R.V.

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BENGALUR-560059

(Autonomous Institution Affiliated to VTU, Belagavi)

TECHNICAL SEMINAR REPORT

2018-2019

F1 TRACK DESIGN AND SAFETY

Submitted in fulfillment for the technical seminar of

Bachelor of Engineering
in

Mechanical Engineering

Submitted by

YOGESH KUMAR

1RV15ME125

Submitted to

Prof. R Chandra Kumar

Department of Mechanical Engineering

R.V. College of Engineering
Bengaluru 560059

1
 R.V.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BENGALURU-560 059
(Autonomous Institution Affiliated to VTU, Belgaum)
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Technical Seminar Titled “F1 TRACK DESIGN AND SAFETY”, is a work
presented by YOGESH KUMAR (1RV15ME125), who is the bonafide student of R.V. College
of Engineering, Bengaluru, in partial fulfilment for the award of degree of Bachelor of
Engineering in Mechanical Engineering of Visvesvaraya Technological University,
Belgaum during the year 2018-2019. It is certified that all corrections/ suggestions indicated for
the internal assessment have been incorporated in the report deposited in the departmental
library. The Technical Seminar Report has been approved as it satisfies the academic
requirements in respect of Technical Seminar work prescribed by the Institution for the said
degree.

YOGESH KUMAR(1RV15ME125)

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………01

Chapter 2: Track design……………………………………………………………...03

2.1 Circuit layout
2.2 Straights
2.3 Curves
2.4. Width
2.5. Elevation

2.6. Crossfall(Transversal Inclination)

2.7. Track Surface

2.8. Track edges

2.9. Verges

2.10. Run-off areas

2.11. Kerbs

Chapter 3: Circuit and safety analysis system(CSAS)………………………………..11

Chapter 4: Track Safety Systems……………………………………………………..18

4.1 First line of protection
4.1.1 3 row high guardrail
4.1.2 Concrete barrier
4.1.3 Earth backed concrete barriers
4.1.4 Free standing permanent concrete barrier
4.1.5 Earth backed tire barriers
4.1.6 Tire buffers
4.1.7 Gravel beds

3
4.2. Second line of protection
4.3. Third line of protection
4.4. Warning flags

Chapter 5: Conclusion………………………………………………………………..32

Chapter 6: Reference…………………………………………………………………33

4
1. INTRODUCTION
Motor Racing is an infinite human endeavor. Drivers drive vehicles in races as fast as their
ability allows them. Engineers seek to construct vehicles that will go faster than others. A driver
seeks to win races. To do that they must drive their vehicle faster and faster for longer,
than the other drivers in the race. Inevitably, such actions lead to an increased risk
environment and may result in property damage and/or human injury.

Participants, particularly drivers, must accept a high level of responsibility for their own
safety, and that of others. This is particularly so in consideration of the high speed, high
concentration, and instantaneous reactions necessary for a driver to succeed in the activity being
undertaken.

However there are several significant areas of “Track Safety” which do require explanation and
or reiteration to the new circuit designer.

Inevitably, during the course of a race the driver will increase risks by undertaking
maneuvers that may not be previously tried or tested. This may lead to the driver losing the
control able to be exerted over the vehicle and such loss of control may be to such an extent that
the vehicle leaves the track surface and the driver is unable to regain control of the car. In such
circumstances, the car may continue on a path until it collides with a trackside object such as a
barrier, or overturns, or both, or stops of its own accord.

Take barriers, for example, there is little point erecting them in the wrong place –but predicting
the right place is a black art. The FIA has developed bespoke software, the Circuit and Safety
Analysis System (CSAS), to predict problem areas on F1 circuits.

Where and when cars leave circuits is due to the complex interaction between their design, the
driver‟s reaction and the specific configuration of the track, and the CSAS allows the input of
many variables-lap speeds, engine power curves, car weight changes, aerodynamic
characteristics etc. –to predict how cars may leave the circuit at particular places. The variables
are complex. The impact point of a car continuing in a straight line at a corner is easy to predict,

5
but if the driver has any remaining control and alters the car‟s trajectory, or if a mechanical fault
introduces fresh variables, its final destination is tricky to model.

