GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: cosworth151 on January 05, 2018, 08:18:07 PM
-
It seems that WDC Lewis Hamilton likes the new French Grand Prix, but not the venue.
"Honestly, I don't like Paul Ricard. I liked it when the French Grand Prix was at Magny Cours.
"When I says I don't like Paul Ricard, I just mean it's not as good as Magny Cours, I'm just being straight. The most important thing is that we're going back to France, which is important for the European season, but I think there's a lot of great tracks in France like Le Mans. For some reason, we don't race there.
"Who knows, maybe we'll have the best race of the season there (in Paul Ricard)," Hamilton said.
I agree with him. Paul Ricard bills itself as a "high tech test track." The paved run-offs go on forever. Good for a test track, where you don't want to bend the car your testing when something unexpected happens. Not so good for a top series race, where one would want a sojourn into the scenery to carry some consequences.
http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/f1-champ-lewis-hamilton-no-fan-2018-french-gp-circuit
-
I don't spend much time watching 'lower' series racing. How many countries have multiple tracks that are even capable of hosting F1? It sounds like France has three world class tracks. Canada has one, though a few facilities that could be upgraded without too much effort. Similarly, the USA has several world class road tracks, plus over a dozen ovals. I was surprised that when FOM tried to squeeze Silverstone they couldn't find a world class facility to host F1 in the UK.
As for if Paul Ricard will produce a good race, we've seen the last few years some great races at 'bad' tracks, and bad races at 'great' tracks, so who knows? Normally I like new races where all the drivers are 'rookies', but that's hardly the case at Ricard.
-
With the current aero rules, the thing that would make a bad race is long boring straights. Create a twisty track configuration, have strict track boundary rules and penalties and there is every possibility for a great race.
I think the UK has a number of tracks that are easily developed into world class F1 standards, but the FOM couldn't find a regional government willing to pour half a billion in taxpayer pounds to fund the transformation into one of their utopian luxo-playgrounds. Building a decent track is one thing, but when the FOM forces a track owner to put up another big bag of cash to build a state of the art Paddock Club and paddock facilities, expenses that should clearly come out of FOM pockets considering they are locked down the rest of the year and the track owners and promoters get no share of profits when they are in use.
-
What I hate about Paul Ricard is the over use of strong colours at the edges and into the massive run offs. I've watched some racing on TV from Ricard and the visual effect is very annoying.
Might be good for testing having such defined sections, but if they keep the heavy colouring for the GP race I'm not sure I'll want to watch it.
-
The stripes mark areas of pavement with different grip. Again, part of its test track design. The blue zone has tungsten mixed with the asphalt. The red zone, just before the barriers, have the highest adhesion.
-
Whilst I appreciate the info Cos what the hell do test markings and surfaces have to do with an F1 race?
I watch races for the car and driver action not to see a stripey kaliedescope moving in front of my eyes.
-
I have never visited Paul Ricard but I have watched lots of lower series coverage on TV and it is awful. Certainly in the lower series the drivers just make up their own lines, the run-off areas hardly penalize cars such as Touring cars at all. I'm not sure how the small kerbs will deter F1 cars but I can imagine a race where the Stewards will be determining the outcome because the actual track position will be irrelevant!