2019 Monaco Grand Prix - Monte Carlo, May 23-26

[NathanOlder]

If they can win Canada, I think they can probably take every race this season.

Hungary will surely be RedBull territory with only 1 slow chicane. The rest is all slow sweeping corners rather than the stop start chicanes where Mercedes excel

[yelistener]

If they can win Canada, I think they can probably take every race this season.

Hungary will surely be RedBull territory with only 1 slow chicane. The rest is all slow sweeping corners rather than the stop start chicanes where Mercedes excel

I don't remember RB being better than Mercedes at any type of corners this year. The only corners Mercedes lose are the high-speed flatout corners (such as Spain T9) where the engine power is the determining factor, and they obviously lose to Ferrari.

[GPR-A]

Like me, someone else also doesn't like Monaco.

Excerpt from Canadian GP Thursday press conference.

Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines, Racefans.net) Lewis, you said this was one of the top three tracks in your opinion. Which are the other two?
LH: Silverstone and Austin, they are my… Why? Literally because… look, we’ve got Monaco which is spectacular. I live there, I love it but you all know how the race is from the day before. It’s not a race that… I personally don’t enjoy driving the race because you can make your car as wide as you want, you can’t actually entertain. You don’t turn passes in, for example. Austin, you can overtake, it’s a brand new circuit but it’s got a lot of great character, you can actually follow. Same with here, it’s a race track where you can get quite close. It is a street circuit on this incredible little island in this big city and it’s just very unique in its own way. It’s very high speed braking, big stops and there are some big curves. And then the Silverstone Grand Prix, that track has history galore, the layout is just incredible. It’s all high speed and medium speed and it’s the ultimate test… probably of all the tracks the ultimate test of the downforce of a car and you’ve got some of the coolest sections: Copse, Maggotts, Becketts, Stowe. Those sectors, that whole combination is not… I don’t think there’s many tracks in the world that have a better combination of corners in my personal opinion. But also there, you can, being that it’s wide enough, you can naturally follow and there is some really good racing there so that’s why it’s my personal favourite.

[izzy]

Like me, someone else also doesn't like Monaco.

Count me in too, it's a stupid place to have a race, and all that fawning over prince and princess thingy who've never actually done a thing in their lives! Ew. Canada thank you

[Phil]

Indeed. We should just race in Canada 20 times a year. Would make for a much better championship.

[izzy]

Indeed. We should just race in Canada 20 times a year. Would make for a much better championship.

yes, or maybe add Austin, Monza, Silverstone, China, Germany, and Paul Ricard for the sprinklers . and not only is Monaco the worst track they're the ONE that doesn't pay anything!

[GPR-A]

Indeed. We should just race in Canada 20 times a year. Would make for a much better championship.

yes, or maybe add Austin, Monza, Silverstone, China, Germany, and Paul Ricard for the sprinklers .

My list exactly!

[Phil]

The point was, that different tracks offer different unique challenges. We have 20 tracks. Some tracks offer easier overtaking, some higher speeds, some increase the importance on qualifying and strategy [Monaco]. The sense of danger and racing through such narrow streets in such cars is something very unique later generations might miss one day.

Here's a nice documentation on the thrill of Monaco from 1992.



BTW; I'm not saying that I think Monaco is the best 'race' of the year. It clearly isn't. I'm saying it's part of a season long race calendar and has it's merits as a part of that. Like a single chapter of a book.

[izzy]

Indeed. We should just race in Canada 20 times a year. Would make for a much better championship.

yes, or maybe add Austin, Monza, Silverstone, China, Germany, and Paul Ricard for the sprinklers .

My list exactly!

We should be in charge

[izzy]

The point was, that different tracks offer different unique challenges. We have 20 tracks. Some tracks offer easier overtaking, some higher speeds, some increase the importance on qualifying and strategy [Monaco]. The sense of danger and racing through such narrow streets in such cars is something very unique later generations might miss one day.

