Car v. motorcycle tracks

[Spidey]

I need sum lurnin.'  What are the design differences between car & motorcycle tracks?  I keep hearing about how the compromises they need to make with tracks that service both cars and motorcycles (like run-off, for example), but I don't understand why.  FWIW, I don't follow 4 wheel racing at all.  And never have.  So use simple words.   

[derby]

well, you can stop a car with less runoff if you use a wall/armco. with motorcycles, you pretty much have to build in lots of runoff.

there can also differences in the type of runoff (rippled/smooth/shallow/deep/paved/etc).

[avizpls]

Are there considerations for the track layout itself?

Ive raced cars and now bikes, but have never thought much about that one.

[Spidey]

Layout is kinda what I was askin' about.  It came to mind when they were talkin' about the chicane at Monza (WSBK just released a letter explaining Biaggi's ride-through penalty for blowing the chicane).  And then again when they were talkin' about the new track in Austin.  

BTW, derb, "armco" ain't the simple words I requested.  I had to google that shit.  Damn near sprained a finger doin' it, too.   

[zooom]

Are there considerations for the track layout itself?

Ive raced cars and now bikes, but have never thought much about that one.

I would think so, as in you can't run the track inside of itself with 2 corners that might face each other and have the possibility ( no matter how remote) for 2 vehicles in those opposing corners collide with another, so you have to account for that kind of run-off....you also have to consider the worst case scenario's of collateral damage of any vehicle for those designs....think of an F1 car that got too much lift from a  crosswind or a 150+ MPH highside of a MotoGP machine and so forth...so the topography has to coincide with the general weather patterns as well...

[Cider]

I'm ignorant on this subject as well, but I got the impression that the current philosophy for F1 tracks is long straights & slow corners to promote passing on the brakes.

[gm2]

I would think so, as in you can't run the track inside of itself with 2 corners that might face each other and have the possibility ( no matter how remote) for 2 vehicles in those opposing corners collide with another, so you have to account for that kind of run-off....you also have to consider the worst case scenario's of collateral damage of any vehicle for those designs....think of an F1 car that got too much lift from a  crosswind or a 150+ MPH highside of a MotoGP machine and so forth...so the topography has to coincide with the general weather patterns as well...

what?

[zooom]

what?

Ppppllllllbbbbttthhhhhh !!!

[Greg]

Also remember that the gentler chicanes that would force a car to slow down substantially, can almost be straight lined by a bike.

[OT]

I'm ignorant on this subject as well, but I got the impression that the current philosophy for F1 tracks is long straights & slow corners to promote passing on the brakes.

Current philosophy seems to be to use walled-off city streets