2013 Belgian GP - Spa

[turbof1]

The thing is, chicane doesn't have one single, clear cut definition. It's actually a vague meaning, and very subjective. So ask yourself this: what do you think is the general accepted definition?

I did a quick search query at google, randomly picking out a few dozen links. Most of them deviated from eachother in the details, but several key elements repeated quite alot (race circuit only):
-follows from a long straight
-used to slow cars down
-2 contrary-hooked corners.

Interestingly, and I took them at random, none of them made mention of number of apexes, at which speed you travel through them, etc.

Repeating my first sentence, it isn't a strictly defined object.

Personally I would call Fagnes something inbetween chicanes and esses. It does fit the above criteria to be a chicane, but it's remarkably fast. Another thing to mention is that before the V8's came in 2006, they entered both les combes and fagnes at a slowed down pace, but had to slown even more down turning in the second corner. I rewatched Button's qualy lap, and he entered both first corners slowed down, but accelerates a tiny bit again through the second ones.

[SectorOne]

1) The fact that one use in the past has been to slow things down does not imply that that's the use here.
2) Slow down does not mean "slow". It's entirely possible to have a 180mph corner that slows an F1 car down (from 200mph).

It´s still to this day used to slow cars down, you see it in Singapore where they have this triple chicane designed for the purpose of slowing cars down.

Just like T1 and T3 at Monza the sole purpose is to slow the car down, Ascari is a different beast altogether.
It doesn´t do any of it.

And only you have claimed it is not. By that sample, twice as many believe it to be a chicane as don't. Of course this is an irrelevant anecdote, so lets stick to the reasoned arguments.

Yea because you essentially are saying "prove to me god doesn´t exist"
In the same way you are saying "prove to me these are not chicanes" when it´s really up to you to prove they are in fact chicanes.
I can understand the argument with Les Combes to an extent but Fagnes? It´s just unheard of really.
It´s the first time in my life i have ever heard anyone saying Fagnes is a chicane.
Just because a right hander and a left hander is connected doesn´t automatically mean it´s a chicane.

Buth T13-14 and T15-16 are chicanes.

It´s really not, you have one before the Esse and one after. Both of those slow the car down.
The Esse does the exact opposite.

Interesting that you agree about turn 8/9 at Canada. It's geometry is very similar to Fanges at Spa. The entry is minutely tighter, but other than that, they're taken at the same speed, they have the same radius, and are the same size.

Canada have what i would call textbook chicanes, straight-left-right-straight.
SPA is a pure track design. You would not be able to create a fast bend there, as i said, look at the outside of Les Combes.
it´s just not possible.
With Canada you could draw faster line through no problem but the speeds would be too high, this is why chicanes are in place.

Variante Ascari at Monza.

Again, interesting – again, about the same speed, radius and size as Turn 8/9 at Canada.

Different tracks. Compare the speed to the two actual chicanes on Monza instead.
It´s simply not a chicane. It´s an Esse that starts out tight then expands rapidly.

Uhhh no, turn 5 is a long left hander. There's a short straight between it and turn 6/7 which is a chicane.

Did you watch the onboard?
Turn 5 and 6 is one big left hander. Turn 7 is where it opens up.

[beelsebob]

1) The fact that one use in the past has been to slow things down does not imply that that's the use here.
2) Slow down does not mean "slow". It's entirely possible to have a 180mph corner that slows an F1 car down (from 200mph).

It´s still to this day used to slow cars down, you see it in Singapore where they have this triple chicane designed for the purpose of slowing cars down.

Actually, the purpose there was to move the cars away from the building behind the chicane.

Just like T1 and T3 at Monza the sole purpose is to slow the car down, Ascari is a different beast altogether.
It doesn´t do any of it.

Actually, it does, it slows the car from about 210mph to 160ish. Same with Fanges (though the cars are only doing about 200 before hand).

And only you have claimed it is not. By that sample, twice as many believe it to be a chicane as don't. Of course this is an irrelevant anecdote, so lets stick to the reasoned arguments.

Yea because you essentially are saying "prove to me god doesn´t exist"
In the same way you are saying "prove to me these are not chicanes" when it´s really up to you to prove they are in fact chicanes.
I can understand the argument with Les Combes to an extent but Fagnes? It´s just unheard of really.
It´s the first time in my life i have ever heard anyone saying Fagnes is a chicane.
Just because a right hander and a left hander is connected doesn´t automatically mean it´s a chicane.

No, and I agree that it's right on the boundary of what's a chicane and what isn't, but to me, it's a chicane, a fast one.

Buth T13-14 and T15-16 are chicanes.

It´s really not, you have one before the Esse and one after. Both of those slow the car down.
The Esse does the exact opposite.

Certainly the cars go through turns 13 and 14 slower than they would go down a straight that might otherwise be there

Interesting that you agree about turn 8/9 at Canada. It's geometry is very similar to Fanges at Spa. The entry is minutely tighter, but other than that, they're taken at the same speed, they have the same radius, and are the same size.

