USGP 2012, Austin, TX

[Driver]

[quote="Bruce Fielding"]
...I guess rain isn't a problem where you are, though... [/quote]

You need to look at your map Bruce, Austin is in a subtropical climate.Is it that people hear Texas and remember all the westerns they've seen. Thinking El Paso and that the rest of Texas is the same? For today, it seems about a quarter of the 33+ inches of rain we get yearly decided to drop this morning alone. It's been absolutely pouring and my back yard looks like a miniature lake.

[Bruce Fielding]

OK. So it is a problem, so why are they making the same mistake at a new circuit?

[Steve050567]

Sounds perfect.

F1 + Rain = 

[Trigger]

F1 + Rain + Jet Fuel = 

Fun all the way into the barriers !!

[WorkingOnIt]

If one avoids May, chances of prolonged rain is small.  You can often count on 5-10 days between rains, and the storms are often fast moving thunderstorms.  They may drop significant rain, but don't last long at any one place.

There is an ongoing Darwin purge in central Texas of people who ignore flash flood warnings - frequently even moving barriers in order to proceed and get washed away.

[WorkingOnIt]

[quote="Bruce Fielding"]
One of the issues with Donnington was that it was too close to East Midlands airport and the aviation fuel turned the place into a skating rink in the rain...

[/quote]

I am willing listen and learn, but at first blush this sounds like driver/rider excuse making.

Is the suggestion that air within 5 miles of an airport is so laden with fuel vapor that it makes the rain falling through it extra slick?

Or is the problem supposed to come from planes jettisoning fuel?  That does not happen routinely - it's an emergency procedure.  Smaller planes that form the bulk of Austin traffic (Boeing 737, DC-9/MD80, the A320 family) do not even have fuel dump systems.  And how many of these emergency procedures will happen near the track?  And how much fuel can actually make it to the ground before evaporating?  And if some residue from these rare procedures does find it's way to the track, is it reasonable to conclude it will have any significance above the tire dust and automobile fluids already there?

If anyone has a definitive source on this, I would be interested.  All I find from a cursory search of Donington is anecdotal bickering, and this refutation by the owners:
http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/80794/ ... mours.html

[Rob McPherson]

Don't disagree with anything you're saying, but they do take off literally over the circuit, only a few hundred metres up, so I can imagine a little bit of unburnt kerosene does land back on circuit.

PS: One of the coolest (or nerdiest depending on your point of view) things I ever saw was at Donington one year. Aerosmith were headlining the Monsters Of Rock festival, and Steve Perry had just finished a huge guitar solo when a fookin' massive jet took off right overhead, incredibly low, full afterburners, and you could actually see the people looking out of the windows at the concert going on below.

'The audience went wild', as they say

I'll get me coat...

[CalScot]

By far, the most exciting F1 racing of the past few years has been when it rains IMO. I say some extra aviation fuel would only help the excitement.

[WorkingOnIt]

OK, so the concern may be exhaust particulates reaching the track, not fuel dumping. I still have a hard time believing that it could amount to a significant increase in track surface contamination above what the normal traffic produces. And certainly not over a short time period. Is the jet residue supposed to be more persistent than car contaminants?

Here's the relationship to the airport.

[WorkingOnIt]

And while I had the map out - here's a terrain map of the site.  Contour lines are 40 feet.  Hellmund's statement of a 100 foot elevation difference around the track seems reasonable.

[dp35]

I say all new F1 tracks should be in locations that have a high possibility of rain at all times.  If 75% of the season was wet, that would be fine with me.

[NormLarson]

[quote="dp35"]
I say all new F1 tracks should be in locations that have a high possibility of rain at all times.  If 75% of the season was wet, that would be fine with me.
[/quote]

Woot, woot!  Seattle will get F1

[Bruce Fielding]

[quote="WorkingOnIt"]
[quote="Bruce Fielding"]
One of the issues with Donnington was that it was too close to East Midlands airport and the aviation fuel turned the place into a skating rink in the rain...

[/quote]

I am willing listen and learn, but at first blush this sounds like driver/rider excuse making.

Is the suggestion that air within 5 miles of an airport is so laden with fuel vapor that it makes the rain falling through it extra slick?

Or is the problem supposed to come from planes jettisoning fuel?  That does not happen routinely - it's an emergency procedure.  Smaller planes that form the bulk of Austin traffic (Boeing 737, DC-9/MD80, the A320 family) do not even have fuel dump systems.   And how many of these emergency procedures will happen near the track?  And how much fuel can actually make it to the ground before evaporating?  And if some residue from these rare procedures does find it's way to the track, is it reasonable to conclude it will have any significance above the tire dust and automobile fluids already there?

If anyone has a definitive source on this, I would be interested.  All I find from a cursory search of Donington is anecdotal bickering, and this refutation by the owners:
http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/80794/ ... mours.html
[/quote]

Well, they would say that wouldn't they...?

I drove Donnington a LOT on dry and wet days. If it wasn't unburnt aircraft fuel (and you could smell it...) then it must just have been that the surface was sh1t - especially the Melbourne loop which was pointless in my view and only there to satisfy the FIA that it could hold a grand prix - which it did - once. IN the dry, the circuit was fine. With a bit of water on it, it turned into the worst sort of diesel-spilled road you could imagine.

[benyeats]

[quote="Rob McPherson"]
Don't disagree with anything you're saying, but they do take off literally over the circuit, only a few hundred metres up, so I can imagine a little bit of unburnt kerosene does land back on circuit.

PS: One of the coolest (or nerdiest depending on your point of view) things I ever saw was at Donington one year. Aerosmith were headlining the Monsters Of Rock festival, and Steve Perry had just finished a huge guitar solo when a fookin' massive jet took off right overhead, incredibly low, full afterburners, and you could actually see the people looking out of the windows at the concert going on below.

'The audience went wild', as they say

I'll get me coat...
[/quote]

Not to be an aircraft geek but which passenger jet had afterburners ?  Concorde did but I think you would have mentioned if it was that particular bird!

[WorkingOnIt]

[quote="Bruce Fielding"]

Well, they would say that wouldn't they...?

[/quote]

Yep, that's why I didn't consider it definitive. Does their contractor, Ringway, have a reputation that carries any weight?

I just find it hard to believe that every major airport in the world is ringed with a kerosene zone dense enough to cause that kind of trouble. Do airport approach highways turn into fender bender carnage every time it rains? It's not an issue I've heard of, but maybe I'm just not aware.