Here's a nice documentation on the thrill of Monaco from 1992.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJbgPfEdJ8

BTW; I'm not saying that I think Monaco is the best 'race' of the year. It clearly isn't. I'm saying it's part of a season long race calendar and has it's merits as a part of that. Like a single chapter of a book.

Oh you were being sarcastic. Lol, that can tricky on a forum . Well I can't agree sorry. I 100% agree with your principle about variety, but Monaco is only any good as a time trial. Awesome on Saturday, waste of time on Sunday, without sprinklers

[Phil]

It is if you're only interested in who finishes in 1st position - it isn't if you're somewhat interested in what happens further down the grid.

Point in case:
Bottas finishing 3rd, instead of 2nd.
Verstappen box incident.
Strategic brilliance by McLaren with Sainz and Norris.
The safety-car causing mayhem with many cars in the midfield who pitted and finished lower than what they should have.

This is only from this year. You could go through the last few years to find similar examples of outcomes that are very unique to Monaco. As I said, if you're only interested in what happens at the very front - fair point. But then, I unfortunately have bad news for you, because no matter the layout, statistically, most races are won from the front more often than not. So you might as well quit watching races for good.

[GPR-A]

There is a difference in a Fashion Show and Racing. I would be happy to watch all the models walk on the ramp and showcase the designs by various designers and appreciate the beauty of all of it. But "Racing" by definition means, fighting to be at the front and competing to win. Of 1000+ races in the history of F1, there have been countless ALSO RANS, who no one remembers. Legends aren't made by also rans. Any team/individual who does the best job deserves to fight and win. People pay to watch that adrenaline rush of the protagonists at the front. Being slower over a second isn't exactly being in A RACE and neither that sounds thrilling to paying public.

Would I ever pay several bucks to go and watch a race of "10 MINS", which is supposed to be a weekend event? Hell no.

[Phil]

I'm sorry, that may be your definition. As per the dictionary;

noun
noun: race; plural noun: races
1.
a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

verb
verb: race; 3rd person present: races; past tense: raced; past participle: raced; gerund or present participle: racing
1.
compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.

There's nothing in there that suggest there has to be overtakes or what you may find desirable. Considering how many position changes we had during the race, I'm finding it hard not to call that racing by any sort of definition. If you want to open that can of worms, then we could argue how many times someone hasn't won from the front-row or how many times races have been won with no position changes and if that doesn't meet the definition of racing too.

[izzy]

It is if you're only interested in who finishes in 1st position - it isn't if you're somewhat interested in what happens further down the grid.

Point in case:
Bottas finishing 3rd, instead of 2nd.
Verstappen box incident.
Strategic brilliance by McLaren with Sainz and Norris.
The safety-car causing mayhem with many cars in the midfield who pitted and finished lower than what they should have.

This is only from this year. You could go through the last few years to find similar examples of outcomes that are very unique to Monaco. As I said, if you're only interested in what happens at the very front - fair point. But then, I unfortunately have bad news for you, because no matter the layout, statistically, most races are won from the front more often than not. So you might as well quit watching races for good.

oh i thought you were alright. but you think one obvious strategy call (SC, cars in front pit=stay out, in Monaco) and one unsafe release is a great motor race, and you know what a motor race is, and i don't, thanks

[bosyber]

Well, given the last decades have given us plenty of races (not just in Monaco) where not even one obvious strategy call enlivened them, I call it a win - I certainly felt it was a good Monaco race; but then, I tend to look at the positives. But, I will agree that it would be great if the TV direction at Monaco had been better, we mist a lot of the interesting midfield battles. I would much prefer it if the TV coverage took more effort to look at where in the field the actual interesting things were, rather than the oft default 'follow the leaders' even when not much is happening there (though again, last race, it did feel like there was potentially something happening at several points on the lap, for the 1st and last 10 of that HAM/VER fight). I suppose it's just up to me to use F1tv and twitter, f1 timing screen to look up the good bits and switch to onboards!