe a private track. Close the mulsanne straight for public traffic and make everything very safe and "runoffy". I don´t know how hard it could be but I´m sure you can put the public road somewhere else.

So many accidents Booooring track

Oh but I am pretty serius. I understand some of you might feel close to Le Mans. But the racing here is not as good as the racing in the other tracks. Mostly because of all the accidents and the red flags etc.

The porsche curves just need to be made in the middle of the desert with no walls to be safe. I just don´t enjoy the racing here as much as I do in the other WEC tracks.

- Too many accidents!! We need more space more runoffs I know some of you dislike them but look at Paul Ricard, it looks pretty good if you put some colour.

All this incidents are ridiculous!!!! Le Mans is the worst track of all, It trully is. If it wouldn´t be for the epicness of it I would just skip it

They should not be racing in that asphalt no matter how historic it is. Sebring vs F1 this weekend is a 1 to a 10

Sebring? Have you seen how it looks? chernobyl´s asphalt is better. No accidents doesn´t mean safety. Its all concrete walls and very little run off area. The FIA coudl´t care less of traditional american circuits. Except for the F1 circuits they all are a bunch of crappy asphalt and leveled grass. You know how to tell you are watching regional soccer on tv? It´s easy they are playing on a crappy field with almost no grandstands. You are calling shanghai or Cota not beautifull? No way they are amazingly pretty just because of their edge design and amazing buildings and colors not just grey and green. Haven´t you heard of Hindy talking about how much the drivers loved the esses at COTA???. We are no longer talking about a poor organised championship sir we are talkign about the FIA.

You guys must be joking. The fia f1 and Wec should only race at the Top circuits just because of what they represent. And the fia wec its growing and getting good and promissing that fans are increasing fast. Plus very little circuits can surpass the beauty of grade 1 ones. (Nurburgring). Also think of safety

Riiight. BUT I can't blame him for having strong unpopular opinions, as I'm often the same

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Chiana

You know I was ready to put the "not sure if serious" cliche image here, but then I remembered some of your previous comments

[TF110]

Cars had accidents at Austin. Remember the R18 last year hitting the inside of the curb and launching in the air. Also took out an Aston Martin, that cost them the wec gte drivers title! This was at what people call a "tilkedrome". Accidents can happen anywhere. Track layouts matter little. If there is a cut back on gravel traps and grass, it may just give drivers a chance to get going on their own or quicker car retrival. Itd be better than causing 20-minute long yellows for one car sitting waiting for a tractor to drag it.

[Deleted]

I might be in a minority but I rather march through needlessly long 35 minute caution period at Laguna Seca for digging one Cup Porsche back from the deep gravel trap, than follow race at Shanghai where LMP2 car makes silly mistake and drives off the white line to the tarmac runoff, only loses 2 seconds and gets back to the track before the following car is even able to pass. Or when someone pushing for hot quali lap makes slight error at Laguna and that's literally it for his session, rather than Shanghai quali where that car drives to the tarmac runoff on purpose to gain extra 0,3 seconds (that no one even bothers taking away)

Going back to gaming, I remember playing the original Gran Turismo on PS1 back in 90's and couple of things bring to mind. First, in the licence test runs you were not allowed to touch the grass or gravel outside the racing line or your run was immediately disqualified. Not that you really wanted to run on those anyway but you know. Secondly in races there were this gigantic gravel traps in certain corners (= ie the places that really catched you as there was no damage physics), and when you had your poorly handing 900+ horsepower Mitsubishi GTO Twinturbo arriving to those corners in full speed you knew you were screwed. Now just imagine if those tracks were modeled after real modern circuits, you could just blast through them with zero worry.

And yeah maybe that's not a good example as it's quite dated release but I've played some more modern simulators and guess what, the only places I really shine are tracks with gigantic tarmac runoffs as they make it easy to push with zero worry for anything. And then I next make attempt at Mont-Tremblant or something and I'm immediately hitting walls because I'm so used to driving on rails and not paying attention.

[Purist]

You're not alone. I'll take the caution(s) at a visually attractive and challenging circuit over an all-green race at a parking lot, even if it's a painted, floodlit parking lot.

Gravel and grass provide for an unconditional time penalty if you go off. So, drivers don't intentionally go across them to gain time. They are acceptable verge/run-off materials. If you want to avoid small errors leading to cautions, just don't start the gravel traps immediately at the track's edge. Leave a few to several feet of grass first. Also, curbs shouldn't be wide enough to allow drivers to get all four wheels outside the white line; they really shouldn't even be more than half a car's width.

Yes, those Original Tracks in Gran Turismo are excellent, challenging, and appealing to the eye. Grand Valley Speedway and Autumn Ring actually have some sensible run-offs at key points. Also, those courses, and tracks like Brands Hatch and Bathurst, while they're more troublesome than Silverstone and the new Fuji in terms of physical limitations, I WANT to learn them so much more. I also find them FAR more satisfying to get right.

