According to today's BBC F1 gossip column, it is Paul Ricard that is mooted as the venue for the revived French GP. I think it's a great idea myself. Historically, France is one of the great motorsport nations and it seems to me criminal that it no longer has a Grand Prix; there's a clue in the name, incidentally Imagine if we lost the British Grand Prix... Oh, we almost did a couple of years back.
I was never that keen on magny cours. Bernie wants a paris street circuit, so that's probably what we'll end up getting. I wouldn't mind a return to paul ricard. That ultra flat surface would be welcomed by the drivers.
Maybe Mateschitz could rip up all the other Tilke tracks as well (and then build a car park on them).
Welcome to the forum Gwew! Am a bit behind with F1 news at the moment but there should be a GP in France, so long as they don't tamper with one of the better circuits like Spa to fit it in.
I wouldnt mind Hungary making way. Ive never been fond of that track. Or maybe they could scrap the european GP to make way
I like Hungary. Not the most exciting racing but it's a stern test for the driver because there are very few straights, lots of gradient changes as well.
Haha, it is a bit. It's the sort of place I'd want to race, I get bored on the straights, nothing to attack. Most people I go with prefer tracks with more straights because the lazy gits don't like how much strain a twistier track puts on the arms.
Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours was never a classic and was never destined to create sufficient local interest or benefit to the local never-Nevers economy. I have never liked the place and would never welcome its return to F1. Don't get me wrong; I'm in favour of any excuse to go over the water, but as a proposition, 'Mangey Course' is as dull as a day in Dover. On the other hand, France does have a great circuit further east, which also lends itself to an ironic play of Anglais-ish: Dijon Prenois would make sound economic sense as well as a much better spectacle for the viewer and a far greater challenge to drivers. Then again, as has been mentioned, they have perhaps an even more viable proposition: Paul Ricard - which previously hosted the biggest motorcycling event of them all; the Bol d'Or; the biker's equivalent to Le Mans 24hrs. It already has much of the infrastructure required for F1, as well as being on the western fringe of one of my favourite places on the planet; the French Riviera and the truly beautiful region to its north. Speaking of Boldors (ahem): with Monaco a mere stone's throw away, we know that F1 is welcomed by a population happy to enjoy the glamour of motorsport; therefore the logistics of including the venue would not be in question, since it would be a cinch to schedule them back to back. But it is perhaps typical of the nation that a French driver is seen as pre-requisite to reclaiming a place on the Grand Prix calendar. As for Grosjean; well, perhaps his name sits better in the first sentence of this thread; he's never going to be good enough…
Cosicave, I believe this is a very unfair assessment of a driver who was never given a proper chance to prove himself in F1. We can't really judge him on seven races at the end of a season. Also he also had Fernando Alonso as his teammate, so it was never going to be easy for him. He has already proved he is a talented driver in F3, GT1 and GP2. In his first qualifying, Alonso's 11th of the season - Grosjean was just 3 tenths slower. This was at a street circuit with Alonso having the advantage of a home crowd. Then at Monza, a track where Alonso usually does well, Grosjean was just 2 tenths slower than him in qualifying. At the final race of the season, he may have qualified 19th, but was only 2 tenths behind Alonso - who was 16th. He was driving a complete dog of a car and therefore had almost no opportunity to show what he's capable in terms of overtaking, resisting pressure, defending, etc. Coming into the season so late meant that he was still getting to grips with the car while his very quick teammate had completed thousands of miles in the same machine. It's not fair to judge him against Alonso, and we only have to look at Fisi's performance in the F60 to see how difficult it is for drivers to adjust to a new car mid-season. Grosjean's replacement for 2010, Vitaly Petrov - was even worse in his first seven races (and he had the advantage of pre-season testing). Unlike Grosjean, Petrov had time to prove himself, and it took him 18 races to finally show that he was a worthy of a seat in F1. Considering all of this, was Grosjean really that bad? I don't think we can judge him just yet, and we certainly shouldn't be saying things like "he's never going to be good enough". I think he thoroughly deserves a proper chance - a full season in a decent midfield car. Then after that, it will be fair to judge him.
Well guys, (Forza and Westy), the trouble with F1 is that you get one chance - unless you have succeeded in creating such hype as to be the rare beneficiary of being invited back for a second bite at the cherry. My sentence might at first glance look harsh, but it is written entirely in the future tense and makes no allusion whatsoever to his or anyone else's past. Grosjean's future is what I was addressing. His past is gone, just like mine or yours; his chance came and proved to be brief, and now that too is past. As far as F1 is concerned, Grosjean is part of its history regardless of merit. It's tough at the top; just ask Sebastian Bourdais…
