How to accurately describe tracks?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by P.S.R., Jul 30, 2014.

  1. P.S.R.

    P.S.R. Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm just curious. Are there generally accepted definitions for terms used to describe tracks like "technical", "long", "short", "twisty", "flowing", etc.? Some terms are clear such as "permanent" and "temporary" or "public road" while others are not so clear. For example, I use "technical" to describe tracks that both have a lot of turns but also which take time to discover the line. By contrast, non-technical tracks have a more obvious line. Tracks with good "flow" can be technical or not technical. For example, Euro ring has good flow but because it is technical it takes some time before you discover that it has a great flow. The line of Phillip Island, on the other hand, very much follows the track itself so one might consider it to have great flow but not to be technical. And I consider tracks to have good flow only if you are able to be on the limit most of the lap but that is just what I think.

    Anyway, you get the idea. Do we really know what each other means when using these terms?

    Edit - Another excellent characteristic of a technical track other than just having to figure out the line is also that one or more individual turns may be difficult to negotiate on their own and at any speed let alone on the limit. A perfect example is Mid-OH that I consider to be both technical and flowing and also several individual off camber; etc. turns are technical on their own.

    Edit #2 - And some of us also (and for the most part accurately) assume relationships such as "short tracks" are more technical or have more turns per km than "long" tracks which usually have more straights, etc. or public roads may be more technical than permanent circuits or actually less so in many cases but you can sense people's assumptions by the context they use, etc., etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2014
  2. realkman666

    realkman666 Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some terms are clear, but there are still people calling Montréal a street circuit.

    I tend to view technical tracks similarly as you, but an important thing for me is that there must be misleading apex placement and sequences of turns where one can mess the others up, like at Silverstone, Istanbul or Austin. I would never say that Euro Ring has good flow because you brake and downshift a lot, killing any momentum, like the upcoming terrible layout in Sotchi.

    I would add Sepang and VIR to your Mid-Ohio. I see Spa as the flowing circuit par excellence.
     
  3. P.S.R.

    P.S.R. Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yeah you are correct about Euro Ring. Not sure why I used that as example. I think I was thinking more that the flow improves as you learn the line but that is the case anywhere. Sepang and OH are much better examples.
     
  4. Emery

    Emery Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    1,654
    Technical = one apex leads to another, but also "apexes in space", where you have few visual clues as to where your car should be. Malaysia, Palm Springs, ISI's Mills Metroplex.

    Flowing = large/abrubt brake/throttle inputs will not help your lap times. Thruxton, Willow Springs, Watkins Glen (no chicanes) come to mind as examples.
     
  5. nascar2112

    nascar2112 Registered

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sears point is a good example of a technical course, half the apexes are completely blind cause of the elevation changes
     

Share This Page