Monza and Imola could share Italian Grand Prix

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone is open to rotating the home of the Italian Grand Prix between current venue Monza and former host Imola.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Imola could alternate with Monza (BBC)

"He told Italy's Gazzetta Dello Sport: 'Imola is proposing to alternate with Monza. We could do that. I want to ensure Italy stays on the calendar.'"

Ferrari chief urges F1 to sort 2017 plan (Autosport)

"To say he and I, and the rest of the constructors, are happy with the development of the sport over the last four or five years would be blasphemous. It's not true."

Ricciardo open to future move (F1i)

"I think Seb was criticised but look where he is now. So you’ve got to be smart and see."

Haas/Ferrari relationship 'very intelligent' - Toto Wolff (ESPN)

"I think there is a possibility for various models - the Haas model is clearly a very intelligent way of entering Formula One."

Save the home of the Cooper (Kickstarter)

"Help me to save the home of the Cooper. We are trying to save and restore the 'Cooper Car Company garage' back to its former glory."

Austrian Grand Prix Betting: Don't Back Red Bull At The Red Bull Ring (Unibet)

My Austrian Grand Prix preview for Unibet.

Tweets

Comment of the day

To inject some life into the championship fight, one driver has to step up:

I know we seem to be saying this every weekend, but Rosberg really needs a good result here if he is going to start putting pressure on Hamilton in the title fight. He has been beaten 6-1 in qualifying (with an average gap of 0.292s in Hamilton’s favour), 5-2 in races and he is currently 17 points behind, and that doesn’t even tell the full story – but for Hamilton’s unnecessary pit stop in Monaco, Rosberg would be behind 6-1 in qualifying and 6-1 in races, with Hamilton 34 points ahead after 7 races. Those statistics don’t convince me that Rosberg is up to challenging Hamilton in a straight fight, unless something changes pretty soon.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris P and Jh1806!

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

Michael Schumacher won the Canadian Grand Prix 15 years ago despite a problem with his brakes – team mate Rubens Barrichello hung back from attempting to pass his race-leading team mate. Giancarlo Fisichella took third for Benetton.

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.

44 comments on “Monza and Imola could share Italian Grand Prix”

  1. That tweet from @F1 is gold.

  2. The steady stream of good news (or good vibes at the very least) from HAAS F1 has got me massively excited. F1 has an incredible amount of potential in the USA, and having a respectable team on the grid will go a long way toward realizing it. Looking to the future, I am confident (or am I just hopeful?) that F1 will fix some of the more fundamental issues that exist today for 2017… exciting times are ahead!

    1. I thought Haas had a state of the art wind tunnel in the US, anyone know why they are using the previously suspect Ferrari one ?

      1. I’ve read they are working with Dallara to make parts for the wind tunnel model. Dallara are in Italy so maybe part of the reason is logistics.

      2. This is only my speculation, but to me it makes sense for Haas to use Ferrari’s wind tunnel for (at least) their first design.

        First, the Haas chassis for the first year is being designed and built by the Italian based Dallara (that is, the listed parts for which they have to won the IP, or looked at another way, the parts the can’t just buy from Ferrari). I believe that Dallara is based in Parma, which is just an hour from Modena. No doubt it is much easier to have the Dallara team, to the extent they are involved in aerodynamic development and testing, travel down the road to Ferrari rather than across the Atlantic to North Carolina.

        Second, my (limited) understanding is that setting up wind tunnels is quite an involved process. For example, I have read about teams taking quite some time to adapt from 50 to 60 per cent scale models. So even if Haas has a state of the art wind tunnel which was presumably developed for NASCARs, I don’t think that you just drop an F1 scale model in, fire it up and start developing. It will surely take some time to develop the expertise necessary to use an American based facility to its full extent.

