2017 Monaco Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, 26-28 May

[munudeges]

It was all crystal clear, no? I don't recall Rosberg or Bottas *ever* being in the situation Raikkonen found himself in today. They knew they could win races and they played the team game when they were in a position they knew they couldn't win from.

[mani517]

Without the prestige and history Monaco is nothing really. It is a tricky track to get the lap right and the absolute track limits make the drivers pay when they get it wrong, but, those good traits on their own don't make a great racing circuit - a good TT circuit for F1 cars, may be.

The track often relies on strategy, attrition, SC & weather for excitement and on track action.

Yesterday's 78 laps of racing produced, I think, 1 on-track pass on merit (may have to recheck that, but, I'm not counting the start and opening lap). That sounds worse, if we consider HAM (a capable racer, among the best out there) started from 13... and it sounds even worse if we consider VER (the wonderkid who is bit of an overtaking specialist according to many) was within DRS range of BOT with better tires (fresh US against used SS) and yet couldn't pass him for 10 laps after SC went in.

So, Monaco, without the heritage, is at the bottom of table when it comes to quality of racing. I'm sure some out there with better knowledge could defend it citing some exceptions from its long history and unforgiving nature of the track, but, that is not the point here - a track that struggles to produce racing on-track can't justify its position in the calendar (even if it is Monaco).

If Monaco has become even tougher to overtake with '17 spec wider cars, then, it solidifies the argument that without some external influence the racing is going to be a procession here in the coming years.

P.S: F1 has never been an overtaking spectacle in the recent times, the rules & tools of racing need to be improved to produce fair racing. But, that doesn't excuse the tracks like these. And this is just my opinion.

[andartop]

Not trying to be disruptive to the conversation, but what all the arguments so far support is the fact that current F1 cars are not suitable for racing in Monaco, not that Monaco is not a 'proper' racing circuit.
Even though I admit I almost fell asleep yesterday, I prefer an F1 championship where the cars get to compete in a variety of tracks, even including a few 'boring' ones, than 19-20 Tilke-dromes.
There are many definitions of 'racing', and many metrics people use to assess 'spectacle' other than overtaking.

[mani517]

I don't deny that Monaco has always been about driver talent - getting a clean/fast lap in quali, longest race (time) demanding exceptional concentration, intolerant to errors, but, it isn't a track for overtaking (stats and facts are the proof of it). So, by extension, in spite of all it demands from the drivers it can't produce conventional track racing which is an important thing.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Any circuit that doesn't allow a faster car to line up and overtake a slower car, it's not a racing circuit and I am not talking about a car being faster by 0.2 or 0.3 seconds. I am talking about a car that is potentially faster by over a second and still unable to overtake. That is simply a farce in the name of racing. All those millions spent by a team to build a faster car, have to live with the discontent that the circuit is responsible for them not winning a race.

Instances of a safety car, VSC or racing incidents where a car gets pushed out (like what happened in Malaysia last year to Nico), shouldn't become hopeless situation for a faster car and on a track like Monaco, you have to forget any hopes of redemption.

Last year, Lewis could win by the strategy he opted for, only because it was Monaco and a far far slower car can hold up a far more superior paced car.

What is the point of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of car parts, only because a ludicrous circuit punishes small errors. There are other circuits which are unforgiving too, but still offer a far better racing experience.

Neither does a circuit like Monaco challenges drivers physically (what were the highest G forces witnessed and for how long?), nor does it allow a car to go to it's full limits (downforce limit, aero limit and speed limits).

With cars this big, would we ever see good racing in Monaco?

[Gothrek]

Any circuit that doesn't allow a faster car to line up and overtake a slower car, it's not a racing circuit and I am not talking about a car being faster by 0.2 or 0.3 seconds. I am talking about a car that is potentially faster by over a second and still unable to overtake. That is simply a farce in the name of racing. All those millions spent by a team to build a faster car, have to live with the discontent that the circuit is responsible for them not winning a race.

