As sure as the Monaco Grand Prix comes around every year, so too do critics who knock its place on the modern Formula 1 calendar.
It’s too narrow. It’s too slow. The ad hoc facilities aren’t up to standard. The racing is poor.
The summary of the argument is that F1 has grown up but Monaco hasn’t kept pace.
Watch the Formula 1 Spanish Grand Prix 2023 live and ad-break free in racing on Kayo Sports on Sunday, 4 June, at 11:00pm AEST. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
Inevitably Sunday rolls around, and bar the odd episode of extreme weather, chaotic levels of unreliability or a well-timed safety car intervention, the race delivers exactly the amount of action predicted: not very much.
That was precisely the case this weekend. Were it not for the slow-moving rain arriving in the final third of the race, it would have ground out its predictable conclusion.
Uncertainty over Esteban Ocon’s ability to hold the podium and the intrigue over Fernando Alonso starting with the hard tyre and running long was almost entirely thanks to the precipitation waiting just beyond the mountains ready to pounce.
Indeed even with the intervention of the rain Verstappen still won by almost 30 seconds, and you might somewhat uncharitably say that Sergio Pérez assisted Alonso into second place and therefore Ocon into third, breaking the status quo.
So does Monaco need to change?
“If anybody came up with this track now and presented it, there‘s no way we’d race here,” Christian Horner said. “We race here because it’s Monaco, because of the history, the legacy, the backdrop, everything, the glamour.
“The cars are so big now that the prospect of an overtake is virtually impossible under normal running conditions, so I think … for the long-term viability of this venue — you know, nothing stands still forever, everything has to keep evolving.
“It‘d be great to look at was it possible to introduce some genuine overtaking opportunities around the circuit or to adapt the circuit over a period of time.”
It’s the eternal Monaco question. Does the sport stick with its historical Monte Carlo formula or devise a new route that might improve — albeit marginally, let’s be honest — the prospects for passing?
But really that’s the wrong question.
Sainz BLASTS Ferrari’s strategy | 01:08
Formula 1 has precious few direct connections to the past, but Monaco is one of those rare through lines that carry the sport from its early year to the present day.
It’s largely the same circuit around which all the greatest tested their mettle. Legacies have been forged on these streets.
But this isn’t an argument for the status quo or everything staying the same.
The question is: how can Formula 1 improve Monaco’s strong points without burning its history?
The answer is in qualifying.
There is no more breathtaking spectacle in Formula 1 and perhaps in all of motorsport than a qualifying lap of the Circuit de Monaco.
The only route to success is to flirt ever more closely with failure, and danger is omnipresent.
Max Verstappen’s sensational final lap to steal pole on Saturday was another fine example.
Down by more than 0.2 seconds at the final split, he managed to turn his lap up to 11 in a final sector or dash and daring, glancing the barriers in the final five corners to overhaul Fernando Alonso and take the most valuable P1 in Formula 1.
Don’t give us more corners or straights, give us more of that.
Sainz cops damage after sloppy error | 01:28
QUALIFYING CHANGES ARE ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED
Modern F1 isn’t afraid to tinker with the format, and the drivers are said to have already discussed modifying Monaco qualifying during their regular weekend drivers briefing.
Suggested changes would be to reduce the number of cars on track, especially early in Q1, to give the drivers more space to perfect their laps.
Carlos Sainz publicly spearheaded the proposal on Saturday night, after having lost a chance to start higher up the grid due to traffic — he said he’d been hampered by a slow-moving Max Verstappen at Massenet heading into Casino Square.
Earlier he’d almost been eliminated in the bottom five when traffic meant he had to embark on a late flying lap just to make Q2.
Charles Leclerc was later pinged for impeding Lando Norris in the tunnel and demoted three places on the grid.
Sainz said the sport needed to consider dividing qualifying into smaller segments to reduce the risk of traffic detracting from the qualifying spectacle.
“Q1 is too much,” he said. “And I think with these wide cars and everything it‘s too dangerous.
“We should find a way to split into 10 cars [Q1], one team each, and I‘m pretty sure that that would facilitate all the mess that we saw in Q1.”
Formula 3 and Formula 2 already use a split qualifying format, dividing the grid in half and then amalgamating the results to form the grid.
The winner of each heat forms the front row, with the fastest driver taking pole. The drivers in second place form the second row based on lap time, and so on.
The rationale for using this format is that the junior grids are larger and the drivers less experienced, with many of them never having raced at the principality before.
In F1, however, it wouldn’t necessarily solve traffic issues given the smaller 20-car grid.
After all, the biggest incident of traffic came in Q3 between Leclerc and Norris, when just 10 cars were on track and most weren’t on a hot lap.
Brundle’s hilariously awkward grid walk | 00:47
CHANGES WOULDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH
The risk with changing qualifying to run in two heats is that it lacks fairness, even if by a small amount.
Given the amount of track evolution on a street circuit like Monaco, the drivers in the second heat will almost always be at an advantage, even if the difference in grip is relatively small — pole was decided by only 0.084 seconds this weekend, after all.
The junior categories counteract this by arranging drivers based on rows rather than amalgamating times between the two sessions — the quickest drive in each session shares the first row, the second-quickest the second row and so on — but that’s compromise necessary for the undercard, not something the pinnacle category should consider.
You’d also run into the problem of having an uneven 15 cars in Q2 — how would that session be divided fairly?
An alternative solution would be to loosely borrow a concept from elsewhere.
The weekend’s Indianapolis 500 isn’t just a weekend of motorsport, it’s essentially an entire month, with various practice sessions in May leading into the qualifying weekend preceding the race weekend itself. The entire shebang is turned into an enormous spectacle, with great importance placed on every session.
Modern F1 is never likely to extend a grand prix to two weekends, but the solution could be simply to extend out qualifying over two days to ensure single-lap pace is given maximum attention.
MORE MOTORSPORT
ASTON EXPLAINED: How Alonso missed a golden chance to win again
TALKING POINTS: Rivals let Max off the hook; Aussie gun gives McLaren hope
‘I DON’T CARE’: Ferrari star explodes at own team as row over tactics goes public in latest flop
Friday could start with practice before the traditional three-part qualifying on Friday evening.
Saturday would open with another practice session, but then the afternoon would comprise single-lap qualifying over one or two attempts to set the grid for the grand prix. The running order would be set by Friday evening’s three-part qualifying session.
The two days of pure-pace action would climax with nominally the fastest driver on their own on an empty track vying for pole position.
Moments of individual excellence like Verstappen’s third sector this weekend would be given maximum exposure — as well as be performed under maximum pressure.
If Monaco is all about qualifying, then make qualifying longer and more spectacular in Monaco. Make the drivers really work for their places on the grid.
Christian Horner said that everything must keep evolving, and he’s right — so long as Monaco evolves to play to its unique strengths.