        Third, and speaking of expertise, I presume that Haas is building an aerodynamic team, as employees or consultants. As you no doubt know, suitably qualified people are pretty much exclusively found in Europe. There is presumably an intention to build a US based aerodynamic team, by relocation and/or training, but again you would expect that to take up time. Personally, I am skeptical that it is actually worthwhile trying to build up a significant F1 aero team outside of Europe. I don’t think you can encourage sufficient talent to uproot themselves and their families when there are much better opportunities at home. Even the Faenza based Toro Ross has its aerodynamic team and wind tunnel in the UK (Bicester).

        Fourth, with customer/franchise cars such a serious prospect, it makes little sense to commit to building a capability which might be redundant in a couple of years. Why build up a US F1 aero/wind tunnel team when you might be able to buy an entire chassis from Ferrari in 2017? It seems to me that Haas’ model is to undertake the F1 exercise as cheaply as possible (that’s not a criticism BTW) and if they could go down the customer/franchise car path, they would.

        Finally, whatever problems Ferrari had with its wind tunnel, this year’s car suggests they are pretty much fixed!

        1. Thanks everybody.

      3. ColdFly F1 (@)
        18th June 2015, 8:49

        @hohum, or as Toto says:

        it opens up an avenue for new models of collaboration

      4. The Windshear -faciility is a 1/1 (or 100%) model windtunnel. Current F1 -regulations allow a maximum 60% model.

      5. Haas wind tunnel is for full size finished car with working PU. Clearly, Haas is not at that level yet, even if it was legal…

        Nightmare scenario for McLaren-Honda is that Haas will leapfrog them straight out of the box…

        1. The real nightmare would be Manor beating them. Everyone else already is, so adding Haas to the list isn’t really any more troubling than running behind, say, Sauber or Force India.

    2. Positive ?
      They say they are delivering the PLANS for their first car sometime September, which is very late for a new team and are not going to fire up before the first official test day in January.

      They have partnered with Dallara to produce said plans into the finished product, a company whose reputation of producing up-to-spec precision parts is not the best in the business. The DW12 had to be revised a few times before it was driveable, and less said about HRT F110 the better

      1. With regard to the chassis, maybe you are right. But compared to the last several new teams, and even some current ones, their financial setup and business plans appear to be sound. And keep in mind, as an American I still have an occasional USF1 flashback.

  3. Quite glad they’ve added the artificial grass, as it is punishing for exceeding the track limits.

    The article about the Haas strategy is very interesting. What I find noteworthy is the reaction from Sauber. Currently Ferrari’s number one customer, maybe they feel very threatened by this. I don’t know how close the Sauber-Ferrari relationship is, but I recall a few years back there were talks of Sauber being a Ferrari B-team, back when they had Perez (a Ferrari young driver at the time).

    1. Lewisham Milton
      18th June 2015, 11:16

      They should soak it with water though

  4. losing money every 2nd. year might be preferable to losing money every year but it is certainly not a solution to the problem of losing money, I really don’t know why any track, other than a govt. owned track looking for publicity, would want to stage a money losing event.

    1. @hohum This is what I was thinking too. Ultimately they will still be losing the same amount relative to the number of races they hold.

    2. Yeah, its really not a great solution at all @hohum, @strontium. Germany showed that it also makes it hard to sustain stable visitor levels with alternating.

    3. That’s the problem when tracks in countries were citizens can demand accountability from their government compete with tracks from shady regimes that can do whatever the leader wants with public funds.

      Bernie prices are inflated.

  5. I do hope they can save the Cooper building, the UK motoracing industry should get behind the effort, and please Bernie toss a little of your loose change in that direction, being seen to be giving back to the industry that made you a billionaire might improve your image a little.

  6. Quentin Cole
    18th June 2015, 1:24

    So Red Bull are in talks with Ferrari to use their Power Unit for the 2016 season.

    1. This would have to assume Toro Rosso are going with Red Bull, and so Renault have no contracts left and would withdraw completely, but that would mean that Ferrari are powering five teams (Haas coming in), Mercedes four, and Honda one. This would essentially mean that the regulations would need changing, either to say that five teams can use an engine (rather than the current four), or that Honda must supply another team.