Instances of a safety car, VSC or racing incidents where a car gets pushed out (like what happened in Malaysia last year to Nico), shouldn't become hopeless situation for a faster car and on a track like Monaco, you have to forget any hopes of redemption.

Last year, Lewis could win by the strategy he opted for, only because it was Monaco and a far far slower car can hold up a far more superior paced car.

What is the point of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of car parts, only because a ludicrous circuit punishes small errors. There are other circuits which are unforgiving too, but still offer a far better racing experience.

Neither does a circuit like Monaco challenges drivers physically (what were the highest G forces witnessed and for how long?), nor does it allow a car to go to it's full limits (downforce limit, aero limit and speed limits).

With cars this big, would we ever see good racing in Monaco?

Without meaning it in a bad way, I think you tend to over generalize your opinion.
Monaco is indeed a peculiar circuit. But it has challenges of its own. For me it has always been fascinated on how close the cars get to the barriers and how racing cars can even be this fast on such a street race. Would I like to see 20 races like Monaco? No. But it has its own charm.
Maybe drivers are not physically challenged, but they are challenged in other ways like concentration & precision driving.

[mani517]

@andartop don't mistake my argument, I'm all in for variety. F1 needs challenging circuits, but, IMO ability to provide fair overtaking opportunities is a single MUST have trait for every circuit in the calendar.

By that, I don't mean long DRS straights (I hate the concept of DRS)... I mean, out-braking opportunities, multi-line corners etc.

I know, this is very much dependent on cars being able for follow each other, but, Monaco can't produce such opportunities even when cars are close to each other (yesterday's race was a proof). Hence, my disappointment.

[zac510]

I don't blame the circuit. In other years we've had excellent Monaco GPs, just like we've had boring and exciting races at tracks perceived to be more 'exciting' circuits. In previous years there have been many successful overtakes at Rascasse, Ste Devote, nouvelle chicane even at Loews.
As much as people like to find something to blame there's never a single reason for a boring race, there are always multiple factors - ie one dominant team, aerodynamic flaws, too hard tyres, too many safety cars, etc.
I really thought yesterday it was the car design and tyres to blame, just as the drivers had been saying since the early part of the season and we witnessed in places like Melbourne and China - cars just aren't able to follow as closely through the corners as they have been in years prior to this one. The aerodynamic regulations have gone backwards and Monaco highlights that. Don't shoot the messenger!

[Sonador]

I love the qualifying in Monaco, it is about pure skill.
And it is just awesome to see.

The race however i find it a bit of a parade.

On one hand i understand why Ferrari opted to let Vettel win, but i feel a bit sorry about it.
Because Raikkonnen did not deserve it, he did the better job in Qualifying and had very good racepace.
So Vettel clear n1 driver over at Ferrari, same goes for Ricciardo at Red bull after his tantrum on Saturday afternoon.

Not nice to see, but understandable.
Hoping Canada will be better for racing.

[marmer]

for those who say nothing happens in the race.

only Carlos Sainz in 6th and Roman Grosjean in 8th finished the race where they started

[Vasconia]

Qualy was as spectacular as usual, I had a good feeling with Kimi but wasn´t expecting to see him being so fast. Anyway Sebastian had better pace.

During the race it was clear that Sebastian had also a better pace. I think he could have won even pitting later than Kimi because of the traffic. Anyway his laps with clear air were spectacular so I think he deserved the victory. Yes, Ferrari helped him but every team should have done the same.

I am happy to see a 1-2 for Ferrari confirming that the short wheelbase has helped him. It was weird to see Lewis out of the pace but I am sure that in Canada and Austria Mercedes will be the strongest team.

A great weekend too for Carlos Sainz, he did a fenomal second lap in Q3 and his pace was pretty good during the race.

It was sad to see Button suffering so many problems in his comeback, it was another awful race for McLaren.