Modern tire barriers are built of road tires with plastic tubes sandwiched between them. The side
facing the track is covered with conveyor belting to prevent wheels becoming snagged and
distorting the barrier. The whole provides a deformable „cushion‟ a principle that has found its
way to civilian roads. Barriers made of air filled cells, currently under investigation may be the
final answer. Another important safety factor is the road surface. Racing circuits are at the
cutting edge of surface technology, experimenting with new materials for optimum performance.

6
2.TRACK DESIGN
The tracks used in motor sport all are designed to meet certain standards. If a new circuit will
ever be used for an international event, its design and layout must be approved by the FIA,
before any construction commences. For a permanent circuit, a member of the FIA must inspect
it no more than 90 days before a World Championship event, giving adequate time to implement
changes.

All design criteria, for curves and straight sections, do not mean the actual track itself, but the
actual trajectory followed by the cars whilst racing. The maximum length of any new permanent
circuit should not exceed 7km to allow drivers to be able to familiarize themselves with all
corners on the track. The minimum length of a Formula One circuit will not be less than 3.5km,
with the race being no longer than 2h45min.

2.1. Circuit Layout

As stated earlier conceptual layout of a competition course is usually largely dictated by the
geographical features of the property and the perception of the designer or the Venue
Operator in regard to what may constitute a challenging course which meets their sporting
desires and requirements.

2.2. Straights
The maximum length permitted of any straight section of track is 2km.

2.3. Curves
In addition to complying with the indications concerning width, a curve, or series of curves
uninterrupted by a straight, taken at a speed in excess of 125 km/h, should have an
increasing, or at least a constant, radius.

2.4. Width
The minimum track width will depend on the application and circumstances. The minimum
width of any new race track will be 10m, however 12m is preferable. When the track widens or
narrows, the transition should be made as gradually as possible, at a rate not sharper than 1 in 20.

7
2.5. Elevation
As far as practicable, a driver‟s vision of the track surface should be such that it provides for the
theoretical ability to stop before contacting any hazard which may be seen on the
approach (known as the “stopping sight distance”, made up of driver reaction time plus
braking distance). If this is not possible to achieve, then appropriate control measures must be
introduced to minimise the risk at this location. In particular, the sudden change of
direction of a track at the top of an incline or immediately prior to steep drop should be
avoided. Control measures may include warning devices (lights, flags) adequate run off
space or speed attenuation devices such as gravel traps. The gradient of the starting straight
should not exceed 2% uphill.

2.6. Crossfall (Transversal Inclination)

Along straights, the crossfall, for drainage purposes, between the two edges of the track or
between the centre-line and the edge, should not exceed 3% (0.3 m fall per 10 m width), or be
less than 1.5%.In curves, the banking (crossfall or camber) should not exceed 10% (1 m fall per
10 m width). An adverse crossfall (reverse camber) is not generally acceptable unless dictated by
special circumstances and supported by adequate risk minimisation controls.

2.7. Track Surface

The track surface should be smooth asphaltic concrete, similar to that used on modern
highways, which will help prevent the formation of a liquid film due to rain, oil or fuel.
Preferably the surface should be the same the whole length of the track. If this proves
impossible, it should be ensured that no change in surface occurs on sections of hard
braking or acceleration, at important changes in gradient or in curves.

The track surface should meet the following requirements:

 The surface should be exempt from any undulations so that a 4 m long straight-edgelaid
on the finished surface shall uniformly contact it ;
 A tolerance of 3 mm will be admitted only in a few points of the entire surface; at
least three checks should be made every 100 m of the track length.
 No unauthorised advertising or decoration is permitted on the track surface, save in an
area near the start/finish line, where advertising may be permitted on the following basis:
8
  The location, size and design of the sign (artwork) must be approved by CAMS.
 The paint used must be of a CAMS approved anti slip compound.
 The sign must be in a location where there are no lateral or braking loads on cars in wet
or dry conditions.
 A plan for the removal of the sign, if and when, it is no longer required
For guidance, the sign should fit into an area no greater than approximately 4 x 9m, which
should not extend more than 10m from the start line. It is preferable that the sign lettering be
undertaken in outline, rather than solid lettering, however due to the variable nature of the
circuits‟ widths and the actual signage, this will be addressed when considering the artwork.

