Discussion:
Suggestions for fixing Monaco?
(too old to reply)
larkim
2018-05-29 08:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.

But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?

Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?

What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change requirement they'd still have to stop.

Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?

As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite the lack of overtaking opportunities?

I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just in case.
geoff
2018-05-29 09:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just in case.
Enough interesting stuff happened and nearly-happened through the field
to keep me, um, interested.

Less overtaking happened in Australia, so what's the excuse there ?

geoff
Bigbird
2018-05-29 09:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to
permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras
over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe
around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on
slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind
Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run
on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so
that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on
the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change
requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper
combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one
circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite
the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I
watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping
something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that
as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just
in case.
Enough interesting stuff happened and nearly-happened through the
field to keep me, um, interested.
Less overtaking happened in Australia, so what's the excuse there ?
It's not about overtaking, never has been. It's about do or die, hero
or zero balls out scuffing the barriers racing.

Attempting to make it about overtaking is missing the point.
larkim
2018-05-29 10:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by geoff
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to
permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras
over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe
around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on
slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind
Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run
on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so
that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on
the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change
requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper
combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one
circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite
the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I
watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping
something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that
as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just
in case.
Enough interesting stuff happened and nearly-happened through the
field to keep me, um, interested.
Less overtaking happened in Australia, so what's the excuse there ?
It's not about overtaking, never has been. It's about do or die, hero
or zero balls out scuffing the barriers racing.
Attempting to make it about overtaking is missing the point.
Agree with both of those opinions. The post race commentary seemed to be
suggesting there was a complete lack of jeopardy throughout the field though
as no-one was having to risk their car by riding a knife edge of potential
performance - the knife edge was the tyres, and that promoted conservativism
in terms of driving style.

F1 is *not* about accidents or crashes, but the fact that most of the field
managed to get from A to B without hitting each other or the barriers
indicated that they were all having to play it safe, though kudos to them
all as even the usual first corner melee was avoided through skillful
driving.

My thought is that we need to avoid Monaco being a 1 stop race, but that
can't be achieved voluntarily as the pitlane time is too long and the track
position advantage too big.

Given we can't remove the track position advantage (without changing the
nature of the track) and a safe pitlane is desired by all, I'd have thought
that the correct thing to do would be to mandate higher numbers of tyre
changes *just for this track* to mix things up a little.

If there is one event where we could tolerate it being "sexed up", surely
Monaco is the one?
Naked Fame
2018-05-31 09:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Given we can't remove the track position advantage (without changing the
nature of the track) and a safe pitlane is desired by all, I'd have thought
that the correct thing to do would be to mandate higher numbers of tyre
changes *just for this track* to mix things up a little.
How about sprinklers, just for this track?

I'll help myself out.
--
Signature
larkim
2018-05-31 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Naked Fame
Post by larkim
Given we can't remove the track position advantage (without changing the
nature of the track) and a safe pitlane is desired by all, I'd have thought
that the correct thing to do would be to mandate higher numbers of tyre
changes *just for this track* to mix things up a little.
How about sprinklers, just for this track?
I'll help myself out.
--
Signature
It's no more daft than my suggestion.

I was just floating the idea that perhaps for this one off, unique circuit
that has delivered exciting races only sparingly recently, yet is adored by
drivers for the challenge, there might be some merit in a really artificial
way to create the racing that we'd love to see there if the rules that
apply for every other track on the calendar simply cause a bore-fest each
year at Monaco.

Apart from when it rained, what were the characteristics or key features of
good Monaco races that meant they were raced and were a little less
predictable?
Brian W Lawrence
2018-05-29 10:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just in case.
A curious fact - RIC was hampered by the loss of K for much of the race,
and everyone else was unable to overtake. And yet, Daniel's race
average speed was 151.750 kph, which is the highest race average since
Button won in 2009 (155.166). And, in fact, it was only the 4th win
above 150 kph ever - the other two were Alonso (2007 & 2006). Alonso's
2006 win was at 150.707, slower than the 2017 average.
larkim
2018-05-29 11:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just in case.
A curious fact - RIC was hampered by the loss of K for much of the race,
and everyone else was unable to overtake. And yet, Daniel's race
average speed was 151.750 kph, which is the highest race average since
Button won in 2009 (155.166). And, in fact, it was only the 4th win
above 150 kph ever - the other two were Alonso (2007 & 2006). Alonso's
2006 win was at 150.707, slower than the 2017 average.
That doesn't surprise me at all, it was clear that for much of the lap
RIC wasn't hampered much (if at all) as Vettel would often drop back
significantly before gaining on the climb up to the Casino.

Are those average mph figures affected by SC deployments etc?
Brian W Lawrence
2018-05-29 12:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Brian W Lawrence
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just in case.
A curious fact - RIC was hampered by the loss of K for much of the race,
and everyone else was unable to overtake. And yet, Daniel's race
average speed was 151.750 kph, which is the highest race average since
Button won in 2009 (155.166). And, in fact, it was only the 4th win
above 150 kph ever - the other two were Alonso (2007 & 2006). Alonso's
2006 win was at 150.707, slower than the 2017 average.
That doesn't surprise me at all, it was clear that for much of the lap
RIC wasn't hampered much (if at all) as Vettel would often drop back
significantly before gaining on the climb up to the Casino.
Are those average mph figures affected by SC deployments etc?
Yes, it's distance covered divided by time - for Ricciardo 260.286km in
102m 54.807s. Round those to 260km & 103m, 260/103 = 2.524km/min or
151.456 km/h.

As an afterthought I checked the full race classification, which has the
average race speed for all drivers. I was surprised to find that only 5
drivers failed to average more than 150kph:

MAG 13th 149.933
VAN 14th 149.799 (for 77 laps)
GRO 15th 149.074 "
SIR 16th 148.562 "
STR 17th 147.080 76

Leclerc, Hartley & Alonso were all above 150 kph.

In 2009 16 drivers were above 150, only 4 were not, but all DNFd quite
early in the race.

Maybe that was true for 2005 & 2006 too, but I don't have the data. I
could do the math to find out, but ....
John
2018-06-01 20:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don't "fix" it.
Bruce Hoult
2018-06-02 02:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
So the diagnosis of Sunday was that the tyres were too fragile to permit flat out running for large proportions of the race.
But presumably also the lap time advantage of the hypers and ultras over the soft were so significant that it was better to tip toe around on fragile but fast tyres than it was to run at the limit on slower tyres, if I've understood things satisfactorily?
Bottas seemed to be able to run fast enough on the softs behind Kimi, so presumably any of the top drivers could have chosen to run on the softs with no penalty compared to the ultras?
What could be done to make it more interesting? Harder tyres so that even if they didn't degrade much we'd at least have them on the limit as drivers, and with the mandatory tyre change requirement they'd still have to stop.
Or what about a menu choice - 2 stops if using an ultra / hyper combination, 1 stop if using a medium / soft combination?
As Monaco is "different", why not have different rules for this one circuit to facilitate at least some potential for action, despite the lack of overtaking opportunities?
I know drivers like Hamilton complained that it was boring, but I watched in the same way that I always watch Monaco, hoping something interesting would happen but sufficiently satisfied that as its a one off race I'm prepared to sit through some boredom just in case.
It doesn't need fixing.

If all the F1 tracks were the same, you might as well hold all the races at the same track.
Loading...