F1 bosses to visit proposed site for Danish Grand Prix

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Kevin Magnussen may have a home grand prix in the future as plans for a Danish Grand Prix in Copenhagen are progressing.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

It’s time to stop thinking of the ‘new’ Nurburgirng as just a lesser sibling, says @Montreal95:

We all want to compare to the Nordschleife but it’s frankly pointless. It’s 40 years gone from F1 and will never come back.

Every track is poor when compared to the best ever. Compare the new Nurburgring to the other modern tracks and it’s not half bad. In fact it’s the best circuit in Germany currently apart from its big brother.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Raginginferno, Akshay.It and Mole!

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

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 “F1 bosses to visit proposed site for Danish Grand Prix”

  1. Nurburgring aint a lesser sibling its the same track bastardised by modern F1, just like many other tracks.

    1. How is it the same track? The section of the Nordschleife that used to be on that site was simply a place to stick the pits, consisting of 2 straights and a hairpin wasn’t it?

  2. Relating to the Christian Horner/Tyre article I just don’t get the obsession with trying to get every race to feature 2-3 stops. A 1 stop race can be just as interesting to watch as a 2/3 stop race just like a 2/3 stop race can be just as dull to watch as a 1 stop race.

    Give teams access to the full tyre range, Remove the (Silly) rule forcing everyone to make a mandatory stop to run 2 compounds & let them do what they want be it no stops or a few stops. Open the rules up rather than locking them down to try & force everyone down a similar route via somewhat artificially generated means.

    1. This is what standardisation does.

    2. I can’t remember the reason for this rule, but my guess is there’s a fear a car might get into the lead of the race at the start, never stop, be just fast enough so no one can overtake them, and then win. While this does happen under the manadorty one pit stop rule, the person who does so can’t do it with just a one second gap to a train of cars behind, they have to have created a lead bigger than approximately 20 seconds to the cars behind.
      You need to remember F1 is a racing series without an official handicap system, so I guess one could argue the mandatory one stop rule is a concession to those who would like it to have a handicap system. If by chance a driver does happen to get into the front at the start, does lead every lap, wins, and does so despite the mandatory one stop rule, then they and the team do deserve the accolades that follow.

      1. @drycrust The rule forcing them to run 2 compounds was introduced in 2007 as a way to get people talking about tyres in the absence of a tyre war (Michelin pulled out at the end of 2006).

        No-stop races went away in 1994 when refueling was introduced, Prior to then it was commonplace to see drivers run the whole race without making a stop (While others did) & it certainly didn’t harm the racing in any way. If anything the more open approach back then benefited the racing because it gave teams/drivers a lot more freedom to try something really different.

        Take the 1990 French Gp, The 2 Leyton House cars of Ivan Capelli & Mauricio Gugelmin No-stopped because there car was able to do so, Most of the others stopped at least once so you ended up with Capelli & Gugelmin running 1st/2nd (Having both failed to qualify at the previous race in Mexico) with Prost’s Ferrari chasing them down in the closing stages. In the end Gugelmin retired & Prost found a way past Capelli with a few laps left but that made the race more interesting than it otherwise would have been & the closing stages far more exciting than they would have been.

        I just think they need to open things up a bit, Give teams/drivers more freedom & let them go race. Trying to force everyone down similar route’s, Trying to create more equality of engine/chassis performance & trying to artificially mix things up isn’t the right thing to do.

        1. I think you’re right, it is time to let this go.

    3. The best racing comes from zero pit stop races, as in motoGP.

      1. Totally disagree!
        The best racing comes from thin vehicles with hardly any dirty air, as in motoGP.

        Pit Stops are an exciting part of most (car) racing series, and even better in F1 where it just takes a couple of seconds.

        1. @egonovi, Would you call V8 supercars thin? Pitstops began in endurance racing and should have stayed there.

          1. Would you call V8 supercars thin?

            No! Not sure why you think I did.
            But I don’t think V8 Supercar is good racing either.

    4. @stefmeister, Red Bull were amongst those who had been lobbying fairly aggressively throughout the season for Pirelli to introduce softer compounds in the latter part of the season, which was reportedly because Red Bull struggled to bring the harder compounds up to temperature (a complaint that a number of other teams also made).

      Part of the incentive towards shifting towards a larger number of stops will be that it forces Pirelli to bring softer tyre compounds to most venues, helping the teams get their wish for softer tyres as a result.