2.8. Track Edges

Unless otherwise indicated because of features such as pit exit and entry roads, the track
should be bordered along its entire length on both sides by continuous white lines clearly
marked in (preferably) anti-skid paint, 100 to 150mm wide. Use of colours other than white
require specific approval from CAMS

2.9. Verges
Unless otherwise indicated because of features such as pit exit and entry roads, the track
should be bordered along its entire length on both sides by continuous and compacted
verges, usually between 3m and 5m wide. All verges must present an even surface, be free of
loose stones, debris or any other obstacles (unless specifically approved otherwise), and should
where possible, be grass-covered.

Verges should be a continuation of the transversal profile of the track, with no step or gap
between track and verge. Should any transition exist, it must be very gradual.

2.10. Run off areas

Permanent circuits normally present an area of ground free of obstacles, which a vehicle
can drive over without incurring undue damage, and which is located beyond the normal
verge, usually on the outside of corners, which is designated the “run off area”. It is the area
which is beyond the verge likely to be traversed by a car leaving the track at or near racing

9
speed, the driver having failed to negotiate the corner on the designated track surface.
Transitions from verge to run off areas must be seamless.

Generally, the minimum area or length of a nominated run off area is calculated by
application of specific mathematical formulae. These formulae take to account the calculated (or
determined actual) corner entry speed (the maximum speed obtained by a car prior to
braking for the corner generally called “the entry speed”) and the minimum speed of the car
through the corner (“the corner speed”) as well as verge inclination (slope) and deceleration
properties of both asphalt or bituminous concrete and verge surfaces.

The result provides a distance considered to be the minimum appropriate “escape line
length” and indicates the position where a 1LoP may be located to achieve an acceptable run off
area in order for a driver to reduce speed of a vehicle to an acceptable amount, if all
normal systems of the car are working and return to the circuit.

For all new circuits, run off area calculation will be undertaken using the current FIA formula.
Calculating the run off area is undertaken in two steps.

The purpose of step 1 is to deduce a figure which represents the speed at which the car
leaves the track edge. This takes into account the cars speed at the point at which is
deemed to lose control and also the distance on the track available for decelerating along a path
tangent to the racing line. This line commences at the point at which the car was
deemed to lose control.

The figure deduced from the equation is then used in step 2.

The purpose of step 2 is to deduce the distance required over the verge so that the car can
decelerate from the speed at which it left the track edge to 0 kph.

10
Fig 1: Calculation of the area on
the outside of a corner

11
Fig 2: Table for determining the
escape line length

12
2.11. Kerbs
As kerbs are devices located at track edge, usually at a corner, designed primarily to prevent
track edge disintegration, careful selection of the type of kerb and the installation to a track is
important to the performance of the kerb and longevity of the track surface.

Kerbs should be installed flush with the track edge with appropriate, smooth, transitional end
pieces over a length of at least 2.5m for kerbs on the apex of a corner and 5m for kerbs on the
exit of a corner.

The verge (behind the kerb) should always be graded, level with the top surface of the kerb,
which if necessary should be extended at the rear with properly stabilized asphalt, concrete,
grass-supporting modules or concrete based artificial grass, to provide a smooth transition to the
verge without any step or rut.
.
Drainage should be provided wherever the presence of the kerb could cause water to
accumulate on the track, for example on corner apexes.

Fig 3: FIA Combination Kerb

13
Fig 4: FIA Apex Kerb

14
3. CIRCUIT AND SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Predicting the trajectory and velocity of a racing car when it is driven at the limit within the
confines of a racing track, is now the subject of a great deal of analytical work by almost all
teams involved in racing at all levels. However, predicting the trajectory and velocity of a car
once the driver has lost control of it has not been something the teams have devoted a great deal
of time to. This can now also be analyzed though in the same sort of detail, to assess the safety
features of the circuits on which it is raced. The two tasks are very different, and the FIA had to
start almost from scratch when it set out to develop software for its Circuit and Safety Analysis
System (CSAS).

