Championship Formula Racing
HomeThe GameFinding a RaceCommunity
Tracks

Tracks

Below is a list of all of the tracks that I have developed, roughly grouped by style, and defined with some metrics. Stylistic groupings are something that I'm constantly tweaking but this represents my current thinking. For consistency, I've standardized the name of all tracks based on their locations (city/country). Tracks themselves and the FIA have been inconsistent over the years about what a track / grand prix is called.

Many tracks have changed layouts over the years. The year that a particular layout was first run is noted.

If you are interested in a detailed description of how I build tracks I wrote three posts on my blog describing my process:

  1. Preparing to Build a New Track
  2. Turning Research Into a New Track
  3. Testing, Testing, Testing A New Track

Key: L = length, 3w = 3-wide, C = corners, L/C = length / corner

 
Red Tracks
  Location 1st Year L 3w C L/C Score Q: F | M | B SS: F | M | S Sample: Q | SS
  Mogyoród, Hungary 2003 63 38% 9 7.0 -5.10 9.8 | 4.8 | 5.1 9.5 | 5.5 | 2.8 4 | 3
  Nürburg, Germany 2002 74 31% 8 9.3 -5.69 9.9 | 6.6 | 4.7 11.4 | 6.1 | 5.3 11 | 11
  Barcelona, Spain 2007 60 40% 8 7.5 -4.13 8.7 | 7.3 | 5.7 9.6 | 5.9 | 3.2 6 | 4
  Indianapolis, USA 2000 61 67% 9 6.8 -3.82 9.6 | 6.2 | 3.9 8.0 | 6.6 | 3.4 4 | 4
  Singapore 2008 73 21% 11 6.6 -3.43 10.0 | 5.8 | 6.3 8.3 | 7.1 | 7.2 6 | 5
  Francorchamps, Belgium 2007 97 61% 9 10.8 -4.38 10.1 | 6.1 | 5.0 9.6 | 8.3 | 6.2 11 | 7
  Francorchamps, Belgium 1985 97 60% 9 10.8 -- 12.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 14.7 | 6.0 | 6.7 1 | 1
  Silverstone, UK 1997 74 35% 8 9.3 -2.85 10.7 | 6.2 | 7.0 13.0 | 5.2 | na 3 | 1
  Monte Carlo 1986 51 45% 7 7.3 -2.75 7.7 | 10.2 | 5.2 11.1 | 6.1 | 12.8 6 | 3
  Imola, Italy 1995 74 24% 9 8.2 -2.64 8.9 | 6.6 | 13.5 3.6 | 11.9 | 12.0 2 | 2
 
Yellow Tracks
  Location 1st Year L 3w C L/C Score Q: F | M | B SS: F | M | S Sample: Q | SS
  São Paulo, Brazil 1990 67 46% 8 8.4 -2.38 8.1 | 6.3 | 5.2 10.2 | 5.6 | 6.8 7 | 5
  Sakhir, Bahrain 2004 80 51% 8 10.0 -2.35 10.6 | 6.1 | 3.1 11.9 | 6.4 | 4.7 4 | 4
  Suzuka, Japan 2003 83 18% 8 10.4 -2.03 8.0 | 6.7 | 6.4 9.7 | 5.6 | 3.0 5 | 2
  Montreal, Canada 1996 65 65% 7 9.3 -2.57 9.5 | 6.2 | 6.4 10.0 | 6.2 | 8.0 13 | 13
  Estoril, Portugal 1984 65 55% 7 9.3 -1.59 8.9 | 5.3 | 7.3 8.1 | 6.0 | 9.3 4 | 4
  Istanbul, Turkey 2005 76 47% 8 9.5 -1.27 9.5 | 6.2 | 4.5 3.0 | 7.4 | 6.0 8 | 6
  Spielberg, Austria 1997 63 38% 7 9.0 -1.53 10.3 | 7.2 | 8.7 9.1 | 9.0 | 7.7 12 | 12
  Melbourne, Australia 1996 76 42% 8 9.5 -1.05 8.9 | 8.1 | 8.0 8.7 | 8.2 | 7.5 9 | 7
  Silverstone, UK 2011 84 55% 9 9.3 -1.05 9.3 | 5.0 | 5.6 8.5 | 7.4 | 3.8 3 | 3
  Silverstone, UK 2010 84 55% 9 9.3 -- -- -- 0 | 0
 
