TerminologyHeads: What is a 'technical circuit'?

[marvelharvey]

My image of a technical circuit, is a track with the majority or corners are slow and tight, usually tackled individually, and plenty of straights in-between. The opposite being a flowing track, with a more organic layout, where the corner speed is faster but bends are strung together in a sequences, also these types of tracks have plenty of gradients.

Anyway, that's my images out of the way, but what does the term 'technical circuit' mean? The reason I ask, it pretty much every track I read about is described as 'a technical circuit'. Be it, Silverstone, Brands, Mallory, Leguna Seca, Spa, Nurburgring, Le Mans, Suzuka, Bathurst, Mugello, Assen etc. They can't ALL be technical, yet this label seems to have become something that precedes the description of any track.

So PH, what does it actually mean? As so many people writing articles on circuits don't seem to get it... just like me.

[kevin ritson]

A good example is Brands Indy - much of this is a very flowing circuit, you get into a rhythm, the corners and straights blend into each other - you have time to work on getting faster, racecraft, whatever you need to do.

One exception to this flow is Graham Hill. You come down the hill, so the braking is critical, the road bends away from you and you have to adjust your line at the same time. I'd describe this as a technical corner, it's less of an instinct, more an intellectual challenge. It's the one corner where I benefitted on tuition during a trackday there (whether that says something about my intellect, I'd rather not discuss it here )

[belleair302]

Technical circuits include differences in gradient, changes in surface, g-force loadings on chassis and tyres and a variety of full and half throttle corners and straights.

Barcelona is technical due to the crosswinds and changing undulations, Spa is technical, Brazil is pretty technical, Montreal in not, Silverstone is not, Indy in not, Monaco is not over technical but is demanding on gear boxes and drivers, Suzuka is demanding.

Modern F1 cars are carrying around 120 different sensors and these allow the technicians in the garages to monitor all aspects of the engine, chassis, driver, tyre, fuel, lubricants, and gearbox, allowing the engineers to analyize and advise.

Edited by belleair302 on Saturday 27th October 23:56

[SimonY]

kevin ritson said:

A good example is Brands Indy - much of this is a very flowing circuit, you get into a rhythm, the corners and straights blend into each other - you have time to work on getting faster, racecraft, whatever you need to do.

One exception to this flow is Graham Hill. You come down the hill, so the braking is critical, the road bends away from you and you have to adjust your line at the same time. I'd describe this as a technical corner, it's less of an instinct, more an intellectual challenge. It's the one corner where I benefitted on tuition during a trackday there (whether that says something about my intellect, I'd rather not discuss it here )

I would go with this explanation, particularly the bit about an intellectual challenge, quite the opposite of bellair's. For me a technical circuit would be one with tight, awkward corners requiring precise thought about braking and turn points, and how to best apply the throttle, with laptimes favouring the 'neatest' drivers. I always think of technical circuits as being quite the opposite of fast, flowing natural circuits with multiple gradient changes, bumps etc. - these require constant re-evaluation based on feel in the corner, rather than a distinct plan as with a technical corner.

[marvelharvey]

Cheers guys, that seems to have cleared a few things up in my head. Only 463879 things to go.

[GreenV8S]

To me that means a circuit where your car control is challenged and where it is not obvious what the optimum line is.

[Satsuma]

i too think kevins description sums it up pretty well, the emphasis i think in his explanation being. Technical means: parts of the circuit or the circuit as a whole where the racing line and braking points and turn-in points are not immidiately obvious, and can actually feel wrong and awkward when done correctly, the only feeling of reward being reflected in the lap times....

[Furyous]

As has been said, plus, a circuit where getting one corner wrong screws you up for the next 3.

Donington is very good example of a technical track, with the exception of the stupid Goddards loop.

[speedtwelve]

Agree that 'technical' circuits comprise those that do not have obvious or intuitive lines. I'd also add anything with particularly off/varying camber corners, especially combined with inclines.

In Scotland, for cars Knockhill, for karts, Raceland in East Lothian. Both circuits are built on hills. It's a novelty for me in England to do a trackday, or drive a kart, on a flat ex-WW2 airfield!

[dilbert]

Err, I should think that a "Technical Circuit" is a circuit for which there are known techniques!


So when the F1 finally goes to the Yupwinnod track for the first ever time, it would definately not be a "Technical Circuit". As the visit count at Yupwinnod by the F1 teams increases, it becomes more "Technical".

I think that the proliferation of such verbage (or rather adjective), is to do with people repeating what they hear, not questioning it, and not having a grasp of basic english.

It's either that, or everyone really does know the requisite techniques.