      1. off course that would mean that Manor will still get their engines from Ferrari @strontium, which at the current time is not altogether a given (they might stay – if Ferrari still want them, they might change to Renault, they are potentially a customer for Honda), and probably largely dependant on the money involved.

        That said, I doubt becoming Ferrari customers will do Red Bull much good. They will still be customers instead of a premium partner.

        On the other hand, they do need a backup plan in case Renault does quit, and with Mercedes not being available, and no new entry in sight (would it even be competitive – see Honda so far failing to be?) they have little option but to go there.

        1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
          18th June 2015, 10:23

          In this scenario I imagine it’s likely we’d see Hondas in the back of those Marussias, with K-Mag and Vandoorne needing seats next year

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      18th June 2015, 10:07

      I read the same in this Bild Sport (hmm) article.

      What I do not understand is the comment about getting a B-spec engine with 20-30HP less. I thought that all teams (main and customer) had to use the same version of the engine (something like only 1 version being homologated at a time), and Manor was a special 1-off case.

  7. Losing the Italian GP would be tragedy for Formula 1. I love both the idea of Monza, where cars are challenged at top speed, and the technical nature of Imola. Italian crowds at either venue are euphoric so, for the fans if nothing else, the sport should work to keep a race there. However, as we have seen in Germany, money talks and the sport is eager to move away from Europe. Most fans believe that is due to one reason, greed. F1 seems desperate to squeeze every penny out the sport rather than taking a financial hit for the sake of history.

    How circuits can not afford races in a 6 billion pound sport is beyond me. How ten teams can not afford to field 2 cars for 19 races, is beyond me. How the best supporting countries of F1 can be forced into making fans pay to watch races on live TV, is beyond me.

    There needs to be a lot more accountability at the top of the sport for where profits go. Loyalty bonuses for teams is unfair, but circuits are not competing with each other so there must be a way for F1 to help circuits. How many races are the sport really turning away? I can’t think of one race happy with the financial conditions being told “no”. Formula 1 should always be the best drivers in the fastest cars in the world on the most challenging and most supported races tracks. It should certainly have the pick of any track in the world and be able to front the costs for making it F1 ready. For the teams, I see easy solutions. Either a cost cap or better distribution of prize money. With enough will behind it, ones of those solutions will be in place in the next decade but for circuits I can not see a way of generating money unless philosophies on hosting fees are radically changed. We need more fans at races and cheaper tickets are impossible if a race is struggling to survive. This situation is classic F1 shooting itself in the foot.

  8. OmarR-Pepper - Vettel 40 victories!!! (@)
    18th June 2015, 2:35

    @keithcollantine your Unibet link directs to “going to the Austrian GP”.

    1. it does indeed. Right link is this

    2. @omarr-pepper Changed it, thanks!

  9. The Ricciardo article is actually a summary of his interview to F1i (http://en.f1i.com/magazine/15159-daniel-ricciardo-exclusive-interview-time-for-revolution-at-red-bull.html). I read quite an interesting comment there where he says “I don’t know the people in the factory well enough”. 1.5 years with the team is long enough to not know your factory people, not sure if this will be taken as a positive by other team principals.

    1. Don’t want to cause controversy but if I’m correct, Vettel was a lot closer to the various people working at Red Bull. He knew everyone and could speak with them about their families etc.

      1. The more I read about it, the more i’m convinced Ricciardo wants to emulate Seb and leave Red Bull. I guess either Ferrari or Williams could be a possibility. I’d say good on him, if he wants to try his luck elsewere.

  10. The Italy thing is good because the last time such an arrangement was made I think Monza ended up hosting the race every year :P

  11. Was that Lauda victory mentioned by F1’s official Twitter account the one with the BT-46B?

  12. Bernie’s actual idea of those two sharing the Italian GP: call Qatar (insert other country with questionable human rights record and tons of money), call Tilke, have him cook up a combination of Monza and Imola (the more chicanes the better), call it the ItalianGP and be done with it.