Canada have what i would call textbook chicanes, straight-left-right-straight.
SPA is a pure track design. You would not be able to create a fast bend there, as i said, look at the outside of Les Combes.
it´s just not possible.
With Canada you could draw faster line through no problem but the speeds would be too high, this is why chicanes are in place.

You're claiming you couldn't draw a straight line straight through fanges? I'm now wondering what world you're living in.

Variante Ascari at Monza.

Again, interesting – again, about the same speed, radius and size as Turn 8/9 at Canada.

Different tracks. Compare the speed to the two actual chicanes on Monza instead.
It´s simply not a chicane. It´s an Esse that starts out tight then expands rapidly.

Being a chicane or not does not depend on context. If it's a chicane at one track, it's a chicane at the other too.

Uhhh no, turn 5 is a long left hander. There's a short straight between it and turn 6/7 which is a chicane.

Did you watch the onboard?
Turn 5 and 6 is one big left hander. Turn 7 is where it opens up.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 11.svg.png

As you rightly said about Ses, it's entirely possible for two connected corners to be two different corners . Turn 5 and 6, for all that the line flows through them gracefully are two different corners.

[SectorOne]

You're claiming you couldn't draw a straight line straight through fanges? I'm now wondering what world you're living in.

Well that was a bit rude
No but seriously, sorry if i said Fagnes i´m deeply sorry, i ment Les Combes.

Obviously this thread could be 2000 pages if we wanted But let´s do this, let´s name the corners that we both agree on being chicanes and keep it at that, i think around 90% of them we fully agree with each other.

For example we would both agree on the fact that there is at least one chicane at SPA.
At least 2 in Monaco. etc.

Edit: i have just read your response and it´s itching in my fingers but i realize we could do this all night if we wanted.

[Tennisball]

you guys sure do like arguing about semantics huh?

[SectorOne]

There´s no Formula One, that´s why

Although after a race it´s usually much worse discussing who had what line and what really matters in that corner and should Grosjean be penalized etc etc

[turbof1]

you guys sure do like arguing about semantics huh?

You should be careful with a username like that. Before you realise it they get off about aerodynamics concerning the felt on a tennisball.

[SectorOne]

hahahaha

[beelsebob]

you guys sure do like arguing about semantics huh?

For reference, this phrase actually really annoys me... What's actually worth discussing other than the meaning of things?

Pretty much every disagreement comes down to either one party being irrational, or one party not understanding what's meant by the other. In the first case, it's pointless to argue, as irrationality is never going to be defeated. In the latter case, you hammer out what the meaning is, and then you agree. Only the latter case is productive.

You should be careful with a username like that. Before you realise it they get off about aerodynamics concerning the felt on a tennis ball.

I thought that was pretty well understood, if not scientifically (I don't know, it may be), then intuitively. Tennis players have a pretty good handle on it.

Anyway, back to the topic. We seem to agree that Chicanes are things that go quickly from one direction to another. They are typically there to slow the driver down, and they don't have a significant distance between the turns.

I think really the only thing that's not agreed upon is what the "significant distance" is. I'll propose something and see if we agree:
• If the corners have a radius of less than 100m and the distance between their centre points is less than 200m, it's a chicane.
• If the corners have a radius greater than 100m, and the distance between their centre points is less than 2 * the radius, it's an S.
• Otherwise, it's two corners.

I realise this doesn't cover the 3 corner chicane/S scenario, but I'm sure you can see the obvious generalisation. For reference – this puts both turns 8/9 at canada, ascari, and Fanges *right* on the border of being a chicane or an S, which to me, makes sense. They're all rather border line cases.

[SectorOne]

I think the difference between you and me is you use logical things things like math, geometry etc whereas i simply either drive the track or look at onboards and make an opinion from that.
Arguably people will say your choice is the best way but it´s funny that regardless of that we still only have a few corners we argue about.
The same corners your math say is in the grey zone if you will.

Edit: Maybe it´s simply the fact that with these corners a new name needs to be invented describing the type of corner that neither fit the chicane or Esse philospohy but instead is a hybrid of the two.

[beelsebob]

I think the difference between you and me is you use logical things things like math, geometry etc whereas i simply either drive the track or look at onboards and make an opinion from that.
Arguably people will say your choice is the best way but it´s funny that regardless of that we still only have a few corners we argue about.
The same corners your math say is in the grey zone if you will.

Edit: Maybe it´s simply the fact that with these corners a new name needs to be invented describing the type of corner that neither fit the chicane or Esse philospohy but instead is a hybrid of the two.

I hereby declare all three corners to be chicesses

[SectorOne]

I hereby declare all three corners to be chicesses

I´ll agree on that, from now on it´s simply considered chicesses

[turbof1]

That sounds hot.

[raymondu999]

Can we call it chiquitita if it sans more than 2 corners?

[SectorOne]

Can we call it chiquitita if it sans more than 2 corners?

Chicesse is just perfection really, it is the ultimate blend of two opposing forces fought by stubborn men that one day finally had to bury the hatchet.
They will write legends about this one day you know.