I think you're talking about a "chicane", which is basically a tight
s-turn.
From Merrian Webster online dictionary (www.m-w.com)
chicane
2b : a series of tight turns in opposite directions in an otherwise
straight
stretch of a road-racing course
--KC
In answer to your query, anyway, a chicane is basically a short, tight
S-bend in, with a straight either side. Slows the cars down and can
lead to "closer" racing, but not always "better" racing.
Of course, a chicane is not always a bad thing - many of them add
extra, exhilirating challenges to a circuit (Eau Rouge at Spa, for
example), but badly positioned or designed, they can really***up a
good race track.
DG
-Gregor
> Of course, a chicane is not always a bad thing - many of them add
> extra, exhilirating challenges to a circuit (Eau Rouge at Spa, for
> example), but badly positioned or designed, they can really***up a
> good race track.
> DG
>>I was watching some races on Speedvisions and was wondering if there
>>was a site that could teach me some of the terminology. What is a
>>"shacane"? I assume a corner or turn since it's gets mentioned when
>>cars are going around them.
>Chicane..
>A series of back-and-forth curves that are one after the other:
www.GasolineAlleyOnline.net
Under "For The Fan" you will find Racing Terminology
Hope this helps
Mike
A truer example would be the Retifillo, before the Curva Grande at
Monza. It's needless and just creates problems which, I believe, would
not occur if the Curva Grande were just left alone. And now they've
gone put ANOTHER chicane in there - and we all saw the tragic results
of that this past year (I must say i'm basing this on my experiences
in GPL vs. watching modern F1 and racing modern F1 sims - so it's not
a really informed opinion. Just my thoughts).
DG
The best way is probably to make a safe track without chicanes from
the beginning, like A1-ring for instance. Monza on the other has a
traditional value and there's an interest for keeping as much as the
track as possible. So I don't really know what should be done to keep
the general track layout, but keeping the speeds down. Hockenheim is
facing similar problems, but it may be getting the complete
retailoring a'la ?sterreichring/A1-ring. Sad really... I'd take the
chicanes any day.
The big difference is that GPL-style racing was VERY DANGEROUS. When
aero hit it big in the 70's it was even moreso. The changes just had
to come. It's not as if monza was the safest track on the planet with
_no_ chicanes, rather quite the opposite.
I often feel queezy when I see romanticizing writings about the
"valiant knights of the road" of yester years that is so common around
here. As if they were sacrificing themselves for our sake or some
greater cause, like some f**n martyrs or something. :-(
All things equal I would want Ronnie, Ayrton, Jimmie, Gilles and all
the others zipping around in some reunion today than marvel at the
memory of the risks they were taking. Jackie Stewart should be
commended for seeing that it wasn't needed to be that way. It makes
him even greater(if such a thing is possible!) than he already is,
IMHO.
/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -40.33
--
Go Rusty, and Dale, and Dale, and Dale!
<snip>
<snip>
True dat!
Chris
For sure the racing pre-Big Money seemed to have a spirit missing today (the
same could be said of many sports). It was not the lack of safety that
created that spirit. I think that's sometimes forgotten in a haze of fond
memories.
Ben....who wasn't there to see for himself
>>A truer example would be the Retifillo, before the Curva Grande at
>>Monza. It's needless and just creates problems which, I believe, would
>>not occur if the Curva Grande were just left alone.
>Even though I hate chicanes as much as the next person, I *really*
>don't think entering Curva Grande at 360kph+ would be such an hot
>idea.
>The best way is probably to make a safe track without chicanes from
>the beginning, like A1-ring for instance. Monza on the other has a
>traditional value and there's an interest for keeping as much as the
>track as possible. So I don't really know what should be done to keep
>the general track layout, but keeping the speeds down. Hockenheim is
>facing similar problems, but it may be getting the complete
>retailoring a'la ?sterreichring/A1-ring. Sad really... I'd take the
>chicanes any day.
>> And now they've
>>gone put ANOTHER chicane in there - and we all saw the tragic results
>>of that this past year (I must say i'm basing this on my experiences
>>in GPL vs. watching modern F1 and racing modern F1 sims - so it's not
>>a really informed opinion. Just my thoughts).
>The big difference is that GPL-style racing was VERY DANGEROUS. When
>aero hit it big in the 70's it was even moreso. The changes just had
>to come. It's not as if monza was the safest track on the planet with
>_no_ chicanes, rather quite the opposite.
>I often feel queezy when I see romanticizing writings about the
>"valiant knights of the road" of yester years that is so common around
>here. As if they were sacrificing themselves for our sake or some
>greater cause, like some f**n martyrs or something. :-(
>All things equal I would want Ronnie, Ayrton, Jimmie, Gilles and all
>the others zipping around in some reunion today than marvel at the
>memory of the risks they were taking. Jackie Stewart should be
>commended for seeing that it wasn't needed to be that way. It makes
>him even greater(if such a thing is possible!) than he already is,
>IMHO.
>/Magnus
>GPLRank hcp: -40.33
>>A truer example would be the Retifillo, before the Curva Grande at
>>Monza. It's needless and just creates problems which, I believe, would
>>not occur if the Curva Grande were just left alone.
>Even though I hate chicanes as much as the next person, I *really*
>don't think entering Curva Grande at 360kph+ would be such an hot
>idea.
So i've heard. I LIKE the Hock' (it cops some abuse, but I don't care,
I like it :-) and that is one track where I believe chicanes do
actually make for better racing (otherwise, may as well go drive a
NASCAR circuit). I'd hate to see it decimated by the proposed overhaul
i've seen - far too Bernie, far too... too.... short, or something. I
don't know, I just don't want them to change it's essential character.
Point taken. However, these days the emphasis seems to be on
maximising the amount of space available to sell advertising space,
rather than creating a good race track. So when 'safety changes' are
made, I get a little suspiscious, if not downright pissed off, because
half the time safety has nothing to do with it. Back to Monza - is the
double chicane before the Curva Grande any safer than the single
chicane as in '99? Or does it just allow for a few more billboards,
and some logos on the grass? I'm sure it hasn't improved safety any,
in any case...
Here I agree with you 100%. We all look back with nostalgia, and those
guys must have had iron balls to do what they did - but lets not get
carried away. They were race drivers, not Battle of Britain fighter
pilots. Mourn them, don't canonise them.
They did, though, die doing what they loved. We all have to go some
time - wouldn't you rather go like that than having a heart attack on
the toilet?
Point taken and agreed too, although.... do you think they'd be the
legends they now are, had they not died on the track?
(Just a discussion point, not an argument starter, so please don't
take me the wrong way).
DG
>But what would kill the Parabolica, and change completely the whole
>grandstand position situation. Chicanes are there also for the business, to
>pack up the most people possible there with the result of possible passing
>zone created with it.
Politics? In F1? In Italy? Surely you jest? ;-)
Still not far enough away to prevent debris from flying off and
hitting a fire marshall... may he Rest In Peace.
Maybe the incresed distance actually cotributed to that?
Well whatever the case.... the Curva Grande chicane needs to be
re-examined until it's got right, I guess.
But don't ask me, I just watch the sport and play the sims :-)
DG