      1. I associate softer tires with more mechanical grip for shorter time stints, and I think that is good, especially if the tires will remain having this far too narrow optimum operating temp that they’ve had. I envision that perhaps they will be able to push these tires harder knowing they won’t have to make them last as long anyway.

        One thing we know is that for now the measures to alter the aero emphasis, assuming that’ll come at least by 2021 but hopefully sooner, will not be in effect this season, so if these tires provide a little more mechanical grip then at least they will have started to correct the harmful imbalance that exists between mechanical and aero grip.

        I think the push for multiple pit stops is another bandage to mask over the lack of close fighting amongst the cars. A greater emphasis on mechanical and ground effects grip over aero, and we wouldn’t need our action to come from pit stop ‘suspense’ and bad tires and drs.

    5. I’m partial to a couple of schools of thought about the tires.

      First one is do like most of the other race series do. Here are 2 dry weather compounds and the only 2 that are made and used. Since F1 already has it, here are the 2 wet weather compounds. Sort out tire allocation and have a nice weekend.

      The other side however, some of the best (for me) F1 races I have actually enjoyed were the ones with more than the average number of pit stops. Downside of this is that all of these were races where rain played into it.

      I don’t want to see a team run off into the distance because they can run a hardish compound tire with no issues and never once have to pit and nobody can catch or pass them not because of tire management but because of some of the other issues that are haunting the sport regarding passing and closing.

  3. Since my actual surname is Nielsen, bull mello is merely my F1F nom de plume, I vote yes for the Danish GP! I do get a vote as a Danish descendant, right?

    1. Yeh, you have to pay for it after all.

  4. Although it would be damn convenient for me as I live 20 minutes from the proposed track, I really cant see this happening. Kevins results are unlikely to be any better this year and thats all the Danes are interested in. Add that to the immense cost and problems that come with hosting a race in the capital… I wont be holding my breath.

    1. Yeah, really get what you are writing there @brawngp. But it WOULD be a great reason to finally go and drive up to Denmark to visit for :-)

  5. “What we saw in Abu Dhabi [during the race] wasn’t the greatest advert for F1. OK, the track might have some issues, but one-stop races certainly don’t help.”
    – Stop blaming the circuits already. The cars regarding how they’re designed Aerodynamically are the problem, not the circuits.
    Regarding the Crash.net-article: Just stop with this obsession on street circuits already, LOL.

    1. Some tracks are poor, but overall aero regulations need adjusting.

    2. The track is an abomination considering the amount of money they spent. I mean has the ever been a good race there?

      1. In F1 not really, But GP2/F2 & GP3 have regularly produced good races around Abu Dhabi so while the circuit is pretty bad (The final sector especially, 1st sector is good & 2nd OK) the relative lack of good F1 races clearly isn’t just down to the track layout.

      2. Jose b
        Totally agreed. It’s as if all that Tilke was told to was build a track, any track, just any track. Here’s a barrel (literally) load of money. And that is what he came up with. The ultimate aim was to show a track could be built, we did it. Not the racing, which was incidental, you understand. The very definition of a vanity project. Amazing, how many of those Bernie and Tilke have been involved in.

  6. @COTD I often race the Nurburgring on sims, and every now and then I take an F1 car there. It seems greatly out of place. Le Mans is way more suitable, Indy also kind of works, but Nurburgring is a mix of all kind of corners that are to bumpy for F1.

    If I want to race F1 there I bring 1979 car or even earlier, so it belongs to the history.

    1. There is also James May’s long standing grievance against the Nurburgring, which is that the manufacturer focus on getting a quick lap time around the track as a badge of their “sportiness” and for their marketing profile has lead to a generation of cars with excessively harsh rides and fidgety handling that are harder to live with in the real world.

      1. Well there is american cars if you wanna ride around in a couch, whats the problem?

        1. A ride is supposed to be smooth. You should barely feel the car accelerating, the same applies to normal “planned” (i.e. non-urgent) braking, going around corners, going over speed restictor bumps, etc. Suspension shouldn’t be pushed hard.

        2. Those cars don’t really exist any more. They disappeared 15-20 years ago.

  7. There’s nothing intrinsically bad about a one stop race. Fewer stops does not mean bad racing!
    Abu Dhabi doesn’t have ‘issues’. It’s a disaster of a circuit in F1 racing terms. As are too many on the current calendar.
    More street circuits are not the answer! Please no.

