illario wrote:@designer, listen to Ciro.
I dont agree with your opinion about good tracks(Monza, Silverstone is not flat, Melbourn street track, Hockeinheim - lost in the woods), these are historical tracks, that doesn't mean they are "good racetracks", I'm not arguing taste here, I'm saying that your argument about "good racetracks" and your examples are not that convincing. History gives character to some tracks, and some are just good. Barcelona for example, doesn't it produce boring races - to me under average, yet it's still in the calendar. I honestly don't understand anything about design and i don't know why you are designing a track - school etc, what is your inspiration. Are you doing this just for fun, hobby?! Why such a long track, why such long straight's, whats your philosophy about this track. How relaxed can drivers be driving this track. How intense is it, where would it be, weather. Also, why not use stadium - Colosseum terrain. Why not find a place where at least 20 000 people could just picnic and watch. Why not find natural seats. A place where you can watch more that 50% of the action, it'll be shorter, but much more dynamic. Why not offer something "different", why not?!
Now i'm thinking why does one decide to design a track, and why am i commenting!
I think i'm sharing some negative vibes, im not mean person, i dont dislike when others TRY, I'm just so obsessed with tracks, i always imagined how a "perfect" track would look like. Thats why i'm commenting, and thats why i'm sounding negative, as Fangio said it " you need Passion..."
Naahhh obviously Monza and Silverstone are bad tracks, they obviously haven't been important... If a track is historic, it's because it's good. Not just because they're old... I'm sure no one remembers Circuit Bremgarten or Ain-Diab Circuit, from the 50s... But people do remember Zandvoort or Nordschleife or Zolder, they're also old but they are amazing. Also, Silverstone is 85% flat...
I'm not going to answer the rest. It's just nonsense.