    1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      18th June 2015, 10:24

      +1

  13. Why do so many people seem to view Imola in the best light possible? It was an awful track for racing.

    I don’t care how pretty it was (it was quite that).
    I don’t care that it was removed and replaced with a non-European event (Italy probably shouldn’t have two rounds and it was bound to lose Imola with Schumacher’s retirement).
    I don’t care that it was a traditional round when you were younger, possibly in childhood growing up (Same here for me– the first F1 event I remember watching took place at Imola in the early 1990s, possibly 1992).

    It wasn’t a particularly demanding circuit – far too many chicanes and tight corners and there was virtually nowhere to pass. The only reasons the 2005 and 06 GPs were as highly rated as they were because a slower car (Alonso’s R25 in 2005; Schumacher’s 248 F1 in 2006) was able to obtain the lead and block a considerably faster car (Schumacher’s F2005 in 2005; Alonso’s R26 in 2006) for laps on end.

    The only thing I can say about it is that it boasts a beautiful park-like setting and it has had some memorable (and obviously notorious, though the events that transpired in 1994 were largely independent of venue – it was a perfect storm that could have probably happened at any circuit) moments but it wasn’t really good for much else.

    Regardless, the thought of a World Championship without Monza is depressing enough – if it requires a rotation with Imola to keep an Italian Grand Prix, so be it.

  14. Why do the small teams shoot down every thing the big teams show team. What i see lately is that the small teams want every thing on there terms. The only terms they are going to be happy with with is if you give them more money. Ferrari and Haas has shown the smaller teams how to be financially more viable but no that does not suit us we want to be fully constructors. It is all fine if you want to be a independent constructor but then you must not complain about the cost of being one. I like the way Ferrari and Haas has gone. Haas can build a car for much cheaper then what the other constructors can by baying parts from Ferrari but here is still enough development that he has do do him self so that it is not a customer car.
    What most people and the small teams do not understand is that the more money the smaller teams spend the more the big teams will spend. So give the smaller teams more money and the bigger teams will spend more out of there own pocks.

  15. ColdFly F1 (@)
    18th June 2015, 8:45

    Haas has to own the IP for its monocoque, survival cell, roll structure, bodywork, wings, floor and diffuser, but all other components will be supplied by Ferrari

    I am surprised to see ‘survival cell’ on this list.
    One would think/hope that this is a part where all teams should work together and find the best solution possible. Also one unique survival cell might help in an emergency (trained rescue workers, standard extraction equipment, etc.). And Finally having IP and different solutions does not improve racing for us fans one tiny bit.

    1. @coldfly the fact that each team has to develop their own survival cell doesn’t mean that they don’t have to follow rules to do so, things like extraction of the driver, and all that is related to security is very carefully regulated and inspected (I assume)

      The thing is all the components around it will eventually change depending on the design, and the more skilful engineers will find ways to improve the final product

  16. And Finally having IP and different solutions does not improve racing for us fans one tiny bit.

    But it does make him an F1 legal constructor without which he would be ineligible. So you could say that the process improves the racing..

  17. I for one am looking forward to the Haas puns once the team is racing.

    like
    haasta la vista baby
    kiss my haas
    hehehe

  18. Reg the topic of Red Bull : I was reading the James Allen report of who was dominant; Redbull during 2010 to 2013 or the current Mercedes. It is evidently clear that the current Mercedes is too dominant today.

    http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/06/talking-point-whos-more-dominant-mercedes-now-or-red-bull-in-2010-13/

    But the funniest thing is that every time when Vettel took pole or won a race there was a huge amount of bashing and it was stated that this is a Newey car et all. But today when Lewis wins a race or takes a pole no one speaks in this forum about the dominant car but other factors like boring F1 or under performing Rosbreg. Very Clear Double Standards applied in the comments.

    1. One difference @tmax, is that Hamilton already had shown to be a very fast racer, and WDC before 2014,while Vettel before 2009 had only won in another Newey car – less of a benchmark. Now we can clearly see he is still fast in another car …

Comments are closed.