5 Great Chicanes in Sim Racing

• Chikane at AVUS just after Südschleife (southern 180°er) at mid 1990s layout used in DTM series

Powerful DTM cars have just built up speed and on the edge of a knife it was a struggle to carry as much speed through to catch up on the opponent in front since overtake opportunities were a couple of hundred meters ahead of the chikane (as I'm thinking now my mind reckons this chicane is in R3E and possible to race in the 1992 DTM's, right?).

• Chicanes of Alemannenring. Even more extreme than the Avus.

• Chicane Paneta at Autodromo di Pergusa. Speaking the extreme.

Admit I during 80ies and 90ies was a purist and was against any chicanes, and this amplified during the panic safety-year just post the 1994 black weekend (think the intermistic chicane at Raidillon/Eau Rouge that year as most awful example).

Today I enjoy most of them as 'nice obstacles', both as all-in risks in qual sessions, but also in-race to 'keep you awake', especially in endurance racing.

Not regarded as overtake oppourtunities themselves, but maybe to distance you from opponent behind or on the contrary to bridge the gap to opponent in front, with extra heart beeps every time

jgf said:

There are no "great" chicanes, all are abominations. The only exceptions are those designed into the circuit from its inception.

If the excuse is that the cars are too fast, then slow the cars not the track. How do today's cars compare to those of previous years? Who knows, the tracks are all different. Monza is no longer a high speed track, Silverstone is a charter member of the "chicane of the month" club, the flow of Suzuka was absolutely ruined by that wretched Casio Chicane.

Then there are those chicanes added for no other reason than to slow cars in front of a new grandstand, such as that NASCARE abomination at Watkins Glen.

Change the cars and drivers to suit the tracks, stop changing the tracks to showcase the cars.

Click to expand...

The problem is that insurance companies are more scared of high top speeds than high cornering speeds, and people's expectations of what "fast" means are rather different than from decades ago.

Also, if you're a sanctioning body trying to keep a class structure, you may suddenly have to slow down several classes in order for your 2nd- or -3rd-tier category to not suddenly be faster than your premier series.

And they have tried to slow cars down a number of times. The nasty little secret of that is, the most effective way to do it is to make cars more aerodynamically "dirty", intentionally have them produce more drag, but that means more wake turbulance, and so people complain that the cars can't follow one another as easily.

Actually, you can tell with just some fairly basic data that the newer cars in the top classes are generally still getting faster. I mean, if you're still going at a similar speed on a track that in theory should be slower, then it's clear that the cars have become faster.

The current Monza lap record was set in 2020 at a 1:18.887 (164.286 mph). The fastest anyone went in F1 on the un-chicaned road course at Monza was in 1971 at a 1:22.400 (156.102 mph). The Sportscars did manage a 1:21.130 (158.546 mph) in 1973.

Btw, that 164-mph figure is faster than the Sportscars ever managed at the old Spa circuit, which was a 3:12.700 (163.691 mph) in 1973.

As for Silverstone, the fastest they went in F1 on the old layout was in 1973 at a 1:16.300 (138.102 mph). The fastest mph figure at Silverstone was in 1985 with a 1:05.591 (160.925 mph). The benchmark on the current layout is from 2020 at a 1:24.303 (156.592 mph).

The fastest mph figure ever at Le mans was done for Pole in 2017.

And, you know, the layout at Road America hasn't changed since 1955.

What are you even talking about with Watkins Glen? The Inner Loop was added for 1992 in response to 2 crashes in 1991. First, Tommy Kendall crashed at the entry to the Carousel in his Chevy Intrepid GTP in IMSA and smashed up his legs. Then, at that year's NASCAR Cup Series race, J.D. McDuffie died from his injuries when he crashed at the same point.

As for the chicane they had installed in the Esses from the mid 1970s to the early '80s, that was in the wake of Francois Cevert's fatal crash in 1973.

Then you have cases like Sebring, where the authorities wanted the circuit off of the active runways at the airport.

And in the case of old Spa, it was a matter of either fundamentally altering the circuit, or not having a track at all.

I dislike chicanes, they destroy the flow of any track and are just a knee jerk reaction to cars becoming too fast for the tracks. I think that Nascar and Indycar fixed that problem in a better way by using restrictor plates, that way at least you allow the tracks to keep their original flow while improving the safety and still keeping the engine manufacturers capable to differenciate from each other by engineering skill. Chicanes are boring corners.

Taruffi said:

The fastest mph figure ever at Le mans was done for Pole in 2017.

Click to expand...

I know what you meant to say, but today I had to be that annoying person. Actually the fastest speed figure ever at Le Mans was 407km/h (253mph in freedom units) done in 1988. The 2017 pole lap just had the highest average speed.

jgf said:

The corkscrew was part of the initial design of Laguna Seca, not something tacked on years later.

