Rate the race: Round 6 - Monaco Grand Prix

frostie500

I haven't had a chance to watch the race yet so can't really comment on too much of the ins and outs but it seemed pretty exciting from where I was standing!

Judging by the race thread it seems that it wasn't the most exciting race and that tyres were again a cause of frustration for fans but afterwards I heard no complaints about the tyres and having to "drive to a delta" so as far as the drivers were concerned this was a good race. Lots of good battles, particularly at the end with the train of cars from Sutil downwards.

Overall what did everyone thing of the race?

Cookie_Monster

2

The crashes were the only redeeming feature of the race, another terribly slow tyre management session

Myrddin

3

4 from me. Aside from the crashes, this would have been ridiculously boring. Love the spectacle of Monaco, but the race itself tends to be over by Saturdays.

decisions

4

5
Tyre management in Monaco! Ehh, I think we have a major problem. The racing itself wasn't bad at times but for every clean overtake there seemed to be an incident, Kimi's kamikaze last few laps aside.

I love the Monaco Grand Prix, watching the cars go around the track makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, but as races go its a dull procession.

HigginsJ

5

Tyre management yet all the teams looked like running a 1 stop strategy (if you ignore the red flag)

What do people want Pirelli to do, only supply hard tyres and go back to a few years ago where every-one drove around in formation to finish.

Once Vettel got into 2nd he drove as slowly as possibly safe in the knowledge that Webber wouldn't be allowed pass him. He showed no ambition to make a race of it against Rosberg when he clearly had plenty of life left in the tyres.

The tyres had no impact on the race what so ever IMO.

Cookie_Monster

2

HigginsJ wrote: »

The tyres had no impact on the race what so ever IMO.

how can you say that when they were driving 2-2.5 seconds off the pace to preserve them?
Vettel's flying lap at the end proves they were too busy conserving tyres to bother racing flat out and you could hear the frustration in Coulthard voice through the whole race to. It was an utter farce of a 'race'

mickdw

4

The only way to solve the tyre issue is to have a second tyre supplier and freedom of compound. Push the tyres and their development as F1 should.

lolie

4

Gave it a 5 which is a pity because there was a decent bit of action.
But seeing vettels pace at the end and rosberg looking like he didnt even break a sweat after he got out of the car tells its own story.

T-Maxx

I gave it a 1 - a snorefest of epic proportions IMO.

l have to admit though that I didn't watch the whole thing - I found it so boring I got up and washed the wife's car instead.

mickdw

4

Gave it 5.
2 safety cars and a red flag meant there was alway a (slim) possibility of something happening.

Myrddin

3

I see someone stuck in a 10/10 vote. They're in for a real treat for the rest of the season

flazio

4

I ave it a 5, however the TV producers missed the best part that could have bumped it up as high as a 7 which was Raikkonen's claw back to 10th place, I was watching BBC's coverage 'as live' (I was out and missed the race and avoided all media reports) and was glad to see that BBC managed to grab a look at the overtakes.

stevenmu

1

I voted 2 because the race wasn't just dull, it actively annoyed me. Monaco can easily turn into a procession at the best of times due to the nature of the track, but you can usually rely on the drivers to push hard. This time out though the top drivers just seemed to be happy to coast around the track and not push themselves or each other. The "race" turned into a tyre management competition instead of an actual race.

The crashes added a tiny bit of excitement, but far less than usual IMO. I personally find the most exciting thing about crashes is the way they can shake up the running order. When things are tense with two drivers fighting for position, and then suddenly there's a crash and anything can happen, that can really liven up a race. But because there was very little tension in the normal running, the crashes couldn't really do that.

There was some nice overtaking, Sutils few passes come to mind, and Hamilton's cheeky attempt at Webber would have been the overtake of the year if it came off. But they did also emphasise how easy the lead drivers were taking it.

ScumLord

The race had more overtaking than I was expecting.

I don't really get the problem people are having with tyres. Tyres where always a consumable part that faded over the race, it's ads the unpredictability to the race.

The alternative of letting tyre companies develop a good tyre would mean a tyre that can last the whole race without fading enough. Technology is just too good these days.

stevenmu

1

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't really get the problem people are having with tyres. Tyres where always a consumable part that faded over the race, it's ads the unpredictability to the race.

Tyres do naturally fade with use, that's only normal. But Pirelli are specifically designing them so that the performance artificially drops dramatically at a certain point, the phrase "off a cliff" is commonly thrown around. The reasoning behind this was to theoretically increase the impact of tyre strategy, which is a good goal to have IMO.

Increasingly though the teams are realising that the best strategy is to conserve the tyres as much as possible. Drivers who push hard and try to overtake end up damaging their tyres so much that they're soon several seconds a lap slower, so they invariably loose any places they gained and more besides. In short, the current design of the tyres punishes drivers for going fast and trying to race.

If the tyres had a more natural wear rate, or possibly even if they still had an exaggerated wear rate but one that was more even and didn't have the "cliff", it would encourage drivers to push and race each other, while still keeping tyre strategy as an important element.

ScumLord

stevenmu wrote: »

If the tyres had a more natural wear rate, or possibly even if they still had an exaggerated wear rate but one that was more even and didn't have the "cliff", it would encourage drivers to push and race each other, while still keeping tyre strategy as an important element.

I don't see how you can get around the cliff though. It's always going to be there at some point. Even if the tyre could go flat out for half the race and then just give up, you're always going to have someone that will think I'll go a bit slower and get more laps out of the tyre. I don't think that's a new thing either, it's just modern strategy guys can predict what will happen fairly accurately whereas in the old days they just had to guess and push as hard as they could and see what happened.

I see your point and I suppose we have to take into consideration that formula one is just different now, technology has changed things so much we can't really expect it to ever be like the old days.

I wonder would more than two tyre options make things better so that teams could have a wider variety of strategies?