Italian Grand Prix “will stay at Monza”

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: The Italian Grand Prix organisers indicate they are about to conclude a deal to keep the race at Monza.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

This Keith reckons the turn one collision at Spa was a racing incident and this Keith agrees:

I can understand why Verstappen went for the gap, but it was always going to be a risky move. It’s the kind of move that maybe comes off 50% of the time but if it compromises or ends your race the other 50% then it’s usually not worth it. Those kind of decisions will improve with experience.

I would put slightly more blame on Vettel because he could have taken a wider line, he just didn’t realise Verstappen was on the inside causing Raikkonen to take a wider line. With his experience I would have expected him to leave a bit of a margin there though.

The one thing I’m sure is that I’m glad the stewards didn’t get involved because it was definitely a racing incident – no driver was intentionally reckless it was just a slight misreading of the situation on Vettel’s part in my opinion.
Keith Campbell (@Keithedin)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris Sz and Meander!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy 22nd birthday to Carlos Sainz Jnr.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

45 comments on “Italian Grand Prix “will stay at Monza””

  1. Michael Brown (@)
    1st September 2016, 0:28

    Ah, another classic race is being threatened.

    Business as usual in F1, then.

    1. Yeah. I’m from Montreal and our race has been threatened so many times, it doesn’t ever scare me anymore.

      1. @philippe I’m still kinda worried because Montreal is one of the dwindling number of track that always provide non boring race.

      2. Michael Brown (@)
        1st September 2016, 13:14

        @philippe I’m Canadian myself, and I went in 2013. Even then it was threatened. I’d go every year if the tickets weren’t so expensive.

    2. I went to this year’s race and it had a good atmosphere. It would be a shame if it was scrapped.

      1. Jonathan Parkin
        1st September 2016, 9:13

        Why does the hosting fee for these races need to be as large as it is. In Indycar (or what ever it’s called) it’s a fraction of what it costs F1.

        We get countries to build circuits and then three or four years down the line we dump them because they can’t afford the fee. I liked Turkey and Korea for example but we don’t go there anymore. I do also wish classic races such as Canada would stop being bullied year on year. I don’t watch the British GP now because I preferred the old layout before they were forced to change it to keep the race

        1. Because CVC Capital fund (hedge fund) is in the business of making lot’s of money and they own F1.

          To them it’s an investment vihicle. They don’t invest, they don’t care for the sport as such. They only exist to get a huge return on investment for their shareholders.

          1. Jonathan Parkin
            1st September 2016, 12:16

            Ah so it’s a horse carrying moneybags situation. Only thing is the horse will drop if you ride it too far

          2. ‘Nailed it’ JeffreyJ ! It’s a pure ‘goose that laid the golden egg’ parable.
            CVC Capital Partners exists purely to extract the maximum from any given
            investment. History, national interest, the healthy survival of the goose
            laying the golden eggs is of zero interest to them. Which…when you
            think about it, is so crass, so utterly stupid, that it simply beggars belief.

          3. And that is the root cause for nearly all of F1’s venue related problems today. When F1 goes to places like Bahrain, China, and Azerbaijan- i.e. places that don’t care about motor racing and only use the GP for exposure (or in Bahrain’s evil case, a private show for financially and socially elite people).

          4. You know there is something wrong when F1 goes to places like that. Abu Dhabi’s layout could be improved by making it much faster but that is a pretty contemptible race as well.

        2. Jonathan Parkin, Silverstone changed the layout because they were bidding for the contract to take over the contract for the British round of the MotoGP series from 2010. It was FIM and Dorna who objected to the old circuit layout, with FIM refusing to homologate that layout (and in particular the old Bridge corner) for the MotoGP class or for the junior classes.

  2. Oh Pirelli, always some excuse!

    People please stop defending Pirelli by saying these were the tyres they were asked to make. Nobody asked for tyres that anti-racing, where they can’t handle being pushed for more than 2 consecutive laps or to follow another driver aggressively. Nobody asked for “delaminations”, I’ve never seen so many tyres damaged from front wings before.

    Their tyres have to stay in the small temperature window (as mention many times by drivers). They are HORRIBLE.

    The drivers spoke out once clearly but got a finger wagging from Bernie, it’s clear they think the tyres are poor. If they only last a couple of laps they should have IMMENSE grip withstand being pushed at close to 100% .

    1. @s2g-unit I advise you read very carefully what Hembery had said there. Then ask yourself the following question: could any other tire manufacturers have done better given the working limitations and the requirements? Remember, Michelin and Bridgestone had unlimited testing opportunities, literally tens of thousands of kilometers and they weren’t always successful. For example for 2005 they were required to make tires that will last the whole race and what a mess they’d made of it. Everyone remembers Michelin’s epic fail at USA 2005, but Bridgestone’s whole season was a fail, their tires were useless junk performance-wise. And in 2010 we had an exciting WDC battle without exciting on-track battle because of Bridgestone’s rock-hard rubbish

      So, it all comes down to this: who do you want to replace Pirelli and why do you think they’d do a better job in equal circumstances?

      1. other than USA which could have been avoided 2005 was brilliant and the best rules we have had in recent years.

