I know this has probably been covered before, but i am currently watching the Monaco gp wondering why they keep insisting that this boring procession is still worthy of a place on the calender. I've heard the whole history side of the argument, but does this really hold ground anymore? I personally would much rather see the Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit used if the history argument is involved, as the Monaco track is for me at least just too slow and processional. What do you guys think?
Honestly no. It has history but thats all. A new race would be crucified for producing races this dull.
Nordschleife gets people driving road cars killed, no way that'd be used for F1. Monaco is a little out of it's time, but it's more about the business that can be done here, as with the Middle Eastern, and some of the East Asian events (not saying these should be gotten rid of, the way the world is changing it's good to see new places represented)
I'm happy to know that i am not alone in my opinion of this track. What makes it harder to understand is the fact that during the race build up they said that even at the first race on the track in 1929 they thought it unsuitable for racing on, so the only reason i can think of is that Monaco is filthy rich and the little parasite Ecclestone is rubbing his hands together over the money he will no doubt be getting for it.
I'd take a tilkedrome every day of the week over what was a waste of my time to watch, even Abu Dhabi is better.
If you dont like it, dont watch it. Obviously we all watch it because something COULD happen and its spectacular!
I know that it's a dangerous circuit, but with a little updating on the safety issues, i think it would be a spectacle to behold, after all f1 is supposedly the pinnacle of motor sport and the tracks should back up that claim. Watching some of the old f1 clips from the Nordchleife races is almost magical.
You apply the same logic to defend Abu Dhabi and i assume you loved the idea of going back to Bahrain, Something COULD happen. It has a nicer backdrop than those races i concede and with the barriers so it is spectacular to watch qualy, but after 70 odd laps it wears thin.
I suppose i'm lucky to be old enough to remember the glory years of f1 during the 80's and early 90's, fair enough safety was not a priority, and obviously life preservation is of upmost importance, but these modern tracks are all starting to become far too sterile. Still just a couple of weeks to go to the Le Mans 24, something exciting to look forward to.
Scrap Monaco in favour of that circuit in Argentina, forget what it's called, but it goes around a lake in the middle of the track and would make for far better racing than monaco.
That does look like it could be quite an entertaining venue for f1, perfect for GT racing i would imagine.
Personally i think Monaco should be used for Moto GP racing, at least then overtaking wouldn't be an issue.
Of course it should have a place on the calendar. It presents the drivers with a unique challenge and as the pinnacle of world motorsport, F1 should be testing the drivers to the limit in all conditions. There's also nowhere nearly as exhilarating as Monaco on board, and the cars look spectacular coming through the swimming pool section. Not to mention all the history of the event, the fact the drivers love it and that it's produced some cracking races over the years, including last season. If you can't appreciate it don't watch it.
Monaco is ok, the problem is we're no longer watching proper racing. The tyres are pretty much a lottery as to how they are going to work not only from one race to the next but from one day to the next depending on if a few clouds turn up or disappear. So far this season its all about who can make a set of tyres last the longest at a descent speed. With Monacos lack of overtaking there wasn't much of a penalty for the pack leader taking it easy with his tyres