Click to expand...

Just because something is done after the initial design doesn't mean it's right or wrong, it can make it better or worse.
It's a matter of taste, the most for us simracers it should be that the simulation designers integrate the different versions in the choice of circuits, so we have the choice and for them it should not represent a gigantic work compared to all of their jobs, some do it, others don't.
Freedom for (talented!) sim racing drivers
! ;-)

Here's a chicane everyone loves:



RIP in pieces, you will be missed.

Fully understand the negative attitudes here towards chicanes, been there myself.

To me, there are bad chicanes and there are good chicanes.
Some pulling the entire soul out of the track. And some just adding extra spice.

I regard chicanes as a sub-discipline within skills of handling a racing car.

One chicane that really have tickled me for all decades simracing is Variante Alta at Imola. Rarely I have the feeling of a perfect exit.
Though telemetry data and laptimes were OK or at least 'good', I'm 99% of the time left with a horrible feeling of just loosing time all the way down to Rivazza.
Though early brake - fast out helps a bit, the feeling of a spoiled rythm is severely prominent here.
But I got over it, and nowadays I just take it as a challenge as a part of racing skills.

I think Club Chicane at Thruxton is a good example as its braking zone is the primary overtaking spot on the whole circuit and it adds plenty of incident to every race. A kind of iconic corner in the BTCC.

IceColdBeard_24 said:

What about the Wall of Champ chicane in Canada ? or the Kleine Chicane in Zolder where I punctured tyres more times than I ever looked at my phone !

Click to expand...

Thats also been basically ruined with safety regs, the older version is soooo much better!

There is no such thing as a great chicane

But I kind of like the fast one at Zolder, or the one at Donington Park, and the chase as it's apparently considered as a chicane. The fast ones, or at lease with a fast exit, which don't completely kill the speed and require to be on edge to be fast.

Taruffi said:

The problem is that insurance companies are more scared of high top speeds than high cornering speeds, and people's expectations of what "fast" means are rather different than from decades ago.

Also, if you're a sanctioning body trying to keep a class structure, you may suddenly have to slow down several classes in order for your 2nd- or -3rd-tier category to not suddenly be faster than your premier series.

And they have tried to slow cars down a number of times. The nasty little secret of that is, the most effective way to do it is to make cars more aerodynamically "dirty", intentionally have them produce more drag, but that means more wake turbulance, and so people complain that the cars can't follow one another as easily.

Actually, you can tell with just some fairly basic data that the newer cars in the top classes are generally still getting faster. I mean, if you're still going at a similar speed on a track that in theory should be slower, then it's clear that the cars have become faster.

The current Monza lap record was set in 2020 at a 1:18.887 (164.286 mph). The fastest anyone went in F1 on the un-chicaned road course at Monza was in 1971 at a 1:22.400 (156.102 mph). The Sportscars did manage a 1:21.130 (158.546 mph) in 1973.

Btw, that 164-mph figure is faster than the Sportscars ever managed at the old Spa circuit, which was a 3:12.700 (163.691 mph) in 1973.

As for Silverstone, the fastest they went in F1 on the old layout was in 1973 at a 1:16.300 (138.102 mph). The fastest mph figure at Silverstone was in 1985 with a 1:05.591 (160.925 mph). The benchmark on the current layout is from 2020 at a 1:24.303 (156.592 mph).

The fastest mph figure ever at Le mans was done for Pole in 2017.

And, you know, the layout at Road America hasn't changed since 1955.

What are you even talking about with Watkins Glen? The Inner Loop was added for 1992 in response to 2 crashes in 1991. First, Tommy Kendall crashed at the entry to the Carousel in his Chevy Intrepid GTP in IMSA and smashed up his legs. Then, at that year's NASCAR Cup Series race, J.D. McDuffie died from his injuries when he crashed at the same point.

As for the chicane they had installed in the Esses from the mid 1970s to the early '80s, that was in the wake of Francois Cevert's fatal crash in 1973.

Then you have cases like Sebring, where the authorities wanted the circuit off of the active runways at the airport.

And in the case of old Spa, it was a matter of either fundamentally altering the circuit, or not having a track at all.

Click to expand...

I still say leave the tracks alone and slow the cars, then we have a direct comparison of cars over the years. Smaller engines, less downforce, harder tires; quite simple.

McDuffie died when used parts on his suspension broke, not because of poor design of the track. When NASCARE started running at "The Glen" they wanted more grandstands, the easiest place to build was the entrance to that turn, but the cars were quite fast there (by the same logic they should put chicanes at the entrance of T3 at Daytona and Talledega).