        Real racing, racing that went down to the last lap on many occasions. No DRS rubbish

        1. 2005 was a boring season for the most part. I could tell you 8/10 who would win the race, similar to 2016

        2. @q85 That’s debatable but not even to the point. We’re talking about the tires here. Do you dispute Brifgestone’s 2005 tires were rubbish? Or Usa 2005 Michelin’s epic fail? What’s your post has to do with the point of mine?

      2. @montreal95, in the case of Bridgestone, they outright stated that the quality of the racing that resulted from their tyres was of no interest to them. The only thing they cared about was their reputation, and the conservatism that we saw from them came about because of a backlash over the initial tyres (remember how, in the 2009 Australian GP, the softest tyres were falling apart after about half a dozen laps?).

        1. Very true Anon. But that sort of reinforces @montreal95‘s argument that it would be hard to find another tyre manufacturer doing the job.

          Bridgestone (probably also as a result of having failed in making race lasting tyres in 2005 – the brigestone only worked somewhat on the Ferrari they had tested with, other bridgestone teams were lost completely, and indeed as you mention issues in 2009) would not even consider making the tyres softer to enable better racing etc. And that was despite having ample testing to find a solution, unlike Pirelli has now.

          The point Pirelli makes in the article, is that they do not have enough means to test to make sure we see no blowup in an extreme case like the Spa track, combined with unusually high temperatures. On track testing is not allowed, and simulation tools are still not accurate enough in extreme circumstances. That would certainly be an issue for any tire manufacturer, unless they chose the way Bridgestone went, with rock hard tyres – which is not much different from hiking up the pressures like Pirelli did (but that can be at least adapted to fit the track)

          1. Even though I find myself sighing at Pirelli, I still have to agree with what @bascb and @montreal95 are writing. It is annoying that we are in this situation, but Pirelli can’t unilaterally change it even if they have the means anyway, because that would be changing the basis the teams designed the cars around.

            We really do have to consider that tyres are a complicated product and that Pirelli probably does not get accurate load data from teams’ wind-tunnel tyres (even if those are deforming almost like the real thing); they have to estimate, well ahead of the season, what the expected maximal loads for the tyres will be on 6 different, evolving, cars.

            Given they say that simulation showed after the 2015 Spa race they had under-estimated developments, and given that they can’t suddenly change the tyres because they have to be tested, produced, then chosen by the teams and shipped (also see that article on two teams having reservations about moving to a stronger tyre from Malasia) well in advance, as @bascb says, pressures seem the logical stop gap measure, sad as it is.

          2. Make that 10 different, evolving, cars, of course :)

          3. even better, it’s 11 different cars this year @bosyber :-o

          4. heh, counting, I really did that uniquely well

        2. Yep. @anon @bascb So that’s Bridgestone off the list of potential replacements then. If you’re a fan of better racing you don’t want them anywhere near F1 again. Who else?

          Michelin maybe, but then again, if they’ve made the USA 2005 epic fail in an era of unlimited testing, maybe their tires would be exploding even more than Pirellis

          No other proven top tire company has even remotely indicated interest in coming in. So those, who, like @s2g-unit , want Pirelli gone, should be careful what they wish for. With F1’s attitude to tire companies, both from paddock figures and fans alike, should Pirelli leave F1 might remain completely tire-less and it will have deserved that

          I don’t like the Pirelli tires behavior, the high pressures etc. But I appreciate what they’re going through and don’t quite understand why they need the bother. Pirelli has a very high reputation for performance road tires anyway. I can only conclude that that they do this for the love of racing at the top level and I can only admire that

  3. Go away Pirelli. Sick of hearing about them and how they miscalculated, have to compromise teams on race day. Embarassing

    1. @John23 ! You need to read some of the well-informed comments above your post. Making tyres that suit all circuits, track conditions, atmospherics,elevation,geographics is simply impossible. If you then add in driver preferences, the vast range of power output between rival teams and you have a recipe for
      disaster in every change you make to a tyre spec. No tyre manufacturer could find the perfect compound
      simply because there is no such thing as the perfect compound. QED.

  4. So just because the likes of Schumacher and Senna did some pretty unsavory things onroute to becoming great drivers, does it mean that its ok for Max to do it to? It appears that certain quarter are praising Max for pushing the limits. I find that totally ridiculous.

    There were a lot of things that Schumacher did which were deemed highly unprofessional and illegal. Why should we applaud this?

    Like Kimi said, racing hard is fine, but it has to be fair. And Kimi’s opinious should be regarded highly as 10-12 years ago, there was plenty of hard racing between the likes of himself, Alonso, Montoya and the like, but I dont recall anything being dangerous. I remember all the run ins that Schumi had with Montoya, simply because the latter didn’t put up with the former’s antics.

    We’ve seen top class driver such as Prost and Lauda win multiple championships without being extreme. Does that make them any less competitive than the likes of Schumacher and Senna? If Max isnt put in his place, what sort of precedence does that set for new drivers from the PlayStation generation coming into F1? A very dangerous one no less. If everyone going forward will have the same mentality, there are going to be loads of crashes.