The last two decades have seen a steady buildup of the R&D effort going into vehicle dynamics
modeling, particularly by those teams that design and develop cars as well as race them. The
pace of development has been set by the availability of powerful PC's, the generation of vehicle
and component data, and the supply of suitably qualified graduates to carry out the work.

Their task is to be able to model and predict the effects of every nuance of aerodynamic, tire,
engine, damper etc., and characteristic on the speed of their car at every point on a given circuit.
The detail in the model will only be limited by available dynamic characteristics and track data,
and will require a driver model to complete the picture. However, they are only interested in the
performance of the car while the tires are in contact with the tarmac, and the driver is operating
them at or below their peaks.

Fig 5. Examples of straight trajectories.

15
 Fig 6. Examples of all possible trajectories.

Fig 7. Stopping distances in the run-off area, highlighting

points where the run-off is inadequate to stop the car. 16
 Fig 8. Residual velocity, perpendicular to the
boundary of the run-off area.

Fig 9. Residual velocity, perpendicular to a 2-row

tire barrier, after impact with it.
17
The FIA, on the other hand, starts to be interested in what happens when the driver exceeds the
limit and is unable to recover control of the car, or when something breaks and the computer
model almost literally falls apart. Knowledge of the speed of the car all around a circuit is
needed, but the precise speed differences due to small improvements in some car characteristic
have little effect on the outcome of this analysis. Major changes in lap speeds, due for instance to
the effects of tire competition or regulation changes are relevant, and so CSAS has a lap
simulation as its core, to generate speed profiles for any circuit and any class of racing car. It is a
fairly elementary simulation compared to those in use for performance prediction by teams, but
is regularly updated with engine power curves, Pacejka tire coefficients, typical aerodynamic
characteristics, and weight changes. Checks that the speed predictions are sufficiently accurate
can be made by comparison against speed data supplied from a typical car.

Circuit details are supplied in AutoCAD. This software was chosen because of the ease of adding
modules to perform the CSAS-specific operations, and also because the majority of circuit maps
are supplied by the circuit designers in this format. CSAS is run via the AutoCAD interface, with
additional tool bars corresponding to the CSAS-specific applications. Circuit information is in
multiple layers, e.g., left side of track, right side of track, curbs, run-off areas, access roads,
removable barriers, permanent barriers, being the most relevant. The track edges can be modified
using the AutoCAD drawing tools - the addition of a chicane is simply a few click-and-drag
operations of the mouse! The operator draws the racing line on the track (an automatic routine
for doing this is being investigated, but the manual approach is currently preferred as knowledge
of whether drivers clip curbs or avoids a bumpy section of track, provides a better match of
speed profiles) and selects the calculation of the speed profile. Generally, the speed is calculated
every 3 meters around the track, which provides adequate resolution, at each of these points a
prediction of the trajectory of an out of control car is made.

A driver's natural reaction, once he realizes that he has no further hope of regaining control, is to
stamp on the brakes and bring the car to a halt before hitting anything. A car with its wheels
locked up, whether it is travelling forwards, backwards or sideways, or spinning, will tend to
travel in a straight line unless it hits something (Fig.1). Thus, the most likely trajectory is a
straight line, tangential to the racing line at the point control is lost; all circuit safety criteria are
currently based on this trajectory assumption. However, if the driver does not give up and tries to
catch the car while it spins, or to influence which way it goes, or if a component failure

18
substantially takes over the steering of the car, there is a possibility that some lateral forces will
be generated by the tires (they could be up to 4g on a Formula 1 car), in which case the trajectory
will be curved, just as if the car was cornering. However, the curved trajectory will probably not
follow the curve of the track (Fig.2).

These "unpredictable" trajectories are the hardest to plan for, without lining the whole circuit
with run-off areas and barriers. In many cases e.g., if a wing fails on the straight that causes the
car to turn into the wall lining the straight, the car cannot accelerate to a high speed
perpendicular to the wall, and the speed is scrubbed off by sliding along it. Spectacular though
this may be, this sort of accident tends not to lead to high impact decelerations or injuries to the
driver. However, in a high-speed corner, the car can end up going off in a direction that until
then has not been predicted and so is not protected. Zonta, in the accident in Brazil in which he
received leg injuries, tried to collect his BAR after he lost it on a bump in the 4th-gear Ferradura
and struck a section of Armco instead of the tire barrier erected to protect cars in that corner. He
was not meant to hit the barrier at that location. CSAS is being developed to be able to predict
the impact velocity for any possible trajectory.