BTW I happenz to bee an injineeer!

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 28th October 03:55

[Avantone]

For me it's where the line round a turn has a much higher impact on your performance through at least the next couple of turns than other circuits, to the point where getting it wrong destroys the rhythm for at least the whole lap.

This would probably be a track with a relatively high turn/length ratio, where the entry and line through a turn would be relatively more biased to the next turn than simply hitting the apex.

[Jungles]

To me, a technical circuit is one that challenges the application of driving technique and racecraft. In other words, a track that places great demand on driver skill.

That means it must have a wide variety of turns, straights, combinations, and elevation changes; or that it has one or two areas which can severely penalise a driver for the rest of the lap if driven incorrectly; or features area(s) widely considered extremely difficult to drive well.

Examples: Bathurst Mount Panorama (the mountain is a nightmare), Laguna Seca (corkscrew), Phillip Island (variety), Silverstone (good for racecraft and you go really slow if you screw it), Spa (variety), etc.

[marvelharvey]

Well it seems that my topic creating has been justified, everyone has a different take on the definition.

[GreenV8S]

dilbert said:

Err, I should think that a "Technical Circuit" is a circuit for which there are known techniques!

That's not what the term means to me. There are well known techniques for driving a flat oval circuit but it's not particularly demanding and the techniques are pretty obvious - that is not what I would call a technical circuit. What it means to me is that the circuit is technically demanding i.e. the best way to drive it is non-obvious and/or difficult to achieve.

[sosidge]

"Technical" has just become a byword for "slow and twisty".

I don't hear anyone referring to Spa or Interlagos as "technical", even though they probably require far more technique in preparation and driving than somewhere like Hungary, which is the definitive "technical" circuit according to the reports.

[anonymous-user]

It can mean two things, one from the engineering perspective and one from the driving perspective. From the engineering side I would say it's a circuit that needs the most compromises on car setup, with a mixture of high speed straights and corners and some low speed sections, with both smooth and bumpy sections. The old Hokenheim was a good example of this, as was Indy. From the driving side it's a circuit where you have to be planning for the exit of a corner two or three apexes ahead, such as with Spa or Turkey, or where there is a lot of braking into a late apex point.

The nordshleife is the ultimate technical circuit, it has everything in spades.

Edited by johnfelstead on Sunday 28th October 14:56

[ph123]

Monza is not technical, but Brands GP is.
I personally don't think Donington is technical. So the defination of technical is a circuit slow and twisty enough that use of full power and full lateral grip needs to be at the same time.

[RobM77]

kevin ritson said:

One exception to this flow is Graham Hill. You come down the hill, so the braking is critical, the road bends away from you and you have to adjust your line at the same time. I'd describe this as a technical corner, it's less of an instinct, more an intellectual challenge. It's the one corner where I benefitted on tuition during a trackday there (whether that says something about my intellect, I'd rather not discuss it here )

Isn't Graham Hill just a straight line over from Druids to its braking point? The fact that the road kinks beforehand isn't really of much consequence?

[kevin ritson]

RobM77 said:

kevin ritson said:

One exception to this flow is Graham Hill. You come down the hill, so the braking is critical, the road bends away from you and you have to adjust your line at the same time. I'd describe this as a technical corner, it's less of an instinct, more an intellectual challenge. It's the one corner where I benefitted on tuition during a trackday there (whether that says something about my intellect, I'd rather not discuss it here )

Isn't Graham Hill just a straight line over from Druids to its braking point? The fact that the road kinks beforehand isn't really of much consequence?

If you look at a plan view of the circuit, yes. For most novices there's more to it than meets the eye and on the Indy circuit it's one of the most important corners.

[RobM77]

kevin ritson said:

RobM77 said:

kevin ritson said:

One exception to this flow is Graham Hill. You come down the hill, so the braking is critical, the road bends away from you and you have to adjust your line at the same time. I'd describe this as a technical corner, it's less of an instinct, more an intellectual challenge. It's the one corner where I benefitted on tuition during a trackday there (whether that says something about my intellect, I'd rather not discuss it here )

Isn't Graham Hill just a straight line over from Druids to its braking point? The fact that the road kinks beforehand isn't really of much consequence?

If you look at a plan view of the circuit, yes. For most novices there's more to it than meets the eye and on the Indy circuit it's one of the most important corners.

I think I know what you mean. It's tricky too, as it's downhill so turn in is critical as any handling state the car adopts after turn in will be exacerbated, and also pulled along by gravity and maintained.

Ah, and if your car is running too stiff and suffering from snappy oversteer, don't try and charge down the inside of someone entering the bend.. I speak from personal experience!