    1. @jaymenon10 Exactly. This is the reason despite all his accomplishment, I never like Schumacher as a driver and Senna is not that legendary for me.

  5. LovelyLovelyLuffield
    1st September 2016, 7:23

    Phew. Good thing Monza stays. Well, not the entire thing, but it’s better than nothing.

    But why not just use a Ford chicane-like chicane for Retifillo? It’s as good as a slow zone as any other, and it’s quite wide enough that any two drivers can pick a viable line, and a bypass for the old-style flat-out straight is still easy to make.

    Either way, I suggest the changes get held off till maybe 2018, just to really see the difference between ’16 and ’17.

  6. I have a lot of personal memories of Monza. It usually marks the start of the autumn season here in Latvia. When I was a student, it used to be the first Grand Prix after the summer break. In 2010, I flew home early on the Sunday morning after a difficult seminar weekend to be able to watch the race live, while my colleagues were still sleeping. Last year, I finally went to Monza to experience it all myself:

    There have obviously been a lot of memorable races over the last 20 years. The 1997 race was so boring that I still remember it. (It would probably have a negative average rating on F1F.) Both Schumacher brothers stood on the podium together for the first time at Monza in 1998. The 1999 race featured an unusual podium with Frentzen, R.Schumacher and Salo. In 2000, M.Schumacher cried in the press conference after matching Senna’s number of victories and finally beating Hakkinen after a string of bad races. I could go on and on without checking any facts as I vividly remember how it all happened…

    So yes, I am happy to hear that this race is going to stay on the calendar.

  7. I wonder, wouldn’t Pirelli be able to lower the tyre pressure a tad with that stronger inner construction of the tyres they tested? If that would be the case, then surely they should be competative on pace, no?

  8. I’m pleased that Monza seems to have struck a new deal to remain on the calendar, but I’d take Montreal over Monza any day and would be gutted if we were to lose that race.

  9. Thrilled if Monza is indeed kept on the calendar. I’ve always enjoyed the circuit on TV and playing the video games, but having attended the Grand Prix in 2014, I love the place! It was easily one of the best weekends I’ve ever had; an unbelievable atmosphere.

    1. I’ve not made the trek to Monza, but it is on my bucket list. I bet the 2014 race was fantastic.
      Yes, the video games…… I remember when the game Grand Prix Legends (GPL) by Papyrus came out in demo form, it had Watkins Glen on the US release and then Monza on the European release. Being that I am in the US, it didn’t take long to find the Monza demo online and get it working in the US demo. I can’t tell you how many hours were spent just on the demo.

  10. What if an F1 season would last for 2 years instead of 1? Wouldn’t that help us get all the classic tracks and spice it up with different stuff in new places without overexerting teams and organizers?

    1. That’s exactly the current arrangement with Hockenheim, except for the championship points carrying over. I don’t think it’s viable for all circuits to host only one GP every two years though.

      1. I suppose it could work for most circuits. There would also be more time for teams to understand the car and catch up to the front runners, thus a longer period before teams decide to give up on the current contest and invest in “next season’s car”. Having less champions or champions with less titles among them overall could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Anyways, very far fetched, I know. I was smoking a joint while reading the roundup (I live in Verstappenland ;) and tripped on this idea.

  11. @Keithedin I agree completely bar your last sentence. How should Vettel have seen Verstappen? Vettel left plenty of space for Kimi whom was to be expected over there. It’s a racing incident with no more fault to either of the three drivers. A series of unfortunate events.

    1. @xtwl Well, I didn’t mean that Vettel should have seen Verstappen. More that he could have anticipated that another car might be able to dive down the inside of Kimi (there was after all, just enough room to do that) and that if this happened Vettel’s line would lead to a crash. So I just thought that experience might have told him to leave a bit of a margin at such a tight first corner in case something like that happened. I do agree however that I can only criticize in hindsight after seeing the outcome – it is a very tough call to make in a fraction of a second during the chaotic moments at the start of a grand prix.

      1. Duncan Idaho (@)
        2nd September 2016, 0:37

        I think Vet’s aim was to cramp Rai’s exit and take/keep the place. Someone diving down the inside and holding Rai out wasn’t envisaged. Maybe Ver will factor in the actions of more than one car at first turns in years to come.

  12. Good to hear positive news about Monza’s future, but I won’t be breathing a sigh of relief until I hear a confirmation from Mr. B.C. Ecclestone.

  13. wow, thats great news, i love monza, it should be there in f1 calendar for another 10 years (atleast), we can make it more interesting and challenging by adding the oval circuit into the present circuit , that would be so awesome, ofcourse after making it safer for the drivers… :)

  14. I hope the Monza news is confirmed. At the same time, I fear that we will be back to having super fast cars going around the track as on rails with a distance of 3-4 seconds between them, with only DRS on great pieces of Track like the Kemmel straight allowing them to exchange places, much as Nigel Roebuck fears, next year – see:

  15. Cotd is unaware that it makes no sense to go on the inside of T1, not to mention many of t1’s disatrous starts are due to someone down at the inside of t1, anyway I do agree that incident warrants no attention from the stewards, even if it ruin the spectacle.

Comments are closed.