Monaco Grand Prix

It's never much of a race, but man, I do love the spectacle of it. If I could just attend one event in my lifetime...

Ya that's on my bucket list too. Would love to go one year.

Rememner it is on NBC and not on NBC Sports and set your DVR accordingly.

If not, its on NBC Sports like two more times today, so there shouldn't be a problem watching it.

Since it's not really a race, I fast forward through most of it watching for anything to actually happen. Not knocking the history or spectacle of the thing, but it's just not a race.

Now, onto the real race of the day.....

I betcha Sergio isn't going to get as many Christmas gifts this year as the well behaved drivers do.

Woody wrote: It's never much of a race, but man, I do love the spectacle of it. If I could just attend one event in my lifetime...

1980 I was in the Med courtesy of Uncle Sam's Yacht Club, and found myself in Civittavecchia, Italy approx 3 weeks before the race. Figuring it would be the one chance to see the place I took the train to MC. I remembered where the start, etc was from the countless Road and Track articles (thank you, Henry N Manney!) and walked the track twice. Doesn't take long!Incidentally there is a Renault dealership virtually on the start line. A salesman gave me a tour of the place and showed me a new model called the Fuego, a full year before it came into the US. They were setting up for the GP and there also was a helicopter crew practicing rescue in case anybody drove into the harbor. I was just going through the approx 75 pictures I took...

shadetree30 wrote: 1980 I was in the Med courtesy of Uncle Sam's Yacht I was just going through the approx 75 pictures I took...

Scan and post 'em!

It was a race this year. Maybe not at the front but the mid-field was fun to watch.

http://senategrandprix.com/ http://www.grandstandmotorsports.co.uk/ F1 race weekends made easier.

I figure by now, anybody that gets irked by a spoiler should have watched the race...

So, a theory question. Keke junior was the class of the field all weekend, and won driving away. Seb and the Aussie were good, but not great, and if Lewis had not gotten behind on the safety car deal, he probably would have finished 2nd, certainly 3rd. He appeared to be faster than Weber, and really didn't look like he was holding Seb up too badly at the beginning. What is the difference with all the weekends where the Merc is superfast for a short period, then sucks? Monaco is slow, so I presume really high downforce, so everybody else has better mechanical grip? When everybody has the wings turned up, the aero equals out...???

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

There is a brewing big stink that the Mercs benefitted from a private testing session with Pirelli. Odd. because Ferrari did the same thing right after the Bahrain GP. Nobody complained then although the teams involved both won the very next race.

Hammy claimed he needed to be six seconds behind Britney to ensure no pit problems during tire changes; except he couldn't figure out he was ten seconds behind. Those extra seconds could have easily put him on the podium.

Monaco is desperately slow so tire wear is not as big an issue as elsewhere. Canada is a different story as it has long straights, slow corners and a need to drive off the corners really hard. The next race might see if Merc has figured how to use the tires to best advantage.

In reply to oldsaw:

The stink is the tire testing is supposed to be in 2 years or older cars and with reserve drivers. The earlier test with Ferrari was in 2011 cars. Mercedes used the current 2013 cars and Hammy & Nick as drivers.

Man, good for Kimi for finally saying "berkeley you" to Perez. He'd been driving like an idiot, forcing people off track and getting rewarded for it by the stewards. Too bad it knocked Kimi so far back, though. I wish I knew how he made up three places in the last lap.

"Asked if the drivers would talk to Perez, Raikkonen said: "That won't help. Maybe someone should punch him in the face.""

Best radio quote:

Red Bull engineer: "You know the score, don’t take any risks...that's enough, you don’t get any points for that!”

Vettel: “...but satisfaction.”

Javelin wrote: In reply to oldsaw: The stink is the tire testing is supposed to be in 2 years or older cars and with reserve drivers. The earlier test with Ferrari was in 2011 cars. Mercedes used the current 2013 cars and Hammy & Nick as drivers.

Maybe, but the design specs haven't changed much in the last two years. It wouldn't be beyond imagination if a team upgraded an old car to mimic a new car's performance.

The REAL stink is that Pirelli is tired of being the FIA's fall guy. The fast-degrading tires suck but they are built to the specs demanded by the FIA.

Way too many people are killing the messenger for delivering what they were told to.

If I were new to F1 and didn't know the score I know I wouldn't be buying Pirelli tires for my car.

oldsaw wrote: There is a brewing big stink that the Mercs benefitted from a private testing session with Pirelli. Odd. because Ferrari did the same thing right after the Bahrain GP. Nobody complained then although the teams involved both won the very next race.