You can't blame a section of a track for one death when thousands of laps have been turned there by hundreds of drivers with no problems. But there was a time when teams and cars and drivers were expected to adapt to the various tracks during a season, the mindset now is to "tweak" all the tracks so the cars and drivers look good there. Dumbing down the sport.

That modern cars are faster at these circuits is irrelevant, I would be surprised if they weren't; but what times would they be running in the original circuits? Speed isn't the issue, it is the flow of the track. Monza is a pale shadow of its former self, Silverstone looks like an overgrown karting track. Tracks with chicanes tacked on are like listening to a piece of music with a skip in the recording.

If the Senna S's at Montréal count, I'm down all day, everyday. That offcamber, blind, rising, throttle-daring T2 is pure gold.

I find a certain irony that this article about chicanes was published immediately after an article about Enna Pergusa, a track that's basically a circle around a lake with some highly questionable chicanes (some that are more or less only defined by tyre barriers)

THAT last section of Portland raceway track
it gives me goosebumps right now
but I love chicanes
I even love that notorious snail chicane of Miami GP
does anyone else ?

Portland 2022 pole
chicane is right at the start

jgf said:

I still say leave the tracks alone and slow the cars, then we have a direct comparison of cars over the years. Smaller engines, less downforce, harder tires; quite simple.

McDuffie died when used parts on his suspension broke, not because of poor design of the track. When NASCARE started running at "The Glen" they wanted more grandstands, the easiest place to build was the entrance to that turn, but the cars were quite fast there (by the same logic they should put chicanes at the entrance of T3 at Daytona and Talledega).

You can't blame a section of a track for one death when thousands of laps have been turned there by hundreds of drivers with no problems. But there was a time when teams and cars and drivers were expected to adapt to the various tracks during a season, the mindset now is to "tweak" all the tracks so the cars and drivers look good there. Dumbing down the sport.

That modern cars are faster at these circuits is irrelevant, I would be surprised if they weren't; but what times would they be running in the original circuits? Speed isn't the issue, it is the flow of the track. Monza is a pale shadow of its former self, Silverstone looks like an overgrown karting track. Tracks with chicanes tacked on are like listening to a piece of music with a skip in the recording.

Click to expand...

They are running smaller engines, though often with turbos. Smaller engines can do more now anyway than used to be the case. They are running less downforce, but with the penalty of more drag in how the rules are mandating downforce be reduced. So you want them to manipulate tires, just in a different way? It's not as blatant as, say, DRS, I guess, but couldn't that, too, be considered another gimmick in and of itself? And why would the tire companies want to make themselves look bad?

Grandstands had nothing to do with it They added chicanes at Imola after Ratzenberger and Senna died (1994). They added chicanes, at least temporarily, to a bunch of circuits after Senna died. They added a chicane at the Osterreichring after Donohue died (1975). As I already noted, they added one at Watkins Glen even earlier after Cevert died (1973). F1 started running the short course at Paul Ricard after de Angelis died in a testing crash (1986). They lopped a few hundred meters off the hairpin at Buenos Aires after Giunti died (1971). F1 left the Nordschliefe forever after Lauda almost died (1976). F1 left old Spa forever, even though the circuit repaved, built a separated pit lane, and reintroduced the Malmedy chicane (1970). I suspect the Sportscars started using the chicanes at Monza at least in part due to Jarno Saarinen's death (1973). The Dunlop Chicane at Le mans was added due to the Motorcycles (1987). The major Argentine series abandoned Balcarce after Falaschi died (2011). And I know there are more examples, spanning several decades.

Anyway, it's a far better reason to make modifications than just pure politics, like the chicanes that were added at Monza and Montlhery in the 1930s to try to slow down the German cars. Likewise with car classes, such as the Italians making the Tripoli Grand Prix for Voiturettes, instead of full-blown GP cars, for 1939; Mercedes-Benz surprised everyone anyway by showing up with their W165s and stomping the field. And of course, there's the infamous case of the FIA and FOM vs the old WSC, and chicaning the Mulsanne and forcing Group C to run to the 3.5-liter formula to kill it off so it couldn't become a "threat" to F1.

Most probably, the greatest pressure for restrictor plates in NASCAR, and slowing the top speeds of those cars at other tracks, like Michigan and Pocono, came from the insurance companies. On another forum, there was a fellow who did club racing in Puerto Rico. They had a bad accident at one of their venues, and never went back, because the insurance went from $1,500 to $25,000, and they simply couldn't afford it anymore. And this year's Motorcycle Road Racing season almost didn't happen. The insurance companies got hammered by the Pandemic, so they tripled their rates. If a crowdfunding campaign hadn't raised the requisite 90,000 Euro, there was going to be no Isle of Man, Ulster GP, etc this year. And might I add, insurance requirements are often backed by force of law in the locality, state/region, and/or country where the event is to take place.

