F1 F1 2024 thread

[Jatz]

A lot of the grading has to do with safety - it's all about run-off areas and safety barriers.

Surfers has a full debris fence all the way around the track. Mt Panorama only has it in the spectator areas (e.g. across the top of the mountain, and along the pit straight) - there are no barriers along Conrod Straight, or Mountain Straight, only a low concrete fence. Also, Mt Panorama has gradients which are too steep for a Grade 1 track, most notably through the Dipper.

The Bend doesn't have debris barriers around most of the track - but cars can safely run off for the better part of 5km without hitting anything, so they're (arguably) not needed.

That was what I was curious about - the safety fence might go the whole way around but there is almost zero run off area.

Suppose you can say that with most street circuits.

 

[Vader]

This article discusses the track requirements in greater detail, albeit focusing on the requirements for Grade 1:
https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-track-grades-requirements-f1-potential/6508332/

 

[Vader]

I've been Google Searching, and trolling through the FIA website, trying to find the technical regulations used to determine whether a track is Grade 1/2/3/4/5/6. I keep coming up emptyhanded.

I get that tracks are graded according to the weight/power ratio of the vehicles that are allowed to use them. Vehicles with weight/power ratios < 1 need a Grade 1 track, those with ratios 1-2 require a Grade 2 track, and those with ratios 2-3 require a Grade 3 track. Supercars fall into the 3rd category.

What I can't find is any documentation defining the physical characteristics which differentiate a Grade 1 track from Grade 2 or 3.

Appendix O details a list of regulations, determining if a track is compliant with FIA standards - but there's nothing in there which differentiates between the various track grades. This is the best that I can find.
file:///C:/Users/sladem/Downloads/appendix_o_2024_published_28.02.2024_-_final_v2_0.pdf

Grading is not just dependent upon the track itself - it also concerns the number of garages, medical facilities, access roads. Once again, I can't find anything documenting how these requirements differ between the various track grades.

 

[Forward Press]

There is scope in the existing Concorde Agreement for adding one more race.

Having said that, Kyalami is currently a Grade 2 track, and would need upgrading (mostly just the installation of safety barriers) to bring it up to Grade 1 standard, making it suitable for F1.

The problem is that there are a LOT of other countries/tracks competing for that last slot, and any further additions would require existing tracks to lose their GP. Monaco should be the first one to go - it pays the lowest license fees, and it's a track which is completely unsuited to modern F1 cars. In reality, Spa (despite being the world's best F1 track) appears to be first in the firing line, due to license fees.

Is there any other African track that could conceivably meet the requirements apart from Kyalami?

Monaco will stay just because of the history and prestige, think everyone agrees that it would not meet modern standards if it was a new race being proposed.

Personally, though, I would like a shorter calendar. We will never see a 16 race calendar again, fine, but the current schedule is too packed and devalues a race win imo.

 

[Vader]

Is there any other African track that could conceivably meet the requirements apart from Kyalami?

Monaco will stay just because of the history and prestige, think everyone agrees that it would not meet modern standards if it was a new race being proposed.

Personally, though, I would like a shorter calendar. We will never see a 16 race calendar again, fine, but the current schedule is too packed and devalues a race win imo.

Morocco has a Grade 2 circuit (Circuit Sidi Daoui de Oued Zem), which is the only other Grade 2 circuit in Africa. There are no Grade 1 or 3 tracks listed in Africa, on the Wikipedia page I previously linked.

I agree that a shorter season would be better... but Liberty are determined to maximise their return on investment, and that means as many GPs as possible (subject to the Concorde Agreement), and maximising the fees they charge for the races they are permitted to hold.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

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.

 

[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]