Tracks - Hilly or Flat, which do like most ?

[bsmooth]

I myself don't care for flat tracks with no elevation change. I'm not saying there bad tracks, but theres just something missing. I'm not saying they need mountains, but just small rises or dips.
Two perfect examples are Monza or Watkins Glen, no huge elevation changes, but it does add some variety. Mosport is another good example.
Plus I think it helps remember the track easier as well.
What do you think ?

 

[ouvert]

elevations FTW .. but good old school flat track with fast coreners in right car is nice too (historic hockenheim in 70s F1 for example)

 

[RobertR1]

Elevation change adds a whole new dynamic to driving. No flat tracks for me.

 

[Ryno917]

Monza and (fictional) Mills Metropark are the only flat tracks I can think of off the top of my head that I enjoy driving.

 

[Richard Dastardly]

Croft, Thruxton, 80s Silverstone with the Woodcote chicane, Oschersleben, Sebring ( the rF2 one at least ) even Norisring on occasion - they're flat courses I kinda like. Generally prefer elevation changes too, but I just like a track if I find it fun. I hate Portimao for instance, and that's a bit of a rollercoaster.

 

[LilSki]

Hate flat courses as you can probably tell from my previous track projects.

 

[Derrell Biffle]

Elevation is what make tracks like Spa and Laguna Seca so special IMHO. The hills at RIR are what make that track one of my favorites of all time.

 

[guidofoc]

Among the official AC tracks I cannot remember perfectly flat ones, certainly Monza and Silverstone are not.. skiing resorts . I have had great races there though, so it's hard to say. Overall I love elevation changes, crests, dips, road camber. I have found out that with a realistic FOV they are much more noticeable and enjoyable.

 

[Hal Burns]

I have a difficult time with flat tracks like Indianapolis, Lausitzring and Sebring....I just can't see the corners unless I'm following another car...I much prefer Brands, Glen, Spa, etc., ( and Bridgehampton, thank you Lilski...)
Having said that, I have had excellent races on all the aforementioned flat tracks....you have to memorize the track rather than see it and in the heat of the race you forget the lack of features and just get on with it......

 

[CobraCat]

For me it's all about the elevation changes. Feldbergring, LA Canyons, Bridgehampton, Transfagarasan, Trento Bondone, Krajiska Zmija, Sonoma, Suzuka, VIR, Road Atlanta, Barber Motorsports Park, etc.



I do enjoy the shorter Hockenheim layout as well as Glava Zete and Sebring, all of which are quite flat. I would really like to see more real world roads like LA Canyons, I find them more satisfying to drive than most race tracks, perhaps because it immediately relates to my everyday driving.

A moddable driving sim with real world , curvy and hilly roads is high on my list. Something akin to the massive environment truck simulators, with a focus on manual shift sports cars.

 

[Mascot]

I like quite a few flat tracks, but every single one of them would be vastly improved by some undulations and elevation changes.

 

[Tberg]

If you start counting, the majority of popular tracks aren't flat.

 

[Fat-Alfie]

Elevation is paramount for me. I would race on a flat track if I had to, but I wouldn't even consider making a track with no elevation changes (see Bilster Berg, Thomson Road, Feldbergring, Deutschlandring, Clermont Ferrand, Battenbergring, plus others)

 

[Tbear]

I remember back in 1969 when Circuit Paul Ricard was built out of a desperate panic to try and stop the deaths in F1. Almost as flat and featureless as some of the girls I dated in High School, most racers at the time disliked the track and called it "Mickey Mouse", to describe the artificial feel of the place. But such tracks did save lives, I suppose.

Sports car racing was called "road racing" at one time. Most races (and parts of race circuits) especially in Europe, actually went some place ... think of the Circuit de la Sarthe (Lemans), the Mille Miglia, the Carrera Panamericana, the Targa Florio, among others. But a LOT of people died at those events, so in the 1950's smaller closed circuits, like Road America, Bridgehampton and others got built. These tracks followed the lay of the land, more than less, and provided some very interesting, if only marginally safer racing. I definitely don't want to see anybody get hurt but, as a driver, I prefer the natural sort of tracks over the flat, poured-concrete palaces.