[mani517]

@zac510, I beg to differ. Car design didn't take a step backward -- it just never took a step in the right direction in recent past. I feel the wider cars and increased mechanical grip were a good couple of steps, but, they are pretty much undone by the aero sensitivity of the cars. So, while I acknowledge the shortcomings of the cars, I'm merely stating the shortcomings of this track.

The same wider aero sensitive cars raced close in the last few races -- not hundreds in number, but, there were some quality passes. The F1 world (even drivers and team) acknowledge passing is pretty much impossible in Monaco, so, my argument isn't baseless.

Monaco has failed (bar some exceptions in its long history) to offer fair racing opportunities, VER vs BOT yesterday was a good example. We saw that US was considerably superior to SS, we also saw that RedBull was a match for Mercedes, but, in spite of tailing BOT's gearbox for few laps VER can't find a way to pass. In my view, equally competitive car, better tires, DRS proximity (not one, but, all 3 together) favored VER and yet he couldn't find a way past BOT. Now, if we need to push the argument we can say VER simply wasn't on top his game yesterday, but, 78 laps and 1 overtake isn't a stat that helps.

"Don't shoot the messenger" -- you see circuit as a messenger for shortcomings of the car, but, I see the cars as messengers for the shortcomings of the circuit. In my view, both are fair arguments, so, blindly defending the circuit (just because of its status and history) doesn't seem fair.

[mani517]

for those who say nothing happens in the race.

only Carlos Sainz in 6th and Roman Grosjean in 8th finished the race where they started

Since, I was arguing against the track, I wanted to respond. My argument was, "not much happens **on track** during the race". Strategy, attrition, team orders, undercut, overcut etc. can shuffle the field, but, for many (at least for me) on-track battles are important in a race.

I don't deny strategies are clever, but, I enjoy it only when it complements on-track action.

[zac510]

@zac510, I beg to differ. Car design didn't take a step backward -- it just never took a step in the right direction in recent past. I feel the wider cars and increased mechanical grip were a good couple of steps, but, they are pretty much undone by the aero sensitivity of the cars. So, while I acknowledge the shortcomings of the cars, I'm merely stating the shortcomings of this track.

The same wider aero sensitive cars raced close in the last few races -- not hundreds in number, but, there were some quality passes. The F1 world (even drivers and team) acknowledge passing is pretty much impossible in Monaco, so, my argument isn't baseless.

Monaco has failed (bar some exceptions in its long history) to offer fair racing opportunities, VER vs BOT yesterday was a good example. We saw that US was considerably superior to SS, we also saw that RedBull was a match for Mercedes, but, in spite of tailing BOT's gearbox for few laps VER can't find a way to pass. In my view, equally competitive car, better tires, DRS proximity (not one, but, all 3 together) favored VER and yet he couldn't find a way past BOT. Now, if we need to push the argument we can say VER simply wasn't on top his game yesterday, but, 78 laps and 1 overtake isn't a stat that helps.

"Don't shoot the messenger" -- you see circuit as a messenger for shortcomings of the car, but, I see the cars as messengers for the shortcomings of the circuit. In my view, both are fair arguments, so, blindly defending the circuit (just because of its status and history) doesn't seem fair.

I agree with all of your points. I stated that there's never a single reason why we have a bad race, it's always a collusion of several factors (like a plane crash) and we are each just stating two of the main factors that made yesteday's Monaco race a bit boring.

However the reason why I defend Monaco is that I think it's important to have a diverse range of tracks - some that are tight and twisty (Monaco, Hungary), some that are flat out (Canada, Monza) that highlight different strengths and weaknesses of cars and drivers. If the tracks were homogenous then the car designs would be even more convergent (like a spec-series) and the best execution would win more often.

If Brawn and his team get the aerodynamic/following cars part right, Monaco will really come back to be a valuable race IMO, because of its unique technical and driver challenge. I hope we don't lose that!

[turbof1]

Discussion is going a lot better, guys. Keep that up.