Another example of unpredictable trajectories occurred on the Circuit de Catalunya, during the
Spanish GP in 1997. Morbidelli accelerated his Minardi out of the pit lane and lost control of it
as he joined the track, possibly due to the speed limiter cutting out suddenly. He accelerated
across the full width of the Start/Finish straight into the concrete wall, fortunately without
collecting anyone else travelling at top speed on the straight. He hit the wall head-on at just
under 50kph, performing a near perfect FIA frontal crash test!

Having established the speed at any point on the track, CSAS calculates the trajectory of a car
leaving the racing line and the distance traveled along it. The path of the car is initially on the
track, subsequently on a run-off area, if one exists, and may finally impact a barrier. The
boundaries of all these features are set up from the circuit plans, in AutoCAD. The circuit criteria
guidelines have been established such that under normal or average conditions, the car will stop
before it reaches a barrier. Under abnormal conditions this may not happen, and in certain
locations on circuits it may not be possible to provide adequate run-off - Monaco, or indeed any
street circuit, is the classic case of this - hence the need for barriers. The deceleration
characteristics for an out of control car on the track and on any type of run-off area are set in
CSAS and may be quite complex relationships based on speed. One of the purposes of fitting
19
Accident Data Recorders (ADR) to Formula 1 and Formula 3000 cars is to gain real deceleration
data. With data gained over the last four years, it has been possible to analyze it statistically and
derive "normal" characteristics for wet and dry tracks and for gravel beds. These characteristics
are used in CSAS to determine how large the gravel beds need to be and to establish the likely
impact velocity with a barrier, where it is not possible to install an adequate run-off area. CSAS
plots the trajectories, and the ends of these lines form the desired limits of the run-off areas,
which can be compared with existing or planned boundaries. Discrepancies show up
immediately on the screen (Fig.3).

Faced with sections of run-off areas that do not stop a car before it reaches the edge of the area,
the circuit designer has a number of options. If he cannot extend the run-off, one option is to
modify the corner to reduce the speed; however, the critical trajectories are often those of a car
that loses control under braking, when it may be necessary to reduce the top speed on the
preceding straight - the result is often the unpopular chicane. Alternatively, barriers can be
placed along the critical edges of the run-off area. CSAS calculates the impact velocity,
perpendicular to the boundary, in the absence of a barrier (Fig.4). Barrier characteristics have
been measured for a number of barrier configurations, particularly for a variety of tire barrier
arrangements. Conservative characteristics based on the test results are used in CSAS to
calculate the resultant velocity of the car after it has penetrated the barrier i.e. the velocity the car
will impact the solid boundary behind the barrier (Fig.5). This velocity or, to be more precise, the
residual energy in the car, is what the crushable structures on the car will have to absorb without
injuring the driver.

One issue that CSAS addresses is whether the critical case for stopping a car is under wet or dry
conditions. In the dry, initial speeds are higher but on-track deceleration is greater than in wet
conditions. Wet or dry, the gravel beds perform pretty well the same. Based on the data available
to date, the indication is that the critical case is under dry conditions.

The worst scenario for any safety engineer is when a car "flies". Whether it is a big sports or GT
car, with excessively pitch sensitive aerodynamics, or an open-wheeled car touching wheels with
one ahead of it, if a car leaves the ground it is almost impossible to provide a means of
decelerating it. It will decelerate due to aerodynamic drag, and CSAS can assess this case
provided the drag characteristics are known as the car tumbles through the air. Gravel beds that
cause light cars with wide tires to skip through them (a sort of "ducks and drakes" effect) do not
20
seem to exhibit very different overall deceleration rates from beds where the car stays in contact.
Although the deceleration is reduced while the car is in the air, it is much higher when it lands
and digs in, and the average deceleration is very much the same.

