Fulcrum wrote:j2004p wrote:
OK, maybe I'm missing something and if I am I apologise, but what would you prefer instead of a kerb?
A wall or a white line with identical flat tarmac to the main track on the inside of the white line?
In essence, yes, or very nearly. There are plenty of turns on this very track where the kerb literally hugs the wall. Examples being, turns 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Turns 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16 all create artificial apexes and I don't see the point of this when the track is physically bound by concrete blocks. The safety argument, slowing cars down with strategic kerb placement, doesn't correlate because the kerbs are tight on entry to T1, T12, T13, T14, all with high approach speeds or high apex speeds.
I don't see how the kerbs here can even be motivated as safety features at all. They're raised, destabilise the car, and are likely to cause more accidents than they 'prevent' from an errant driver getting too close to the wall. What's more, they're extremely dangerous in the wet - not that important here as it doesn't rain much.
The approach to turn 15 is actually made more dangerous by the completely idiotic kerb placement on the outside of the track in the approach.
To summarise, my general argument is that the placement of the kerbs creates for a far worse layout than could be experienced were they placed consistently close to the walls throughout, the best examples being T15 and T16. Both of these corners have been 'sanitised' in a manner that detracts from the circuits potential.