In real life, you can tell the tracks that the drivers are honestly, really excited about and look forward to visiting. That zest is apparent in their voices, and can be seen in how they race. It's funny, but true, that while those circuits have a lower margin, the drivers are more intent and focused, which reduces mistakes and improves the quality of the racing. Even better, with that combination of factors, you get a better show, because of the racing itself, and because of the reduced attrition rate caused by driver error.

If the new-style run-offs at places like Austin, Shanghai, Silverstone, etc are REALLY NECESSARY to make the circuits "safe enough", then the FIA is OBLIGATED to BAN all street circuits, because they are clearly, patently, NOT "safe enough"! Furthermore, parkland and similar non-permanent circuits such as Albert Park, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Potrero de los Funes, and Belle Isle Park lack these run-offs as well. Therefore, those kinds of circuits MUST be banned too!

The "scenery" IS important, to me, to other fans, and to quite a few drivers and participants who have admitted it. Hell, the engineers and teachers I know consider it to be important. To very practical people, even Germans I know, aesthetics do matter, and it is also an issue of "how things are supposed to be". "You are not supposed to be driving there; therefore, that area is not supposed to be paved." (And I shouldn't have to tell anyone here how futile it is to argue with a German, or Heaven forbid, a German engineer.) As another tidbit, drivers have even admitted to choosing a car to drive based, at least in part, on aesthetics, like Sam Posey choosing to drive the Ferrari 512 instead of the Porsche 917.

[TF110]

Everyone likes pretty tracks. But you cant get a race just because you have scenery or history. Accidents happen, but having areas where cars aren't going to be destroyed can make those accidents less dangerous. Thats the reason you have these 'parking lots'. People pretending like these tracks have no soul because of it need to look at the times. This is the twenty first century. Even Spa had to modify their gravel traps. How many 'scenic' tracks are going to be left if this safety first attitude keeps the track owners on their toes? Keep that in mind. You wanna host the popular events you need the modern safety. Street courses are a different story. But you only see a few of those.

[Deleted]

It's just heartbreaking how less than 12 months these kind of arenas were perfectly acceptable as LMP1 playground and homologated for them (in theory still are but not really)








And now pretty much all we have for P1 is

[Coach Ep]

Potolicchio pulling out: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/p...ng-for-future/

The car could continue - depending on finding funded drivers. Realistically, I could see that happening for COTA when Montecalvo might fill his seat, beyond that, not likely imo.

I don't buy Potolicchio's stories for next year either, I believe his money sources are running dry or have ran dry already (he used 'immigration' reasons for his forfait at LM) and is now just throwing dust in peoples eyes...

[Purist]

TF110, the primary AND secondary purposes of run-off and barriers are to protect drivers and spectators from direct injury. Protecting vehicles from damage is a DISTANT, tertiary concern, period! If the drivers know they can't get away with stupid stuff without consequences, they'll drive better, and there will be less torn up machinery. There, problem solved, and it didn't cost anybody any money, because all the Grade 2 circuits already had the grass and gravel in place beforehand.

Why should street circuits be any different?! The laws of physics, the REAL final word, don't change from Lime Rock to Long Beach. Therefore, no, that is not acceptable or sensible. What makes a track safe or not does not change based on venue type or location, and hence, the rules that define what is "safe" or not should not change based on those factors.

I'm not "pretending" anything about the newer F1 tracks having or not having soul. They DON'T and CAN'T have real soul, certainly not compared to the classic, historic venues that haven't been heavily molested. There are reasons why people flock to stadium events and the like. There are reasons why X Games and Gravity Games events have gained popularity, and even footholds in the Olympics!

This "safety crusade" won't matter in the end. It will be the end of "traditional" motor sport, eventually, except for the Isle of Man. If something is popular/supported enough, it will have the strength/revenue to weather/settle the lawsuits. If it isn't, it's only one disaster, which will happen someday, away from oblivion.

If I can no longer get the sense of speed and spectacle on TV, and can't get close enough to see as well as I can, or have shade, at the track, there's no point in watching anymore. I also won't have anyone around me who will care anymore. I won't be able to share my enthusiasm for the sport with anyone, and trying will likely spark an argument, an argument I CAN'T win. Given my eyesight, I can't drive myself to the races, and if this trend continues, it won't matter, because nobody I have known who HAD a particular interest in motor racing will want to go. Thus, I won't have a ride, and won't be going anyway, regardless of how I feel.

All of this text has come about BECAUSE I have thought this all through, quite thoroughly. You are trying to make a reasoned argument regarding something that is emotive, which is a strategy that fundamentally will never work. On top of that, for myself and those I know personally who follow/have followed the sport, this trend in circuits not only diminishes our emotional attachment, but offends our common sense. Therefore, you have struck out on that front as well.

Times be damned! If you take away what allows myself and others to have an appreciation for the sport at all, we're going to cease to care, at which point, don't expect us to continue to give a damn. There is no arguing with the phrase, "I don't care!" So the sport had better figure it out and stop this trend before that point is reached, or else, the sport itself will cease to exist. What good are all your lovely, paved run-offs going to be then?!

In other words, why support these changes if it means the end of the sport you claim to love also?