Well now the big stink has turned into an investigation:

www.cnn.com/2013/05/27/sport/motorsport/motorsport-tires-fia/index.html

shadetree30 wrote: 1980 I was in the Med courtesy of Uncle Sam's Yacht Club, and found myself in Civittavecchia, Italy approx 3 weeks before the race. Figuring it would be the one chance to see the place I took the train to MC.

My sister was ending her employment in Europe about the same time, and she scheduled her return home so she could attend the race. She got a pit pass and everything; took several rolls of pictures. Unfortunately something was wrong with her camera, and about 3 came out.

oldsaw wrote:

Javelin wrote: In reply to oldsaw: The stink is the tire testing is supposed to be in 2 years or older cars and with reserve drivers. The earlier test with Ferrari was in 2011 cars. Mercedes used the current 2013 cars and Hammy & Nick as drivers.

Maybe, but the design specs haven't changed much in the last two years. It wouldn't be beyond imagination if a team upgraded an old car to mimic a new car's performance. The REAL stink is that Pirelli is tired of being the FIA's fall guy. The fast-degrading tires suck but they are built to the specs demanded by the FIA. Way too many people are killing the messenger for delivering what they were told to.

And this is why I lost interest in F1 about 20 years ago.

carguy123 wrote: If I were new to F1 and didn't know the score I know I wouldn't be buying Pirelli tires for my car.

No kidding. It's not doing them any favors.

Keith Tanner wrote:

carguy123 wrote: If I were new to F1 and didn't know the score I know I wouldn't be buying Pirelli tires for my car.

No kidding. It's not doing them any favors.

Meh, it's like anything else. If I didn't know NASCAR I'd think it was the WWE of racing (just kidding it is).

Anyone with half a brain realizes they aren't related. I mean...Goodyear takes of NASCAR right? And they can't race in the rain. Do you think NASCAR folks don't think you can't drive Goodyears in the rain?

Woody, I also want to go there one year for the spectacle of it. More durable tires are only going to help the dominance of RBR which is boring (and I'm Mark Webber's biggest fan).

I'm also a big fan of Sergio's driving. He's being aggressive and making move, the exact opposite of what everyone complains about when it comes to F1.

Just guess we have to have something to complain about.

There's a difference between "making a move" and essentially forcing people off the track. Imagine if that chicane was more substantial than low painted berms. If there had been a barrier in the middle, Sergio would have put at least three people into it. Sergio wasn't leaving room in his attempts, and it ended with him going into the wall and getting taken out of the race. As it should have. It's just a real shame that Kimi also took damage in that.

Sutol was the example of how to drive aggressively without being a dick in this race - he pulled some nice moves and nobody got taken out.

In NASCAR, there isn't constant talk about how the tires are short-lived and failing. You have to follow F1 fairly closely to know that Pirelli is making crap tires because they're ordered to and not because they can't do any better. For the casual viewer, it's bad PR.

You know the interesting thing is that if there was no Monaco race and some one came to the FIA and proposed the track they would be laughed at.

I was watching the SLS pace car get around the track and it took some skill to get that car would that track at the speed needed for the F1 Cars.

Loved that image of Grosjean sliding down the track with Riccardo's back wing stuck on his nose. Couldn't be more obvious what had happened there. "You see, what had happened was..." sigh.

And I really just feel sad for Massa. A few flashed of talent notwithstanding, he's just never been the same since that spring. David Hobbs was convinced for a moment that the truck was showing replays of the previous day's crash in the same spot. That made me grin.

dean1484 wrote: I was watching the SLS pace car get around the track and it took some skill to get that car would that track at the speed needed for the F1 Cars.

+1, it was fun watching the F1 cars zig-zag back and forth trying to keep heat in the tires while the SLS was just going balls out trying to keep up the pace. I wonder who gets to drive it.

Can anyone explain to me the logic behind the high-degradation tires? I read somewhere that F1 told Pirelli to make a tire that would recreate the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix, but I can't figure out what made that race special. If it was an exciting race because a faster car/drive had to slow down to preserve tires and a slower car was able to make a challenge for the win, that seems more of a result of specific circumstances that wouldn't necessarily apply if everyone were forced to drive slow.

It just seems like in a lot of these races nobody's battling for position because they're all adhering to their target times and their tire strategies, and if they didn't have to worry about degradation there'd be more passing. But I haven't really paid attention to F1 before this year so I don't know what I'm talking about.

steronz wrote: Can anyone explain to me the logic behind the high-degradation tires?

No idea, but the tire bullsh't has totally ruined the F1 show for me these past two seasons. Between the degradation cliff and the rule that mandates the use of both an ideal and crappy tread compound means that in a given race, the drivers are only able to race at full tilt for a handfull of laps and then drive to a target time the rest of the race to preserve whats left of the tires.

Here's an ingenious idea - if these are the best drivers in the world, how about letting them run at the limit for as much as the race as possible?