And again, the perceptions of the observers of the events matter, too, if you want them to be a commercial success. Nobody's going to be impressed by lap times or speeds that haven't improved in 50 years. And most people don't take the deep dive into the technical side of things that we do; they just don't care. And an essential part of what made those earlier eras of racing so appealing was the ongoing innovations, not that they were artificially stuck at one point and just held back to there. (And many of those innovations tended to be visually obvious enough that even the layperson could see them.)

Anyway, crash protection requirements mean we'll never again see cars that look quite like a Lotus 49 or 98T, or a Porsche 917 or 956/962. And I can just see it now, the people who bitch about wanting wingless cars and front-engined roadsters back at Indy in particular, moaning that the new ones are "ugly", because they have these "pudgy" sidepods, because they're required to protect the drivers from side impacts.

Not to mention, I can just about bet, if you tried going way back on downforce, and therefore much longer braking distances, the insurance companies would demand even larger run-off areas at slower corners. Also, again, you'll never get the insurance companies to sign off on the cigar racers of the '60s, because those things would roll and tumble a long-ass ways, due to being aerodyanically neutral, and therefore unstable. An arrow fired from a bow has the fletching for a reason, to intentionally produce drag so that the pointy end gets to the target first.

All those accidents, and deaths, were caused by the drivers and cars, not by the tracks themselves. So change the source of the problem and stop blaming the tracks. Thousands of people die in highway accidents every year, will changing the highways alter that? No. Teach people to drive (futile, hence we are getting autonomous cars ...I don't trust a computer driving a car either).

BTW, 40 drivers have died at Daytona and 70 at IMS, no one is lobbying to alter those tracks.

jgf said:

All those accidents, and deaths, were caused by the drivers and cars, not by the tracks themselves. So change the source of the problem and stop blaming the tracks. Thousands of people die in highway accidents every year, will changing the highways alter that? No. Teach people to drive (futile, hence we are getting autonomous cars ...I don't trust a computer driving a car either).

BTW, 40 drivers have died at Daytona and 70 at IMS, no one is lobbying to alter those tracks.

Click to expand...

Tracks have changed a lot apart from just modifying the layouts. Better race control and medical facilities, newer types of barriers, larger run-offs and different kind of surfaces or retardation systems, and on and on the list could go. Are you against pit lane speed limits, too?

I'm not saying I like chicanes, or paved run-offs, but there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell, as a practical matter, that F1 was going to stay at old Spa or the Nordschleife. Many tracks I'm sure had to change because they could see the writing on the wall, that either they changed or couldn't get insured anymore, or would just plain be sued into bankruptcy, at which point, they'd cease to exist altogether, now wouldn't they?

Indy and Daytona have long since had enough money that their owners could probably get special dispensation for their facilities, to say nothing of the favors granted by the sheer notoriety of the Indy and Daytona 500s. (Some of it's probably merely down to the fact they just so happen to be in the US.) That's a luxury the vast majority of tracks don't have. And F1's kind of been screwing itself here with its "business?" model, by even putting great, traditional venues at financial risk, despite their fame and history.

Also, they're not going to slow the cars down beyond a point, because the TV broadcasters aren't going to like that. NBC expressly dropped a number of their ota network broadcasts of NASCAR (for crying out loud) over the sanctioning body not guaranteeing that its races would fit within a particular, limited window of time.

I really like the big double chicane at Watkins Glen. Doing quite some LFM Rookie Races there this week in ACC, it's the most exciting moment of the lap, when you enter the braking zone side by side, sometimes 3 or even 4 wide!
99% of the time it went well, amazing.

It's the thrill of who dares to brake later and whether or not that one will make it through or lose time.

The good thing is that if you're careful and both brake earlier than usually, you can even go completely side by side through the whole section!

I don't know if this is an ACC "fail" or semi-realistic, but there are 2 massive issues though:

1) the red, I guess water filled "barrier" blocks in the infield are 100% solid in ACC. Flying straight across the chicane will instantly kill your car without hope.
I guess in reality, they only slow you down so you won't fly into traffic if your brakes fail or whatever.
I really don't get this. ACC has a pretty good cut detection system and semi-solid objects for brake markers.

2) if you go onto the right at the second part, visually everything is smooth, but there are physical bumps that shoot your whole car into the air and throw you into traffic/barriers even when just rolling straight at reduced speeds.
This ruins a lot of races for multiple drivers since you can't anticipate where that car will be spit out at.

hermann tilkes made tracks has no good chicanes or corners. he shouldnt desing any tracks

HELLA-LICHT at the old Osterreich Rennstrecke. One of the few chicanes that you don't see until you actually are going thru them.