    1. @Paul Duggan If the cars were more following-friendly than they are today and have been for a long time, then the quality of racing would be better everywhere. The circuits aren’t really the problem, but rather the cars regarding how they’re designed Aerodynamically.

      1. F1 is what it is and there aren’t any radical changes to aero coming any time soon. As I said ‘in F1 racing terms’ the circuits are bad. Abu Dhabi is also devoid of gradient, character or any other relevant attribute, with the exception of money.

    2. The problem isn’t so much “a one stop race”. The problem is that the cars are sorted out, fastest to slowest, in qualifying, and then people wonder why there’s no passing. Refueling (my preference) and tire changes give teams a tactical option that otherwise isn’t available.

      2017 IndyCar (1 chassis, 2 engines, variable aero kit) was generally more enjoyable than 2017 F1, even though Honda kept blowing up engines early in the season.

      Good thing we had three tire compounds, or F1 would have been really boring.

  8. A couple of thoughts to throw in the ring if we want to square the circle of unfair team revenue shares, budget limits, reduce 3-day weekends, tyre choices and more exciting races. I cannot comment on dirty air – perhaps the biggest elephant in the room. However
    1. 2 tyres types to be drawn by lottery on Sunday just for the race without any preparation. Thay may end not the most suitable for large teams but a car which is most flexible for all types or a smaller team who gambles on a particular set up has a great chance to get a lottery podium.
    2. No traditional Friday practices but Saturdays can be used for 2-hour practices on perhaps 3 types of tyres (if practical). Saturday afternoons may remain, as now, for normal qualifying shootout with the softest compound.
    However, it is entirely possible these practice tyres may not be selected by lottery on Sunday. However, a lottery selection with only 1 hour’s notice prior race start will provide a chance to see the garages working flat out to find the best set up which will their chance to get it right for the race.
    3. No minimum number of pit stops to provide the widest variety of race strategies. If a hard tyre is selected in the lottery then a race to flag may turn out boring but at least no one can anticipate it beforehand.

    I am sure there a lot of holes in above but I am trying to solve budget problems, good racing, levelling playing field and exciting racing rather than current almost pre-ordained winners. With many more city races in future, week ends may need to be 2 days.

  9. It’s kind of interesting how the German Grand Prix alternates (sort of, or is supposed to anyway) between two circuits which are themselves both modern versions of a “classic” circuit. Both manage to work quite well for modern F1 in terms of producing decent racing, although somehow I find the Nurburging works better in its own right as a stand alone layout. I find neo-Hockenheim good for racing but absolutely soulless – having said that I’m sure that was the criticism levelled at neo-Nurburgring when it first appeared.

  10. a bit hard to make its own impression through a google map video but here is an approximate google street view of the Danish proposed circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8-j7MPcvE
    I was curious about the cross section but this bridge is quite ugly. Also there are some small bridges that would be passed under at very high speeds so I wonder how they can actually make it a bit safe.

  11. I can see many positive things with a CPH F1 GP:

    – Would collect the Scandinavian fans
    – Fits perfectly after the German gp
    – Fia would like to have more GPs on the calender
    -Things just work in Scandinavia to a high standard
    -Great marketing for F1
    -The track is very interesting with wide roads for overtaking and bridges crossing water twice (would look so great on camera)
    -The track is not perfect but much better than other city tracks..

    Just do it..

    1. @Nunu ”- Fia would like to have more GPs on the calender” – Wrong, FIA hasn’t suggested anything like that. Furthermore, according to Chase Carey, that isn’t a top priority for them either.

      1. By ‘them’ I was referring to LM.

  12. Lucas Di Grassi thinks that risk doesn’t make something more exciting? Seriously?

    1. He is talking about risking lives, not a risky move that could end your race …

  13. I have nothing against Denmark, but this layout of the circuit is a joke (it’s a yoke!!!).

  14. I was surprised Copenhagen with its green credentials would be up for F1 visiting.

    “Copenhagen is at the forefront of world cities in the green transition, and we are working hard to become the world’s first CO2 neutral capital in 2025. Therefore it seems totally wrong for the municipality to still be investing in oil, coal and gas. We must change that,” the city’s mayor, Frank Jensen, told the Danish newspaper, Information, ”

    Copenhagen set to divest from fossil fuels


    1. But not enough money in FE – until then F1 is most interesting…

Comments are closed.