CSAS has facilitated the synthesis of the results from a number of safety R&D programs that are
gradually putting motorsport safety on a sound scientific basis. It uses the actual speed of the
cars at any point on a circuit, representative deceleration rates on- and off-track, and tested
barrier performance to size and specify circuit safety features. Changes to the specification of the
cars, particularly those that increase top speed or cornering speed, and changes to the layout of
tracks can be monitored for their effect on the size of run-off areas and barrier specifications.
Any class of car can be evaluated by inputting its performance parameters to the lap simulation
and obtaining a speed profile, such that the grading of circuits and their suitability for particular
classes of racing can be studied.

The development of CSAS is ongoing. Routines to facilitate and speed up the application are
being studied and the database for the performance of the various circuit safety features is
continuously updated and added to, to ensure that any variations in the deceleration parameters,
e.g. due to an extra tire groove, are taken into account. It is an invaluable tool at the design stage
of new circuits, avoiding much of the need to revise either track or run-off areas after the circuit
has been built, and is providing detailed insights into how existing circuits can be upgraded in
the continual quest for greater safety.

21
4. TRACK SAFETY SYSTEMS
4.1. First Line of Protection

First Line of Protection barriers (also referred to as 1LoP, Primary Protection Barriers, or
Stopping Device, (which may physically incorporate a degree of energy dissipation but for
the purposes of design and engineering a race circuit are not deemed to, include:
 3 row high Guardrail
 Earth backed or freestanding concrete barriers
 Earth backed tire barriers
 Freestanding tire Buffers
 Deceleration system - Gravel traps

4.1.1. 3 row high guardrail

Guardrail, or an equivalent specification W shaped overlapping post and beam system is an

alternative to concrete barriers or earth backed tire barriers and it is deemed to have similar
Vehicle stopping qualities. Over time, however it has been experienced that Guardrail systems
may require a higher degree of maintenance and beams and upright posts can become
relatively easily damaged and require replacement or rectification.

Guardrail systems used as a First Line of Protection usually comprise of 3 rows of beams, with
appropriate spaces between the beams to result in a barrier of 1000mm height, however in
consideration to the location, the purpose and the object being protected, the height can be varied
by the number of rows of beams in the system.

The standard rail elements are in mild steel sheet meeting the following requirements:
- Ultimate tensile stress: 42kg/sq mm,
- Thickness: 2.7 mm,
- Moments of inertia: X-X =1248.7cm4 ; Y-Y = 96.1cm4

Spacing should be of maximum 40 mm between rails and 100mm between the bottom rail and
the ground

22
Fig 10: Section of 2 row high guardrail, to which Fig 11: Section of 3 row high
additional sections have been added to provide guardrail. Note attachment of
additional protection at a Flag Marshal Post. Braking Marker to guardrail
post.

Fig 12: 3 Row high guardrail

specifications

23
4.1.2. Concrete barrier

Whilst CAMS provides for 3 different types of 1LoP barriers - Earth Backed tire barriers, 3 row
high guardrail and earth backed or freestanding concrete barriers, the main difference is that the
risk of destruction and, consequently, the integrity of earth backed tire barriers and guardrail is
significantly higher than concrete when impacts occur. Concrete is hardier and wears better and
tends to have lower deflections when impacted at low angles than guardrail or earth backed tire
barriers.

Two types of concrete barriers may be used at motor racing circuits: freestanding and earth
backed.

4.1.3. Earth Backed Concrete barriers

The minimum thickness of earth backed concrete barriers should be 120mm. The grade of
concrete used should not be less than 30 Mpa. Barriers should be backed by earth fill (free of
tires or other compressible debris) to no lower than 300 mm from the top of the barrier, for a
distance of at least 1 m. The fill may then taper off gradually to ground level over at least
another 2 m.

4.1.4. Free Standing Permanent Concrete barriers

The minimum thickness of freestanding concrete barriers is 200 mm. The barrier should be
designed to withstand an impact at an angle of 20. of the heaviest car likely to race on the track,
moving at the theoretical maximum speed attainable at the point on the track adjacent to the
barrier.

