Sorry, this is going to be long.
I agree: putting a "mild" chicane with high kerbs in a track is stupid. You could as well put a speed bump in the middle of the road. I would close my eyes every time I entered the curve, I bet.
I have suggested before blending a little mechanical and civil engineering knowledge: every little spec in the car is subject of animated debate but road changes are good as long as they do not break a couple of teeth of the pilots! Millions are invested in the cars but pennies on the road.
I ask for full correction of defective curves:
If a curve is giving you problems because it is too
fast and long for the tire temperature, or
too narrow for the degree of curvature and the speed, (you can pass in any curve if you make the road wide enough, guys!)
then correct the curve. But no: the answer is always to put a chicane before the curve!
Good way of thinking: with a couple of empty oil barrels on the straight you do not have to spend some tens of thousands of dollars on the curve. Do not worry if you spend more money on practice tires...
If you
have to make a chicane, try to make it like the one in the photo posted in this thread. Chicanes that deviate you barely a track width from your trajectory are, well, hard to understand.
I do not know if the tracks are the Cinderella of F1 and I am not happy with so much hairpins and chicanes. You have 900 hp or whatever cars optimized for aero down force at 150 kph because this is the curve radius they'll get! F1 is almost (well, I may be exaggerating
) a braking contest, like a stop-and-go drag race with several quarter mile tracks joined by flimsy curves. Just four words: too much down force! Of course, I find that Karts are fun because you can slide, I guess.
Some of my colleagues are surprised seeing that a four radius curve is a novelty for F1 fans... This kind of curves went extinct around the 1950's in public road design.
Modern road design emphasizes spiral transitions, with almost no fixed radius curves, so you can have smooth super elevation transitions and the axis of the road follows the optimal trajectory. Take a look at my avatar...
This gives you plenty of trajectories if you calculate the width ample enough for two cars side by side and a “bumpless” road (relative to a circular curve track design) because the side slope is always proportional to curve radius.
Most people is not aware of this, but take a look at your steering wheel next time you are on a really old road: you have to turn left when you are on a straight entering a right hand curve, because the side slope is increasing while you are still straight. For the suspension guys, this increments your “natural” under steering at the beginning of the curve.
I would appreciate if anybody can explain to me why the principles of road design do not apply to F1 tracks. Am I mistaken trying to extrapolate my road design experience to tracks? I have only worked in two racetracks (Rosario and Tocancipá), and not very important...
I am not sure, because I am looking at track layout from Google Earth photos, but I could swear that Catalunya has several curves without transitions (
I have spent several hours with the satellite photos in AutoCAD) I do not think so, because this would imply major ignorance.
Does anybody knows if I am wrong?
Sorry, it touched a sore spot. I will never, ever make posts this long. :^o
When I wrote they supressed the kerbs I hadn't realize they changed the layout! Now it will be so slow, plus the next turn, traguardo, was the speed trap here. Now they'll come to rivazza's braking point under 295 km/h I'm sure, wich will make tamburello the new speed trap here. I'm afraid we shall not see a car reach the 300 km/h barrier anymore here 
Alta chicane was the most particular turn of this track. They've killed Imola...
Big hope - I admit