Green Tracks
  Location 1st Year L 3w C L/C Score Q: F | M | B SS: F | M | S Sample: Q | SS
  Yeongam, Korea 2010 82 48% 8 10.3 -0.35 8.4 | 7.2 | 8.6 11.1 | 7.9 | 6.8 5 | 4
  Greater Noida, India 2011 73 62% 9 8.1 -0.32 -- -- 0 | 0
  Valencia, Spain 2008 77 31% 8 9.6 -0.13 7.1 | 5.9 | 7.7 na | 11.0 | 10.6 4 | 1
  Mexico City 2015 63 71% 8 7.9 -0.02 6.3 | 7.0 | 6.5 5.5 | 6.3 | 8.6 3 | 3
  Abu Dhabi, UAE 2009 80 65% 8 10.0 0.00 8.4 | 6.9 | 6.4 9.7 | 6.3 | 9.3 6 | 4
  Oyama, Japan 1976 60 75% 5 12.0 0.04 10.0 | 5.4 | 11.0 9.6 | 9.0 | 8.1 8 | 8
  Austin, US 2012 80 79% 9 8.9 0.07 6.8 | 6.4 | 7.1 7.9 | 6.2 | 6.4 7 | 7
  Hockenheim, Germany 2002 68 75% 7 9.7 0.65 7.2 | 6.7 | 6.6 5.8 | 7.0 | 7.9 6 | 4
  Monza, Italy 2000 81 56% 6 13.5 0.75 8.6 | 6.9 | 7.0 10.7 | 6.7 | 7.4 4 | 2
 
Blue Tracks
  Location 1st Year L 3w C L/C Score Q: F | M | B SS: F | M | S Sample: Q | SS
  Sepang, Malaysia 1999 82 59% 8 10.3 2.76 7.4 | 6.7 | 8.3 5.5 | 7.8 | 10.5 12 | 10
  Sepang, Malaysia 2016 82 59% 8 10.3 -- 8.3 | 9.0 | 3.5 -- 1 | 0
 
Purple Tracks
  Location 1st Year L 3w C L/C Score Q: F | M | B SS: F | M | S Sample: Q | SS
  Baku, Azerbaijan 2016 86 70% 10 8.6 2.57 8.8 | 9.9 | 9.5 7.0 | 8.6 | 11.9 7 | 7
  Francorchamps, Belgium 1983 97 60% 9 10.8 3.18 10.8 | 9.5 | 5.5 4.0 | 12.2 | na 1 | 1
  Castellet, France 1971 83 71% 7 11.9 3.69 6.2 | 8.6 | 6.3 6.0 | 6.8 | 8.1 4 | 4
  Sochi, Russia 2014 83 100% 8 10.4 3.70 5.8 | 5.5 | 6.8 2.0 | 6.3 | 8.3 1 | 1
  Shanghai, China 2004 80 78% 7 11.4 4.01 4.0 | 9.3 | 11.0 na | 6.6 | 11.0 1 | 1
 
Medians
  L 3w C L/C Results | Blended Q: F | M | B SS: F | M | S
  Median Track 76 55% 8 9.5 -1.62 | -0.70 8.9 | 6.6 | 6.4 8.9 | 6.7 | 7.4

Track Measurements:
None of these measures means a lot by themselves, but together I think they provide a decent picture of what kind of track you are looking at. When I have 10 or more races of results data, the score is based completely on results. Otherwise, it is a blend of results and track profile.

  • Track Profile
    • length: total spaces the shortest way around the track. By itself this is probably only a decent indication of how long it will take to play on the track. On a track-by-track basis, one space converts to about 0.07 km, 0.04 miles, or 76 yards.
    • 3-wide: percentage of the track that is 3-wide as opposed to 2-wide. Less 3-wide track will generally makes it harder to pass.
    • corners: the number of corners. Not all corners are created equal, but generally more corners will demand more wear.
    • length/corners: length divided by corners. A very good indicated of how tight a track is. "Tight" meaning that a track generally packs more corners into less space which typically makes for a particular kind of track.
    • medium straights: medium straights are defined as being 10 or 15 spaces long. Medium straights will likely get a car to its top speed for at least a turn.
    • long straights: long straights are defined as being 16 or more spaces long. Cars can spend multiple turns at top speed on a long straight.
  • Score
    • At sample size 10, the score is based completely on results data. At sample size 0, the score is based completely on track profile data. At sample size 4 the score is 40% results data and 60% track profile.
    • In theory, a score indicates how many points you gain or lose based on the strategic choice to race from the front or back. -2 means that you will score about 2 points more if you race from the front than if you race from the back. A score of +1 would mean that you should expect to score 1 more point racing from the back than if you raced from the front.
    • This tends to be more true for tracks that are based more on results data.
    • On the other hand, tracks that are based completely on results data may look like they are out of order. That is because the tracks are grouped based on Standard Deviation from 0 and pure results data seems to be more swingey than the blended scores.
    • The 1985 Francorchamps and 2010 Silverstone tracks are so similar to other versions of the same tracks, that I do not give them unique scores. Until I have more results data, I will assume that they will end up with the same score as their similar cousin.
  • Results Data
    • Q: F | M | B: Qualifying data. Average points scored by a car that started in the (F)ront 2 row, (M)iddle 2 rows, and (B)ack 2 rows.
    • SS: F | M | S: Start Speed data. Average points scored by a car that has a (F)ast Start Speed (100 or 120), (M)iddle Start Speed (60), and (S)low Start Speed (20).
    • Sample: Q | SS: Number of races where I have data related to (Q)ualifying position and (S)tart (S)peed. There are a few tracks where I do not have any Start Speed related data for one of the three groups and so that grouping is marked "na."

Lucid Phoenix Games