24
Fig 13: Generic design of typical 1LoP barrier
element used at a temporary circuit.

Fig 14: Depiction of a typical deployment of

1LoP barrier blocks at Adelaide Parklands

25
4.1.5. Earth backed tire barriers

In essence this device is simply a mound of earth (which provides the mass for the system)
which presents a near vertical face which is stabilized by earth filled car or light truck tires
stacked in a house brick pattern in front of the vertical face. This will provide a longer
stability of the near vertical earth face than would otherwise be the case.

Earth backed tire barriers are not deemed to offer any significant buffer protection, therefore they
should not be confused with buffers tires, which are not earth filled and provide a degree
of “cushioning”.

Earth backed tire barriers tend to collapse after a number of years and after a relatively
short time require maintenance to add tires to the top. At longer intervals, the complete
barrier may require dismantling and rebuilding, as earth in the tires is eroded/washed out of the
tires and the system collapses under the combined weight of the tires and earth.

An appropriate amount of earth must provide the necessary mass for the barrier. This has been
determined to be equal to the height of the barrier plus 150mm (to provide earth cover for the top
tires to assist to reduce the effects of UV light on the tires and any polypropylene rope which
may be used to fasten the two row of tires) and 2 metres to the rear, gradually tapering off over
that distance.

Fig 15: The earth backed

tire barriers at this race
track have been
constructed using light
truck tires, which tend to
be more robust and resist
collapsing

26
 Fig 16: Typical design of earth
filled tire barrier

4.1.6. Tire buffers

CAMS uses the term “buffer” to describe a deformable apparatus used for partially
dissipating energy of a car striking the apparatus. A tire buffer therefore is a buffer
constructed of tires. There are other buffer systems used in motor sport, such as the
“Tyson” buffer and the “TecPro” barrier. Tire buffers are normally placed where an impact with
a barrier is likely to occur at an angle generally of between 30 degrees and 90 degrees to the
barrier.

27
The ideal buffer system will comprise of car tires of uniform diameter which are vertically
linked by bolting to form a “stack”. Adjacent stacks are linked into stacks of e.g. .2 x 3
stacks, to form a “bundle” and the bundles are then linked to adjacent bundles to form
homogenous buffer which is placed in front of, and linked securely to, permanent 1LoP

barrier. At least two rows of such a buffer are required at all location where tire buffers are used,
and three is preferable, unless specific approval to the contrary is obtained from CAMS.

All tire buffers perform more effectively and suffer less damage under most impacts if they are
faced by a steel corded conveyor belt of the same height as the buffer. The facility is more
difficult to repair if extensively damaged, but damage is generally contained by the
conveyor belt. Conveyor belt facing also presents a face suitable for sign writing.Severely worn
tires, which provide reduced impact resistance, should not be used. New "reject" tires are
ideal, and can often be obtained from local tire manufacturers.

The tire buffer should be at least as high as the permanent barrier which it will be placed in front
of (1000mm minimum height).

Three types of tire buffer construction are suggested viz., rodded, chained and bolted with the
bolted construction method being preferred, although other types of construction may be
approved, individually, by CAMS for particular applications.

The 3 types permitted are illustrated herein and are subject to the following general
considerations:
 Individual tires should be vertically secured to each other to form a “stack”.
 Stacks of tires should be horizontally secured to each other (5 or 6 stacks) to form a
“bundle”
 Bundles may then be horizontally secured to each other (both to the side and to the front)
to form a double row tire “buffer”.
 There should be a firm, smooth surface under the tire buffer.

28
 A tire buffer in contact with a first line of protection should be securely attached to it at
least at 4m intervals.
 Where the first line of protection is constructed of steel beam guard rails, the first
tires should be placed behind the line of the preceding guardrail (mandatory for all new
installations). This guardrail will retain its original alignment, the rail behind the tires
being moved back to achieve an overlap.
 Narrow walled or “racing” tires may not be used as the front row in a tire buffer
installation.
 If marshals' access is required across the top of the barrier, conveyor belting should be
placed on top of the buffer to minimise risks.
 Other types of tire buffer not fixed to a rigid structure, may be authorised for
particular cases (e.g. overlapping bundles to form a chicane in an escape road), but
should be a minimum 1 metre high and of least three rows attached to each other.