 

[bsmooth]

Hal has a real good point, If your racing other cars you just naturally follow them and If its a flatter track it makes it much easier, where If you can see ahead by following the hills and dips its much easier.
Bridgehampton is a great track, but trying to remember where everything is, can be difficult at best, but its not exactly flat, but there are a lot of blind corners.
The Ring on the other hand is soo long and has so many turns, but for some reason is possible to remember all the turns and bumps easier. Then again I've been on it so many times maybe its just repetition.
My favorite tracks are the old Spa, Watkins Glen, Road America,Mid-Ohio, Lime Rock(short, but tough to master) and of course Monza.

 

[Ghoults]

I like elevations but a flat track can be fun too. Personally I like street circuits the most. Typically street circuits don't have so many elevation changes but the road surface has all kinds of bumps and cambers. Things I don't like are blind corners and fast chicanes. The less you have those two the better the track. Although I don't mind some blind corners if they flow nicely.

A track like cadwell is fun and you are constantly going up and down. It's more like roller coaster than a race track. But I think a track like thruxton is great fun track too even as a relatively flat one (literally). Mosport is great track as well and has lots of elevations whereas road america is more flat it is still fun too. A flat track like abu dhabi is of course just horrible but it is all down to the chicanes and generally awful track design. Fuji f1 track also has some elevations but I don't really find it that fun. Motegi on the other hand is much more flatter but also much more fun to drive. And there are some guilty pleasures like the indianapolis road course which I think is fantastic even if it is totally and I mean totally flat like a pancake.

Then there are some tracks with elevations that I just don't really at all. Laguna seca is a track I've never liked. Corkscrew is just a glorified chicane! Circuit of the americas is also another I don't really care for. Feels too artificial and lots of the corners feel more like dead ends than curves. Barber is another I don't like so much and brands hatch doesn't do anything for me either. I'd much rather drive suzuka, vir or road atlanta. All great tracks.

Bathurst is great and has enough elevations for 10 tracks but it is also very challenging track. Sears point is another track with lots of elevation but it just doesn't feel that good to drive. Lots of blind corners and the elevations feel more like they exist to catch you out than to make the track more fun to drive. Homestead roval is a track I like even if it is completely flat. I like the new silverstone as well even if it doesn't have any elevations. But zandvoort and oulton park are also great and both have nice elevations.

I don't think I can say that elevations really make or break a track. Would a flat track like thruxton, indy road course or homestead roval be better with more elevations? Probably. But imho then you are already making a good track better. At the same time you can add all the elevations you want to a track like abu dhabi and it will stay crap. But what if you took a track with lots of elevations and made it flat? Would a totally flat nordscleife be any fun? I doubt it. I'd guess my answer is: it depends...

 

[Richard Dastardly]

Would a totally flat nordscleife be any fun?

I think it would - it's still a series of not terribly slow corners, mostly. Not remotely as fun as it actually is, of course. What we think of as flat circuits are rarely completely flat which does add a little - Thruxton for instance is noticeably downhill all the way into the fastest corner & then uphill into the final chicane.

Agreed about Laguna, never really liked it. Then again I like fast flowing tracks and Laguna is a series of not especially quick right angles with a chicane & a 180. And before everyone jumps up and down, just my opinion.

 

[Stereo]

Bridgehampton only has one really blind corner, the first one. The rest of them you can see the next part of the corner but not the entire corner. But that first corner, oh boy. You have to brake and turn in before you can see the corner at all in some cars.

Not in AC as such but Lime Rock has some really fun elevation changes.

 

[Tberg]

Funny how US tracks are about blind corners, most non-US tracks not.
I have my favorites for trackday/hotlapping, but a lot of less popular tracks come to life only when raced. Few more tracks need the right type of car, being either a fast F1 or a classic boaty one.

 

[Mascot]

A report from The Ministry Of The Bleedin' Obvious:

In addition to normal braking and acceleration forces, the road surface on flat tracks is only inducing suspension compression and weight transfer laterally under cornering, whereas changes in elevation will also have active longitudinal compression effects (which is experienced on both flat and undulating roads). There's effectively a multiplier being applied on undulating roads that constantly changes depending on the gradient of the track and speed of the vehicle, which needs factoring into the driver's inputs. This is entirely lacking on flat roads. Ergo, undulating roads will always be more interesting to drive and anyone who disagrees is obviously a closet flat-earther.

That'll be £5 please.