29
Fig 17: Construction of tire
buffers

30
Fig 18: Conveyer Belt facing

Fig19: Five row tire buffer with

conveyor belt facing.
31
4.1.7. Gravel beds

A Deceleration Bed/Gravel Trap is defined as a run off area of a track which incorporates a bed
of a specified type of gravel, designed specifically to slow the progress of a car entering it.

Gravel traps are generally located so they extend from the “head on” position on the outside of a
corner to a point towards the end of the curve.

The installation of gravel traps on the inside of corners is permitted only after consideration by
CAMS of a risk assessment to be prepared by the venue operator as such installations tend to
result in unfavourable outcomes, as cars tend to enter gravel traps on the inside of corners with a
significant yaw rate, which encourages rollovers. In all gravel trap installations, tire buffers
or other energy dissipating devices approved by CAMS should be used to face the 1LoP at
the rear of the gravel trap, according to the directions of the inspector in each case.

Deceleration beds should have a minimum depth of 250mm, and should be composed of
either spherical, river-washed stones or an approved equivalent having a diameter of 5 to
15mm preferably of uniform size (note: crushed stone is not acceptable), or an alternative
approved by CAMS.

Care should be taken to prevent the growth of vegetation, which produces undesirable
binding. For each event the gravel bed should be turned over/scarified to ensure that it has not
become compacted. In all cases, the surface of the run-off area should be in the same plane as the
track surface, or inclined progressively upwards from it (preferable in the case of gravel).

It is essential that the transition from the track, across the verge and into the run-off area
should be made smoothly and free of irregularities (bumps, steps, depressions, etc.) likely to
unsettle a racing car.

32
4.2. Second Line of protection

In general, this will normally consist of reinforced wire fencing as defined ,although other
materials and/or specification may be approved by CAMS. 2LoP may be omitted with the
agreement of CAMS if the public enclosure is situated high above or at a great distance from
the track.

Where openings are required in the 2LoP, e.g. for track access by marshals, they should be
Constructed accordingly.

Reinforced wire fencing, or debris protection, is required for all new circuits. As of January
2012, CAMS is working in consultation with Circuit Operators to determine minimum
specifications for design and location criteria for existing circuits.

Fig 20: Second line of protection

specification

33
Fig 21: Debris fence in braking
area

Fig22: Pit Lane debris fence

shield/panels at Phillip Island
Circuit, Australia
34
4.3. Third line of protection

This is also referred to as Spectator Fence. All areas designated as being suitable for the public
must be separated from the rear of the 1LoP zone by at least a system of third line of
protection (3LoP). This must be a metallic fence or other equivalent structure at least
1200mm high. This will ensure that at all times the public will be situated behind at least
two lines of protection. 1LoP and 3LoP is the minimum required and in areas which may
be considered hazardous to spectators they should be separated from the track by 1LoP, 2LoP
and 3LoP barriers.

The 3LoP barrier should be situated:

 at least 3m clear of the first or second line of protection (whichever is the closer to the
spectators)
 In all cases, at least 6m from the track-edge.

4.4. Warning Flags

35
5. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this seminar is to show how the advanced technology of the world‟s fastest and
largest spectator-sport can be used in the normal superhighways and expressways setting
standards of safety for the general public who drive on the highways. Use of barriers similar to
those used in formula one can reduce the amount of injury in case of accidents on these
highways. Even the use of CSAS (Circuit and Safety Analysis System) can be used to build safer
highways.

As for F1 different circuits and different conditions present challenges for all connected with the
engineering side of F1 and it is those who predict and cope best with these complications who
eventually triumph.

36
6. REFERENCES
• Track Operator‟s safety guide ; Confederation of Australian Motorsport Ltd ; June 2012

• Formula one safety : A review ; Shubham R. Ugle, Shweta D. Kate, Dhananjay R.

Dolas; B.E., Department of Mechanical Engineering, MGM‟s JNEC Aurangabad (M.S.),
India ; Oct -2015.

• The Physiology and Pathology of Formula One Grand Prix Motor Racing; Eric S.
Watkins, O.B.E., M.D., D.Sc., F.R.C.S.

• Apex circuit design limited ; 2015

• FIM STANDARDS FOR TRACK RACING CIRCUITS (STRC) ; 2018

• International Journal of FIA ; 2015 issue #11

37